CPH127

What infrastructures are needed to enable bottom-up, edge-in social
innovation? And how do we design them? Doors of Perception 8 is about
these two questions.

Doors is a worldwide design and innovation network whose aim is
to learn how to design services, some of them enabled by information
technology, that meet basic needs in new ways.

Wish I could be there…..

We believe that we don’t know nothing compared to all of you. But now and then we want to provoke you with some thoughts, interesting angels on what we believe design and innovation is all about. But most of all, we want to facilitate the conversation, we sincere hope that you want to be a part of the dialogue, maybe through commenting, but also through posting directly – maybe as a guest-blogger? Please let us know.

We are much inspired by the way boxesandarrows has done it so far – would/could that model apply for CPH127 as well? Any suggestions?

Last friday I was helping out on a article to the Danish Commerce & Service on the benefit of design in the experience economy. The article is part of a larger publication and I assumed that other articles would have marketing angle and others a communication angle etc.

It got me thinking about what differentiates the design process from the other mentioned processes on a strategic level i.e. not the craftmanship level, as in designing a product versus producing a text. On that level the differences are obvious but on a higher level the processes feels more or less the same. Isn’t marketing user-centric and creative? And doesn’t communciation take basis in who the audience is? This becomes an even more interesting question if the result of the design process isn’t physical but immaterial e.g. a service design. Is a service a result of a marketing or a design process? Or rather is marketing methodology or design methodology emphazized in a service development process?

Perhaps the "new design" perspective is as much a mixture of multi-disciplinary techniques, sub-processes and methods as it is a mixture of people in a multi-disciplinary team? If it is, is this design or a completly new discipline? If it’s new, should we call it something else? Should we re-design it?

Yesterday I had a friend visiting me and as usual our talk drifted into work. Since he is an architect with a focus on large scale development we talked about the idea of user-centric city planning and what input a user observations and co-creation might bring to the table.

I know many architects use the methods I refer to and that the design and architecture processes are born out of the same thoughts. However, the table i mention above is not placed at the architect but rather at the city council - at least that is the case in Sweden and Denmark. I understand that architects are involved in the planning but my friend told me that user-centric methods are not common practise when politicians decide on the development of a given area within a city.

Personally I would love to try the design process on a large scale city planning project. After all the result of such a project directly effect peoples lives so I guess its fair to say that it would be relevant to know how people live and how they would like to live their lifes in the future before you start investmenting in a project like that.

PS. Imagine bringing the above thoughts into a project of this size…DS.

I think the concept of engaging personas and narrative scenario explores personas in the light of what what it is to identify with and have empathy with a character. You can say that the concept of narrative scenarios views the narrative as aid for exploration of design ideas. Both concepts incorporate a distinktion between creating, writing and reading.

Lene Nielsen has some very interesting perspectives on the issue.

Boxesandarrows has an interesting article on "Use of Narrative in Interactive Design", I think it does apply on design in general. Doesn’t it?

It’s saturday and I am going allow myself to do something a little funny here. A guy called Matt Siber has been doing something quite amazing. He’s been taking photos of tall poles with logos upon them. After that he manipulated them and removed the poles. That made the logos float, and the result is rather impressive.

In todays world where speed is king you have to organize in new ways. Too many disciplines focus on completeness of information for solid decision-making.

Chris Conley from Institute of Design did a presentation on exactly that topic last spring linking Design and Innovation.

One of his conclusions was – “Generating early possibilities drives projects foreward”.

I had hoped for a more updated weblog from Chris, he promised me few weeks ago

They do it all over the globe. They do it hard in Texas. They do it even harder at Stanford. Some cool guys are involved in that.

In case you are wondering I am talking about taking a serious education on innovation, creativity and the like. I am wondering why Northern Europe’s Largest Business University isn’t offering anything in this field?

In Denmark we used to have a superior education in innovation and creativity but now it’s more or less inactive or atleast not as recognized as it used to. I am a typical dot.com kind-of-guy, with no education other than my exam papers from the gym. Seriously thinking about going back to school, I’ve been looking into my possibilities. To say the least I’ve been very disappointed. I need something near, I need to get away from Denmark and most of all get away from a Pro-SoftwarePatents country. Sorry for the political post there.

Please give me your recommendations on any education near Denmark. I am very much in love with UK, so London or any other UK city would be great! I am willing to travel in UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland and maybe Switzerland. As long as I can speak English there, I’m fine. I had both german and spanish at school, but I have no clue what so ever how to speak it any more.

Peter Merholz has posted a very interesting
review of the Institute of Design’s Strategy Workshop. After
describing some models by Clement Mok, Peter goes on to presenting the
views of Peter Coughlan - the head of the transformation practice at
IDEO. The transformation practice is where IDEO really goes into managment
consulting and help companies become more innovative (at least in the IDEO way). In
many ways the practice represent the new role of design or at least the new
ambition of design.

Apart from talking about co-creation with the client - a way of work which
in it self demands new skills from the design team - Peter Coughlan
also presented the challenges in using design as a metod for organizational
innovation.

•
Fear of open-ended process

Clients want to KNOW what the
results will be. Which, of course, goes against a truly exploratory
process. Or they’re afraid that the process will get them nothing.

• Cultural fit with clients –
creating a space for success

Designers at IDEO simply behave
differently then the folks at their clients’ offices, and it can take
a while for everyone to come together.

I find the above very interesting as it pinpoints three
obstacles we - who work with design as a method for business
development - face when we try to show the companies the value of the
design process and change the perception of design from a end-result
to a way of work.

James Woudhuysen asks himself this very important question.

Design managers might find it fashionable to prostrate themselves, in the modern egalitarian style, in front of an oh-so-playfully-creative, participative, empowered and personally autonomous workforce. They may dupe themselves that everyone can be a leader. But the true design leader will be remembered for the progress won, the new businesses established, and for the insights developed, tested in action, and communicated in unambiguous words, numbers, graphics and presentations.

This is key – if you can’t link designsolutions to bottom line it doesn’t matter at all. Being part of a designprocess – or even the leader of the process – doesn’t mean anything if you’re not able to improve business in the end. Or what?