A social case for Design Thinking?

[[ think+design+change ]]

Hello all,

My name is Anel Palafox and I am a MA Design Management candidate currently
writing my thesis in Design Thinking and Social Change. I would like to ask
your opinion about something that has been floating around my head. At this
stage of my research I have came across several successful examples of the
application of Design Thinking in the business environment. However when DT
turns its attention to social change, the conditions of the social sector
are still too broad for an accurate measurement of its effectiveness.
The uniformity in benefits (commodity) in the business sector provides a
very clear business case for DT but there is not a*social case* for Design
Thinking yet. My take is that it might be an interesting avenue to analyse a
business case and break it down to its components to define the equivalents
social factors. Analyse social capital in a DT context.

Well, they are just some random thoughts, but I think it would be
interesting to know what other minds have to say about this and where I
might be going wrong. Please any feedback is more than welcome.

Thanks again for your help and advice, hope to hear from you soon.

Anel Palafox
M l [phone]
@ l thinkdesignchange@...
W l www.thinkdesignchange.com
T  l thinkdsignchnge

2009/10/14 Karel van der Waarde <waarde@...>

> Ken,
>
> Ok, let's go back to the basic question:
> "Where indeed are we going?"
>
> I would suggest to split this question first by looking at two different
> areas: education and commercial design practice. [The area I'm most familiar
> with is visual communication in a European context, so that's what I'm
> mainly looking at.]
>
> ** Commercial graphic design practice
> In the first place: it is a profitable occupation in which a lot of people
> happily make a decent income. There is no immediate disaster looming and it
> is likely that most will happily adapt to new circumstances and contexts.
>        However, there is a lot of 'visual information' that does not really
> work very well. (The list of examples gets longer, but to mention just five:
> credit card statements, election papers, medical packaging, mortgage
> contracts and tax forms). The consequences are substantial for both
> individuals as well as systems such as banks, democracy, healthcare, housing
> and governments.
>        To come back to the question "Where indeed are we going?", I would
> expect that these areas require a lot more attention from designers. This
> will not replace current practice, but is an addition to it. Unfortunately,
> most visual communication designers are not well equipped to tackle these
> types of areas.
> +
> Looking a bit further, the current financial structure of 'a single
> commissioner' might need to be reconsidered. At the moment, the commissioner
> dictates the perspective and position. For the kind of work that needs to be
> done, this might not be the most appropriate. [Example: medical packaging.
> I'm paid by a pharmaceutical industry who needs a clear brand and follow all
> sorts of legal regulations. This position and perspective prevents me from
> designing packaging that is useful for pharmacists, nurses and patients and
> that might be environmentally more suitable. Unfortunately, pharmacists,
> nurses, patients and the enviroment don't pay me.]
>
> So, the first two aims are:
> - widen scope of practice by making sure that we can handle other types of
> projects.
> - figure out a way to get paid without being forced to look at situations
> from a single perspective.
>
>
> ** Design education
> If one thing is clear than it is that (young) people are very keen to study
> 'visual communication' in all its different formats. Most students are
> fairly happy and find some sort of design related work afterwards.
>        On the other hand, there are some developments that severely hamper
> design education. (Again, I just mention five examples: changing
> staff/student ratio's, appropriateness of teaching methods, teacher
> education, examination criteria, balance in curriculum.)
>        So 'where are we going?' is fairly clear to me. In addition to the
> current courses, we urgently need to develop whole ranges of alternative
> ways of 'teaching design'. Not only talking about 'continuous education',
> 'internet based learning', 'group projects', 'specialist courses', but -
> against the tide of educational cuts and increased bureaucracy - actually
> making them available.
>
> The third aim is:
> - to increase the available educational scope in all sorts of directions.
>
> All three aims are risky, but I think that these need to be explored. [Or
> am I just years behind, and are all these things happening at a grand scale
> already?]
>
> Kind regards,
> Karel.
> waarde@...
>
>
>  Friends,
>>
>> Clive's post really hit me. I feel very much that this conversation seems
>> bogged down rather than open, limited rather than expansive. In a recent
>> note on another issue entirely, a distinguished colleague commented that
>> he
>> hoped an event we were considering would not be as unproductive as recent
>> threads on the list.
>>
>> I've changed the header in the hope that perhaps some new thoughts might
>> come forward.
>>
>> Two aspects of Clive's post got me thinking. First, the idea of "two
>> legacies of ignorance" is a sad but reasonable comment. Perhaps there is a
>> problem with the ducks and rabbits both. The second is that Clive is
>> pointing the way forward to a range of issues on where we are going that
>> ought to come up in a robust conversation -- a large historical view that
>> balances the slow migration of the past into the future together with the
>> proposal of new possibilities.
>>
>> It would be nice to hear a few more thoughts on where we are going from a
>> rich, integrative conception of design -- and design research. Perhaps
>> even
>> a few voices on the theme. If those ideas do not respond to a thread that
>> seems to have bogged down, so much the better.
>>
>> As someone who has been lurking rather than contributing to the thread,
>> perhaps I should not speak. As a reader who would like to hear from a
>> broader spectrum of the field, I'd still welcome more thoughts and broader
>> thinking.
>>
>> Where indeed are we going ?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
>> Professor
>> Dean
>>
>> Swinburne Design
>> Swinburne University of Technology
>> Melbourne, Australia
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:06:36 -0400, Clive Dilnot <DilnotC@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  As with the famous duck-rabbit illusion it strikes me that those who wish
>>>
>> to see ducks (see terry below) will always see ducks--no matter if it is
>> in
>> fact a rabbit.
>>
>>>
>>> In this argument Klaus is undoubtedly correct.
>>>
>>> What is un-scientific in reducing everything entailed in the phrase
>>>
>> "human-centered design" to "styling" is that it refuses to see the real
>> complexity of "interaction" which was always entailed--though never
>> satisfactorily articulated--even in "styling." In other words, "styling"
>> was
>> always more intelligent (and engineering design largely less intelligent)
>> than adherents of both believed.
>>
>>>
>>> The tragedy of engineering design since 1840 has been that it is has
>>>
>> sacrificed understanding of things-made for performative advance. This has
>> given us technologies that perform, within their task boundaries,
>> exceptionally well. It has also given us technologies that are profoundly
>> destructive  in their larger consequences and costs.
>>
>>>
>>> On the other side, those who played with styling intuited but did not
>>>
>> articulate the nuance of that with which they were involved, i.e., things
>> as
>> mediation.
>>
>>>
>>> The result is that in 2009 we find ourselves then with two legacies of
>>>
>> ignorance, which those dealing with interaction design--which means of
>> course the entirety of design since NO design is NOT interaction
>> design--struggle to cope with. What we lack is adequate understanding both
>> of that on which we operate (the artificial) and that through which we
>> operate (the capacities that design deploys).  The splitting of 'styling'
>> and 'engineering' or of 'language' versus 'operational praxis' is simply
>> not
>> helpful to advancing understanding; it repeats a set of conceptual
>> patterns
>> that one would have hoped that we would have grown out of by now.
>> Evidently
>> not.
>>
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> clive
>>>
>>> Clive Dilnot
>>> Professor of Design Studies
>>> Dept. Art and Design Studies, Rm 609
>>> Parsons School of Design,
>>> New School University,
>>> 2w 13th St.
>>> New York NY 10011
>>>
>>>

[Kara Pecknold]

Based on your website, it seems you are tracking with people who want  
to develop this dialogue further.

1) I thought you might be interested in this event in light of your  
query. Quite a line up of individuals who also may be able to  
contribute to the conversation you are seeking.
2) Another dialogue that has been started by IDEO and GOOD staff, can  
be found here. Not all topics in this forum may be relevant but it  
offers some more fodder, if nothing else.
3) Jacqueline Novogratz, in her work with Acumen Fund also seems to  
consider both business and social capital and terms it "patient  
capital." Her TED talks are here, in case you haven't seen them.

Hope this is helpful to you. Metrics on this are a significant topic!

Best,
Kara Pecknold, MAA Design
Design Researcher + Instructor
Emily Carr University of Art + Design

Designer
Olivelife Creative
[phone]
Twitter: @karapecknold


On Oct 14, 2009, at 2:02 AM, [ think+design+change ] wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> My name is Anel Palafox and I am a MA Design Management candidate  
> currently
> writing my thesis in Design Thinking and Social Change. I would like  
> to ask
> your opinion about something that has been floating around my head.  
> At this
> stage of my research I have came across several successful examples  
> of the
> application of Design Thinking in the business environment. However  
> when DT
> turns its attention to social change, the conditions of the social  
> sector
> are still too broad for an accurate measurement of its effectiveness.
> The uniformity in benefits (commodity) in the business sector  
> provides a
> very clear business case for DT but there is not a*social case* for  
> Design
> Thinking yet. My take is that it might be an interesting avenue to  
> analyse a
> business case and break it down to its components to define the  
> equivalents
> social factors. Analyse social capital in a DT context.
>
> Well, they are just some random thoughts, but I think it would be
> interesting to know what other minds have to say about this and  
> where I
> might be going wrong. Please any feedback is more than welcome.
>
> Thanks again for your help and advice, hope to hear from you soon.
>
> Anel Palafox
> M l [phone]
> @ l thinkdesignchange@...
> W l www.thinkdesignchange.com
> T  l thinkdsignchnge
>
> 2009/10/14 Karel van der Waarde <waarde@...>
>
>> Ken,
>>
>> Ok, let's go back to the basic question:
>> "Where indeed are we going?"
>>
>> I would suggest to split this question first by looking at two  
>> different
>> areas: education and commercial design practice. [The area I'm most  
>> familiar
>> with is visual communication in a European context, so that's what  
>> I'm
>> mainly looking at.]
>>
>> ** Commercial graphic design practice
>> In the first place: it is a profitable occupation in which a lot of  
>> people
>> happily make a decent income. There is no immediate disaster  
>> looming and it
>> is likely that most will happily adapt to new circumstances and  
>> contexts.
>>       However, there is a lot of 'visual information' that does not  
>> really
>> work very well. (The list of examples gets longer, but to mention  
>> just five:
>> credit card statements, election papers, medical packaging, mortgage
>> contracts and tax forms). The consequences are substantial for both
>> individuals as well as systems such as banks, democracy,  
>> healthcare, housing
>> and governments.
>>       To come back to the question "Where indeed are we going?", I  
>> would
>> expect that these areas require a lot more attention from  
>> designers. This
>> will not replace current practice, but is an addition to it.  
>> Unfortunately,
>> most visual communication designers are not well equipped to tackle  
>> these
>> types of areas.
>> +
>> Looking a bit further, the current financial structure of 'a single
>> commissioner' might need to be reconsidered. At the moment, the  
>> commissioner
>> dictates the perspective and position. For the kind of work that  
>> needs to be
>> done, this might not be the most appropriate. [Example: medical  
>> packaging.
>> I'm paid by a pharmaceutical industry who needs a clear brand and  
>> follow all
>> sorts of legal regulations. This position and perspective prevents  
>> me from
>> designing packaging that is useful for pharmacists, nurses and  
>> patients and
>> that might be environmentally more suitable. Unfortunately,  
>> pharmacists,
>> nurses, patients and the enviroment don't pay me.]
>>
>> So, the first two aims are:
>> - widen scope of practice by making sure that we can handle other  
>> types of
>> projects.
>> - figure out a way to get paid without being forced to look at  
>> situations
>> from a single perspective.
>>
>>
>> ** Design education
>> If one thing is clear than it is that (young) people are very keen  
>> to study
>> 'visual communication' in all its different formats. Most students  
>> are
>> fairly happy and find some sort of design related work afterwards.
>>       On the other hand, there are some developments that severely  
>> hamper
>> design education. (Again, I just mention five examples: changing
>> staff/student ratio's, appropriateness of teaching methods, teacher
>> education, examination criteria, balance in curriculum.)
>>       So 'where are we going?' is fairly clear to me. In addition  
>> to the
>> current courses, we urgently need to develop whole ranges of  
>> alternative
>> ways of 'teaching design'. Not only talking about 'continuous  
>> education',
>> 'internet based learning', 'group projects', 'specialist courses',  
>> but -
>> against the tide of educational cuts and increased bureaucracy -  
>> actually
>> making them available.
>>
>> The third aim is:
>> - to increase the available educational scope in all sorts of  
>> directions.
>>
>> All three aims are risky, but I think that these need to be  
>> explored. [Or
>> am I just years behind, and are all these things happening at a  
>> grand scale
>> already?]
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Karel.
>> waarde@...
>>
>>
>> Friends,
>>>
>>> Clive's post really hit me. I feel very much that this  
>>> conversation seems
>>> bogged down rather than open, limited rather than expansive. In a  
>>> recent
>>> note on another issue entirely, a distinguished colleague  
>>> commented that
>>> he
>>> hoped an event we were considering would not be as unproductive as  
>>> recent
>>> threads on the list.
>>>
>>> I've changed the header in the hope that perhaps some new thoughts  
>>> might
>>> come forward.
>>>
>>> Two aspects of Clive's post got me thinking. First, the idea of "two
>>> legacies of ignorance" is a sad but reasonable comment. Perhaps  
>>> there is a
>>> problem with the ducks and rabbits both. The second is that Clive is
>>> pointing the way forward to a range of issues on where we are  
>>> going that
>>> ought to come up in a robust conversation -- a large historical  
>>> view that
>>> balances the slow migration of the past into the future together  
>>> with the
>>> proposal of new possibilities.
>>>
>>> It would be nice to hear a few more thoughts on where we are going  
>>> from a
>>> rich, integrative conception of design -- and design research.  
>>> Perhaps
>>> even
>>> a few voices on the theme. If those ideas do not respond to a  
>>> thread that
>>> seems to have bogged down, so much the better.
>>>
>>> As someone who has been lurking rather than contributing to the  
>>> thread,
>>> perhaps I should not speak. As a reader who would like to hear  
>>> from a
>>> broader spectrum of the field, I'd still welcome more thoughts and  
>>> broader
>>> thinking.
>>>
>>> Where indeed are we going ?
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
>>> Professor
>>> Dean
>>>
>>> Swinburne Design
>>> Swinburne University of Technology
>>> Melbourne, Australia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:06:36 -0400, Clive Dilnot <DilnotC@...
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As with the famous duck-rabbit illusion it strikes me that those  
>>> who wish
>>>>
>>> to see ducks (see terry below) will always see ducks--no matter if  
>>> it is
>>> in
>>> fact a rabbit.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this argument Klaus is undoubtedly correct.
>>>>
>>>> What is un-scientific in reducing everything entailed in the phrase
>>>>
>>> "human-centered design" to "styling" is that it refuses to see the  
>>> real
>>> complexity of "interaction" which was always entailed--though never
>>> satisfactorily articulated--even in "styling." In other words,  
>>> "styling"
>>> was
>>> always more intelligent (and engineering design largely less  
>>> intelligent)
>>> than adherents of both believed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The tragedy of engineering design since 1840 has been that it is  
>>>> has
>>>>
>>> sacrificed understanding of things-made for performative advance.  
>>> This has
>>> given us technologies that perform, within their task boundaries,
>>> exceptionally well. It has also given us technologies that are  
>>> profoundly
>>> destructive  in their larger consequences and costs.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the other side, those who played with styling intuited but did  
>>>> not
>>>>
>>> articulate the nuance of that with which they were involved, i.e.,  
>>> things
>>> as
>>> mediation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The result is that in 2009 we find ourselves then with two  
>>>> legacies of
>>>>
>>> ignorance, which those dealing with interaction design--which  
>>> means of
>>> course the entirety of design since NO design is NOT interaction
>>> design--struggle to cope with. What we lack is adequate  
>>> understanding both
>>> of that on which we operate (the artificial) and that through  
>>> which we
>>> operate (the capacities that design deploys).  The splitting of  
>>> 'styling'
>>> and 'engineering' or of 'language' versus 'operational praxis' is  
>>> simply
>>> not
>>> helpful to advancing understanding; it repeats a set of conceptual
>>> patterns
>>> that one would have hoped that we would have grown out of by now.
>>> Evidently
>>> not.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> clive
>>>>
>>>> Clive Dilnot
>>>> Professor of Design Studies
>>>> Dept. Art and Design Studies, Rm 609
>>>> Parsons School of Design,
>>>> New School University,
>>>> 2w 13th St.
>>>> New York NY 10011
>>>>
>>>>