Humantific CoFounder GK VanPatter will be giving several presentations on SenseMaking for ChangeMaking and working with faculty members at Savonia University of Applied Sciences and Kuopio Academy of Design in Finland Sept 14, 15, 16.

To learn more about the PALMU UnConference at Kuopio Academy of Design see Facebook:

“The PALMU UnConference will take place on the 15th of September, 2010. There will be a morning lecture by our invited guest Garry VanPatter from Humantific. The morning lecture will take place at Auditorium of the Kuopio Academy of Design at 9 am. Garry VanPatter will discuss multidisciplinary innovation and visual sense making.”

Many informal design thinking unconference-like events seem to reflect the fact that much of the newly forming “design thinking community” is relatively new to cross-disciplinary cocreation and thus assumptions from old ways of working are being imported into a new era. The emphasis seen often is on event brand building rather than event substance. The focus seems to be on creatively selling old skills under a new banner rather than actually changing or admitting that new skills might be needed for a new way of working.

At such events the often conflicting universes of Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 can be seen in action. When you say “design thinking” which design are you referring to? At such events one can see that some present want “design thinking” to simply be a reflection of old Design 1.0 skills relying primarily on intuitive process now being creatively reframed as “emergence”. Alot of coffee-time chit-chat occurs while often the goals and challenges pre-identified are not insignificant. This misalignment between meeting goals and the processes and tools in use is one of 40 dynamics seen at such events as described below.

40 Reasons Why “UnConferences” Disappoint

1.    Vastly different, unarticulated, unaligned expectations among participants.

2.    Lack of awareness that many types of dialogue exist.

3.    Lack of acknowledgement regarding what the default dialogue mode is.

4.    Disconnect between (serious significant) expected outcomes and (tea party-like) processes.

5.    Lack of acknowledgement that the scale of challenges facing us has changed.

6.    Lack of acknowledgement that few adults in the mix presently have been educated at high levels in cross-disciplinary work skills.

7.    Lack of awareness that content knowledge is not process knowledge.

8.    Deeply engrained academic value system based on argument dialogue dynamics.

9.    Lack of appropriate content knowledge among participants.

10. Lack of adaptable process knowledge among participants.

11. Lack of adaptable process mastery among session organizers and leaders.

12. Lack of common change making language.

13. Acting out of bad behaviors learned in previous eras.

14. Dialogue filled with tribal acronyms.

15. Habitual reliance and overemphasis on judgment/convergent thinking.

16. Lack of ownership of challenges among participants.

17. Lack of trust among participants.

18. Competitive marketplace forces (includes schools).

19. Assumptions that participants are all using the same cognitive processes.

20. Over-reliance on words, no visual sensemaking present.

21. Fear of looking dumb among participant colleagues.

22. Over emphasis on portfolio presentation of preconceived solutions.

23. Little upstream navigation awareness present.

24. Lack of awareness that sustainability is a type of challenge (content) not an innovation (problem solving) process.

25. Lack of awareness regarding the messiness of human cognition.

26. Inattention to the cognitive aspects of the physical work-space.

27. Blank slate phenomenon, no acceleration research materials present.

28. Assumption that technology equals innovation.

29. Assumption that with technology present no process or process skills are needed.

30. Importation of conflict oriented online interaction dynamics.

31. Assumption that observing (lurking) is constructive participation.

32. Over reliance on feel-good ego-based (emergent) chat dialogue rather than on outcomes.

33. Resistance to learning by adult participants.

34. Lack of acknowledgement that new learning is needed.

35. Lets wait until they fail and then return to the default mode approach.

36. Lack of appropriately scaled and designed integrative thinking tools.

37. Challenge overload and fatigue among participants.

38. Constant churn, session activity overload.

39. Assumption that simply putting diverse minds in proximity to each other creates innovation.

40. Assumption that broadcast mode equals cocreation mode.

Even in these kinds of conditions event organizers can often be seen expecting participants to magically produce meaningful outcomes in compresssed time frames with giant sized challenges framed. Humans are amazingly adapatable creatures but lets get real. While coffee-time chit-chat is an important form of dialogue, assuming that it will lead to complexity navigation, opportunity finding, problem solving and or meaningful solutions is a giant leap of logic that does not reflect what is already known. If the real objective is to provide a feel-good coffee-time chit-chat social experience then why not just say so? At the end of the day unconferences tend look alot like the unproductive meetings occurring everyday in many organizations. No big news there.

Not knowing and or agreeing to what is already known about cross-disciplinary cocreation and integrative thinking remains a staple of the hotly competitive “design thinking” marketplace. There are alot of repeating starting point initiatives going on out there that conveniently ignore what is already known. For the most part “design thinking unconferences” remain far behind best practice cocreation.  Are you looking forward to the era of beyond unconferences as much as we are?

This week Humantific’s Design Thinking Made Visible Project topped 11,000 readers. Published on ISSUU as part of Humantific’s virtual book series this project book provides a glimpse into our ongoing Integrative Thinking Research Initiative underway for ten years. The book provides a window into how design thinking has already been reinvented to better serve as enabler of organizational and societal transformation.

Humantific’s Thinking Made Visible Research remains in progress in collaboration with numerous organizations and universities around the world.

If your organization would like to learn more about participating in our Thinking Made Visible Research send an email to research (at) humantific (dot) com.

Humantific CoFounder, Elizabeth Pastor will be speaking on the subject of SenseMaking for ChangeMaking at the Transforming Design Conference in London on Sept 7. Around the world we continue to see significant interest in real world examples of how design thinking is being applied to complex fuzzy challenges in the context of organizations and societies.

This conference is being organized by the Design Management Institute, one of numerous professional associations working hard to signal to its membership how leading transformation practices are driving change in the design and design management communities.

Read more on the conference site: “The world is changing, business is changing, the role of design is changing, and so too design managers need to change…Design is now recognized as an enabler of business transformation, because design leads change, which is critically needed to save and solve our future. It is a solution that addresses problems, and problems behind problems. Design connects businesses to their customers, and customers to new products, services and experiences. Design is a process tool, an innovation tool, a tool to build experiences, and a transformation tool. Transformation is as much a way of thinking as it is a result.

The subject of many applied creativity workshop exercises since 1950 and still going strong, the rethinking of the mousetrap is a classic Design 2.0 challenge.

Shown here is the The OneDown Mousetrap! by Aakash Dewan of DSK ISD International School of Design in India.

Onedown is a humane rat trap. The trap rests precariously in a horizontal position on a circular foot. Bait inside would lure the rat into the trap, a metal insert in the base coupled with the weight of the rat will tip the trap and bring it to a vertical position indicating that a rat has been trapped. Then the rat can be released instead of killed.