Hi GK,
Here are the details of a design project for 'Other' design I've been
involved in. This is one of several over the last decade or so. I'm posting
the details to phd-design in case others have comments about it.
The design problem was to devise ways to reduce anti-social behaviour and
crime by young people on the Western Australian metropolitan rail network
and its environs. The project involved 28 government and non-government
organisations and 5 'cities'. Strategies involved a mix of individual
stakeholder consultations, soft systems analyses of the situation, a year of
monthly collaborative interagency meetings to develop a coordinated model of
interagency response and resolve major interagency conflicts, the
development and testing of several new joint agency programs over a 1 year
period, establishment of new formal and informal activities by the Public
Transport Authority, changes to prosecution arrangements for young people,
identification of incidental processes that resulted in problematic outcomes
and ways of addressing them, and a formal evaluation of the design process
and the programs that emerged. Result, significant reductions in anti-social
behaviour and crime on rail line and environs and new positive working
interactions between agencies. Total project time 2 years, 4 staff
part-time.
Best wishes ,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of GK VanPatter | NextD
Sent: Friday, 6 December 2013 11:34 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: Re: The OTHER Design Thinking / Call For Participants
Ken: I am puzzled by your rather forceful reaction to this relatively simple
invitation to participants. For some unknown reason you seem to be intent on
projecting your personal interests onto this relatively straight-forward
invite. I really have no interest in having this good-faith call for
participation become entangled in the politics of this list.
To reconfirm: The OTHER Design Thinking Call for Participants was simply
posted on this list, along with numerous other locations to signal launch of
the initial gathering stage. The project is not being designed around your
personal interests or the interests of this list group.
The book is intended to be part of a larger conversation with the broader
marketplace. It is a relatively simple giving voice project. Since we are in
practice and not academia it is possible that we have a different
understanding of what the marketplace dynamics are than you might have.
That's ok.
You keep talking about this list. We keep talking with the marketplace.
I would be surprised if you did not know that the design as magic thinking
school in its various permutations remains deeply entrenched in that
marketplace. I am guessing that you would recall encountering that school of
thought at your own design thinking conference held several years ago at
Swinburne. Certainly that conference was clear evidence that the dynamics of
the real world are considerably different from the dynamics of any
particular list. As an attendee at that conference I was certainly well
aware that various magic thinking advocates were present in full force.
To restate: This call for participants, is directed at practice leaders
engaged in the marketplace for at least 5 years without the previously
stated presumptions embedded in their approach regarding product, service
and experience design outcomes. The invitation has never had anything to do
with undergraduate education.
For us this initiative is a natural extension of the research and findings
work that went into the book; Innovation Methods Mapping / Demystifying 80+
Years of Innovation Process Design.
http://www.humantific.com/the-other-design-thinking/
Yes, as I have already pointed out to you on numerous occasions most leading
practices have multiple streams of on going research. You keep on insisting
otherwise as if research is exclusive to list members here, which of course
is absurd.
Since this call for participants is open to practices that are engaged in
the marketplace, presumably there will be diverse approaches. We are not
particularly concerned if the practices work with CEOs, middle management
folks or regular type humans on the street. The key criteria is that they do
not begin with assumed outcome paths. Again the notion that there are some
methodologies that assume solution paths upfront and some that do not is
part of the findings in the Methods Mapping work. Both approaches exist in
the marketplace and have for numerous years.
Being in the initial stages of this next virtual book project, it is unknown
at this moment what the outcome of this call for participants might turn out
to be. That's part of what we would like to determine.
Understanding that this initiative signals diversity of approaches I am well
aware that it might generate numerous forms of reaction in various parts of
the design community and in the broader marketplace. No big news there.
We are certainly not the officially designated change leaders of this or any
other list. It might not sit well with some that relative outsiders are
pro-actively organizing such an initiative. This is a pattern that is often
seen around change in general. Expect the unexpected from the unofficial is
a commonly understood principle of the marketplace much more so than in the
land of academia.
In addition I certainly have no expectations that any of the senior design
education leaders operating from any of the universities that have in recent
years, made significant investments in Design 2: product, service and or
experience graduate design programs will be particularly enthusiastic about
this sense-making initiative, especially since such programs are now often
being pitched in the marketplace as organizational and social innovation
programs. I am well aware that included in those universities that have
recently heralded the arrival of product and service design graduate
programs as the furthest most advanced reach of design are Aalto University,
Parsons, SVA, Swinburne and others. We are well aware that some of the
leaders affiliated with these schools will likely encounter The OTHER Design
Thinking Call for Participants on various lists.
Since you took it upon yourself to introduce the notion and considerations
of science I can confirm that we have chosen not to dwell on the lack of
science underneath the various assumptions embedded in the cross-over
movement. Clearly there is no common-sense science behind the notion that
determining, in organizational and societal contexts, which problems are
real problems automatically implies determining which products and services
need to be created. Such depictions are well known to be mixtures of good
intentions, wishful thinking, old habits, existing skill-sets and marketing
spin. There is no science there. In many cases there is barely any awareness
that such approaches are downstream in their basic orientation.
Rather than pursuing a hard-ball approach we think it is much more
constructive in The OTHER Design Thinking initiative to concentrate on
simply presenting alternate approaches that already exist in and around the
design community that are not tied into such assumptions.
It is no secret that the Aalto school is one of several graduate design
schools that are modeling cross-over assumptions and routinely encourage
students to take on massive societal challenges equipping them with
product/service creation skills and tools.
Unless I am mistaken, I believe you imported Alto's cross-over approach to
Swinburne when you were Dean of the Design School there. That seems to be
something that you decided to do as a design education leader rather than a
research scholar as you often depict yourself here. Surely you must have
known that no science exists behind many of the assumptions that are
embedded in cross-over.
In the scramble to rapidly make some progress on signally adaptation to a
changed world many graduate design schools can now be seen boldly suggesting
that product and service design has magically been transformed into
organizational and societal transformation. Suffice it to say that any
determined critic would not have much difficulty suggesting that the
cross-over approach is in itself a form of magic thinking.
Nothing personal Ken but any leader who has made significant strategic
investments in that direction and is entangled in cross-over logic would
hardly make an ideal candidate for unbiased views on this subject.
I have no problem personally with your cross-over choices Ken. It's a free
country out there, but I do not consider you to be unbiased in the various
perspectives that you are serving up on this list.
I think you would find that most practice leaders not entangled in
cross-over are prepared to be extremely generous and instead of blowing up
the cross-over movement consider it simply as a vast experiment in progress.
Instead of unconstructive confrontations what I see most often is
considerable patience being exhibited in many sectors with the cross-over
movement.
Is the cross-over experiment a great success? Is the jury still out on the
experiment? or Is the cross-over era drawing to a close. It is to a large
degree a matter of perspective. It seems likely that your perspective and my
perspective might be significantly different.
It does seem to be a good moment to at least attempt to give some voice to
diversity, to alternate approachs, to an alternate circle of practices and
their interconnected academies. That is what The OTHER Design Thinking
project seeks to do. It is rather simple really.
Again since you brought it I will point out that if you are trying to better
understand the tone and sensitivities of client organizations in the Design
3 space the overexposed media profile of Roger Martin is a good opposite
direction model. I cannot likely stress enough that media attention is the
last thing on the minds of many organizational leaders working on complex
internal challenges. To do this work one has to be sensitive and patient as
much of it involves highly confidential activities. While I cannot speak for
others doing this type of work with organizations, but for us what we focus
on is adding value in the eyes of our clients, not in the eyes of the media
or in the eyes of academia. That kind of restraint comes with the territory.
If you are as an academic leader having difficulties gaining access to
practices operating in various markets you might want to rethink your
approach. Many practice leaders would have little interest in appearing on
this list. Hanging out over here represents a tiny sliver of what's going on
outside.
Of course if you would prefer a different initiative, more reflective of
your own interests and the choices that you have made you should undertake
such an initiative yourself Ken. Back seat driving can only get you so far.
I'm certain that many here would be delighted to see your initiative.
In any case invitations to submit expressions of interest in The OTHER
Design Thinking will happily remain open until the end of 2013.
PS: Regarding your opinion piece that you made reference to in your last
post entitled "Models of Design", I would certainly be delighted if readers
digest both your paper as well as the one I posted a link to previously
entitled "Occupy Reimagining Design" and decide for themselves which they
find useful.
Models of Design
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Occupy Reimagining Design
http://tinyurl.com/pwplz7k
...
GK VanPatter
Co-Founder
Humantific
SenseMaking for ChangeMaking
NEW YORK / MADRID
6 West 18th Street, 9th Floor
New York City, NY 10011
T: 212-660-2577
http://www.humantific.com
NEWSLETTER:
Subscribe to Humantific Quarterly
Follow Humantific on twitter: http://twitter.com/humantific
...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
