Thanks GK for a very constructive and useful post!

I agree with most of your observations, and with the idea that it is
very important for us, or any group of people, to begin to learn and
develop, or even design, new structures and practices of interaction
with the new tools and media, and reflect on what is actually
happening in/with them.

On the other hand, I think that as part of the learning we must find
a way to accommodate a variety of practices and conversational
styles, and in spite of 'old styles' possibly even dominating the
activities, find a way to gradually mix in more of the 'new' - of
whatever variety that might be.

In this the archives etc. - some new designed dynamic immaterial
artifacts that improve the usefulness of the list - would probably be
invaluable, because they could emphasize the most valuable and
interesting, thus helping us to evolve the list.

You are also describing a very interesting area of design that you
are practicing. Maybe you could tell more about how you see that you
are involved in the design of social systems in your projects?

best, kh

...
At 19:24 -0400 20.8.2003, GK VanPatter wrote:
>Apologies for being brief but we are in the middle of an innovation strategy
>project here.
>
>I was interested to see the comments that were posted earlier regarding what
>was referred to as the style and dynamics of the list as well as the later
>suggestion prescribing courage. For those who might be interested, below are
>a few observations that are based in practice.
>
>It is no secret that dynamics of conversation can, over time, and through
>repetition, impact participation, ideation and ultimately entire cultures.
>We see this often in our innovation and understanding work with large
>organizations. The reality is that this terrain is of huge importance to
>many companies today, especially those who find themselves in the position
>of having few ideas in their pipelines.
>
>I will quickly point out that this is just one example of how the issues on
>the list are not always isolated to that community but are often
>representational of issues found in the business world where clients exist.
>It is not likely possible to over state the importance of this realization
>as in our problems can be found many opportunities for design to serve and
>help others.
>
>Surfacing issues around dialogue dynamics in the real world of business is
>tricky. In our practice we are sometimes asked to work this terrain. We do
>this by decoding and mapping such dynamics as visual architectures.
>
>Consciously or unconsciously the list (community) has a dynamic, the origins
>of which, despite the technology, could likely be traced back to the time of
>Socrates. It is a dynamic that is deeply embedded in the academic community
>and also appears in western business culture. At the heart of the dynamic is
>the idea of adding value through criticism and judgment. Unfortunately they
>knew little about innovation dynamics in Ancient Greece.
>
>I do encourage graduate design students on this list to think, think, think
>about what this means if you haven't already. Think about how you are
>learning to add value to conversations yourself. Think about how others are
>learning to do so. Some of the others may become your clients soon. Think
>about what this means in terms of problems and opportunities for the future
>of design. There are many avenues worthy of design research there.
>
>I propose today that we be adventuresome. Why not invite a brave graduate
>student or group of students to take on the challenge of mapping the
>architecture of the conversations on this list, or at least a representative
>sample. Suspended in time, they can conveniently be found in the archives.
>Such research would likely surface substantial insights.
>
>Based on our experiments and experience in practice I am guessing that what
>you will likely find is a considerable disconnect between the stated or
>implied intentions of the list and the actual conversation dynamics that
>spring from deeply embedded behaviors. I am guessing that this list likely
>has a judgments to ideas ratio in the 100 to 1 range. It would be very
>interesting to see what the numbers actually are.
>
>In our consulting practice we have undertaken this kind of exploration by
>filming the interaction occurring between client employees in sample problem
>solving meetings and then deconstructing the dialogue. To do this we use,
>what we call a Dialogue Architecture Framework that we have had in
>development for some time. When the visual deconstruction and analysis is
>presented, the participants are often very surprised by what they see. Most
>people have the best of intentions in what they do, but conversation
>dynamics spring from the level of learned behaviors rather than intents.
>
>When doing this kind of work it becomes important to understand the close
>interconnections between purpose and process. If the purpose is to create a
>debating society then the default Socrates-like model might be perfect. If
>the purpose is to create a sustainable innovative capability or culture
>where ideas must be grown from seeds, then an organization may have to
>substantially rethink much of what it is doing conversationally. It
>therefore becomes important not to mix the purpose from one model with the
>process from another.
>
>Changing such dynamics in organizations typically involves a significant
>unlearning curve as those default behaviors are deeply rooted in many adults
>who consider themselves to be among the best and the brightest. There in
>lies very difficult news for some organizations but also huge opportunity
>for design as the future unfolds, if we can better understand our own
>behaviors.
>
>In traditional design practice you will not find the tools and models to
>address such challenges but we believe this to be rich terrain for future
>design leaders.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>GK VanPatter
>NextDesign Leadership Institute
>New York