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

We have developed it as a experience into the excitement and mystery of discovering the ancient stories of our ancestors. Visitors will dig out the mound themselves, with real archeologist’s tools from the museum, in sand and find the items that was burried witht hte Skrydstrup Woman more than 3000 years ago. The items are all digitally projected into the sand and one item – for instance her golden earring – is excavated it will be moved onto a large screen where several different kinds of stories about the item is displayed. The “archaeologists” must then discuss and decide which of the stories they want to choose for their own collection about the Skrydstrup Woman. In that way we activate the imaginative aspect of archaeology and show that our past is also something we decide when we find it – something that is pliable to interpretation.

I hope you will go see the installation. It will be part of the permanent exhibition at The Haderslev Archaeologic Museum.

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

Spiral Dynamics and the Israel/Palestine Conflict (Don Beck) from Integral Life on Vimeo.

I’d like everybody to notice how Don Beck talks about design in this video.
As you might now I like to talk about Spiral Dynamics and how it can work as a perspective on design problems.

Based on this quite high level idea of design that Don Beck expresses here,
lets talk about strategic design
lets talk about complex design
lets talk about the role of the designer and the processes applied

The designer is often the person who walks away when the stuff’s ready to be made. The designer is the planner, the thinker, the investigator, but not the bricklayer.
And concerning prcess facilitation the designer can no longer be only the expert that is asked to give the answer – then walks away to think in the studio and finally comes back with the answer. And when that’s no longer the case – are we really talking about designers here – or are we talking about some other form of practice?

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

It was interesting to see how a designerly approach to strategic questions was both approached and promoted, and at the same time constrained and refrained. The opening talk was circling around issues like wicked problems and iterative processes. However, based on their experience with introducing such notions into a stringent business context, the creative and exploratory processes were constrained by very rigorous process formats. So, as I posted on Twitter afterwards, does this mean that the creative and fun part of design is only 20% and structure is the last 80%, when dealing with innovation in business? Yes well, it does – at least 80%, looking more like 90 or 95% in the eyes of the MSI-guys.

The process we learned at the workshop seemed pretty efficient for developing new ideas and perspectives, and getting sufficient backing for these ideas and perspectives in research. Apart from this work process and collaboration format what I take from the workshop are a bunch of insights and interesting assumptions or issues-for-follow-up:

Is it necessary to pack design and the open, exploratory work-format of designers (design thinking) into rigorous structures for businesses to feel comfortable enough to engage with design thinking in strategic processes?

Is there actually a clash between designerly ways of going about a problem or issue on one side and the need for rigor on the other side? Exploring with design freely and managing structure strictly. Open vs. closed? Divergent vs. convergent thinking?

Is there still such a mistrust of design on corporate level when it comes to anything other than look-and-feel that we have to call it something else? The MSI-team has stopped talking about “strategic design” and is now only saying “strategic inquiry”, which omits the d.word, but then says almost nothing about the mode of inquiry. Can’t we get business people to understand the power of design thinking without calling it something else?

All these are very interesting questions to me, and if you are interested I can tell you more about the workshop, discuss the questions with you or just explore the potential of design thinking in general. I’m here and I’m ON the issue… (wish that you cold follow my twitter searching on the issue – it is very interesting)

Share/Bookmark

I think I might be at a decision point in my research career. As I have re-started doing interaction design research after a short trip into full-time design consulting, I am now faced with the important decision of what to focus my research towards. So in order to draw on our collective intelligence I am putting this question up for a popular vote right here on the site. (I don’t know how to do a radio-button vote, so please give your thoughts in the comments at the end of the post, thx)

I have several issues I am interested in. Some are overlapping and some are so far out of main-stream research that pursuing them would mean an actual risk of being burned at the collegial stake. But here’s he list as it appear right now from the top of my head. Add issues you feel are more important.

1. Social interaction with an evolutionary perspective: This means continuing my focus from the PhD dissertation. Adding the evolutionary perspective would be the new, provocative thing where I would direct my design experiments to focus on interaction platforms and experiences that would evolve the user (Uh, can I even say that?) and explore the idea of social fields, somehow.
2. Design thinking: also something I picked up and elaborated on in the dissertation. My work there has been fairly well received and it could be interesting to move further down that line. Design thinking is right now described as introducing a notion of aesthetic inquiry into scientific studies as well as other innovation processes, I guess. It is both a discussion within a philosophy-of-science context as well as a meta-reflection on the process of design. A bit heavy theoretical focus, but it might work as a focus I could work with on the side of another experimental research, like the one mentioned above.
3. The third option is to refocus completely away from my previous research-through-design work, which means building stuff, see what happens and use that as outset for making theory (science, maybe even).
   I have thought about starting to work more with the process of design and doing research into making new ways creating ideas, of collaborating, of exploring etc. This is then what I call research-in-design as opposed to research-through-design (the researcher designs stuff himself) or research-on-design (the researcher looks at the product of design in, say, historical or ergonomic analysis).
   I would explore innovation and design processes in ways inspired by the work of C. Otto Scharmer of MIT. I’d like to add to that field, but have no vision right now of how that could happen.
4. Except that I could do a project and call it “the creative potential of immersion and contemplation”.
   I have for some years now been very interested in and dedicated to a meditative practice and can see how this has value. In a project like this it might be interesting to explore what Ken Wilber calls the relationship between first-person and third-person perspectives, and then focus in on the design – the process of creating the new.
   One major drawback of a project such as this is that it is starting to move closer to the fire, so to speak. The work of Wilber, although solid as far as I can tell, is not really recognized as valid foundational philosophy for research. Which incidentally also makes it intriguingly dangerous to pursue.
   By the way, focusing more on process than product would also mean that I had a strong competence even after all this computer/technology hype has blown over :-)
5. As we move closer to the hot first-row seats at the stake, I also have a big interest in how the body relates to all these technologies. Actually the interest is in how the body relates. Period. I’d love to call a project “Wisdom of the Shaman” and explore how the ancient, spiritual ways of knowing and relating could be explored in relation to the technologies we create and how we make it interface to us. Yes, gentlemen – light up your torches.
   But actually at Interactive Spaces we have been working with kinesthetic interaction for some time now, and developed interfaces for learning that uses the potential of the body and movement. So there might be a relevant new corridor of exploration. But the S-word (spiritual) would probably create an insane level of resistance in the research field.

I am all out of ideas from the top of my head for now. New ones might pop up, and then I should probably add more to here.

AND I would love to hear your comments and collect your votes for what the next big thing is going to be.

Share/Bookmark

To create is to potentially embarrass oneself in front of others. It is about the courage to be oneself and to be seen as oneself. Putting ink to a page, or pressing one’s fingers against clay, or typing a line of computer code, or blowing glass and realizing mistake. Or success. With everyone watching. But most importantly, you.

So it dawned upon me how important it is to be creative. Because it means you have within you infinite capacity to experiment. You are unafraid to go somewhere new because you are creating a new thought process about your own creativity. You know that if you stop and no longer challenge yourself, you cease to be creative. You become still, silent, and the bow no longer connect with the strings and music is not made. And you do not exist. You show you do not have the courage to exist.

Creativity is courage. The world needs more fearless people that can influence all disciplines to challenge their very existence. Creativity is reflection aimed not at yourself, but at the world around you.

So, get to work people. Change the world.

Share/Bookmark

I have just (again) spent an evening on YouTube watching whatever I could find on Ken Wilber and “integral politics” – try it, very interesting. Previously I have read his books “A Brief Theory of Everything” and “A brief History of Everything”. You can borrow my copies if you want.

To those who have not yet bumped into Ken Wilber yet, I can tell you that he is one of the most popular philosophers in US today. His books have been translated in a multitude of languages and he has written a fair number of books already.

Integral thinking and integral theory is a way to describe how there are differences between people and what these differences are. To see these spectrums unfolded is very interesting, and Ken Wilber is then also excelent at explaining how the theories can be applied to understanding politics, sex, science, spiritualty etc. If you want to get yourself a blast and connect it with your interest in the upcoming American election, then I can reccomend:

• Integral “Third-Way” Politics
• Ken Wilber – Integral Politics
• Clinton at Davos

The question for me then becomes: since I am so in-tune with Wilbers’s thoughts, and since I have this big interest in design and innovation, then what is the overlap between the two? Is there a way to think about design in terms of integral thinking? Has it been done already, and I am just unaware of it?

I can see integral thinkings application primarily in terms of the processes of design: When involving users and stake holders from different levels and gravitational points of development. This would mean to integrate integral thinking into areas such as participatory design, innovation facilitation, service design facilitation, process design and other consultant-esque design fields.

But it might actually also work in the “internal” design process – that part of the design process where the designers are creating something for the market. Would it hold any value to think about how a product or a service should be designed according to the level of development of the audience that you are designing for? Maybe it can be conected to the work on Design for Making Meaning…

I have no clue whether I am on to something here. The only hint is that I resonate with these theories, and there must be a reason for this.

Share/Bookmark

When a little guy like that arrives and your couple becomes a family, a lot of things happen. First of all you start going to bed earlier because you start getting up really early and wake up in the nights too. So you have less time in during the day to sit down by yourself, simply because of all the practical things that need to get done. Furthermore you need to put more time into your relationship, since they two of you must deal with a large number of new things: new roles, new relations with other family members, new demands for separating work and family time and so on and so on – the list is long. At one point I even argued to a friend of mine that when you become a parent it is an illusion that you are the same – you simply become a different person. I have changed in so many ways that, at that time, it seemed I had changed completely. Not totally true but the change is considerable.

The point is that all these changes, natural as they are, seemed to be in opposition to the time I could take to meditate.

So I stopped.

Maybe I sat down once or twice a month, which is like nothing. One core demand in meditation is that you make it a daily practice – something you do as a part of your daily routine. There are many different ways of explaining why this is important according to which tradition you have as background for your meditation, but the bottom line is that it just is important. Do it daily if you mean it. Make it part of your life-practice.

Since I stopped I have experienced an increased sense of stress. I became increasingly more difficult to distance myself from daily, weekly surges of tasks and thoughts, considerations and choices. I guess most people know how it feels when there are too many items like that in your perspective. However, I had just recently felt how it feels when you are not in that space.

This stress silently creeps up on you exactly like that frog in the pot on the stove. You don’t really notice it, but suddenly it is too much. Of course you feel various sudden increases in stress, but at one point I simply discovered that my overall capacity to deal with/ignore stuff is too low. Either my limit has gone down or I have gotten myself into to many things. Actually in my case – as it would be to most other people in this situation, I guess – it was both. My new job is more demanding than anything I have tried before. Even though I am on 75% paternity leave I carry the stress around for days. More and more details become obstacles in your hands, not simply because you limit you perspective, but also because you do thing too fast and loose touch with them.

This picture is from today when I had to hurry and get my headset for my phone out to make a call. I was really trying to do it fast, while doing a few other things – and the picture shows the result.

Overall I have recently been working to refind my alignment to the world. I guess that this is what meditation can do for you. Alignment. I don’t know if I am especially prone to stress or I just work in a stressed environment, because I basically like it, but I know that the meditation was one of the ways I have previously made a foundation underneath all the thoughts and choices.

Tomorrow I am getting up at 05.45 to meditate before the little Lauge wakes up. He is reaching an age where he is getting into a routine himself, so everything considered – now seems like a good point in time to get back to the routine.

Share/Bookmark