Hi Terry: Thanks for your interest. We have already been in touch off-list so I will reconnect with you there.
As part of this exercise what we are most interested in is how the framing occurred, by whom, with who present, using what methods. In other words how the project traveled from a fuzzy, messy social situation to one where one challenge was defined. Was a "brief" handed to your team or did you participate upstream in the framing?
Happy to chat with you via skype or via email.
Have a good Sunday.
gk
...
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
...
On Dec 7, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Terence Love wrote:
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
