I recently read a post by Tim Brown on measuring participation. The thought having a non-monetary economic system really caught my imagination and I thought to give it a try and play with the idea.

Basically his suggestion was to have 6 economies to measure our personal, corporate or national wealth. The economies are:

Network

Knowledge value

Brand value

Social value

Meaning

and Monetary value

Since we know how the cash system work, I’m not going to pay much attention to it here, but if you want to know the details, read his post to understand his suggestions and the measurable currency, then come back here to have fun.

Here’s what happened with me

1. I plotted the 6 economies and branched out the measurements

2. Found further connections between them and added some (see drawing)

6 economies of wealth measurement as suggested by Tim

funny i noticed that money is not a method of “inclusion”.

3. I realized that from all they fall in two streams, diverging and converging economies… (noted as D in a circle, and C in a square).

The “networks” and “social” are diverging, as they are built on connections, on influencing others and on specializations..

The “meaning” and “brand” are converging streams as the focus on quality rather than quantity, they establish reputation based on previous work and they are more reliable.

The knowledge economy fell in the middle, feeding in both streams, you search information to add to your knowledge (diverge) and then you create theories and focus on what’s useful to you (converge).

4. After my initial discovery I built on these economies, rebuilt the imaginary nation and found that within each economy, a complex system of rating can be established behind the scenes, but to the other world, a simple toolbar can explain how high or low are you in each economy (i.e. rich or poor). I then drew it again in color (see diagram 2)

BARTer wealth economies - diverging and converging

5. As I saw the color dancing in streams, I realized this is a barter system in disguise!

You teach me your knowledge in xyz, I’ll connect you with a leader in this field who I know but really cannot understand. So I give you my contact, my network bar might decrease slightly, but my knowledge bar increases. I can also work with you on your image or brand, and you will give me feedback on my service (provide meaning).. etc.

6. Further connections were made… the knowledge economy provided numbers of ideas as well as quality ones… these connected with the ideas you get from networks (like going to TED), and these ideas can also be made (or eavesdropped in café conversation when you’re being in your social richness). By the same token the quality of ideas are linked to the inclusion part when providing meaning value and when you’re building your reputation  (therefore brand value). Ratings can be made by you (self assessment) as well as your network (connection with the other economy)

on both steams (the divergent and convergent) I noticed the opportunities are in abundance. They come from the interconnected system from multidisciplinary teams and people that are not only from government or tax offices.

7. It seems that the complex system of rating can be really simple, and potentially this “tax” system can become an indicator of curiosity?

8. I designed a primitive ID card for this BARTer system based on self assessment of my economic wealth. It’s no longer a consumer and supplier world, it’s a whole new experience.. and I’m feeling pretty lucky

~ Randah

Here comes the fun part…

From as early as our elementary years, we are taught how to be smart by thinking through our problems and then be graded for our final projects or that one-time final exam.

What a boring and inefficient method of learning.

Prototyping brings a much more vivid and interactive method of learning from our “thinking”. If we are adept in using whatever available materials to quickly build a model for the issue we’re working on, we get to learn from the simulation of the experience using the prototype immediately rather than wait for the final product to arrive.

Why is this useful? According to IDEO, the design consultancy company, prototyping is useful for revealing unanticipated issues or needs, as well as evaluating ideas.

How else would you move from technical competence to true innovation? By experimenting ofcourse! When you get into the habit of prototyping new ideas continuously, you learn by the process of trial and error. And just like kids in the playground, you need to have a curious attitude and an open mind to notice the things you are expecting, and not expecting.

It shouldn’t be a big task on your to-do list either. Prototyping can be anything: a drawing, a model, a picture or a film you snap in a minute. If it’s a service you’re focused on, a simple role playing or scenario writing can be used. You build it very quickly, roughly, and without any worries of being elegant or presentable. The goal is not to present it to your board at the end of the day as a draft of a product (for an example), it is to get instant feedback that will help solve problems with the product or the process. In a sense, it helps you think. Get as many versions as your aspects that needs highlighting.

Here’s a snap shop from IDEO’s Toolkit for Human Centered Design that was put together to enhance the lives of smallholder farmers around the world.

Try it! Take delight in how fast you take a concept from words to sketch, to model, to a successful new offering. The fun is in the process!

Randah

According to legend …  or at least to the d school , the next two steps in design thinking is to ideate and prototype under the Exploration phase.

let’s try to understand what does ideate means.

To visualize, is to have a vision of your desired outcome. To ideate, is to come up with as many images in your mind in relation to the issue at hand. The problem that many people face when ideating is they become overly concerned about how their ideas will be perceived. Most ideas never leave the thinker’s mind because of the internal calculations and scrutinizing. This has many reasons, it could be to save face and not seem ridiculous, not feeling confident in own idea, or not trusting the receiving end. Sadly, it is everybody’s loss as well.

To overcome such situation, an important concept needs to be in place: that is separating divergent and convergent thinking when addressing issues at hand. The balance between both is so central that I will focus on each separately while explaining the design thinking model at hand.

Puccio, Murdock and Mance in their book “Creative leadership” (2007) explained how Guilford identified four basic characteristics of divergent thinking: fluency, flexibility, elaboration and originality. I won’t go into detail in each one of them but the idea is when we ideate, we don’t squelsh the ideas made by us or by others and we come up with as many from our minds as well as building on others.

Many tools have been used for ideating. For example, in brainstorming we come up with numerous point of views that are directly or indirectly related to our subject matter. The trick is not to give any idea more than few seconds of our time when it is stated and documented, then we move on to other ideas until we are ready to converge or evaluate. brainstorming has many variations, such as brain writing, brain walking, or SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to Other Uses, Eliminate, Rearrange).  You can find out more about conducing a good brainstorming session from this short article titled “10 guidelines for effective brainstorming“.

On a wilder side, you can use tools such as “Forced Connections” by using objects that are unrelated to the situation. This ability to borrow ideas from one context to solve a problem in other context. here’s how:

1. Identify a challenge. Offer it as a question to be answered. i.e. How might we address the pollution in the city?

2. Select an object unrelated to the challenge. Anything! a chair, a lamp, a an office building.

3. Note the characteristics of the object. What’s the size, shape, color, uses, texture, smell, etc.

4. Force a connection between the object and the challenge. Ask “what ideas do I get for addressing pollution from my jeans?

5. Repeat with additional objects. keep selecting new ones and connecting new ideas.

6. Use other senses and modalities. explore listening, touching, etc.

7. Let us know how did it go

While this tool requires effort only the first few times (after that it will be second to nature, believe me!), there are other tools that are less innovative in that sense but have the same effect such as the Random Word. Here’s how: Get a dictionary or open any book on any page and place your finger on any word, then force a connection between that word and your challenge and enjoy the rich texture of your new ideas.

In this step of design thinking, I have not connected directly with social innovation since ideational thinking is a skill applied to everything we do on a daily basis. Using stories to come up with scenarios and visualizing our solutions in very colorful mind images are very powerful tools that if one has, one can accomplish much.

Happy imagination.

Randah

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.

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.

Happy wandering.

Randah

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!

In the d school, there is no linear method to understand design thinking. The step by step process we will take is not an indication of which comes first. It’s just to facilitate the communication about it.

In understanding the situation or issue at hand, we look at it through our own lens of expertise and we focus on the things that matter the most to us. The very same issue could be tackled in a completely different way from someone else who has other salient features available to them. The more creative we are, the more we are able to notice those other features as well, and then determine if we want to take them into consideration or not.

To understand a huge topic such as social innovation, the very first step would be our sincere interest and passion to know more about both elements: the social, and the innovation. The first time I learned about this was last year, as part of a training offered by the Centre for Social Innovation (you’d think I’d get a hint from their name, but that was a slow day for me). They describe the process as the new ideas that resolve existing social, cultural, economic and environmental challenges for the benefit of people and planet. A true social innovation is systems-changing – it permanently alters the perceptions, behaviours and structures that previously gave rise to these challenges. Some examples are the Wikipedia, the Open university in the UK, micro-credit, the fair trade movement, and community wind farms (Geoff Mulgan talks more about these examples). When you dig deeper into the research as part of your thinking mechanism (now that you became a design thinker), you get more information on the leadership qualities behind those who pioneer it, the environmental factors that facilitate its process, and even how to notice the missing gaps that can lead to a socially innovative idea. In the case of micro-credit, one of the leading figures and a Nobel Prize winner is Dr. Muhamad Younus, who noticed that a village of 42 people in Bangladesh only needed $27 to pay their debt and save them from the loan sharks. He loaned his own money to the villagers thinking it was a gift, and was surprised when the money was returned to him fully after the villagers recovered their losses. That initiated a movement of micro-credit around the world.

Another thing you can do to understand the issue at hand is by talking to experts. Experts are those who will use the innovation, the affected ones, in addition to those who know about it. You start by understanding the needs that aren’t being met, and consider some ideas of how it could be met. Sometimes needs are very obvious like homelessness or hunger. Other times they are less obvious like domestic violence or racism. In Geoff Mulgan point of view: “empathy is the starting point, and ethnography is usually a more relevant formal tool than statistical analysis”. Everyone knows how to solve their problems, some need courage, others need resources or support. If you find those who champion the success stories, then you can get insight into what’s possible and more effective.

When you immerse yourself in the topic of your choice, inevitably you will get experience. This will help you further hone down your target and the solutions proposed. You will find support if you take the extra mile. This support can come from others working with you or from organizations willing to sponsor you. Some of the big organizations that support social innovation for example are:Eva’s Initiatives Award for Innovation, the Institute for Social Invention and their Global Ideas Bank, MIT Community Innovation Lab, the Social Action Laboratory at Melbourne, South Africa’s Poverty Action Lab, Innovation Lab Copenhagen , Civic Innovation Lab.

Bon recherche!

Randah

Yesterday was day one of the Design Thinking for Social Innovation workshop.

The group was very diverse, vibrant and simply brilliant. We have about 14 in the class plus 3 facilitators, Helene was leading the workshop, and me and Deborah as side kicks. It was hosted by the Centre for Social Innovation in Toronto, Canada

What was different about it this time, that it was the first time I am engaged in offering Design Thinking to an open group. Usually it’s more like one organization or a group of people who want to tackle a certain issue and we go through the process together. Having the group come from different backgrounds and experiences was refreshing to see as the evening evolved and topics were covered in the shortest time I’ve seen them before. Yet, isn’t this how it’s supposed to be?

Since the age of time, or even longer, architects and other designers have been teaching their students how to use sketching and drawing not only to translate their ideas for others to see, but also as a mechanism to work out certain details that help in solving their problems. Now the world is “discovering” those Design Studios, embracing their mechanism and finding ways to adapt it to their everyday lives. Something both challenging as well as exciting for those non-designers among us.

So here it is, design thinking for the mass.

I’ll build on the workshops’ material and focus on one model at a time. Let’s start by the d school model in design thinking and work our way to others as needed.

Cheers

Randah

Most special talent creative people are creative in their own area, but typically not in another. But I am not concerned with most creative people, I want to take a look at some of the gifted personages that have been creative in many areas, da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, and Abbas ibn Firnas.

Gary Davis has sorted over 200 adjectives and brief descriptions of creative personality traits and found 16 categories. Read those categories and see how many you can check and successfully claim.

1. Aware of creativeness

2. Original

3. Independent

4. Risk-taking

5. High energy

6. Curious

7. Sense of humor

8. Capacity for fantasy

9. Attracted to complexity, ambiguity

10. Artistic

11. Open minded

12. Thorough

13. Needs alone time.

14. Perceptive

15. Emotional

16. Ethical

I know they seem interrelated in many ways, but that’s because they are all part of your personality. If you notice few that trigger your interest more than the others, let me know and I’ll explain those traits a bit more.

On the flip side, the negative traits that creative people have and are likely to disturb others fall into seven categories. see if you can point yours out:

1. Egotistical

2. Impulsive

3. Argumentative

4. Childish

5. Absentminded

6. Neurotic

7. Hyperactive.

If you are someone who is working with another that have some of these negative traits, the best that you can do is be patient and understand that there is a positive side (sometimes) to these behaviours. In other cases you may notice that the person might use some help in rechanneling his/her energy into constructive outlets. In all cases, use your discretion. Research shows that creative poeple are both healthier (find more resources) and sicker (psychologically disturbed) than average people.

How much did you score on those traits?

Cheers!

Randah.

I’ve been doing facilitation for quite some time and have enjoyed the process so far. Lately I was asked to coach a group in problem solving over a number of visits. I became very interested in this concept even more as it allowed me to monitor the progress of the working group, rather than leave it to them at the end of the facilitation meeting.

Digging deeper into the subject, I read the “Coaching for Performance” by John Whitmore. According to him, “coaching is unlocking a person’s potential to maximize their own performance. It is helping them to learn rather than teaching them”. In a way, isn’t that what facilitation is about? but rather than focus on the individual, it is a group process. facilitation also relies heavily on the group to find their own solutions, and the facilitator’s job is asking the right question, and providing a framework on how to move forward in the process. Using both compliments each other and it enriches the whole experience. A facilitator needs to start with an informational interview with the client prior to facilitation to understand the issue at hand, then the meeting happens, and a follow up could occur.

If the facilitator is an experienced coach (not necessarily certified), then the person can be even better at asking questions, provoking thoughts, bringing awareness to the client and ultimately, the client will be take on the action plan because he/she feels ownership of the solution they came up with as a group (rather than a consultant suggesting it from the outside).  In a way, smart consultants can even capitalize on the benefits of using coaching skills in his/her practice.

I will use an example of a creativity model applied by some facilitators called Creative Problem Solving (CPS) and compare it the guidelines that Whitmore suggested for coaching for performance.

in the CPS, a facilitator goes through a number of steps to reach the ultimate goal of finding one or more solutions to the issue at hand. Puccio, Murdock and Mance offer one version of the model by connecting it with some of our thinking skills that we need to make it work. Following are the steps:

1. Assessing the situation (diagnostic thinking)

2. Exploring the vision (visionary thinking)

3. formulating challenges (strategic thinking)

4. exploring ideas (ideational thinking)

5. formulating solutions (evaluative thinking)

6. exploring acceptance (contextual thinking)

7. formulating a plan (tactical thinking)

whole coaching can follow the steps:

1. setting goal (ask questions to get to the ultimate goal the client has (the dream))

2. checking reality  (assessing attentudes, tapping emotions, using more descriptive and detailed explanations)

3. exploring options (alternatives, assumptions, what else?, and finally prioritizing)

4. Intentions on making things work (what will you do?) – continue with questions to find the motivation behind each alternative or option and how likely it will happen.

5. conclusion (give action plan and follow up)

see? many already overlap with each other… and can easily be digested together. when I assess the situation as a facilitator, I ask questions, and when I explore the vision, I will ask “how would the situation look like if the issue was resolved?” or what’s your dream solution? this is ultimately setting goals for the client as a coachee and assuming ownership of the problem.

from the other side, it still stands still. when we are exploring options (alternatives and assumptions) we are using ideational thinking in finding all the ways that we can use. a facilitator of the CPS has an advantage here of being exposed to a number of creativity tools that will assist this stage. with many idea generation tools available, the important rule to the game is separating divergent from convergent thinking. so when we are looking for alternatives, we are not judging or even commenting on their fitness or not. we are simply generating ideas.

the conclusion in both is an actual plan and we are using our tactical thinking to find the best fit  (now’s the best time for converging our options and choosing the best fit).

when we explore a challenge using, combining our individual and group coaching and facilitation skills, we create a package that will help tackle a problem from all areas, and build on the assets of the inidividual as well as the group who are dealing with it, creating awareness and responsibility for everyone.

I say it’s a winning formula.

randah.

I have not been that contagious with my creativity in the past 6 months. My bad.

I’ve been quite busy with numerous things happening at the same time that i barely had time to scratch my head. My biggest accomplishment was finishing my 2 year masters program in one whopping year. In July I received my M.S. in Creativity and Change Leadership from the International Center for Studies in Creativity at the State University of New York – Buffalo College. At the same time I was working with United Way Toronto managing their youth leadership program (will write about it later on, keep reminding me). I also was lucky to have a 2 week vacation in Jordan. All that in addition to running a family with two children under the age of 5.

I know this is not an excuse, so it won’t be. I will be writing here more often about the wonders of creativity.

One of the things that stood in mind from my studies is the important and diverse role of the facilitator. I grew to appreciate this role in many ways. My teachers were an excellent example of accomplished facilitators and I also had the pleasure of working with different outsiders such as Blair Miller, Jonathan Vehar, and Russ Schoen. From them, I understood more about the role of this person who gets to direct the discussions in meetings and events.

The basic definition of the facilitator, as Bacal & Associates explain it is the individual “who’s job is to help to manage a process of information exchange. While and expert’s role is to offer advice, particularly about the content of a discussion, the facilitator’s role is to help with HOW the discussion is proceeding.

In short, the facilitator’s responsibility is to address the journey, rather than destination”.

In a way, the facilitator is greatly involved in the decision making process without really participating in it. That can be a very powerful tool if used rightly, can enhance the decision in the way the group arrived to it. But as in any other tool, if used wrongly, the facilitator can manipulate this journey and lead to a decision that will serve a particular group’s needs.

So what kind of sessions can the facilitator participate in?

Any session!

It doesn’t matter if it was creating a strategic plan or naming a product, communicating a vision or building an effective team. The right facilitator can make this experience a great success.

I will write more about this in the near future, for now, I’m late to work

cheers