A few days ago I facilitated a workshop about Social Software - especially the use of Weblogs, Technorati, Bloglines and Flickr. It was a part of a Master Programme at CBS.
One of the participants reminded me of a very interesting theory on Complex Responsive Processes that I read last year.
The reason why I think it’s interesting in a design, innovation and leadership perspective is because of trying to find the answers on the following questions:
- Who am I and how have I come to be who I am?
- Who are we and how have we come to be who we are?
- How are we all changing, evolving and learning?
I have been engaged in these questions myself and been working with them through a process of developing an understanding of my embodied values and in what way I am able to live these values in my practice. My identity.
Stacey has
placed emphasis on the importance of relating in his second question “How have
we become to be who we are?” He addresses this question through his theory of Complex Responsive Processes
I think the third question is answered by the way we communicate. Does that make sense? Is it btw. applicable to the thoughts of design thinking? What do you think?
I just came by an interesting article that I want to share with you….
"Many managers disdain organizations that put a premium on the way things have always been done around here over those that champion bold and rapid decision making. Ironically, as this author states, making the right decision is less important than focusing on how the decision is made the process. In a compelling argument he makes the case that examining how decisions are made, rather than the decisions themselves, will lead to better decisions."
Read more here.
Any thoughts?
From “Putting-people first” I came by Phillips “Simplicity-led-design”. I think the Philips-guy’s are great people, and very innovative at the same time.
And I also find it amazing that they can come up with very nice suggestions on future needs.
But what I need in particular isn’t the innovative PR, but a real run-through on what they mean when they say “Simplicity-led-design”. Do you know?
Josephine, can you tell us? 
I just came across Bruce Mau’s students’ project website Massive Change. It seems to be full of interesting information. This is from the introduction,
Learn
Design has emerged as one of the world’s most powerful forces. It has placed us at the beginning of an new period of human possibility, where all economies and ecologies are becoming global, relational, and interconnected.
What is Massive Change?
And there is a call to action, to participate in this project. Finally I leave with you with a review from a Toronto newspaper for a balanced viewpoint;
The Institute Without Boundaries, which is always given second billing
after Mau’s name in the Massive Change credits, is a one-year graduate
design program run by Toronto’s George Brown College out of Mau’s
studio. For a fee of $12,000, a handful of students with undergraduate
degrees and often some interesting professional experience get to work
on a variety of projects under Mau’s tutelage. Massive Change was the
institute’s inaugural effort.
And that, I suspect, is the source of its weaknesses. It’s a student
project. I am not just talking about the show’s wild-eyed enthusiasm
and outrageous claims for the field of design: Mau doesn’t need any
young idealist to teach him idealism. He’s got plenty of his own,
explaining at the press preview that designers can’t afford cynicism;
they are paid to act.
Mau, who was quaffing water that he said was filtered from Singapore
sewage as he made those remarks, is also a master of the slick pitch,
with a fondness for the jargon-laden aphorism. Whoever coined the
slogans that introduce each of the economies — "We will create a
global mind," "We will make visible the as-yet invisible," "We will
enable sustainable mobility" — they sound very Mau.
Personally, I think that much of what they are saying is not only possible, but highly probable that it is already underway as a movement. Even if, as yet, unnoticed by the general public. After all, isn’t that, on one level, we are trying to do here?
Killer Innovations is a series of podcasts by Phil McKinney; recommended to me by one of my clients. I haven’t seen it posted here (but I could be wrong). I haven’t had time to listen to much of them yet but thought I’d pass them along quickly in case people find them of interest. I’m curious about the locations; from Half Moon Bay (just a few miles from me) to Amsterdam (nearer to some of the other Pilots here) and beyond.
Recommendations for specific podcasts from this site appreciated!
Imagine that you could measure a conversation by the words used - in fact you already can…..
Take a look at the tagcloud of CPH127 and see what our conversation has been all about lately….
….then imagine a digital ideation process where you use the same technology to narrow down the ideas you should work with in the next phase….
I like it
Weeks ago Johnni had a post about thriving the conversation - nice post by the way - and by the time I just read the article mentioned very briefly. Now I got the opportunity and I must say there are some very good insights hidden between the lines….
People come together to participate in a conversation with different aims, intentions and expectations in mind. What is the impact of these expectations on the quality and outcomes of the conversation?
Reflecting on our experiences in thriving (and not-so-thriving)conversations, we have concluded that the purposes and dispositions of the individual participants are important to the success of the community and their conversation. In other words, not everyone can make a thriving conversation happen.
So, make clear what the expectations are…..but is that always possible?
Take your time and read the piece.
