Last week we launched the first workshop in the “Futorium”-project. The Futorium (Futoriet in Danish) is the working title of that we use instead of the official “Strategic Experience Design in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises”. The goal of the project is to introduce, and innovate based on, the idea of experience with the 12 participating companies. The companies are spread over a wide range of industries, from medical equipment and gardening to road marking machines and webdesign.

We, the project group, consist of project coordinator Hanne Nissen from Favrskov municipality, Christian Dietrichsen from Kulturnatten, an organization that creates a network among artists and cultural institutions, Thomas from the unorthodox consulting company VoveMod (which litterally translated into ‘courage’ or ‘guts’) and myself and Bo Schønning Mortensen from the Aarhus School of Architecture. And the project also includes municipality business consultants from 5 different cities gathered under “Business Region Aarhus”. Oh, yeah … and it’s all funded by the Centre for Culture and Experience Economy under the Ministry of Culture.

We are going to take the companies through a learning and design process that is going to be so exciting. With a range of interesting tools and presents and stories to be unfolded. Until now each company has stated their clear-cut goal with participating the project by way of making mission and vision statements and writing them on their lab coats.

We are keeping the participants in a ind of limbo by telling them some, by not all of what is going to happen in the next year or so. The coming 5 workshops have been explained to them in this illustrative sketch, reproduced on a whiteboard during the workshop. :-)

I really love this project, and I think 1) it is going to be lots of fun for all participants, and 2) very interesting and profitable new business ideas and strategies are going to come from the project, and finally 3) we might even get to do a few experiments within our research efforts on Strategic Design.

I will probably publish more on this project as we move through the coming workshops… so stay tuned

Share/Bookmark

Sådan er det også her. Jeg er relativt løst ansat forsker og underviser ved en statslig institution. Jeg er ansat som lektorvikar, og egentligt meget godt tilfreds med det, på nær at kontrakten snart løber ud og jeg nu igen, for jeg ved ikke hvilken gang, skal til at bekymre mig om kontraktforlængelse osv. I den forbindelse bliver det utroligt klart hvor forskellige offentlige ansættelsessystemer kan være.

Jeg har været kontraktansat på Arkitektskolen Aarhus i siden februar 2003, med et enkelt hul på ca 1 1/2 år hvor jeg var “ude i det private.” Først som forskningsassistent lige efter min afgang (det andre ville kalde aflevering af specialet), henover et 3-årigt ph.d.-stipendium, og nu med over 2 1/2 år som lektorvikar. I alt ansættelse som uddannet akademiker i knapt 7 år. Og nu skal jeg så forlænges igen. Diverse regler skal tages i agt inden næste kontrakt underskrives: hvor lang kan kontrakten være, hvad skal vi kalde stillingen osv. Krumspring af regler som lader der til at være der for deres egen skyld.

I andre dele af både det offentlige og private arbejdsmarked er det almindeligt at man enten er projektansat eller fastansat. En fastansættelse varer ved indtil man finder noget andet eller bliver fyret. Sådan er det. En ansættelse ophører sjældent fordi men når en bestemt dato, som ikke har nogen forbindelse til et projekt eller anden økonomi. Man kan også bevæge sig op i systemer andre steder ved at kvalificere sig og søge lederjobs osv. Men man bliver ikke som standard opsagt fordi man ikke opsøger forfremmelsen.

I den verden hvor jeg bevæger mig, er en fastansættelse nærmest at opfatte som en livsvarig kontrakt som arbejdsgiver ikke har nogen mulighed for at opsige. Når man først er indendøre kommer man aldrig ud igen. Derfor findes der alle disse vanvittige prøvelser og regler man skal kunne leve op til for at få lov til at beholde det job man nu en gang har. Og fastansættelsen ligger først meget langt fremme i systemet, efter årevis af tests, såsom kandidatgrad, ph.d.-grad, gennemført adjunktur og formel kvalificering til lektorat. Sådan er det på alle universiteter i alle lande jeg har hørt fra. Men hvorfor dog?

Man kunne vel lige så godt forestille sig et system hvor man blev ansat med tre måneders prøvetid, som man kender fra andre sammenhænge, for derefter at arbejde på et givent niveau indtil man steg til det næste niveau eller valgte en anden afdeling med nye udfordringer, eller blev hvor man var fordi det passede godt til den man var. Forfremmelser skulle selvfølgelig ske i forhold til kvalifikationer og behov i organisationen osv.

Det lader til at rigiditeten kommer af at man vil værne om den priviligerede position man allerede har opnået. “Man” er her dem der er kommet indendøre og dermed skal bevare det nuværende system for ikke at blive truet på deres position. Så der kræver globale standarder for opnåelsen af privilegiet.

Det er en interessant “ligheds”-tænkning som jeg kan se mange andre steder i vores samfund. I boligforeninger hvor boligbrev giver adgang til billige boliger. Ejerne af boligbrevet er ikke nødvendigvis den der har mest behov eller bedst evne til at betale – blot den der tilfældigvis fik det i dåbsgave. Eller som ved ansættelser i symfoniorkestre hvor folk går til prøver i årevis, for – måske – til sidst at få en fast stilling. Herefter skal man nærmest møde fuld op på arbejde i årevis før man bliver fyret.

Hvis du vil ind og være lige med os skal du i gennem lange prøvelser.

Nå, jeg brokker mig sikkert for meget. Om et år eller tre har jeg sikkert også min faste stilling, og så vil jeg værne om hegnet selv – for man lukker jo ikke bare hvem som helst ind – og det var også svært for mig, så det skal det også være for dig.

Men forestil jer en udveksling man kunne have fra de akademiske institutioner med resten af arbejdsmarkedet hvis det ikke skulle være så pokkers svært at komme ind, så man aldrig forlod stedet igen. Man kunne få nye nysgerrige undervisere og forskere, og private firmaer kunne få højt kvalificerede akademikere. I en meget mere dynamisk udveksling. Vi, der er interesserede i at forske, skulle ikke bruge så lang tid på at kvalificere os til at blive rigtige forskere, at vi er tæt på at blive uinteressante for alle mulige andre arbejdspladser.

Tillidsmanden har svaret, at sådan er det her universitære system jo bare. Men hvorfor er det “bare” sådan? Hvem får noget ud af det? Ud over dem der er bange for at miste en flot position ved at sidde et sted der er svært at komme ind til… Systemet som helhed mister vel en form for dynamik og produktivitetsforbedring, ved ikke at have åbne grænser til resten af verden.

Rigiditeten kommer selvfølgelig også af en mangel på ledelse i de offentlige forsknings-/undervisningsmiljøer. Når alt har været selvledt har der ikke været nogen til at beslutte hvem er ude og hvem er inde og hvorfor, og dermed blev fastansættelser på livstid, og man kunne slappe af så snart man var på den anden side. Men disse tider er ved at være forbi. Universiteterne får bestyrelser og professionelle ledere.Vil det ændre noget? Sandsynligvis ikke, for systemet er jo bare som det altid har været og som det er alle andre steder…

Men vil forskningskvaliteten sejle og falde, hvis vi ikke har disse grænser, eller ville den stige fordi gabet mellem den akademiske verden og “den rigtige verden” blev lukket? Fordi vi vil blive de samme? Praksis ville nemmere møde forskning og forskere og vice versa. Eller ville vi miste rigtig, ordentlig forskning fordi det er nødvendigt at blive i sin forskerhule i mange år for at kunne sige noget der i virkeligheden er intelligent? Jeg ved det ikke.

Jeg ved blot at jeg er træt af at der bliver stillet spørgsmål ved mine kvalifikationer igen og igen, uden anden anledning end at jeg har været et bestemt sted i et bestemt tidsrum.

Er jeg snæversynet eller er der andre der har tilsvarende ideer?

[sorry for the Danish only - the issue is actually relevant in global context...]

Share/Bookmark

The map and the talk centered around the notions design-thinking and design-doing – as positioned between material and context (doing / what you work with), and between logic and aestehtic (thinking / how you perceive the world and discover the New). Without going into detailed depth with the framework or map, I can just show you the finished map after each direction and quadrant is explained:

After the presenation I had an interesting conversation with the audience on, if we see kaos pilots as a type of designers, then what is then their design material. I think that the notion of material is shared throughout the different design disciplines, but I was unclear to me how the kaos pilots would define their particular approach.

There were several suggestions; maybe it is ‘time’, as the KP are process designers, then what they basically manipulate is the time and process that they facilitate others to go through. Another suggestion was that they, by their own example, facilitate people to see their new potentials. Maja argued that Margaret J. Wheatley has made an image of facilitators building bridges for people to walk into new possibilities. Following that image the KP – and other process facilitators’ design material – becomes the dreams or visions they are able to create, tell and ask people to join. Altenatively – following the same metaphor – the facilitators’ design material is themselves. The facilitator must work hard with him or herself in order to navigate tiny detail in the process facilitation.

For me this is a very interesting discussion- Not because I am overly concerned with how kaos pilots define their field of expertise, but because the design field is evolving rapidly into fourth order design (Buchanan) and one way of describing the design field of fourth order is ‘design as facilitation’. As a researcher and as a practitioner I find it immensely important that we explore where competences and expertise is to be founded for such new development. I am especially interested in the mindset of the designer – meaning how we think while designing or – in a more elaborate way; how we position our consciousness while facilitating creative change processes… – Now that’s interesting.

Concerning the issue of whether Kaos Pilots are or should be considered as designers. Michael Donemann argued no. And proposed that the profession of kaos pilots is that of Animateurs – I’m not completely certain what he means, but I made the link as good as possible, and the imagery that the word generates in my head works well. Denouncing the ever-popular and stigmatized concept of ‘designer’ and using/making up a new category might actually be a good idea for the KP’s. However…

But it makes me think whether it actually makes sense to talk about a designer in fourth order of design. Also looking at the on-going debate on design thinking as design-used-by-(non)-designers-in-strategic-business-context, it might actully be stretching the word ‘design’ too far?? If the fourth prder design’s material is himself, then are we actually talking bout a designer anymore, or are we talking about a group coach? A group coach that can draw a littel better than normal??

Share/Bookmark

First I was contacted by Therese Hansen, a student from the computer science department at University of Aarhus, who was doing something with social software for her master thesis work. Here is her post about it – in Danish. She is using my frame work describing different levels of social interaction to be designed for, and interestingly enough she has given it a name: DSDC from them beginning letter of each of the four levels: Distributed attention, Shared focus, Dialogue and Collective action. And here I had just called the framework “levels of social interaction” plainly without thinking about the branding effect of giving a framework a real name. so DSDC it is – and hooray for user participation. Therese and I met to talk about the framework and round a few design ideas. She is now experimenting with an integration of wordpress and twitter, as can also be seen in her blog, and she might be aiming this mashup to profesional conferences.

I guess I should make a page explaining the key features of the DSDC framework…

A few weeks later George Por told me he is working with a colleague on a working paper about collective learning and the collective learner, in which he is using one of the other key concepts in the dissertation: the collective user. The collective user is a way to describe a shift in focus in the design process. Normally a social design concept, service etc. would be aimed at a single user participating in some kind of social process (at certain levels – DSDC :-) ) The concept of a collective user twists the idea of the user away from the individual towards a focus on the social gathering as a whole. As an example you could design a service for the whole family – its dreams, goals and needs – instead of designing the service for the individual family members. This shifts a different set of design objectives into the foreground. Basically introducing collectivity and interaction beyond individuality is going to be one the next interesting things of this social web (2.0) that is emerging right now.

Share/Bookmark

Design is the conscious exploring of potential futures

This definition actually contains some of the most important aspects of design, in my humble opinion. Compared to Herbert Simon’s “Design is devising courses of action aimed at changing current situations into preferred ones” it contains the exploratory aspect of design which I think is important. Both definitions point to the fact that design is an activity focused on the future. “Devising courses of action aimed at (…)” means that the actual activity of designing means to work on a future plan that will achieve a particular outcome. In my definition I try to emphasize that design is not only to lay plans, but entails the testing of these plans, somehow. Simon’s definition also contains, what he has later been heavily criticized for, the notion that design is problem solving. I don’t agree with this since there many designers designing e.g. clothes who are not faced with an actual problem, except if we define yet another trendy top as a problem with a more desired situation – namely a new successful collection for the manufacturer.

Neither of these definitions, however, have a built in exclamation that design has to have an aesthetic edge. This is because there are so many people working with design from various perspectives, and a good definition needs to be able to contain these perspectives. People often want to use a definition of such a field to exclude others from the field. That’s OK. But in the specific situation of designI think I think it is counterproductive.

“Design is the conscious exploring of potential futures” also tries to convey what is known as “the imaginary leap” or “the design gap”. Design is an activity taking place in present but directed towards the future. At the same time design is taking place in the future and directed towards moving a potential future towards the present. Looks like this.

The big dark arrow is design process in present time. At some point the designers needs to imagine a possible future – no more research or asking users will grant the design idea. This means that the designer takes an imaginary leap and jumps the gap into the future. The design work from here is then to reconnect this future vision with reality in the present. This might involve sketching, prototyping, calculating models etc.

What do you think?

Share/Bookmark

The Kitchen is a research group doing both screen-based stuff like the ZUI prezi and physical interactive installations and prototypes – check out the ‘projects’-section:

Kitchen Budapest, opened in June 2007, is a new media lab for young researchers who are interested in the convergence of mobile communication, online communities and urban space and are passionate about creating experimental projects in cross-disciplinary teams.

It is super cool to see new places emerging to push the edges of this design and HCI field.

Share/Bookmark

This search for the next frontier issues is also symptomatic for HCI in a wider sense. As a scientific field, HCI has entered into a steady normal science sphere. We find problems, we solve them, they lead to new similar but a little different problems, which we then consequently solve too. This is great.

Except for the fact that science is also about making a name for yourself and become the most referenced author within a certain sub-field, which explains all the frameworks and foundations for this-and-that with a little twist. Most researchers know that the best way to rise above your peers and become an important node in the web-of-references, is to grasp the new and most important issue first and best. I do it too whenever I can.

So we all look for this next big thing. Which is great because it continually pushes the edge of the scientific field for the greater good.

But the thing with paradigmatic shifts is that one cannot really see the next paradigm from within the current. One’s normal-science thinking has to shatter somewhat, for you to be able to see the next. Otherwise we will only see incremental upgrades of our existing problems into new and a little more complex ones.

So the question is, I guess, whether we actually need a paradigmatic shift, or we still have quite enough work to do within the current state of affairs.

I am all for looking for the next big thing. Or actually I have already found it. And next week I will post what I think would be the most interesting next big issue to research. The working title for my next research center is IPCIAG.

Stay tuned.

Share/Bookmark

Erik Stolterman’s The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research from International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55-65 - and

Research Through Design as a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI from the SIGCHI proceedings from last year.

Whenever I read research in this field – as good as the above – I get enthusiastic and eager to participate in the discussion. I made some arguments in my dissertation about the nature of design research, and I am going to expand and pursue these further in the coming months.

But when reading Stolterman’s paper on design practice I also miss being in practice and doing design for clients full time. Although the research projects I work on have practical issues and require design work, it is very different from doing client work. The goal is different and the criteria for success is not necessarily that a design has success in the market place. The goal is often that we explore some interesting form of interaction based on its theoretical implications. This makes for a much more free and undefined design task, and in design (consulting) work it is often the constraints in the project and the direct interactions with a client that make an interesting project.

So, like many other design researchers, I have this dual focus on participating in leading edge discussions of the foundational concepts of design, research and interaction, and at the same time a desire to get out of research and into the dirty reality of designing for clients and the market place.

Thirdly I also have a strong desire to work with social change and collective intelligence in an organizational and social way – disregarding design and technology, and just focusing on facilitating healthy and evolutionary gatherings of people who can make a real difference right now. I tried to combine these foci last year while being an independent consultant, but it was too difficult to explain the span to potential clients.

Having three core interests can be a good thing for being able to see and approach the world from these three different perspectives. But it can also be an unhealthy state, as it it can lead to a state of wanting – regardless of where I am and what I am doing, I want to do something else, which might be able to better fulfill my highest potential.

A clever friend of mine once told me that I should think of the goal as “where my highest potential meets the needs of the world”. So either stay focused and on the edge with whatever one is doing, or look for where one’s diverse interests overlap and create your perfect platform.

Share/Bookmark

Possibly I can post a summary here later.

I have been interviewed to the yearly report from The Danish Design Research Center as well, but this is stil unpublished, so I will get back to you on that.

Share/Bookmark

The talk was a summary of the work I did in my PhD in order to explore and argue for the fact that design research – especially in a research-through-design perspective – can be seen as a fully qualified and valid, academic, scientific form of research.

I had great fun actually writing this section last year and exploring all the nerdy philosophy-of-science readings I could find relating to design. Usually other PhD’s hate this part of the dissertation, but I found it ot be almost relieving tension, as I found that it was EASY to argue for the fact that design research – and my little research project – was valid science.

I put the presentation on to Slideshare.net – hope it works.

[slideshare id=127069&doc=design-research-as-the-avantgarde-of-design1485&w=425]

And if you are interested a copy of the dissertation where the actual detailed work is presented, then please send me a line.

Share/Bookmark