SDFWP (English) by Het Nieuwe Instituut

SOCIAL DESIGN FORWIC KEDPR OBLEMS SDFWP is a public research project by Het Nieuwe Instituut, Tabo Goudswaard, Twynstra Gudde and DOEN Foundation

Table of contents

Preface ……………………………………………... Introduction ………………………………………...

SOCIAL DESIGN FOR WICKED PROBLEMS The initiators ………………………………... The disciplines ……………………………... The principles ………………………………. The design ……………………………………

10 12 16 18 25

3 WICKED PROBLEMS, 3 SOCIAL DESIGNS Wicked Problem #1: Bullying on Columbus Square in Amsterdam West ………………………… Wicked Problem #2: Our (absent) financial awareness ……….. Wicked Problem #3: Obesity ………………………………………..

34 38 42

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? ………………….. 48 INCOMPLETE ……………………………………... 58 Epilogue …………………………………………….. 63 Colophon …………………………………………… 67

PREFACE

What? Why? Social design makes use of design thinking to deal with tricky social problems. That sounds good. After all, there are plenty of issues in our society that representatives of current institutions – from social workers to politicians – are failing to address adequately. Why not therefore try a different approach? It probably won’t do any harm and it may do some good. A fresh angle; who could object to that? This attitude is rather typical of the way in which social design is usually regarded. That’s certainly not a bad thing, since this is now giving social designers the opportunity to make their first wobbly steps in society. The forthcoming pages detail what happens next. Social design is not a superficial trick, but a serious and far-reaching process for everybody involved. A social design project is a meeting place, a crossroads with many different paths. In order to make progress, all parties are required to demonstrate unconditional transparency, a willingness to learn, and a great stock of (personal) courage. The reward for this involvement lies in the surprising dynamics, the inspiration and also the opportunity for self-reflection which is tapped in these kinds of 5

projects, as well as in the discovery of new ways of improving the physical, mental, financial and social health of our society. This requires the knowledge and skills of many professional fields. The design approach behind social design can create a space that enables new forms of cooperation. But this space is not nearly as innocuous as it may seem. It’s not neutral ground: sooner or later, everybody will have to go through changes to be able to face these challenges. No party or professional field can remain unaltered. Even the designers and artists who support the project are confronted with fundamental questions about who and what they are. Solving the issues at hand is not easily done, but the pioneering projects presented in this report have already made a huge leap forward by gaining clarity about the nature of misunderstandings and by creating a new ‘in-between language.’ Each project in this report is a microcosm of deeprooted problems that are begging for a new perspective. We have only just begun. Prof. Kees Dorst

INTRODUCTION

Over the course of six months a number of social designers and organisations have worked together to develop new perspectives for wicked problems. All the stages in the collaborative processes were tracked and discussed in public meetings. These projects were part of the practical research programme SOCIALDESIGNFORWICKEDPROBLEMS (SDFWP). SDFWP was inspired by a rapidly-growing movement. We can see a trend of designers and artists developing into social designers, using their knowledge and skills to have impact on social problems. At the same time organisations are tending to look for new ways to realise effective strategies to deal with these same problems. This report deals with the three projects that were carried out within SDFWP. We show how each of the problems was approached from a new perspective and how this affected everybody involved. Above all, we deal with the term â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;social designâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; on a meta level, based on the question: What needs to be done so that this promising discipline can reach maturity? In this report, we have tried to give expression to the wealth of our research as much as possible. We have also had to make decisions concerning 7

the number of things we could discuss here. For additional background and details, we would therefore like to refer to the weblog we kept on the progress of the research, which also includes a list of recommended reading. It is with gratitude that we build on the pioneering work of people such as Hans Vermaak and Kees Dorst. There is a lot yet to discover in the field of social design. This research is incomplete on multiple levels; itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s literally research in progress. But the social designs that have been made in response to these three social problems are incomplete too, in the sense that the period of time it takes to reach lasting change is more prolonged than SDFWP has been able to invest. This report is also intended to feed the discussion about social design, and most of all we hope that it will present talented designers and artists with new leads that enable them to expand their artistic directions. We also hope that it will give occasion to stakeholders and clients to join forces with social designers. SDFWP Editorial team Tabo Goudswaard Klaas Kuitenbrouwer AndrĂŠ SchaminĂŠe

……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………

Social design for wicked problems

SDFWPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goal is to provide a firmer foundation to the field of social design and to fuel the debate about this field with critical and constructive input. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s also our ambition to make social design more recognisable and functional as a method of tackling wicked problems for potential clients as well as for designers and artists. Finally, we intend to promote alliances between these parties and social stakeholders, such as governments, companies and other organisations. Words in italics with an asterisk (*) are included in the glossary in the chapter in-between language.

THE INTIATORS SDFWP is a project by: Het Nieuwe Instituut, Tabo Goudswaard, Twynstra Gudde and DOEN Foundation.

Klaas Kuitenbrouwer – Het Nieuwe Instituut Klaas Kuitenbrouwer is theme line coordinator at Het Nieuwe Instituut (HNI) and also teaches at the Gerrit Rietveld academie in Amsterdam. Among other things, Het Nieuwe Instituut wants to foster a critical, constructive debate about the activities of the creative industry. Apart from technical and economic aspects, Het Nieuwe Instituut also aims to explore the social and cultural aspects of innovation as part of the innovation debate. Research question: Can we find ways to deal productively with the double immune response*?

Tabo Goudswaard – social designer Tabo Goudswaard trained as an autonomous artist at the Gerrit Rietveld Academie in Amsterdam. He then went on to study at No Academy, the 12

post-graduate social design training programme in Amsterdam. As a social designer* he designs new ways of looking at social problems. He seeks to connect with people’s everyday behaviour and designs new concrete perspectives for taking action, which he both shares with participants and produces together with them. Through his work he has become convinced that designers and artists can play a crucial role in shaping societies. Research questions: How can an artist position themselves so that they can actually influence society? What does it take to reach good working arrangements with clients*? Is it true that working at the heart of policy issues undermines an artist’s autonomy*? How does social impact relate to artistic quality?

André Schaminée – Twynstra Gudde André Schaminée is an adviser at management consultancy firm Twynstra Gudde. Twynstra Gudde is the market leader in the field of change management. André Schaminée is co-founder of the consultancy’s department in which the knowledge and skills of (social) designers and visual artists are combined with specific knowledge of the problems at hand and organisational change. Consultants and social designers come together; a method is employed in which social designers get access to the heart of the problem and by which remarkable, intriguing and 13

confusing things happen. They pick up the rules of the game as they go along. Research question: What does social design add to the change managerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s repertoire?

Yu-Lan van Alphen â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DOEN Foundation Yu-lan Van Alphen is Programme Manager for Culture & Social Design at DOEN Foundation. DOEN supports over two hundred sustainable, cultural and social forerunners every year, in word and deed and by financial means. In addition, DOEN connects them to each other, so that crossfertilisation and new ideas come into being. What these initiatives have in common is an entrepreneurial approach: these are people, organisations and companies that have a taste for risk-taking and because of that are effectively contributing to a better and cleaner world. DOEN has its own social design programme which focuses on the question of how to create optimum levels of wellbeing while making do with less (resources, energy, etc.). DOEN tries to find the answer to this question by supporting initiatives by designers and artists who are seeking to balance economy, society and climate. In its portfolio, DOEN Foundation has observed a number of artistically interesting projects that have the potential to impact on society much more substantially than they have managed to achieve so far. DOEN has 14

also identified socially relevant projects that could have had more effect in terms of quality with a better artistic approach. Research question: How can we stimulate the development of artistically interesting projects with real social impact?

THE DISCIPLINES SDFWP was initiated from three different disciplines: design, visual arts and change management.

Design Within the field of design the subcategory of social design has been on the rise for some years. Different practitioners mean different things by the term social design, but the general tendency is that many designers, by virtue of their field, wish to be relevant in the context of social problems. Research question: What kind of design approach can social designers draw on to exert a positive influence on behaviours involved in complex social problems?

Visual arts A need also exists in the field of art to participate in social processes. On the one hand this development was prompted by the reduced government budget for culture, on the other hand it represents a trend that actually originated in artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; working lives. In the twentieth century, visual arts focused strongly on so-called white cubes*, from which any social context was expressly barred. This approach is becoming more and more discordant with 16

modern-day reality, which is increasingly networked, complex and connected. However, the meaning of artistic creation when removed from the art sector and its own criteria is not obvious (see Double immune response). Research question: How can an artist impact on what is important to people in society? How can an artist change an existing system effectively?

Change management The field of change management is looking for new ways to confront the problems of our time. The recession leads to introspection, but many organisations realise that more of the same wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t solve anything. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s why we urgently need a new approach. Social design could be this alternative approach. In terms of practical application, it is still very much work in progress and there is too little knowledge about what good can be generated by social design. This means that at present there is still often little room for social design processes, of which the efficacy and outcome is unclear. Within the framework of SDFWP, we investigate what makes social design interesting to change management and what makes change management useful for social design. Research question: What do the disciplines add to each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s respective approach and how can the existing knowledge about wicked problems within change management move social design further along?

THE PRINCIPLES Within SDFWP, four key concepts play such an important role that we would like to elucidate them separately here: wicked problems, social design, Frame Creation and change management.

Wicked problems SDFWP primarily focuses on dealing with wicked problems*, a synonym term for ‘tough or tricky issues’. What are wicked problems? We can categorise problems according to the amount of knowledge that has been gathered about them in relation to the degree of consensus that has been reached about them. This roughly results in four categories: ●● Simple problems – Problems about which there is a lot of knowledge and consensus. Example: How can we save energy? ●● Ethical problems – Problems about which there is a lot of knowledge but little consensus. Example: Is euthanasia socially acceptable? ●● Scientific problems – Problems about which there is little knowledge but often much consensus. Example: Do Earth-like planets exist outside of our solar system? 18

●● Wicked problems – problems about which there is both (too) little knowledge and little consensus. Not only are we seeing an ever-increasing number of wicked problems appearing, we are also becoming more sensitive to the wickedness of problems we never used to see as being wicked.

Wicked problems can also be typified as: ●● Open – Wicked problems are open because they are difficult to demarcate. They are influenced by many external factors and stakeholders*. ●● Complex – Wicked problems are complex because they are problems that cannot be divided up into convenient pieces and resolved bit by bit. The factors that play a role are related in various ways. ●● Dynamic – Wicked problems are dynamic because new factors, stakeholders and contexts continuously come into play. They are moving targets. For instance, health is linked to social and cultural background, diet to income, education to parenting. ●● Connected – The networked nature of many social problems is increasingly recognised in our society. Tough issues usually don’t have 19

any (obvious) problem owners*. In order to deal with them it is crucial to somehow work together, since there are many stakeholders.

Social design The use of the term social design is quickly becoming established, but, as stated, there isn’t a firm shared definition, although the interpretations do usually largely overlap. At the onset of our project we had an expertise session with various designers, artists and thinkers who are involved with forms of social design. This session led us to a classification of social design on three levels – the three M’s: ●● Mentality – Social design focuses on social innovation. Many projects are oriented at a ‘better world.’ They serve social goals and benefit specific groups of people. The designer or artist undertakes social design with a socially-committed attitude. ●● Material – Social design primarily manifests itself within the social domain and focuses on problems for which a change in behaviour is desired. Human relations are as important as the material in the design. Designers and artists can play a prominent role in this because experience is often central in their creative processes. 20

â&#x2014;?â&#x2014;? Method â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Social design makes use of social processes as a tool. A social design involves stakeholders (users and problem owners) in an integrally-designed process. This work method enables stakeholders from various domains and disciplines to become shared owners of the process. The expertise and the potential for innovation of those involved are made use of, which also leads to wider support for the design among the participants.

Based on the research and practical application by several of the people concerned we arrived at the following process outline* of social design: 1. Defining the problem (framing) 2. Conducting (field) research 3. Reframing* 4. Making and testing prototypes* 5. Implementing design 6. Reflection/evaluation (what is the measurable effect and where should the social design be adjusted?) We will return to this process outline in the chapter What have we learned.

Frame Creation SDFWP has taken inspiration from Prof. Kees Dorstâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Frame Creation method. We used this method as a guide for the social design process, as a way of describing what type of product social design can yield (a reframing*) and to be able to identify the type of result beforehand. Instead of using this method peremptorily, we employed it as a conceptual tool. Reframing is a designed alternative way of looking at a problem. This new way of looking makes room for experimentation. Frame creation is a specific form of social design and, we believe, constitutes a promising way of working with wicked problems. As well as the much-needed new view of the problem, it gives an opportunity to connect stakeholders around a problem in an integrated design process. Making use of the expertise of the participants and generating support for possible outcomes obviates three typical aspects of wicked problems: lack of knowledge, lack of consensus, and lack of ownership.

Change management SDFWP was also inspired by the book Plezier beleven aan taaie vraagstukken [Having fun with wicked problems], by Hans Vermaak. Social design aims to effect a positive change* pertaining to a 22

social problem (in which, incidentally, ‘change’ shouldn’t be confused with ‘solution’). Change management is a discipline within consultancy that concentrates on an organisation’s structure or work methodology. Organisations can be governments, companies, networks of individuals or any possible combination of these. Wicked problems take a special place within change management. They are a sort of test to prove our mastery, for which the skills of the classic repertoire can never suffice. Wicked problems always demand something extra and you can never be certain of success. Change management offers a number of interesting and useful theories and tools for analysing social design. One of these is ‘colour thinking’ about methods of change. Colour thinking is a framework distinguishing five change styles. Every style has its own characteristics in terms of diagnosis, communication and approach. There is no hierarchy – all styles have their advantages and pitfalls. ●● Yellow – This colour indicates a political approach. Change is brought about by guiding the most important players to a consensus view via negotiation. ●● Blue – This colour indicates project-based work. Change is brought about after researching the best solution, after which this is implemented methodically. 23

●● Red – This colour indicates soft values. Something changes when people are encouraged in the right way so that they feel acknowledged and appreciated within the social process. ●● Green – This colour indicates learning. By placing people in learning situations, raising their awareness and capabilities, something changes. It increases the participants’ ability to work in a development process. ●● White – This colour indicates an organic approach. Change takes place by nudging along spontaneous evolution by way of creating room where there is energy, and removing obstacles.

THE DESIGN SDFWP’s editorial team initiated three design programmes of which two started with a stakeholder* who also acted as the client*. The third programme consisted of a problem that was selected by the social designers themselves. In order to spread the word about SDFWP we made two calls for participation. First, a call directed to organisations that felt they were problem owners of a certain social problem. Second, a call to designers and artists potentially interested in getting involved. Six organisations filled in problem forms and 182 designers and artists sent us their CVs.

Selecting clients In the client selection process we first looked for suitable problems with a public nature. We looked for organisations which wanted to conduct research and weren’t afraid to show their vulnerable side; after all, it could well turn out that they themselves were part of the wicked problem they submitted. In addition, we requested a €10,000 fee for the design team. We preferred to be assigned a project budget* instead of a culture budget. In principle, interested organisations had to show involvement on two levels. First, we wanted 25

somebody inside the organisation to be involved with the project on a daily basis, somebody who could open doors, provide feedback, be a part of the project team. It was also important that good embedding in the managerial layer of the organisation was guaranteed. We expected that there might be moments where tension could arise, leading to an unpredictable project. In order to prevent that such a moment would call the value of the entire project into question, we thought it wise to have a manager (i.e. director, district council chairperson or magistrate) commit to the project. This made it possible for us to venture off the shopfloorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s beaten track. The editorial team formulated the research question together with each organisation, mapped the most important players inside the organisations, agreed who would carry responsibility and who would be the contact person.

Selecting designers In the social designer selection process we gave special weight to both ability and interest in working together. By this we mean working together with social designers with different backgrounds, workers at organisations and others who were involved with the problem. We also looked for designers who were author-driven*, meaning able to make intuition*-based decisions when faced with 26

a complex array of possibilities and to use subjectivity as a strength. We looked for artistic quality and people who were capable of designing a truly novel way of viewing a problem (see Reframing). We felt it was important that the participants were capable of context building*. This means being able to organise the problem’s environment in such a way that the design has impact on the right place within the system and on the right people. For this it is required first and foremost to be able to explain how the design affects the daily practice of all the parties involved. We made a plan which detailed a six-month programme for all teams, with public meetings acting as milestones. We made a list of matters that were to be discussed at the kick-off, created fact sheets with contact details and communicated a few aspects that we wanted to debate in the course of the process. We composed a memorandum of understanding which presented everything agreed upon, including a global description of the finished product. The design teams were expected to deliver the following: ●● A problem analysis with stakeholder mapping of the wicked problem. ●● Proposals for a reframing of (aspects of) the problem for different groups of stakeholders. 27

●● One or multiple proposals for concrete action or projects that would affect the wicked problem and convey the effectiveness of the reframing to stakeholders. ●● A closer elaboration of the most promising reframing and accompanying action or intervention, with the goal of bringing about new productive dynamics and ownership concerning the wicked problem. Together, these should lead to a new perspective for action* for the problem owner in relation to the wicked problem they submitted, as well as an approach to put the action or projects into practice. To ensure the changes set in motion are lasting, careful attention to the implementation of the design is required. Actual implementation of the action or projects, however, fell beyond the scope of the research project. We did ensure a careful transfer of the project and in this way created optimum conditions for its realisation. All of the teams have continued to work together on the problems after the end of the research.

Public research The expert meetings and public sessions we organised effectively describe the programme completed by the teams. There were always 28

over one hundred attendees present at the public sessions. Reports (in Dutch) of these meetings can be found on the weblog www.socialdesignonderzoek.nl under the heading Publieke sessies. ●● Session #0 What Design Can Do – Amsterdam (16 May 2013) Expert meeting attempting to map the different directions under the umbrella of social design, along with their accompanying terminology. ●● Session #1 Het Nieuwe Instituut – Rotterdam (6 September 2013) Kick-off. The selected design teams met for the first time. The problems were explained and the social designers presented their work. Mieke Moor gave a lecture about wicked problems and Dick Rijken expounded upon the power of social design. ●● Session #2 Dutch Design Week – Eindhoven (24 October 2013) The design teams each presented their problem analysis, perceptions and the design strategy that they thought was likely to succeed. There was also feedback from problem owners and experts from design/artistic and organisational/ change management contexts.

●● Session #3 Pakhuis de Zwijger – Amsterdam (3 December 2013) The design teams presented their design proposals. ●● Session #4 Het Nieuwe Instituut – Rotterdam (15 January 2014) The clients explained what they would do with the proposals made by the social designers. ●● Session #5 Twynstra Gudde – Amersfoort (17 February 2014) Presentation of the research conclusions to a group of experts.

3 wicked problems, 3 social designs

This chapter contains a summary of the progress of SDFWP research on three wicked problems and their three reframings.

WICKED PROBLEM #1: BULLYING ON COLUMBUS SQUARE IN AMSTERDAM WEST. This problem was put forward by the West district of the Amsterdam Municipality, represented by: Martien Kuitenbrouwer (district council Chairperson), Martien van Rijn (Neighbourhood Outreach Team Leader), May Britt Janssen (Youth & Safety Coordinator). The selected social designers were: MUZUS (Neele Kistemaker and Aafke Kauffman) and Jorge Mañes Rubio.

For many years, misbehaving young people have been causing a nuisance in squares around Amsterdam-West. A lot of residents have lost faith in the police and the district council. At the same time, the police won’t take any action if the residents don’t make reports. Parents don’t feel responsible for their children’s behaviour. In its earliest form this kind of nuisance is classified as bullying among children in the streets. This is regarded as a possible precursor to other kinds of nuisance at a later age, in some cases leading to (extreme) criminal behaviour. As a case study, Amsterdam-West presented the bullying on Columbus Square. In the district De Baarsjes, fourteen welfare organisations each work on their own partitioned projects. How can we facilitate the welfare organisations thinking and working beyond their assigned 34

tasks and organising their resources flexibly around ‘that which the situation demands’? What makes this more difficult is that ownership of the nuisance is increasingly deteriorating. Whenever there are no severe incidents taking place the urgency is lost. One could say this urgency is in constant need of being injected.

Reframing: The micronation of Columbus Square From the social designers’ report:

‘Columbus Square lies in the middle of a densely populated area of Amsterdam. It’s a beautiful square, spaciously designed and brimming with potential. With its highly multicultural and multiethnic population, the demographic composition of this neighbourhood is rather unique. Even though most of the recent generations were born with Dutch nationality, they are growing up amidst different cultural identities (they are third-culture kids), which can lead to great confusion, especially among adolescents. The effect of this is that they’re not great judges of their own behaviour. This can lead to negative behaviour which is mostly visible in the streets, where the children make up their own rules. Children from various backgrounds and schools can come into conflict with each other and start bullying.’ 35

The flag, a banknote, the passport and a stamp of the new micro nation: The Republic of the Columbus Square.Â WICKED PROBLEM #1

WICKED PROBLEM #1

Columbus Square lies in the middle of a densely populated area of Amsterdam. “It’s a beautiful square, spaciously designed and brimming with potential.”

WICKED PROBLEM #1

Financial awareness through physical response: your skin glows red if your bank account is in the red numbers.Â WICKED PROBLEM #2

If relational issues are an important cause for financial trouble, should Nationale Nederlanden be setting up relationship counselling?

WICKED PROBLEM #2

As a teaser for the Rethinking Insurance Day we will do a survey in the hall of Nationale Nederlanden in The Hague. All employees will be challenged to reconsider insurance in unusual ways.Â

WICKED PROBLEM #2

Isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t it a better idea to ensure you have good friends and nice neighbours than to insure your pension? WICKED PROBLEM #2

The self regulation pill: in case of lack of disicipline or an inexplicable case of the munchies.

A beautiful German expression that refers to eating in order to ease sorrow. Â WICKED PROBLEM #3

The Obese Phrasebook is an adaptation of the familiar language guide with categories such as: Useful Grammar, Civilities, Conversations, Eating Out, Travel, Public Transport, Accommodation and Camping, Money and Banking, Shopping, Physical Activity, Illness, Emergencies. WICKED PROBLEM #3

WICKED PROBLEM #3

‘Touring Columbus Square’s sports field on a sunny Sunday afternoon, we were taken by the stunning effect of all the lines and colours on the playing field. The analogy between the space and the plurality of the neighbourhood sparked our imagination. This image was to become the flag of a new micronation, a rich mix of cultures, colours and identities – each of them different and yet interwoven into a union. We wanted to allow the neighbourhood’s residents to create their own nation, history and identity. This would finally give the various social organisations a strong narrative that unites their projects.’ ‘The micronation of Columbus Square offers a shared identity to everybody who is involved in the neighbourhood. This allows them to conquer the expectation of problems they’ve been caught in for years and make a fresh start. In order to shape the micronation, we organised various activities. The first one was a contest to create a secret national recipe for a sauce for chips, given that chips are the favourite local snack. The image of the winner of this contest, nine-year-old Sophie, was put on the first stamp of the micronation and the sauce has now been adopted by local restaurants and cafeterias. We didn’t over-organise this activity and hadn’t made precursory ‘what if’ scenarios. Things were allowed to go wrong and this caused the children to take responsibility for their behaviour during the activity. This insight led to the formulation of the Principles of the Republic of Columbus Square, ten guidelines that help organisations organise activities worthy of the micronation.’ 48

‘Another activity was a space programme for Columbus Square. Together with some Dutch astronauts we visited the European Space Agency in Noordwijk, where we learned all sorts of things about the International Space Station and how astronauts live in space. We prepared for our own mission: Mission Kite. The following day children made their own Tyvek kites. Afterwards, it was time to launch the mission and kites were flown on Colombus Square. The space programme was not only important because it appealed to the ambitions of the children but also because social workers took ownership of the art project for the first time.’ Other ideas have already been thought up, like an alternative currency (with social workers on the notes) and a passport with which to track citizens’ involvement. Organisations and residents have been invited to adapt their activities to the perspectives of the Republic of Columbus Square. A new approach has taken shape, based on positive potential instead of problem solving.’

WICKED PROBLEM #2: OUR (ABSENT) FINANCIAL AWARENESS This problem was put forward by Nationale Nederlanden [financial services company], represented by: Brett Tollman (HR Director: Reward and Performance Management), Geza Laqueur (Business Manager; CEO Nationale-Nederlanden Life) and Alex Bogman (Corporate Strategist). The selected artists were: Rosé de Beer & Sjaak Langenberg.

People are becoming progressively less aware of their financial future and often don’t think ahead far enough, even in times like these when they’re faced with less government support and a worldwide recession. People are less keen on saving for later than they used to be, or are no longer able to because they don’t know what their financial situation will be like in the future. It’s difficult for people to prepare. What’s more, there are so many different parties and organisations that offer their services that citizens are having a hard time finding reliable information. Confidence in the financial sector, too, has shown a sharp decrease over the past years.

Reframing: Financial Awareness Laboratory—Rethinking Insurance From the social designers’ report:

‘When we went to work on the problem it soon arose that Nationale-Nederlanden saw its own employees as an important target group. How financially aware were they? We posed new questions and developed proposals that rebalanced the problem: does the financial services sector suffer from financial blinkers? Are profitdriven finance specialists selling complex financial products actually the right people to be advisers? How can the financial service provider and the financially unaware customer find common ground when everything is focused on money and financial knowledge instead of people’s motivations and needs? Isn’t it a better idea to ensure you have good friends and nice neighbours than to insure your pension (insurance in kind)?’ ‘In order to bring the motivations of the six thousand employees of Nationale-Nederlanden into the open, we drafted a questionnaire asking two questions: ‘Who or what would you like to insure, for which there doesn’t exist any insurance (yet)?’ and ‘What could you do yourself to insure yourself for this?’ ‘Other questions we asked ourselves were: 51

– Can you reanimate the social solidarity principle that lies at the core of insurance by advertising a type of insurance as a charity? – Can you lead human brains’ automatic resistance to new behaviour ‘up the garden path,’ so that people will make financially wiser decisions without noticing it themselves? If premiums for pensions or occupational disability insurance were to consist of lottery tickets, a lottery for the self-employed would be a serious option. – Could micro-insurance and micro-pensions be introduced into the Dutch market to help selfemployed people to overcome their initial resistance? – If relationship problems are an important cause of financial problems, should NN be setting up relationship counselling? – Insurers ask us to think about our pensions, but how visionary are insurance companies? – What would happen to our financial awareness if we merged with computers?’ ‘An unexpected stakeholder entered the stage: Next Nature Foundation could become involved with high-tech financial awareness. Suppose we could, for example, become financially aware due to physical reactions – getting goose bumps prompted by overspending or your skin literally turning red when your bank account is in the red.’ ‘The questions and apposite proposals were compiled in concepts for a Financial Awareness Laboratory and a Rethinking Insurance Day. As a teaser for Rethinking Insurance Day we will carry 52

out a survey in the hall of Nationale-Nederlanden in the Hague, challenging employees to consider insurance in an unusual way. The survey boxes will form a row of security gates. The outcomes of the survey will be visualised and distributed as invitations for Rethinking Insurance Day. Employees of Nationale-Nederlanden can translate new insights into products or services together with internal or external parties under the label Financial Awareness Laboratory. The Financial Awareness Laboratory will become part of NN Innovation. This will ensure long-term attention for financial awareness within the organisation.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

WICKED PROBLEM #3: OBESITY This problem was put forward by the selected social designers: Waarmakers (Maarten Heijltjes & Simon Akkaya) and artist Lino Hellings.

The designers wanted to take up the fight against the forces in society that perpetuate or even aggravate the problem of obesity. Where do the real causes lie? Their research showed that prejudice about obesity is a factor in perpetuating the problem. How to deal with all of these? Lino Hellings and Waarmakers started their research about obesity straight away during the first public session by asking questions of Kalle Br端sewitz, who is himself confronted by prejudice against obesity on a daily basis. Kalle Br端sewitz advised them to go out and talk to a large number of obese people and let them talk about their experiences with prejudice. The social designers then went on to set up their research parameters as broadly as possible. They spoke with behavioural psychologists and nutritional experts and also investigated their own relationship with food and their eating habits.

Reframing: Reinforcement of the ‘internal sat-nav’ From the social designers’ report:

‘Obesity is a problem of the modern age which has long since changed from being a problem related just to food or physical activity into a combination of multiple factors. The world around us undermines self-regulation. We are increasingly beset by temptations and we’re having a harder time making conscious, healthy choices – and what is a ‘healthy choice,’ come to think about it? It’s difficult to set achievable goals, devise strategies and plan everything well. We decided to use the metaphor of a failing ‘internal satellite navigation system (sat-nav)’ on the modern human being. ‘In the course of the preliminary research we discussed a possible partnership with several organisations – potential opportunity owners*: a health care provider, an education establishment, a pharmaceutical company and a municipality. We agreed to continue our research in partnership with Mary-Ann Schreurs, the Eindhoven municipality’s Councillor with responsibility for innovation and design. Our eventual goal is to develop a product that will support the ‘internal sat-nav’ and which will be available to everybody. In order to discover what type of product this could be, we designed a research pathway which will take place inside and outside of the municipality’s borders in co-creation* 55

with the Eindhoven municipality. The research proposals take the form of something that stands midway between fiction and reality. It serves as ‘the cat among the pigeons’ that will bring new insights out into the open once the dust has settled. We’re looking for that one push in the right direction along the way, the tipping moment that we hadn’t considered before.’ ‘In the bottom-up research we are going to spend time with overweight people to experience what it’s like to be extremely overweight. In the top-down research we are going to experiment with (partly) fictional scenarios about how things could be different.’

Bottom-up 1. Obese Phrasebook – Obesity is visible and yet hidden. Out in the street everybody reacts to an extremely overweight person, but they eat hidden from sight. This prompts us to make the problem a subject of discussion both for people who are and aren’t overweight by using humour. The Obese Phrasebook is an expression of this. It’s an adaptation of the familiar language guide with categories such as: Useful Grammar, Civilities, Conversations, Eating Out, Travel, Public Transport, Accommodation and Camping, Money and Banking, Shopping, Physical Activity, Illness, Emergencies. 56

2. Obese City International – In Obese City we explore the similarities and differences between dealing with obesity in a number of big cities across the world. Correspondents in various cities will spend a day out and about – each in their own city – with a person with a body mass index of over 30. For one week, each correspondent will post two photos with text on the shared photo blog www.papaplatform.com.

Top-down 3. Self-regulation as a final examination subject – ‘Pass on Willpower!’ Training your discipline as a serious game for primary schools. We wonder why self-regulation and self-control is not taught as a subject in primary schools. Co-creating together with students of serious gaming at Fontys College, we want to develop game formats in which willpower and selfregulation is trained in primary school pupils. 4. Party manifesto for a fictitious political party – a one-issue party spearheading ‘A less obesogenic society’. In what way would experts, organisations and companies commit themselves if the state were to set a course for a less obesogenic society? We investigated these opportunities by writing a party manifesto for our fictitious one-issue party. It’s an umbrella concept that functions as a guide to explore solutions and partnerships that have 57

previously not been considered in this form. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re creating a framework in which we can appeal to a broad coalition of stakeholders to help us envision new solutions.

What have we learned?

SDFWP started with a number of research questions from a number of disciplines. In this chapter we deal with these questions, but other insights also arise.

There are two types of social designers: designers and artists When we set up SDFWP the editorial team assumed that the daily practices of designers and artists more or less merged into each other seamlessly. Our research made us more aware of the value of the differences in approach of designers on the one hand and artists on the other. As a generalisation, you can expect the following qualities of these two types of social designers: Designers ●● Want to effect a change* with a product or service. They aim for systemic change ●● Start out with other people’s questions ●● Are able to step away from the design. Are able to relate to the work with more distance and reflection ●● Work methodically. Are able to map a problem field (analysing the studium*) 61

●● The proposal does need to be linked to the question. ●● Pitfall: keeping too close to the question. Artists ●● Want to effect a renewed view. They aim for symbolic* effect. ●● Start out with their own questions ●● Are never completely able to step outside of the work. They connect their own personality to the work ●● Work intuitively. Are able to find a punctum* in a complex problem field ●● Depart from the notion that anything is possible, radical renewal ●● Pitfall: not allowing others into the creative process

Cooperation revolves around shared questions One of the principles of SDFWP is that change comes about by cooperating with problem owners focused on the reality of the problem. At the onset of the project, two out of the three design teams worked on a problem for which a single party acted as a problem owner. The third team started with a problem they selected themselves. We asked this team to look for a stakeholder who wanted to team 62

up with them in order to effect a real change in the system related to obesity. But how does a social designer reach a partnership with a potential stakeholder? Should they be approached with a ready-made strategy? Or do you bring the promise that, as a social designer, you have skills that are so different from what is normally offered that you are clearly the only one who can help them out? Many social designers have by now gained experience that shows a ready-made solution is rarely snapped up. It doesn’t make organisations feel part of the design. The other extreme is to walk in without a design, with just an approach. If this approach is not understood, no trust* will be established. The request ‘Could you outline the approach and the expected results on an A4?’ then proves to be a friendly way of declining to partner up. So deciding on your exact proposition requires precision. ‘The best time to approach a stakeholder is ideally before you’ve come up with any ideas but after you’ve explored the matter. That really only leaves you with your reputation and your track record and perhaps some successful examples as leverage. In this sense it’s a shame that as yet there are few well-chronicled examples of successful social design projects. They would prove useful while out canvassing.’ (Simon Akkaya) But even when the offer of the social designer is taken up, cooperation is no walk in the park. ‘Working together is complicated because you 63

need each other, but at the start it’s not yet clear how exactly. It’s an interplay between being independent and being contracted. Finding out what is the shared question is essential. Without a shared question cooperation is impossible.’ (Edwin Kaats)

Process description gives something to hold on to when working together As stated above, it’s difficult to form a connection based on an indeterminate proposition. You can’t indicate in advance how the social design will work out. That means that steady ground for the joint effort must be found while embarking on the process. ‘A social design process description offers something to hold on to and could help explain what we do to third parties.’ (Geza Laqueur and Alex Bogman) Under the subheading The principles we made an attempt to divide the social design process into a number of phases. This description is based on our observations in SDFWP. The image below shows a schematic representation.

The process is characterised by creating a succession of choices (diverging) and taking decisions (converging). Along the way, we made two observations in the context of the joint effort between social designers and organisations. First of all, organisations (particularly when it comes to policy pathways), are more used to processes that initially take in a wide range of options which are then pruned as the process progresses. These kinds of processes are funnel-shaped. When the social designers find themselves in the midst of such a process, they will soon feel institutionalised or even marginalised. The further they proceed down such a funnelled process, the less space they have for creativity. Second of all, a social designer usually diverges more than people within organisations are comfortable with. ‘What has this got to do with it?’ or ‘But that’s not what we’re for, is it?’ are typical reactions you would hear. The discomfort brought on by diverging too far has been given a name: the groan zone*. That is, the moment during the process when the participants groan with discomfort because it’s all getting too wild, vague, crazy or uncomfortable. A visit to the groan zone is, however, often inevitable if there is to be good social design. It has to be said, however, that the 65

organisations involved in SDFWP did show an interest in far-reaching divergence. Small wonder, as this was expressly discussed with the submitting parties by the editorial team from the outset. The process description is not a plan set in stone. Some of the stages will overlap in practice. Sometimes a step back will be in order. There has to be enough space to do ‘what’s necessary.’ In a world that is completely unfamiliar with social design processes, a process description can generate a level of trust which is just sufficient to be able to work together. In practice, it is the social designer’s job to ensure that this is a tool and not a goal in itself.

Social designers can learn how to build context from change managers To have real impact on wicked problems a strategy must be developed that offers a new perspective for action. Devising such a strategy requires building the right context. This demands a great deal of agreements (of a project-based nature, for example) and a ‘political’ embedding in the organisation. What’s needed is a continuous process that runs parallel to the design process. These are features of the change manager’s repertoire with which many social designers feel less 66

affinity. Social designers can, however, learn how to build context from change managers/organisation advisers. We have become convinced that a multidisciplinary team of context builders and social designers has the biggest chance of effecting change. Within SDFWP, the representatives of NationaleNederlanden and Amsterdam-West acted as context builders, which proved a good recipe. Together with the social designers they formed a multidisciplinary team in which they dealt with the principal part of internal affairs (in terms of colour thinking: yellow and green change styles, see page 23).

Social design offers new repertoire for change management Wicked problems are not well approached by trying more of the same. If that were the case, they wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be so wicked. This argues in favour of using the change strategies that are least recognised and used in intractable environments. To put it differently: wicked problems demand that those involved are fully engaged in deciphering them, unravelling their complexity and experimenting with solutions. In colour thinking this equates to strategies that are focused on learning and development (green change style) and 67

on self-organisation and dynamisation (white change style). During the research project the hypothesis was formulated that social designers primarily operate within two of the five change styles of colour thinking: the green and the white ones. A colour test after the project was finished confirmed this view (you can take this test yourself on www.twynstragudde.nl/expertises/expertises/ verandermanagement/kleurentest). This means that social designers for wicked problems in principle possess a potentially successful repertoire. This repertoire deviates from change managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s familiar one. Social designers add new ways of thinking and acting to it. First, there is no consensus about how to solve wicked problems. Precisely in these cases an author-driven, subjective choice for a certain approach can offer a good handle on the situation. An objective choice revolves around finding a punctum* (juncture). This will circumvent a discussion about the approach which can never lead to consensus. The old approach is replaced by the social designerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal in order to try a new tack (see Space of not knowing*). The social designer then becomes the enthusiastic driving force behind the proposal; after all, the design has been made on the basis of his or her own fascination. This enthusiasm can catch on and result in a recruiting effect on the participants to get more involved in the project. 68

A second quality is that the social designer is expressly an outsider who is expected to do something unexpected. This opens up the opportunity to work agenda-free* and to do ‘what the situation demands.’ The Amsterdam-West district council: ‘We are used to creating urgency in order to promote ownership. We take problems as our point of departure, construe problems in a way. The social designers didn’t start with a problem situation but with the qualities that were available: refreshing. They were a break in the existing pattern. Because they hadn’t been part of the pattern and didn’t carry a specific agenda, they injected it with a positive non-problem-oriented attitude.’ A third important addition is that social designers make proposals that are creative in nature, being makers. A typical guiding principle for artists is: Show, don’t tell*. This aptitude for creativity and experimentation was also recognised by the participating organisations. ‘Artists switch into work mode faster while Nationale Nederlanden stays in sleep mode for a longer time. Social designers wed learning to action.’

Incomplete

In January 2014 all three teams had drafted an approach to which the involved organisations said ‘yes.’ This was not a final result, but it was an important halfway score.

Research end point An important part of the change will have to take place in the sequel of the SDFWP project. That will be the time for tests, trials, prods and shoves. Approaches will have to be readjusted, probably more than once. Who will do that? The process that follows the drafting of the approach should be seen as part of the design process, with which the designer will therefore stay involved. If not, there’s a big chance that the design will lose its sharp edges in no time. This gives rise to new problems. Will the social designers’ hearts still be in the job once it, too, gets wicked? Can organisations resist the temptation to say: ‘Thanks, but we can take it from here’? Can organisations and designers maintain a fruitful collaboration, even when effecting change becomes wicked itself and compromises must be made? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, we realise that. But still the editorial team decided at the onset 71

of the programme to stop the SDFWP research at the moment when the teams delivered their approach. Following a social design process right up to its implementation would require much more time (and money). Another factor was that we foresaw that we would ask too much of the organisations if right from the start we were to aim for an intensive period that would last longer than six months.

Moving on with this new discipline Social design, according to the views we adhered to in our research, is a marriage between the artistic design world and change management. It cannot be reduced to either of these categories and is better off when not placed exclusively under one of these headings. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a new discipline positioned midway between the two. What should happen at the minimum to help this discipline take further root? Validation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The vulnerability of this discipline for the time being is primarily its experimental character, which will never entirely disappear if all goes well. While effects can be clearly demonstrable, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no easy task to show hard proof of a repeatable link between social design and the 72

impact it produces. In other words, its practical application is difficult to validate. Part of the reason for this is because the validation mechanisms either originate in the artistic world or in the organisational world and are therefore always only partly relevant. It’s clear we need a new validation method. Building a burden of proof – This new way of validating requires more well-documented practical examples to begin with. An important criterion for this is that if something worked, the description of why it worked must be appraised in an original way. This deals with more than just the final results, but also with the halfway results, things that were noticed during the process. Emphatic practical examples help to convince stakeholders they should enter into a joint effort with social designers. Education – In order to develop social design as a field, more attention should be devoted to working in context during social design training. A Masters course would probably be the best way to do this. Learning this profession starts with becoming a good designer or artist. The next step is to learn how to work in context. In-between language – An ‘in-between language’ enables interpersonal communication between two worlds of thought and experience, in which their mutual strangeness* becomes valuable and productive. This report includes the first draft of such an in-between language. While practising 73

social design the in-between language should be seen as a living document under continuous expansion and revision.

Our ambition with SDFWP was to learn to better understand how social designers can work together effectively with organisations while tackling wicked social problems. We believe that an ‘In-between language’ is needed in order to create a shared space and mutual understanding within both worlds to cater to the specific needs of social design. The different worlds each operate by using their own lingo, rhetoric and value systems. In the course of the SDFWP research project we paid close attention to which terms were used and which were important, useful or even indispensable in the process of reaching a shared understanding of what was taking place. These included new terms but also terms with varying connotations in both artistic and organisational contexts. Together, they formed the basis on which we compiled the following glossary. Any additions and improvements will be gratefully received.

AGENDA-FREE Social designers are more capable of working agendafree and looking for ‘what the situation demands’. As a rule, employees of an organisation follow an agenda: there are expectations within the organisation about which targets its employees need to reach. When dealing with wicked problems people are required to think outside of the existing framework. This is exactly what is expected from social designers (also see Artistic mentality). ALIBI The reason that a social designer needs to come up with to be allowed inside a place in order to soak up all available information from the participants. Only once you’ve digested a problem to the very last fibre can you arrive at new opportunities. You need an alibi when lacking an agenda (see Agenda-free). AMBIGUITY Ambiguous is the opposite of unequivocal: something is ambiguous when it means multiple things at once. Ambiguity is an important quality of most art, but it’s also an established characteristic of wicked problems. Artists have been

SOCIALDESIGNFORWICKEDPROBLEMS

trained in dealing with ambiguity and are well versed in leaving room for multiple interpretations. This is a practical skill needed when dealing with wicked problems.

social designers work more as if they are guided by an internal compass, reacting in an unstructured, intuitive way to everything that happens around them. Chance is admitted into the design process. Other characteristics of the artistic mentality: people matter more than systems; associative thinking; sensitivity to aesthetics and emotions; the quality of the process is at least as important as the quality of the product. By setting out without a preconceived goal, social designers can freely search for ‘what the situation demands’ (also see Agenda-free and Authordriven).

ANTI-LANGUAGE It is often tricky to describe what a social design project will amount to in unequivocal terms. We discovered, however, that it is possible and even useful to describe what it is not. We can predict what a social design project won’t amount to, that is, more of the same which has already proven to be ineffective. Anti-language is a tool for creating the space for not-knowing*.

AUTHOR-DRIVEN An artistic process is generally author-driven: the personal motivations and preoccupations of the artist play an important role in achieving the results. Artists take responsibility for their subjectivity and attempt to make it imitable for others. In the realm of wicked problems there are no comprehensive solutions and subjective observations are inevitable. In such situations it can be productive when the designer isn’t afraid to take responsibility for

ANTI-ACQUISITION Raising questions about why the customary approach isn’t working properly for wicked problems automatically raises the value of the alternative approach put forward by social designers. Looking at it like this, there isn’t much to lose when opting to experiment alongside social designers. ARTISTIC MENTALITY Contrary to a projectbased mode of operation with preconceived goals, 2

their subjectivity and holds on to it during the design process. The quality of being author-driven can be used as a fruitful strategy for developing an approach for a wicked problem.

only brought about when the old behaviour and/or system that kept the problem in place are also included in the approach. In many cases social designers do not have the required tools at their disposal for this part of the change process. For this, teaming up with a change manager could be helpful (see change management).

AUTONOMY A prerequisite for a valuable artistic process – and for good art, too – is that the artist is able to work from an autonomous position. From this point of view, there appear to be risks involved in teaming up with an organisation: the artist’s autonomy is under threat if they are bound to the client’s agenda. For SDFWP we used a different notion of the potential autonomy of art and artists in an attempt to create space for a way of practising art which can also be meaningful outside of the arts sector. Autonomy with regard to SDFWP is a condition which the artist can achieve within a certain context. It is not an a priori state that should be safeguarded.

CHANGE APPROACHES Over the past decades the realisation has grown that there is no single change approach that will solve everything. This led us to distinguish various schools that make different assumptions about change and take different forms, each with their own adherents. In the Netherlands these approaches have been categorised by means of colour thinking: five contrasting ways to understand and realise change. These are: change based on power and interests (yellow); change based on rational research and planning (blue); change based on motivation and attention (red), change based on learning and experimenting (green); and change based on evolution and signification (white). In the case of complex change it’s often necessary to switch collectively

CHANGE The goal of a social design is to change something. It is often thought that developing a new perspective is enough to effect change. Change is 3

between several of these approaches, even though this sometimes proves too much to ask from the involved parties.

methods. This can be partly explained by unfamiliarity with other options, such as social design. In general, however, we can recognise in this the change paradox: the more wicked a problem gets and the less clear we are about the right approach, the greater becomes the penchant for assurance.

CHANGE MANAGEMENT An umbrella term for the knowledge, craftsmanship and tools used by the people who see realising change as their job. This can, in principle, be done by anyone who takes (not has) the responsibility to effect change and makes the effort to pull it off. As a field, it was primarily defined and claimed by organisation advisers and trainers twenty years ago. Important divisions of the domain include distinguishing various change approaches*, shaping (iterative) diagnostic stages, planning and intervention, involving relevant parties and focusing on signification.

CLIENT When an organisation decides to engage a social designer, this means there is the question of a client-contractor situation. This situation gives direction to the relationship, which can be problematic if the client is used to working in a very hierarchical way, for example. No Academy consistently calls clients ‘partners.’ This is a friendly way of framing the relationship from the start.

CHANGE PARADOX You would expect that organisations struggling with a wicked problem are somewhat hungry for new tools to set loose on the problem, but this is actually not the case. Precisely when dealing with wicked problems we see a paradoxical inclination to reach for familiar yet proven ineffective

CO-CREATION We use the term co-creation for design tracks in which people who are part of the problem can also become part of the solution. Co-creation is a collaborative, interactive process which involves making use of all the participants’ expertise and creating support for the outcomes. 4

(see Context building). This is the moment when the social designer should reflect on whether there is sufficient space to remain dedicated to the problem.

CONTEXT BUILDING Organising the environment around a problem in such a way that space is created for the social designer’s artistic input and for the design’s impact on the problem, the participants and the apposite (institutional) system. For this it is necessary to use language that is not only recognisable to the participants but also offers space for the idiosyncratic quality of the social design process. This is what in-between language is meant to accommodate.

DISRUPTION OR DISTURBANCE Breaking through a certain status quo. Developing a social design project with its participants requires space for innovation. It can sometimes help to first disrupt existing systems, as a way of opening the space of not-knowing*. EMPATHY The ability to sense other people’s feelings and thoughts, even if their perceptions differ strongly from your own. Empathy helps in trying to gauge how the design will influence the participants’ daily practice.

IN-BETWEEN LANGUAGE A language that is needed in order to create a shared space and mutual understanding within the domains of organisations and social designers for the specific characteristics of social design. Also see strangeness*.

EXTREME LISTENING The willingness and skilfulness to continue listening beyond your own beliefs and opinions.

DEDICATION Social designers are dedicated first and foremost to the problem and not to an organisation’s interests or to any individual employee of an organisation. If dedication to the problem is starting to clash with dedication to the petitioning organisation the time has come to debate this issue seriously

EFFICIENCY Expressions that signal a need for efficiency, such as lean management and risk management, should be called into question by a social designer as soon as possible. Efficiency can also stand in the way of 5

the space of not-knowing* which is required for a successful design process (also see First time right).

organisations when new ideas need to be generated. The groan zone is the moment when diverging becomes uncomfortable, when the question arises ‘What does this still have to do with my problem?’ When change-makers steer clear of the groan zone they are not casting a sufficiently broad view.

FAILURE Sometimes the biggest value does not lie in an outlined approach, but in an unintended side-effect of the approach. Failures are opportunities. The best innovators frequently ask themselves the question: ‘Is enough going wrong?’ ‘Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.’ – Samuel Beckett

IMMUNE RESPONSE (DOUBLE) Artistic interventions in domains outside of the arts (for example in companies and governments or in the public domain) are usually not appreciated in these places on artistic grounds. If the value of an intervention is even recognised, this will be for different reasons (‘It sure did shake things up again,’ ‘It improved the mood’). If an intervention has a disruptive effect this can cause annoyance or be perceived as sabotage. The most dangerous reaction is ‘Oh, it’s art.’ In effect this is an immune response: the disruption is isolated from the ordinary state of affairs in order to prevent reality from being questioned too much (let alone transformed). In the art world we witness an opposite reflex that also resembles an immune response. As long

FIRST TIME RIGHT A first-time-right culture dominates in many companies. Failure is essentially outlawed. This means that when a new product or a new service is offered to customers or employees it needs to be completely finished and in full working order. Social designers are more used to working with prototypes* and experiments and learn on the job. GROAN ZONE Social designers cycle through a design process by repeatedly diverging, casting a broad view and creating options. This is also the objective within 6

as an artwork disrupts an external system effectively all thumbs are up. But the moment when it does more than comment on social reality and actually transforms it – so when it really ‘works’ outside of the art system – the work is confronted with the question: ‘But is it still art?’

realisation that we can’t solve them by merely pondering them more. A combination of intuition paired with thinking capacity seems to be the necessary path to reaching new approaches. LOOKING FOR TROUBLE Social designers are interested in the moment when things ‘grate’. In the grey area of where things are and aren’t allowed, valuable information can be found about the positions and interests of the participants (also see Groan zone).

INCOMPLETE Part of a social design process is co-creation* with various stakeholders. In order to execute this productively and inspiringly, stakeholders need to feel invited to contribute to the result. A proposal that has been consolidated too definitively can give off the impression that the final result cannot be influenced any more. Designs need to be convincingly incomplete if it’s important that participants still contribute to them.

MANDATE The design task should be embedded in the organisation to such an extent that the people with hands-on positions in the social design project will have sufficient freedom to do what is necessary. This prevents the legitimacy of the social design project from being disputed the instant tensions rise (and they will!).

INTUITION During the second half of the twentieth century people reacted to scientific problems based on a belief in social engineering, supported by scientific objectivity. In the twentyfirst century we have begun to understand the complex nature of problems better. With this also came the

MIRRORING Organisations are often part of the problem they want to solve. Confronting them with this can lead to an immune response* (also see Disruption)

NEW RELATIONSHIPS This is one of the aspects social designers focus on. The design causes the participants to relate to each other and to the problem in a new way (also see Opportunity owners).

POWER In a power-driven environment, matters like an agenda-free approach, openness* and punctum* will be regarded as threats and a social designer will have a hard time gaining access to the heart of a problem and the stakeholders involved.

OPPORTUNITY OWNER Unexpected stakeholder. Somebody who can contribute different, potentially productive approaches to the problem in their capacity as a new participant.

PROBLEM OWNER For many types of problems it’s unclear who owns them: usually it’s the person most bothered by them. A characteristic of wicked problems is that it’s not perfectly clear over whom the problem predominates. In SDFWP terminology, a problem owner is somebody who feels they have to take responsibility to solve a problem or in any case develop a new perspective for action.

PERSPECTIVE FOR ACTION A social design will only lead to the desired change if it enables a new way of thinking and acting for the participants. Then a new perspective for action is created. POTENTIAL FUTURES Designers and artists are generally well-equipped to put the effects of current decisions in an experiential light by telling stories or showing images. This provides a richer insight into the meaning of the subject matter than when only financial or other quantitative data are used.

PROCESS DESCRIPTION A stakeholder will be disinclined to put much faith in a social designer who says: ‘I don’t know yet what I’m going to do and how it’s going to turn out.’ How can you give each other a foothold without reining yourself in too much? A good process description offers a foothold, which makes it easier to divide the process into convenient parts, 8

but it isn’t a binding blueprint. Process descriptions like these make it possible to reach agreements per phase, for example about how to involve stakeholders, what will be the duration, etc.

that they will want to investigate the proposed reframing. PROTOTYPE – A prototype is a testable design proposal. Actually running a trial creates an opportunity to learn what can be adjusted or improved. Making prototypes is normal for designers but organisations are often unaccustomed to it. This can give rise to tensions in an organisation with a first-time-right* culture.

PROJECT BUDGET VERSUS CULTURE BUDGET What kind of money matters more than how much money. Designers and artists are used to being paid from the client’s culture budget. However, this money usually isn’t meant for achieving the organisation’s key targets but rather its ancillary targets. In contrast, the project budget is meant for key targets. If the social designer is paid from the project budget he is expected to have a direct impact and will therefore receive easier access to the core of the matter. The labelling of the budget provides a good clue for the immune response* that needs to be taken into account.

PUNCTUM (JUNCTURE) In his book Camera Lucida the French philosopher and culture critic Roland Barthes describes the perception of photography using the pair of concepts studium and punctum. The studium is the reasonable interpretation of possible cultural, linguistic and political information provided by a photo. The punctum is the personal, emotional point in the photo that touches the viewer and which he or she can point out exactly. The punctum is the aspect of the image around which the viewer’s feeling of involvement organises. At SDFWP we use this term as a metaphor for the point of application of a complex problem field upon which the

PROMISE A proposed reframing* holds specific promise for a potential future*. The better this potential future meets the stakeholder’s interests, the greater the likelihood 9

social designer chooses to base the design. Recognising the punctum is a type of action artists feel familiar with: a subjective choice which also draws on their own preoccupations (also see Author-driven).

SOCIAL DESIGNERS (FOR WICKED PROBLEMS) Designers and artists who want to impact social problems with their work. ‘Social’ carries meaning on three levels: 1 It is testimony to the designer’s mentality, the fact that he or she wishes to work on social problems. 2 The design manifests itself in the social domain and focuses on a desired change in behaviour and building new relationships*. 3 This type of designer uses social processes as a design method (see Co-creation). ‘Design’ means that the intent is to purposefully create an artifact that is to function in a specific context.

REFRAMING A frame describes a way of looking at a problem. Reframing proposes a new way of looking at the problem. This creates space to discover which solution pathways are feasible in a joint process with the participants (see Space of not-knowing). A good reframing is usually brought about after the problem has been made much more complex (Groan zone). Since wicked problems as a whole are difficult to chart, everybody involved inevitably has a different perception. Designing new shared perceptions is a productive way of creating support for the project’s outcomes.

SPACE OF NOT-KNOWING Just like ambiguity*, not-knowing is something that professionals in organisations usually try to avoid, even though enclosed in the not-knowing lies space to view and deal with things differently than you always have done. Along with the space in which something else can happen than you had foreseen. Recognising that you’re in a space of not-knowing (and that this is good) is no easy task in most organisations.

SHOW, DON’T TELL As an artist or designer you don’t say things should be different, you show that there’s another way. Mahatma Gandhi: ‘Be the change that you wish to see in the world.’

Accepting and embracing the space of not-knowing is an important condition for the joint discovery of new solution pathways.

to our definition – also focuses on the next step: actually effecting behavioural change. TRUST Since it is impossible to reach concrete agreements about the nature of the final results of the design process (as this would shut the door on the space of not-knowing*), trust plays a major part in the joint effort of social designers and organisations. Integrity and openness are important qualities of the social design process (also see Power*).

STAKEHOLDER People or organisations with an interest in the status quo, transformation or solution of the problem. Reframing* brings unexpected stakeholders or opportunity owners* into view. STRANGENESS Broadly speaking, the artistic world and the world of (commercial) organisations are strangers to each other. It’s this mutual strangeness that enables a renewed perspective. This strangeness is valuable and should not be blotted out. In-between language is not intended to cancel out the strangeness, but to make it productive.

WICKED PROBLEM A problem about which there is both insufficient knowledge and insufficient consensus. A different way of characterising a wicked problem is open, complex, dynamic and connected. Wicked problems usually don’t have one (obvious) problem owner*. In order to take action it is essential to work together one way or another, since there are many stakeholders involved with the problem.

STUDIUM See Punctum. SYMBOLIC A lot of art and design is meant to have a symbolic effect: questioning things, stimulating debate or creating awareness. This is the essential first step for behavioural change, but social design – according

WHITE CUBE For the greater part of the twentieth century, the place where the artist’s work was deemed to be shown to its advantage: 11

a white space, devoid of any context, in a museum or gallery. The white cube has become a metaphor (metonym) for that which most people think of when they hear the word â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;art.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; The white cube is becoming an unsatisfactory place to an increasing number of artists because it isolates art from society. The white cube is a conceptual tool that can be used to indicate what social design is not about, which turns it into anti-language*.

EPILOGUE

Change management as a field is much younger than design and visual arts. Once you look at its internal machinery, you will soon realise that we fail to understand and control more than we succeed to, even though the rhetoric sometimes may suggest otherwise. Perhaps it’s part of the adolescent phase that change management is going through – we still have to learn to feel less uncomfortable with not-knowing; focusing more on looking for something than finding it, giving shape to something in the process instead of rolling it out from the start. The fact that designers and visual artists feel more at home with uncertainty appears to correspond to the longer history of their fields. The difference between social designers and change-makers at least provides a hint on why it’s worthwhile working together: they compensate each other’s imbalances. This for instance applies to the emphasis on ‘show, don’t tell’ in social design, since many advisers and managers have an opposite reflex. And the same is true for social design’s preference for an approach focused on learning and discovering (green and white): just the kind of approach only (ably) used by a minority of professional change-makers. The difference between both worlds is therefore worth cherishing. In-between language is a splendid idea in this light, as long as it 63

helps to make these differences productive and doesn’t gloss over them. When I read a case study like Amsterdam-West, with its secret chips’ sauce recipe, space programme and micronation, I can feel how the social designers have managed to pull apart the hindering routines that enveloped the problem. Their approach exudes playfulness and a sense of humour. Every renewal needs space: cognitive (to think anew), emotionally (to bear the uncertainty) and relationally (to complete the experiment together). This space makes it possible to learn. You play with what seems ‘silly’ and out of order at first, but which because of that is capable of delivering innovation. I like the concept technology of foolishness by James March: real innovation always feels silly, but he is quick to warn that not everything that feels silly also innovates. Innovation only takes off when the silliness is also crafted: when playing is not about being frivolous or taking a time-out from real life, but about a skill that provokes and facilitates change. Craftsmanship is brought about when you can’t resist honing those skills, making them your living, using them to get results, connecting your identity to them, creating knowledge about them and sharing that knowledge with others in your field. In the texts contained in this report I read the desire to explore and identify this craftsmanship. I think that would be valuable, because I’m convinced that you can only get to grips with complex tasks if they strike a chord in you, if you acknowledge there is more at play than you can grasp initially and if you are willing 64

to experiment together with those involved. Of course, it could well be that artists, designers or change managers already possess these abilities. I believe an approach of this sort is well suited to the change management tradition of action-research. What is put forward here as craftsmanship, perhaps fits the depth of all three professions. But at the same time it canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be denied that the differences between both worlds appear nearly irreconcilable when looking at their stereotypical applications: visual art stands isolated in white cubes and change management works along a top-down engineering paradigm. These stereotypes are still remarkably alive and persistent. In-between language and co-production seem like good ways of building bridges in spite of that, thereby facilitating the development of practitioners of both disciplines, social designers and change-makers, in their fields. The SDFWP research project followed the three projects up until the moment when a different perspective of the wicked problem had come into being. I hope that for the SDFWP sequel the participating organisations and social designers will be eager enough to work together again in order to make these perspectives a reality. I suspect that longer-term collaborations will see tensions rising even more. Who knows what will happen then. Hans Vermaak

COLOPHON

Initiators Yu-lan van Alphen – Programme Manager Culture & Social Design, DOEN Foundation Tabo Goudswaard – Artist, social designer Klaas Kuitenbrouwer – theme line coordinator at Het Nieuwe Instituut André Schaminée – Organisation Adviser, Twynstra Gudde Participants Simon Akkaya – Product Designer, Waarmakers studio Rosé de Beer, Artist Alex Bogman – Corporate Strategist, Nationale Nederlanden, Lino Hellings – Artist and Sociologist, PAPA Maarten Heijltjes – Product Designer, Waarmakers studio May Britt Janssen – Youth & Safety Coordinator, West district, Amsterdam Municipality Aafke Kauffman – User-centered designer, MUZUS Neele Kistemaker – User-centered designer, MUZUS Martien Kuitenbrouwer – District council Chairperson, West district, Amsterdam Municipality Sjaak Langenberg, Artist Geza Laqueur – Business Manager CEO NN Life, Nationale Nederlanden Jorge Mañes Rubio – Artist, Seethisway Martien van Rijn – Neighbourhood Outreach Team Leader, West district, Amsterdam Municipality Brett Tollman – HR Director: Reward and Performance Management, Nationale Nederlanden Experts Kars Alfrink – Game Designer, hubbub Emer Beamer – Social innovator, Unexpect Kees Dorst – Professor of Design, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven / Professor Design, University of Technology, Sydney

Alastair Fuad-Luke – Professor of Emerging Design Practice, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, Helsinki Paul Gofferjé – Photographer / Coordinator NO ACADEMY Jeanne van Heeswijk, Artist Edwin Kaats – Cooperation Adviser Common Eye Mieke Moor – Organisation Adviser, Twynstra Gudde Timo de Rijk – Professor of Design, Culture & Society, Technische Universiteit Delft and Universiteit Leiden / curator Utrecht Manifest Dick Rijken – Lecturer Information Technology and Society, De Haagse Hogeschool / Director, STEIM Pieter Jan Stappers – Professor of Design, Faculty of Industrial Design, Technische Universiteit Delft Nynke Tromp – Assistant-Professor / reframing studio, social designer, Faculty of Industrial Design, Technische Universiteit Delft Hans Vermaak – Independent adviser, researcher, author in the field of change management With thanks to Angela Bruintjes, Kalle Brüsewitz, Folkert Buis, Steve Elbers, Flora van Gaalen, Aart Helder, Marlieke Kieboom, Karlis Krecers, Anne Marth Kuilder, Anita van de Looij, Tamara Madern, Daniël Melse, Maureen Mooren, Charlotte Rommerts, Mary Ann Scheurs, Floor van Spaendonck, Tatjana van Strien, Jurga Zelvyte, Katía Truijen, Tim Vermeulen, Domenique Himmelsbach de Vries, Jaap Warmenhoven. Report Design: Laura Pappa Text: Klaas Kuitenbrouwer, Tabo Goudswaard, André Schaminée, Kees Dorst, Hans Vermaak Final editing: Sybrand Zijlstra Translation: Daniël Namaani Photography: Jan-Dirk van der Burg, Sebastiaan ter Burg This report was realised with generous financial and content-based support from DOEN Foundation.