Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
QUESTION EVERYTHING Workshop on designing more effectively for social impact June 17, 2017
SUSAN J. WOLFE [email protected] @susanjwolfe
RICHARD ANDERSON [email protected] @riander
OE Strategy
www.oestrategy.com @oestrategy
A bit aboutsocial impact
Our bigquestion
Is ‘standard’ HCDadequate
for designing for (positive) social impact?
Often: No!
Poster child for design thinking
Stanford d.school
Phases of design
Basic process from question to answer
https://medium.com/digital-experience-design/how-to-apply-a-design-thinking-hcd-ux-or-any-creative-process-from-scratch-b8786efbf812#.6cvmqimrf
HCD = iterated observation, ideation, and testing
The problem spectrum
well-structured ill-structured ‘wicked’
standard HCD
The problem spectrum
today’s focus
well-structured ill-structured ‘wicked’
vivifychangecatalyst.wordpress.com
A few common characteristics
Can’t fix, only mitigate
Can’t just throw it out there to see whether it works
Old / legacy systems,processes, policies, & laws
impose constraints
Risk & change aversion
Those on the inside don’t understand the end-to-end journey
Lots of roadblocks and previous failures
A bit about Susan J. Wolfe
OE Strategy
A bit about Richard Anderson
Usability/Discovery Adventures
Experience research, strategy, and design thinking for organizations seeking to make a positive difference in the world.
About you
Introduce yourself to someone you don’t know.
What drew you to today’s workshop?
QUESTIONINGSOME OF OUR
PRACTICES How must we adjust
our approach to effectively design for
social impact?
10am - 1pm
It’s not exhaustive.
Hence, we introduce you to some online literature for you to continue
your exploration of this topic.
Today’s workshop
Questioning the adequacy of standard HCD
Exercise inreframing
Innovating on wearablesWearables should not be defined primarily through their form (technological objects one can ‘wear’) or technical functions (tracking, nudging, reminding). We can develop more useful insights about the role of these technologies in our lives are when we conceptualize wearables in terms of the relationship they have to our bodies, social selves, and our personal identities. Every wearable and object holds the promise and potential to mediate the relation to the self as an embodied being; social relations of belonging; and autobiographical relations.
How might we think about designing wearables if we reframe its potential: • as a tool for discipline and control?
• as technologies of belonging?
• as autobiographical objects?
Questioning the adequacy of not considering the entire ecosystem
“Silicon Valley innovates around the edges, but not at the core of the system”
— Ed Park, Founder of athenahealth
Exercise inconsidering the
ecosystem
Exploring the healthcare ecosystem
One of the biggest internal shifts in the healthcare industry in the recent past has been and continues to be the systemic move from “fee-for-service” care to “value-based” care. Practically speaking, “fee-for-service” was an easier revenue and innovation model to understand. Things cost what they cost, and businesses were reimbursed for procedures based in part on the number of them performed. The path from product to outcome was clear—making the measurement of effectiveness straightforward. In the value-based world, success is tied more closely to outcomes—how much a patient’s health has improved. As a result of this shift, many medical device companies find themselves stuck at key points in the innovation process, grappling with defining “What is the value? Who evaluates the value? And, “How do we measure it?”https://thrivethinking.com/2017/04/10/healthcare-innovation-seize-opportunity/
Identify the key stakeholders in the ecosystem and then: •map the relationship between the entities (as you understand it today)
• sepeculate on the beliefs and values that each entity presently holds
Fee for service Fee for outcomes
Questioning the adequacy of typical design research
not just “the neediest residents”
How can design researchers avoid this?
Exercise inrecognizing your own
biases
Acknowledging your biases“In 2011, team members from Design Impact (DI) and Tarsadia Foundation (Tarsadia) discussed design’s role in addressing critical human needs.
“…designers often build relationships with outside organizations in order to take on social impact projects. While these relationships may include business and government partners, more often that not, designers work with non-profit organizations in some capacity.
We went on to discuss a critical gap at the intersection of the design and non-profit worlds; namely a lack of understanding between each group for the other’s processes and models for change. These two disciplines often speak different ‘languages,’ work at different speeds, and operate under different incentives. This communication issue is a key factor that can hinder productive collaboration. The DI and Tarsadia team identified a common goal: support productive collaboration between designers and organizations working to address critical human needs.” https://www.d-impact.org//wp-content/uploads/2015/06/guide_final.2.pdf
For each of the primary entities in your ecosystem: • identify your personal beliefs and biases that could come into play
• explore how you might work to get around these
Questioning the adequacy of fast-paced, lean work
Questioning the adequacy of project-framed engagements
Questioning the adequacy of designing “for”
Questioning the adequacy of typical commercial goals
QUESTION EVERYTHING
A fewkey takeaways
General principles
Fall in love with the problem
Consider the whole system
Establish long-term relationships
Be creative Follow-through
Reframe the problem
Change must be sustainable
Getting startedwith designing for
social impact
Q&A Thank you for spending part of your Saturday with us.
SUSAN J. WOLFE [email protected] @susanjwolfe
RICHARD ANDERSON [email protected] @riander
OE Strategy
www.oestrategy.com @oestrategy
