2014/10/17 08:40 Peter Jones, “Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3”, #RSD3

@redesign second day plenary at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, at AHO, Oslo, Norway

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship, posted by David Ing.

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


OCAD U. in Toronto is a sister program to the Systems Oriented Design program at AHO.

How is Relating Systems and Design evolving?

  • Have epistemologies and ontologies, what’s different?
  • A lot has been evolving in education:  practices in studio work, developed with graduate students
  • Rather than up through research
  • New ideas from working with complex social services

Gigamaps:

  • Take from field research, inform the gigamap process
  • Projects often start up as unsponsored, and find sponsors later
  • Connecting later, after school

Labs in education is where these things get started

  • Projects aimed at improving shared goals towards civilization
  • Systems school, in social systems design, deal with requisite power
  • Ann Pendleton-Jullian couldn’t be here, has presentations on Youtube

In addition, do engaged research

Want to design at the systems level

  • Change is slow
  • Still have institutions that are resilient to change, so need to be targeting slower change

Collaborations with other universities, that are systemic-centric

  • Open University (Ray Ison)
  • University of Hull (Gerald Midgley)
  • Carnegie Mellon
  • Case-Western Reserve
  • Aalto University

At OCAD U., have a Strategic Innovation Lab, research groups are becoming more systemic

  • Envision Health Group
  • Strongly Sustainable Business Model Group

Relationships and relating

  • Have 230 people at RSD3
  • Received 70 abstracts, about 40 accepted
  • Across many application
  • Interest from the ISSS to develop a track in Systemic Design, ISSS Berlin 2015 will partner

Systemic Design Research Network

  • Cooperative research group
  • Have presentations and sketchnotes online after RSD
  • Pathways to full publication, with FORMAkademisk
  • Opportunity for Systemic Design book in Springer Service Sciences series
  • Next year RSD4 at Banff

Peter Jones presenting at #RSD3

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 19:00 John Thackara, “Life’s Work:  From doing less harm, to leaving things better”, #RSD3

@johnthackara, first day plenary at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, at AHO, Oslo, Norway

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship, posted by David Ing.

Presentation http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


Introduction by Peter Jones.

  • John had worked with Doors of Perception conference
  • Issues that had a service, not given away, could be dealt with by designers and others
  • Former head of Netherland Design Institute

[John Thackara]

Graveyard slot:  the one before people get food and drink

Last year, Harvard neuroscientist presented with 86M neuron, runs on an little energy as a household light bulb

  • Mismatch between functional performance and output
  • Human brain as clever, still capable of missing a few points pertinent to long term survival
  • Runs on cool energy, doesn’t see things in front of it

Three things:

  • 1. Doing less harm would seem to be good for a designer (not as marvellous as it looks)
  • 2. Different ways where actions leave things better
  • 3. Unprincipled designing, what rules could describe leaving things better?

1. Doing less harm

Lexicon of the people who run the planet

“Growth”: without measureable deviation, growth is good

  • In Italy, politician said said growth 43 times, and energy zero times
  • In Sweden, at furniture company, spent 2 days about the things they were doing to make things better, removing lead paint, packing mattresses, procurement of wood (the 4th largest in the world), by 2025, 40% sustainable wood but also then doubling the volume, but we need the growth for sustainability project

Sounds obvious

  • How to justify doing less harm?
  • Growing to infinity on a planet that is finite doesn’t make sense.
  • Growth is in jurisprudence of company
  • Disconnect

“Developing”: almost as good as growth

  • Definition before and after is weird
  • Hunter-gatherer many years ago, would use 1 unit of energy
  • Someone climbing up stairs in skyscraper on London has some body, but needs 60x the energy
  • Caracas: getting people out of shanty towns into skyscrapers, where energy use goes up

“Risk” management:

  • Experts who measure things, and then offer you insurance
  • Risk management enables more damaging behaviour
  • Doing less harm means doing more harm

“Resilience”:

  • Dark star:  planetary boundaries for earth by Stockholm Resilience Centre
  • Resilience as the propensity to take a punch, if resilience, could take that hit
  • But then, why did that guy punch you in a face?

Metabolic rift:  Embodied creates are separated from learning the consequences of what we do

  • Filter over modern society

Noah Raford, expert on complex structures and catastrophic change

  • Checkboard vibrating, halfway through, it stops, can’t know how it will behave

Tim Morton, Ecology without Nature

  • Economic catastrophe has already occured, we are survived
  • Transformational phase shifts doesn’t already occur: eg. stopping fantasy of perpetual growth
  • 2 weeks ago:  “no new buildings, power stations or hard infrastructure after 2020”
  • WBGU Gernmany:  A global transformation of value has already begun, 72% would already welcome a more sustainable society

Catagenesis

(2) Leaving things better

Can we heal the metabolic rift?

Reconnecting with place

  • Uniqueness of a place has been overlooked for some centuries

Reconnecting with soil

  • Next year is international year of soil
  • Created a soil tasting ceremony: make tisanes, then put a separate glass with the soil where it had grown
  • Can taste connections

Lexicon for sustainability:  communication artifact and embodied experience

Soils are part of our makeup

Bioregion is a place we can appreciate, instead of the economy map

Robert L. Thayer, Jr:  Life Place, Bioregional

Soil atlas of Europe

  • Could we divide Europe by bioregional places

In New Mexico, dream of local foodsheds

Landlording:  small connections of people reconnecting to living systems and the land

  • Fordhall Community Land Initiative, 8000 people bought the land of a farmer

Watershed recovering in Straw, USA

  • Repairing rivers, fields, with own hands

Reconnecting with rivers (Mexico City)

Philadelpha The Vanishing Point, water underground, restoring the river regenerating that used to be integrated

Watershed regenerating in Jamaica Bay, USA

  • Plant things in the soil that will eat up toxicity

Farming as schooling, in Yorkshire

  • Economics surprising

Pollinator wayfinding in Seattle

  • Bees are in trouble, make a map of a city, find what bees like, and ask people to plant in garden

Watershed management in Tuscon

  • Street by street, volunteers doing rain water management, tearing up concrete, putting in drainage

Urban orcharding, Dundee

Urbanologyjeitinho:  Degree of social infrastructure that is self-organized

Nomadic incubating:  Crate Brewery, in Hackney, London

  • Lab in a microbrewery, where social innovation can happen

(3) Unprincipled designing

  • If we try hard enough, we can not be defeated by complexity, finding ways to nudge systems rather than controlling them
  • Western educated people have a problem with binary thinking:  only one or the other
  • Design-minded, looking for things that could be done better, but without a complicated schema
  • A search for order, point of intervention, has gotten us into trouble

Ranulph Glanville:  Models of the world are not the world

Polyphasic perception

  • Aboriginal people can understand the world in a different way

You can’t know what it’s like to be old, unless you’re old

There’s a gigantic support ecology that doesn’t exist at all, it’s already there, e.g. families

Don’t talk about delivering things:  systems health is a property of a concept

Attend to root causes:  Marc Rettig

Slime mold:  health of a social-ecological system (Ernst Haeckel 1904)

Design like a slime mold?


Sketchnoting of John Thackara presentation by Patricia Kambitsch at https://twitter.com/playthink/status/524374724759916544

Sketchnote of John Thackara presentation by Patricia Kambitsch

twitter.com/johnthackara

See also John Thackara “Green Tourism: From ‘Do Less Harm’ to ‘Leave Things Better’ at http://designonline.org.au/content/green-tourism-from-do-less-harm-to-leave-things-better/

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 16:15 David Ing, “An Invitation to Service Systems Thinking: Collaborating on a New Generative Pattern Language”, #RSD3

First day presentation by @daviding at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, in Theories and Methods track, at AHO, Oslo, Norway, moderated by @redesign

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


This presentation takes a risk by jumping over the background materials (Conversations for Orientation) to focus on Conversations for Possibilities.  Interested parties mystified by this content may want to look at the two 90-minute videos of “Incubating Service Systems Thinking” at http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/incubating-service-systems-thinking/ .

Sketchnote on presentation by David Ing drawn by Danielle Olson at https://twitter.com/DROdesigner/status/522751044154310657 .

Sketchnote on presentation by David Ing, drawn by Danielle Olson

Sketchnote on presentation by David Ing, drawn by Patricia Kambitsch at https://twitter.com/playthink/status/523126303625850880 .

image

Presentation slides are available at http://coevolving.com/commons/201410-an-invitation-to-service-systems-thinking.

An Invitation to Service Systems Thinking

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 15:30 Peter Jones, “Design Methods for Systemic Design Research”, #RSD3

First day presentation by @redesign at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, in Theories and Methods track, at AHO, Oslo, Norway, moderated by @redesign

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship by David Ing.

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


Systemic Design course at OCAD U., have been developing curricula jointly with AHO, also presenting Gigamaps

Also do research that gets presented outside of the academy

Part of article in Social Systems and Design book in Translational Systems Science (Gary Metcalf, editor), Springer 2014

Systemic principles to design principles, so communities can share

  • Comes from strong history of systems theory

If look at a practice like Gigamapping that comes from working on real problems, can integrate other models and systems theories

Systemic design as something different in systems thinking, in design application

  • Can apply systems theory, maybe use it to fill some gaps in design theory

At OCAD U., in two courses, don’t have the time to cover systems theory

  • Looking for bridging
  • Going from good theory to practice

Have working theories and practice that are valuable

Theory gets embodied and embedded in methods

  • However, power tool methods shouldn’t be treated as cookbook, not a proverbial hammer to be looking for systemic or wicked problems
  • Should look at contexts that methods are looked in

Systems sciences has preferred theories, with some methods for explanation, for control, used in science

  • Informative of design
  • But then the converse, of design methods to systems sciences, they’re more abstract
  • Gigamapping may now be getting to understanding, don’t see at the systems conferences (and maybe not cybernetics conferences)

Design thinking is still very much abstract

Coming from social systems design:  its own school of thought after the split in the systems and cybernetics community after the fall of the Club of Rome

  • It wasn’t what people thought was systems thinking
  • Peter Senge, System Dynamics
  • Social systems design is good, since we’re designing in the anthropocene (as an example)

Could get smarter about the school of social systems design

Didn’t work well in management practices

  • e.g. Fifth Discipline, System Dynamics, best in the early 1990s, but it didn’t last
  • Fred Collopy wrote that systems thinking failed because it wasn’t usable
  • Responded that it wasn’t a failure, it wasn’t working well
  • Systems dynamics is positivist, presumes can capture parts fo the present and they can be projected into the future, and then management can intervene
  • In our cultural history, they’ve been discarded
  • MIT school also didn’t offer design practices

Ackoff school had process thinking, but not design-friendly

Hasan Ozbehkhan did think as design problems, but not as design process

Design people may not understand theoretical underpinnings

  • Sometimes you only get one chance to make a difference, so only one method

Selection of research methods and design methods, based on research intent

  • << diamond diagram >>
  • Agree with Latour that all design is redesign

Ten principles in the article (and there could be more):  what was shared in the RSD overlap?

1. Idealization

2. Appreciating complexity (wickedness)

3. Purpose finding

4. Boundary framing (and judgements)

5. Requisite variety

6. Feedback coordination

7. System ordering

8. Generative emergence

9. Continuous evaluation

10. Self-organzation

No net new theory, here.

  • So much of what we’ve already learned (beyond what David Ing says in the last 10 years), but these are really not new

Design methods associated with principles

1. Idealization is same in methods, multiple ideal states; in Ackoff, could be approximated

  • Framing, reframing, who should be involved in framing
  • Iteration is part of this
  • Backcasting is working back from an idealization

2. Appreciating complexity

  • Understanding the unsolvability
  • Some sensemaking (e.g. Durbin, Weick, but usually in retrospect rather than prospect)

3. Purpose finding

  • Finding core purposes that will be shared
  • Can be done with inquiry or prototyping

4.  Boundary framing

  • Critical probes, strange-making

 


See “Systemic design principles for complex social systems” (author’s manuscript)| Peter Jones at https://www.academia.edu/5063638/Jones_P.H._Systemic_design_principles_for_complex_social_systems

Social Systems and Design (Translational Systems Sciences), Gary S. Metcalf (

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 14:05 Alfred Clatworthy Holmen and Gyuchan Thomas Jun”, How easily understandable complex multi-layered system maps are? — A study on the usability of complex interactive diagrams”, #RSD3

Gyuchan Thomas Jun first day presentation at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, in Theories and Methods track, at AHO, Oslo, Norway, moderated by @redesign

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarshipby David Ing.

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


Thomas is at Loughborough University, presenting on behalf of Alfred who is a student.

Focused on healthcare

have a lot of systems and process maps:  UML, SysML, etc.

Mapping / modelling to identify complexity, aid understanding, improve communication

About 10 years ago, was looking at basic elements

  • Links and nodes
  • Hierarchical links, sequential links, information links
  • Nodes could be people, activity, information
  • Three different links with three different views

Study:  patient discharge processes

  • Did UML diagrams, reviews with healthcare workers
  • Will they accept with the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)?

Main finding:  a single diagram cannot effectively capture the full range of perspectives in complex healthcare

e.g. State Transition Diagram for patient status was found helpful

Study 2:  Tried 7 different diagrams (e.g. service blueprint, communications model)

  • Gave them diagrams, asked them which ones they found helpful

Found:

  • Participants familiarity with real pathways (as opposed to those who only came 6 months ago)
  • Psychologist who wasn’t visualize choose one diagram at random
  • Half chose state transition diagrams as best, was in line with the mental model; communication diagram as second, free flow diagrams as third (three people had 20 years experience, the format doesn’t matter).

Study 3:  Safer Medicine Management Pathways

  • Was given three 3-hour workshops, not enough time for systems mapping
  • Expensive to get users
  • Also inconsistent and uneven participation (only have came for all workshops, some only came for last workshop, e.g. social workers were under reorganization)
  • How to prevent complexity in system maps?

OpenIdeo platform

Study 4:  Interactive zoom in/out

Used Prezi

Time was taken until participants felt that they had a good understanding of the map content

Results found weren’t a lot different, just slightly more positive


Sketchnote of presentation by Gyuchan Thomas Jun, drawn by Patricia Kambitsch at https://twitter.com/playthink/status/522865226765463553

Sketchnote of presentation by Gyuchan Thomas Jun, drawn by Patricia Kambitsch

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 14:05 Daniela Sangiorgi, “Bringing Complexity into Service Design Research”, #RSD3

Daniela Sangiorgi, first day plenary presentation at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, at AHO, Oslo, Norway

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship by David Ing.

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


Introduction by Manuela Aguirre

  • Daniela is at Imagination Lancaster, Lancaster U.

[Daniela Sangiorgi]

Not an expert in systems theory of systems design, will do best

Are of research is service design

  • Had done research into complexity
  • Can understand perspectives in practice

Originally from Milano

  • Had a few years in Denmark
  • Moved into group in Lancaster

Imagination Lancaster

  • Have been following relationship between services and design
  • Have been looking into change issues and implementation issues

Models of design evolution (from Buchanan, 2002:11)

  • Sumbols, thinkgs, action, thought
  • Smbolss, things,

Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 Organizational Transformation Design, 4.0 Social Transformation Design

Four generations of design methods

  • First
  • Sceond
  • Third
  • Fourth:

Service design originals:

  • Service as an object of design, foucus ont he design process and design management
  • Service as a complex interface, focus on specificity of design intervention

Interaction paradigm

Emerging practices in design of service interactions:  with complexity, and participation

  • from one to one to many to many;
  • from sequential to open-ended interactions;
  • from within to amongst organizations

Service design is:

  • scaling up

Design for Services Map:  Meroni and Sangiori, 2011

  • Services growing in complexity

First project:  service car

Then changing product service for manufacturing company

Support aging

Different levels and modes of practice:  communications, service experience, … policy

Embedded designer, …

Systems metaphors and approaches (Jackson)

  • Systems as simple or complex
  • Participants as unitary, pluralist or coercive

So

  • Simple systems:  hard systems thinking, soft systems approaches, emancipatory systems thinking
  • Complex systems:  systems dynamics or organizational cybernetics or complexity theory, soft systems approaches, postmodern systems thinking

Philosophies:  functionalist, interpretative, emancipatory, postmodern

Drivers for complexity:

  • Scale:  blueprint to service ecology
  • Participation: co-design to co-creation
  • Transformation: …. to …

(1) Scaling

Experience-based design in education system redesign

Service systems

  • Service supply system, leading to service blueprint
  • Complex service systems (Maglio), leading to service ecology

Service blueprint, Zeithaml and Bitner

Reflects interdependence and interaction (applying Jackson)

Multi-level service design

Functionalist perspective informs service operations and development … different from a service ecology coming from interaction design (Nardi, 2000)

Service ecology used a lot in service designs, emerging structure

  • We see some of this in Gigamapping

Interpretative perpsective is used within a collaborative system

(2) Participation

Customer participation

In some cases, seen as a problem

  • Customer as a “partial employee” (Bitner)

Service co-design: setting up user involvement where users and frontline personnel are given generative tools

Requisite variety:  who should participate?

Pluralistic and inclusive approach

Participation as service coproduction

  • Often used in public services with customers

Participation as empowerment and emancipation

  • May be involved with community or citizen empowerment
  • Community action research

Social change projects, e.g. alcohol reduction

Experience based design

Critical systems heuristics:  who will benefit from these designs

Service design and emancipation has limited critical reflection on power dynamics and boundary making

Different approaches in co-design from co-creation

(3) Transformation

Focus not on solutions, but on capacity for change

One way to do this is by embedding design

Can find toolkit and design labels, e.g. Social Innovation Lab for Kent

Hard to embed design, organizations are full of design legacies

Formative context is a set of institutional arrangements and cognitive imagers (Ciborra and Lanzara 1994)

Interpretative:  how to change the minds of managers

Services are indeterminate, because they are performances

  • Can’t plan and control, can plan and condition

Generative emergence (Goldstein 1999)

Design in Use:  not just when designed

Design as infrastructuring

  • As platforms or infrastructures for agonistic public spaces

Postmodern systems thinking

Existence of tacit system perspectives and philosophies

Systemic design concerned with higher order systems that encompass multiple subsystems (Jones)

Make tacit understanding of services and systems explicit and positive (Jackson)

Role, influence an disposition of ecology of actors (Suchman)

Reflexivity of practitioners (Sangiorgi)


Sketchnote of presentation by Daniela Sangiorgi, drawn by Patricia Kambitsch at https://twitter.com/playthink/status/522866602690101249

image

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 12:00 Gabi Schaffzin and Zach Kaiser, “Designing For Our New Scale”, #RSD3

@GabiSchaffzin and @zacharykaiser, first day presentation at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, in Theories and Methods track, at AHO, Oslo, Norway, moderated by @redesign

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship by David Ing.

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


Gabi is at Massachusetts College of Art; Zach is at Michigan State U.

Will present a provocation

  • What does it mean to design for scale?

A critical theoretical frame

Growth hacking:  a subgenre of value creation

  • Some based in Boston
  • Startups are design for astronomical growth, e.g. 30% month over month
  • Growth as typical business executives not enough now
  • Attitude and ideology brings up unquestioned value of growth

Historical critiques of economic growth isn’t new

  • Meadows, Limits to Growth
  • Schumacher, Small is Beautiful
  • Can such causes be effective for long, or do they have their own seeds of construction
  • Economic growth will lead to bottlenecks
  • Schumacher is being read by startups, recreating in cloud, away from materiality

Correlation between growth and innovation

  • Big data
  • Algorithms and increasing computational power
  • Platform technologies

Value in intangible, scalability has a new importance and meaning

  • Dynamic scalable

Met with a small internal group at an insurance company

  • New developments changing ways that consumer were interacting:  platforms, big data and algorithms
  • Insurance is more complicated than plane travel
  • Computation has become more sophisticated, can analyze how customers are similar

Web page:  coverhound, enter auto insurance information

  • In practice, really complicated
  • Data
  • Signing with Facebook or Google Plus
  • Similar people, or to some connected people
  • Of a thousand data points, fill in a few

Can gather data, crunch to spit out inferences

Problems:

  • Underlying ideologies, e.g. APIs, more than just neutral or true
  • Ideologies impacting technologies and world

Platforms enable access to information, while distancing self

  • API has to submit to metrics that designer of platforms choose, e.g. Youtube gives most popular videos, not least popular

Problems with big data:

  • Apophenia, finding patterns where none exist
  • Unequal access
  • Myth of objectivity: some have non-IRB-approved research

Algorithms

  • Algorithms communicate with one another, leaving humans of bystanders, e.g. $23.6 million book listing on Amazon
  • For insurance, it might not matter that much
  • If we accept terms and conditions in exchange for results, not just a service
  • Everything measurable?

Big data and positivism

  • Turns us away from thinking about wickedness in problems

As designers, as we grapple with platforms, algorithms and big data, what can we do?

  • Make art!
  • Fuller and Goffey, Evil Media — the least systemic work:  affectlessness

Counter afflectlessness though affect, i.e. art

  • Make things visible and tangible

Whisper:  a project where everything is anticipated, making inferences


Sketchnote of presentation by Gabi Schaffzin and Zach Kaiser, drawn by Patricia Kambitsch at https://twitter.com/playthink/status/522864791098912768

Sketchnote of presentation by @gabischaffzin and @zacharykaiser, drawn by Patricia Kambitsch

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 11:15 Keren Perla, “The Pledge, the Turn, and the Prestige: Re-imagining facilitation through trials of systemic design for public policy”, #RSD3

Keren Perla, first day presentation at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, in the Service Design and Design for Public Services track, at AHO, Oslo, Norway, moderated by Alex Ryan

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship by David Ing.

RSD program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


Presentation on Prezi at http://prezi.com/vjt1x0yuvd_v/the-pledge-the-turn-and-the-prestige/

Director of Foresight and Design, Department of Energy, Government of Alberta

Emphasis on facilitation

Christopher Nolan’s movie on magicians:  pledge, turn and prestige

  • This is similar in facilitation

Systemic design is similar

Have been in experiment in government

  • Could use in multiple context:  aboriginals, early childhood

Role of designer as a facilitator

  • Government has accountability for design

Facilitation is well known, systemic design is new

Failure may be by holding core values

  • 1. Impartiality
  • 2. Process-focused
  • 3. Results

First time, observed Alex Ryan

  • Person went on a tangent for an hour
  • Said that he didn’t have an agenda for afternoon
  • Looked like he didn’t have the impartiality, process or lead towards a result
  • But results were eventually successful
  • So, why?

The Pledge:  Impartiality

  • Master of impartial arts, no hidden agenda
  • Neutral party seen as key to facilitation
  • Issues with authority or subject matter expertise
  • Have people with design experience, so systemic design brings content back:  an ethical dilemma for facilitator
  • Nudging content as positive
  • As an internal facilitator, have to cloak in impartiality, challenged to negotiate as neutral
  • Intervention as last ditch scenario
  • Pause and reflect about interventions

The Turn, as slight of hand:  process guide

  • Core belief that process is as important as the result
  • Transparency
  • Systemic design a problem
  • Process gain and process lock:  eventualities that can’t be thought about in advance
  • How to understand effectiveness: introducing new energy that can be reused
  • Not preplanning, but on breaking from legacy thinking
  • Art of War:  quick responses to changing environment
  • Could have an uncomfortable crowd, asking what is the path
  • Systemic design:  trying to maximize potential for emergence, won’t necessarily understand what you’re looking for

The Prestige:  Results

  • What is emergent?
  • Facilitator focuses on achieving emotional and business results
  • Systemic design is to unleash something that haven’t seen before
  • Have to accommodate two audiences:  some people who want progress, and some people who want to reframe
  • The difference between building roads and building houses
  • Both have one entry point and one exit point
  • Not just trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat, trying to create super-rabbit

Systemic design as a way to get from the ordinary to the extraordinary

  • Have a Trojan horse scenario
  • Issue of continuity, from design facilitator back to sponsor, to people who were not at sessions

Sketchnote of Karen Perla presentation by Danielle Olson at https://twitter.com/DROdesigner/status/523417087306649601

Sketchnote of Keren Perla presentation by Danielle Olson

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 10:40 Hans Kaspar Hugentobler, “Design Science in Healthcare”, #RSD3

Hans Kaspar Hugentobler, first day presentationat #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, in the Service Design and Design for Public Services track, at AHO, Oslo, Norway, moderated by Alex Ryan

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship by David Ing.

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


From Lucerne U. of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland

Not a big community in design research in Switzerland

Speaking on behalf of 3 other researchers

Pitched ideas to work in hospitals

  • Design ethnography as basic method
  • Design process through experiential learning (Kolb), as patients working through health pathways

Objective:  Optimized discharge management outcomes by means of designed patient pathways

  • Gynecological clinic in hospital in Switzerland canton, wanted optimizing the length of women
  • Health care consulting company wanted an extended method

Frame project as intersection between design and organization science, see Rome (2003) relevance gap in org science research to be closed by design research

  • What processes?
  • At that time, only two other studies, in Denmark and with National Health Service
  • Wanted to reframe design research

Issues at beginning on nexus of patient pathways and individual experience

  • Sources of complexity from institutional and personal
  • Challenge for design thinking with people at the centre
  • Patient pathways: Have big picture supply chain, and local issues

Research objectives

  • Scientific goal:  Can we create evidence, demonstrate design research
  • Research question:  In what way can process-based patient journeys and context-related case story produce an evidence base for process design optimization of patient pathways, and encourage an optimal duration of hospital stay?

Research process, 3 phases:

  • 1. Analysis of patient journals: 7 pregnant women, 26 clinic staff (midwives, doctors)
  • 2.1 Cocreation session with everyone involved
  • 2.2 Could have a design synthesis and realization phase, not yet conducted (December)
  • 3. Will have a methods evaluation with hospital and consultancy

Analysis with patients found 19 issues in 3 realms

  • Grounded theory on transcripts
  • Mapped issues across attention, entry, engagement, exit, extension
  • Issues according to agency:  hospital (defining), interaction (with patients), and patients (experience / results)

Brought results into workshop

  • Difficult to get time of staff
  • Brought in patients
  • Workshop evolved naturally
  • Three questions:
  • 1. How might we collaboratively design an ideal discharge process?
  • 2. How might we proceeed in order to bring about the difference that makes a difference?
  • 3. How might I play the role of design facilitator?
  • Hospital new to working with design researchers

Workshops created 6 ideas

  • Discharge seemed cold and chaotic as compared to welcome

Triangulation on evidence

  • Had one new idea:  addressing psychological issues
  • Practices are defined by the organization; want to be empathic with women, but mothers can’t bring own midwives

Sketchnote of presentation by Hans Kaspar Hugentobler, drawn by Danielle Olson at https://twitter.com/DROdesigner/status/522753844795953152
Sketchnote of presentation by Hans Kaspar Hugentobler, drawn by Danielle Olson

#design, #systems-thinking

2014/10/16 09:00 Ranulph Glanville, “How design and cybernetics reflect each other”, #RSD3

Ranulph Glanville, first day plenary at #RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, at AHO, Oslo, Norway

Presentation at Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3, at AHO, Oslo, Norway

This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship, posted by David Ing.

Program is at http://systemic-design.net/rsd3-2014/program/


Introduction by Birger Sevaldson

  • If you have a flu, please stay away from Ranulph

[Ranulph Glanville]

Won’t talk about the abstract says

How design and cybernetics reflect each other

  • This is what he’s been doing for the last 40 years

Enjoyed dropping into preconference workshops yesterday

  • Seeing who was here, rethought what would say today
  • May offend people, things should be said as simple as possible
  • In the old Design Museum in London, “design is simplifying, not complicating”
  • One of two approaches:  Pask, collect everything, and shove it in
  • Ranulph’s approach is the strip it down, until there’s nothing to say about nothing
  • Could be offensive

Seems to be more people here using systems than cybernetics

  • May try to say if there are any differences between cybernetics and systems

Will say some things about design, because people will have different views

Always an intention to do this without slides

  • CEO of Autodesk doesn’t use slides, because you look at eye candy, and don’t listen to what I’m saying
  • They stop improvising
  • Pre-program everything
  • Plodding continuity
  • Australian writer, weasel words, cliches from management jargon, including bullet points and Powerpoints
  • Powerpoint is a medium for presenting holiday snaps, and presenting assertions

Two words: cybernetics and systems

  • In world of meetings, the words seem antagonistic:  ISSS and ASC
  • Used to feel threatened, not necessary to be that way
  • Does it matter?

Cybernetics, in modern usage, came in 1948

  • Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics
  • 7 years later, The Human Use of Human Beings, which is the book that should have been published first
  • A lot of misunderstand, if he had published first
  • First book is mathematical, the second book is a way of thinking, and a way of being in the world

1949, von Bertalanffy published General Systems Thinking

Cybernetics goes back to Aristotle, using Greek word of helmsman or steersman

  • Goes together with system, as cybernetics systems

Cybernetics tends to be more abstract

  • Systems tends to be more pragmatic
  • Not a reason for squabbling

A lot of people in cybernetics say that it doesn’t matter which word is used

  • Mean more or less the same thing
  • If there’s a difference, it’s abstract versus pragmatics
  • Charles Francois, International Encyclopedia of Cybernetics and Systems: position is that cybernetics is the dynamic complement of systems
  • Typical diagram, systems people interested in boxes, cybernetics people interested in the arrows

Ride bicycle, steer boats

  • Have looked straight ahead, don’t have to adjust steering
  • If you don’t move anything in 100 metres, you’re off the road
  • Steering is difficult
  • Can’t just point
  • World is full of surprises and arrow, that don’t quite match the model
  • When we steer, we have ways of adjusting
  • Ways for little arrows
  • Models of the world are not the world
  • Imagination of how the world works is not how the world works

Cybernetics is based on two surprising things:

  • (1) Error:  we accepted that error is endemic, there’s always error
  • Challenge is not to eradicate error, but how to live with error
  • One way is to turn it into opportunity
  • (2) Cybernetics is responsive
  • Adjust, respond to changes in situation

Name of this process is usually “feedback”

  • Suggests isn’t something tiny that goes back to something chunky
  • Prefer the work “circularity”
  • It’s about information
  • Ross Ashby: cybernetics aren’t subject to the laws of physics, but instead the laws of information
  • Circularity: want to go somewhere, sense where going, then adjust

Another example, the thermostat

  • Set temperature
  • When room gets cold, it turns on central heating device
  • Space in room heats up, until exceeds temperature, turns off
  • Switch on the wall, heat supply system
  • Furnace controls switch
  • In circularity, it’s not as we think:  each is the controller of the other
  • Maybe the reasons we think this way is because we’re thinking of energy, which could lead to feedback thinking

Instead of saying switch controlling, say switch observing

  • Switch observes the environment
  • In a circular system, both observe each other
  • If have switch and furnace, shrink box down to include both:  as an observer wanting to observe a thermostatic system that is observing circularity
  • Traditionally, would look at it, and not touch it, be objective, be a non-observer:  silly as a position, science has managed to do this

In 1968, Margaret Mead, anthropologist, one of the first to put into practice that the observer shouldn’t stand outside, but engage

  • Should consult them, and be part of their life
  • Talked with ASC: how about applying cybernetics to yourselves
  • We never did, spent to last 6 years trying to get application to ASC
  • Didn’t quite fall on deaf ears
  • Asked cybernetics to behave with a self-consistency
  • Observe the thermostat, isn’t the observation circular?
  • Treat the outside cycle of the observer, the same was as the interior cycle:  the origin of second order cybernetics
  • Bringing a form of consistency
  • Observer isn’t optional
  • Heinz von Foerster:  cybernetics has illusion that can be done without himself or herself

Turn to design, multiple meaning

  • “He has designs on her”, meaning he wanted to get her into bed
  • Dutch and Germans don’t have these sense of design:  giving form to things, gestalten as making complete
  • English:  design came in around 1480, both from Italian
  • Was given talk:  who people observe patterns, homo designata?
  • Drawing, designating, both came in, somewhat confused

Design as a noun, and as a verb

  • People who design, see as verb
  • People who assess, design as a noun
  • A way of doing things, or an outcome of doing
  • Assessing, being told not good or not good enough, know that as a designer, leads for improvement
  • It’s not about perfection
  • How do I make it more perfect, as a designer?

Art school and the engineering university

  • In the UK, two different traditions, started about 1850
  • How you act in the world
  • Art school is interested in novelty, good enough
  • University gives a research tradition, interested in efficiency and best
  • Tend to have people battling about who’s right
  • Need to keep this in mind, don’t need to resolve the differences, just have to be nice about them

The earliest definition of design in the western world the best:  Vitruvius

  • More about design than about architecture
  • At the RSA, before joining engineering design architecture, divided into designers and non-designers
  • Non-designers from medicine, quantum gravity physics, and an architect
  • Vitruvius:  firmitas, being well constructed
  • Second, functional
  • Third, delight — which is better than beauty
  • We’re not designing, unless we have delight
  • It’s the difference between humans and machines

An extraneous thing about design that is important:  we are preserving every bug we can find

  • We might tread on something that might be useful in the future, e.g. a bug that could become a medicine in the future
  • We seem to only want to preserve only one way of thinking
  • Design gives us a different way of talking about a problem:  enormously important
  • Worth preserving
  • Should be valuing design in this way

Conversation:  the bridge between cybernetics and design

  • A minimal conversation is between two people
  • Going to cafe, end of evening, can’t remember how we got there
  • Conversation has a slippage
  • A way of being with someone else, in which we don’t have to play to understand the same thing
  • Meaning is in my head and your head, they’re different and unavailable to each other
  • If want to communicate unambiguously with verbal language, you join the army, and learn to become an automaton to respond to specific commands
  • Listen, respond
  • Can go in parallel, without know what the other thinks, but can go on, knowing that the other person understands
  • When have a conversation, there’s always a metaconversation
  • Better than substrata:  what’s this conversation really all about

In a conversation, assume two different sets of understanding, and can participate

  • What we get from someone else, hope it’s their version, which is always a little bit different
  • Can’t have a conversation when you parrot back:  kids will do this
  • Conversation is a circular activity, each saying things
  • Conversation has to participants

A conversation with yourself? How to do that?

  • Do you think you’re always the same one person?
  • When we’re at home, different from when we’re at work
  • Different ways of being
  • Can recognize how we are in the world:  many people, that fit together

Can also make a mark in a piece of paper, and come back later:  it looks different

  • The piece of paper is having a conversation with you

This activity is at the center of designing:  it’s what makes design design

  • Otherwise, you’re doing problem solving
  • Can make a mark, and see it differently than when you meant it

This is a major sort of novelty in design

  • Difference between marking and being
  • Not an error, it’s an opportunity
  • Designers having conversations with themselves:  find the new
  • This is how designers find
  • Doesn’t mean not dealing with the functional aspects
  • Just means that it leaves room for the delight, making something you hadn’t expected
  • This form of activity is entirely cybernetic

Thus, cybernetics and design are two sides of the same coin


Sketchnote by @playthink Patricia Kambitsch https://twitter.com/playthink/status/522869939255132160

image

 

Sketchnote by @DRODesigner Danielle Olson https://twitter.com/DROdesigner/status/522746491757412352

Sketchnote of Ranulph Glanville presentation, Danielle Olson

#design, #systems-thinking