Hi Chris,
In the business system design literature there is a serious critical debate
about the differences between stakeholders and others. It is important that
the distinction is made. One of the key debates in design research that
involves this issue (and the way that governments have deliberately
readjusted the public discourse to blur it) is the recent moves to shape
universities as businesses whose purpose is to make money out of customers
(students), and hence, the obvious step to including commercial
organisations with profit and capital seeking owners as universities on the
grounds that all of us are shareholders. This obviates universities form
having a purpose in public good. There are many other examples of blurring
the definition of shareholders being of benefit to some and not to others.
If you want to have clarity in discussions that involve power, money,
control and those influenced by decisions - then it is crucially helpful to
distinguish between shareholders (those with a financial stake) and others
who are influenced by or influence designed outcomes.
The strategic design, systems design and market-related design literature
is clear on this and regard it as important. I feel it is probably helpful
for other design disciplines to do so.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
Rust
Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2007 3:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Stakeholders and Social determination
In the recent exchange between Klaus and Terry I wasn't completely sure who
said what (the pitfalls of email debate) but there were two fragments of
usage that seemed important.
Stakeholders.
There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of this term. I believe
that it is widely understood in Britain because the government started to
use it some time ago to refer to the widest community of interested people
in any given context. So stakeholders are everybody who has a "stake" of any
kind in a situation. It is a valuable idea in design because it reminds us
to look at the interests of all parties - those who produce, service and use
the things we design but also everybody else whose life is affected - a
classic example is the need for car designers to attend to the safety of
pedestrians and the particular light this throws on the design of many large
SUV vehicles which have been shown to kill and maim more pedestrians than
lower height cars. (put very simply, a low front tips you over the top of
the car, a high flat front pushes you under the car)
Socially Determined
There was a suggestion (I think by Terry) that engineering design is
socially determined because it is the result of teamwork, and individual
designers are in danger of not producing socially determined design.
However with wicked problems, the big issue is that the problem is socially
determined, not just the solution. Thus the ability to attend to
social/stakeholder issues is a vital part of the design process. I would not
suggest that either individuals or teams are better at this but either must
have a means to attend to the social context. Sometimes that process may be
largely intuitive/immersive rather than observational/analytical but that
reflects the kinds of understanding that are needed and the danger in trying
to isolate specific information from a general picture.
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
**********************************
Professor Chris Rust
Chair of Design Research Society Council Head of Art and Design Research
Centre Sheffield Hallam University Psalter Lane, Sheffield S11 8UZ, UK
[log in to unmask] www.chrisrust.net
|