Unfuzzing My Thoughts about NextD
I've reviewed a sample of the NextD material on line and tried to answer the
questions I'd raised earlier. First I try to understand their materials and
then make some general comments. Jerry
UnderstandingMaking - Re: D1.2.3.4.
The NextD conceptual geography is: D1: Traditional Design; D2:
Product/Service Design; D3: Organizational Transformation Design; D4: Social
Transformation Design. These are described as activity zones and operational
states that exist simultaneously and in parallel.
The categorical distinctions appears to be the product of what NextD calls
StrangeMaking, i.e. drawing distinctions of difference in design in this
case on the basis of the authors¹ conception of the relation of design
thinking processes to the social complexity of transformational situations.
The concept NextD is itself a differentiation for purposes of creating a
specialized design service marketing identity and brand.
Their main point is that D3 and beyond offers a design service that is
untraditional and not like D1 and D2, and their main educational critique is
that the educational preparation for leadership in organizational and social
transformation design is inadequate and underdeveloped.
The NextD, StrangeMaking complement, FamiliarMaking, would suggest that
there is a categorical constant of some form of design thinking that is
appropriate to and tailored to the complexity of each situation. Thus
NextD¹s D3, proprietary cocktail of design thinking processes help
organizations ³rethink their mission and their value in the context they now
face,² and help them ³address different challenges and become more adaptable
to change.² They are primarily serving the corporate business community,
helping them, ³not just do things better,² but adapt to a globalizing world.
This is done by getting ³upstream² from predetermined assumptions and briefs
in order to make sense of ³fuzzy² situations. The fuzzier the situation, the
more SenseMaking required. The greater complexity the situation, the more
complex the SenseMaking - which utilizes such tools as data visualization
and information processing, drawing from information science, organizational
psychology, cognitive science, and knowledge management. SenseMaking
precedes ChangeMaking as in ³Sensemaking now plays a key role on the fuzzy
front end of most significant innovation (InnovationMapping) and change
initiatives, both in organizations and society.²
The D4 potential to contribute to larger issues of social change is
described as varied and emerging. D4, as with D3, requires synchronizing
design thinking tools and skills to problem scale.
Some ReflectMaking
It¹s hard to avoid commenting on NextD¹s specialized vocabulary for what are
commonly recognized areas of design processes and design thinking. I¹ve
just given them their iForm for emphasis. It¹s easy to see why anyone in
the research community might snicker at say, SenseMaking without some better
underpinning about how NextD¹s sense making operations differ from the many
others and why theirs deserve recognition and emulation.
The ³upstream² questioning of assumptions and participation in the
construction of what needs doing is far from new. Visualization of
information, such as the workshop materials shown, is broadly common:
interpreting it, blending it and integrating it however requires relevant
knowledge, experience, expertise, leadership and talent. There is nothing
publically available that I found that demonstrates how this ³magic
thinking² is done or what the results of an interpretative phase might be.
Does the ³guide on the side² do all the interpretation? Do co-creaters
perform self-analysis and group evaluations? Does a stable of expertsŠetc.?
I can defer to my doctor¹s greater ability at reading my cat-scans without
giving up being a stakeholder.
I can find no sense at all of NextD¹s product other than that they put on
some workshops, generate promotional materials and sell ³promising² design
thinking concepts and processes. It¹s hard to imagine a CEO of any company
not asking, ³So, what am I going to hold in my hand when you walk out the
door?² There is no apparent evidence either of the effectiveness of NextD¹s
service, although remaining in business I suppose is proof of a kind.
Dividing design activities by their scale of social complexity is certainly
one way to slice them. D1, Traditional Design, however, is just a cartoon
zone and a foil. In terms of social complexity, this D1 portrayal plays
something like the straw role in the sequence that the lemonade stand plays
in economics, except there the lemonade is more rationally blended. This is
at best an unfair stereotype and demeaning characterization of a very wide
zone of activity. At the worst D1 functions as a way to make NextD
marketing sound more cutting edge. The authors must be generalizing from
some bad educational experiences. They willfully ignore many great works
and outcomes.
D2 and D3 are both really about products and services even if D3 claims
otherwise. They two categories are just differentiated by types of service.
All design practices offer services and some form of product, and all
services and products are artifacts. All that professionals really have to
offer is their advice in some form. D3 is a design service specifically
focused on the transformation of organizations. It may well be a growing and
important market for design services. It may well be a crucible for the
further development of design thinking concepts, processes, tools and
appropriate products. It might well influence design education if practices
like NextD were more forthcoming.
The upshot for me is that NextD is monetizing, branding, and marketing a
proprietary set of design thinking services, the claims for which must be
taken on faith. And part of that marketing strategy is to portray the
schools and research generally as being old hat, unresponsive, inflexible
and far from on the cutting edge.
There will do doubt be other ways of slicing design at other joints for
other reasons that will offer new layers of insight. Simple factoring in the
D1,2,3,4 model reveals the obvious that it is the D that is the constant.
The way that the D is constant - and perhaps is tailored to situations is
a design theory task that needs to be more carefully understood and
explained.
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
