Humantific CoFounder Elizabeth Pastor is teaching this week in the Masters of Design and Innovation Program at IED in Madrid.
Since a lot of what we do here at Humantific is upstream strategy cocreation with organizations as part of changemaking initiatives, we were somewhat puzzled to see how AIGA (formerly American Institute of Graphic Arts), a professional graphic design association seeking to reposition itself, undertook a one day Twitter event on April 13th entitled “One Day For Design” (1D4D). The session was promoted with intriguing prompters including “What if you had one day to alter the future of design”.
From a cocreation perspective we could not help but notice that the 1D4D event seemed to contain a veritable smorgasbord of large scale, highly complex, some might say conflicting framing messages. This entanglement seemed to be combined with additional mixed messages around what the dialogue type was intended to be. How the complexity of the subject to be addressed and the intended dialogue type connected to the technology platform chosen was of equal mystery.
Among the complex simultaneous topics posed by AIGA for the 1D4D session on Twitter were: “The meaning of design, The future of design, The meaning of professional design associations, and The future of professional design associations.”
We noticed that 1D4D participants had wildly differing perspectives on session purpose and dialogue expectations. Some participants thought the purpose was to engage in “online global debate” focused on “the future of design.”
Others perceived intentions included:
“roundtable discussion”…“with every designer on Twitter.”
“dialogue between designers and the general public.”
“24-hour brainstorming on the future of design”
“allow creative folks to discuss current issues in design”
“get the pulse of the industry”
“a global conversation” “to alter the future of design.”
“[AIGA] expect[s] to better understand our role”
“explore ways [for AIGA] to better serve the needs of the design community.”
“bring designers and design followers together with leading minds in our profession”
“engage designers in a global conversation”
“exchange ideas, challenge viewpoints and push boundaries”
“an online, real-time think-tank”
“bring together a global community of designers and design enthusiasts.”
“evolve ideas, make connections and initiate change.”
Somehow others got the impression that “the ultimate goal” of 1D4D was:
“understanding how design could shape the future of the world”.
We love experiments but OMG what a confusing framing mix! There are at least half a dozen different dialogue mode types in that mix and more than a dozen different focus paths. That’s a lot of fuzzy complexity to hoist onto participants.
Maybe these designer types are from another planet and can digest multiple streams of giant-size fuzzy complexity while leaping tall buildings! It seemed more likely that 1D4D participants were going to be humans from planet earth. We could not help but wonder if anyone thought about the framing of this session from a human-centered perspective. Without that orientation the confusion of event dynamics can be as complicated as the subjects to be addressed. That cognitive double whammy tends to undermine and deplete participant energy.
All organizations face a continuously changing world and AIGA would be no exception. This could have been important strategic thinking work involving complex present and emerging future states, fuzzy challenges and opportunities. Apart from the romancing of social network technology, since when is Twitter geared up for such complex work?
Some of this framing implied outcomes other than casual chit-chat. Was it possible that 1D4D organizers did not understand the difference between a conversation, a debate, a roundtable, open dialogue and outcome oriented dialogue? Was it possible that 1D4D organizers did not understand the default dynamics of 100% emergence? We wondered what happened to the much-vaunted AIGA design process. It seemed to be completely absent.
We noticed that 1D4D participants were asked to imagine the future of something that AIGA leaders have presented no framing for in the present. How does that work? Was this event about the present and future of graphic design or something else?
We will gladly leave the post-session parsing of words used in the One Day for Design event to the analysis by others. We will happily leave commentary on how to improve the collaborative functionality of Twitter to our interaction oriented colleagues. With all due respect we leave AIGA members to sort out their own challenges as a still graphic design oriented professional association, struggling to reposition itself and expand into the broader strategic design community.
Our only concern is that it seems likely as a result of the AIGA Twitter event that considerable misunderstanding around what strategic design is and does, now seems to have been generated in the broader community outside of design. If the “meaning of design” was in fact tweaked by AIGA’s One Day for Design, it was not in a way that was particularly constructive, not in a way that relates to the many challenges and opportunities facing design. An unfortunate message seems to have been sent by 1D4D: that the design community of communities thinks change making cocreation and meaning making can be accomplished with sloganeering and soundbites. We assume that this meaning making was not AIGA’s intended message.
With all due respect to AIGA and its no doubt noble intentions:
Please don’t assume that AIGA represents the entire design community. It does not.
Please don’t assume that AIGA´s One Day for Design event on Twitter had anything to do with the present or future states of best design practice, methods, modes or consciousness outside of graphic design.
Please don’t assume that 1D4D has anything to do with how strategies are being cocreated today by organizational leaders interested in meaningful change making.
What was most interesting to us about One Day for Design was seen, not in the event itself, but rather in its aftermath. In the wave of post-event commentaries could be seen a thread of cocreation awareness connected to the not often talked about subject of emergence. It is becoming clear that there is rapidly rising awareness in several communities of practice including design, that fuzzy 100% emergent events are very time consuming for participants and typically problematic along what has already become a well-worn path (a subject onto itself).
Picture ahead: Multiply that 1D4D experience by 5 or 10 or 100 and at some point along the way, for some sooner, for others later, most will no doubt be ready for something, anything other than 100% emergence. That romance is rapidly dwindling. This is probably not so good news for those selling 100% emergence as a new collaboration holy grail.
As the number of professionals in various fields reach that realization it seems inevitable that much in the current mix will change. It is that rising awareness that will change not only how we work, but what we expect of our technologies, our organizations, our leaders and ultimately of ourselves.
Whether all of us like it or not, at the end of the day 1D4D represented one of many small defining moments in the slippery decline of 100% emergent events. Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, unless you want to repeat those outcomes, it is already time to rethink the think and move on. In that moving on many design opportunities can be found.
Humantific CoFounder Elizabeth Pastor presented SenseMaking for ChangeMaking at Icograda’s Straight to Business Conference in Madrid, June 24-25, 2010. Inside the presentation Elizabeth explains how Humantific has been working in the realm of enabling Integrated Thinking for Innovation in large organizations for more than ten years. Connecting SenseMaking and ChangeMaking Humantific helps organizational leaders tackle complex fuzzy challenges and embedd the capability to do so into their organizations.
To inquire about how SenseMaking for ChangeMaking can super-charge transformation initiatives in your organization send an email to engage (at) humantific (dot) com
For those interested in the subjects of Integrative Thinking, Organizational Transformation, Reinvention of Design, Constructing Inclusion, Thinking Diversity, Design 3.0, 4.0, Visual SenseMaking, Strategic CoCreation, Design Thinking, Innovation Harmonics:
Humantific has published the Design Thinking Made Visible Project as part of our virtual book series. It provides a glimpse into Humantific’s ongoing Integrative Thinking Research Initiative underway for ten years and models how design thinking has already been reinvented to better serve as enabler of organizational and societal transformation.
This chapter of research provides a window into Humantific’s Design Thinking Made Visible research in progress in collaboration with numerous universities around the world.
This research project was designed as a collective sensemaking exercise that could be undertaken in undergraduate or graduate schools by professors and students without any special design thinking or innovation process mastery training provided.
Shown here are actual design process drawings, made by 5 groups of students in 5 schools, as well as their class innovation profiles.
Participating Schools Shown in this book:
Domus Academy, Italy
Aarhus School of Architecture, Denmark
National Institute for Design, India
University of Kassel, Germany
Regents Business School, UK
(Other schools are in progress)
Included in the book is a glimpse into how Humantific enables Integrative Thinking in organizations utilizing its Innovation Harmonics Framework.
Creating Innovation Harmonics in organizations begins with raising awareness that thinking differences exist. Making Thinking Visible represents one stream of Humantifc work.
What is Integrative Thinking?
What is Integrative Thinking Enabling?
Design Thinking Made Visible Project
What the Research Shows
Integrative Thinking: In History
Included in the book:
What The Research Shows: 10 Key Findings:
This research predates and debunks the 2009 academic theory that thinking attributes (“reliability”, “validity”, etc) can be rigidly pre-assigned to individuals or teams based on discipline labels such as design, designer or business, business manager.
Some students in design schools have the same thinking preferences as some students in business schools and vice-versa.
Professors and students are generally unaware of how radically different design process approaches are from one person to another.
Many students of design/innovation are not accustomed to externalizing their thinking process.
For numerous students in this study, design thinking jumps off from a framed problem defined by a brief. Often there was no process activity upstream from the brief.
Design thinking processes often appear very different visually while similar fundamental steps can often be found within. Some steps appear universal, others situational.
Most design thinking processes seen here have assumptions embedded that outcomes will be product or service creation.
Most design thinking process models seen in this study contain no reference to behaviors.
This research makes visible why the orchestration of design innovation work remains complex and a key challenge for teams and organizations.
This research suggests that real tools and visually shareable results are extremely useful in moving understanding and dialogue regarding integrative thinking beyond stereotypical notions of design thinking and business thinking.
The Design Thinking Made Visible Project is intended to inform and inspire dialogue regarding the realities of Design Thinking and Integrative Thinking by Design already underway in organizations today.
To inquire about participating in Humantific’s Thinking Made Visible Research send an email to thinkingresearch (at) humantific (dot) com.