Blair Boyle | Dissertation by Blair Boyle

HOW MIGHT SMART-CITY PROJECTS BE IMPROVED BY A CO-DESIGN APPROACH: AND WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DOES THIS HOLD FOR DESIGNERS?

THANK YOU:

To everyone who shared their ideas & opinions with me; To anyone interested in the subjects who are reading this; and to Pete Thomas and Andrew Cook for feedback and support in writing this.

6 7 8

1 1.1 1.2 1.3

CHAPTER 1 | CO-DESIGN Co-Design: What is it? Co-Design: Why is it Needed and What Does it Achieve? Co-Design: Criticisms and Responses

11 12 14 16

2 2.1 2.2 2.3

CHAPTER 2 | SMART-CITY Smart-City: What is it? Smart-City: Past Mistakes Smart-City |Co-Design

19 20 22 24

3 3.1 3.2 3.3

CHAPTER 3 | DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES Design Opportunities: The Need for Designers Design Opportunities: Experience & Methods Design Opportunities: Potential Involvement Opportunities

27 28 30 32

4 4.1 4.2 4.3

CHAPTER 4 | PRINCIPLES & POWER City: Principles | Values Designer: Principles | Values Power Mapping

35 36 38 40

Conclusion

MARY | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | EXECUTIVE SUMO A gap exists in the smart-city market that has the potential to be filled by designers. Until now smart-cities have focussed on one main goal of optimizing efficiency in urban areas, while this is important a second goal exists – improving lives through application and implementation of technology. To truly improve the lives of people in cities a co-design approach must be adopted involving people in the decision-making process and building a dialogue between those in charge and those in need. This would help to foster an inclusive bottom-up approach whereby citizens define the change they want to see happen and along with stakeholders and suppliers collaboratively set out to make these changes happen. Previously a top-down approach prevailed where projects missed the mark due to a lack of connection – however, this method is valuable in that it has ‘knowledge of smart-cities’ and links to networks of stakeholders. A synergy between these two connecting that knowledge (top-down) with that need (bottom-up) would produce the best results – hailing innovation, change and social action. Designers can work at any level in the smart-cities market from top to the bottom and there is a need for them at every level, connecting with people in communities and hearing their needs to working with cities and governments to make sure the right changes are being implemented. Urban life is the future and designers can make sure that future fills peoples needs and hold cities accountable to this designing a better and more inclusive future collaboratively.

Co-Design Bootcamp 12/12/2018

ODUCTION | INTRODUCTION | INTRODUCTION | INTRODUCTION | INTRO We live in a world predominantly governed by cities and urban ecosystems which are projected to hold almost 70% of the global population by 2050 (United Nations: Department for Economic and Social Affairs, 2018). But many of these cities grew into their current states during the industrial revolution built to maximise production and efficiency (Landry, 2016)1. Now, in the middle of the digital revolution they still overly rely on these values to create “smarter-cities”. During this urban redesign there is the opportunity for people to be involved and set a standard for citizen engagement designing services, spaces and more from the bottom-up with influence from the people they affect the most – creating not only a smart-city (Intelligence Quotient or IQ) but a kind city (Emotional Quotient or EQ). Smart-city projects have gained traction in the past two decades, but most have failed to deliver recognisable impact to people’s lives on a day to day basis. They have left an air of discourse around the subject. Treating cities like machines that need to be oiled opposed to organisms that need to grow and be cared for (Eskelinen, 2018)2. The implementation of a more citizen-centred approach could be a catalyst for this growth by creating responsive cities that adapt to the needs of citizens over optimization for administration (Landry, 2016, p. 77). People are unlikely to experience cities in the same way every day or in the same way as another person – interacting with different services, spaces and aspects in fundamentally diverse 1 | Charles Landry: - author, speaker and international adviser on the future of cities best known for popularising the Creative City concept 2 | Jarmo Eskelinen: - Chief Innovation and Technology Officer – Future Cities Catapult

ways (Eskelinen, 2018). This alone is proof that a one size fits all approach from the top-down is not the answer to city innovation (SDN, 2018)3 but instead, a bottom-up approach starting with the people cities are for, the people who inhabit them. It is no longer a case of “it would be nice to engage with people” it is a case of “it is vital to engage with people” in order to deliver sustainable and engaging city services, enterprises and environments, people adopt the change they were a part of making (Aye, 2018). In order to engage with people, there is the opportunity to involve them in the co-design or co-creation of the environments they find themselves in and the services they interact with – a crucial tipping point where designers need to take the lead in order to enable an increased democratic atmosphere within cities aiming to set a standard of progression. Designers have the skills needed to engage people from the bottom-up to tap into the wealth of first-hand experience citizens have of being a user, By adopting this method, it is possible to create more meaningful and tailored experiences within a city environment, increasing productivity (Schaaf, 2018)4 and overall satisfaction. The problem-solving capabilities of designers are impressive, but these capabilities, combined with a vast awareness of citizen and stakeholder knowledge and applied to the development of smart(er) and kind(er) urban environments is an exciting and achievable prospect. 3 | Service Design Network: A network of service design professionals who apply service design methods. 4 | Katinka Schaaf: Service Designer at Future Cities Catapult

LOGY | METHODOLOGY | METHODOLOGY | METHODOLOGY | METHODO Multiple primary and secondary source research methods have been adopted to form a well rounded and considered opinion. These vary from Shadowing/Observational Research, Interviews, Reading, Literature Review and more. Reading & Literature review Reading a variety of secondary source materials including books, journals, articles, reports and dissertations helped to generate an understanding of the various markets explored. Synthesising these as a literature review developed a deeper understanding of how these markets could intersect, identifying gaps in the market and common knowledge I could fill with primary and independent research. Most significantly Charles Landry’s ‘The Digitized City: Influence & Impact’ helped me to understand the complex and shifting smart-cities market. Overall around 80% of the knowledge gained came from literature, this knowledge would later be backed up and enhanced by primary research. Events On October 17th and 18th, the University of Dundee hosted the ‘Daily Debates’ at Dundee’s ‘Festival of the Future’ celebrating where science and culture meet. ‘Future Cities’ was the first debate that took place attended mostly by the visiting UNESCO delegation from other UNESCO cities of Design. This is where Landry’s work became prominent as well as other great examples of including people in urban development. ‘A More Liveable City’ was the second debate attended by a local crowd presenting ideas of how a city can be both liveable and loveable. Both had interesting discussions and audience participation relevant to this research. 8

Interviews To gain valuable insight interviews were conducted with professionals across diverse careers each bringing their own area of expertise. Ross Crawford, (formerly with Future Cities Glasgow) on ‘First Hand Smart-City Project Experience’; Mike Press & Hazel White (Directors of OpenChange) on ‘Power and Possibility of Design’; Linsey McIntosh (Independent Designer on V&A Community Garden) on ‘Co-Design Process and Value’; and Katinka Schaaf (Future Cities Catapult) on ‘The Intersect of Smart-Cities and Service Design’. Shadowing/Observational Research Dundee’s Service Design Academy delivered a co-design boot camp on the 11th and 12th of December in which five participants were involved in applying service design methodologies to a live project brief. Acting as a ‘critical friend’ and observer on the second day brought up many interesting points about the validity and experience of user research and co-design. Prior to this the author worked at two further codesign workshops and recorded relevant learnings and valuable observations. Principles/Power Mapping Through the aforementioned research, a baseline set of principles have been developed to ensure people are put at the centre of smart-city projects ensuring the development of smart-cities that respond first and foremost to people’s needs. The role of power has been a prominent theme – as such a prototype of a power map has been developed to understand how people feel, where they would like to see changes, and where they could realise their own power.

OLOGY | METHODOLOGY | METHODOLOGY | METHODOLOGY | METHODO

| CHAPTE CO-DESIG

ESIGN | WHAT IS IT | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN Co-design is the process of involving people in the design process, listening to them, observing them and working with them to create a solution tailored to them. The key word here being ‘with’ not ‘for’ (McIntosh, 2018) - designers need to actively engage with the people they are empowering in order to lead them to better solutions, making sure people are out of their comfort zone enough that they are able to innovate but not so far out that they hit a wall. Co-design is not simply handing over a set of post-it notes and sharpies to a user group and having the designer act simply as an administrator otherwise known as ‘Post-It’ design – this contrasts ‘Big-Ego’ design where a designer imposes their own inappropriately placed ideas as the unbeatable one and only solution (Manzini, 2015, p. 65). ‘Big-Ego’ design eradicates all meaningful dialogue and creates a cookie cutter solution that does not work for anyone this can often come from pressures from the organisations who hire the designers having preconceived notions of what the solution should be. (Marlow & Egan, 2013, p. 14)5. Co-design, when done adequately, should come somewhere in between those two extremes – the designer should be used to their full advantage drawing on their knowledge, skills and problem-solving abilities but they should make the most of the people they are working with too – “It’s about everybody being an expert of their own experience and everyone being able to contribute.” (McIntosh, 2018) This too applies to more than just users it applies to stakeholders, service providers, management, 5 | Oliver Marlow & Dermot Egan – co-founders of TILT architecture a codesign lead practice.

employees and many more. The more people you involve from different backgrounds the more they can learn from one another creating a broader perspective of views and challenging individual perceptions (White, 2018). Furthermore, a criticism of the process is that too much self-interest and selfish tendencies can come in to play if the co-design team is too narrow. To avoid this, it’s important to involve not only users but experts (Schaaf, 2018) and other stakeholders – from cleaners to CEOs. There can be confusion over what co-design is as the term itself is quite fluid in its application and can be interchanged with terms such as service design, human centred design, cocreation, design thinking and more – while these all have different definitions they all mean similar things “exploring potential directions and gathering a wide range of perspectives” (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2010, p. 198)6. Additionally, there are multiple variations on how to involve people, at what points they should be involved (ideation, iteration, implementation), how many people should be involved and other variables. One thing to consider is the maturity of the organisation looking to involve people (White, 2018) – some may be more experienced than others and may be looking for people to be involved in every stage as consultants and others may be totally new to participatory engagement and may only want some insight – both cases would be considered co-design, with the later ultimately maturing in to the former through continued work and engagement through finding the value of why it’s needed and what it achieves. 6 | Marc Stickdorn & Jakob Schneider- Authors of ‘This is Service Design Thinking’ a comprehensive exploration of service design thinking, application and case studies.

| CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN

Figure 1:Home & Belonging Event Introducing People to Design Methods

ESIGN | THE NEED | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | Participation today is vitally important because more and more people are feeling like their voices are not heard - co-design opportunities offer an outlet for people to voice their opinions, their criticisms, to be heard and to bring about real change. In this sense people can feel recognised moreover there can be recognition of multiple user groups the service/product provider may not even have known existed (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2010, p. 38). This is a progressive idea in that it makes the service/product provider go from thinking they provide one service/product to everyone to understanding they provide a fundamentally different service/product depending on who is interacting with it (Eskelinen, 2018). Further to this idea that multiple user groups may exist – it is also true that multiple problems may exist, what we think is the problem can often only be a symptom - involving users helps us to delve deeper and make sure we’re solving the right problem before we’re solving the problem right (Stickdorn, 2016). Through coming up with shared ideas they are more prone to having an impact (and being the right solution to the right problem) while making change a smoother process – this means there is no need to push ideas through as people have already accepted them by being a part of their formation (White, 2018). Through involving people, you can build a community who are champions of co-design and the project too – who, in turn, can get others involved and build a wider community (McIntosh, 2018). It can facilitate a dialogue between users and service/product providers further creating sustainable user interaction and employee engagement (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2010, p. 39) this also allows for a rekindling of why a service/product exists 14

allowing providers to re-connect with the people they’re aiming to help – helping themselves to help others (IDEO & Nesta, 2017, p. 8). This dialogue is increasingly useful under the idea of creating transparency and helping people to understand the operations and behind the scenes aspects -people would understand the decision making process and the compromises that need to happen (White, 2018) for things to be achieved through an involved and informed design process. In the context of a smart-city and technology user participation is even more crucial as people are directly affected by technology even if they are not the ones using it (Yamauchi, 2012). E.g. a new bus line might create a delay for you to get to work even though you do not use it, we are increasingly indirectly affected by elements we have no knowledge of or influence over without a participatory effort. Additionally, relating to the public sector there is a contrast in the life experience of people in power – the decision makers who (the majority of) have had to adapt to the digital era and younger generations who are digital natives (Landry, 2016, p. 11). People who make decisions often may have great levels of experience, but these experiences can be drastically different than the people they make the decisions for, meaning decisions can be made with the best of intentions but can miss the mark severely in implementation. This is true for products, services, legislation, policy and anything where a minority work for/represents the majority. Co-design and extended participation offer a solution to this by providing voices for decision makers to consider in order to make the right/best decision.

CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN

“I work in an envir onment where – ‘a waterf all’ or ‘here’s the cash – get on with it’ approach prevails. The details of the project are very often decided by the 1 p erson in charge. The result often suits no-one. I HATE th is! The codesign element he lps me gather evidence + ‘do’ ch ange all at once” (Participan t, 2018)

SDA Student’s Prototype A Room Layout For A Computer Suite With A Hackers & Defenders Side

ESIGN | CRITIQUES | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | CO-DESIGN | Frequently, companies can believe they’re already doing codesign through previously adopted user research methods. User research can ultimately be branded as co-design without there being any change to the actual operations of an organisation to avoid change rather than deliver it (McDougall, 2012). This hijacking is a misuse of the term as there has been no attempt to involve their users in the design of future products or services – this is just standard market research. This can lead to a belief that it doesn’t deliver anything new or it is a tired approach – this is not true, linking back to the idea of maturity any project can become a co-design project but there must be an effort to involve people beyond the company’s cultural norm. Designers themselves can also have a part to play in this. In our education designers are trained to see things as problems we can fix, whereas, some of the projects we apply our design thinking to are too complex to be a fixable problem with one solution (Aye, 2018). This combined with a shifting dynamic in our roles (Manzini, 2015, p. 02) requiring us to be initiators, listeners and leaders over big ego designers can be the cause of some timid approaches where it becomes apparent that we are cautious to let go of control (Participant, 2018) a natural response but one that needs to be overcome. Even if the designer can overcome this dynamic change people themselves can face their own participation barriers: fear of saying the wrong thing; reluctance to disagree with a superior; unfamiliarity with the co-creation principles (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2010); not used to having a voice – all of which require the right environment and a little empathy to overcome. “By contributing people gain recognition, respect and dignity and, most importantly they develop a sense of ownership over 16

the project.” (Witoelar, 2001, p. 5) Designers simply have to reassure people of what they gain from being involved and guide them through the sometimes uncomfortable process. Designers should also be cautious of causing information overload on those involved as well as not being overly dependent on the same people continuously, people may begin to resent over involvement and wish to disembark from the process. It is also true the opposite may occur, and people will be eager to become more involved (Participant, 2018), both are valid responses as participants are volunteering and investing their own time for little to no instant gratification. In a business-oriented world, the financial aspects of a project also must be considered, and co-design can be seen to be a costly process. From the time needed to plan, facilitate and execute the process to the monetary cost - community involvement is the part that costs money (Crawford, 2018) and often the efficiency of a project is placed above user input and experience (Aye, 2018) as there can be seen to be a lot of activity but not a lot of productivity (Aye, 2018). However, this is when seen from an outside perspective – those involved are creating value and developing ownership. Another point to make is people trust other people. When speaking to a fellow participant of the Service Design Academy’s (SDA) Co-Design Bootcamp about convincing a superior about the value of co-design this was said: “I can get questioned about numbers and estimates all day, and I do, but I’ve never been questioned about user research.” Further to this as far back as 2001 governments involving participatory efforts were able to testify about the financial and efficiency gains from participatory efforts (Witoelar, 2001) – only to be amplified by the co-design process.

“A co-design process can be reasonab delivered fo ly r around £15 ,000. That includes res earch, adver tising, venue workshops, s, materials, st aff time and reporting. That may se em a lot of m oney but compare tha t, for examp le, to the £2 million budg 4 et for Future City Glasgow or the amou nt of money being pump into Dundee ed 's waterfron t and it's spa change. And re , if it's used w ell it can hav a HUGE imp e act in shapin g the overall project.” (Cr awford, 201 8)

Figure 2: Sharing Around a Table: Connecting

| CHAPTE -CITY

T-CITY | WHAT IT IS | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY Just like co-design the term smart-city has many perceived definitions and has been applied to a wide range of projects over the years making it hard to define without being exclusive or elitist – every city is different. In its most basic form, a smartcity is the intersect of technology (smart) and people (city) where technology is implemented to measure and improve the lives of those who exist as citizens. This definition is loose and denies constraints of what is needed to achieve this ‘better life’ but it is a vision of a better future – an overall criticism of the smart-city is its generic place in time with progress being in the ‘proximate future’ (Greenfield, 2013, p. 331)7. In fact, many of the concepts of what smart-cities look to achieve have been around for nearly 50 years yet it feels like we’re no closer to achieving them (Greenfield, 2013, p. 393). Despite this apparent lack of progress, the Smart-City Global Market is projected to be worth nearly £2Trillion by 2025 (Grand View Research, 2018) and shows no signs of halting its growth. In the past three years, the European Investment Bank and Horizon 2020 have contributed in combination over £23Billion to the UK smart-cities market (Juniper Research, 2017). Of this £2Trillion ARUP estimates that smart-city technology will be worth £320Billion (by 2020) (NESTA, 2015) only 16% of the global market. However, if it follows the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the Smart-City Global Market of 18.4% it could grow to more than double this at £745Billion still only

7 | Adam Greenfield – an advocate for the human centred design of technology

making up 37% of the overall market. Showing there’s more to the market than meets the eye. Take a smartphone, it may be the processing power that gives it the ability to be smart – but what is smart about it? That’s dependent on who is using it and more importantly how: It can call; text; connect to the internet; recognise your voice/ fingerprint/face; make a dental appointment; play music; pay for things. What is smart about a smartphone is how you use and interact with it, which is fundamentally different for each person! This is, as of yet, untrue for a city. The operations and efficiency have been prioritised to optimize administration (Greenfield, 2013, p. 747) often at times eliminating physical touchpoints with the goal of making city life seamless, digital (Greenfield, 2013, p. 690) and intangible, connected to the internet but disconnected from the people who use those services creating a barrier “Isolation is a key characteristic of poverty.” (Witoelar, 2001). People are the most ubiquitous available resource of the smartcities market, their experience, their connections, their care for their communities – all of this and more yet they have been left out of many projects. “We’d have a great service if it weren’t for all these people” (Aye, 2013) said with sarcasm but ringing true for the current state of ‘smart’ cities.

25%0%-

£320B

£745B

PROJECTED SMART TECH VALUE (2025)

50%-

VALUE GAP

75%-

£2T SMART CITY GLOBAL VALUE

100%-

CURRENT SMART TECH VALUE

Smart Cities Market Net-worth

= £1

If the UK population is 66Million every citizen would have to invest £348 to match the PARTIAL funding by European Investment Bank and Horizon 2020 Examples of some of the sensors deployed in smart-cities

T-CITY | PAST MISTAKES | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY | SMARTIn a 2012 presentation by Gartner Consulting aimed at enterprises looking to explore the smart-city market, inhabitants (individuals, businesses & NGOs) are listed as the least significant stakeholders of cities (Greenfield, 2013, p. 824). By leaving people out a certain attitude has been adopted of ‘what can we do’ over ‘what should we do’ (Aye, 2018) turning cities into marketing machines for new technologies and systems (Landry, 2016, p. 73). New uses for technology have been displayed over technology being applied to old problems (NESTA, 2015, p. 8) - rather than defining where technology could help, it has developed with no ethical responsibility, “There’s a big dilemma here that we’re creating so-called smart technology but it’s like Frankenstein’s monster or the tin man without a heart. There’s no morality built into it if there’s no kindness, no sense of humanity.” (Press, 2018) Another concerning point about smart-cities would be that while many cities are taking up this ethos of creating a smarter future – 11% fully measure their progress towards their goals, 39% partially measure (Landry, 2016, p. 40) ,meaning, 50% don’t measure their progress towards creating a better future at all, which doesn’t seem ‘smart’ or accountable for that matter. In 2014 Cape Town branded itself as “The City That Works for You!”, This was what the city of Cape Town thought they represented. However, the people of Cape Town, artists, Graffitists and others rebranded it as “The City That Works for A Few!” (Jutzen, 2018). This is representative of the top-down

approach which is the predominant approach to smart-city projects – decisions are made by a privileged minority (tech companies with money) and benefits are expected to filter out to the majority, but they rarely do. A subject of much controversy today, data, is also at the heart of the smart-city but again this is mainly used for optimization or corporate gain. Open data can be used by anyone - it invites us, but in some ways, it also invades us (Landry, 2016, p. 56). This contrast between private and open is cause for some further discussion but the potential of open source use of data that companies previously used to profit on offers the potential for public empowerment (Crawford, 2018). “A city is more than a place in space, it is a drama in time!”Patrick Geddes once said and still rings true today. If cities are dramas, then citizens are the actors – the most essential part of the drama. It’s time that these actors were placed where they belong, in the centre where their voices can be heard. The redesign of cities for the digital era is well underway but we need to keep people at the centre over technology – we can’t get lost in grand vision statements or shiny new things (Haque, 2018). Many if not all these past mistakes can be rectified by listening to the people they have affected – turning in to strengths. While we are constantly connected to the internet, we need to find ways to reconnect with the citizens living in our cities, the people who face real problems.

Figure 3: A Design Flaw in an Urban Environment

T-CITY | CO-DESIGN | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY | SMART-CITY For the cities of tomorrow to emerge today and no longer be in the ‘proximate future’ many of the past problems of smartcities: accountability; transparency; humanity; disconnection; can be solved through the co-design process. Through involving people in the further development of their urban environments technologies can be implemented to improve lives over optimizing efficiency. “Take a glass of clean city water: In the past, we would measure how much and how efficiently it was produced. In the future, we must also evaluate how well it quenched a citizen’s thirst.” (Dark Matter YYC, 2018)8 By placing people at the centre of the application of new technologies the issues they face can become the target of problem solvers and forward thinkers. In a way, this could be thought of in a supply and demand context. (Thurston, 2018)9 Previously technology for smart-cities operated in a ‘build it and they will come’ context but through co-designing with people and technological stakeholders’ citizens are the ones empowered to demand what they need, and stakeholders can explore how they supply to that demand. If a city should be considered an organism or a drama it should also be recognised that these change over time, they develop, they grow – as does a city. “Becoming a smarter city is not an end goal, but a continuous process to be more resource efficient whilst simultaneously improving the quality of life.” – Eurocities. As a continuous process, it would require continued public & stakeholder involvement acting as the thinking brain of the city, holding it accountable for its actions. Another way to think of this would be inhabitants would act as the city’s very own Research and Development department (Landry, 2016, p. 49). Identifying 8 | Dark Matter YYC – Calgary based project placing people at the centre of smart-city projects.

their needs and working alongside professionals to develop solutions to provide real impact. Thinking about it in this way may also be comforting to those opposed to the idea of risk. Risk, however, is an essential part of innovation, by refusing to take risks cities close themselves off to real change (IDEO, 2015, p. 21). While risk may be a sign of privilege (Aye, 2018) a city’s greatest privilege is its people – connecting with them and having their support allows for educated and informed risks to be taken, creating revenue from risk. This process of involvement beyond providing accountability also enables transparency in the decision-making process allowing people to better understand the democracy of their city - understanding the decisions and compromises that are required (White, 2018). Empathy for decision makers and better relationships may be formed as a result. “In governments that are experimenting with design in the policy formulation space, early signs suggest they are designing policies that connect more closely with citizens and therefore are more likely to hit the mark when implemented.” (IDEO & Nesta, 2017) In terms of facing humanity and disconnection, participation is the solution to this – “A human perspective should drive technologies rather than technologies shaping our potential.” (Landry, 2016, p. 6) By people shaping the direction of where their cities are going, being allowed to have their say on their environments and having the backing of their local government - people can truly feel empowered to bring change locally and recapture lost notions of communities through technology (Landry, 2016) 9 | Paul Thurston –Former head of Insights & Service Design at FCC

Dundee Service Jam 2017 ‘Grapevine’ Street Prototype

| CHAPTE |O

NITIES | THE NEED | DESIGN | OPPORTUNITIES | DESIGN | OPPORTUNITIES Designers adopt the design process in their thinking (design thinking) or design as an attitude, described as a useful tool for resourceful people in challenging circumstances (Rawsthorn, 2018). Meaning, designers are not the only ones who can use design, but they are best equipped to inspire others and can empower and guide users to develop authentic ideas and solutions for themselves (Geetsom, 2016, p. 10).“Design is ultimately about power and you either understand power or you don’t […] Every design decision you make has an implication of power. Somebody is getting more or it’s getting taken away from somebody else […] This decision that you’ve just made, this design you’ve come up with: who will gain from it; who will lose power; what are the dynamics and power relationships that this enables or takes away; how can I make sure that I have some control over what I’ve just done; and how is that sustainable?” (Press, 2018) Designers need to develop an awareness of this power and how they may be inadvertently inflicting a power asymmetry (Aye, 2018) – working for decision makers but with people who are subject to those decisions, almost appearing as enforces from the perspectives of those without power. Designers are equipped with the right knowledge, the right tools and the right attitude to be changemakers. They can branch out of their expertise in design developing a ‘T-Shaped Knowledge’ of various disciplines to form interdisciplinary teams (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2010, p. 112). This is especially useful for dealing with social issues and smart-cities where complex

issues are explored. Designers should have an intuition of who knows what, who is needed for what part of the process and general talent for stakeholder management (Schaaf, 2018). Creating value is another skill of the designer – also making people or users feel valued through great attention to detail. Examples of this can be observed in ‘Hands of X’ where the designers use a specific paper weight and finish for a user specification sheet – thick and well finished enough that it makes the users feel valued but thin and textured enough that it encouraged a loose response (Cook & Pullin, In Press). This was also observed in a co-design workshop in September where preparation of physical badges took place, writing each participant’s name on the badge beforehand to give it to them when they arrive. This made participants aware you are mindful of them, know who they are, and value them being there. It is also a token to take away and remember as a valued experience (Boyle, 2018) Risk-taking too is a tool at the disposal of designers, however, where others are risk-averse designers are risk-prone used as learning experiences with the intent of failing fast. Using these ‘failings’ to inform future designs and prototype eliminating uneducated risk and instead privileging from experience. This risk-taking can lead to original ideas, creativity is the force that drives this, but design is the thinking that turns creativity into innovation. (Press, 2018)

Figure 4:A Set of Illustrated Strategies: Many Apply to Design

NITIES | METHODS | DESIGN | OPPORTUNITIES | DESIGN | OPPORTUNITIES For designers turning their own creativity into innovative ideas has always been expected, but helping others turn their creativity into innovation in a social design context is a newer concept, one which requires a lot of attention from the designer. This new role is not without support though, the implementation of participatory design has been around for decades meaning there are a substantial amount of engagement techniques and toolkits for the designer to make use of - most of which are open source and available online.

the ideation phase through rapid prototyping, focus groups and co-creation sessions everyone has an equal say about the operations and delivery. In the implementation phase through piloting, road mapping and monitoring sustaining involvement with the project and continual progress of its delivery are developed (IDEO, 2015). These are just a few examples of the many methods out there that designers can implement to their own advantage. Or as designers, we can assess the situation and develop new tools as each project calls for it.

These toolkits offer tried and tested methods of engaging people at different stages of the design process from ideation all the way through to the delivery and implementation. Two great examples come from IDEO in their ‘Method Cards’ and their ‘Field Guide to Human Centred Design’. An awareness of these tools is a great start but knowing which methods to use and when is where that design knowledge comes in (White, 2018).

We need to act as agents of change developing new models for people to be involved and holding those in charge accountable to listen to those people willing to help change their environments. “There are people in our communities who are quiet because they’re not used to having their voices heard, they’re not used to saying anything, they’re not used to being taken seriously, they don’t have the confidence, they don’t have the skill. And we have got to think really hard about how we create opportunities.” (Press, 2018) Through this we have the possibility to set participatory design as the new normal, make it so abundant that it becomes an expectation of any project making old illinformed decision-making models obsolete (Dark Matter YYC, 2018). Designers can be the ones to set this as a standard and the ones to design these engagement experiences that become inclusive to everyone.

Previously a top-down approach was mentioned in relation to smart-cities, the co-design approach is much more of a bottomup approach, however, a synergy between the two involving stakeholders and citizens alike could ultimately be of the most benefit (Crawford, 2018). Involving both in the inspiration phase through group interviews, observational research and role reversal determines where all the parties are facing problems, what are only symptoms and what the bigger issues are. In

“I design more ‘des ign engagement experiences’ for peop le to actively involve them in the co-design process. Whether yo u involve people to collabora te with them to gain information or maybe you’re trying to generate ideas with them or maybe you have an actual design goal…. just trying to work with people to break do wn barriers and get them more enga ged with design and show them ho w powerful using design approaches and methods can be.” (McIntosh, 2018)

Figure 5: IDEO Design Kit Travel Pack: A toolkit full of methods to try

NITIES | INVOLVEMENT | DESIGN | OPPORTUNITIES | DESIGN | OPPORTUNI As mentioned, engagement experiences must be designed to maximise how engaging they can be – just like anything else the way we involve people will benefit from good design. In this process, designers can lead by example and demonstrate an empowered approach to change-making aiming to inspire co-creators to become champions of the process encouraging innovation through creativity. This could contribute to forming an innovation ecosystem where even more designers would be needed to initiate task driven projects (Landry, 2016, p. 45) One of these projects could even be the assessment of smartcity projects measuring their progress towards their goals and assessing how people’s interactions with them have changed since becoming smart(er). The former point would be achievable through 3 methods: Research for Design exploring what could be done in the future; Research Through Design using the design of service/products/spaces to gather insight; and Research of Design assessing the overall execution of the design (Geetsom, 2016). The latter may even be achieved by research through design measuring how people have had behavioural changes with increased involvement and ownership, has this made ‘behaving-well’ easier? “Create a place that they [people] feel much more connected to in the city and in the end, they behave or act differently, the city is more a part of their home. If you have your living room, you take care of it, but you wouldn’t take care of your street that much” (Schaaf, 2018) Creating a connection between the home and the city is another area with design opportunities. With the prominence of the internet and constant connectivity and the blurring of lines between work, home and social spaces and even the introduction of augmented and virtual reality – there are 32

multiple new spatial typologies emerging (Landry, 2016, p. 52). From versatile spaces people can use as they need, co-working spaces for new ventures to flourish, virtual spaces to explore, or disconnect zones – a place of no service – all these spaces will require experimentation, well considered and participatory design for them to function as needed. Hyper localised projects specific to, or targeted at, smaller communities over a certain user group also offer some potential to benefit from co-design. Working with communities to see how they could benefit from a smarter city as ultimately people need to know where the potential lies - otherwise it will totally disinterest them (Crawford, 2018) creating digital poverty. Designers can provide a bridge between what we can do (the technology) and what we should do (the people’s needs) educating people on what is possible and helping them to visualise this in their lives. However, hyper localised projects should be used to inform decisions over fulfil needs, as when the delivery of these projects becomes too targeted, they can be too exclusive (Schaaf, 2018). “Redefining the city as a community of brains is a different paradigm whose aim is to harness the collective community intelligence for the common good.” (Landry, 2016, p. 7) Technology is only one part of the smart-cities’ movement (White, 2018), a part that does require a lot of attention to ensure the ethical application, but people are the biggest part of any city. Improving their lives through the application of technology and with good design is the crucial next step for the market – and this will only be successful through involving their opinions and valuing the principles they define.

Figure 6: Design Workshop Illustrated

| CHAPTE PR

| CITY | VALUES | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | C “This emergent city needs bigger values and an urban culture to anchor its actions, to drive its technologies and to solve old problems” (Landry, 2016, p. 17) Values are important in any business to form a connection with the customer and to drive future action. While cities tend to brand themselves with slogans and more, they lack common values. Below is a list of values cities should adopt to be more citizen-centric as developing smart-cities. Conscientious – Consistently listening to (and involving) citizens to thoroughly fulfil their needs to the best of a city’s abilities and be willing to accept criticism and feedback on how to improve. Technology can help with developing platforms for this, gathering people’s views quickly, crowdsourcing data and creating a collective intelligence Accountable – Through involving people every decision is accountable and justifiable – peoples needs are at the centre and are taken just as seriously and as valuably as technology. Cities also must be held accountable to progress.

Transparent – Decision making processes and funding should be made more prominent through involvement to build a connection making decisions accountable with room for public influence. This transparency will build a better relationship between the public sector and the public. Empathic – Understanding that everyone’s needs are different, and it is a duty to try and help everyone lead a good quality of life. A collaborative economy could help with this building peoples understanding, acceptance and willingness to work with others to create better environments. Progression – Each new project or system should be a step forward to being more inclusive and meeting more peoples needs

Values That Foster Progression and Cycle Continuously

Informality – Find ways of informally collaborating & connection with people outside of an institutional or formal setting – make them feel comfortable allowing for equal and honest communication.

Work with people – Demonstrate how design can help them and empower them to employ it in other areas of their life. Don’t just parachute in, design for them, and exit.

Risks – Avoid the instant fix, aim to create long term solutions over short term change. Take new paths and consider new options and technologies over what is comfortably familiar.

Serve those in need – Take a step back and make sure the project you are working on will deliver impact, listen to those who are unfamiliar with having their voices heard and represent them in everything you design.

Measure impact – Use design research methods to measure the impact of what you are doing and the impact overall. Results are key to future projects and achieving even better projects in the future.

Challenge self & others – Use design to challenge your own capabilities and to challenge others to grow from that experience. Collaboratively use it learn from one another and create something new together

Design in Stages – Use design to create peaks in day to day life or ‘highlights’, consider these holistically and as a citizens journey through the city, its spaces and its services.

Find Interested People – Involving everyone is not logistically possible but involving a selection of people that represent diverse views is. Find early adopters who are interested in what you are doing who can become champions.

Figure 7: Collaboration around a table

OWER | MAPPING | POWER | POWER | POWER | POWER | POWER | POWER Through exploration of currently available design methods available online and through an interview with M. Press & H. White the idea to develop a new tool emerged. A ‘Power Map’ is intended to asses what a user perceives as their power reality in relation to what would be their power expectations. Attention to where they feel pressure from, where they feel others have power, where there needs to be a balance and more has been explored. This also draws heavily on the research of G. Aye of Greater Good Studio. It is a prototype meant to be further developed/altered with users for a situational application. It is meant to demonstrate the power of design and show that people, in some cases, will have more power than they believe – they just need to know how to use it and where to apply it to bring change.

| REFLECTI CO

CTION | CONCLUSION | REFLECTION | REFLECTION | REFLECTION | REFLEC Designers bring a range of skills to the smart-cities market, that it urgently needs, namely our ability to interact with and coordinate people to help inform innovative change and deliver suited projects. This will begin to fulfil one of the markets main goals ‘to improve quality of life’ which until now had seemed secondary to improving operations and efficiency. This is symbolic of the new direction of smart-cities to have greater and more modern values that the people living in them can define - anchored in a city’s unique culture and environment (Landry, 2016, p. 17). The direction of where smart-cities must go is very clear, and the way they can achieve this is just as clear – through participation and co-design. No aspect of involving citizens is a waste (time, money or effort) and there needs to be a push by designers for a cultural shift to see the value of involvement. For citizens: to see their needs matter; their voices are crucial for projects; they have the power to change things, and they have a right to be involved. For public sector: to see this connects their decision-making back to the people they serve; their policy and plans are better informed; they have more backing through doing so and they make more progress collaboratively. Through the involvement of citizens, cities will not only be intellectually intelligent. They will be: emotionally intelligent, understanding of the people in its surroundings; culturally intelligent, accepting and embracing of different cultures; and digitally intelligent, its people will be proficient in digital skills and everyone will have access to technology. A further sign of cities going beyond and outdated connotation of the word smart and flourishing in progression. 44

The co-design process is not a risk, nor a guarantee but it is a step in the right direction, cities that see it as a risk can take advantage of the smart-city market to explore the possibilities. The market is one that is increasingly well funded but underperforms its true potential. Cities can take advantage of the top-down approach of large tech companies/suppliers and meet that with a bottom-up approach. Involving both supplier and demander and meeting in the middle, defining common goals, what is needed, and what can be achieved through the application or integration of technology. This synergy between old methods and new provides real opportunities for designers to be involved at multiple levels. Designers can: take-risks; educate individuals; empower communities; form partnerships; initiate change; inspire organisations; amplify voices; guide discussions; target inequality; disrupt status quo; coordinate the masses and many more; Designers are by no means the only people who can do this and design thinking is in no way superior to other forms of thinking, however, it and we can and should do all of these things to progress as societies. Creating lasting impact, improving lives and making sure everyone can make the most out of life. Through taking design and applying it to issues that require attention, the designer’s role may be changed but so is the lives of the people who are facing these issues who can’t see any improvements or hope for a better future. The market for well-considered and inclusive design projects in cities is open for business. Designers can both be the ones who push for this to become an expectation (in their city and others) and the ones who deliver it - working with organisations,

CTION | REFLECTION | REFLECTION | REFLECTION | REFLECTION | charities, governments, communities and individuals and one another. A collaborative approach to solving the problems our cities face is key - overcoming barriers and creating diverse and insightful teams to create unique and inclusive approaches to problem-solving. This approach creates more than a monetary value, it creates real change people can recognise in their lives and help foster future change The smart-city market is right in the middle of the digital and urban design revolution, cities are at a limit with what the can manageably control with systems, staffing and budget cuts while trying to do more with less and become more efficient through digitization. Designers have the opportunity to now work with people and stakeholders alike to make a real difference to communities through coming up with innovative ideas, forming collaborative partnerships and delivering change through social action. There unequivocally is a market here or a gap, and it needs to be filled by designers to maximise the impact it can have. Smart-cities may be the cities of tomorrow today, but they need the designers of tomorrow to make them work for people now.

SDA Participants Feeding Back About the Co-Design Process