Apologies for being brief but we are in the middle of an innovation strategy
project here.
I was interested to see the comments that were posted earlier regarding what
was referred to as the style and dynamics of the list as well as the later
suggestion prescribing courage. For those who might be interested, below are
a few observations that are based in practice.
It is no secret that dynamics of conversation can, over time, and through
repetition, impact participation, ideation and ultimately entire cultures.
We see this often in our innovation and understanding work with large
organizations. The reality is that this terrain is of huge importance to
many companies today, especially those who find themselves in the position
of having few ideas in their pipelines.
I will quickly point out that this is just one example of how the issues on
the list are not always isolated to that community but are often
representational of issues found in the business world where clients exist.
It is not likely possible to over state the importance of this realization
as in our problems can be found many opportunities for design to serve and
help others.
Surfacing issues around dialogue dynamics in the real world of business is
tricky. In our practice we are sometimes asked to work this terrain. We do
this by decoding and mapping such dynamics as visual architectures.
Consciously or unconsciously the list (community) has a dynamic, the origins
of which, despite the technology, could likely be traced back to the time of
Socrates. It is a dynamic that is deeply embedded in the academic community
and also appears in western business culture. At the heart of the dynamic is
the idea of adding value through criticism and judgment. Unfortunately they
knew little about innovation dynamics in Ancient Greece.
I do encourage graduate design students on this list to think, think, think
about what this means if you havenšt already. Think about how you are
learning to add value to conversations yourself. Think about how others are
learning to do so. Some of the others may become your clients soon. Think
about what this means in terms of problems and opportunities for the future
of design. There are many avenues worthy of design research there.
I propose today that we be adventuresome. Why not invite a brave graduate
student or group of students to take on the challenge of mapping the
architecture of the conversations on this list, or at least a representative
sample. Suspended in time, they can conveniently be found in the archives.
Such research would likely surface substantial insights.
Based on our experiments and experience in practice I am guessing that what
you will likely find is a considerable disconnect between the stated or
implied intentions of the list and the actual conversation dynamics that
spring from deeply embedded behaviors. I am guessing that this list likely
has a judgments to ideas ratio in the 100 to 1 range. It would be very
interesting to see what the numbers actually are.
In our consulting practice we have undertaken this kind of exploration by
filming the interaction occurring between client employees in sample problem
solving meetings and then deconstructing the dialogue. To do this we use,
what we call a Dialogue Architecture Framework that we have had in
development for some time. When the visual deconstruction and analysis is
presented, the participants are often very surprised by what they see. Most
people have the best of intentions in what they do, but conversation
dynamics spring from the level of learned behaviors rather than intents.
When doing this kind of work it becomes important to understand the close
interconnections between purpose and process. If the purpose is to create a
debating society then the default Socrates-like model might be perfect. If
the purpose is to create a sustainable innovative capability or culture
where ideas must be grown from seeds, then an organization may have to
substantially rethink much of what it is doing conversationally. It
therefore becomes important not to mix the purpose from one model with the
process from another.
Changing such dynamics in organizations typically involves a significant
unlearning curve as those default behaviors are deeply rooted in many adults
who consider themselves to be among the best and the brightest. There in
lies very difficult news for some organizations but also huge opportunity
for design as the future unfolds, if we can better understand our own
behaviors.
In traditional design practice you will not find the tools and models to
address such challenges but we believe this to be rich terrain for future
design leaders.
Hope this helps.
GK VanPatter
NextDesign Leadership Institute
New York
NextD
Who will lead design in the 21st century?
http://nextd.org
Partner, Co-Founder
Understanding Lab
http://understandinglab.com
PS: If anyone would like to undertake the above-mentioned research in
conjunction with NextDesign Leadership Institute let us know.
> From: Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:20:52 -0400
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: list meta-discourse
>
> I agree that the discourse sometimes appears to me to be a little formal
> but replying to postings in my own informal style has never led to
> negative replies from list members. It takes more courage to design
> products than to reply to postings on Phd Design. There are people from
> many backgrounds and cultures on this list.
>
> ______________________________
>
> R o b C u r e d a l e
> Chair Product Design
> College for Creative Studies Detroit
> 201 East Kirby
> Detroit MI 48202-4034
>
> Phone: 313 664 7625
> Fax: 313 664 7620
> email: [log in to unmask]
> http://www.ccscad.edu
> ______________________________
>
>>>> Matt Soar <[log in to unmask]> 08/11/03 01:02PM >>>
> Hi folks,
>
> Since Wolfgang Jonas has taken the step of attempting to open up a
> conversation about the style and content of contributions to this list,
> I
> would like to follow suit. I am keenly aware that Ken Friedman objected
> to
> Wolfgang's posting of an off-list conversation, but I feel the issues
> he
> (Wolfgang) raises are too important to let pass. Even if Ken refuses
> to
> participate, I hope others will add their voices.
>
> I have been a member of this list for (I think) about two years, but
> have
> rarely posted. While I find the subject matter highly relevant and
> important
> for my own thinking, I often find the forum's dynamics unfriendly and
> even
> intimidating. Here I am mainly referring to the erudite but unwieldy
> replies
> (sorry, Ken) that (I think) tend to silence folks whose own posts might
> be
> informal (and hence less carefully phrased, or even ill-conceived) but
> are
> no less legitimate as contributions to an online community with a set
> of
> shared interests.
>
> Indeed, as folks who are collectively invested in this thing called
> *design*, can we not agree on a general style of posting to this (and
> other)
> listservs that is appropriate, digestible, and non-intimidating?
>
> Best to all,
>
> Matt Soar
>
>
> Matthew Soar, PhD
> Department of Communication Studies
> Concordia University
>
> [log in to unmask]
|
