Archive for November, 2008

h1

Creating a Point of View (step 3)

November 28, 2008

When we want to decide on a positive change in our lives..  we look at what we have, what we are missing and somehow figure out a way to solve the missing piece.

When we want to change a system, we have to look at what the system has (from the specific lens we are focusing on), what it is missing and figure out a way to bring back the missing.

One way of understanding systems is by using principles of ethnography.

tree

When we try to understand a point of view that is different from us, we go to the person’s (or subject) natural environment. There we are able to look, listen and ask questions… taking notes of all details. In explaining interaction design, Preece, Rogers and Sharp gives an understanding of what user-centered approaches may feel like. Ethnography in this sense can help with some tools and approaches. ٍSome examples of user-centered approaches are: Coherence (questions that guides towards issues of systems development), Contextual Design (gathering data and presenting practical design), and PICTIVE and CARD methods (participatory design techniques that empower users to take an active part in design decisions). There are millions of ways to do things.. the trick is to find one way that fits both the issue at hand and the styles of those who are tackling it. David Hurst, in talking about the challenges of organizational change, pointed out that in order to change the structure of something, you need to change the dynamics that supports it. Same thing goes to bigger innovations that involves a complex connections of systems and their dynamics.

When we go about finding data… we often misunderstand the task by looking only for facts and figures. If we really want to understand different points of views we need to dig deeper. we need to understand the emotions and the real reasons that make people (or system) do the things the way they do.  It helps to have more than one ethnographer studying the issue because we often note some salient features that are sometimes only visible to us (because of our background, experience and attached emotions). Design thinking is built on multidisciplinary teams where each one brings his/her own salient features of the issue, in which allows a better picture of all point of views.

In researching the issue of design thinking, in her studies, Helene Cahen attempted to answer the question that many of us will start wondering very soon: what are we observing??

** Behavior. for one. We want to see the rituals, roles, activities, play and diversions that people undertake when they mix with the issue we are studing.

** Meaning: what do those symbols, signs, beliefs, gestures, values, attitudes and opinion mean? what is the language used? (both practically and figuratively).

**Tools: space, technology, rules, techniques are only limited examples of what tools maybe. what is being used for communication? for progress? for play?

Observing and understanding others Points of View is something that requires some practice. The untrained eye will watch and connect what it sees with readily available patterns in the head. We are built that way and that’s the easiest way to understand our surroundings. But with practice, we can start looking at things in a new interesting (sometimes unusual) ways. Looking at things as if we don’t understand what’s going on and we’re trying to figure out this new piece of information.

Kids do it all the time. because of their limited background information, they treat all new information with an open mind and an interest to try things. The rules of the world (and us adults) stand in their way of this discovery by telling them what it is (very narrowly), warning them from danger, or asking them to do what we say.

that said, it takes time and much energy to allow ourselves to wander freely when we create many points of views, that may or may not, be in accordance of our own.

img_1247

Happy wandering.

Randah

h1

Observing Social Innovation (step 2 in design thinking)

November 22, 2008

We talked about understanding the concept behind social innovation. Instinctively, this calls for observation as well. It is one thing to understand a concept and another to actually look at something, with no prior judgements in mind and observe the different elements that holds it together. In the case for Social Innovation, it is not as easy as we don’t have a product or a service where we simply watch people using it, it is a bigger more complex concept that we need to observe truly how it evolves in a certain area and who’s involved (and what they do with it).

In the previous example of Grameen Bank and Dr. Muhamad Younus, the process evovled from the Professor and and a small village in Bangladesh, to involve many villages, many professors, banks, government, companies, and the whole world got involved. Observing and immersing oneself in the process will open up on the methods that it needed to be created successfully. One would understand how each stakeholder involved attached him/herself to the process and what they went through. It usually is never the same for two people.

Another simple tool to observing the process is by interviewing. In writing his book “The Opposable Mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking”, Roger Martin interviewed Bob Young, CEO of Red Hat inc, the world’s dominant provider of Linux software. Bob Young saw two dominant business models for software entrepreneurs: companies who invested heavily in research and development and charged hefty fees for updated versions, and those who provided cheap softwares made a small profit each time a new version was released. In his social innovative mind, Bob Young incorporated aspects of each model: as ideologically committed to the open source movement, he decided Red Hat’s software would continute to be free. At the same time, he would profit by establishging an ongoing service relationship with his customers. This new model established Red Hat’s dominance and assured its financial strength (annual revenue of $400 million). Not bad for social innovation!