GK's clarifications to Carma are helpful, and he provides some nice
formulations ("pattern creation", etc.). I also find much of value in the
on-line NextD journal.
I'd appreciate some further clarification, though. I'm wondering what is
"next" about many of the ideas. Facilitatively separating process from
content, paying attention to "judgement criteria" explicitly as opposed to
implicitly embedding criteria in discussions, brainstorming without
shooting new ideas down, involving designers and other
stakeholders/participants in strategy and other pre-design activities,
placing emphasis on human-human interaction in design processes -- these
are all good things, but none of them are new. The participatory design
'movement,' process consultation (as taught by NTL among others), books
like "How to Make Meetings Work," facilitative techniques associated with
Rittel's work (such as Jeff Conklin's Dialog Mapping), some of Senge's and
others' work around systems thinking and how to practice it facilitatively,
"relational leadership" development techniques such as those taught at the
Center for Creative Leadership -- these are just a few sources that come to
mind that teach these principles and associated techniques.
Not having been trained in a design school, I can't comment on whether
these activities and orientations are taught in most design programs or
not, and if they aren't, I support GK's argument that they ought to be. But
they are not new in industry (albeit not as widely practiced as they should
be). As someone who has worked in industry as a user interface designer, a
manager of web and IT design groups, a participatory design facilitator,
and a client of many different consultancies (including Scient) over the
last 15 years or so, I can say that such activities are widespread enough
in practice to be considered commonplace.
As one example, during the dot-com boom, seemingly every consultancy
offered innovation rooms, labs, or centers that combined many of these
characteristics, along with promoting some variation of participatory
design, ethnographically informed analysis, and so on. As a client not only
of Scient but Razorfish, Sapient, Accenture, and others, I experienced
engagements (and/or sales pitches) from many firms, each of which promoted
their "unique" approach drawn from some combination of these elements (they
also all tended to disparage the activities of the other firms, saying only
they knew how to do it right). These were often quite well and
professionally done. But not new or unique.
No doubt I am missing something, and would appreciate additional insight.
Thanks,
Al
|