Print

---

What Matters? 
 
>The future is already here, it¹s just that it hasn¹t been evenly distributed.<
Attributed to William Gibson
 
>To create the future, a company has to unlearn at least some of its past.<
Gary Hamel, CK Prahalad, Competing for the Future
 
>To explain innovation we need a new theory of organizational knowledge
creation. - Organizational knowledge creation is a continuous and dynamic
interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge.<
Ikujiro Nonaka, Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge Creating Company
 
>You can¹t expect people to change if you donŒt give them the tools<
David Sheff, Fast Company, New Rules of Business Edition
 
>The kingdom of understanding is ruled by the emperor, Diagram. The kingdom,
rich in fiefdoms, is filled with inherent rules and applications.<
Richard Saul Wurman
 
>Everything is relevant; making things relevant is the creative process.<
Attributed to William J.J. Gordon
 
>We are just on the verge of people starting to understand that we have to
learn how to think differently in order to make any substantial change in
how 
we operate.<
Min Basadur, NextD Journal Issue 1
 
>Design in its broadest sense is the most important mental operation for the
future. Judgment thinking is not enough in a changing world because judgment is
based on the past. We need to design the way forward.<
Edward Debono, NextD Journal (in progress)
 
>I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it is.<
Attributed to Wayne Gretsky
 
 >Learning something new is the bestest thing in the world.<
Attributed to Andrew Harper, (age 7)
 
 
 
Thank you for inviting me to contribute Ken. From the comfort of our studio
here in New York I have been reading much of the conference dialogue and
enjoying the convenience of this medium. Despite its obvious visual and
interface shortcomings, it does have definite advantages over getting on an
airplane.
 
Let me start with this: Last night as I was walking home from the office,
thinking about what I had been reading in this discussion, trying to make
sense of it and contemplating how I might best add some value, I looked up
into the night sky and had, what was for me, a small aha. As I observed the
light from the stars in the sky above Union Square Park I remembered that
there are everyday circumstances in which we can see time traveling towards
us. Of course that particular light probably left its point of origin
thousands of years ago, but was just now appearing within view of where I
was standing on planet earth. Observed from a different planet, the same
light might look very different; larger, smaller, brighter, dimmer, newer,
older, closer, farther away, etc.
 
I believe this is more or less what we have going on in discussions
regarding design education today. In this particular conversation we are
being presented with the publicized draft of a new school model. I would
venture to say that depending on where various observers stand in the
universe, it likely looks quite different; larger, smaller, newer, or older,
than we might have imagined it to be before its light actually reached us.
As it streams in, we try to get ourselves oriented to what we are seeing.
All of us try our best to understand that light by viewing it through the
context that we are familiar with in our own study, practice and research.
In its most abstract sense, innovation acceleration often involves catching
and connecting streams of light/thought traveling towards and away from each
other. I see this Design in the University conference, despite its extended
time frame, primarily as an opportunity for innovation acceleration.
 
As I begin my response I want to speak for a moment to the official students
among us in reference to something that is near and dear to us at NextD and
that is process. We see a lot of confusion in the marketplace around process
these days so I want to clarify how and where what I am about to say fits
into process from our perspective. I say this because we see a great deal of
focus in the design industries on ³critical thinking² and ³criticism² as if
that alone amounted to the Holy Grail.
 
We see significantly less focus on explaining exactly when that applies and
what that really means. ³Criticism² is judgment. Let¹s not forget that. We
see many students emerging from design schools today with the mistaken
belief that the best way for them to add value, in any given situation, is
to use ³criticism² as quickly as possible. It is a monster that senior
people create through our unexplained actions but that is an entire
conversation for another day.
 
Simply stated: In order for convergent ³criticism² to occur, something
important, probably more important and often difficult has to precede and
that is the divergent creation of ideas. As simple as it sounds, this is
often forgotten, even within our own community. As designers, I believe it
is always important to remember and honor that. As we contemplate a new and
perhaps more dominate role for judgment in a new field of design, let us not
forget that divergent idea creation, pattern creation plays a huge role in
all the design industries. Throughout history, and still today it is a role
that requires courage and one that students must understand deeply today in
order to succeed.  
 
With that said I want to acknowledge the considerable courage and work of
the Irvine committee. Although I was somewhat surprised to see that a group
of talented folks studying the feasibility of a design school today would
put together a 180+ page proposal without a challenge architecture, and
without a single visual explanation diagram, I can see, and do acknowledge,
that a lot of work has been done to move the conversation there in Irvine to
where it is today. I say, the conversation in Irving for a specific reason.
I believe it is important not to confuse that conversation, that light, with
other conversations going on elsewhere in the universe. The most recent
light arriving amongst us, may or may not signify advanced thinking
regarding design and design education today. Regardless, we can celebrate
its arrival in the community.
 
In this conference there have been many distinguished experts making
insightful comments at various altitudes across the considerable span of 20+
days. After some reflection, it seemed clear to me that instead of
retreading through that ground it would be most valuable for me to depart
slightly from what Ken asked me to do here. Not for lack of respect but
rather due to some over capacity I think. There is more than enough
firepower among my fellow commentators to cover that intended ground. With
this in mind I thank Ken in advance for his patience with me in this regard.
 
As I took note of the dialogue and reflected on the Irvine strategy artifact
I thought it might be useful to try to sketch out some conceptual territory
here that seems to be thus far missing. One of my concerns is that the
degree of change facing design today dwarfs anything that has arisen in any
of the discussion thus far.
 
In order to construct this picture I will need to connect across several
conceptual dimensions, so bear with me. This is difficult terrain to try to
reach in this format so please forgive the imperfections. I want to try to
stay focused on surfacing opportunity space but we may have to tread through
some bumpy territory to get there.
 
Unique Project or New Frontier?
 
At NextD we appreciate and view the Irvine project from the perspective of
scale and complexity. While it would be easy to assume that it was a unique,
one of a kind study, the opportunity of a lifetime, a one-time event, that
would be missing the forest for the trees I think. Apart from the uniqueness
of the specific content there are a lot of similarities between the Irvine
project and the types, scale, complexity and fuzziness of challenges that
designers increasingly must be equipped to address today.
 
From the perspective of NextD, the Irvine project largely took place in the
strategic space that we believe exists above the traditional planes of
design, above where the traditional methods and tools of design were
designed to engage. We refer to that strategic space as B4Design. It is a
terrain that often requires designers to engage new awareness, thinking,
tools and behaviors.
 
In viewing the Irvine challenges I believe we are looking at much more than
a one-off school design project. In many ways we are looking at a slice of
the future for design in a still emerging frontier. Like those on the Irvine
committee it is a frontier that I want designers to go forward and occupy
with confidence and skill. It is no secret that it will take some real work
to get there.
 
Navigating Knowledge
 
I want to wade into this, in short form, from the direction of knowledge
creation, since this seems to underlie numerous aspects of the conference
conversation including the intended output of the new school in Irvine.
 
We work in the realm of enabling knowledge creation and innovation in the
context of large global organizations. It may be news to some on this list,
that there are designers  already involved in the realm of
cross-disciplinary human performance. Working in that kind of context, we
have over time, with considerable effort, become familiar with how knowledge
is created by humans in corporate environments.
 
Acknowledging that the Irvine study and much of the conference dialogue has
been inwardly focused in the direction of design education institutions I
want us to switch hats for a few minutes, for perspective purposes, and move
out into the realm of corporate organizational settings.
 
In the consultancy business the idea of a knowledge economy has been around
for a considerable period of time. It peaked at the height of the initial
internet boom and is undergoing a renaissance of sorts. One of the most
famous and often quoted remarks from the early part of that era is
attributed to Lew Platt at Hewlett Packard:
 
³I wish we knew what we know at HP.²
 
Platt¹s now much overplayed words still serve as an appropriate jumping off
point for so many things related to our client¹s businesses and their very
real challenges.
Today in many kinds of knowledge creating companies we often see a set of
phenomena occurring and reoccurring which we generalize under the term
³Innovation Redundancy Loop². Many organizations are grappling with the
problem of repeatedly generating the same ideas, solving the same problems,
and creating the same knowledge over and over again. It can be an expensive
loop for business organizations to be caught up in.
 
This tends to happen when those doing the knowledge creating, or what we
call the pattern creating work are unconnected to the organization¹s
knowledge base, when the knowledge base is unconnected to the real world
outside the organization or when there is no detectable knowledge base in
the organization. In the past few years, entire industries have grown around
helping organizations grapple with this problem.
 
The problem has become so significant that some organizations have what we
call Knowledge Navigators in addition to elaborate knowledge management
technologies. As challenges, ideas and solutions begin to be generated,
those doing the pattern creation work are encouraged to seek out a Knowledge
Navigator early in order to avoid the invented in a vacuum syndrome, the
reinvented the wheel for the 25th time syndrome, the buggy whip syndrome,
and the market is wide open syndrome, among others.
 
Knowledge Navigators or Innovation Scouts as they are sometimes called, work
in front of the more formal gate keeping systems that many large companies
set up to evaluate innovation ideas as they move through the judgment/gate
keeping pipeline. Unlike the Gate Keepers, the primary function of the
Knowledge Navigators is to help make connections to streams of knowledge,
emerging and historical, rather than to judge. This is an important
distinction. Navigators serve to connect the past, present and future. (Many
organizations have an overabundance of gate keeping going on and a shortage
of idea generation but that is a story for another day). The idea is to
engage Knowledge Navigators early with the rationale being that by the time
ideas get to the formal Gate Keepers, the organization has already expended
considerable resources.
 
The point is that until I saw the Irvine Design School artifacts and this
conference conversation, it never really occurred to me that similar
phenomena might also be occurring outside our organizations at the level of
communities.
 
I can now see that a significant amount of what has been occurring in the
debate portion of this conference is the Irvine Pattern Creation Team
interacting with the unofficial Knowledge Navigators in our community.
Without formal acknowledgement, mechanisms or protocols, numerous experts
have been doing their best to point out knowledge that already exists or is
in the process of being created in various fields and disciplines. Others
have suggested idea additions such as the inclusion of information design
etc. It is also clear that some participants consider themselves to be Gate
Keepers. 
 
Suffice it to say that in corporate organizational settings it is not
uncommon for considerable heat and stress to be generated around Gate Keeper
interaction, especially if the timing of the review is late, or if the
avenues for altering course appear to be closed off. The point is, many
organizations work very hard to take hold of the levers of knowledge
creation as they become more known. Large organizations, full of the best
and the brightest, struggle with sequencing, default behaviors, purpose,
definitions, improper tools, low quality information, lack of applicable
skills, dysfunctional built environments, all kinds of things.
 
Ok this is the bumpy part. Although we have a very sophisticated group
participating in this conference and we are here, perhaps ironically, to
talk about how to deepen expertise, make design more intellectually
sophisticated and build a knowledge creating design school, we are
encountering a few wrinkles ourselves. Lets think about that.
 
For those who might not know, these are now questions that designers become
involved in as it all relates directly to knowledge creation, to human
performance. There are new dimensions for designers to think about here.
Historically the realm of design has not included behavior dynamics linked
to process for example.
 
I have noticed that some expectations around the conference were perhaps
slightly different than others. I took particular note that the Irvine
committee¹s opening remarks included a statement pointing out that not only
have they already reviewed the Irvine concept with their own team of
Knowledge Navigators but they have already cleared several layers of Gate
Keepers there in Irvine.
 
This would suggest that the purpose of the event in their minds was intended
to be a general discussion, a new baby parade of sorts, more like a virtual
water cooler conversation than a more purposeful session driving towards an
intended and deliberate outcome that included course altering idea
generation for instance. The former would place us further forward in
process than the later. Perhaps this was news to some participants. Perhaps
some assumed that the month long gathering was to be focused on creating new
patterns while others assumed they were here to judge the new pattern in
Irvine. Since no orientation ³We are here² map was included in the Irvine
artifacts this would not be surprising.
 
To cut to the chase; I point this out for two reasons:
 
1. I believe there are several layers of dynamics here including those
described above that have combined to create some tension and dare I say
confusion in the activity space in a way that might be undercutting some of
its potential. This would not be so unusual under the circumstances.
 
2. In this realization there are likely opportunities that we could identify
for the community to consider.
 
In order to surface that opportunity we have to endure a few more bumps.
 
Innovation Ecology
 
There are many talented people doing research in and around these kinds of
activity spaces as they relate to human performance, a few involved in
design, most not. Our own research in this area is ongoing and incomplete
but it lies at the center of everything we do in practice. In our work we
believe there are likely interconnections between many component parts of
how innovation occurs, how knowledge is created or not. The dimensions
around which we have built our model are strategy, information, process,
team dynamics, and environment. We believe there are connections between
each of those dimensions. While I can not go into all of that here and the
research is not complete or public, the Innovation Ecology below will give
you a glimpse into how we think about the kind activity space interaction
that we have here in the conference.
 
Here is how we would unpack and view this particular Innovation Ecology:
 
We have 
* an activity space called Ph.D.-Design list that attempts mediation through
text. 
* an activity called Design in the University that attempts mediation
through text. 
* a detailed Irvine information artifact that attempts mediation through
text. 
* an interaction technology that is capable of global reach.
* an interaction technology with same time - different place, different time
- different place access.
* an interaction technology that lends itself to bumper­car group dynamics.
* a historically based default group/list dynamic described as debate, that
is primarily convergent.
* a set of values related to the protocols of research overlaying the
activities. 
* a four week activity period.
* no visible process orientation map.
* no visible project orientation map.
* no visual challenge map
* no visible group dynamics maps.
* no visible process.
* a highly educated, absent problem owner (President of Irvine) with unknown
problem solving preferences.
* a small, highly educated (28+ person) Irvine Pattern Creation Team with
unknown problem solving preferences.
* a highly educated group moderator (involved in content and process) with
unknown problem solving preferences who was also on the Irvine Pattern
Creation Team. 
* a large, highly educated (1000+ person) group of conference activity
participants with unknown (likely diverse) problem solving preferences.
* an activity space purpose variously defined as introducing a new baby,
creating a new baby, and critiquing a new baby but remaining primarily
focused on convergence and gate keeping.
* an Irvine defined purpose variously defined as creating a new design
school to focus on knowledge creation, to focus on design research, to
improve the credibility of design in the academic community, to make the
field of design worthy of serious, formal study, to make design more like
science, to address the needs and problems of the coming decades, etc. etc
 
Now standing back from that unpacking lets ask ourselves a couple of
questions: What might that particular innovation ecology tell us about the
underlying nature of our activities here? Do you see any red flags? If we
were in an organization and these were the dimensions of our innovation
ecology what kind of conversation dynamics would we expect, what kind of
output? 
 
In the context of this conference lets ask ourselves how deep knowledge of
research might or might not impact the dynamics of this activity space. Is
it likely that we will find adequate tools and protocols within the
expertise of research to help us correct course and or direct intervention
in such an activity space? Would we find those tools and protocols in
traditional design practice? Would we find them in design education today?
What are the levers of knowledge creation and what/where are our tools as
designers to engage there?
 
Does anyone see any opportunities for next design in the above-described
ecology? I certainly do! Among other things we could figure out how to
improve our community knowledge base, our process of knowledge sharing, our
gate keeping, our idea generation and capture, our orientation tools, our
group dynamics, etc, etc. I can see numerous interesting projects there.
Does anyone see any challenges and opportunities for the new school in
Irvine as they create their new knowledge creating school?
 
Love Those Bumper-Cars?
 
In the work that we do in large organizations we see a lot of what we call
bumper-car group interaction dynamics (the most intense version is called
demolition derby). It is no secret that there are a lot of legacy system
interaction models and behaviors in many of our corporate organizations. It
is not uncommon to see the most advanced technologies in use simultaneously
with the most basic interaction dynamics. The concord jet engine attached to
a 1952 Chevy syndrome. Some of this has been talked about previously on this
list, the Gang of 3 etc. Many of our large organizations have created
predispositions toward preemptive judging and gate keeping and then wonder
why they have no ideas in their pipelines. To make a longer story shorter,
we often see contradictions between the interaction model, the default
behaviors and the intended outcomes.

I believe similar legacy system models and behaviors can be found in
academic circles including those related to design, ironically a field of
adaptation, discovery and invention. The old school thesis judgment model
where a grad student has to stand up and defend her/his work has bled over
into many other types of interactions. The debate/argument model while
considered water cooler material in the business world is found to be still
revered in academia as a kind of Einsteinian survival of the fittest
experience. The degree of romance built up around many of these models has
little to do with their actual performance.

The harsh reality is that in innovation dynamics circles today these models
are considered to be low performance with little process skill required in
which to engage. They are considered to be general use models most useful in
establishing communities based on content knowledge, hierarchies and doing
general kinds of often-painful knowledge sharing. Many people have had to
operate in such conditions their entire adult lives and have become
accustomed to, even skilled at operating in such environments. We often see
those who are masters of this domain defending the model and the behaviors
at any cost. After twenty or thirty years of learning to survive in such
conditions it is very difficult to give up that behavior, especially if your
behavior dominates.

Needless to say behavioral and interaction model dynamic interventions in
large organizations are among the most difficult to undertake in the area of
innovation and knowledge creation but there are some folks out there who do
this extremely well. We work with some of them.

There is some good news here. There is opportunity for design here if we can
open our minds to the possibilities.

There are many misunderstandings around meeting/activity space tensions
today and much of that can be connected back to process, process mastery and
process externalization. In the past, such tension was often thought to be
related to personality differences. Today we know that tension can arise
simply from participants being in different phases of the process at the
same time without knowing it or expressing it. So if one person is trying to
define the challenges and another is already in solutions it is likely that
conflict will occur. If one person has already settled into solutions and
the others want to go back to challenge definitions without really
articulating it, then we are bound to have some tension in the system. If
five people want to diverge and 50 people are in converging mode without
signally where they are, it is easy to see how conflicts erupt. A look
across the landscape of our graduate design schools confirms that design
education rarely reaches into this level of specifics. In many design
schools, teamwork skills are taught simply by placing students in an
environment and handing out a team assignment. That is often the extent of
the knowledge transfer.

The point is, it really serves little use to expend our energies on
exercises related to reinventing design if we refuse to address our own
fundamental interaction models, our process skills and our own behaviors. We
are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. Many organizations today are
facing this same issue. In that there is huge opportunity for next design if
we can get out in front of this. I¹m optimistic. In the (distant) future I
believe it will be understood that next design is at the center of
human-to-human interaction innovation. It would have been great to have seen
reflection of this awareness, this goal, in the Irvine strategy artifacts.
 
Enabling Knowledge Creation
 
It is possible to and we certainly do, place design at the center of
organizational knowledge creation by virtue of how organizational knowledge
is created: through human-to-human, human-to-information,
human-to-environment interactions. In light of some of the recent conference
dialogue you may find it ironic that at the center of the interaction, we
seek to place what we call Whole Brain Teams, understanding Whole Brain
Interaction Dynamics, navigating by Whole Brain Process, referencing Whole
Brain Information Fields, and operating in Whole Brain Environments. Each of
those interaction intersections represents opportunity for design. I believe
it will be understood in the future that next design is at the center of
knowledge creation. It would have been great to have seen reflection of this
awareness, this goal, in the Irvine strategy artifacts.
 
Beyond Differencing
 
The kinds of vertical differencing structures found in many corporate
organizations today represent significant opportunities for design
intervention if we can untangle ourselves from the deeply embedded,
exclusionary differencing dynamics that are part of designs history.
Organizations today understand that there is significant potential for
innovation across their entire organizations, not just in their design
departments! They seek to maximize that brainpower. To do that, they seek
strategies and tools of inclusion not exclusion. They seek strategies to
celebrate and clarify difference in constructive, inclusive ways that
connect directly to their central activities: problem solving and
innovation. I believe it will be understood in the future that next design
is at the center of inclusion dynamics. It would have been great to have
seen reflection of this awareness, this goal, in the Irvine strategy
artifacts.
 
Complexity & Acceleration
 
We see two fundamental shifts in corporate organizational settings that are
driving change in ways that impact design today. Rising complexity is
driving the need for team-based cross-disciplinary problem solving.
Compressed time frames are driving the need for parallel processing.
Combined, these two dynamics represent massive change. What it means to
shift from the individual to the team, from linear to parallel processing
are in themselves hefty and lively subjects.
 
In design-focused academic debating societies it is not uncommon to still
see the cross-disciplinary subject focused internally, going round and round
at the level of should we, perhaps without understanding that the world has
already moved on. Cross-disciplinary teams are a done deal folks. This is
already the way of work in many business organizations today. For design
education to miss that would mean missing some of the most dramatic change
regarding work practices to occur in the 20th century.
 
On several occasions I have noted well intentioned, derogatory references
being made on this list, (several in this conference,) some in jest no
doubt, to short attention spans, time compression and even team-think. It
occurred to me that it might not be well understood in academia that not
only are these dynamics the way of the business world at this point in time
but they are also creating considerable potential opportunity for designers
if we can get our folks prepared to meet them.
 
In the old days of linear processing the designer was often called in near
the end of the project as form giver. In parallel processing environments
all team members are much more likely to be in the room from the beginning
of the project. Therefore the question today is: do designers have the
skills and tools necessary to participate in the initial strategic stages of
complex projects? Design education has been extremely slow to wake up to the
implications of these two above-mentioned drivers. That sleepy state is part
of what prompted the creation of NextD.
 
If we are not open to, or if we never model time compression and parallel
processing we might never surface the challenges and opportunities that
exist there for design. As a community I would to see us be more out in
front of these challenges and opportunities. I would like to see us working
on making sure, not only that some of our folks are in that room as
participants but that we have people from the design tribes who are capable
of acting as process leaders in all kinds of complex problem solving
conditions. 
 
On this one the hour is late and the competition is already considerable.
This is a challenge that our graduate design education leaders and
institutions need to step up to the plate and take ownership of today. Ten
years from now will be too late. It is already late! At this point, design
is far behind and in the catch up position.
 
While I welcome the expression of interest on the part of Irvine to adopt a
cross-disciplinary orientation it is important to know where we are and to
understand the depth that is already in play here. It is that orientation
thing again. I say this because early adopters can behave much differently
than those in the catch up mode. Irvine will be a hybrid; early in terms of
design education, very late in terms of what is already going on outside in
the land of leading business organizations today. It would have been great
to have seen reflection of this awareness in the Irvine strategy artifacts.
 
ReRePurposing that Problem Solving Thing
 
It appears to be a well kept secret that team based cross-disciplinary
strategic problem unscrambling/solving has become the bridge language
between business and design. It is well on its way to becoming a common
language, open architecture platform between those two worlds as the notion
of multiple intelligences, working towards common goals takes hold. At
NextD, we believe there are significant opportunities for design and design
education in that shift, but again the hour is already late.
 
Unfortunately in design education debating societies we still see the
conversation directed internally, going round and round focused on that
never ending question of whether design is problem solving or not. Again the
harsh reality is that the world outside is rapidly moving on as other
challenges, needs and opportunities present themselves. The move from a
focus on the individual, to focus on the team that unleashed massive change
brought with it need for new forms of shared navigation and shared
intelligence. We view both design and strategic problem solving as
collaboration process languages, the former remains very specialized, with a
limited toolset, (sort of like the Mac) the latter with multiple tool
attachments that are now applicable across many domains.
 
All of the large organizations that we work with have already moved to
parallel processing and cross-disciplinary teams. Many contain a very
diverse employee base including, engineers, scientists, business people and
some times designers. Organizational leaders seek to maximize that
innovative brainpower. Gone are the days when designers alone were
considered the creatives. Today organizational leaders seek tools to ensure
that everyone, all disciplines are included in the circle of innovation.
 
As we work that terrain we seek common purpose, language, and toolsets that
are capable of spanning every conceivable discipline and all levels of an
organization from CEO  to the folks in the mailroom. Although they may be
called upon to do other things in their daily work patterns, under much of
what goes on in business, and industry today is proactive problem
unscrambling/solving. It is the common bond and underpinning across
virtually every activity in most organizations. It has occurred to me that
in our inwardly focused academic circles this connection has not been made.
 
Building on its inclusive platform, adding our own tools to it, we can
mediate mental inclusion, cognitive inclusion, physical inclusion,
behaviors, goals and outcomes across an entire diversified organization.
Perhaps most critical are interconnected behavior and team dynamics models
that design has never been able to muster. For systems thinkers there is a
lot to work with here!
 
We believe mastery of enhanced process tools, HOW tools, not WHAT tools, in
one form or another, is key to navigating the B4Design opportunity space. In
our work we use these tools to provide the mental mediation, ordering space
between information artifacts, other humans and the working environment. We
use them to drive towards cross-disciplinary innovation. We recently asked
one of our new corporate clients why they wanted to work with us. Their
reply was: ³We believe you can improve the quality of our thinking.²
 
At NextD we believe that design has the opportunity to move from a focus on
so called critical thinking to being the enabler and protector of all
thinking modes in cross-disciplinary settings. To do that one has to have
mastery of more than traditionally based design processes.
 
I always feel badly for young students who have been told by well meaning
teachers that design is not problem solving. I believe that advice has sent
many young people into states of confusion that are quite unnecessary. Once
you are operating at a high level of mastery there is little difference
between opportunity finding and challenge finding, between so called wicked
problems and tame problems. In spite of what you might see being discussed
in theory, the reality is that most forms of specialty processes, most forms
of design connect back to this underlying fundamental logic. This is a
connection that we can build on if our minds are open to the possibilities.
 
If I could only keep one thing that we know how to do in our practice this
would be it. Students should know that deep mastery of this one process
logic tool can help you order and navigate multiple forms of content in a
confusing real world. With a high degree of mastery you can walk into many
kinds of complex messy situations and add significant unscrambling and
ordering value, not just design value. At this point in my career I am well
aware that the primary reason why folks want me in the room is due, not to
my good looks, but rather to my so called problem unscrambling/solving
skills. Oh sure, I am a designer but that set of specialty tools resides
behind my primary navigation toolset.
 
At NextD we believe that the need for cross-disciplinary teams, working
towards common goals across inclusive intelligence platforms represents
great opportunities for design to step forward and engage the outside world
on common ground, not only design ground.
 
If we get (quickly) to work, designers can take hold of many of the
supercharger mechanisms around cross-disciplinary strategic problem
unscrambling/solving (systems thinking, visual modeling, user centeredness
and humanist orientation) in ways that provide huge added value and
distinguish design in the marketplace. I believe it will be understood in
the future that the field of design is at the center of team-based strategic
problem solving innovation. It would have been great to have seen reflection
of this awareness, this goal, in the Irvine strategy artifacts.
 
Information Ordering/Visualization
 
As David Sless has already pointed out, the field of information design has
developed significant knowledge across many applications. We are just
starting to understand the role that shaped and unshaped information plays
in organizational knowledge creation. In client organizational settings we
use the logic of information design to construct inclusive information
fields (Whole Brain) that are used to share knowledge, accelerate ideation
and decision-making. We combine the organizing logic of information design
with that of inclusive, strategic problem solving.
 
Since there was reference earlier in the conference dialogue to the value of
hand drawing I will just add quickly that we see keen interest from clients
in learning how to unpack complexity and visualize abstract ideas,
strategies, problems, solutions, initiatives, etc. Recently we were asked to
provide a Visual Modeling Workshop for a group of client executives who had
worked with us. Clients recognize that their own organizations are often
heavily oriented to words. I believe it will be understood in the future
that conceptual idea modeling and the design of information play key roles
in enhancing knowledge creation. It would have been great to have seen
reflection of this awareness, this goal, in the Irvine strategy artifacts.
 
Know1,2,3
 
In an effort to distinguish between the different types of knowledge in the
mix 
in a way that connects to process we created a little organizing framework
that we call Know1,2,3. We refer to knowledge related to the challenges or
opportunities facing our clients, ourselves, the world, as Know1. We refer
to knowledge related to possible solutions as Know2. Knowledge related to
implementation in the marketplace is referred to as Know3.
 
Over the years we have learned that sometimes the best, most up to date
Know1 information resides in a completely different place than where we
might find ideas for Know2. We have learned that there are certain people
out there (some consider us among them) who have considerable Know1
knowledge. In other words they have a great sense and understanding of what
the current challenges are across specific subject areas. People working in
the area of future trends for instance often have great Know1 insights.

One of the challenges facing knowledge navigators and pattern creation teams
is that the ³where to look² part of that equation is not always crystal
clear. The conventional wisdom that happens to be reflected in the Irvine
artifacts is that new forms of knowledge can be found in academic circles.

While that may be true across many subject areas it is presently seldom the
case when it comes to issues related to design from our humble perspective.
This observation may help the case that the Irvine team is trying to make.

Our own experience is that it is very difficult, at present to find much in
the way of emerging Know1, 2 or 3 in design education today that has
anything to do with our own research and what we do in practice. Subject
areas of interest to us rarely seen in design education presently include
cross-disciplinary teamwork, complex problem solving, knowledge creation,
innovation dynamics, organizational dynamics, interaction dynamics related
to knowledge creation, distributed intelligence, challenge mapping, idea
capture, systems thinking, strategy, multiple intelligences, business
transformation, among others.
 
With a few exceptions, we find the most advanced and up to date knowledge in
these areas elsewhere in other communities. If the new Irvine school can
change that I would certainly welcome that news. I believe the potential is
there for those on the front lines of practice to surface Know1 insights and
work in collaboration with design research institutions working Know2. At
the moment few opportunities or mechanisms exist in this regard.
 
Are We There Yet?
 
At NextD we try to make a clear distinction between where design was
yesterday, where it is today and where we would like it to get to ASAP; the
intended future state or states. In reviewing the Irvine study, particularly
the sections on Vision, Structure/Size of the School, and Graduate Education
I had an uneasy feeling that this distinction was sometimes not crystal
clear. Many things about the way people work, including designers changed
during the recent dotcom boom era (1999-2002). That era, often referenced in
the Irvine strategy is long gone and much has changed since then including
the dimensions of over capacity in many areas of design. I am hoping the
distinctions in the Irvine proposal between the past, present and imagined
future state of the industry were clear to the problem owner and others who
had to use that information for go forward decision-making. With our clients
we find that orientation is key to understanding and therefore to
decision-making. 
 
Choose Your Precision(s)
 
In closing I want to access one more territory before I have to leave today
but am unsure exactly how to wade into it. Excuse the bumps! Let¹s try this:
Without doubt it is easy to find considerable precision and depth in the
Irving artifacts. It has an impressive depth of detail and one can clearly
see that every i is dotted and T crossed according to the proper orthodoxies
and protocols of design research.
 
To say this another way; I noticed that the values embedded in the report
are the orthodoxies of research, which in turn are mirrored in the school¹s
proposed strategy, which in turn are mirrored in the conference. For me this
is one of the most complex, interesting and revealing things about the
Irvine project. 
 
In contrast, we see relatively little precision in terms of what we think of
as strategic problem solving protocols. We see even less precision around
the kinds of supercharged visualized problem solving/unscrambling that
leading firms are using in the B4Design space today. This is particularly
evident in the area of challenge definitions. In the Irvine document most
challenges can be found sprinkled throughout the document and in no
particular order. Apples and oranges, strategic challenges and tactical
challenges are routinely mixed. There seems to be no clearly defined highest
order challenge.
 
While this likely tells us something about the nature of the Irvine team
(and or perhaps their budget) I am not sure what this tells us about what
they intend to teach in Irvine.
 
In the realm in which we operate, we seek precision around understanding as
an instrument to drive human performance. To help us get there we utilize an
enhanced process toolkit, combed with information visualization and systems
thinking to link and communicate orders.
 
Interconnected to those three primary ordering instruments are numerous
protocols of precision. For instance in our universe it is critically
important to have considerable precision as we move from a client¹s initial
fuzzy situation towards defining what the challenges and or opportunities
actually are. We know that words are an important part of that precision. We
know that ordering the challenges and linking them together is part of that
precision. We know that changing a few words in a challenge can
substantially change its meaning and therefore the direction of possible
solutions.
 
In our work we are often called upon to untangle, unpack, reconstruct or
enhance corporate strategies. In doing such work we often begin with an
exercise that we call Reverse the Logic. Applied to the Irving strategy,
that exercise would look something like this:
 
If the new Irvine School of Design is intended to be a solution, we ask
ourselves what in plain language is the perceived challenge or challenges
that it is intended to be a solution to?
 
If producing more research oriented PhDs is a solution, what in plain
language is the perceived challenge or challenges that it is intended to be
a solution to?
 
If the specialty of vehicle design is an intended to be a solution, what in
plain language is the perceived challenge or challenges that it is intended
to be a solution to? etc.
 
In taking this line of inquiry, and if we were engaged in a real project we
would dialogue with the strategy team and also look beyond. Wearing our
strategic archeology hats we go into the strategy draft artifacts, documents
etc to see if we can find the challenge paths. One of the things that we are
looking for is the highest order challenge from which the entire strategic
story might be hung. We would also be looking to see how the other challenge
layers connect back to the highest challenge identified. How does focusing
on vehicle design connect back to the notion of building a knowledge
creating design school for example.
 
What am I talking about when I say challenges? Here are a few examples
gleaned from direct text and inferences made in the Irvine document as well
as a few from the conference dialogue.
 
How Might We (Irvine)
 
determine if a new school of design is feasible and appropriate?
 
reposition ourselves as design education leaders?
 
become a design education leader?
 
create an ideal model design school?
 
*create a design school that is focused on knowledge creation?
 
*create a school focused on design research?
 
improve the credibility of design in the academic community?
 
create a school of design that makes a lot of money?
 
create a new school that captures the fundamental transformations now
shaping the future of design?
 
create a school of design to impress scientists and engineers?
 
change the nature of design in order to impress scientists and engineers?
 
create a design school to impress academics?
 
create an innovative, forward looking design school?
 
make the field of design less superficial?
 
make the field of design worthy of serious, formal study?
 
expand the frontiers of design?
 
take advantage of the existing strengths at Irvine?
 
create a design school that capitalizes on existing developments in the
field?
 
create a design school that addresses the needs and problems of the coming
decades?
 
redistribute and repurpose our faculty?
 
reposition design as science?
 
reshape design to make it more like science?
 
create a school that takes advantage of our contacts in the vehicle design
industry?
 
create a school to serve the vehicle design industries?
 
determine the size that the new school should be?
 
determine the makeup of the new school?
 
convince the public that design is science?
 
create an appropriate building in which to house a new school of design?
 
determine what a new design school curriculum should be?
 
determine what should be included in a new design school curriculum?
 
determine what not to include in a new design school curriculum?
 
fund an new school of design?
 
find appropriate faculty for the new school of design?
 
create the design school of our dreams?
 
etc., etc,
 
Notice the difference between the 5th and the 6th challenge for example.
Each would lead in a slightly different direction. The 5th challenge may or
may not lead to a research based solution.
 
When we are engaged in the actual planning work we would want to interface
with the problem owner, users/students, users/faculty, advisors and others
to capture as many perceived challenges as possible without applying any
judgment. I will repeat that. No judgment is applied as we initially gather
and order the challenges. With the challenges gathered we apply additional
foresight and build a visual architecture of the challenges, a challenge
map. In some cases we might build a visual solution path map. The point is,
this is the kind of precision that is valued in our particular corner of the
universe.
 
What we think about when we look at the Irvine documents is where the kind
of precision found in that study and apparently proposed for the Irvine
school fits into the universe that we know. Where will capabilities around
those precisions allow designers to engage the world and in what manner?  We
would want to think about whether or not that kind of precision is primary,
secondary or in the background when operating in the cross-disciplinary
inclusive B4Design space.
 
With that in mind, my only concern about the Irvine strategy lies in the
nature of its embedded precision and what that seems to imply. It appears to
be inherent in the strategy document, as well as the conference itself that
an underlying and perhaps unstated goal is to reposition research protocols,
values, precisions and dare I say even exclusion behavior dynamics as
superceding all others, including the precisions and inclusion behavior
dynamics connected to cross-disciplinary strategic problem solving today.
 
Whether this is problematic or not connects back to the earlier identified
challenges and the intentions at Irvine. If the objective is: How Might
Irvine become a school focused on design research? then these precisions
might be perfectly appropriate. On the other hand if the objective is to
pursue the broader challenge of: How Might Irvine become a design education
innovation leader in the 21st century? then there may be some other things
to think about here as that challenge connects directly to the terrain of
the cross-disciplinary, inclusive world. Lets not confuse the two. To
operate and lead in the latter domain requires awareness and mastery of a
different set of precisions and behaviors today.
 
Ultimately it is up to the design research community to decide whether it
seeks a great, respectful seat, perhaps up front near the window, on the
reconstructed design train in the 21st century or the driver¹s seat. The
latter implies special responsibilities today. You must ask yourselves as a
community if you are truly ready to sit in that drivers seat. Other than
that I have no great concerns about Irvine and wish you well in your
learning journey. 

My primary concern is more in the direction of our design community in that
I would like all of us to do our part in making sure the reconstruction of
design (whichever direction it is rebuilt in) is more than a stealth
mechanism to reposition judgment, evaluation, selection, convergence as the
primary drivers and focus of a new design. We would be throwing away so much
of our true value and power in the marketplace if we did that. The forces of
pattern optimization (evaluation) and pattern creation (ideation) must
always work at balance. I believe getting them to do so will become part of
our responsibilities as designers operating in the cross-disciplinary world
of the 21st century.

The harsh reality is that a lack of deep research capability is not our only
challenge as a community, as a tribe, as a profession or series of
professions. We need to get some heavy lifters on the front lines at high
strategic altitudes who know and understand the power of next design. Others
are moving into that opportunity space who will not necessarily be design
friendly let alone design savvy. We need to get some of our folks in there
who can move through the fuzziness from unframed to framed. Why? Because
that is where the framed work streams originate. This becomes the framed
work sent downstream to our traditional design mechanisms in the form of; I
need a new book, I need a new building, I need a new product, etc. Raising
awareness around such issues is the underlying purpose of the NextD
initiative.  (For more on this subject see NextD Journal)
 
In any case I believe it would serve us well to keep this all in
perspective. It is unlikely that the nature of design will change overnight
regardless of what is or is not decided in Irvine. Instead, all of us decide
the future of design everyday through the course of our own action and
inaction. We must decide, not the Irvine team, what mechanisms, organisms
and models make sense for us to use as we engage the world everyday. We must
decide how to maintain, restore, and extend the power as well as the reach
of design in a competitive world.
 
Thanks again Ken for your invitation, your courage in taking on this event,
and your patience with me today.
 
Good luck to all of us.
Have a great weekend everyone.
See you out there in the universe!
 
GK VanPatter
Co-Founder 
NextDesign Leadership Institute
New York
 
NextD
Who will lead design in the 21st century?
http://nextd.org
...
 
 
1000 Challenges in 24 Hours?
 
PS: If anyone is interested, here is one small suggestion for a conference
finale that connects across many of the points made earlier in this
response.
 
I have a sense that some of the bumper-car dynamics have undercut the
significant and diverse brainpower participating in this conference. Not all
of us prefer to use information to judge. I am guessing that approximately
half of the participants prefer to use it to ideate, to ³dig a new hole
rather than dig the same hole deeper² to use Edward deBono language. Why not
provide an opportunity in a protected environment to enable that.
 
One possibility is to engage in some generation work in a deliberately set
compressed timeframe. I believe this could likely be done after the
completion of Ken¹s last invited speakers.
 
The group might back up into process and consider this event fact-finding.
Based on what we discovered and learned from each other, how might we build
on this new perspective? That could be our fuzzy situation.
 
Beginning 24 hours before closure of this event the group could attempt to
do some serious generation work on challenges rather than solutions. Lets
choose a big hairy audacious goal: Why not attempt to generate 1000
Challenges in 24 Hours.
 
This we do in the diverging mode. This we do with out judgment, without gate
keeping.
 
Assembly and ordering of the challenges can be done after the close of the
conference. Whatever framework emerges could become part of the knowledge
base of this community. Why not experiment a little!
 
Here are three example challenges:
 
How Might We (Ph.D. List Community)
 
create an alternate, post Irvine model of graduate design education?
 
create a new community knowledge base that spans multiple schools and
practices?
 
develop new/innovative ways to improve on-line interaction dynamics?
 
 
 
Lets have some fun with it!
 
 
End.