Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Service Design for/in Transition
Terry Irwin| Carnegie Mellon University | @Terry_Irwin Cameron Tonkinwise| Carnegie Mellon University | @Camerontw
October 3rd, New York City
The evolution of Service Design has helped initiate a trend toward values-based designing and has heightened the awareness of design as a catalyst for transformative, positive change in areas such as:
health/wellbeing education policy energy transport
and many others
Because of this, Service Design has become a key component in designing for transition.
In addition, Service Design itself is undergoing a transition…
Design school as service provider*
* with all of the associated tensions and conflicts it brings…
We serve tuition-paying students and promise them earning capacity in excess of the cost of their education
We serve tuition-paying students and promise them earning capacity in excess of the cost of their education
We serve society by creating designers who work to make the world a better place
We serve tuition-paying students and promise them earning capacity in excess of the cost of their education
We serve society by creating designers who work to make the world a better place
We are researchers trying to understand what befits the needs of society (and the marketplace) now and in the future
We serve tuition-paying students and promise them earning capacity in excess of the cost of their education
We serve society by creating designers who work to make the world a better place
We are researchers trying to understand what befits the needs of society (and the marketplace) now and in the future
We are experts with knowledge about what befits the needs of society (and the marketplace) now and in the future
We serve tuition-paying students and promise them earning capacity in excess of the cost of their education
We serve society by creating designers who work to make the world a better place
We are researchers trying to understand what befits the needs of society (and the marketplace) now and in the future
We are experts with knowledge about what befits the needs of society (and the marketplace) now and in the future
We are critics with knowledge about the conflict between the needs of society (and the marketplace), now and in the future.
Our new curricula could be seen as a service- oriented response to the current contexts in which our graduates are designing.
It is also a values-based response intended to leapfrog beyond current contexts and anticipate where we can and should be designing in the long-term future
Our new curriculum could be seen as a service- oriented response to the current contexts in which our graduates are designing.
It is also a values-based response intended to leapfrog beyond current contexts and anticipate where we can and should be designing in the long-term future
Design for Transitions Carnegie Mellon Transition Design 2015 A new area of design research, practice and study that proposes design-led societal transition toward more sustainable futures.
School of Design Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890412.268.2828
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
—Buckminster Fuller
Terry IrwinProfessor & Head, School of [email protected]/TerryIrwin
Gideon KossoffSocial Ecologist & Adjunct Professor, School of [email protected]/GideonKossoff
Cameron TonkinwiseAssociate Professor & Director of Doctoral & Design Studies, School of [email protected]/cameron-tonkinwise
Peter ScupelliAssistant Professor & Chair, Environments TrackSchool of [email protected]/PeterScupelli
Fundamental change at every level of our society is needed to address the issues confronting us in the 21st century. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, depletion of natural resources and the widening gap between rich and poor are just a few of the ‘wicked problems’ that require new approaches to problem solving.
Transition Design acknowledges that we are living in ‘transitional times’. It takes as its central premise the need for societal transitions to more sustainable futures and argues that design has a key role to play in these transitions. It applies an understanding of the interconnectedness of social, economic, political and natural systems to address problems at all levels of spatiotemporal scale in ways that improve quality of life. Transition Design advocates the reconception of entire lifestyles, with the aim of making them more place-based, convivial and participatory and harmonizing them with the natural environment. Transition Design focuses on the need for ‘cosmopolitan local-ism’, (Manzini 2009; Sachs 1999) a lifestyle that is place-based and regional, yet global in its awareness and exchange of information and technology.Everyday life is viewed as a potentially powerful, transformative space (Lefebvre 1984; Gardiner 2000) where transition designers explore ways in which basic human needs are satisfied locally, within economies that exist to meet those needs (Max-Neef 1992; Illich 1987; Kamenetsky 1992). This is in contrast to the dominant economic paradigm that is pred-icated upon unbridled growth and an imperative to maximize profit (Korten 1999. 2010; Mander 2012; Douthwaite 1996).
Transition designers are temporally aware and design for the ‘long now’ (Brand 1999). They draw on knowledge and wisdom from the past to conceive solutions in the present with future generations in mind. They study how large sociotechnical transitions have manifested throughout history (Geels 2010; Grin, Rotmans, Schot 2010; Shove and Walker 2007) and draw on the wisdom of pre-industrial indigenous societies who lived and designed sustainably in-place for generations (Brown 2013; Papanek 1995; Whitt 2001).
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
we are a school of :
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
Products Communications Environments
Design Tracks Sub-disciplinary specialty
Design for Service
Design within current business models
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
Products Communications Environments
Design Tracks Sub-disciplinary specialty
Areas of Design Focus Inform courses, projects & research at all levels in the school And represent increasing depth of socio-temporal context
Design for Service
Design for Social Innovation
Design within current business models
Design for alternative economies
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
Products Communications Environments
Design Tracks Sub-disciplinary specialty
Areas of Design Focus Inform courses, projects & research at all levels in the school And represent increasing depth of socio-temporal context
Design for Service
Design for Social Innovation
Transition Design
Design within current business models
Design for alternative economies
Design for systems level change
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
Products Communications Environments
Areas of Design Focus Inform courses, projects & research at all levels in the school And represent increasing depth of socio-temporal context
Design Tracks Sub-disciplinary specialty
Design for Service
Design for Social Innovation
Transition Design
Design within current business models
Design for alternative economies
Design for systems level change
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
Products Communications Environments
Social & Natural Worlds
Areas of Design Focus Inform courses, projects & research at all levels in the school And represent increasing depth of socio-temporal context
Design Tracks Sub-disciplinary specialty
Context for All Design
Design for Service
Design for Social Innovation
Transition Design
Design within current business models
Design for alternative economies
Design for systems level change
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
Products Communications Environments
Natural Environment
Design Tracks Sub-disciplinary specialty
Areas of Design Focus Inform courses, projects & research at all levels in the school
Context for All Design
Transition visions must be informed by new knowledge about natural, social, and built/designed systems. This new knowledge will, in turn, evolve the vision.
New theories of change will reshape design-ers’ temperaments, mindsets and postures. And, these ‘new ways of being’ in the world will motivate the search for new, more relevant knowldege.
New ways of designing will help realize the vision but will also change/evolve it.
As the vision evolves, new ways of designing will continue to be developed.
Changes in mindset, posture and tempera-ment will give rise to new ways of designing. As new design approaches evolve, designers’ temperaments and postures will continue to
evolve and change.
Living in & thru transitional times requires a mindset and posture of openess, mindfulness, self-reflection, a willingness to collaborate, and ‘optimistic grumpiness’
The transition to a sustain-able society will require new ways of designing that are
characterized by:
• Design for ‘initial conditions’, • Placed-based, context-based design, • Design for next level
up or down in the system, • Network & alliance building • Transdisciplinary and co-design
processes, • Design that amplifies grassroots efforts, • Beta, error-friendly approach to
designing
• Living Systems theory, • Max-Neef’s theory of needs, • Sociotechnical regime theory,• Post normal science, • Critiques of everyday life • Alternative economics, • Social Practice theory • Social pyschology research
Theories from many varied fields and disciplines inform a deep understanding of the dynamics of change within the natural & social worlds.
• Shifting values: cooperation over competition, self-sufficiency, deep respect and advocacy for ‘other’ (cultures, species etc.) • Indigenous, place-based knowledge, • Goethean Science/ Phenom-enology, • Understanding/embracing transdisciplinarity, • Ability to design within uncertainty, ambiguity, chaos and contradiction, • A committed sense of urgency (grumpiness) along with optimisim in the ability to change
Visions forTransition
Theoriesof Change
New Waysof Designing
Posture & Mindset
7
TRANSITION DESIGN FRAMEWORKFour mutually reinforcing and co-evolving areas of knowledge action and self-reflection
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Service Design ProjectsSocial Innovation Projects
Vision
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Service Design ProjectsSocial Innovation Projects
Vision
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Service Design ProjectsSocial Innovation Projects
Vision
Vision
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Service Design ProjectsSocial Innovation Projects
Vision
Vision
Vision
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Service Design ProjectsSocial Innovation Projects
Vision
Vision
Vision
Visions for transitions to sustainable societies are based upon the reconception of entire lifestyles. Communities are human scale, place-based, globally connected in the exchange of technology, information and culture.
Desired future state 2050 & beyond
Current state
Vision
Transition Design Solution
Vision
1. Amplifying & connecting existing efforts
2. Developing narratives & glimpses of the ‘not yet’
Transition solutions draw on transdisciplinary knowledge from a wide range of disciplines that explain the dynamics of change within complex social/natural systems. Understanding how change manifests and how it can be catalyzed and directed.
Theories of Change
Living Systems Theory Self-Organization Resilience Chaos/Complexity Emergence Holarchy Diversity Symbiosis Interdependence
Transition Management Sustainability Transitions Sociotechnical Regimes Post Normal Science Needs Theory (Max-Neef) Everyday Life Critiques Social Practice Theory Social Psychology Alternative Economics Systems Thinking
Social Ecology Ecology Decentralization
Raskin, Paul et al. 2002. The Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm: Stockholm Environmental Institute and Boston: Tellus Institute. Available online: http://www.world-governance.org/article90. html.Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. 2010. Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. Available online: http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/bba493f7-cc97-4da3-add6-3deb 007cc719.pdf.Sachs, Wolfgang. 1999. Planet Dialectics: Exploration in Environment and Development. pp. 105-107. London: Zed Books Ltd.Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1980. Human Scale. London: Secker and Warburg. Shuman, Michael. 2000. Going Local: Creating Self-reliant Communities in a Global Age. New York: Routledge.Snyder, Gary. 1995. “Reinhabitation”. In Alan Drengson and Yuichi Inoue The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology, pp. 67-73. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. Speth, James Gustave. 1992. “The Transition to a Sustainable Society”. Proceedings, National Academy of Science, USA, 89: 870–872. Available online: http://www.pnas.org/content/89/3/870.full.pdf.Tonkinwise, Cameron. 2014. Design for Transition - From and to What? Available online: https://www.academia. edu/11796491/Design_for_Transition_-_from_and_to_what. Wilkinson, Angela et al. 2013. “How Plausibility-Based Scenario Practices are Grappling with Complexity to Appreciate and Address 21st Century Challenges”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80: 699-710. Damian, White. 2015. Future by Design. Forthcoming July 2015. London: Bristol Classical Press.World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2010. “Vision 2050: The New Agenda for Business.” Available online: http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=219.Worldwatch Institute. 2013. State of the World: Is Sustainability Still Possible? Washington DC: Island Press.
Theories of ChangeAugros, Robert and George Stanciu . 1987. The New Biology. Boston: Shambhala. Benjamin, Barber. 2013. If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. New Haven: Yale University Press. Benkler, Yochai. 2007. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Berkhout, Frans, Adrian Smith, and Andy Stirling . 2003. “Socio-technological Regimes and Transition Contexts.” Science and Technology Policy Research Working Paper Series. Brighton: University of Sussex. Available online: http://www. sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp106/sewp106.pdf.Berry, Wendell. 2010. What Matters? Economics for a Renewed Community, pp. 186-188. San Francisco: Counterpoint. Biehl, Janet and Murray Bookchin,. 1998. The Politics of Social Ecology. Montreal: Black Rose. Boff, Leonardo and Hathaway, Mark. 2009. The Tao of Liberation: Exploring the Ecology of Transformation. New York: Orbis Books. Bookchin, Murray. 1999. The Murray Bookchin Reader. Janet Biehl (ed). Montreal: Black Rose. Bookchin, Murray. 2005. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Edinburgh: AK.Briggs, John and David Peat. 1990. Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness. New York: Harper and Row.Briggs, John and David Peat. 1999. Seven Life Lessons of Chaos. New York: Harper Perennial.Brown, Richard Harvey. 1989. A Poetic for Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Callenbach, Ernest. 2008. Ecology: A Pocket Guide. Berkeley: University of California. Capra, Fritjof. 1997. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York: Anchor Books.Capra, Fritjof. 2005. “Speaking Nature’s Language: Principles for Sustainability”. In Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow (eds) Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World, pp. 19-29. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Capra, Fritjof and Pier Luigi Luisi,. 2014. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Padstow, Cornwall: Cambridge University Press.Carson, Kevin A. 2010. The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low Overhead Manifesto. Booksurge. de Sousa Santos, Bonaventura. 2006. The Sociology of Emergences, The Rise of the Global Left: The World Social Forum and Beyond. London: Zed Books.Delanty, Gerard. 2003. Community, pp. 1–21. London: Routledge.Doordan, Dennis P. 2013. “Developing Theories for Sustainable Design”. In Stuart Walker and Jaques Giard (eds), The Hand- book of Design for Sustainability. London: Bloomsbury.Douthwaite, Richard. 1996. Short Circuit: Strengthening Local Economies for Security in an Unstable World. Totnes: Green Books.Ecologist Magazine. 1993. Whose Common Future? Reclaiming the Commons. Gabriola Island: New Society.
Key TopicsLiving Systems Theory Self-Organization Resilience Chaos/Complexity Emergence Holarchy Diversity SymbiosisTransition ManagementSustainability TransitionsSociotechnical RegimesPost Normal ScienceNeeds TheoryEveryday Life CritiquesSocial Practice TheorySocial PsychologyAlternative EconomicsSystems ThinkingSocial EcologyEcologyInterdependenceDecentralization
15
Transition Design asks designers themselves to transition. To adopt a mindset and posture more conducive to working in and with complex systems: openness, mindfulness, self-reflection, collaboration and a kind of ‘optimistic grumpiness’
Mindset & Posture
Newton as the Divine Geometer, William Blake Circa 1795 Sudama Approaching the Golden City of Krishna, Circa 1785
Mindset & Posture
Indigenous, place-based wisdom Respect/advocacy for ‘other’ Goethean Science/phenomenology Comfort w/ambiguity, uncertainty Committed sense of urgency & optimism Holistic worldview (ability to see/understand interdependency/interrelatedness
Mindset & PostureAbram, David. 1996. “The Mechanical and the Organic.” In Peter Bunyard (ed) Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth, pp. 234-242. Floris: Edinburgh.Abram, David. 2012. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York: Vintage. Abram, David. 2010. Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology. New York: Random House.Alexander, Christopher. 1974. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Amrine, Frederick, Francis Zucker and Harvey Wheeler. 1987. Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Anderson, M. Kat. 2005. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature. London: Wildwood House.Bannon, Bryan E. 2014. From Mastery to Mystery: A Phenomenological Foundation for an Environmental Ethic. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Benkler, Yochai. 2011. The Penguin and the Leviathan: How Cooperation Triumphs Over Self-Interest. New York: Crown. Berman, Morris. 1981. The Reenchantment of the World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Berry, Thomas. 2011. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. New York: Crown. Bohm, David. 1996. On Dialogue. London: Routledge.Bortoft, Henri. 1996. The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature. Aurora, CO: Lindisfarne Books.Bortoft, Henri. 1999. “Goethe’s Organic Vision” in David Lorimer et al (eds) Wider Horizons: Explorations in Science and Human Experience. Leven: Scientific and Medical Network. Bortoft, Henri. 2012. Taking Appearance Seriously: The Dynamic Way of Seeing in Goethe and European Thought. Edinburgh: Floris Books.Capra, Fritjof. 1983. The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture. pp. 362-366, New York: Bantam Books. Clarke, Mary E. 2002. In Search of Human Nature. London: Routledge.de Quincey, Christian. 2002. Radical Nature: Rediscovering the Soul of Nature. Montpelier: Invisible Cities Press. Drengson, Alan. 1995. “Shifting Paradigms: From Technocrat to Planetary Person.” In Alan Drengson and Yuichi Inoue (eds) The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. du Plessis, Hannah. 2014. “The Importance of Personal Transformation in Design Education.” Presented at the Cumulus Johannesburg Conference, September 22–14 [du Plessis].Ehrenfeld, John R. 2013. “The Roots of Unsustainability.” In Stuart Walker and Jaques Giard (eds) The Handbook of Design for Sustainability, pp. 15-26. London: Bloomsbury. Evernden, Neil. 1992. The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Fleming, David. 2013. Design Education for a Sustainable Future. London: Routledge. Freire, Paulo. 2013. Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Bloomsbury. Goerner, S. .J. 1999. After the Clockwork Universe: The Emerging Science and Culture of Integral Society, pp. 13-25. Floris: Edinburgh.Greenleaf, Robert K. 1991. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature and Power of Greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Griffiths, Jay. 2006. Wild: An Elemental Journey. London: Tarcher. Grudin, Robert. 1982. Time and the Art of Living, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Harding, Stephan. 2009. Animate Earth: Science, Intuition and Gaia. Totnes: Green Books.Hayward, Jeremy W. 1997. Letters to Vanessa: On Love, Science and Awareness in an Enchanted World. Boston: Shambala. Hillman, James. 1992. The Thought of the Heart and the Soul of the World. Dallas: Spring Publications. Hoffman, Nigel. 2007. Goethe’s Science of Living Form: The Artistic Stages. Hillsdale: Adonis Books. Holdrege, Craig. 1998. “Seeing the Animal Whole.” In David Seamon and Arthur Zajonc (ed) Goethe’s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature, pp. 1-6. Albany: SUNY. Holdrege, Craig. 2005. “Doing Goethean Science.” Janus Head, 8: 1. Available online: http://www.janushead.org/8-1/ holdrege.pdf.Ingold, Tim. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Abingdon: Routledge. Ingold, Tim. 2011. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon: Routledge. Ingold, Tim. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Abingdon: Routledge. Irwin, Terry and Baxter, Seaton. 2008. “The Dynamical View of Natural Form.” In C.A Brebbia (ed) Design and Nature IV, pp. 129-138. Southampton: Wessex Institute of Technology.
Key TopicsWorldview/MindsetGoethean ScienceHolism & FormBeautyPhenomenologyMechanism/ReductionismCollaborationSelf-ReflectionIndigenous WisdomEcopsychologyCraftNew Ways of BeingTransdisciplinarityMind & BodyRelationality
18
Transition Design asks designers themselves to transition. To adopt a mindset and posture more conducive to working in and with complex systems: openness, mindfulness, self-reflection, collaboration and a kind of ‘optimistic grumpiness’
The transition to sustainable futures will require new ways of designing that are informed by transdisciplinary knowledge and new behaviors and postures and the ability to design for long horizons of time
New Ways of Designing
Service Design Social Impact Design Permaculture Indigenous Design Ecological Design
Wicked Problems Co-Design processes Biomimicry Transformation Design
Toulmin, Stephen. 1990. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. New York: Free Press. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia, pp. 79-91. New York: Columbia University Press. Turnbull, Colin M. 1983. The Mbuti Pygmies: Change and Adaptation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Wadddington, C.H. 1968. “The Character of Biological Form.” In Lancelot Law Whyte (ed) Aspects of Form, pp. 43-56. London: Lund Humphries. Watkins, Mary and Helen Shulman. 2010. Toward Psychologies of Liberation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wheatley, Margaret, and Myron Kellner-Rogers. 1996. A Simpler Way. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Whitt, Anne-Laurie. 2001. “Indigenous Perspectives.” In Dale Jamieson (ed) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell. Williams, Christopher. 1974. Craftsmen of Necessity. New York: Random House.Williams, Christopher. 1995. Origins of Form: The Shape of Natural and Man Made Things — why they came to be the way they are and how they change. Stamford: Architectural Book Publishing Co. Wymer, Norman. 1946. English Country Crafts, London: Western Printing Services.Yanagi, Soetsu. 1989. The Unknown Craftsman: A Japanese Insight into Beauty. Tokyo: Kodansha Wymer, Norman. 1951.
New Ways of DesigningAmatullo, Mariana. 2014. “Codifying Practices in an Emergent Space: Insights from the LEAP Symposium on the New Professional Frontier in Design for Social Innovation.” Design Principles and Practices Journal Annual Review, 7: 55–67. Available online: http://ijgar.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.282/prod.18.Benyus, Janine. 1997. Biomimicry. New York: William Morrow. Berry, Wendell. 2005. “Solving for Pattern.” In Michael K. Stone and Zenobia Barlow (eds) Ecological Literacy: Educating our Children for a Sustainable World. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Brown, Azby. 2013. Just Enough: Lessons in Living Green From Traditional Japan. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle. Buchanan, Richard. 1995. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” In Victor Margolin and Richard Buchanan (eds) The Idea of Design: A Design Issues Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Crowe, Norman. 1999. Nature and the Idea of a Man-Made World. Cambridge: MIT Press. Day, Christopher. 2002. Spirit and Place. Oxford: Architectural Press. Day, Christopher. 2003. Consensus Design: Socially Inclusive Process. Oxford: Architectural Press. Drenttel, William and Michael Mossoba. 2013. “Winterhouse Fourth Symposium on Design Education and Social Change: Final Report.” Change Observer, November 8. Available online: http://www.networkedblogs.com/QTA7Z.Forlizzi, Jodi and John Zimmerman. 2013. “Promoting Service Design as a Core Practice in Interaction Design.” Paper presented at the IASDR Conference, Tokyo, Japan, August 26–30. Available online: http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/pa pers/1202-1b.pdf.Fry, Tony. 2011. Design as Politics. Oxford: Berg. Fuad-Luke, Alastair. 2007. “Re-defining the Purpose of (Sustainable) Design: Enter the Design Enablers, Catalysts in Co-design”. In Jonathan Chapman and Nick Gant (eds) Designers, Visionaries, and Other Stories: A Collection of Sus tainable Design Essays. London: Earthscan. Hester, Randolph T. 2010. Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: An Archeology of the Relationships Between Humans and Things. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell. Holmgren, David. 2011. Permaculture: Principles and Pathways beyond Sustainability. East Moen: Permanent Publications.Irwin Terry et al. 2005. Design and Sustainability: A Scoping Report for the Sustainable Design Forum. London: Depart ment for Environment, Food and Human Affairs. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/4655832/Design_and_ Sustainability_A_Scoping_Report_UK_Design_Council_DTI_2005. Irwin, Terry. 2011. “Design for a Sustainable Future,” 2: 41–60. In Hershauer, Basile, and McNall (eds), The Business of Sus- tainability. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Irwin, Terry. 2011a. “Wicked Problems and the Relationship Triad.” In Stephan Harding (ed.), Grow Small, Think Beautiful: Ideas for a Sustainable World from Schumacher College. Edinburgh: Floris Books.Irwin, Terry. 2011b. Living Systems Theory and Its Relevance to Design: A Matrix. Developed for the 2011 AIGA Conference, Phoenix. https://www.academia.edu/6076107/Living_Systems_Theory_Relevance_to_Design.Irwin, Terry. 2015. “Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design, Practice, Study and Research.” Design and Culture Journal, forthcoming July 2015. Irwin, Terry, Cameron Tonkinwise and Gideon Kossoff. 2013. “Transition Design: Re-conceptualizing Whole Lifestyles.” Head, Heart, Hand: AIGA Design Conference, October 12, Minneapolis. Available online: http://www.aiga.org/video- HHH-2013-irwin-kossoff-tonkinwise.
Key TopicsSocial InnovationService DesignPermacultureTransition DesignDesign EthicsIndigenous DesignBiomimicryEcological DesignWicked ProblemsCo-DesignIndigenous Design
20
There are clearly overlaps between design for service, design for social innovation and transition design…
Service Design emerged from Interaction Design as a distinct field of practice. But digital ecosystems are forcing every field of design to become Service Design.
Product Service Systems
To design in these systems, designers must set the boundaries of these systems. These determinations require strong and clear values and frames.
Product Service Systems
To design in these systems, designers must set the boundaries of these systems. These determinations require strong and clear values and frames.
Product Service Systems
1
Promoting Service Design as a Core Practice in Interaction Design
Jodi Forlizzi and John Zimmerman
HCI Institute and the School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract: With the growth of mobile and social computing, interaction designers are increasingly
being asked to design services and systems intended for societal change. In this paper, we argue
that current interaction design approaches, inspired by user experience and user-centered design,
are insufficient to appropriately take on these new challenges. We propose, instead, that our
community considers a service design framing to complement what is already being done in the
field. We describe the process of service design, and give examples of service design framings in
several projects. We show that a service framing offers a systemic approach that better address the
complex stakeholder relationships, yields outcomes in the form of product-service systems, and
focuses on how value can be co-produced between customers and stakeholders.
Key words: Interaction design, service design, user-centered design, user experience design
1. Introduction Advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) along with the growth of social and mobile
computing have created many new opportunities for interaction design (IxD). Interestingly, many of these
opportunities involve the design of services. The increasing penetration of ICT has also created opportunities for
IxD designers to take on societal level problems ranging from homelessness to sustainability to health and
wellness. Unfortunately, current IxD practices, grounded in user-centered design (UCD) and user experience
design (UX) with a tight focus on the needs and desires of “users”, were not developed to produce a service as an
outcome or to drive design teams towards systems thinking needed to address societal concerns.
IxD has a history of evolving its methods, practices, and perspectives in response to new design challenges. In
the 1980s, when computers began entering many offices and more and more homes, early IxD designers
developed methods to understand the needs and abilities of users. As people became more familiar with computers,
and as computing increasingly moved into domestic, social, and leisure contexts, the focus expanded beyond
usability, efficiency, and ease of use. New experience design methods emerged, along with a broader concern for
the holistic experience of use. As the IxD community evolves the discipline by adapting to newer, more difficult
challenges, we see now as the time to take another evolutionary leap: a leap toward the more systemic and
stakeholder-centered practice found in service design.
In the past few decades, we have seen an increasing demand for service design thinking in IxD projects.
Service design yields solutions that describe the interactions and connections between stakeholders, resources,
Product
Service
The Service Design Offering LandscapeProduct Service Systems
Product
Service
Product Service Systems
Smart Product
The Service Design Offering Landscape
Product
Service
Product Service Systems
Smart Product Robot
The Service Design Offering Landscape
Product
Service
Product Service Systems
Smart Product
DIY
The Service Design Offering Landscape
Robot
Product
Service
Product Service Systems
Smart Product
DIY Peer to Peer
The Service Design Offering Landscape
Robot
Product
Service
Product Service Systems
Smart Product
DIY Peer to Peer Expert Full Service
The Service Design Offering Landscape
Robot
The Service Design Recipient Value LandscapeProduct Service Systems
People
Skill
Time Money
Product Service Systems
People
Skill
Time Money
The Service Design Recipient Value Landscape
The Service Design Provider Role/Power LandscapeProduct Service Systems
Freelance
Professional Facilitator Carer Servant
PrecariatSharing Economy
The Service Design Provider Role/Power LandscapeProduct Service Systems
Article
Service Research Priorities in a RapidlyChanging Context
Amy L. Ostrom1, A. Parasuraman2, David E. Bowen3,Lia Patrı́cio4, and Christopher A. Voss5
AbstractThe context in which service is delivered and experienced has, in many respects, fundamentally changed. For instance, advances intechnology, especially information technology, are leading to a proliferation of revolutionary services and changing how custom-ers serve themselves before, during, and after purchase. To understand this changing landscape, the authors engaged in an inter-national and interdisciplinary research effort to identify research priorities that have the potential to advance the service field andbenefit customers, organizations, and society. The priority-setting process was informed by roundtable discussions with research-ers affiliated with service research centers and networks located around the world and resulted in the following 12 serviceresearch priorities:
! stimulating service innovation,! facilitating servitization, service infusion, and solutions,! understanding organization and employee issues relevant
to successful service,! developing service networks and systems,! leveraging service design,! using big data to advance service,
! understanding value creation,! enhancing the service experience,! improving well-being through transformative service,! measuring and optimizing service performance and
impact,! understanding service in a global context, and! leveraging technology to advance service.
For each priority, the authors identified important specific service topics and related research questions. Then, through an onlinesurvey, service researchers assessed the subtopics’ perceived importance and the service field’s extant knowledge about them.Although all the priorities and related topics were deemed important, the results show that topics related to transformative ser-vice and measuring and optimizing service performance are particularly important for advancing the service field along with bigdata, which had the largest gap between importance and current knowledge of the field. The authors present key challenges thatshould be addressed to move the field forward and conclude with a discussion of the need for additional interdisciplinary research.
Keywordsresearch priorities, service field, technology, transformative service research, innovation, cocreation, service design, big data
Introduction
The context in which service is delivered and experiencedhas, in many respects, fundamentally changed. Advancesin technology, especially information technology, are lead-ing to a proliferation of revolutionary services and changinghow customers serve themselves before, during, and afterpurchase. As Rust and Huang (2014) discuss, rapidly evol-ving information technologies (e.g., Internet of Things,social network technology, mobile technology, and cloudcomputing) enable ubiquitous customer communication andthe acquisition, storage, and analysis of big data, presentingopportunities for more personalized, higher quality service,and deeper customer relationships. Moreover, many compa-nies, facing commoditization of offerings and intensecompetition, are looking to service to help establish differ-entiation and fuel growth. As a result, the importance of
service research and the need for new service-related knowl-edge have never been greater.
1 W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA2 University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA3 Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona State University,Glendale, AZ, USA4 INESC TEC, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal5 Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Guest Editor: Katherine Lemon, Boston College.
Corresponding Author:Amy L. Ostrom, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University,PO Box 874106, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.Email: [email protected]
Journal of Service Research2015, Vol. 18(2) 127-159ª The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1094670515576315jsr.sagepub.com
at CARNEGIE MELLON UNIV LIBRARY on September 16, 2015jsr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The Service Design Provider Role/Power LandscapeProduct Service Systems
http://www.turnstoneconsulting.com/work/futureofwork/
Rachel Abrams: The Future of Work
Co-Evolving Relational Services
ORIGINAL PAPER
Relational Services
Carla Cipolla & Ezio Manzini
Received: 10 November 2008 /Accepted: 3 February 2009 /Published online: 24 February 2009# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Recent research projects have looked forsocial innovations, i.e., people creating solutionsoutside the mainstream patterns of production andconsumption. An analysis of these innovations indi-cates the emergence of a particular kind of serviceconfiguration—defined here as relational services—which requires intensive interpersonal relations tooperate. Based on a comparative analysis betweenstandard and relational services, we propose to theService Design discipline an interpretative frameworkable to reinforce its ability to deal with the interper-sonal relational qualities in services, indicating howthese qualities can be understood and favored bydesign activities, as well as the limits of this designintervention. Martin Buber’s conceptual framework ispresented as the main interpretative basis. Buberdescribes two ways of interacting (“I-Thou” and“I-It”). Relational services are those most favoring“I-Thou” interpersonal encounters.
Keywords Service design . Interaction design .
Design for sustainability . Social innovation .
Philosophy .Martin Buber
Relational Innovations
Martin Buber (1878–1965) has profoundly influencedthose who are interested in interpersonal encounters.Buber’s writings about what he discovered by living lifein relation to others can be misunderstood and ignoreddue to its poetic complexity, but his voice is part of anauthentic “Copernican revolution,” a changing in the“place of thought” from the “subject” to “otherness”(Bartholo 2001). It corresponds to the affirmation thatthe “I” without the “Thou”1 is impossible (Buber1921).
This affirmation is part of his “dialogical principle,”i.e., the distinguishing factor that makes us really“humans.” The fundamental fact of human existence,according to Buber’s anthropology, is man with man(Buber 1947). This idea and sensibility is deeplyrooted in our identities and is extended to define ourentire life. “All actual life is encounter” (Buber 1921).
Relations, in a dialogical perspective, are livedbetween us: “On the far side of the subjective, on thisside of the objective, on the narrow ridge where I andThou meet, there is the realm of ‘between’. This reality
Know Techn Pol (2009) 22:45–50DOI 10.1007/s12130-009-9066-z
1 Some translators, based on the original in German “Ich andDu,” use the word “Thou” instead of “You.”
C. Cipolla (*)Federal University of Rio de Janeiro—Coppe,Ilha do Fundão, Centro de Tecnologia,sala F 123,21941–972 Rio de Janeiro, Brazile-mail: [email protected]
E. ManziniPolitecnico di Milano—Indaco,Via Durando 38/A,20158 Milan, Italye-mail: [email protected]
All service design, whether digital or personal is LX (learning experience design). Any service design is also part of a wider restructuring of how society cares for people.
Co-Evolving Relational Services
IxD
Learning
ServiceLX
Based on Seitzinger 2015
All service design is also Social Innovation for Transition or what Daniela Sangiorgi has already called Transformation Design.
Co-Evolving Relational Services
www.ijdesign.org 29 International Journal of Design Vol.5 No.1 2010
IntroductionService design has recently been developing by enhancing its capacity to facilitate change within both organisations and communities. Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, and Winhall (2006) defined this area of practice as transformation design. According to their definition, the concept of transformation design suggests that:
Because organisations now operate in an environment of constant change, the challenge is not how to design a response to a current issue, but how to design a means of continually responding, adapting and innovating. Transformation design seeks to leave behind not only the shape of a new solution, but the tools, skills and organisational capacity for ongoing change (p. 21).
The fact that transformation design is aiming at radical change is also emphasized. They suggest that transformation design can be applied to radically change public and community services, working for socially progressive ends, or can, alternatively, trigger change in a private company introducing a human-centred design culture.
Furthermore, service design has recently been considering services less as design objects and more as means for societal transformation. The intrinsic element of co-production of services in transformation design necessitates the concomitant development of staff, the public and the organisation. This is particularly evident in the debate around the reform of public services where both organisations and citizens are asked to evolve and adapt to more collaborative service models,
thereby changing their roles and interaction patterns (Parker & Parker, 2007). In this way, service design is entering the fields of organisational development and social change, with little background knowledge of their respective theories and principles. In this light, the questions which arise are: How can designers working with communities affect and transform organisations or, vice versa, how can designers working within organisations affect and positively transform user communities? It is also necessary to clarify the form of transformations, why these are desirable and who will particularly benefit from them.
This article aims at providing a first framework for transformation design, in the specific context of public services reform, by suggesting the adoption of key concepts and principles derived from research fields that have focused for decades on the issues of transformational change within organisations and communities, such as organisational development and community action research. Participatory action research has been chosen in particular as a possible integrating methodological framework that characterises both research fields of organisational development
Received December 1, 2010; Accepted April 30, 2011; Published August 15, 2011.
Copyright: © 2011 Sangiorgi. Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with first publication rights granted to the International Journal of Design. All journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. By virtue of their appearance in this open-access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Transformative Services and Transformation Design
Daniela SangiorgiImaginationLancaster, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
This article reports on the recent evolution of service design toward becoming transformational. Services are less discussed as design objects and more as means for supporting the emergence of a more collaborative, sustainable and creative society and economy. The transformative role of design is combined with the potential transformative role of services. The term “transformation design” as set forth by Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, and Winhall (2006), has been associated with work within communities for socially progressive ends, but also with work within organisations to introduce a human-centred design culture. The intrinsic element of co-production of services in transformation design necessitates the concomitant development of staff, the public and the organisation. In this way, service design is entering the fields of organisational studies and social change with little background knowledge of their respective theories and principles. This article proposes the adoption and adaptation of principles and practices from organisational development and community action research into service design. Additionally, given the huge responsibilities associated with transformative practices, designers are urged to introduce reflexivity into their work to address power and control issues in each design encounter.
Keywords – Service Design, Transformative Services, Transformation Design, Transformational Change.
Relevance to Design Practice – Service design is increasingly oriented toward transformative aims. The concept of transformation design has been proposed, but little research exists on its principles, methodologies and qualities. This article aims to provide some foundations for clarifying the concept of transformational change and suggests a potentially useful bridge with the principles and practices of organisational development and community action research.
Citation: Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Traansformative services and transformation design. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 29-40.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Co-Evolving Relational Services
from Sangiorgi, 2011
www.ijdesign.org 32 International Journal of Design Vol.5 No.1 2010
Transformative Services and Transformation Design
How this can happen, however, has not yet been discussed in service design research. Junginger (2006), in her investigations into the role of design for organisational change, suggests a link between human-centred design and organisational learning:
For an organization, human-centered design offers two key benefits: Firstly, it centers product development on the needs of its customers. Secondly, applying user research methods can reveal the strengths and weaknesses of an organization’s interaction with different customers and employees. The findings can serve as a base for an organizational redesign by understanding existing and future relationships within the organization’s network from a user perspective (p. 10).
Nonetheless, as mentioned previously, looking at transformational processes within service organisations is only one side of the coin. Users and communities, that co-produce service activities, might need to go through similar transformational
processes as shown in Figure 3. This is particularly true if we look at the deep transformation being advocated in public services, which involves moving from a delivery model that is associated with a paternalistic and top down welfare paradigm, toward an enabling model that is centred on the concept of co-creation and active citizenship. Designers have been adopting two main kinds of transformation strategies with public services (Freire & Sangiorgi, 2010). The first is change from inside-out, working within organisations to instill a human-centred design culture and improve service provisions. The other is change from outside-in, or working with communities and various stakeholders to imagine new systems and service models. Both of these strategies need grounding through understanding change and transformational practices. Working on one side only, without considering potential resistances in both communities and organisations, can lead to failure or achievement of a limited impact. In light of this, designers should learn from studies and projects of organisational
core processes
culture
mission
paradigm
Figure 1. Contents of second-order change (source: Levy, 1986, p. 16).
core processes
culture
mission
paradigm service transformation
service design interventions
service interactions design
Figure 2. Levels of change within service design practice (adapted from Junginger & Sangiorgi, 2009).
cultu
re
miss
ion
para
digm
organisation users/communitiesorganisational change social change
core
pro
cess
es
Figure 3. Second-order change in service encounters.
All service design is also Social Innovation for Transition or what Daniela Sangiorgi has already called Transformation Design.
Co-Evolving Relational Services
Organizational Design
Work-Life Style Design
Service Design
Transition Design
Co-Evolving Relational Services
The dilemma is that this requires Services Designers to be Mission-based.
Stand alone consultancies are too small to effect long-term change (unless they are government service contractors)
Teams within larger (management) consultancies must deliver commoditizable deliveries, not longer-term engagements.
Teams within corporations may not be able to service beyond the corporation
•
•
•
Design for Service
Design for Social Innovation
Transition Design
Design within current business models
Design for alternative economies
Design for systems level change
New Program Framework
Design for InteractionsDesigning for interactions between people, the built (designed) world, and the natural environment
Products Communications Environments
Design Tracks Sub-disciplinary specialty
Context for All Design
Social & Natural Worlds
Areas of Design Focus Inform courses, projects & research at all levels in the school And represent increasing depth of socio-temporal context
Carnegie Mellon Transition Design 2015 A new area of design research, practice and study that proposes design-led societal transition toward more sustainable futures.
School of Design Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890412.268.2828
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
—Buckminster Fuller
Terry IrwinProfessor & Head, School of [email protected]/TerryIrwin
Gideon KossoffSocial Ecologist & Adjunct Professor, School of [email protected]/GideonKossoff
Cameron TonkinwiseAssociate Professor & Director of Doctoral & Design Studies, School of [email protected]/cameron-tonkinwise
Peter ScupelliAssistant Professor & Chair, Environments TrackSchool of [email protected]/PeterScupelli
Fundamental change at every level of our society is needed to address the issues confronting us in the 21st century. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, depletion of natural resources and the widening gap between rich and poor are just a few of the ‘wicked problems’ that require new approaches to problem solving.
Transition Design acknowledges that we are living in ‘transitional times’. It takes as its central premise the need for societal transitions to more sustainable futures and argues that design has a key role to play in these transitions. It applies an understanding of the interconnectedness of social, economic, political and natural systems to address problems at all levels of spatiotemporal scale in ways that improve quality of life. Transition Design advocates the reconception of entire lifestyles, with the aim of making them more place-based, convivial and participatory and harmonizing them with the natural environment. Transition Design focuses on the need for ‘cosmopolitan local-ism’, (Manzini 2009; Sachs 1999) a lifestyle that is place-based and regional, yet global in its awareness and exchange of information and technology.Everyday life is viewed as a potentially powerful, transformative space (Lefebvre 1984; Gardiner 2000) where transition designers explore ways in which basic human needs are satisfied locally, within economies that exist to meet those needs (Max-Neef 1992; Illich 1987; Kamenetsky 1992). This is in contrast to the dominant economic paradigm that is pred-icated upon unbridled growth and an imperative to maximize profit (Korten 1999. 2010; Mander 2012; Douthwaite 1996).
Transition designers are temporally aware and design for the ‘long now’ (Brand 1999). They draw on knowledge and wisdom from the past to conceive solutions in the present with future generations in mind. They study how large sociotechnical transitions have manifested throughout history (Geels 2010; Grin, Rotmans, Schot 2010; Shove and Walker 2007) and draw on the wisdom of pre-industrial indigenous societies who lived and designed sustainably in-place for generations (Brown 2013; Papanek 1995; Whitt 2001).
Transition Design Symposium & Monograph June 2015
Transition Design Article Design & Culture June 2015
Transition Design Edition Design Philosophy Papers Forthcoming early 2016
Transition Design Facebook Currently Up
academia.edu: Transition Design Cameron Tonkinwise, Terry Irwin, Gideon Kossoff
Buenos Aires Argentina Masters Program
Barcelona Spain Research Track
Devon, England Masters Program
Melbourne, Australia Research Track
![· Mr Shaun Cameron, Mrs Joan Golda Cameron and Cameron Farms Pty Ltd [ACN 008 707 926] (Mr and Mrs Cameron are the principals of Cameron Farms Pty Ltd ("Camerons") It is my understanding](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5e0b63e15dd8b42d0531a5fd/mr-shaun-cameron-mrs-joan-golda-cameron-and-cameron-farms-pty-ltd-acn-008-707.jpg)
