CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION: Intensive, Creative Collaborations

crowd-share innovation

First edition published in 2012 by Freerange Press.

Freerange Press is an online and print publisher based in Melbourne, Australia and Wellington, New Zealand. Freerange’s focus is on global issues of design, politics, art and life for an urbanized humanity. www.projectfreerange.com barnaby@projectfreerange.com ISBN: 978-0-9808689-3-7 Edited by: Jochen Schweitzer & Joanne Jakovich Editorial Support: Wayne Brookes, Melissa Edwards, Natalia Nikolova, Danielle Logue, Anna Moran.

Contributions: Matthew Ayres, Scott Balmforth, Steve Baty, Hanno Blankenstein, Aaron Bonham, Mal Booth, Wayne Brookes, Sacha Coles, Patrick Crooks, Micky Du, Melissa Edwards, Richard Goodwin, David Gravina, Selena Griffith, Ele Jansen, Dominique Jaurola, Tess Julian, Mark Jones, Deborah Kneeshaw, Danielle Logue, Caroline McLaren, Ian Muir, Anna Moran, Natalia Nikolova, Steve Pozel, Gerard Reinmuth, Roderick Simpson, Leanne Sobel, Rangan Srikhanta, Hasan Syed, Siobhan Toohill, Michael Wallach, Jacqueline Wechsler, Michelle Williams, and Fiona Young.

Design: Joanne Jakovich with Vida Asrina, Kayla Qi Wu & Sumaiya Moushumi.

Printer: Peachy Print u.lab is an interdisciplinary design and innovation lab at the University of Technology, Sydney. http://ulab.org.au All articles and images are released under the Creative Commons Liscense Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivitives (CC BY-NC-ND) at the discretion of the authors unless otherwise stated.

Every reasonable attempt has been made to identify owners of copyright.

Errors or omissions will be corrected in subsequent editions.

Printed and bound in Australia.

UTS CRICOS Provider code: 00099F

crowd-share innovation intensive creative collaborations

Contents

16 18 20 21 22 23

Chapter 1: u.lab About u.lab Design-led innovation with human impact Embedded and Cooperative Innovation Learning Crowd-share Innovation City Co-design and Incubation

25

Chapter 2: Groundbreaker

26

Design Thinking, Crowd-share and Open Innovation Groundbreaker Space Design Mash+Up 1: Crowd Salad Mash+Up 2: Aliens Aboard Mash+Up 3: Hold it Mash+Up 4: Forget Winning. Learn to Fail.

Mash+Up 5: Culture Block Mash+Up 6: Design on Trial Mash+Up 7: Co-What?

Groundbreaker Tiles Public Groundbreaker Events Design as a Catalyst for UTS Library - Mal Booth Value based innovation versus ‘breaking the rules’ - Hanno Blankenstein Ground-breaker talks by the University of Technology’s u.lab - Lily Morrissey Everyone has something amazing to share - Caroline McLaren Two Myths of Innovation - Ian Muir Ninja Culture - Siobhan Toohill Platforms, People, Portability, Porosity, and Problem Solving - Selena Griffith Scaffolding Innovation through Design Artefacts - Jax Wechsler Catalyst Power - Tess Julian Ideas to Action - Michelle Williams The Power of Detachment - Ele Jansen Forget winning. Learn to fail. - Aron Bonham Groundbreaker Season Close Groundbreaker Survey

30 38 46 52 58 64 70 78 94 102 114 120 121 123 126 127 129 133 135 138 139 142 144 146

157 158 160

Chapter 3: CI Labs Catalyst Creative Futures

183

Chapter 4: Design Parramatta

206

Chapter 5: Soft Lines

217

Chapter 6: CitySwitch

218

CitySwitch Creative Activation Model - Joanne Jakovich CitySwitch Izumo 2008 CitySwitch Newcastle 2010 CitySwitch Izumo 2010 Cityswitch Minato Fuji 2012

224 228 232 236 251

Chapter 7: Design Thinking Education

252

Could Greater Awareness and Use of Design Thinking Change Business in Australia?

- Leanne Sobel A Call for a New Pedagogy for Design Thinking Education - Jochen Schweitzer & Joanne Jakovich Designing Entrepreneurial Work Environments: Exploring Emergent Design Practices - Jochen Schweitzer, Melissa Edwards & Natalia Nikolova

257 260

271

Chapter 8: NFC Futures

272

Incubating NFC Futures - Patrick Crooks & Mark Jones The Entrepreneurship Lab - Wayne Brookes Project: NFC Hard Hat Project: Boy meets Girl Project: TapSol Project: Living Library Project: Re-Space

278 293 313 327 343 357

Acknowledgements

Since our last book we established our crowd-share innovation series, Groundbreaker. This ambitious undertaking, along with our regular thrice completed Entrepreneurship Lab, was made possible with the support of the following people: Vida Asrina, Andrew Ashton, Tim Aubrey, Matthew Ayres, Baptiste Bachellerie, Scott Balmforth, Steve Baty, Gauri Bhalla, Hanno Blankenstein, Aaron Bonham, Mal Booth, Jordan Bryon, Sacha Coles, Patrick Crooks, Ann Darcy, Emil del Rosario, Micky Du, Richard Goodwin, David Gravina, Roy Green, Selena Griffith, Jessica Hartany, Meghan Hay, Keiko Hisamatsu, Ele Jansen, Dominique Jaurola, Tess Julian, Mark Jones, Manuela Yunhye Kim, Deborah Kneeshaw, Hael Kobayashi, Jeremey Liddle, Desley Luscombe, Xiangyu Ma, Caroline McLaren, Peter McNeill, Naoko Mogi, Ian Muir, Anna Moran, Sumaiya Moushumi, Kate McKenzie, Steve Pozel, Gerard Reinmuth, Aanya Roennfeldt, Cristian Ruiz Ramos, Roderick Simpson, Leanne Sobel, Rangan Srikhanta, Kate Sweetapple, Hasan Syed, Cynthia Teo, Siobhan Toohill, Steve Vamos, Nicole Velik, Michael Wallach, Lawrence Wallen, Jacqueline Wechsler, Michelle Williams, Kayla Qi Wu, Satoru Yamashiro, Ellen Yang, Fiona Young, Opher Yom-Tov and our sponsors of the Entrepreneurship Lab and CitySwitch this semester: Commerce In Motion and the Suzuyo Corporation. Many of our collaborators mentioned here are u.lab graduates who have formed the u.lab Catalysts network; they have become our collaborators, and assisted greatly in our research and public programs. Their contribution ensures a strong transferral of the know-how we are developing and helps expand the impact of u.lab’s work while ensuring a youthful and dynamic culture. To this team of dynamic collaborators we are most grateful.

page

9

Preface

In exploring design, and the processes called design thinking, it soon becomes clear that innovation and change are at the core of it all. Innovation is about developing fresh ideas, which turn into better solutions when proven through use and give individuals and communities better experiences. Better solutions are those developed through a human centred approach to provide richer, faster, more succinct, appropriate, intelligent, grounded, sustainable, and integrated experiences. These are enabled by change: the transformation of individual work and life practices, behaviour and cultures so that surprising alternatives can flourish. In Australia we must learn to better coach people to be agents for change and advocates of creative thought if we are to successfully compete in a world that is transforming rapidly.

Design thinking empowers the population to approach everyday challenges armed with a toolbox of tested design techniques. The tools themselves are changing as it becomes clear that innovation is turning towards collectivity. New methods such as crowdsourcing and open innovation can be enacted not only online but in the physical realm of design workshopping to push boundaries and increase relevance.

Together, design thinking and open innovation have the potential to generate unseen opportunities for innovation and change.

This winter, we at Object decided to try an experiment in collaboration. We invited our colleagues from u.lab at the University of Technology, Sydney to transform Object’s gallery space into an interactive design lab. During July and August 2012, u.lab curated Groundbreaker, a public program of interactive workshops and talks intended to stimulate and deepen our engagement with design-led and crowd-shared innovation. page

11

The hypothesis underlying Groundbreaker is that crowd-share innovation methods are the means by which problems of the future will be solved. By co-creating a series of hands-on workshops, debates and digital discussions, u.lab ignited the infectious energy and put to work the tools it takes to break into new territory of thought and action.

During Groundbreaker, Object Gallery morphed into an open workspace with walls covered in challenges, questions, sketches, diagrams and solutions. It felt open and inviting and like a great space to come, play, and collaborate creatively. The u.lab team enabled the sharing of powerful design concepts and inspired participants from varied backgrounds to nurture a design innovation culture in Sydney.

This third book coming out of u.lab documents the work and continues those conversations initiated during Groundbreaker; it features many enthusiastic speakers and collaborators and reflects on the stimulating debates and problem solving workshops. The book also reports on other current programs and initiatives, including u.lab’s participation in an urban design competition, the exploration of the relationships between creative spaces and bodies, entrepreneurship education, the future of emerging technologies, and the development of a network of young designthinking catalysts – the future generation of Australian innovators.

U.lab has produced remarkable outcomes in only 18 months of existence. This third book in the series reinforces the realisation that our human capital holds enormous potential for creative thought in this city, state and across the country. We must continue to support organisations like u.lab and Object that are fanning the flames of optimism through design-led innovation.

Steven Pozel Director, Object - Australian Design Centre

page

12

Introduction

U.lab is an emergent collective that has transformed and grown over the past 18 months. In our first six months of being u.lab, we focused on envisioning and prototyping new models for teaching, which resulted in the Creative Minds sessions, Entrepreneurship Lab 1.0 and the BikeTank workshops. In this, our second year, our focus has been on strengthening our infusion model, including engagement with industry, local government and communities, and delivering innovation in practice.

We have done this through the Groundbreaker series, public and private workshops with inspired and inspirational organisations, and participation in the UTS CI Labs.

In our third year we will formalise our research framework and continue to infuse creative innovation networks through self-organising catalyst initiatives and openinnovation workshops.

In such a short time this is the third u.lab book v3.0. Creating these publications is an iterative process of developing knowledge, practices and tools. v3.0 profiles experimentation around crowd-sharing as a method and strategy, open public provocation as a means of inquiring into the effectiveness of co-innovation and tools for inquiry into and creation of futures.

Each book is prototype - a photo in the u.lab album where we encapsulate the collective outputs of the u.lab catalysts, entrepreneurship lab experimenters and new co-collaborative projects. What you hold in your hands is part of a bigger story.

If you are new to the crew, and have a fear of missing out on what has happened already then dip into one of the earlier books. The first book sketched out our intro to design thinking and how u.lab was launched. Those pages and the creations they presented were heavily inspired by the u.lab founder visit to the d.school at Stanford University. U.lab started to spread through into the ecosystem of

page

13

creative entrepreneurs within the Sydney creative precinct. The Kensington Street warehouse, our first home, was the heart of u.lab and became a breakfast hub BikeTank for entrepreneurs. The warehouse disappeared as the commercialisation of the precinct turned it over to residential development, but u.lab moved to the Ultimo Pedestrian Network and continued to grow into a creation of it’s own.

Creative catalysts joined the collaborative efforts and incubated entities of their own. Corporates, local governments and entrepreneurs sought to co-collaborate with u.lab. Our second book outlined the practices, strategies, sensemaking tools and u.lab projects developed during that time. If you missed a copy and want to learn more, you can access these earlier books through the u.lab website.

In this book v3.0, we chronicle our activities over the past six months including an open innovation experiment at Object gallery, contributing to a creative innovation lab series, incubation of entrepreneurial projects for NFC, a local government design project, a CitySwitch project in Japan, a DAB Lab exhibition and our latest pedagogical research. U.lab outputs continue to multiply.

The theme of book v3.0 is crowd-share innovation and futures. We ask how intensive, creative collaborations foster innovation in the complex and networked context of contemporary practice. We adapt our design tools to imagine futures of work and communication technologies.

By focusing on crowd-share innovation in this book we aim to to deepen the u.lab purpose through enacting our inclusive human-centred design model and infusing our methods into wider practice. The Groundbreaker series broadened the content developed in this field and identified leading innovators and future makers to encourage a community of practice. We aspired to facilitate an ethos where norms of sharing would maximise collaboration through trust, reciprocity and exchange, ruled by respectful divergence. Here playful provocation is a mirror for critical reflection on existing practice. Finally we articulated the parameters of emerging fields and identified niches for working collaboratively, not competitively.

Over the past six months, as u.lab has infused beyond the walls and networks of its institutional base, we have connected with many collaborators and attracted friends and supporters throughout Sydney. Within UTS we have collaborated with the faculties of Business, DAB, and FEIT, the Creative Industries Innovation Centre (CIIC), the External Engagement unit, the international leadership development program BUiLD, the Gallery, the Library, the Research and Innovation Office and Human Resources. U.lab provided an environment within the institutional structure where office rules and programmed norms could be left at the door. Our external collaborators include, the City of Sydney, the City of Parramatta, Fishburners, HUB Sydney, Pollenizer, BlueChilli, Second Road, BT Financial Group, Commonwealth Bank, Deloitte, PwC, Accenture, Object Australian Centre for Design, GTP, AMP, Commerce In Motion, Digital Eskimo, Meld Studios and others. Over 2000 people just like you have actively co-created with us through BikeTank, Groundbreaker and

page

14

innovation workshops. With contributions from corporate innovators, students from all disciplinary backgrounds, social innovators, government officers, politicians, entrepreneurs, and community groups amongst others. U.lab is a diversity attractor and we have stood in awe, laughed and shed an occasional tear as the wonderful discourse amongst people like you has emerged in u.lab bursting people out of their usual comfort zones.

Our catchphrase is that u.lab is about you and what you bring to the mix. This has enabled self-organising networks of catalysts within u.lab. Catalysts are amazing networks of u.lab friends and E.lab graduates whose volunteer efforts were the soul of Groundbreaker and other open-innovation workshops. They have put their passion into the co-writing and co-editing of this book. Catalysts revitalise the u.lab ecosystem. If you are inspired by what you read in this book we invite you to join the catalyst network.

We are also proud to report a further achievement by two of our catalysts from E.Lab 1.0 on their latest successful startup. South of the Border Tours delivers a fresh approach to tourism based around creating shared value between visitors and local communities, giving tourists authentic local experiences. Congratulations to Baptiste and Nathan and their network of collaborators on their latest creation!

We outline our vision for u.lab in chapter one of this book. U.lab blurs institutional boundaries, creating boundary spanning ideas that drive innovation. Designed as a social leveller where emergent ideation around creative problem solving is the engagement mode, academics, students, industry experts, public officials and community are infused in human-centred design-led practices. Co-creation of engagement opportunities flips the usual engagement model of the ‘expert-lay’ divide. Here industry, students and academics shape innovation through co-creation.

U.lab could not have gestated without the generous support of UTS, the CIIC and the emergent CI unit. Through leveraging this support, u.lab is putting Sydney on the international map for its density of design, innovation and entrepreneurship.

We thank you for being the soul of a creative innovation hub in the Australian landscape. We are open to future intensive, creative collaborations. As our travelling caravan rolls on, jump on board!

Sydney, October 2012

page

15

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

16

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

U.LAB

chapter one

u.lab

U.lab is about ‘u’ and what you bring to the mix.

This chapter outlines the DNA of u.lab: it’s genesis. U.lab is a platform for innovation open to anyone, both from UTS and elsewhere! The framework of u.lab breeds an infusion of ideas, artefacts, people and philosophies that groundbreaks and shapeshifts as it innovates practice; it has already been shaped by you even though you may not know it. As you read this book, you are being shaped by u.lab.

We are intertwined.

U.lab is about opportunity, culture and environment. These are core to our philosophy, but their expression is shaped by you.

U.lab is a garage for experimentation. It has occupied abandoned places, designer spaces and commercial spaces. But u.lab is not defined by location: it’s strength is in the temporal. It exists through its people and their ideas and creations. U.lab is a travelling caravan of catalysts, innovators, creators and makers. You are one of them.

U.lab a hub for design-led innovation; a sound lab where creative dissonance blends to create harmonies. Together our voices are strong.

U.lab is a set of strategies, practices, engagement activities and sense-making tools. It creates innovation that connects industry with creativity. It has the power to change the way you think and approach the world. But the world is not static, and our practices evolve. This book captures our current thinking. Just as we hope you take away some of our practices, together with you we hope to co-create the next evolution.

The words and images over the following pages contain the u.lab’s essence. But remember: you are u.lab. You might have participated in workshops or events.

Maybe you heard about it from friends or colleagues. Perhaps someone you know recommended this book to you. We have a question for you .... how will you grow u.lab? Find us and make some noise.

page

17

About u.lab U.lab is an interdisciplinary framework for innovation projects at UTS. It creates opportunities for design-led innovation where learning, research and industry engagement are infused. U.lab was established in 2011 following academics’ visits to Stanford University and Potsdam University d.school and a range of other leading institutions in the field of design-led human centered innovation. U.lab has since operated as a part-subsidised and part-volunteer initiative of academics from three faculties, Business, Design, and Engineering-IT. Our research approach is influenced by design thinking as a practiced and applied approach to enhancing creative intelligence. We study the method for the emergence of ideas and creative solutions to wicked problems. We experiment with conditions for human-centered collaboration and crowd sourced innovation, and strive to develop measures of creative intelligence.

U.lab aims to engage with a broad audience including UTS students who are enrolled in disciplinary specific courses and seek a transdisciplinary experience to enhance their knowledge; UTS academics who seek experience with interactive design-led innovation techniques to enhance their teaching in line with the UTS Learning2014 strategy; and members of the community, government and industry professionals who are seeking one-off experiences to reinvigorate their professional practice.

Our vision is to “generate design-led innovation with human impact”. To achieve this, at u.lab we provide a framework and space for students, academics, industry and government experts to engage in design-led human-centered innovation practices. The u.lab approach draws on an understanding of human factors as the basis for innovation. It differs from traditional approaches as it infuses the end-user, wider stakeholders, and diverse collaborators into the process. In all stages of insight, ideation, concept, prototyping, solutions and commercialisation, human elements are given priority to shape better outcomes. The u.lab approach is purposely open and diffuse to maximise overlap between diverse thinking and working styles to encourage collaborative innovation.

U.lab’s resolution is to (1) Develop, test and disseminate new tools and methods for design-led human-centred innovation that can be used in teaching, organisational innovation, product and service innovation and social change. (2) Develop and deliver transdisciplinary, cross-faculty learning programs based on u.lab practices to create graduates with an increased capacity for creative problem solving and an understanding of innovation processes. (3) Conduct transdisciplinary research into how design-led human-centred tools and methods influence innovation in educational groups, organisations and public services. (4) Form partnerships with

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

18

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

U.LAB

SMEs, corporate and government for two-way exchange of knowledge and methods in co-creation of design-led human-centred innovation solutions through u.lab research and learning programs.

At UTS we have a rich landscape of creative innovation initiatives and strategies.

U.lab’s unique contribution to this landscape is based on its positioning from the start as an interdisciplinary lab involving academics and students from at least three different faculties that offer the potential for intra-university collaboration in teaching methodologies. U.lab promotes open engagement with practitioners internally and externally and their participation in teaching and learning as well as research. As a group we focus on the development of methods and tools based on design-led human centred innovation methodologies for broad use and adoption.

page

19

Design-led innovation with human impact The term ‘design-led’ has many interpretations. U.lab extends the process of design-led as an emergent process that is inherently co-created within a complex ecosystem. Our framework incorporates abductive reasoning where inferences are drawn from human-centred empirical research. These insights frame the development of prototypes that are tested and refined in human-centred ‘living labs’ with key stakeholders. Techniques and tools used to shape this process are themselves refined and their order of implementation changes as the process unfolds shifting between structured analysis and creative experimentation during stages of inquiry. Design-led innovation may be applied to existing activities, process or services or create new ones. We incorporate open innovation techniques1 into the design-led framework so that it becomes a conversation with a tribe, crowd or network in a situation. Situations are complex and multiple perspectives are considered through understanding organisation within ecosystems and organisational activities as constructed by diverse stakeholder interests. Within the tension of balancing interests and incorporating the crowd, design-led is humancentred within an ecosystem - it is innovation-in-action.

Human-centredness has two dimensions. First, during the innovation process from ideation to prototype user needs are prioritised. Deep empathy work to uncover the emotions and assumptions shaping people’s behaviour is paramount.

Human-environment interactions signal constraints and opportunities for the implementation of outcomes. Secondly, innovation is a cooperative and collaborative process between people. Enhancing human interactions through the practices developed in u.lab heightens the opportunities for human synergy to shape innovation.

The outcomes are focused on enabling positive feedback loops. The long-term vision for design-led human-centred innovation is to embed innovative practices, processes and services into a supportive ecosystem where they can incubate and infuse sustainable social change in institutions, workplaces, markets, economies and industries. Where the design-led process includes crowds, societies, communities, networks or tribes their collective inputs enables co-innovation that can help establish positive change and sustainable growth.

1. Schön, D. A.(1991) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

20

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

U.LAB

Embedded and Cooperative Innovation Learning At u.lab we teach the Entrepreneurship Lab and Creative Minds sessions. The Entrepreneurship Lab is a 15-week Masters-level interdisciplinary creative enterprise subject taught since mid-2011. Students develop enterprise proposals by using design-led human-centred innovation processes. Creative Minds is a four halfday design thinking introductory learning lab delivered initially for students from a range of disciplines to jointly explore social innovation challenges and generate creative solution proposals. Both programs provide an introduction to design-led human-centred innovation and an opportunity to experiment with parameters and observe and analyse the pedagogy and effectiveness of human-centred innovation education programs.

The Entrepreneurship Lab and Creative Minds are examples of embedded, cooperative innovation learning opportunities. When graduates of these programs were looking for ways to stay in touch with the lab and to continue their learning experience, the Catalyst program evolved. Catalysts are the next generation of innovation leaders. The peer-managed program is a network that offers u.lab alumni opportunities to train, volunteer and be employed in teaching, research and industry engagement roles. The program currently hosts 12 casual staff and approximately 20 volunteers. Overall, the three programs offer avenues for new innovators, entrepreneurs, and lateral thinkers to build professional practice and confidence.

page

21

Crowd-share Innovation Innovation is a group activity. It is the result of extensive hours, building on the feedback of others. Ideas come from ideas, bouncing from one person to another and being rewritten as they emerge. Innovation needs an ecosystem of minds not of a single mind. Ideas bump into other ideas, replicate, mutate, and evolve. The concepts of open innovation and crowd sharing are not necessarily new, but they are being studied more ever since through the Internet an increasingly connected world is able to participate in innovation processes. While some caution firms to not open up their innovation processes1 others speak of democratizing innovation2 and collaborative circles3 that have enabled software programmers, photographers, cinematographers, musicians, artists and writers to share ideas across the web.4 At u.lab we are interested in studying this phenomenon and in developing a better understanding of the methods of crowd-share innovation and co-design.5 Groundbreaker is our research project designed around a seven week public innovation forum that enables measurement of the tools and methods developed in the u.lab.

1. Chesbrough, H., W. Vanhaverbeke, et al. (2008). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm: Researching a New Paradigm, OUP Oxford.

2. Von Hippel, E. (2009). “Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation.� International Journal of Innovation Science 1(1): 29-40.

3. Farrell, M. P. (2003). Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics and creative work, University of Chicago Press.

4. Anderson, C. 2011, Crowd Accelerated Innovation, WIRED magazine.

5. UTS research project HREC Ref: 2012- 115A.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

22

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

U.LAB

City Co-design and Incubation The concept of community design builds on existing concepts of stakeholder consultation; it involves the gathering and motivation of local enthusiasts to develop an active and sustainable ‘community’ of people who are personally invested in the broader outcome of a public space.1 The goal of community design is to embed needfinding for future users into the architectural design process and to nurture a seed group of passionate community builders. It is this community that will ensure the future success of adopting urban development strategies.

When fostering enthusiastic and responsible adopters of new, environmental strategies such as the broad adoption of cycling in cities, it is important to propose urban design solutions that go beyond simple ‘facilitation’ of functions and strive to offer an integrated social environment that leverages the existing goodwill and enthusiasm of citizens to build a self-organising culture of adoption. Through a ‘social incubation’ approach, a public structure has a membership and a digital media presence many-fold beyond its physical scale. Such incubator may consider all participants as “agents” and “entrepreneurs” in an urban system that is enhanced by social network and public visualisation. It has the capacity to positively influence the social, economic and cultural transformation of the urban fabric through integrated public participation projects.2 In this context u.lab has been involved in city co-design and urban social incubation research projects. For example, in collaboration with the City of Sydney u.lab developed and facilitated BikeTank events on city policy innovation, city design, and stakeholder engagement. BikeTank is a ‘think tank that you cycle to’; it’s an event that involves rapid generation of ideas with the public, staff and students, encouraging experimentation with innovation processes developed in the u.lab. In 2011 approx. 500 people attended ten BikeTank events. The format has also been used in collaboration with UTS, corporate partners, and the wider public.

In another project, u.lab has contributed research and design services to the City of Parramatta to re-vision the urban infrastructure and embeddedness of city identity.

The brief for the project was to create a unique, compelling and cohesive identity for the Parramatta City Ring Road that links the 7 existing streets forming the road and creates city entrances and thresholds. U.lab contributed ethnographic and psychogeography research to provide impetus for a range of future developments at the periphery of Parramatta City.

1. The Rise of the Expert Amateur: Citizen Science and Micro-Volunteerism, Eric Paulos, Eric Paulos, Sunyoung Kim, Stacey Kuznetsov in From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen Engagement. Edited by: Foth, M., Forlano, L., Satchell, C., & Gibbs, M. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2011.

2. Foth, M. (Ed.) (2009). Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Practice and Promise of the Real-Time City. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-60566-152-0 (hardcopy) ISBN 978-1-60566-153-7 (ebook).

page

23

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

24

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

chapter two

groundbreaker With collaboration, crowdsourcing and design showing their problem-solving potential for business, Groundbreaker aims to explore and build new tools of collaborative innovation and provide a framework to tackle innovation problems through multi-faceted activities. But most importantly, it is designed to help with the most difficult step – getting started. The new format of design-led innovation is curated by u.lab in conjunction with Object gallery in Surry Hills.

Through a series of public and private workshops spread over eight weeks in July and August 2012, Groundbreaker invited local organisations to learn how to benefit from design thinking applications and encourages local creative thinkers, innovation champions, open-sourcers, systems magicians, and curiosity-buffs to imagine and prototype new methods of collaborative innovation.

This chapter lays out the motivation and objectives behind creating Groundbreaker, it documents many of the emerging thoughts, ideas, and discussions and aims to continue those conversations that were initiated. It features enthusiastic speakers, collaborators, and participants and reflects on the stimulating debates and problem solving workshops.

In weekly Mash+Up Forums seven innovation topics were the starting point for participants to discuss their views in roundtable conversations. So called Guest Provocateurs were charged with ‘stirring up’ a debate and stimulating the audience through their 5 minute thesis. After another round-table discussion the crowd would then gather ‘in the round’ of the Object Gallery and debate their views. Here we include a record of the topics and views that were shared in the series of Mash+Up Forums.

In over fifteen public and private workshops small and large crowds explored a range of topics using u.lab methods like the 5x5 - a rapid paced innovation exercise consisting of five steps of five minutes each. In VoxBox sessions, participants used sound to connect radical ideas with intuition, emotion and sentiment - an experimental thinktank for audio-centred design thinking for cities.

Finally, in the spirit of crowd-sharing, we invited Groundbreaker collaborators and participants to offer their experiences and views in short essays, reflecting on their professional innovation practice and research. A fine collection of these contributions concludes this chapter.

page

25

Design Thinking, Crowd-share and Open Innovation The last few years have seen resurgence in interest in design as a driver of innovation and competitive advantage. This has been visible in the popular as well as scholarly management press, with Business Week and Fast Company praising the value of design and cover page articles claiming ‘The Power of Design’.

Meanwhile, scholars have investigated the link between design investments and business performance. A number of recent studies have indicated that designdriven companies are more innovative than others1. Several studies have found that consumers increasingly make choices on the basis of the aesthetic and symbolic value of products and services2: the “look and feel” of people, places and things demonstrate that the aesthetic and symbolic dimensions are becoming increasingly relevant in many industries.

Along with this dramatic growth in interest in design, the past 10-15 years has seen a shift in the view of designers and their contribution to management. Whereas design used to be seen as mere “styling” of products, added in the last phase of the New Product Development process, now design is increasingly understood as a strategic activity that can bring a different perspective to a wide range of management challenges.

The term “design thinking” has become a buzzword, aiming to capture designers’ creativity-driven approach to innovation that can be applied to anything from physical products and intangible services, to formulating and solving complex social problems3. This concept highlights a particular mind-set, or “design attitude”4, that always takes the user experience, or a human-centred perspective, as point of departure.

The design process is experimental and emergent, alternating between divergence and convergence, problem definition and solution5, and characterised by considerable imagination and intuition as designers explore possible future solutions. Moreover, design is increasingly a multidisciplinary and cross-functional activity, as designers need to integrate many different “types of knowledge”6 when approaching problems with a high degree of uncertainty and complexity.

The ability to visualise ideas and complex information and situations is therefore central to the design process. Designers often use sketches and prototypes that, characterised by their temporary and incomplete nature, become “epistemic objects” that are essential to the process of knowledge development and innovation.7

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

26

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

The complex world of challenges: Defining the parameters of our problems and approaches

Two months of intensive design thinking workshops to collectively innovate new methods

Outcomes: • innovation collective • new toolset • comparative analysis • book • catalysts network

page

27

This increased attention to design and design practice reflects developments in management, and the wider social sciences, with greater attention being directed to the socio-cultural aspects of innovation, as well as to creative practices that are better able to handle increasing levels of complexity and global competition.

Design thinking is a method of deeply understanding human needs. As an approach to innovation it’s highly relevant because it’s not a replacement for current approaches, it’s an additional approach organisations could use to do better.

Moreover, recent global economic, as much as socio-economic pressures highlight the increasing importance of innovation and creativity for Australia, and the increasing need for approaches that complement research and development (R&D) based scientific and technological innovation. In the US and Europe, organisations have already successfully embraced design-led approaches to innovation, Australian businesses have to catch up.

Reflecting this, through a series of workshops, debates and digital discussions GROUNDBREAKER aims to highlight the importance of design creativity in innovation, address the need to disseminate best practices and stimulate debate in the development of new tools and methods. Over the two-month period, participants and UTS scholars engaged in more than 15 workshops and numerous public events to collectively create a cloud of new knowledge. Interaction in the workshops is open to all.

Two major modes of engagement characterize GROUNDBREAKER. First, a dyad of workshops, the ‘public think’ and a ‘private think’. During the public think session a design challenge is posed and the crowd tackles it using a fast paced and highly facilitated process using the u.lab 5x5 practice. The session outcome and seeds of ideas then find their way into a ‘private think’ session, where a smaller group continues defining and re-framing the challenge and further explores the solution space. This half-day session is again facilitated by the u.lab team using designled innovation methodologies. The second mode is a weekly Mash+Up Forum, where the audience is challenged by three provocative five minute pitches that are embedded in two round-table and a final plenum discussion.

By engaging with diverse catalysts who inject new thinking and techniques into current issues or challenges, individuals as much as organisations can take new ideas and begin to develop them through the focused application of new techniques in design thinking and crowd-sourced innovation. Participation in GROUNDBREAKER is a way of engaging with new and different stakeholders that are involved with a problem, or an innovation challenge.

With GROUNDBREAKER as the newest u.lab project, the benefits are threefold – from a research perspective it provides a case study of design thinking in action; from a participants perspective it assists to tackle a real innovation challenge; and it increases community involvement, by including the public in the process and discussion around the purposes and applications of design-driven innovation. page

a book by u.lab

chapter

28

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Two-step Crowd-Share Innovation Workshop: take public ideation into a dedicated context

STEP 2 ‘BREAK’: PRIVATE THINK • Private Design Thinking and innovation workshop(s) for your team.

• We take the ideas, surveys, and analysis into custom design thinking and innovation program to build on the findings from Step 1.

Private

Public

STEP 1 ‘GROUND’: PUBLIC THINK • Sponsored innovation workshop tapping into a wider Catalysts network.

• Exposing your brand to the public.

• Crowd source ideas and opinion for your innovation scenario in the public arena - good ideas are faster discovered collectively.

1. Centre for Design Innovation 2007, Centre for Design Innovation, ITSBIC, Institute of Technology, Sligo, Ballinode, Co. Sligo, ISBN 978-0-948870-06-4; and European Commission 2009.

2. Karjalainen, T.-M. 2004. Semantic transformation in design: communicating strategic brand identity through product design references, Helsinki : University of Art and Design in Helsinki; Schmitt, B. and A. Simonson. 1997. Marketing aesthetics: the strategic management of brands, identity, and image, Free Press.

3. Brown, T. 2008. “Design thinking.” Harvard Business Review 86(6): 84-92; Martin, R. L. 2009. The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage, Harvard Business School Press.

4 Boland, R. and F. Collopy. 2004. Managing as designing, Stanford Business Books.

5. Corinne Kruger, Nigel Cross, Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes, Design Studies, Volume 27, Issue 5, September 2006, Pages 527-548.

6. Verganti, R. 2003. Design as brokering of languages: Innovation strategies in Italian firms. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 14: 34–42.

7. Ewenstein, B. and Whyte, J. 2009. Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as ‘Epistemic Objects’.

Organization Studies, 30 (1): 7-30.

page

29

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

You are invited to GROUNDBREAKER. GROUNDBREAKER is a collective of design thinkers, innovation champions, creative boffins, open-sourcers, systems magicians, and curiosity-buffs who are partaking in a series of interactions to explore and build new tools for collaborative innovation.

Good ideas have a chemistry of their own. Some percolate and bubble up via the accidental interactions of unsuspecting visionaries. Others are forged in the intensive pressure cooker of process-formulated labs. Innovation is taking a turn towards the collective.

GROUNDBREAKER is co-creating a series of hands-on workshops, debates and digital discussions taking place June 27 to August 17 in the Object Gallery. New tools of crowd-sourcing and open-sourcing will be enacted in the physical realm of design workshopping in order to build the infectious energy and methods required to break into new ground in collective innovation.

The GROUNDBREAKER hypothesis is that Crowd-Share Innovation Methods are the means by which problems of the future will be solved.

Together we can explore and test this.

SAVE YOUR CREATIVE BRAINS AND COLLABORATIVE SPIRITS FOR GROUNDBREAKER, 27 JUNE - 17 AUGUST 2012, OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS. Register your interest: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

http://groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

30

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Space Design

0

1

Plan of Object Gallery

Designing the Groundbreaker Crowd-share Wall Matrix The opportunity to host Groundbreaker in the lofty, once-was-chapel volume of Object Gallery inspired a large scale visualisation of the crowd-share topics as they evolved. The diagram overleaf maps out the enormous matrix we developed to host the contributions of the crowd on the curved wall in the gallery. The rest of this chapter is speckled with the ‘debate tiles’ that participants pasted on the wall as the series continued, sharing their thoughts. Here we saw a rich mosaic of questions, stances, and provocations emerge, informing new ideas, new commitments to action, and new partnerships.

page

31

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

20

15

10

5

1

1

10

10

10

10

10

11

page

30

20

20 20

30 20

15

20 15

30 15

10

20 10

30 10

20

5

30 5

1

30 1

5

20

1

11

Map of the Groundbreaker Crowd-share Wall Matrix

32

21

20

21

31

31

40

41

50

51

60

61

71

70

21 40 20

50 20

60 20

70 20

40 15

50 15

60 15

70 15

40 10

50 10

60 10

70 10

40 5

50 5

60 5

70

40 1

50 1

60 1

70

41

51

61

11

5

1

71

page

33

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

34

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

35

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

36

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

37

2. ‘BREAK’: PRIVATE THINK

WE TAKE THE IDEAS, SURVEYS, AND ANALYSIS INTO A CUSTOM DESIGNED INNOVATION WORKSHOP FOR YOUR COMMUNITY OR COMP

Private Workshop

NSW SCHOOL HOLIDAYS

M

T

W

T

F

S

S

25 JUN

M

T

W

T

2 JUL

F

S

S

M

T

W

T

F

S

S

9

M

T

W

16

GROUNDBREAKER MASH+UP SERIES [TUES NIGHTS] VOX BOX 1 & 2

LAUNCH 27 JUN

Public Workshop

1. ‘GROUND’: PUBLIC THINK CROWD SOURCE IDEAS AND OPINION FOR YOUR INNOVATION SCENARIO IN THE PUBLIC ARENA

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

38

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

T

F

S

S

PANY - BRINGING CREATIVE INCUBATION INTO THE SYSTEM THROUGH CULTURE BUILDING, UPSKILLING AND STRATEGY.

OLYMPICS OPENING*

M 23

T

W

T

F

S

S

M 30

T

OLYMPICS CLOSING*

W

T

F

S

S

M 6 AUG

T

W

T

F

S

S

M

T

W

T

F

13

CLOSING PARTY 17 AUG

page

39

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

40

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

41

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

42

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

43

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

44

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

45

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

CROWD SALAD. IS THE CROWD A FEASIBLE DESIGN PARTNER? When the sum is greater than the parts, it’s invaluable. When the flock aligns, nothing new emerges. Can crowd share innovation - or crowd sourcing in the flesh - be exploited as a way to accelerate idea forming? When and how does this approach have merit? What are the associated issues and how are they dealt with successfully?

Groundbreaker Mash+Up Forum #1 Tue 3rd July 6.30-7.45pm, drinks from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Mash+Up is a weekly debate where the audience responds to three fast-pace speakers challenging the role of design in innovation.

This week we welcome provocateurs: Ele Jansen / www.rebootstories.com Eric Folger / AMP David Gravina / Digital Eskimo Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

46

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Mash+Up Forum #1, 3 July 2012

Crowd Salad. Is the crowd a feasible design partner?

Crowdsourcing and open innovation practices suggest that firms open up1, combine internally and externally developed knowledge2, and take in-house inventions to markets via external paths3. Open innovation embraces a mentality of outside-in and inside-out thinking that builds on external sources of innovation and commercialisation, that is a purposive inflow and outflow of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand markets for external use of organisational innovation4.

Understanding the phenomenon has mainly focused on the role of technology, internal impediments to innovation, and certain product and industry characteristics that influence a firm’s decision to adopt open innovation practices. Generally, a great network of adaptable partnerships, an ability to find and successfully collaborate with diverse partners, is crucial to achieving high innovation performance. However, the type and the overall quantity of modes of openness can vary significantly and result in positive, insignificant or even negative outcomes5. So, outside-in openness does not automatically accelerate a firm’s internal innovation capacity. Equally, while inside-out open innovation has positive performance effects, it has also been shown that firms face many difficulties in externally exploiting knowledge and technologies and that its effective implementation is challenging in reality6.

So, how does crowdsourcing work? An individual, an institution, a non-profit organisation, or company proposes to a group of individuals of varying knowledge, heterogeneity, and number, via a flexible open call, the voluntary undertaking of a task.

The undertaking of the task, of variable complexity and modularity, and in which the crowd should participate bringing their work, money, knowledge and/or experience, always entails mutual benefit. The crowd receives the satisfaction of a given type of need, be it economic, social recognition, self-esteem, or the development of individual skills, while the crowdsourcer obtains and utilises to their advantage what the crowd has brought to the venture7.

The following contributions are transcripts of the 5-minute talks by David Gravina, Ele Jansen, and Eric Folger at Mash+Up Forum #1: Crowd Salad.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Chesbrough, H., “The Era of Open Innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 44, pp. 35-42, 2003.

Almiral E, Casadesus-Masanell R. 2010. Open versus closed innovation: a model of discovery and divergence, Academy of Management Review, 25[1): 27-47.

Lichtenthaler, U. and H. Ernst. 2009. “Opening up the innovation process: the role of technology aggressiveness.” R&D Management 39(1): 38-54.

Chesbrough, H. and A. K. Crowther. 2006. “Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries.” R&D Management 36(3): 229-236.

Fey, C.F. and Birkinshaw, J. 2005. External sources of knowledge, governance mode, and R&D performance. Journal of Management, 31 [4), 597-621.

Lichtenthaler, U. and H. Ernst. 2009. “Opening up the innovation process: the role of technology aggressiveness.” R&D Management 39(1): 38-54.

Estellés Arolas, E.; González Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. 2012. Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science (in press).

page

47

David Gravina “Is the crowd a feasible design partner?

“I posit that the crowd is in fact already a design partner, whether we include them in the design process or not, they are already appropriating our design from the moment we release them into the wild.

“There’s nothing new in that fact. It has always been so. But I think that these days they participate both earlier and more often.

Both online, obviously, but also i would argue because of the experience people are having online they are also increasingly engaging offline. So, people expect to engage, interact with and change their worlds.

They increasingly expect to participate and they’re far more engaged in the outcome as a result of that.

“So the question isn’t whether the crowd is a feasible design partner, the question is: are we as designers up for engaging with the crowd?

“At Digital Eskimo our approach to design is highly collaborative, we co-design with our clients and their communities, as a matter of course. We don’t tend to work with crowd scale communities, but we believe, not only in the moral obligation that we have, to

include people in the design of their world but also in the necessity of doing so. If we wish to create meaningful and effective strategies we must co-design them.

“I believe if we are to be of service to humanity, to really move the needle on social issues and the biggest challenges of our times then we don’t really have a choice but to engage with a much broader cross-section of society. Grassroots bottomup innovation is already happening, by and for the so-called “crowd”. So if we as designers can accept and engage with whats already happening, then maybe, just maybe, designers can actually become “feasible partners” with the crowd, as they get on with changing the world.”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

48

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Ele Jansen “I think that the crowd is a feasible design partner, but that we are a long way from knowing the right ways to do it effectively. I’d like to suggest four areas where I think we should be more daring in the way we approach collaborative design. Or participatory storytelling, in my case.

“Structure is the first. Try to consider imperfection. We’re so glossy and immaculate.

We market everything so highly professionally. The crowd often doesn’t see how to step in and help.

So my proposition is, that if we dare to be imperfect, and leave gaps, we might see participants take action much quicker. It helps in overcoming inhibitions, makes collaborators feel needed and creates a sense of belonging.

“The second one is Understanding. I am a big fan of etymology. Etymology is taking words by their roots, by their original meaning. I often hear that innovations ‘bubble up’ when we use the crowd.

I’m coming from network management between IT and chemistry, chemical industry and bioengineering clusters.

We make a clear distinction between an innovation and idea. Ideas might bubble up, fly around and we’ll get them in an instance. But innovation is hard work. To

innovate, ideas will have to be implemented, and change behavioural patterns or usage. It’s based on an elaborate design. It requires a critical mass of users that embrace the innovation in a meaningful way and perform change on a larger scale. Such endeavours strive with persistence, diligence, patience. And with playfulness.

“Number three is Attitude.

We are far too diplomatic.

We are always so nice to each other. The thing is, collaboration needs conflict to come up with something new. We need controversy to get over a hump, to rub against each other. We should try to integrate or synergise the counterintuitive, the paradoxical. That means being candid, and sometimes the Devil’s Advocate. Even if

it’s out of our comfort zone.

“The last one is Education. What I see is that everybody wants to use the crowd, but nobody knows how to collaborate properly.

U.lab and Learn Do Share are two of the driving initiatives that do research around it.

We are just at the beginning of finding out how we can best collaborate. I think that this kind of educational R&D is an investment that every corporation, everybody that wants to use the crowd, needs to make before they start sourcing.”

page

49

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

50

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Eric Folger “Crowdsourcing. Is it more than just a design buzzword?

“I think that many of us see the merits of crowdsourcing.

Crowds are often an essential part of, and impacted by, the work we do as designers.

The challenge however, is in our ability to coax useful information out of the crowd. And at the heart of it, “coaxing” a crowd is really nothing more than participating in a dialogue with them.

“I like to think that design, at it’s simplest, is really just a conversation.

The dialogue, between a designer, collaborators, and the audience that they are engaging. In a way, the challenge we have with crowdsourcing isn’t so much whether the intent of using the crowd to help innovate is right. It is that functionally, it’s almost impossible to direct a crowd to answer any problem in a meaningful way. It’s almost impossible to have a conversation.

“Although we can’t ask the crowd to provide us with the answers that would solve our problem, we can learn from the crowd. Or if I were to reframe, I might ask what it is that we expect from the crowd? And is crowdsourcing an approach based on pull rather than push?

“My own experience is that we have a tendency to engage

the crowd to help solve big, intractable problems.

I think that’s asking a lot.

That’s asking a lot of any of us. For me, the challenge for crowdsourcing should be in how we might frame a question so that we can get valuable insight out of a diverse community. Then it is up to us, as designers, to effectively use these insights to anticipate and create aspirational outcomes for our users. The crowd is smarter than any of us. But it›s schizophrenic and easily distracted too.

“If we are not careful a poorly framed approach to crowdsourcing can quickly become the largest focus group you have ever stumbled into. And in the design process, focus groups can’t easily help explore what could be. Instead, what you are likely to experience is a quick digression into what the crowd thinks is needed or important based on an understanding of the everyday. Our role as designers is to facilitate and elevate the dialogue away from what is happening in the now, and provoke ways to imagine an aspirational future for and with our users.

“It is already a difficult task for even the most objective designer to participate in an aspirational dialogue about what ‘could be’.

As designers, we try to understand our users needs and aspirations in a way that we can objectively anticipate a desirable future for them.

Is crowdsourcing even capable of achieving the same outcomes when crowds are inherently un-objective?

“Crowds, almost by definition, are uncontrollable.

That doesn’t imply that there isn’t a wealth of useful information that can be gleaned from them. Crowds can be a great source of innovation, but perhaps not explicitly. I would argue that innovation within the crowd often happens at the macro level. Where if you listen closely, you can capture where the outliers are starting to be pushed up. By letting the crowd explore a problem space we can capture not the consensus, but what lies on the fringe.

Crowds can help us explore where new value might exist.

“There’s an amazing opportunity with crowds and the collective knowledge that they hold, but they are not the panacea to quickly finding ideas or innovation across a range of problems.

Instead of looking to the crowd to provide us the answers, perhaps we should be looking to them to tease out the right questions.”

page

51

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

ALIENS ABOARD. CHALLENGING THE CLAIMS OF MULTI-, TRANS-, AND INTER-.

Mixed teams make for better innovations. Is that so? What are the new models of successful interdisciplinary teams? Under which circumstances can different disciplines contribute to better solutions? What are the limits of mixed design teams?

Groundbreaker Mash+Up Forum #2 Tue 10th July 6.30-7.45pm, drinks from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Mash+Up is a weekly debate where the audience responds to three fast-pace speakers challenging the role of design in innovation.

This week we welcome provocateurs: Micky Du / Creative Director Anita Morandini / Candalepas Associates Steve Baty / Meld Studios Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

52

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Mash+Up Forum #2, 10 July 2012

Aliens aboard. Challenging the claims of multi-, trans- and inter-.

What is the relationship between the social composition of innovation teams and the innovation outcome they produce? How do demographic diversity and group processes influence design choices, creative outcomes, decision-making and consensus? Sources of diversity are usually (but are not limited to) age, gender, ethnicity, education, tenure in the organisation, as well as work and industry experience. In addition, there can be effects of organisation size, work culture, location, and team size should be mentioned too. Yet, other variables at the level of interpersonal and group processes include the ability to solve conflict and seek agreement or a preference for a certain learning style, to just mention a few.

The impact of team diversity on innovation outcomes and other factors potentially affecting this relationship are not fully answered with mixed findings in the literature and equally diverse experiences in practice. While some studies indicate that more innovative firms are guided by more educated teams who are diverse with respect to their functional areas of expertise1, other studies find that team diversity has negative effects on strategic consensus2. Supported is also a positive impact of task-related diversity on team performance while demographic diversity doesn’t seem to affect team performance. Similarly, no noticeable effect of team diversity was found on social integration3. While there are benefits of multi-, trans-, and inter-disciplinary team composition, there are costs too. However, do the benefits of cross-fertilisation in mixed innovation and design teams outweigh the costs of team building and integration?

The answer may lie in the way such collaboration is facilitated, how tensions in mixed teams are perceived and dealt with, and how team members relate to the outcome they are producing. Innovation with a design thinking mindset that favours multi-, trans-, and inter-disciplinary teams, offers a ‘softer’ style of playing, designing, and thinking. While ‘harder’ approaches organise work through abstract thinking and systematic planning, with mastery characterised by a distanced stance, ‘softer’ ways of engagement favour a negotiation attitude and more concrete forms of reasoning with mastery being achieved by creating closeness to outcomes4.

The following contributions are transcripts of the 5-minute talks by Anita Morandini, Micky Du and Steve Baty at Mash+Up Forum #2: Aliens Aboard.

1. Bantel, K and S Jackson. 2007. “Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the top team make a difference?” Strategic Management Journal 10(S1): 107-124.

2. Knight, D, C Pearce, et al. 1999. “Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus.” Strategic Management Journal 20(5): 445-465.

3. Horwitz, S and I Horwitz. 2007. “The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography.” Journal of Management 33(6): 987-1015.

4. Turkle, S. and Papert, S. 1990. “Epistemological Pluralism,” Signs. 16(1).

page

53

Micky Du “I want to talk about successfully using multidisciplinary design.

“I’ve only been involved in multidisciplinary design in a very commercial way in the last, say, five years or so. But if you have to think about it, multidisciplinary design happened a very long time ago. It is all around us. Much more than we realise.

“Basically somebody actually perfected the goldfish hundreds of years ago. I use this example as the goldfish as it is purely aesthetic and turned it into something that everybody knows. I think to become successful the initial designer of the goldfish had some idea, and a vision. If there is a clear vision and idea the outcomes can be quite astonishing, and even better if the result can be simply understood.

“In my personal story I stick with nature, as we often forget how much nature is involved with multidisciplinary design thinking. In the same token it is something entirely different to what I produce daily as a designer.

“I grew a tree not only for being environmentally ‘green’, but the design of it had to be right. I wanted the shade to be perfect for my house. With my limited knowledge of being a naturist, I investigated various types of trees. I found that it was a quite

a challenge, in Australia, to have an evergreen tree with the right subtle shade of leaves. In the end I came across, not a tree, but a bush. The pittosporum. It had the right type of leaves to provide a soft shadow. But the challenge was to turn this bush into a full fledged tree. I took ten years to continuously trim the branches and turn it into a tree. In the end it turned into a beautiful tree.

However due to the recent storm, it blew it over.

“Anyway. My point is, successful multidisciplinary design is about keeping it simple, not researching it to death, and it communicating an idea for everyone to understand.

“That, in a nutshell, is about successful multidisciplinary design solutions. And it is not necessarily directly related to what you do from day to day.”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

54

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Anita Morandini Great Answer. Wrong Question.

“I am an architect and we invest a serious quantum of energy in designing great answers to the wrong question. Let’s follow the example of Elemental, an interdisciplinary design studio in Chile.

“Elemental was appointed by a government agency to house one hundred families on a site in Iquique, Chile. The task could have resulted in a typical development scenario which looks something like this.

New disaggregated mass housing, located at the fringe of the city, disconnected from work and support communities, with inadequate public transport, and critically isolated from the opportunities of the city. One hundred houses delivered by way of an efficient traditional development process. The client issues a predefined brief and in response the design team applies expert skills to provide an outcome.

Yes, one hundred houses delivered on time on budget.

But have we fundamentally improved on the housing circumstances? Have we made a positive difference?

Have we answered the right question, or simply and most efficiently answered the wrong one? Grossly absent in the scenario I’ve

just sketched, is that critical opportunity to unpack the brief and reframe the question, so we invest in the right answer. The more advanced a project, the less chance we have to make change for critical innovation.

“In contrast to the scenario above, Elemental, together with their client, approached the task of housing one hundred families in a very different way. Firstly the client requested Elemental to fully engage the one hundred families in the process of the project. This was no lip service to community consultation. This was going to be an open, interactive, chaotic affair, and no doubt a test of good management.

It put the client and end user at the very centre of the process and demanded genuine collaboration.

Elemental entered the project fully embracing collaboration, equipped with a set of expert skills and most importantly, equipped with no presumptions. The ‘experts’ were open to dialogue, expressing, “we have a hunch but we actually don’t know what the real issue is.”

Transport engineer, finance expert, government policy maker and architect all sat at the table with the end users to workshop and find the real issues. Each collaborator engaged with territory not ordinarily venture into. The architect was involved with the financial strategy, the transport engineer engaged with end user. Design thinking and the formal

boundaries of professional disciplines were freely traversed. The result was one of collaborative teamwork, where the brief was unpacked and the question reframed.

“Instead of delivering as much space as possible to house the one hundred families, the team designed a strategy to build only half of the space required.

Essentially the homes were left unfinished, providing just the raw shell; kitchen, bathroom and limited room to be added to and completed by the families when funds became available. The team also planned for a denser housing model, with two families sharing one lot. These combined strategies meant that instead of relocating the families to the fringe of the city on cheap dislocated land, they were enabled to remain in the centre of the city, close to work and opportunities.

Wealth creation was facilitated by providing the families with the possibility of adding value to their homes and so improving their circumstance. A year after the project was completed the value of their homes had risen by an average of 30%, due to their own efforts.

“Through the collaborative interdisciplinary approach the focus of the project was shifted from simply delivering one hundred homes to answering a much more complex question on improving social circumstance. The outcome, a great answer to the right question.”

page

55

Steve Baty “I could have taken the productive and safe approach, or the lazy and risky approach. I took the lazy and risky approach. I haven’t prepared anything to say.

What I will ask instead, is this group over here to give me your framing of the problem.

Give to me your statement.

You had ‘love’ and ‘interdisciplinary’. I want to hear your framing of the problem. You can pass if you want, but if you give me your statement, that’s what I’m going to talk about for the next five minutes.

[Interaction with group as they find their card with statement on. Reads out from card which the group passes him] “Boundary objects, what is shared, finds groups, which is the trigger for communication meanings.” [Group interrupts] “Sorry, are there two parts to it?” [Group “No, no, just another one that might be easier.”]. “Okay, yeah, it’s okay. So, your two things were on ‘love’ and ‘interdisciplinary’, is that right?”

[Group and audience confirm yes]. “And this one says “You cannot be open to vulnerability or making mistakes, without being reliable.” Yep, okay, so, that’s good.”

“When you bring a group of people together from different areas around the business, you will tend to

have one group that owns the project, and a whole bunch of other people who were there to help with that project. The idea is that they provide, even design processes right, an interdisciplinary team is there to provide perspective, and experience, knowledge, a whole range of other stuff.

But primarily, if it is my project, I am carrying the key. And you all can take off at the end of it and not really care. So, when it comes to vulnerability and the ability to actually contribute, what I want is for you to feel a little bit of a sense of ownership of the problem. So I try and generate a sense of shared ownership. But at the same time, I want to encourage a space where you’re willing to open up, you’re willing to contribute in a way that is potentially wrong. It’s potentially an area, because it’s my project not yours, it’s probably nearer the expertise of mine rather than yours.

And what I’m looking for from you, as in a business case, is your probility to contribute perspectives and experiences around what’s worked and what hasn’t worked that you’ve seen, that might help me with mine.

“So let me give you an example. I might work, I’m gonna pick on you Ian, and your company, sorry. So we might, we do some work with the Westpac group and we work across the group. And we might do a project with the insurance company, like the insurance group within

Westpac. But they deal directly with consumers. And if we’re going out and talking to a retail market in a new way, we might want to get, say, some of their superannuation products to come in and tell us about what they’ve learnt, and their successes, but also their failures.

“What I want is to encourage an environment within which the failures can be talked about in a way that is not judgmental. Where I can learn from, is the last thing I would do is make the same mistake that you did. I will learn from that mistake. I will have used something that’s different. I will have used something that’s more successful. I’m going to try and avoid the pitfalls, the traps that your team ran into when they went through and spoke to that same sort of group, that same kind of market.

“So I try and find areas within the business that have experience with a similar market. I might try and find groups within the business that have access or experience with similar technologies, with similar vendors, with similar processes. But have experience launching a new product or going out to a new market in a particular way. I try and draw them in and I try and encourage them to share their experience in a way that helps me. I really want them to be honest. I really want them to be as open as possible. I don’t want them to be shy about what they learnt. I certainly don’t

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

56

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

want to trumpet to the rest of the organisation that ‘Look, like, I’m avoiding all of the mistakes that they made. You know like these guys messed up and they messed up badly.

But we’re going to avoid that, and I’m kind of going to ignore the fact that they actually warned us to avoid those mistakes’.

“You want those people to come in. You want to draw on their experience. You want their help. That’s one of the strengths of interdisciplinary teams. People who, their day to day job, is somewhere else entirely in the organisation. You want to draw them in. You want to learn from that experience. And their perspective, and their pain, and their failures, and their subsequent successes; can give you a leg up. You can stand on their shoulders and do something more than you would have done, than you would have achieved otherwise. Because without their insight, without their experience, you’d be a little bit at sea. You’d be starting from square one making the same stupid mistakes that they did. Maybe you’d get lucky. But you can avoid that and be, you know, more likely of success, more effective with the use of funds, more effective with the use of people, come up with better ideas, have deeper insights, generate better concepts and being one step ahead when it comes to testing your ideas.

Thank you.”

page

57

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

HOLD IT. ARE WE SAFER WITHOUT INNOVATION? Is Australia only resource rich and remote? Why do we need an innovation agenda, and where do we need it most? What is the potential for social change or policy making?

Groundbreaker Mash+Up Forum #3 Tue 17th July 6.30-7.45pm, drinks from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Mash+Up is a weekly debate where the audience responds to two fast-pace speakers challenging the role of design in innovation.

This week we welcome provocateurs: Siobhan Toohill / Pure & Applied Gareth Johnston / Future Ready Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

58

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Mash+Up Forum #3, 17 July 2012

Hold it. Are we Safer Without Innovation?

A rhetorical question, clearly. From the steam engine to the Internet, innovation has been the driver of growing living standards in industrial nations. The living standards are high in Australia. Yet, it is the abundance of resources that have allowed the country to develop, rather than its innovativeness. The Global Innovation Index for 2012, compiled by INSEAD, ranks Switzerland first, followed

by Sweden, Singapore, and Finland. The U.S. is 10th. Australia is 23rd. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index, 2012-2013 rates Sweden the world’s most innovative nation, followed by Finland. The U.S. is sixth on the list and Australia is 20th.

Australia lags the leading countries in a number of aspects including the amount of business funded research and development, the extent of internal and external business incubation, the availability of seed funding and venture capital, a thriving entrepreneurial scene, supporting government policy and an innovation culture.

For example, the most innovative countries offer their citizens universal health and retirement benefits. According to Robert Fairlee, a RAND economist, the availability of affordable health insurance for the self-employed has an important impact on whether individuals are likely to become entrepreneurs1.

So, it’s a mistake to frame the public policy issue of fostering innovation and entrepreneurship as a choice between security and risk-taking when public policy could ease such dilemma. In Australia, the prevalent reason behind policy choices is still one of addressing market failure, and the primary focus of policy attention continues to be science and research rather than demand-led approaches2. The latter, in particular, would involve complex-evolutionary thinking that emphasizes the importance of systemic connectivity, evolving institutions and organisational capabilities. In such environment, design-led innovation, open innovation and crowdsharing would reveal their influence even more.

The following contributions are transcripts of the 5-minute talks by Siobhan Toohill and Gareth Johnston at Mash+Up Forum #3 which was moderated by Selena Griffith of UNSW.

1. Farrell, C. 2012 Americans, Swedes, and the Alchemy of Innovation, in Businessweek, October 09, 2012.

2. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011 Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia, Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.

page

59

Gareth Johnston “As an entrepreneur working on big global problems like climate change and sustainability, I’m very privileged to spend a lot of time looking at different markets, countries, opportunities and to spend time working with interesting people. Thanks to Groundbreaker and the u.lab team for inviting me to talk for five minutes on innovation tonight. And I’d like to recognize their work in pushing academic models, and for creating a space for us to discuss how we might innovate and work differently.

“I’ve just arrived back from India yesterday, and I’ve recently been in SouthEast Asia, and West coast USA before that, looking at business models, startup hubs and emerging ways of working in markets other than here. In places like Silicon Valley or Doha or Bangkok, entrepreneurs look to profit from the rich availability of resources in education, capital, skills and talent in the local area, and Groundbreaker is doing something similar. By bringing a diverse range of people together with students from UTS and UNSW, and opening this process to the public, we can push boundaries and extend our thinking. So the offer to each of you that is studying here,

is to grab this opportunity of diverse and fresh ideas.

“I want to talk tonight about three key ideas that I observed overseas having spent much of the last five months outside Australia.

These are frugality, fast failure and the sustainability conundrum. I am going to use some old technology, three books, to highlight these three ideas in current emergent thinking. These are: ‘Jugaad Innovation’ by Navi Radjou, Jaideep Prabhu and Simone Ahuja, which offers us ideas about frugality, quick fixes and low cost work arounds; ‘Adapt’ by Tim Hartford, which invites us to fail fast and more often; and ‘The Conundrum’ by David Owen, which suggests our technology and efficiency gains might be increasing our problems.

“Starting with The Conundrum. We are facing some mega challenges in energy, climate, food and environment. Yet this work suggests that Jevons’ Paradox; the more efficient we make something the more we consume; is a major unseen problem. So think of this as you plan your innovation. What problems might innovation create?

“Tim Harford’s book is about failing faster and learning to adapt. If you’ve tried to fail fast, with your own money, believe me, it can be painful every time. I’ve pioneered a number of ideas in renewable energy and climate change risk nearly a

decade ago, and I’ve learnt that timing is everything! So remember whilst innovation is context dependent, you need to keep adapting to keep it relevant.

“Jugaad suggests that you might want to borrow the low capital simple fixes and small innovations of emerging markets, rather than adopt the high tech, high capital, innovation model of the west.

This book is being used at Cambridge and is adopted by a number of large Western companies as an innovation model.

“Innovation is often lauded as a great opportunity to create wealth. For most however it can be both difficult and costly. Sorry, but I will now burst your bubble.

You most probably are not the next Mark Zuckerberg or the next Steve Jobs. And you will most probably not make $10 billion, $10 million or even $10 thousand on your first start up or your next business model. If you still think your innovation is going to make a fortune, then please buy a ticket to San Francisco, Zhongguancun in Beijing, the Silicon Wadi in Israel, the Oasis 500 in Amman, or to Education City in Qatar. Our current tax laws mean you will not be enabled to do this in Australia.

“However, if you are not Mark Zuckerberg, then stick around, listen, collaborate, learn fast, mimic, copy and iterate. Innovation comes from “innovare” a Latin word which means ‘to renew or

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

60

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

change’. But what we’ve found out earlier tonight in our group exercises, is that innovation is context dependent.

“So what lessons can I share with you? Most people aren’t innovators, but resist change, preferring the comfort of sitting still to moving. But all of you have come here to try something novel tonight.

“What might help you to succeed? Few innovators maintain the capacity to sustain themselves to a successful outcome, either financially, emotionally or even spiritually. And in the field of renewables and sustainability, I’ve seen many innovators broken, retreat from the field, vowing never to risk again. I’ve learnt that for a lot of people success comes when we change our environment and geography, attracting new capital, social capital and importantly, supportive policy. Many of us might lack the courage and resources to repeatedly storm the gate or possess the energy to maintain the rage, when Sisyphus-like, the rock rolls over us back down the hill. I’d encourage you to build strong foundations, and develop your social environment, cultural and economic capital to support you on the journey as you turn risk into opportunity.

“Of all the key issues I really want you to think about, having worked and lived globally, is that we are in what the economist

Joseph Schumpeter called the ‘creative destruction phase’ or Schumpeter’s Gale. Beyond the comfort of Australia, most people face a number of big problems, and a world increasingly full of uncertainties and volatilities.

Unless we in Australia start exercising our adaptive ‘muscle’ and test our creative thinking, we may not be able to adapt painlessly when the time comes.

“So I want you to think of when you step outside Groundbreaker, outside of Surry Hills, and the comfort of university, how you may engage differently with the world. There is an opportunity to take new ideas away from tonight, to collaborate and work

together, test new models, digest new information, discuss new perspectives, and innovate beyond tonight in your future work. Thank you.”

page

61

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

62

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Siobhan Toohill “We know the Henry Ford line: If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse. But imagine our cities without private cars: the domain of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Sometimes innovation is about little changes over time, sometimes disruptive change suddenly, and sometimes a small change creates license for a bigger innovation.

“Leading sustainability in a corporate, that’s precisely where I started.

Try having conversations about disruptive high-risk innovation with leaders of a major publicly listed company.

And then don’t.

“Innovation requires pushing, in order to achieve optimal rate of change, win over community support, attract sufficient investment and sustain long-term momentum. But don’t push too hard. Or else you’ll get pushed off the cliff.

“Engaging with company directors and business leaders on climate change?

Small pushes. And let me tell you, I’ve seen some cliff tumbles in my time.

“Innovation is split in terms of those who have secrets and those who like to share. Green Star is a crowd-sourced built and freely available tool. The Green Building Council of

Australia only clips the ticket as the building is assessed.

Many years ago when I first starting working in sustainability, I was invited to address an external conference. I reflected, how do we talk about what we do? How much can I share?

A wonderful mentor advised “Just tell them what we do, share, put it out there”. The more organisations that adopt our approach, the better in achieving our bigger goal of sustainability, and in turn, we’ll be seen as a leader. And most importantly, remember that no one can replicate our culture. And when you make a mistake, share that lesson too. Because transparency builds trust.

“Innovation. Australia.

Cultural cringe. Mediocrity.

“Tapping into that sentiment, Donald Horne wrote “Australia is a lucky country, mainly run by second-rate people who share its luck”. A few decades later Paul Keating wryly reflected that “we’re at the arse end of the earth”. Does anything really matter here?

Our resources matter. But what about our ideas, our knowledge?

“Oh, and by the way, our mining technology is highly innovative. Robots.

Driverless trains. I’ve been to Whaleback. And I’m off to a WA mine in a few weeks.

“But something’s working here. Here, in Australia. Our economy is in great shape by global standards. We have great social welfare,

education, and a healthcare system the envy of the world.

We have a carbon price. Our cities continue to rate highly.

We live longer. To sustain this, it’s time for the government to pony up, and invest in the soft and hard infrastructure that stokes our cities.

“Think about it. Cities are built on innovation. The collaborative, connected, proximate brilliance of people. As leading city thinker Ed Glaeser writes, “Our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier and happier”. For centuries, humans having been coming together, living and working together, sharing ideas across a street and learning and collaborating in cities. Skilled citizens, interconnected, creating a better life.

Innovating.

“Invest in our cities, and the people in our cities, and the innovation will come, from us.”

page

63

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

FORGET WINNING. LEARN TO FAIL. IS DESIGN UPTURNING THE EDUCATIONAL PARADIGM? Good design is good business. So they say. In this environment, is education as we know it defunct? If not, what is its obligation? Where can it start to erase the post-war stigma of survival of the fittest? Does teaching kids design thinking overturn the all-powerful paradigm of competition for grades?

Groundbreaker Mash+Up Forum #4 Tue 24th July 6.30-7.45pm, drinks from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Mash+Up is a weekly debate where the audience responds to three fast-pace speakers challenging the role of design in innovation.

This week we welcome provocateurs: Rangan Srikhanta / 1 Laptop per Child Australia Deborah Kneeshaw / Design Thinking Annette Mauer / Australian Centre for Design Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

64

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Mash+Up Forum #4, 24 July 2012

Forget winning. Learn to fail. Is design upturning the educational paradigm?

Traditionally, education policy and programs have aimed at driving up standards – with a focus on literacy and numeracy, analytical thinking, completing learning goals, as well as a greater use of technology to track progress, and to ensure a growing number of school leavers and graduates achieve benchmark leaving standard at our institutions. Despite such efforts in education and training, the proportion of young and motivated people who are seeking opportunity, have ideas, and are intellectually flexible enough to accept the chance of failure as a learning opportunity, does not seem to grow much.

We have long known that creativity and acceptance of failure is amenable to teaching. Like most other behaviour, creative activity represents learned skills.

Creativity thinking tools and brainstorming techniques have been suggested to help people generate diverse thoughts and solutions. Creative problem solving processes have been applied. In addition to such pragmatic techniques of creativity training, cognitive-social psychologists and educational researchers have generated implications for fostering creativity in educational contexts1. One such implication is about teaching mode and context, which is concerned with providing creative and innovative practices that stimulate the development of higher-level thinking and involve the opportunity of exploring and solving real problems. Another implication is about creating learning environments that are stimulating and supportive to learners’ motivation/enthusiasm and creative behaviour. Finally, nurturing creativity is about the teacher’s ethos, which includes maintaining an open attitude towards creative ideas or behaviours, being flexible, deferring judgement, and valuing and rewarding independent thinking2. It is the latter that we get wrong. Young people are too often being let down at various stages of their educational journey. Can design practices and a design mindset together with mentoring - good support and guidance from educators to colleagues who don’t judge and allow failure be the key to turning things around?

The following contributions are transcripts of the 5-minute talks by Rangan Srikhanta and Deborah Kneeshaw at Mash+Up Forum #4.3

1. Amongst many others e.g. Amabile, T. M. 1996. “Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.” Harvard Business Review: 1-15.

2. Lin, Y. S. 2011. “Fostering creativity through education‚ A conceptual framework of creative pedagogy.” Creative education 2(3): 149-155.

3. We regret that we were unable to record and transcribe the third speaker, Annette Mauer’s presentation.

page

65

Rangan Srikhanta “You might have seen the TIME magazine of 2045. This is the point of what is called singularity, where humanity and machines merge. I thought when I read that article: what about 2025? 2030?

By the time a child born today reaches the workforce, they are predicting that computing power will get to the point where it exceeds human processing power, that is, brain processing power. And you combine this fact, (because it’s a reality, it will happen) with the fact that we’ve got Google, we’ve got Facebook, and they are a collection of interesting facts. And yet the reality is that the world is becoming a small place.

“I’ve been in a privileged position to observe big companies like CBA and Telstra, and other organisations we’ve worked with. Their whole workforce is changing and working in different ways, just in the last two to three years. So already companies can have employees on the other side of the planet and yet, there’s always talk about refugees and migration. We are going to have the same concepts but it’s going to be digital. We are going to have a global workforce to contend with. So the need for people to move locations to access opportunity, is going to change. Maybe it’s something as simple as access-

ing the internet and getting more opportunity. And what we’re seeing now is thanks to the internet people are able to find their tribe. They are able to find people with similar interests, much, much quicker and they can have a reasonable way of collaborating with each other in a very interesting way. And I’ll try and demonstrate how we’re doing that at One Laptop.

“Obviously we can talk about how we prepare the next generation of workers and global citizens for this.

For something well-known: there’s that twelve minute YouTube video of Ken Robinson. The next approach is obviously the multiple intelligences, that is, the Howard Gardner approach.

It is interesting how he gives good examples of how a child might come across, or even comprehend the concept of multiplication. And some kids get it straight away.

They memorise it, the times tables. I was always the last kid in the class. Some of my friends were just, really fast.

And I went through these three examples of why a child might not get it. They might have, and they might need a totally different approach.

Their tribe of thinking might be completely different to the standard tribe. And then, they might even have a deeper level of understanding; a way that the educational system hasn’t found a way of capturing. So then the solution is: how do we start re-engineering the system? How do we

up-turn the paradigm?

“If anyone watched Q&A last night, the speakers were all bashing their heads against each other. You know, on one side they discussed ‘Is it about class sizes?’ Others were saying ‘We’ve been reducing class sizes for ten years. We need more funding, more, more, more everything’. You know, ‘We need better teachers’. There was this big focus on improving teachers. If we had that much scrutinising of any one of us we’d look pretty stupid.

“But how do we go about trying to solve this? There’s another question we’ve got to ask. Is it the entire system?

Do we need to go at it from a completely different angle? I think so. It needs to be part of the mix. One thing I’ve seen is that there is no precedent for social enterprise. It’s just a bit of a gap filler term at the moment; there is no predefinition. And maybe that’s a good thing about it at the moment.

But one thing I’ve seen is that government is too big. Its job is to provide public goods and it’s designed to target the 80% of the bell curve. You’ve got businesses that have a profit filter; if it doesn’t pass the profit test, they don’t even have a mission. You see companies doing very diverse things because it ticks the profit box, but that doesn’t always play well for social needs. And then you’ve got the charity angle. At the moment it’s very hard for charities to provide something of the scale of businesses or

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

66

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

even government, because they’ve got a very constrained methodology around how they deploy it. So I think social enterprise is somewhere in the middle. It’s an opportunity in the 21st Century, and I think it’s the future of how organisations are going to operate.

What we are trying to achieve at One Laptop is just that.

“We are trying to provide technology. We have to compete on one hand with the Apples and the Dells in terms of service quality and scale.

But then on the flipside we have to provide a government service, and that’s why we’ve tried hard to convince the government to get on board.

And so it’s very much a dream. It started as a dream a few years ago and we’ve learnt a lot in that process.

We have raised $6 million from corporate Australia.

We have gotten six thousand laptops in the most remote communities you can possibly think of, many communities where the whole thing is just red dirt.

“So the XOs is the laptop we deliver. It’s specially designed, designed in the MIT Media Lab, another kind of u.lab type environment.

It’s rugged; all the software is collaborative; it’s all free, the laptops all connect to each other. They’re basically a little tool for the kids to start thinking outside the box, and we find that that’s extremely important for them. Because many of them are too ashamed to put their hands up and say, ‘Hey, this

is my problem’. Having a little environment for them to test out ideas, fail quickly, is something that we thought was quite interesting, and something that the kids, all the world’s kids, need.

“What we found was at the principle level, the teacher and children level, there were early and late adopters.

When we went in and we gave everyone a laptop for free initially, we didn’t know who would get it. So everyone was blowing smoke up our backsides saying ‘Hey, bring the XOs here, we love what you guys do’. We found out that in fact there were some people who understood it, and there are some people who just probably weren’t ready for it at that point. What we decided to do was target in on the early adopters. What we found after going to many communities was the focus needed to be on, how do we smoke out these early adopters? At the principle level we

found that we needed to price on budget. Principals needed to buy into the program. And then below that we needed to get the teachers to do some professional development. That was something that governments weren’t doing, they were outsourcing everything to the businesses.

The businesses saw no business benefit in providing professional development.

They didn’t see the business model in it, because they are structured in silos.

“We have a relationship with a school in Kenya, and we asked ‘can we offer an online course, and then go and deliver the laptops’.

And instead of this happening through OLPC globally, these laptops were provided through OLPC Australia. So we’re seeing a viral effect occurring. And maybe that might influence what you guys are thinking about.

Thank you.”

page

67

Deborah Kneeshaw “What designers do is they try to improve things.

Most designers want to make the world a better place. Any designers here?

Many designers here.

Design thinking, from my perspective, is about taking the thinking processes and the creative mindset that designers use, when they are, say, designing a chair, or a logo in my background, graphic design. Taking those two aspects out of the designers’ hands, and using them to solve difficult problems. Both the processes and the mindset can be successfully transplanted and used for a whole variety of different challenges.

Businesses are increasingly using this because they can see that it’s actually beneficial for them to do so.

They need new tools. Design thinking is one of those.

“My own process has been through being a designer myself, and observing designers around me, and myself, the processes we use. I put together a six-step process, and that, combined with a creative mindset, can be used to solve a specific problem.

Initially I actually thought that the processes were most interesting. But the more I worked in this area, the more I realised that the key thing is the mindset. While

the processes actually force you to develop a particular type of mindset, and using the processes will step you through a problem in a way that’s a little bit different to the way businesses usually step through a problem. It’s actually using a creative mindset that creates the magic.

“What is a creative mindset? That’s the next question. We’ve already heard that children are not really encouraged to think creatively, and I think we all know it from our own backgrounds at school.

Anybody here encouraged to think creatively at school?

Whereas a design group won’t be successful unless they leverage the creativity of the individuals within the group. I think we can learn a lot from that.

“Ken Robinson’s definition of creativity is “having ideas that add value.” The creative mindset is the individual’s component. Each of us is completely individual, and recognising our own creativity and developing one’s own creative capacity is the first step of the process.

I always take executives through that. They initially think it’s a bit touchy-feely, trying to connect back in with creativity, however they soon appreciate its value.

“Creativity is the part of us that’s very playful, it’s the part of us that can see the big picture, and it’s the part of us that thinks very deeply. And once you can get

people connecting with that part, then working together collaboratively, stepping through design processes; that’s when the real magic can start to happen.

“Another key aspect of this creative mindset is the notion that designers have of trying to take a problem and solve it at a very, very deep level.

They don’t just want a band aid fix. They think deeply, and they search for the most longterm, sustainable solution they can come up with. This deep, probing attitude, and this care for the environment, and care for each other, is another key thing in the whole process. This is sounds a bit like an ad for designers doesn’t it?! Learning to think holistically, developing an intention to solve things at a very deep level, is something we can teach children, and I also think businesspeople benefit from that too.

“Another step in the creative process is the ability to come up with ideas. How do we do that? Does anybody know where ideas come from? On the one hand it is mysterious, on the other there is rigor and a process involved. Having ideas that add value involves listening.

Deep listening. Learning to listen, to what the problem is, to customers and what they have to say. Learning to listen to our intuition. Learning to listen to each other, so that we can help each other develop ideas and birth them into something new and better. This deep listening is

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

68

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

another key area that both children and business can learn from.

“Then we come to the topic of failing. Designers like to explore a whole range of options. One of the big learnings for me, working with businesspeople, is as soon as they get their first idea, they’re like, whoosh, ‘okay, we’re there, we’ve done it, alright, let’s start implementing it’. Whereas designers will actually strive to come up with an idea that’s original. So they’ll think more deeply, come up with multiple ideas, and share them to collaborate at that stage to see if they can improve and build on ideas. That’s another key thing that business can learn from design thinking.

So it’s about developing these skills, working together collaboratively to produce innovative solutions to a particular problem.

“For me, the real magic of design thinking has not yet been properly acknowledged. Because for me, the real magic is around respecting, honouring, each individual’s creativity within an organisation, or within a team. And then using these collaborative methods to create joyful working places, to work together harmoniously, and to create environments where creativity flourishes and where people love to go to work.

“We all know there’s a skills shortage, and Gen Y don’t stand much nonsense.

So I think business is going to be forced to adopt some of these methods, not just because of the end result.

And I think the end results are important. Business needs to get good results.

But it’s also important in terms of retaining, keeping, good, key people. And so the businesses that start to think and act in that way in the future will be the ones that succeed. So for me, that’s, having been working in this field for about seven years, that’s a key takeaway.

“Relating to that last point, another big thing is creating environments where those conditions can flourish. So, creating environments where individuals can express their creativity, where they’re listened to, where they’re part of the process, where

innovative processes are adopted; that has to come from above. Leadership that will enable that, and work environments that support those ways of working. Those will be the keys to success in the future. Thank you.”

page

69

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

CULTURE BLOCK. IDEATION IS NOT INNOVATION. Anyone can come up with good ideas; implementing them takes sweat and conviction. Why is it we are built to think of ideas, not make them happen? How does the ratio get inversed? What drives make-it-happen cultures in complex organisations?

Groundbreaker Mash+Up Forum #5 Tue 31st July 6.30-7.45pm, drinks from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Mash+Up is a weekly debate where the audience responds to two fast-pace speakers challenging the role of design in innovation.

This week we welcome provocateurs: Ian Muir / Westpac Matthew Ayres / Growth and Innovation Hanno Blankenstein / Strategic & Creative Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

70

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Mash+Up Forum #5, 31 July 2012

Culture block. Ideation is not innovation.

Innovation is critical and its importance will grow in the future. In the past, organisational executives have consistently identified change as their most pressing challenge. However, gradually the complexity of operating in an increasingly uncertain world is their primary challenge. And, a surprising number of them feel illequipped to succeed in this drastically different world and are very critical of their companies’ innovation effectiveness. Few genuinely ‘walk the talk’ on innovation, and a majority rates their company’s innovation and implementation capabilities below average1.

The barriers to innovation and its realisation irrespective of industry background or location include a short-term focus, lack of time, resources or staff, unrealistic expectations, a missing link between management incentives and innovation, lack of a systematic innovation process, and – finally – the dominant belief that innovation is inherently risky2. Addressing such obstacles rarely occurs systematically; rather managers are dealing with them in a disjointed fashion. For example, managers may put an elaborate innovation process in place, but don’t reward innovators and business leaders for innovation successes. Many only address the obvious signs of lacking innovation: If scarcity of ideas is the issue, a common tactic is to hold more idea generation sessions. If resources are the problem, the solution is to appoint an innovation team to carry the innovation effort forward. If lack of process is a concern, then firms implement a stage gate process. While these suggestions have merit in their own right, a systemic and holistic method that addresses all underlying causes of innovation ineffectiveness is needed. In addition, our new connected era is changing how people engage with such implementation strategies. How do innovation leaders respond to such complexity of increasingly interconnected agendas, markets, societies and governments?

The following contributions are transcripts of the 5-minute talks by Ian Muir, Hanno Blankenstein and Matthew Ayres at Mash+Up Forum #5.

1. IBM. 2010. Capitalizing on Complexity – Global CEO Study 2010. New York, IBM Business Consulting Services.

2. Loewe, P. and J. Dominiquini. 2006. “Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation.” Strategy & leadership 34(1): 24-31.

page

71

Ian Muir “My role here is to be a provocateur.

“Do we have many designers in the room? I thought so. Considering that I was going to be presenting to a roomful of designers, I thought I’d start with being a provocateur - Designers suck.

But let me come back to that later.

“One of the things we are talking about here is: Innovation and ideation, and are they the same thing?

“You can see from this slide that I say they’re not the same thing. So that was easy.

“If we replace, ideation with invention for a moment.

Inventions, pop out of nowhere. Probably wasn’t exactly an invention, but…

Newton is sitting under a tree… an apple falls onto his head. Was that the only thing that took him to understand about gravity? I don’t think so. I think there was a lot that went on before that.

“Yes, something popped out there. Yes there’s a great idea there. What do we do with that? Actually we have to take that idea and apply it. It’s not just about coming up with great ideas. It’s actually about taking those ideas, taking what comes out of the ideation process, and actually putting quite a lot of hard work behind it, …to then say how can we utilise that. How can we create something useful? And in fact if you look at innovation, in its definitional sense, it is about

positive change, or change for the better. So it’s almost by definition, that I say that innovation and ideation are not the same thing. And you do have work at it.

“Let’s just look at it from a slightly different angle for a minute. Let’s imagine now we replace, ideation with alchemy. I’m going to create gold, out of nothing. It would be kind of cool, wouldn’t it?

“But actually it’s probably more akin to gold prospecting. I have to shuffle around quite a bit.

I know that I am looking for something, I don’t know exactly where I’m going to get that from, I don’t know when I’m going to get that. I think the ideation process, or the invention process is very much akin to prospecting.

That probably makes the application side of it, a little bit like gold-smithing.

“Now I’m going to take that gold, that just happened to fall into my lap, after all my hard work, …and do something with it. And so, innovation then would then be like jewellery. So it has some purpose, it has… a greater cause? A greater good? I guess that’s a continuation of… ideation and innovation are not the same thing.

Innovation = Ideation + Application = Invention + Application akin to Jewellery = Gold Prospecting + Gold smithing

“Let’s have a look at one of the other themes for tonight, which is really about the Cultural Block.

“How do you get, in a complex organisation, some cut through? How do you get progression? How do you get innovation? How do you actually, in those complexities, get some cut through, to form a “make it happen culture”. And so these are three key aspects, of what I believe, is about making that happen; leadership, change management and cultural alignment.

“I’m not going to go through a whole speech on leadership, but there are some really relevant aspects of leadership.

“For a start you have to have a clear vision. People will not choose to follow you, if you don’t where you are headed. It’s very very important, to have a clear vision, about where you want to be.

“And, you have to be more than just motivational. If you do good, I’ll give you a bonus.

If you do bad, I’ll slap you on the wrist. That doesn’t really cut it. That’s not what leadership is about. That’s management.

“With leadership, leaders have to be inspirational, because people choose whether they follow leaders.

If they are choosing to follow you as a leader, for a common cause, or there’s a reason, there’s a “why”, that makes them want to follow you, … you have to also empower them. They have to feel that

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

72

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

their contribution is a good one, for the greater good of the cause. So, there are some really important aspects of leadership.

“Now if we look at change management, …we were just talking about change management at one of the tables. It’s tough right. It’s really tough.

“Actually, with change management, similar to leadership, you can’t impose change on people. They have to choose to want to accept that change. I’m sure there’s a whole grieving cycle and everything, but actually, people need to know they can replace what’s happening today with something better, with something different, that will actually be, a cause for good. A part of that, is

it becomes quite critical, that you have clear and effective communication.

Communications is a key ingredient to good change.

“I’m just going to take a moment to look at a simple piece around communications. The message sent is not the same as the message received.

Here’s a simple example. I have an emotional feeling about something, I have to turn that emotion into thought, and then take those thoughts and communicate them in a vocabulary. We’ve already gathered two possible points of failure.

Then that message has to be transmitted in whatever form.

There’s another possible failure point…. And then, the receiver has to interpret

that message, and turn that into their own emotions.

A simple communication between two people and we’ve identified five possible failure points. Imagine that in a complex organisation, with many people involved, with different mindsets, different perspectives, different views on things… we’ve been talking about generational gaps, …all sorts of reasons that might form gaps in understanding. We are talking about quite a complex environment.

“And looking at the third aspects of things, the cultural alignment or as this picture might convey,.. misalignment. It’s actually quite critical that amongst all of that, there is cultural alignment. If culture is “the page

73

way we do things around here”, it’s really important that things be done, in a similar fashion, or at least towards the same cause.

Otherwise there’s resistance, or there’s people pulling in different directions and it’s not going to create what is required, for innovation. But if you get that right…a nice little blend of differences, to provide you with, something like, the wonderful wine we are drinking tonight.

Cultural environment is a very important factor in doing that.

“If I come back to my “Designers suck statement” or designers suck at business.

Well, I don’t know if this is true. It’s kind of interesting.

This is part of what’s happening at the UTS as well… How do we actually get the bridge between design thinking and business thinking? How do we actually bridge some of that? I think a key aspect of that is being able to speak the business language in design terms and vice-versa. It’s actually creating that common empathy, that common understanding, and here’s some examples, if nothing else, of some key areas, that, if designers can speak more about… not oh that’s a fantastic design, and that’s a beautiful design and that’s a great thing because we actually need more of that in the world. But actually…if we validate this with customers and we reduce the risk in the implementation. Hmm,

now we’re actually starting to talk the language that, bridges both sides of that.

So it’s, it’s really important that we understand that, and we’re able to communicate in that fashion. And of course, constraints. Constraints is an interesting one for designers, because designers hate constraints right… but then designers also hate, not having constraints.

“Design something amazing!

“Well for what?

“I don’t know, just make it amazing.

“That’s just as challenging, or in fact another way of looking at it is, design without constraints is self-indulgent art. Not that there’s anything wrong with self indulgent art. It can be fun. Some great designers are also great artists, but actually, we do need constraints and business thinking is a lot about constraints, and so it’s a really important aspect of how we think about things in design terms.

“And then finally, learn the rules and break them.

This is an interesting one, because I actually work at a bank, so I’m not talking about corruption and fraud and that end of things.

“Actually we have to get those rules and understand them. Whether they’re design rules or whether they’re business rules.

Understand why the rules exist. Understand what they’re about, and what their intent is about. Sometimes

you’re actually going to have to challenge those, and that’s how you get cut through.

That’s how, in complex organisations, you get things done. You understand what’s going on, and you can actually identify what’s creating some of the blockages. Then turn that into advantage, to unlock some of that and get some cut through.

“Finally, to summarise: “I’m leaving this with you so that when we go back to the tables, here’s four key aspects of these topics around Cultural block, ideation and innovation.

“Take this into the discussion: • Leading with inspiration and vision.

• Change management, making sure the communication’s there.

• Getting the cultural alignment particularly around speaking business terms or matching business and design thinking in terminology.

• Then know, when and how to break the rules, to create innovative outcomes.

“Thank you.”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

74

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Hanno Blankenstein “The topic is complex organisations, how to really innovate instead of just having great ideas.

“We are not short of ideas.

In fact, back in 2008, during my time at Vodafone, we came up with 5,500 ideas within three months, which we captured through an online ideas forum. We asked customers, employees and suppliers about innovation ideas. At P&G they have a similar approach. They are collecting over 100,000 ideas from suppliers, customers, employees, every year.

“So what to do with all these ideas? One of the main challenges for complex organisations is to filter and channel these ideas into the valuable few, and progress those few swiftly through the organisation to deliver quick and sustainable commercial results.

“Value for us, as strategic designers, is to look at customer centered design plus commercial strategy.

Value for us does actually encompass various elements.

Customer value for sure, but it should also include commercial value for the business, and it should account for technology constraints. The balance of these three value measures is essential for successful

innovation. If a company drives one element much more strongly than the other in complex organisations, innovation tends to fail.

“The first thing complex organisations, in my perspective, need to achieve, is a shared understanding of value. Aligning the organisation’s strategy and culture with value metrics that fit. This alignment is essential, to have clarity across the executive team and the decision-makers on what value actually means in the organisation. Because some people in a design team think customer value is the most important measure, others in the digital teams focus on amazing features.

And in IT teams on time and material spend, and others,

in the finance department especially, will say, “Well, let’s contain costs and drive revenue”.

“Without this value transparency we very often see that ‘innovation’ within organisations, happens by listening to the person that has the most positional power, or the person with the loudest voice at the budget table. The results are suboptimal in many ways.

This intransparent situation supports ‘pet projects’ rather than objective customer and commercial value creation. It breeds further ‘lone genius’ behaviour and it breeds mono-dimensional decision making.

“Then comes prioritisation.

Once you’ve got the value measures aligned and page

75

transparent across the organisation you need to have a simple framework where you iteratively prioritise your ideas. All the way from ideation, research, concept, to design, prototype, development and scaling.

“I do not suggest developing detailed business cases early on. I propose a venture capital style ‘vetting’ approach, where you iteratively increase the fidelity of value measures.

So you start off with a simple ranking of your ideas from 1-10. And when you go to concept you have further information that emerges from experts, when you go to customer research, you build in customer feedback and so on. You built up your ladder of information and your prioritisation framework increases in fidelity. You do that with every single idea that is being considered in your organisation.

The prioritisation of all these ideas through the innovation process is essential. Keeping that iterative prioritisation going, over and over again, in weekly cycles or monthly cycles, and sharing the status at the highest level of the organisation, helps everyone to be aligned on the innovation priorities.

“The final point is about process. The discussion about process in a large, complex organisation sounds boring, but probably, is the essential lynch pin. Process is not about how you manage a vast amount of people in

your complex organisation.

Everyone wants to innovate.

But good innovation process is about how you get the accountability, and the momentum, and the pace, so that you drive innovation through the organisation.

“Complexity creates uncertainty, creates disempowerment, and mediocrity. So, if you don’t have clear process, then, you have either the ‘lone genius’ that is convinced to know his own innovation approach. Or you have the senior guy at the table with a large budget, just putting his ideas forward and pushing them through, without any clear process, nor measures, of value creation.

“So a good process will ensure to balance the demand of the business with the technology supply.

This process holds everyone involved accountable through the key stages, and also empowers cross-functional teams to make decisions, to either kill initiatives, or progress them swiftly.

“In summary, complex organisations need to make innovation fact based and everyone involved needs to be accountable for their decisions. This will turn complexity into simple, transparent and predictable innovation, which in turn will enable and then reinforce a culture of making innovation happen.”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

76

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Matthew Ayres Your passion.

“Think of one word, that describes yourself, right now.

This is important, think of the word; your deepest passion.

You’ve got ten seconds. Why do you do what you do, and what is your passion? I want you to say that word out loud, very loud, in three seconds.

One, two three. [people call out their words]. I want you to say that word louder again. One two three. [people call out their words louder].

Believe me, if you are not passionate in this space you will fail. Know your passion.

“I walked around a few tables before the talk and there’s people having polite conversations. Think about this. It doesn’t work, it’s too comfortable. The innovation arena is filled with lots of wannabes, lots of people who think they can do stuff, but really there is no cut through. You need to be passionate, you need to believe in yourself, and you need to stand up and lead new approaches which are often untested, unclear and unproven. If you’re not about that, don’t think about design, don’t think about innovation, because you’re setting yourself up for failure.

I’m just telling you how it is out there in the real world. It takes courage.

“There’s a lot of people who go to meetings and give

half-baked presentations; there’s no insight, only half considered views of what they think might work. In this space you absolutely need to be insightful, passionate, back yourself, and I’ll tell you why. I’ll discuss a few personal learning’s, they are personal not structured.

Context is everything “I remember walking into the boardroom with Andrew Mohl, who was the Chief Executive of AMP at the time, and fifteen minutes later walked out with $40 million.

Yes, $40 million in fifteen minutes. How? I knew the core issues, I knew how he’d make a decision, I knew his passions and I knew what he needed to hear. I presented in a context that was relevant to him, and he just said “thank you very much, go forward”.

It’s that simple when you know how.

“Context is absolutely everything. So if you walk into an environment where you want to innovate and you really don’t understand that environment, don’t go there.

If you don’t understand the people, their passions, what makes the industry tick, go back and re-learn. You need to be hungry to learn and think very carefully.

“For example, presenting an idea around a really risky venture with banking executives, or walking into a Board without a well considered set of thought processes, is likely to be a career limiter. However, if you frame opportunity the right

way, you can keep people in their comfort zones. If you are explicit and open in regards to how to manage down the risks and test assumptions, leaders are likely to say (to themselves), “OK, I see this can be managed, I think this is worth a look”. Context is everything.

Three flavours “Ideas come in very different ‘flavours’. First of all, let’s talk about the idea whingers. The idea whingers want to say something about the world but have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it. They just want to have their say, they don’t plan to do anything, they are really not passionate innovators at all.

“Let’s look at idea advocates. They are people who are saying “look I’ve researched/looked into this area and like what I see”.

They want you to think about it with them. They are saying “it’s OK to come and talk with me, play with this idea and explore”. They’re really genuine, they’re saying “I’m not sure where to go”. So you stand next to them, you go on a journey of, as of yet, unknown destination.

“Thirdly, idea leaders.

These are people who are prepared to put their career on the line, they’re people who are prepared to do something different, and, they’re people who’re saying, “I want to take a stand, I want to find out, I want to know what is behind this, and I’m going to back it, even though

page

77

Figure 1: One Deep Insight One deep insight is a like a seed that when planted in the right conditions, flourishes. © Copyright Matthew Ayres, 2012

it might cost me.” Because they are clever, they’ll do it in a smart way, adapting as they discover.

Ideas and insights “I would guess that every person in this room, there’s designers, there’s passionate people; just look what you’re wearing, there’s a lot of creative individuals.

You’re big thinking people.

Thoughts and ideas from creative people are great.

But I’m going to tell you why in my view there needs to be more than thoughts and

ideas. Ideas are not equal to insights.

“I think there are very, very few people who have deep insights. I guess in this room tonight, we have a group that is well considered in their thinking. But to take on an insight, means you need to wrestle with it, you need to work through it. There’s a tension point that you need to get an insight, and, that others haven’t seen. Now that’s not easy. Ideas are easy.

Deep insights; 99% of people have none, ‘cause they don’t

know how to find them.

“Most corporates are almost dead when it comes to deep innovative insights. Most corporates don’t know how to think anymore because they’ve lost the courage, lost the conviction and have no established discipline in this area. But when harnessed, deep insights can change industries.

“This is why you are here tonight. That’s why you can yell out, declaring “this is what I’m about and who I

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

78

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

am”; you strive for the deeper insights. We encompass the values required to seek out the deep insights, those that can change the immediate environment, the company, the industry.

“While leading Growth and Innovation for AMP Limited, I tackled one of the worst problems the company had, a problem that nobody had solved in ten years.

In eighteen months we changed the industry. I didn’t do anything miraculous. I searched for the big insights and then did something about it. That’s how we created a new standard for the country.

It’s called the AMP Horizons Academy for those who are interested.

“Finally, for this discussion, I was asked about how to increase the number of ideas, and ratio of ideas to market opportunities, you know, how does the ratio get increased?

It doesn’t. You don’t need to increase the ratio. So, I’m going go out on a limb here and say what a load of bunkum! The whole industry is screwed up thinking about generating millions of ideas and then saying here’s the great one. What a load of rubbish. Who sold you on that one?

“Deep insights cut through all this. People go, “hang on, what do you mean you have you found that women are 40% more productive in this whole national network? How do you know that?” Well, let’s look at the data and the evidence and see what’s

going on here. They go, “well that’s extraordinary, that means, if we change the mix of women by 10% it would change the growth rate of the whole company.” Yeah, well that’s right. All of a sudden there’s questions, and all of a sudden people are starting to question assumptions they held for decades. That’s cut through. Deep insights make a difference.

“So, I’ll close by saying; context is everything, be passionate about who you are and what you’re about, watch out for the ones who distract you, move from ideas to deep insights, and look for ones that can change an industry.

“And the conversion ratio issue . . . I think it’s a nonissue.

“Innovation is a disciplined journey of self-discovery and societal discovery; those who maintain a balance of both look forward to a rewarding and progressive career.”

© Copyright, Matthew Ayres, 2012, all rights reserved. Rights granted to UTS solely for publication in the u.lab book.

page

79

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

DESIGN ON TRIAL. WHO KNOWS WHEN DESIGN WORKS? The concept of design is widening. As are its users. Do you know good design when you enact it? What is the ‘aesthetic yardstick’ for collaborative design? How can we evaluate design-led innovation processes that upturn traditional models.

If we know we can measure it, Is design a tool for leadership?

Groundbreaker Mash+Up Forum #6 Tue 7th August 6.30-7.45pm, drinks from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Mash+Up is a weekly debate where the audience responds to two fast-pace speakers challenging the role of design in innovation.

This week we welcome provocateurs: Dominique Jaurola / HUNOME Fiona Young / BVN Leanne Sobel / Creative Strategist Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

80

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Mash+Up Forum #6, 7th August 2012

Design on Trial. Who knows when design works?

As professionals and as researchers, we have the desire to reflect how the recent focus on design thinking contributes to our understanding of effective design and how it may inform an organisations’ decision making and competitiveness. However, recent versions of design in the context of business and innovation, particularly in relation to the open engagement for larger groups of people, diffuse the impacts of design broadly. Impacts are in new shades and their benefits shared rather than belonging to a single entity, since solution designers may be many rather than one.

This affects how we practice and theorize about the quality of the outcomes we produce. Can we systematically and reliably determine the impacts of design? On what dimensions? Over what scale? In what scope? Artistic vibrancy is a recent technique developed to assess the impact of a creative work, yet it only understands output at a point in time and attributes that to an organisation or artist.

We see design as a conversation. A process. But if interactions during the design process enable better outcomes, to what degree is the artefact itself the end impact?

The effects of design are not only the outcome, but the engagement and perception of those who interact with design artefacts and experiences; this is the evidence of what is produced. The engagement and intrigue of those who interact with the outcome and the social change that occurs in effect.

Good design must also be measured as the implementation that enables this interaction. Not only the object that is the result of a process. This dimension provides us with meaning in regards to the social value of the output in use within its ecosystem. It may be the scope and reach of diffusion that is significant. Or the reach may be thin, yet the effect transformational. Impacts in this dimension can only be understood longitudinally and may be distantiated in space and time from the point of output. If design outcomes are assessed on both interactions with artefacts and the artefacts themselves, then the aesthetic qualities of good design reveal over time and as a function of scale. Artefacts may come and go, but good design creates fundamental shifts.

Contributions in this section are transcripts of the 5-minute talks by Dominique Jaurola, Fiona Young and Leanne Sobel at Mash+Up #6.

page

81

Dominique Jaurola “Who knows when design works?

“My brain is duly immersed in all things Finnish, Australian, French and I also lived in the US. So anything that I say and seems emotionally engaged today is French, anything that is jovial is Australian, anything that is bossy is American, and anything that sounds like I am not excited is my Finnish tonality.

“And, another thing. I don’t know how many business designers there are in this room, but many business designers don’t draw very well, so anything that sounds [no visuals, so only sounds] like I don’t draw very well, please forgive me for that.

Any who consider themselves to be a business designer?

And, how many architects?

How many graphical designers? Interactive designers? Work in media?

Okay, so we have got all these fantastic people who know how to draw, how to do real design.

“Okay, so, who knows when design works? Steve Jobs did. Right? But why did Steve know design? He had full control; he had an intuitive design understanding, while he had full control on the business. He knew when design worked, because he made it happen, fewer compromises. But he only

knew design because it actually worked out well. We can all assign good design to Steve. He had a little help…

“How about a collective of people who know design?

Because if they, as an entity or as a group of people, do what Steve Jobs did, they would know design, they would create the future.

They would have an intuitive understanding of the end-toend picture, and they would make it happen.

“So those are people who know when design works. But then there is an element that I focus on a lot, which is about understanding how humanity works, or understanding people. Now that‘s the tricky part, but that‘s what Steve Jobs did well. He said he didn’t ask people what would work. He didn’t have to ask, he had a good feel for it; a well-honed intuition.

“He knew what the problems were at the time he designed what he designed.

He paid his dues to know which design actually works.

When he said he didn’t listen to customers, of course he did, but he didn’t have to go and do focus groups. He didn’t have to do research. He observed over a long period of time and drew conclusions out of all of that. He got the sense for beauty that was missing in earlier attempts to solve the same or similar problems, going beyond what anyone knew to ask for. He knew when design works in a vast commercial context, and his final judges on whether he

was on the money, were those who bought his designs.

“Who knows when design works? What is ‘knowing’ all about? What is the way to have knowing as part of the design process? Design translates information and understanding to “Aaah” or “Aha!”, right? So where do these “Aaah-s” and “Aha-s” come from?

“Comprehending humans.

I think this topic is so important and I think there’s a lot more that needs to be done about it. I know everyone in this room gets consumer centricity, and gets the idea that we need to infuse that kind of understanding into what we do. But I think there is a lot more that needs to be done. Knowing the people behind the consumers and responding to that knowledge, infuses the potential for beauty in the world.

“As designers, it is about maximising the touch points with the audience, and it is also about infusing our hearts into that design. It is like reeling in or flirting with the audience, like a magician, with the materials that are available. Often we don’t have all the materials available.

But it is about translating what we do have available into something that makes people say “Ah, that person actually found something unusual and is interested in bringing beauty into my life”.

“I believe human centricity has finally come to replace

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

82

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

consumer centricity. So far the focus has been on understanding the consumer.

If they are a consumer, by vernacular suggestion, therefore, they already bought the thing, and we are studying the after effects with people who already bought.

And we analyse it, we do sentiment analysis, and we look at data. But the problem is, those are the people who already bought it.

“I think there’s whole other side of the story.

Instead of the consumer, we need to focus on the human.

Focusing on who we are for real, and that means as a designer, we are partners of philosophers, we are partners of psychologists, we are partners of sociologists, we are partners of ethnographers. But we are also partners with technologists and business people, because all of that adds up for making something out of design; something that is ‘knowing’ in the fullest sense of the term, for commercial and design interests.

“Now the next one is who knows when design works?

From a forward looking decision-making perspective, the “before” is the future, and the “after” is the past.

What do I mean by that? As a designer, what we need to do is we need to read in-between the lines. Because when we make decisions about the design, we are making forward looking decisions.

And that’s why we constantly

live backwards compared to others. We visited that world, we brought back the object, and then we launched in today’s time. This is perpetual time-machine work.

“This makes our work difficult; because in the days before we have a sampling of ‘consumers’, we have to convince some people about something that isn’t necessarily yet about the world they live in. We are not supposed to bring back objects from the future. By the time the object’s value is obvious, the decisions were made a long time ago.

“And all of us, who work at that creation end of the decision-making spectrum, work in the chaotic world of tomorrow’s value that cannot yet be fully quantified and observed. How do we make difference to the valuation?

“Who knows when design works? A means to improve design’s success rate or predictability, I believe, is engaging the company and the people relevant to the context and hand.

Unfortunately many don’t have that luxury. A lot of decision-making goes on, somewhere, and at some point design gets involved.

“And then you weave the comprehension about how humanity works into the decision-making criteria; your proof point, your ‘data’, which often is not in the data.

You are making sure that the things that a designer does, become a part of the measurement criteria. Then

you have the freedom to actually use the full range of your skills on the problem “Who knows when design works? Sadly I observe there is a newly found confidence in the power of numbers or statistics as proof points for future decision-making. Now there is just more of it, which bits to choose I wonder.

“I am interested in big data, but also understand that not all decisions are going to be helped by big data analytics, because the data is still about the past, even when it is predictive.

Paradox! The data has no agency to create the future without human intervention.

Or when it does, we have met singularity.

“Designers work on what happens next. Using much smarts: intuitive, creative, emotional, intelligent, social and so on. Statistics are still going to be of minimal interest to you in the decision-making. For some other experts, statistics are extremely useful, for example, for positioning your marketing statement. I guess every generation of decisionmakers has to learn the limits of data driven decisionmaking, but for a designer this understanding is innate.

“Design works in the future timeline, in the creative dimension, beyond the data, taking hints of interest and ideas of beauty across the human experience, connecting the dots and applying it in a novel way.”

page

83

Fiona Young “What I’ve decided to do for tonight, is adapt a talk that I have given to education leaders about the process that we go through in making innovative learning spaces, but to focus more on the difficulties and the issues in getting an innovative outcome.

“We like to get our clients to think very broadly about what teaching and learning might be like into the future, and then, from there, attempt to design innovative spaces as a result. We don’t start by asking them ‘what do you want?’ So briefing is a really, really key part of our process, and we try and inspire our stakeholder groups. We take them on a journey, and we like to take them out of their own environments, to look at benchmark learning spaces, sometimes around the world, sometimes within Australia. More importantly we often take them to other types of spaces in which interaction and learning are important, so museums, parks, workplaces, retail places. And often we find that by taking them out of their own environments, looking at something completely different, that it gives them the space to question the way in which they currently do things, and to start to see a different way of being in the future.

“This is actually a comment that got made by one of our clients from CSU Wagga for the design of a teaching and research space where we took them on this journey.

[Indicates on screen “We could have made a $35 million mistake”]. The other thing we do, is work very closely with stakeholder groups from education leaders, teachers, students of all ages. And by doing this we like to get a very good understanding of how they currently work, but more importantly work with them to start to think about how things might evolve into the future in the way in which they work. It’s really important for us to get the cross-section of the population so that we can see different perspectives, and we can also see the tensions around those perspectives.

“This is an example from Ravenswood School for Girls, where at the beginning of the project many of the adults we spoke to, teachers, administrators, they all said “the girls love the Peace Lawn, do not put a building there, the girls love it so much”. This is the favourite places exercise, and we found that the girls did not love the peace lawn. They love the old girls courtyard, and they didn’t love the peace lawn because it was too far away and it was very exposed, so they didn’t like going there.

As a result, we decided to put the building there, because, in fact, it bridged much better

to the railway station, and became a new entry into the heart of the school.

“We were delighted to get the Sulman Prize for Public Architecture for the school this year, and I think what was great to see was the juries’ comments. They recognised the value of the briefing process in order to get the innovative result.

Also, it was good to see that they recognised that learning was important in a school, because I see from the 2009 Sulman winner, also a school, learning was not mentioned once. It was all about the details of the building, and what a wonderful model it was for an ‘institution’.

“So, from what I’ve observed, I think the briefing process is a really important part of getting innovation in projects. And I think it’s very much through the rich dialogue in that briefing process which brings innovative thinking. However, even after you’ve done the briefing process, I think there’s huge obstacles still.

“In researching for what I was going to say tonight, I can see why there is such a problem. It’s because of our architectural education, because, I don’t know what it’s like now, but when I was at school, briefing was not taught in any way, shape, or form. Client interaction wasn’t, didn’t seem to be important. It was more about how you defend your design from a client and I think this is also reflected very strongly

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

84

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

here, which is the RAIA schedule for fees [indicates on screen]. For architectural fees, briefing, the thing in blue, is less than one percent of the overall fee, but actually that says, “comment on brief”.

It’s not about being part of creating the brief. And I think the other thing that’s important, that we don’t learn as architects, is post-occupancy evaluations. So, it doesn’t even make it to this schedule here.

“So, how do we know if we’re creating successful projects, and we don’t have this ongoing dialogue? It’s actually no wonder that you might get some of these comments, including the one at the bottom [indicates on screen].

“Take pictures of the space before the client uses it and

messes it up”. “I’m looking forward to when the user group stuff is over so we can get into real design”. There’s a real disconnect between briefing and actually doing design. And then that other comment there relates to when the program gets crunched so badly that you have to rush through the design, and then you can ignore the client. ‘Great, now we can do what we want’. So the clients a bit of an impediment to having a great building sometimes…

“Okay, so I’m ending this by saying that, I think to get an innovative result in an architectural project, briefing needs to be recognised as a key part, an integral part of the process and an iterative part of the design process.”

page

85

Leanne Sobel

on its own, as it stands on paper, or as an object without interaction with people. So all of the frameworks, the work, the principles, and all of the thinking behind it in itself can be valid. But unless people know how to engage with it, or are urged to engage with it, or have a desire to engage with it, then it’s probably not necessarily going to be effective.

“So what I wanted to propose here, is the idea that in order for design to be effective, you need to take it to your audience, and show them or speak to them in a way, that’s going to allow them to know how to engage with it, or be interested in it.

And that varies depending on the kind of design that you are taking to the people.

So of course, I’m saying that you’ve already considered the consumer in what you’ve designed. But you need to make sure that you are not just assuming that they are going to adopt it in itself.

“What about the adoption of it. And thinking about it from the principles of marketing. And the benefit/ cost equation analogy, being the balance of benefit minus cost equals value for users/ consumers/audiences when they are deciding to take notice, consume, and engage with design. So, in looking at what makes design effective; in the way people adopt design, or engage with it, or seek to understand it; anyone who is looking to adopt some sort of design needs

to see the value in wanting to know about it. And this is particularly relevant for innovative design outcomes.

New, groundbreaking, fresh, never seen before ideas.

So the notion here is that, well, benefit minus cost can be viewed beyond just cost being not a financial thing only. But cost on the other hand can be considered as, how, or, what am I giving up to be able to take on this new idea, this new service, this new product? So, what am I sacrificing in order to be willing to look at this as a new idea/product/service?

Therefore it’s thinking about things in terms of the ‘cost’ being my lifestyle, my time.

Me having to think about this new idea, the time to think about it, me having to change the way I work. Think here, change management.

“In response to the theme, how do you know when design becomes effective, the fact is that you can create new ideas, create new products, create new design. But you need to break through that barrier in understanding how people take forward that design into their lives, or engage in it in an everyday situation.

That, to me, is what makes design successful; when people understand it, people engage with it, people know how to use it; and that makes it successful. So, it’s about design becoming effective from the point of view, in how people understand it, and comprehend it, and how you

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

86

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

“I would like to start by saying that I have a background in communication design. So if there’s any bias present in what I say, it perhaps comes from my background there. But I thought I’d talk to you tonight about design in a very general context. In terms of the bigger picture applications of design, and the role it can play for organisations. Be it in the development of product design, service design etc.

And, what is it that makes design effective, or, that it works? This question: how design becomes effective?

I think it’s definitely in the manner of how design is engaged, and how people use the designed objects, services, or whatever ‘designed outcome’ you are taking to an audience.

“So, I wanted to kind of propose this idea that, firstly, yes, effective design is in itself the essence of what is produced. So the process of design thinking, the process of evolving products, services, or whatever designed outcome you are producing to take to market or to an audience. But that then, the second component of the design process, is then taking the ‘designed outcome’ to your audience or rather to the people that are going to engage with it.

So a design can be effective

take it to market.

“Therefore, the key consideration then, is that you’ve got the design phase, in developing these ideas.

And then you’ve got the design phase in terms of implementation, which is critical to making sure design is effective and successful.

“I have for you a couple of examples.

“Firstly, a very simple example. A poster can look pretty, it can be stunning, but can it be seen, can it be read, does it engage, and do you take note about what it’s telling you? Is it useful? Do you want to take it home and put it on display, or rather does it tell you something interesting that you needed to know, or nothing at all?

Its designer wants to tell you something, and it is there for a purpose, but did the designer get through to you? Replace the poster and rethink it in regards to objects or services, and you get my drift.

“We were recently given a Philippe Starck lemon squeezer, the ‘Juicy Salif’, as a wedding gift. One day I was knee-high in herbs and all kinds of ingredients, in desperate need of a juicer, when I remembered we had been given such a gift. First I needed to unpack its very sturdy packaging, and then had to find an object that would neatly fit underneath the squeezer to capture the juice. It worked. But bits flew off here and there, and it felt like a long run down the sides

of the juicer to get me the volume of juice I required.

My design conscious husband returned home later to find his prized possession in use, and it quickly returned to its packaged state. To me, while it kind of did its job, I didn’t really feel as a designed outcome it was effective for me in my hour of need.

As a ‘designed ornament’, arguably it is as useful as it could have been in use on the kitchen bench top, as it is now, sitting in a sturdy box in the back of a cupboard somewhere. I found out later it was not really meant to be a juicer but rather a ‘conversation starter’. Since when are lemon juicers useful for that? To me, this is not an example of effective design.

As beautiful as it may be, it was impractical and messy to use.

“To recap, design in its broadest application becomes effective in the way it is adopted and embraced. And thus, the best designed product or service is only ever as good as the way in which people interact with it. And that’s my five minute view, on ‘how you know when design becomes effective’.”

page

87

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

CO-WHAT? CAN AUSTRALIA HAVE CRITICAL DISCOURSE + COLLABORATION AT THE SAME TIME? Is John Citizen willing and able to share? And take and give a punch? At the same time, have urbanites evolved to cohabitate with strangers in everyday public places? Can incidental innovation occur in a city of niceness?

Groundbreaker Mash+Up Forum #7 Tue 14th August 6.30-7.45pm, drinks from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Mash+Up is a weekly debate where the audience responds to two fast-pace speakers challenging the role of design in innovation.

This week we welcome provocateurs: Rod Simpson / Simpson + Wilson Opher Yom Tov / BT Financial Group Lauren Anderson / Collaborative Consumption Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

88

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Mash+Up Forum #7, 14th August 2012

Co-What? Can Australia have critical discourse and collaboration at the same time?

Collaboration, co-creation and co-innovation are trends in design that bring sharing into the mix. These trends are spurred within an ecosystem where resource scarcity, environmental limits and social inequality are commonplace in public discourse.

Co-initiatives are collections of techniques, structures and processes where negative externalities are ultimately minimised through inclusive design. How can we use design to remodel structures in this way?

Collaborative consumption as an ideal form builds on cooperative structures where excess and idle capacity can be circulated in the ecosystem, rather than accumulated by individuals. It shifts the traditional consumption - production exchange to one between consumers. Common resource usage is optimised, whilst continual extraction and transformation of scarce natural resources is minimised with the aim of preserving and replenishing the ecosystem. Such sharing requires trust and reciprocity - it is relational and built on social capital. Co- in structures of exchange means together, So for product and idea exchange common understanding of values and norms is an essential platform for sharing. The challenge for systems built on co- relates to how we can understand the value add of sharing and collaboration outside of commercial/market value?

But in the realm of ideation we we hope to create new rather than more of the same.

Critical discourse on innovation requires appreciation of divergent views, capacity to engage with opposing points of view and respect for individual boundaries. How can we enable sharing built on respect? How can we establish collaborative platforms whilst still maintaining divergence? Are we brave enough to seek difference rather than positive reinforcement from networks of ‘like’. What practices must we develop to enable open and respectful provocation to extend and challenge our thoughts, practices, behaviours and beliefs. Feedback is critical as both positive and negative loops. Innovators must seek critical feedback outside of their regular networks and incorporate diversity into the design process through opening practices to crowds, tribes, networks and communities. In the practices and processes of ideation comeans collective establishment of convergence out of collaborative processes where divergence is respected and actively provoked.

Contributions in this section are transcripts* of the 5-minute talks by Rod Simpson and Lauren Anderson. *We regret that we were unable to record and transcribe the third speaker, Opher Yom-Tov’s presentation.

page

89

“For me, diagrams matter because they are a conceptual mapping, they provide a conceptual framework that affects the way we perceive the world. We have become comfortable with the idea that language and our perception of reality is interactive, I would suggest that some ‘archetypical’ diagrams have a similar relationship, so it is important to get them right.

Perhaps it could be dismissed as ‘a simple mapping problem,’ but with a bad map we are lost.

“Instead of starting with the world, let’s just think about taking it from an individual upwards; let’s divide the individual into mind and matter, so mind and body (I know this is fraught, but humour me).

“On the right, the mind, psychology, we form into

groups, our family or whatever. Then moving up scales to society and politics, of course.

On the left side we’ve got physiology, up a level we’ve got consumption, the material flows, and then the world.

The diagram now shows the material realm and the nonmaterial (Figure 2). It is the interaction between these two that is the problem. Determining how we consume and what is valued in consumption is a social enterprise and construct that comes from these basic psychological needs.

“The psycho-social side mediates how we consume and interact with the material side. How we consume is an active discourse between what we want and what’s available. And that conditions how much we use, how sustainably we use it.

“The economy can be seen as an activity, or construct that spans both; the extent to which the economy is efficient with material use, or the extent to which the economy is non-material in terms of services is a construct and therefore conceivably subject to human intention- what we could call ‘design’.

“Arguably the most significant thing we have ‘designed’ are corporations. People bang on about ‘cities being the ultimate human artefact’, which is an seductive proposition for self-important architects, planners and urban designers. We often hear that ‘more than 50% of people living in cities’ and that ‘75% of emissions come from urban areas’ as though the problem and

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

90

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Roderick Simpson “As an urban designer, the question for me is how does collaboration, innovation and ‘niceness’ relate to ‘placemaking’, urban design and urban sustainability?

“During the discussion, there was a general consensus that our (Australian) emphasis on ‘niceness’, the avoidance of conflict or any interpersonal tension, could also lead to reduced interaction, and consequently, less innovation and less authenticity, less need for public places for anything other than smoothed facile consumption.

In other words, innovation is less likely in a world where risk (including the risk of a little interpersonal tension, or the possibility of failure) is eliminated entirely.

“How interactions relate to place, and how that might relate to sustainability needs a good diagram. Now, talking about ‘sustainability’ seems completely out of vogue; we are at a point where if you say it’s green, people just switch off. That is empirically tested and proven fact.

However, I still think it is not only important, but also continually interesting as a discomforting point of leverage and disputation that can avoid a general descent into ‘niceness’.

“Sustainability is most often represented by this tired old Venn diagram.

Not just tired, useless. And tedious; you’ve heard it all before: sustainability is about the economy, society, and the environment, and all we have to do is magically ‘balance’ these things (Figure 1). But what actually happens is that everything gets translated into dollars anyway and the reason is that the diagram doesn’t reveal interactions or processes very well. The diagram gains ‘authority’ by appearing to be comprehensive; encompassing the world.

Fig. 1. The Bermuda triangle of policy

Fig. 2. Diagram of interaction

solution are physical. Cities are nothing but the physical manifestation of social relations that have accreted over time, and our greatest ‘designs’ are institutional and corporate structures; the codification and structuring of interpersonal relations, not the physical detritus of civilisation.

“So to return to the diagram (Figure 3); we’ve inserted corporate entities institutions, organisations into the middle, as intermediaries that manage our interactions with the material world; our direct interactions are minimal.

“These synthetic entities have a life force of their own, their own corporate DNA, a will to survive that has little to do with either individual needs and desires, nor any particular attachment or concern for the continuation of the material world, a corporation can simply move on, mutate or adapt.

“We transfer all the responsibility for our psychological and physiological well being directly to these vast institutions by-passing intermediate levels where we might have some direct influence. It’s

these big institutions operating in the material world on our behalf as it were, determining how we get resources, how we consume stuff, the conditions in which we operate.

“What has this to do with urban design or collaboration or innovation?

Innovation “If we accept the generally accepted but still contestable notion of the ‘creative city’, it is possible to characterise the urban condition of these places as being diverse, messy and having an ‘edge’.

This ‘edginess’ is felt where systems or norms are indeed close to the edge of collapse or dysfunction. In other words they are places where the

there has to be innovation in order to simply cope.

“It is worth distinguishing supply side innovation and demand side innovation at this point. Large corporations are generally involved with supply side innovation to outcompete their competitors.

The old chestnuts of iPad and iPhone are essentially supply side- they do not respond to a ‘need’. However, this supply side innovations provide a platform for demand side innovation.

“In contrast, car-share is highly localised, demand side innovation, using the capabilities of the platform provided from the supply side. The capability that has been provided is the ability to design new, mid level organisational structures that completely change the nature of consumption- in the case of car share; mobility with very significantly reduced environmental impact and at lower cost.

“Similarly, collaborative consumption kicks in as a coping mechanism, as a more competitive way of achieving the many ends. Geographi-

Fig. 3. Diagram of intermediaries

page

91

cally, it is likely to take off in the denser parts of the city because here the negativity of limited space is more than out-weighed by the positivity of proximity.

“My contention is that this organisational and logistic innovation will continue and accelerate in the edgy areas that teeter on the brink. Innovation will be demand side driven by difficult circumstances.

Lauren Anderson

Urban Design “The relationship of these ‘coping mechanisms’ and social and organisational innovation to urban design is indirect but simple; it is about the density of activity that is made possible by these innovations.

“The empathetic urban designer Jan Gehl suggests that urban design should start with thinking about activities, then space and lastly how buildings might contribute to the space and activities to make a place, and always in that order. Fair enough, so what do we want first? The activities, people in proximity, cheek by jowl, intensity made both possible and bearable by innovation in intermediary organisations at the intermediate level. This has the possibility of significantly reducing our environmental impact by shifting the economy from the left material side to the right social side; simply by placing a higher value on transactions and interaction, which is why cities came into existence in the first place.”

“I will preface my discussion tonight, or share my little point of view tonight about the collaborative consumption movement more generally, as it’s the lens through which I view tonight’s topic. So I’ve been working for the last two years researching the growing collaborative consumption trends with the author Rachel Botsman. This has given me an amazing opportunity to look at the innovation cultures of different cities around the world, as we’ve seen this global trend really take off.

“For those who haven’t come across the term ‘collaborative consumption’; what we’re talking about is a socio-economic shift we’re experiencing. It truly is a global shift where people are reconsidering values of ownership, and actually looking at different ways to access the things they need, whether that’s through sharing, renting, bartering, swapping or exchanging.

So, these kinds of very old market behaviours, things we would have done in the village square hundreds of years ago, have actually come back into vogue. This is because technology is making it even more easy and efficient to do these things.

It is because it is much more economical than actually

owning one of everything, and having massive houses, full of spare rooms of stuff we don’t use. And this kind of cultural shift has really come about because of the environmental pressure that we’re facing. The global economic crisis which really makes us reconsider those values around where we are spending our money, and what we are spending it on.

But more to the point, it’s really about a reconnection with the community around us. This is something that we lost in the last few decades of the last century. It was all about how high our fences could be, and how much more we had than the person who actually lived beside us.

“To come back to the topic. I basically have seen collaborative consumption take off in different hotspots around the world. Mainly places like San Francisco, New York, Sao Paulo, Berlin, France, London, and right here in Sydney as well. And I guess being here in Sydney over the last few years, I’ve very much watched that evolution from the ground up.

When Rachel, my colleague, presented her TEDx Sydney talk back in the beginning of 2010, it was a concept that nobody had even heard of.

There were a few examples of it. Like car sharing, GoGet Car Share, a few other things like that bubbling to the surface at a very local level.

But nowhere near the kind of widespread awareness of collaborative consumption

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

92

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

today.

“And I’ve also seen the successes that companies overseas have achieved.

Whether it’s through funding or through massive numbers of users, or great stories like that, compared to the struggles or challenges that have been faced by people right here in Sydney. And it has always been quite puzzling to me because I think as a culture we are interested in the new and innovative, and we have a thirst for aspiring for what’s going on elsewhere. But when it’s actually happening in our own backyard, we have a very different attitude towards actually supporting that growth. So, I’m not going to debate whether or not collaborative consumption in general is successful, because there are many stories around the world as to what’s going on and why it is. In fact, there’s a company called Airbnb, which some of you may have heard of, which actually enables people to open up their spare rooms or their houses, to strangers to rent for the night. Airbnb recently had their largest night ever on record with 60,000 bookings, on the one night, in 174 countries around the world, and 75% of those bookings were from first time users of Airbnb, which is no joke. This is seriously happening and it’s an amazing change in the way we think of what we’re doing.

“So what I see in Sydney, or in Australia more broadly, is

innovators and entrepreneurs who are trying to follow this lesson of what’s happening overseas, and to bring these kinds of ideas to Australia.

And they are very passionate about it, and they’re doing all the right things and going by the book. And then I see on the other side, people who are really excited about collaborative consumption and want to learn about what’s going on and want to know how they can get involved. But for some reason, it’s never the Twain shall meet; there’s a real struggle to get people from one side to actually test out these services on the other side. And it makes me think about this ‘critical discourse’ versus ‘collaboration’ argument.

“The fact is that we have innovators over here who are not innovating in a vacuum, because there are some great collaborative spaces emerging in Sydney. Whether its things like Fishburners or other co-working spaces.

So there’s certainly a feedback culture developing within certain communities.

But on the other side we have these users, this user community, who has a really low tolerance level for new experimental ideas. And in fact, you know I’ve heard things being said like “Oh, I tried the app and it crashed the first time I used it, so I’m going to delete it”. So it’s kind of, where’s the feedback process to these young entrepreneurs who are

working for nothing, slaving away try to build an app to make your life better, what happens in between those things? And I feel like it’s not the culture of niceness that was alluded to in the topic of description, it’s actually this lazy complacency and the feeling like it’s everybody else’s problem. So, I would love to see us as a culture embrace the grit a lot more.

“There’s a reason why cities like San Francisco have a lot more success.

They are surrounded by grit everyday and they love it. They roll around in it.

Things are not perfect and they acknowledge that it takes work to make things better. On the other hand, we have a very good society where we are all very well looked after comparatively, and I think that changes our motivation to bring about change and to be innovative.

So, I would love to see us work that grit a little more on both sides. So for the innovators to be looking for that feedback outside their own communities, and for the people to be really testing these ideas out. To be actually giving it a go, and working through something that actually can be taken to the wider audience. To see if we can get the oyster to create that pearl.”

page

93

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

94

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

95

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

96

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

97

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

98

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

99

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

100

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

101

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

CITY HIVE. HOW CAN CULTURAL VIBE BE VISIBLY EXPRESSED IN THE CITY? Cities are hives of cultural activity that spans street art, underground music scenes, and diverse design, digital, audio, community and performative happenings as well as the more published cultural events and exhibitions.

This workshop explores the cultural visibility of the city and envisions new ways Sydney can communicate its richness.

What makes a happening city feel the way it does? How does the unique energy visibly express itself? What is the tipping point where we have enough visibility of culture to make a city feel thriving? Join us to create this future!

Groundbreaker Public Workshop Wed 25th July 8am-9.30am, open 7.45am Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Groundbreaker is a collective of design thinkers, innovation champions, and curiosity boffins who are partaking in a series of interactions to explore and build new tools for collaborative innovation.

Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

102

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Cities thrive on culture, whether it be Tokyo, New York, Berlin, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro or any location in the world, they are what define and create a city. City Hive saw the creation of various areas in Sydney that would be more exposed to art, food, street performances and sticky locations helping keep the city alive and vibrant. With ideas ranging from roaming food trucks late at night to exterior landscapes changing to suit the needs of the night life of Sydney, the ideas flowed thick and fast. The ideas generated brought together a number of stakeholders including City of Sydney, local business owners, the vibrant underground culturists and general public encouraging a melting pot of expressive concepts looking to change how people perceive Sydney as a hip

new cultural hub. Stunning prototypes showing how the future of Sydney’s landscape would become emphasized how various cultures had been, till now, secretly expressing themselves in the current landscape.

page

103

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

VOX BOX #1.

WHICH HEART BREAKS? HOW CITIES MIGHT SPEAK OF BROKENNESS. Vox Box is a thinktank for Audio-centred Design Thinking for Cities.

We use sound to connect radical ideas of the city with intuition, emotion and sentiment.

Imagine an echoic, cylindrical space that brings people together to think, and with the potency of a campfire compels you to make noise-song-clash-bang-melody-percussion to pronounce future designs for the city. This is Vox Box. Join us to explore how we can make cities more human with sound – and a bit of noise. Have an instrument? Bring it!

All non-musicians especially welcome.

Groundbreaker VOX BOX #1 of 2 Thur 12th July 6.30-7.45pm, entry from 6pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills This week we welcome a special performance by Nicole Velik of The Ideas Bodega.

Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

104

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Vox Box was an experiment into how sound is a highly emphatic means of expressing the innermost feelings of an individual, but what if a city could talk about it’s ‘brokenness’? What if a city could share its issues and sorrows with us? These were answered by Nicole Velik helping build our own songs of ‘brokenness’ about Sydney.

Tapping into a series of emotions linked to brokenness, participants wrote, composed and delivered their heartstring-pulling renditions of the issues facing Sydney.

With styles ranging from spoken poetry to full-fledged pieces describing the pain of the city. Adding to the sombre atmosphere, the mood was further enhanced by dressing up and acting out each individual emotion to capture the true essence of what a broken city would sing about.

page

105

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

PROTOTYPING SESSION: HOW DO WE MAKE THE WORLD WORK FOR 100 % OF HUMANITY? This is an experiment! We have 60 minutes to generate a ‘Wish for The Future’.

The session uses alternative methods to harness collective 'imaginence' and build a platform for micro agents to solve big social problems together. It's tied to a global project to inspire collaborative storytelling across all demographics and create positive visions of the future.

We’re looking for hackers, educators, activists, dopamine traffickers, homeless feeders, entrepreneurs, everyone, who’s keen to ideate under B. Fuller’s design question: 'How do we make the world work for 100% of humanity?’

Given the daring scope, we absolutely encourage absurdity and creative mayhem!

To ensure our solutions are put into action, they will be hosted on www.learndoshare.net for other people to follow-up and create something yet unimagined!

Come and join the consciousness collective!

GROUNDBREAKER Prototyping Session With Ele Jansen and Jordan Bryon Thursday 5th July 8am-9.15am Object Gallery, Upstairs, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Register: http://groundbreaker.org.au More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

This prototyping session concept is developed by Ele Jansen (www.learndoshare.net, Sydney), Lance Weiler (www.rebootstories.com, New York) and Jorgen van der Sloot (www.freedomlab.org, Amsterdam). After running several 72-hour sessions, we condensed our method, so that teachers can use it with their students in a 60-minute class (www.robotheartstories.com).

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

106

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

The world has its problems.

With 6 billion people, surely the power of collective thought and intelligence means the potential to address these problems exist.

This session saw participants ideate around solutions involving technologies that could easily be implemented in developing countries to solve their problems.

Solutions came in thick, fast and all high-tech – potential solutions included artificially intelligent drones capable of flying in vital supplies in remote areas, to self-supporting robots connecting disparate villages together, and even solar powered e-readers to help spread knowledge amongst people. Leveraging the power Arduino boards, solutions became opensourced encouraging cross collaboration and symbolic of how these problems are

not beyond the power of collective human knowledge.

The cross-disciplinary nature of the participants saw designers, entrepreneurs, techies, strategists and planners come together to deliver extremely modular, scalable and brilliant potential solutions to some of the most pressing problems the world currently faces.

page

107

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

What do young people identify as culture or creativity? Are young people part of a creative subculture and they (and we!) don't know it?

Think: gaming, street fashion, youtube, digital storytelling.

Culture has not lost our young people, but perhaps we don't speak their language? In this workshop we’ll explore: What mechanisms are there to bridge the gap between traditional and non-traditional creative-cultural practice and young people?

What is the shared language? And what is the future?

Groundbreaker Public Workshop Wednesday 8th August 8am-9.30am, open 7.45am.

Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Groundbreaker is a collective of design thinkers, innovation champions, and curiosity boffins who are partaking in a series of interactions to explore and build new tools for collaborative innovation.

Registration (free): http://creativeyouth.eventbrite.com/ More: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

108

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Subcultures are specialized niche cultures that exist within the deepest recesses of today’s youth. Often bubbling up via their creative representations ranging from graffiti to clothing to music styles to full-blown lifestyle choices, subcultures are important as a means of expressing the new interests of youthful creativity and freedom.

Sydney is a vibrant hub of subculture and participants ideated around how to address the generational age gap regarding subcultures.

Participants talked about how language had changed music, stories, clothing and lifestyles emphasizing how technology, personal values and beliefs could overcome this barrier. Some of the solutions included a bootleg radio station that comprised of individual playlists being broadcast in analogue and

digital signals to bring together the classic stylings of classic rock with newer alternative rock. Another particularly innovative solution talked about the concept of a non-stop festival that travelled around cities and the country bringing together stories, movies, and art bridging the generation gap and encouraging a culture of sharing and acceptance amongst young and old. Delivering their ideas via dressed up personas, it seemed like a new subculture of acceptance of old and new had already begun.

page

109

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

SUBCULTURE. TO INTERVENE OR NOT TO INTERVENE? Subcultures are the lifeblood of the city. They bring together unsuspecting allies and inject new trends, habits and hideouts continuously into the urban ether.

If subcultures have traditionally emerged organically, at what point is intervention useful? What supports and what hinders an urban subculture? What are the barriers, challenges and opportunities to help subcultures emerge and thrive? How can we embrace originality and foster creative entrepreneurship to sustain great subcultures?

Groundbreaker Public Workshop Monday 6th August 6.00pm, drinks from 5.30pm Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Groundbreaker is a collective of design thinkers, innovation champions, and curiosity boffins who are partaking in a series of interactions to explore and build new tools for collaborative innovation.

Registration: http://subculture-intervene.eventbrite.com/ More: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

110

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Great cities have thriving subcultures. If we want ours to flourish, what can we do to help other than simply enjoy it? Every subculturist could do with some extra cash for their projects. But at what point are funding structures and support programs all too much? We asked the Groundbreaker participants, what are the barriers and opportunities for supporting subcultures in the city? We then asked them to design an intervention that would address a particular Sydney subculture and to illustrate this in a faceboard role play.

Some of the ideas included a country-meets-city adventure framework and a start-up fund for underground heavy metal shows.

page

111

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

OPTIMAL SERVICE EXPERIENCE: IS MEGA IN THE BITE? OR THE BITE GETTING MEGA? The future is becoming increasingly networked and bite-distributed. Yet many of our services are available through ever-larger mega corporations. In this world of flow, connectivity and intuition, how do we as the individual best interact with the ‘mega’ corporate? What is the optimal service experience? And how does this flow with our lives? Our creativity? Our passion?

And our wellbeing?

In this workshop we’ll explore these paradigms and rapid prototype our visions for the optimal service experience of the future.

Groundbreaker Public Workshop Mon 30th July 12-2pm, lunch included Object Gallery, 417 Bourke St, Surry Hills Groundbreaker is a collective of design thinkers, innovation champions, and curiosity boffins who are partaking in a series of interactions to explore and build new tools for collaborative innovation.

Registration: http://groundbreaker.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

112

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Everything in our lives is ultimately handled by a mega-corporate, an entity so large that it seems like a forest of giants from a distance and towering monolith in person. With the session focusing on how such entities engaged with the average individual, the focus was on how the engagement and quality of the service these mega-corporates offered was affecting the lives of the public.

Participants talked about their personal experiences regarding great service or horrendous interactions,

leveraging the best practices on service. Examples and ideas around what constituted ‘good’ and ‘bad’ service provided insights into how mega-corporates could leverage their capacities to deliver amazing service to their customers and the greater public. Role-plays’ delivered by participants showcased how small personal gestures from organizations changed how customers perceived their self-worth and importance amongst a sea of interactions with mega-corporates.

page

113

© Chris Gaul, 2012

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

114

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Essay:

Design as a Catalyst for UTS Library Mal Booth, University Librarian UTS Libraries are facing several major challenges, such as a rapidly changing information environment, the need to become more proactive (I think we are too passive), staying relevant to our communities and engaging with contemporary culture.

At UTS Library we also must implement and exploit new technologies that are already being integrated in the Library. For example, an automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) that will house almost 75% of our physical collection in a massive facility under the redeveloped Alumni Green; radio frequency identification technology (RFID) that has now been applied to our entire print collection; consolidating two campus libraries in the city; and to plan a future library with relevant services. It isn’t all happening at once, but even over the next several years, the timeline is still pretty ambitious ... but also exciting.

As you’ll read below, we’ve mapped out our approach to all of this in advance. We

see our vision for the future Library to be connecting people, knowledge and culture at the heart of the UTS campus. I think I should explain those three elements briefly before going on.

Culture is both critical and pivotal to our future. We see it as a necessity to provide inspiration, to add context to knowledge and as a means to recognise achievements in the field of design. It helps to distinguish us from a world in which libraries have become online service providers and storage facilities for books.

As well as this, it helps us connect people to knowledge and to connect people within our community.

Knowledge is a concept that is not new in academic libraries but in the future, with a new service model, we must do more to excite and drive curiosity about our collections and our services, and to encourage and facilitate discovery of our knowledge resources as we implement enhanced technological support systems including ASRS and RFID. The new technologies we are employing must lead to the design and development of a new service model for our library. That is already starting with research in 2012 into how our users behave and what they need from us.

At its heart, the future Library must be co-designed for and with the People of our community. We must provide spaces for interaction, connections, collaboration,

inter-disciplinary learning and research. The Library is already a neutral space on campus in the sense that we belong to all sub-sets of the University, but we need to go further than that to encourage and support connections between schools, units and faculties. Collaboration can be enhanced by spatial and furniture design, but we must also be more active through the provision of new services in the Library that facilitate those connections.

How do we intend to do all of this? Well, for a start it won’t be just by ourselves.

Our ethos is to be sustainable, socially responsible and socially innovative. We intend to progress through co-design and effective community engagement. And to do this we intend to collaboratively creative with: our people, collections, technologies and new buildings. We are only just starting this journey, so it is early days yet and we expect some things to change and evolve as we progress towards 2017 and beyond.

UTS Library does have some history in this general space, well before we even started talking about considered user-centered design, codesign or design thinking. Well before we even knew what our challenges would be we started creatively involving staff in our planning. To liven it up and to encourage broader and more meaningful engagement by all staff who could attend annual planning sessions (it

page

115

was never compulsory), we made the sessions more like playful workshops facilitated by junior professional staff over two half days. People were encouraged to build prototypes of their ideas and then explain them to all. We even Tweeted theses sessions for all to see live on Twitter way back in early 2010 (that was way before #QandA did it!) A collaboratively creative environment had been created through play and all levels of staff participated in small teams together. We were practicing some of the methods of co-design and participatory design in a process that was very similar to a design thinking workshop without even knowing what those things were.

We also had a strong record of working with current and future stakeholders to try and gain a sense of what they wanted or imagined for our future and their future library. One of the initiatives that came out of those early planning sessions was a workshop in 2010 with junior high school students who will become our future undergrads. They gave very insightful and useful descriptions of what they thought was important for our future library. They told us they wanted to see inspiring orientation spaces, natural light, more curved spaces, greenery, water, gaming and media spaces, obvious sustainability, intuitive technology, more art, a sense of randomness, meaningful signage and a sense of

thematic identity in various reading spaces within the future Library.

As we started to talk to people about our challenges and some of our steps towards user-centred design, someone connected me to Dr Penny Hagen who was then completing her PhD at UTS. She skillfully explained that what we were trying to do actually had a name as a design discipline or practice – co-design or participatory design or user-centred design.

Penny connected me to the design community of Sydney via weekly morning coffee meet-ups that she started in Glebe “#GlebeCM” on Twitter as that is how we connected to each other and facilitated the meetups. Penny knew people engaged in design thinking, user experience (UX) and user interface (UI) design from all over Sydney. I was introduced to a dynamic, open, friendly and intelligent network of people from several design firms (Digital Eskimo, Meld, Zumio, Neotony, etc.), independent designers, UI/UX people (from the ABC and Atlassian) and many others and I got to know them all pretty well over more than a year.

Penny also encouraged me to attend PDC 2010 at UTS: the first ever Participatory Design Conference held in the Southern Hemisphere, which she helped organise. Penny is a very skilled and energetic connector, facilitator, thinker, teacher and organiser.

Unfortunately, she went home to NZ after completing her

PhD. I am ever grateful to her for introducing me to so many people who have become friends, colleagues and design mentors for us at work. Her energy, enthusiasm, ideas and her network are all missed in Sydney, but we stay in touch via Twitter and email.

And now she is assisting a colleague and friend at the Auckland University of Technology Library who faces similar future challenges.

I cannot over-estimate the pivotal importance of meeting Penny as a critical point on our design journey.

Around the same time opportunities presented themselves for several of us engaged with planning our future library to work with academic staff and students who were doing some really cool projects on augmented reality, designing out crime, incidental data research and visualisation, etc. We’d already begun a strong relationship via Anya Roennfeldt, the curator of our DAB Lab Research Gallery to identify and borrow student design work for display in our Library. This led to informal meetings with several key Visual Communications academic staff and researchers and the acquisition of several of their creative works, like the playful data maps of Sydney by Dr Kate Sweetapple (Design School, Faculty of Design Architecture and Building).

This new development of special collections was and is a key cultural plank in the development of our future

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

116

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

This identity is based on the opening of a cube to reveal its contents - it’s net, just as one would open a book to access knowledge, or be open minded to change their thinking. The net of the cube can unfold in twelve different combinations, and in each of them we have © Tom Fethers, 2012 highlighted the letter “L” (Library) through colour.

page

117

Library. The relationship also led to cooperation with those academics and also staff from Industrial Design to identify and select key work from their graduate student exhibitions for acquisition. Finally, this relationship, encouraged by informal meetings in cafes and with advice from curators of significant private art collections, led to the 2012 Artist-in-Residence program and the hiring of a 2011 UTS Visual Communications graduate as our resident designer. More on them later .

In 2011 we started to get involved in some of the U.Lab programs. The first was BikeTank and several library staff participated enthusiastically over the 10 week program. I think this ongoing and strong commitment clearly signaled our intent to learn more about the design thinking process and collaborative design by a diverse community of people. We formed a strong relationship with the U.labbers and later they were engaged to facilitate our 2012 library planning days as full design thinking labs.

So, learning from those above gave us ideas, inspiration and creative enthusiasm to try some new things over the last few years ... We were already attending weekly Design Team meetings held in Hassell Studio (the architects of our underground Library Retrieval System building). I attended all of those meetings as the client and also as the resident “expert” on ASRS technology

in libraries. Initially I think some found it odd that the client wanted to be so involved, but I felt we needed to understand all we could about this design project and also that we should contribute to it. It was, I think, a mutually beneficial initiative.

We have also tried several different “design mentorships”.

To understand and apply both design thinking and being more sustainable at work more broadly amongst our staff, we asked Grant Young from Zumio to lead a team of our supervisors and team leaders (the level beneath our layer of department managers) in a project to get all staff involved in some meaningful sustainability initiatives.

This project went in a very different direction to what I had in mind, but the initiatives they came up with were successful, my ideas proved not to be required and most participants learnt much from the process itself.

We began a two-phased approach towards improving our collection discovery services and online interfaces in 2011. As a first step we embarked on some ethnographic research to better understand our clients and their behaviour when using the resources we provide to them and that was led by Digital Eskimo. This was our first real attempt at professional UX research on a significant scale and it also proved to be a valuable first step for this project.

As I mentioned before, this year (2012) we used u.lab to facilitate our two half-day planning sessions.

They helped us plan out the activities and goals for each day and encouraged us to invite some external guest thinkers to inspire us for each day. Both were brilliant: Steve Baty from Meld Studios on Day #1 who spoke about service design; and Alison Heller from Urban Affect on Day #2 who talked about community inspired sustainable urban development.

In 2012 we wanted to make inroads with service design and for that we engaged the assistance of Meld Studios as our latest design mentor. It is just kicking off but already we’ve planned our approach, several staff have attended a half day workshop at Meld to understand the research and data collection process and we’ve completed a major phase of current state service mapping. I hope that Meld will also be able to deliver an introductory workshop for all of our managers on service design soon.

Developing a proper special collection for UTS Library had several objectives:. reintroducing staff to the full curatorial process;. developing a range of designthemed special collections that inspire our clients and provide more context for their knowledge;. developing a better understanding of the creative process involved in the production of such works;. providing a new service

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

118

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

© Tom Fethers, 2012

that helps us to connect and engage with our community (because it largely comes from them); and learning more about design ourselves at a time when our challenges all lie in that area.

The last design mentorship I’d like to mention here came from within. Together, Chris Gaul our first Artist in Residence and Tom Fethers our designer facilitated a process to deliver a muchneeded new visual identity for the library that assists us present an engaging call for collaboration in the design of the future library as a cohesive set of visually stimulating images. Chris’ Residency resulted in some beautiful conceptual work that was exhibited at DAB Lab research gallery that was a

playful experimentation with online discovery of library resources. Chris has helped us to understand beyond what we know, he has given us fresh new perspectives on our challenges and presented us with stimulating original ideas.

As we prepare to store almost 80% of our physical collection in an underground automated retrieval system, the nature of online interfaces for exploring the collection and browsing books becomes even more relevant. His work indicated that rather than being sterile and uninspiring, the interfaces could be much more creative and unexpected tools that encourage playful exploration and serendipitous discovery.

His concepts challenged our understanding of the ways we search for and find items in

vast library collections.

There is no conclusion to this short story for it is just the beginning of our journey and our closer relationship with “design as a catalyst”, as I’ve tried to illustrate in the examples above.

Together these first steps have helped us to: see new ways to stimulate community involvement and engagement for productive outcomes; find and make new connections within and outside the UTS community; see the potential for a collaborative creative environment; become genuinely involved and connected with Sydney’s creative industries and the field of creative intelligence.

We are looking forward to more stimulating design adventures. page

119

Essay:

Value based innovation versus ‘breaking the rules’ to innovate – an anecdote Hanno Blankenstein, Strategic & Creative I just returned from China, where we’re running a large cross-channel growth project with a big media publisher.

The key topic we work on with the local team is to build an amazing customer experience in the digital world, while balancing this innovation with sustained growth in the print world. So we’re designing the entire cross-channel experience for that media publisher.

It was about three months ago when we first went to China and discussed with the management team how they might assess their current performance across various channels to identify growth opportunities. We said: “Let’s have a look how your website performs, your mobile applications, your print magazines, etc.”

The results we found were quite shocking. Either no comparable metrics existed or the metrics were not appropriate value measures. So we suggested some improvements for measurement and reporting and ensured that the entire organization was confident to be able to work with these

value measures. We were all quite pleased to set the organisation off on a good start.

When we returned three months later, the management team exclaimed, much to our surprise: “Everything’s done, everything is sorted, we are performing really well.”

We were delighted but asked: “Alright, how did you improve your cross-channel design and your customer experience across all of the underperforming channels?”

They did not immediately respond. So we investigated further with the content teams, their development teams and their sales teams.

After a couple of days and some baijiu, one of the client team members explained: “We did not really look at the customer experience, we just paid somebody to drive our metrics up.”

So as it turned out they actually have people sitting somewhere in rural China, clicking through the website or downloading the iPad app from the iTunes store. And they do this millions and millions of times. What is

worse is that this happens not only at our client, but also at their competitors. We were kind of delighted - clearly they were quite innovative, breaking the rules.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

120

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Related topic: Facebook deleting fake ‘likes’, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19741484

Essay:

Ground-breaker talks by the University of Technology’s u.lab Lily Morrissey, The Fifth Estate Charles Kettering, the American inventor, once said that “if you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee to work on it”. I’ve worked in government policymaking before, and he’s a little bit right.

But he also missed the point somewhat, and not just because he later invented that wonderful boon to humanity, the aerial missile.

In the world of public planning good ideas are sometimes accidentally talked to death by committees.

Sometimes they’re murdered by funding cuts and political enemies. But often, good ideas float around like angry little clouds trapped inside the heads of the public, ignored until they commit suicide out of frustration.

But with clever-cloggs new think tanks like Denmark’s Mindlab (I love those guys) on the rise and crowd-sourced design thinking increasingly fashionable, is that going to change? Or is it all just an excuse to invent new words and play with crayons? Either is fine by me, so no bias here.

I made it to Object Gallery for the final night of the GROUNDBREAKER series of

talks run by the University of Technology’s u.lab, for some neatly packaged answers printed in Helvetica on recycled brown paper tied with old string.

Running from the 27 June to 17 August the talks covered a spectrum of design-thinking-for-publicgood topics ranging from subcultures to creative communities and innovation.

Guests included David Gravina – Digital Eskimo, Rangan Srikhanta – One Laptop Per Child, Ian Muir – Westpac and Rod Simpson – City of Sydney.

It was the unusual structure of these talks that

really made me wish I’d gone a little earlier. These 21 guest “provocateurs” made fiveminute idea pitches at seven public forums, before being placed on chairs in the centre of the room to be questioned, interrogation style, by the predatory, circling audience.

Brilliant.

Unfortunately for me, the final night did not involve any guest interrogation or predatory circling. It consisted basically of drinks, informal “thanks” and “great job” summary talks by GROUNDBREAKER’s “high priestess and high priest”, Joanne Jakovich, senior lecturer in the UTS Faculty

page

121

of Design, Architecture and Building, and Jochen Schweitzer, senior lecturer in strategy in the UTS Business School.

The key organising group got up on stage and took a shy bow. The audience wrote their thoughts on pieces of paper and stuck them all over the wall. And then a few regular participants got up and reflected on the series.

Marie announced, “I love this city. I want to see more culture, and it’s great to see people coming together, trying a creative approach”.

Gareth, similarly invigorated, told us “I hope this is the start of something bigger…I was afraid that Sydney was getting apathetic. Let’s continue the conversation”.

“Too right!” I thought, nodding to myself. I had a few wines and got into it. Everyone’s enthusiasm was catching. Marie and Gareth seemed to voice my sentiments exactly. Even though they’d been to all the talks, and I’d missed all of them, I felt a sense of camaraderie.

I scribbled on a piece of paper and put it on the wall, and finished my night staring proudly at my collaborative achievement. I may have missed all the substance, but I was happy with my yellow paper.

I tracked down Dr Schweitzer after the talk.

He explained to me that the series of talks was sort of a laboratory using real humans, set up to test their thesis on

collaboration and innovation out in the real world.

Their hope was to get the businesses and public who attended to see the value in crowd-sharing.

“GROUNDBREAKER was an experiment in crowd-sharing solutions”, he told me, “in the past, innovation was behind closed doors…crowd-sharing is the future”.

So how can design thinking be applied to urban planning, to help us get all those little clouds out of people’s heads and into planning?

“With it’s focus on deeply understanding human needs and behaviour, design thinking can be applied in many ways…community consultation, idea testing, idea generation and so on…. and in fact is already in many architecture practices and urban planning contexts,” Schweitzer shared with me later, via email.

It seems they’re putting it into practice too. u.lab is currently working in collaboration with Aspect Studios, Terroir and R Goodwin to help develop an identity for the Parramatta ring road proposal.

But, exactly how many scribbly bits of coloured paper does it take to build a ring road? I think I need to go to the full talk series next time.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

122

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

This article is published with permission from the Fifth Estate Sustainable Property News Forum http://www.thefifthestate.com.au

Essay:

Everyone - really everyone - has something amazing to share: Harnessing human potential and ideas through self-organising events Caroline McLaren, Business Strategist Elusiveness of selforganising events “Come along to this event.

We don’t know who will be there or what we’ll talk about, but I promise it will be AMAZING!” I remember the first day I rocked up to one of these ‘self-organising’ events.

Normally I am enthusiastic and ever the optimist, but I was sceptical about the entire set up. As far as I could tell there was no plan for the day; let alone speakers or topics. A magical reshuffling of the universe resulting in an agenda was alluded to by the participants, but I wasn’t sure just where we might begin on that one. I decided the whole event was going to be one of those items that I add to my bucket list retrospectively to justify the experience of it.

Butchers paper clung to the wall and I was kind of wishing I too could cling up there away from the chaos. In thick colourful marker lay the one defined structure of the day: a grid which indicated there would be half hour sessions happening throughout the day in three different spaces.

The boxes of the grid were blank; a tease for the familiar and enthusiastic, and a taunt for the novices like me.

I certainly wasn’t going to be stepping forward to fill a box anytime soon. I didn’t know anyone there, let alone understand what I might be able to offer, or have even a clue as to how knowledgeable others might be on any given topic. I had always considered myself a fairly confident individual, but here I was totally out of my depth.

Inherent order of systems As if demonstrating order could be created amongst chaos, the grid filled quickly

and a number of the topics looked particularly appealing.

Scientists will tell you about the wonder of cells’ capacity to self-organise within the body, and here it seemed the same was true of a group of individuals given the right circumstances.

I was struggling to decide which topics to sit- in on: “the end of charity” or perhaps “new ways for sustainable food consumption”. I was delighted to learn that in this parallel universe I could in fact have my cake and eat it too; we were free to wander between sessions.

By the end of the day, I had been exposed to a host of ideas - from sustainable

page

123

food practices to communityoriented city designs - that no amount of googling could havee given me. I had also encountered and interacted with a group of amazing people that I would never have crossed paths with. And so began my love with selforganising events.

As a curious and collaborative individual, the opportunities for learning and connections that a self-organising event provide are unrivalled by anything else. At a recent unconference, I learnt how to make hexahexaflexagon (the coolest form of origami you have ever seen), got familiar with Japanese syntax (they change a verb stem to negate an action!), and tried out slacklining (a trending form of tight rope walking). So where did this motley crew of self-organising events come from? None other than a peaceful protest of sorts.

recordings have been watched over 500 million times. They have provided a platform for a myriad of individuals - researchers, chefs, educators and scientists - to share their work and their vision for the world. Through the TED fellowship they also provide financial support to help ideas get traction.

offering, other conferences of a similar nature begun to crop up. One of which is Foo Camp, a tech-focused conference that like TED, is by invitation-only.

Democratisation of knowledge-sharing Instead of the likes of Bill Gates and Malcolm Gladwell, the invite list to Foo Camp contains the tech superstars the guys that started Amazon, deli.icio.us, Wikipedia and so on. In the third year of Foo Camp, the Silicon Valley tech community decided they were not content to miss out on the action and took matters into their own hands. They set up an open-to-all self-organising event coined BarCamp in the space of a week.

Since then there has been the movement of open-invite self-organising events has snow balled. These days many industries - from tech to product development - host self-organising events as a means to ensure participants are having the chance to cover material which is interesting and relevant.

Though there are a myriad of versions, there are some underlying principles to which most adhere.

Ideas Worth Spreading Most people have come across the concept of a TED talk - listen to a particularly passionate and experienced individual talk and in less than 20 minutes you’re guaranteed to feel that little bit smarter and inspired.

TED conferences began over 20 years ago but it was only in 2006, when footage from the events was made freely available online, that the event really rocketed to stardom.

Today TED continues to be devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. Their online

Don’t call us, we’ll call you Attendance to the annual TED conference is by invite-only. If you happen to be invited and do decide to go, you’ll need to shell out a cool $6,000. To top it off, the annual conferences are hosted in the affluent Californian locations of Palm Springs and Long Beach. Some attempts have been made so that the TED experience is more accessible to the general population, such as licensing through the TEDx platform. Nonetheless, even for TEDx conferences applying to be audience member can be as rigorous as getting your next job.

For all its great endeavours, TED has copped a fair amount of criticism for these elitist and exclusive tendencies. The combination of by-invitation-only policies, extravagant locations, and hefty fees would make it seem that TED are seeking to confine intellectual stimulation to the highly educated, wealthy and hyperconnected echelons of society.

But TED isn’t the only one to do this. Around the time that TED created its online

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

124

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Rule of two feet Above all, self-organising events are participantdriven. In a standard conference everything is driven by the organisers: location, timing, format and speakers. At a self-organising event, facilitators provide the minimum necessary

structure; generally just a location and time.

From there, it’s up to the participants to decide what topics will be covered, where, when and in what format.

At some unconferences, including at the one I facilitate called Trampoline, the participant-driven approach also extends to the experience. We ask that participants follow the “Rule of two feet”; essentially if you’re not contributing or getting something out of a session, move onto another session or use the time in whatever way will be most beneficial for yourself.

Everyone is expected to both contribute and learn from others; the typical roles of teachers and students are

removed. Instead, it becomes a space for everyone to learn from one another.

By enabling participants to not only ‘create’ but ‘own’ their experience, it provides them with a greater level of agency, leading to heightened levels of engagement (you should see the smiles on the faces of a group of 20-somethings as they start to figure out how a hexahexaflexagon works). I can’t help but imagine what it might be like if educational institutions were to enable such an experience.

the experience of being in a dynamic and engaging environment. At Trampoline we ask people to “come and share what you find amazing”. This provides individuals the opportunity to tap into and share the most engage and inspired parts of themselves and it’s why I keep on coming back for more.

Come and share what you find amazing Self-organising events are not just about ideas or awesome people - it’s

page

125

Essay:

Two Myths of Innovation: Innovative ideas pop out of nowhere; Having more people equates to better ideas Ian Muir, Westpac

Innovation is not derived from thin air and it doesn’t fall out of the sky. It takes hard work and discipline. Otherwise it’s just called luck.

Innovation is doing something different rather than simply doing the same thing better. This can lead to the perception that innovation is about amazing ideas popping out of nowhere.

Having lots of disconnected ideas about nothing does not create innovation. Ideas need to be channeled to the right context otherwise their brilliance can’t be realised. It is the context of the problem at hand that provides the location for good ideas. It is true: ideas can pop out of nowhere and often when we least expect it.

Ideas, when applied to a problem to create benefit, do create innovation.

I assume the notion that more people getting together creates better ideas is based on the familiarity people have with brainstorming as an idea generator. To some degree it is true, but in my experience the best brainstorming session are quite structured and disciplined.

The more closely the rules of brainstorming are followed the more likely you are to get imaginative results. It may be somewhat counter intuitive to describe process and rules when talking about how to think imaginatively, but the important thing is, the rules actually help to create and keep a flow of ideas, from different perspectives.

The same is true for crowdsharing for innovation or problem solving. A framework and process become even more important to corral the ideas to the problem at hand. It pays to think about an appropriate approach to suit the nature of the problem, and the resources available.

There is often a feeling that the processes can stifle innovation, yet conversely innovation free from process or discipline is more likely to lead to chaos rather than innovation. If the process itself is clumsy and irrelevant it will stifle innovation. However if the processes help guide and get a flow of ideas, solutions and problem solving then it is likely to encourage and support innovative outcomes.

Culture is defined as “they way we do things around here”.

If culture is constricting the flow of greatness then it too is a block to innovation. Processes are often a reflection of culture. Changing processes can be used to effect culture and cultural change can be the impetus to change processes.

What is the culture of a crowdshare group? What culture is appropriate for the problem at hand and for the resources involved?

These are important considerations to the success of a crowdshare exercise.

Innovation is about creating new or different ways and it also must be directed to create a beneficial outcome, otherwise it is simply an idea looking to be applied. If it is innovation for innovation’s sake then it is more like selfindulgence. Does the purpose constrain the outcome or does the lack of constraint limit the innovation? Constraints need to be your friend. If not then they will limit the imagination and create a block. Conversely, without them, there is no purpose, unlikely to be a beneficial change and therefore there will be no innovation, just ideas.

If we look at crowdsharing we should look at these aspects. How do we get a structure and set of disciplines that feeds the crowd and creates a flow of innovative ideas that feeds each other? How do we ensure it is not self indulgent without purpose, and so ensuring it creates beneficial change? The key is conscious choice and decisions made against the higher order purpose of what is intended to be the outcome. Choose wisely but seek the power of the crowd.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

126

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Expert Design

Collaborative Design

Participatory Design

Resource

Single Mind

Selected Minds

Multiple Minds

Designer role

Expert view

Understand Perspective

Share perspective

Corral distributed views

Primary function

Create

Collaborate to seek input

Facilitate design participants

Accumulate & contextualise inputs

Type of problem

Selected problems

Incremental change

Shared problem

Wicked problems

Acceptance by others

The input representative of others

Practicality of outputs

Crowd Control without constraining

Key risk

Isolated

Crowd Sharing

Mass Minds

Networked (physical or electronic)

Essay:

Ninja Culture Siobhan Toohill, Pure & Applied So often in Australian business we talk about the need for innovation as though it’s not happening at all.

Innovation tragics pine for what they call disruptive change – but funnily enough neither business leaders nor employees want disruption.

Meanwhile others speak consolingly of everyday incremental change – the slow change and adaptation that happens all around us through the natural evolution of business processes.

In either case, the business drivers for innovation are widely agreed: To discover newer, better ways of working To increase revenue To lift productivity To engage employees To modernise, to transform.

While we might know the why we need innovation, my hunch is we often don’t know the best way to create the circumstances for transformative innovation.

We’re lost between a disruption we don’t want and an incremental gesture that won’t really get us anywhere fast.

There is certainly a wide tendency to be romanced by the disruptive view of

innovation. We agree there’s not enough innovation, and we’re bored with the humdrum of the everyday life and work. And yet workers and managers alike tend to resist change – evidenced

by HR departments vainly distributing Spencer Johnson’s Who Moved My Cheese. Meanwhile activist citizens in NIMBY mode, concerned about reduced availability of local on-street parking, resist perfectly sensible policies to increase the density of urban communities.

Disruptive change can be good – and many will argue it’s essential if we’re to tackle wicked problems such as climate change. Ongoing structural changes wrought by the impact of digital technology and the ongoing effects of the global financial crisis are catapulting some business headlong into a truly disruptive ‘change or die’ scenario – witness the current crises of leading airlines and department stores.

However large businesses, overseen by boards mindful of their fiduciary duties, are risk averse – and Australian companies have a poor track record for investing in research and development.

This leads to most change being mostly incremental.

It doesn’t mean we don’t innovate, but rather we treat innovation as just part of what we do every day. We tend to test out new ideas on the go. Adapt, review, rinse, repeat. Incrementalism is in

fact our preferred approach to innovation.

But it’s not transformative.

So if we run a mile from disruption, and incremental innovation just keeps us in business in changing conditions how do we work toward transformative innovation?

I would argue it’s by appearing not to try. Not rocking the boat.

You see there’s another kind of innovation which is different again, which inhabits a space between disruptive and incremental change and to my mind is the most interesting. This kind of innovation is guided by internal change agents strategically loading up small business projects with the potential for wider implications. It’s enabled behind the scenes, without fanfare, quietly designed by what I call ‘cultural ninjas’. These ninjas do what John Elkington terms ‘intrapreneurialism’. The opportunities they create are what blogger Dan Hill describes as Trojan horses.

By ‘small projects’ I don’t mean pilots. These are business-as-usual projects, with real value, with perhaps an unprepossessing scale, but when done a certain way have enormous transformative impact. These small projects turn into powerful drivers of change.

While giving an appearance of incremental change they have ripple effects throughout organisations, delivering

page

127

powerful learning and communicating permission to do some things differently.

The most effective of these small projects can be transformational.

I’m interested in this kind of change having spent the past 12 years working in large Australian corporations. I joined Australian property group Stockland as a designer in late 2003. Within a year I’d carved out a new role for myself and the organisation around sustainability – at the time, quite a new concept for corporations.

My challenge was to embed a new way of thinking and doing business, taking into account environmental and social impacts, and shifting stakeholder relations from reactive communication into pro-active engagement and valued relationships.

At the outset I was labelled a ‘tree hugger’ by some in management fearful of change, assumptions of cost implications and the possibility of having to acquiesce to the demands of local communities. I quickly discovered that I needed to find hero projects to create visible ‘signs of success’ while still working away at my longer-term strategy.

In 2005 it was decided that the organisation would relocate its Sydney-based employees. A Stocklandowned building, in the right location and with available space was selected, and the architecture firm BVN hired.

This was a golden green opportunity not to be missed, and so I turned up uninvited to a relocation steering group meeting and put forward a business case as to why we should create one of Australia’s first green-rated workplaces. While not wildly embraced I was permitted to have a crack. And that was fine by me.

In fact, ‘Stockhome’ as the office space as come to be known, became Australia’s first 6 Green Star rated office interior. It presented the organisation with a great opportunity to build its own understanding of sustainability, and enable employees as property professionals to ‘walk the talk’. A physical manifestation of a mindset of sustainability growing across the organisation, it is now a source of immense pride, and something to touch and point to when meeting with key stakeholders. What this place has become is far beyond what was imagined at the outset.

The project itself comprised innovative components. It encompasses the first use of on-site tri-generated power in the Sydney CBD. It employs horizontal fire curtains to enable fire separation within an eight-story void. But the true innovation was how Stockhome enabled the organisation to hard-wire the concept of sustainability into day-to-day business. This was not an expressed goal of the relocation project, but it has

been a powerful outcome.

Small projects like Stockhome can in fact be vectors for significant change.

They’re neither disruptive, nor incremental. Rather these kinds of projects are a way of building organisational understanding and capability, quietly shepherded by internal ninjas with one eye on the project at hand, and the other eye remaining focussed on a wider vision for change. Transformational change.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

128

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Essay:

Platforms, People, Portability, Porosity, Promotion and Problem Solving – or how to get into some of Sydney’s most dynamic ecosystems Selena Griffith, University of New South Wales Never before in the history of human civilization have we been more connected. Many people have ready access to technologies for sharing thoughts, ideas, images, video and sound in real time. The internet is a meta platform which provides myriad platforms whereby individuals can connect and engage with potentially millions of other individuals and, in turn, connect to their networks and extend their reach even further. This opens up the world for designers in finding more opportunities to exploit or problems to solve. It can help them find collaborators from across disciplines and allow them to access large audiences with whom they can directly converse, share ideas, develop solutions, test and iterate them. They can then gain support to bring the ideas to market. These virtual platforms are playing matchmaker for groups of

people, and group events provide a safe environment to mingle and meet. It is at events such as these that big ideas are discussed, points of nexus discovered and solutions explored. These can lead to innovation and start up.

Where once it was either hard work or a happy coincidence that resulted in a designer meeting potential collaborators, they can now easily join groups which provide access to a smorgasbord of like minded people with complimentary skill sets. For example, through events like Trampoline, Social Innovation Sydney Bar Camps, Think Act Change and Creative Thinkers. These events and groups are often found through virtual platforms such as Meetup.com and Eventbrite.com where once registered, and through providing some details of their interests, people can be directed to groups and events they may like to join and attend.

Non - designers can meet up with designers to learn about design thinking and how it can be used as an effective research or problem solving methodology. For example, through events such as Service Design Drinks and Design Thinking Drinks.

People can meet, interact and collaborate on real global issues across disciplines using design tools, and through co-created events such as the Global Service Jam, The Global Sustainability Jam and The Visualizing Global Marathon.

These events and groups are porous by nature. They allow participants from varied backgrounds and levels of experience to dip in and out of their activities, participate at the rate and depth that suits them. Unlike formalized organisations or groups with application processes for membership, policies and rigid cultures, they are dynamic and adaptable which makes them ideal places for innovative thinking to occur.

Another fertile space for

page

129

these serendipitous kinds of introduction and innovation to occur is the ever growing number of co-working spaces such as Vibewire, Fishburners, 107 Projects and The Hub. Co-working spaces are mostly populated by emerging entrepreneurs, start ups and freelancers.

They allow members a level of agility and connectedness not previously available. No longer do sole practitioners or micro entrepreneurs need to work from home in isolation to keep costs low.

They can work in a dynamic, connected environment where, by virtue of the diverse subscribers working in the space, opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration abound. A start up tech project could need design for an interface, programming for the back end and a marketing and social media campaign. It is often possible to find all these skills in the one co-working space. Co-workers therefore don’t just work on their own projects; they can also contribute to others in the space.

Co-working spaces can also develop specific ecosystems that can attract support.

Fishburners, for example, attracts predominantly new tech ventures. It has built a reputation for this and now attracts the attention of venture capitalists and other investors as a go to place to ‘discover’ new opportunities. This works well for it’s members which

in turn increases Fishburners desirability as a co-working space and drives demand for it’s services.

Vibewire was founded around supporting young people to become engaged in media. It’s founder, Tom Dawkins wanted more under 21’s to be engaged in political process and reporting. As the longest running coworking space in Sydney it has iterated itself, through the portability and porosity of it’s membership into a space with a strong media and communications flavor.

The Hub attracts more a designer crowd and 107 Projects players from across the creative industries often at the intersection of art and design.

Another great platform for supporting design and innovation is crowd funding.

This is being delivered through mechanisms for funding good ideas such at The Awesome Foundations $1000 monthly grants, Pozible.com’s crowd funding for creative projects and Startsomegood.com’s crowd funding for budding change makers. These platforms provide an opportunity for promoting projects, raising financial support for them and testing if an idea is viable. Although less that 40% of crowd funding projects ever reach their targets, the structured process that project owners have to go through to articulate their offer to their potential crowd funders is valuable. The

storytelling becomes very important.

Sydney is not unique in its creative start up ecosystem development. These kinds of activities are occurring globally. U-Lab is a platform where students, both local and international can trial some of these experiences of interdisciplinary collaboration for problem solving, design thinking, narrative crafting for pitching, testing ideas, failing safely and often, iterating until ready for market, wearing the hat of an entrepreneur. Students will then be ready to leap into these communities and ecosystems - that is, if they aren’t already there!

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

130

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Essay:

Creativity and Innovation in the Biomedical Sciences Professor Michael Wallach School of Medical and Molecular Biosciences, Faculty of Science, UTS I have been a medical researcher for over 30 years, and during that period I have come to the realisation that there is paradox in my profession; on the one hand, there is the perception that medical research is extremely creative and innovative moving forward in leaps and bounds, while in actuality it is a very conservative and a relatively slow moving process, somewhat lacking in creativity. Indeed, the peer review method for assessing both publications and grants, acts to maintain the dogma in science, and can often inhibit those researchers who wish to strike out on their own and really think outside of the box.

With that realisation as a backdrop, I, together with colleagues from the Faculty of Science (Dr. Loraine Holley, Prof. Michael Cortie), UniQuest (Dr. Pamela Blaikie and Dr. Martin Lloyd) and DAB (Dr. Vasilije Kokotovich), developed a new subject in Bio-Innovation and Entrepreneurship for post-graduate students doing Master’s degrees in Science at UTS. In addition,

I have run the same subject at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology (one of the world’s leading Tech Universities), with the participation of Israeli colleagues from the Faculties of Biology, Medicine, Engineering and Business.

The goal of the subject was to motivate students to be willing to take risks, and come up with their own innovative ideas for projects/ products in the Biosciences in virtual reality. In order to accomplish that goal, students from a variety of faculties and backgrounds worked together in small teams of 4-5. They were given the freedom to choose any project they wished to work on. The criteria for deciding which project to choose was that it truly excited them, the concept for the project has a basis in sound science, the intellectual property can be protected by patent and/or trademark, and the resulting product has a potential market in reality.

Thus far, we have run this subject a total of 5 times in the two countries, and the results have been amazing!

First of all, the student feedback was extremely positive and nearly all of them felt that they had experienced something very

special and enlightening.

Secondly, the projects that they came up with were truly innovative and potentially very useful, with some of the students entering their ideas into competitions such as UniQuest’s Trailblazer ending up as finalists. Third of all, students came away with the feeling that they can become entrepreneurs, and are much more willing to take risks and seek exciting new opportunities.

Ultimately, my goal was to unleash the creative and innovative talents in each student we came in contact with, by establishing a creative and warm environment. To further bolster the enriching environment, each group was assigned a coach and mentor who had expertise in the area of their interest. The result has been that students opened up to each other, and even those who came from diverse backgrounds and cultures communicated freely. They were excited by the work and their ideas, and with time virtual reality and reality became one. Thus far, 30 out of 30 groups who have participated in the subject have come up with ideas for good projects without a single failure.

Recently, I have been in

page

131

One example projects designed in 2011 by UTS Master’s students: Tar Free removes tar from the lungs of smokers to improve their health.

contact with the TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology and Stanford University Medical School, Palo Alto, California (one of the world’s premier medical research institutions), to develop a global collaboration in Innovation in the Biosciences based on the principles I mentioned above. Stanford said that they are interested in collaborating because over the past few years some of their leading researchers have been running a program they call SPARK. Their aim was to promote partnerships between academia and the local pharmaceutical and venture capital community, to enable discoveries to go from Stanford’s laboratories to real products and applications for human health. The goal of our collaboration is to jointly expand our programs to enable our institutions to do a better

job at translating projects in Biomedical research into real products, and for budding entrepreneurs to create start-ups and new job opportunities.

It is clear that by promoting a culture of creativity and innovation, we will start to improve the way in which Australian students adapt to the world of the future. Science and Biotechnology in particular is about to undergo a revolution in which innovation and entrepreneurship will be the key to success. Currently, there are far too few jobs and opportunities for students, and research funding is extremely limited. The hope is that by motivating students to take risks, develop good communication and collaboration skills, and to promote professional attributes and capabilities, we will start to open new

opportunities in medical research that did not exist before. Discourse and collaboration is not only possible, but necessary if we wish to develop a new generation of researchers that will push medical science forward by leaps and bounds.

I strongly believe that through a multidisciplinary global collaboration, a new creative and innovative culture in Medical Research will be established for the benefit of humankind.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

132

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Essay:

Scaffolding Innovation through Design Artefacts Jax Wechsler, Design Consultant Businesses and governments are turning to design as a way to facilitate sustainable economic, social and environmental innovation globally. Strategic design consultancies are popping up all over the world to help organisations innovate through design and the popular business press is reflecting this trend with an increasing number of related publications. There is an increasing demand for design professionals to fulfill an increasing number of emergent design roles such as that of the service designer, the design strategist and the experience designer to cater for this demand for strategic design capability. There is also growing discussion about customer-centricity, customer-experience, design-led innovation and human-centred design practices in both business and design publications and blogs.

In 1969, Simon put forward the notion that design is a process of transforming actual situations into preferred ones; and innovation, or rather the generation of novelty, is considered an inherent aspect of the profession of design.1 Innovation is a powerful shaping force for both the

history and the future of humankind. Essentially, innovation is concerned with change and in our current economic and environmental landscape many are putting forward the notion that, to borrow Tim Brown’s words, we need “change by design.”2 Innovation involves continuous and iterative change and requires on-going conversation and collaboration between multiple people with divergent perspectives, mental-models, motivations and affiliations. Innovation rests on ideas and their execution, both of which depend on people.

Design is a social practice which can be described as an individual activity that takes place with-in a social context.3 Designers need to build consensus amongst a number of stakeholders and act as facilitators within the context of design-led innovation initiatives. Senge4 maintains that innovation stems from the ‘creative tension’ between current realities and future possibilities. For innovation to occur, future possibilities which compliment the values of its participants (i.e. both internal staff as well as customers) need to be defined, articulated, and communicated. Artefacts can play an important role in

communicating this design knowledge and helping to enable collaboration and conversation across business units, which is extremely important given the notion that innovation stems from collaboration and knowledge sharing across organisational boundaries.5 Designers can help to scaffold innovation through mediating crossdisciplinary conversation and collaboration through the provision of well-designed artefacts. A ‘scaffold’ can be defined as: “A temporary platform, either supported from below or suspended from above, on which workers sit or stand when performing tasks at heights above the ground.”6 The term ‘scaffolding’ is used in the title of this essay as it refers to organisational members being enabled to undertake work related tasks in order to create tangible structures. In my research I argue that designers can help to scaffold innovation through the delivery of consciously crafted design artefacts which can be used by staff members to enable and facilitate service improvement initiatives i.e. incremental innovation (“doing better than what we already do”7).

Design artefacts can be considered as mediating

page

133

devices that can inform innovation initiatives within the organisation in various ways. These include: the provision of models and frameworks for collaboration and conversation between members of different functional groups within the organisation; as mechanisms to bring the perspective of the customer into the organisation; as well as the provision of visualisations that make complex nontangible systems and services seem more tangible and discussable. By considering the environment in which a design artefact functions, its purpose and its qualities, artefacts can be created by designers to support and scaffold the innovation efforts of individuals and groups within organisational settings.

Where innovation is reliant on people and their ability to converse, collaborate and share knowledge and ideas, designers should consciously design their artefacts in ways that can effectively support these activities within organisations. A real opportunity exists for designers to help facilitate and support innovation initiatives within organisational contexts through the delivery of consciously crafted design artefacts.

1. Lawson, B. R. 1990, How Designers Think, Butterworth Architecture, London,UK. 2. Brown, T., 2009, Change by design: how design thinking transforms organisations inspires innovation, Harper Collins NY, USA. 3. For example, Bucciarelli, L.L. 1994, Designing Engineers, MIT Press Cambridge MA, USA. 4. Senge, P, 1990, The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, NY, USA. 5. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., & Nelson, R.R(eds) 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 6. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, USA. 7. Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. 2012, “Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research Versus Technology and Meaning Change� Accessed on 3rd May at 6:30pm at http://precipice-design. intuitwebsites.com/Norman___Verganti__Design_Research___Innovation-18_ Mar_2012.pdf, p. 5.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

134

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Essay:

Catalyst Power Tess Julian, Ratio UTS Business in partnership with the Hargraves Institute was proud to present an evening with Jeanne Liedtka on 2 October 2012. Jeanne is the author of the international best selling business book; Designing for Growth.

Jeanne’s research also focuses on the role of connectors in accelerating innovation in large organisations.

This article explores the role of connecting diverse people and experiences for innovation. It argues that the key to connecting and innovating is not the team, but the catalyst who can build flexible collaborations for exploring opportunities and solving problems.

“The truth is when one looks at innovation in nature and in culture, environments that build walls around good ideas tend to be less innovative in the long run that more open-ended environments.

Good ideas may not want to be free but they do want to connect, fuse, recombine.

They want to reinvent themselves by crossing conceptual borders.”1 It is well accepted that diversity of thinking and experience fuels creativity, and that collaboration and connection are fundamental

to building innovation.

The typical response to a challenge in organisational strategy is to build project teams to create the opportunity for connection and collaboration among relevant experts to achieve a particular innovation goal.

The problem is, that such organisational teams do more to stifle innovation than to realise it. They build walls around ideas, rather than opening them up to diverse and unlikely linkages.

Members are selected for their specific expertise and bring to the team a narrow but deep knowledge of one aspect of the problem.

Because they’re experts, they’re often not comfortable with the prospect of failure and are risk averse. In the words of Jeanne Liedtka, these people bring a ‘fixed‘ mindset, making them uncomfortable with ambiguity, afraid of failure and unwilling to try out new ideas. This results in a narrow repertoire. “If you’re in that group”, says Liedtka, “you make a completely different set of choices that are all about avoiding failure.”

She maintains that innovation requires people with a broad repertoire, those who have a “learning” mindset, which allows them to try out new things and learn from the experience, while broadening their competency across a range of areas. They are not afraid of uncertainty and are stimulated by the challenge.

“Entrepreneurs don’t think in terms of ROI, they think in terms of affordable loss.”

Nevertheless, organisations that are looking for high performance, growth and innovation tend to focus on recruiting and managing talent, the most expert people in the field, who will typically have a narrow repertoire and a fixed mindset.

“The truth is that high growth companies often do not sell unique products or services, do not always have the best talent, rarely

A repertoire is the collection of skills, knowledge, attributes, and experiences that individuals can bring to a work situation. have visionary, charismatic leaders, who are not the most innovative leaders.”

High growth companies, according to Liedtka’s research, are those that have high levels of employee engagement and managers with broad repertoires. They don’t have to employ the best people. They employ good people and build great performance.

Allan Ryan, Executive Director of the Hargraves Institute, has been researching innovation in

page

135

Leadership & People

Principle 1: Organisation leadership has a genuine commitment to

innovation performance and recognition; and Principle 2: The leadership empowers staff and teams while providing fast and regular feedback.

Innovation Process Principle 3: Implementation through a readily understandable, accessible and disciplined innovation process; and Principle 4: proactively managing risk while supporting learning from both failures and successes.

Innovation Action Principle 5: Organisations explicitly link vision and strategy to innovation with ownership and accountability; and Principle 6: Provide resources when needed for innovation.

Collaboration Principle 7: Organisations/teams interact with all stakeholders; and Principle 8: encourage cooperation and acceptance, and respond to challenges both internally and externally.

The principles of the Innovator Recognition Program (IRPTM)

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

136

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

large Australia organisations for over 10 years. Allan has discovered that creating great performance with good people comes from a foundation of principles rather than rules or models.

These principles form the core of the Innovator Recognition Program (IRPTM), a system that organisations use to drive innovative behaviours through staff engagement. They are widely accepted and address the areas of leadership and people, innovation process, innovation action and collaboration. The IRPTM system challenges enterprises to embrace and enact these principles within their operations to encourage individual repertoires and more importantly to use the repertoires for innovation.

Given the ability, motivation and opportunity (enabled by the practice of the principles articulated above), most employees will engage with innovation initially around those things that are immediately important to them. As the individual’s experience, and therefore repertoire expands, they take on more challenging innovation tasks – from little things, big things grow.

Cameron Ainslie, Hargraves Member Advocate for NSW comments that ‘We believe that rather than creating fixed teams of experts around specific innovation needs, organisations are better

served by engaging a range of employees , connecting diverse repertoires, and innovating around the broad goals, of being: Better, Broader, Bigger and Bolder’.

But it won’t just magically happen. Innovation catalysts are those people in every organisation who already have broad repertoires, are comfortable with ambiguity, seek challenges and can inspire others. Catalysts typically bring people together to solve a small problem, or find creative ways to address big opportunities.

They link hunches, find experts, clarify needs and therefore fuel the innovation process in your organisation.

Forget Innovation Managers and Divisions, which marginalise innovation by creating “innovation experts”, and exclude 90% of the valuable repertoires in your organisation. Think Catalysts who have a core job role in their own field, but who also have the breadth to try new things, get passionate about ideas outside their area, learn from their mistakes and seek new experiences. They can activate and engage with people across the organisation, and link them to opportunities, which will to expand their own horizons by working on change and innovation. They link people possessing both a broad repertoire and deep expertise.

Because of the breadth of their experience, Catalysts know where to go to find

knowledge and experience outside their function to enrich the work of teams and individuals within.

Catalysts can be managers or leaders, or they may be a well-connected supervisor or operator. They might be an expert, but more likely, a generalist. They distinguish themselves by being the go-to person for others, by committing their own time and effort to solving problems without direction and often without recognition.

Ryan’s research discovered that ‘All organisations have catalysts; they just might not know it. If you want to drive innovation, find your catalyst(s), and put in place the systems and culture which allows them to do their best.’ The IRPTM system utilises catalysts to deliver staff engagement, organisational productivity, and growth or change. Please contact Hargraves Institute at www.hargraves.com.au to participate in their ongoing research.

1. Johnson Stephen, Where Good Ideas Come from, The seven patterns of Innovation , Penguin, 2010, Page 22.

page

137

Essay:

to move into a new mode of thinking and strategic action many organisations are tackling this by working on the peripherye. They are usingSsmall innovation projects that test ideas, allow for small wins and prove the model before attempting to gain widespread adoption.

We see such an approach in thee tech entrepreneur community whoereadily use Lean StartUp methodology. Developed by Eric Ries, i’s principles allow testing and validation of ideas, thus decreasing waste and increasing success. A selected idea has a Minimum Viable Product built and released.

Testing is explored through customer development and, if needed, if the idea is proved invalid, the process iterates to a new version of the idea and the process starts again.

This methodology has been successfully implemented for many leading tech startups including the online cloud service DropBox. Effective design to implement ideas is also imperative.

Design Thinking and Service Design are methods that are increasingly being adopted to help develop ideas, or rather, explore problems so that innovation on the delivery of solutions can be developed.

As opposed to recent methods of designing services ‘for’ people this method designs services ‘with’ people and cares about the experience of all people involved.

To drive a ‘make-ithappen’ culture, it is of the utmost importance to secure

buy-in from people. Often too few people have been brought into the new vision.

In other cases, employees aren’t enthusiastic about the changes taking place. And, many times, too little effort has been made to get people involved in driving new strategies forward.

To turn this around, collaboration is key. All good ideas need a team to move them to completion. Teams make more progress than individuals. When you get more people excited in your idea, that’s when you can make it happen.

Previous modes of implementing ideas within organisations have taken a top-down approach, where ideas are dictated from high-level management and employees are given commands on what to do.s.

HoweverIideas implemented from a “grass-roots” level, a flat hierarchy, with collective collaboration focused on the power of the group allow for a holistic approach to implementing ideas.

This method empowers those involved in the implementation process to drive the idea themselves.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is dead, Giving money to charity, staff volunteering, painting the community centre - all good things but they are peripheral to business. They don’t lead to the creation of new products and services, differentiate your brand, engage your people or achieve lasting social or environmental impact.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

138

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

Ideas to Action:

Tapping into the power & wisdom of people to create change Michelle Williams, Ideaction Ideas are free, execution is priceless. We all have ideas on how to make this world a better place, to make our lives easier, to help the disadvantaged, to make a million dollars.

Change is hard, many strategies fail, so how do you pick the right idea to pursue?

How do you get buy-in? And, most importantly, how do you successfully implement and make a positive impact for you, your organisation and the people around you?

In an era of constant change, a time of transition and flux, when external factors such as the Internet, economic instability and environmental change cause uncertainty in day to day operations, being adaptable is more important than ever.

However,Mmany of our current models in the private and public sector were built in the industrial era where mass production, one size fits all, designing services for people not with people, was the standard.

To begin to change this,

Essay:

The Power of Detachment Ele Jansen, University of New South Wales Do we create better together, or alone? In the wake of ubiquitous technology and a growing DIY culture we challenge established routines by mass collaboration and audience engagement. What does it mean to collaborate with a diverse range of people, from all over the globe, with different horizons, objectives and pragmatics? To find that out, Lance Weiler and I designed a 60-minute Open Design Challenge (ODC) that involves storytelling, games and everyone’s imagination.

Thanks to Jordan Bryon for prepping and running the session with me.

The ODC has three purposes: 1. for participants to experience what agility and collaboration means in today’s global culture industry 2. to develop a R&D system to solve problems by using collaboration, game mechanics and storytelling 3. and to test and refine storytelling as way for us to transfer knowledge, create empathy for content and a call to action On top of these goals, we tapped into the power of detachment. It was the third

time we ran such a session; and apart from prototyping a collective Wish For The Future, we experienced how letting go of ownership and control can benefit an outcome greatly. To exemplify why detachment can be awesome, I’ll walk you through the workshop.

Here’s a rundown of what we did Start absurd. First, the entire group had 4 minutes to generate 100 wishes around the premise to make the world work for 100% of humanity. Yep. We broke the group down into eight categories (urbanization, economy, education, humanity, culture, health, sustainability, government) to have each group focus on one area. A couple of minutes later, we read out the wishes

and decided the best wish collectively by cheering. Then - in the same manner - we turned the wish into a design question.

Then we broke out into three groups: one group would build a prototype that helps solving the design question; the second group would use storytelling to craft a hero’s journey; the third group were the scribes. Their task was to communicate between the groups and to converge the outcomes on a storyboard. We gave every group a simple template that explained the basics of design thinking, storytelling and scribing.

We had 53 minutes left.

Imagine everything happening at the same time: some scribes started planning their storyboard while others chose a target audience (or

We can simulate collective intelligence by ascribing each group one of the three fundamental human brain functions: connect deep knowledge (storytellers) and spontaneous creativity (prototypers) by building new unexpected synapses (scribes). page

139

Attempting the impossible widens the mind. Lateral thinking happens when you can’t possibly imagine an immediate answer to a question. stakeholder group), which we communicated to the two other groups. Within the first 5 minutes the scribes received the main characters from the storytelling group, which they passed on to the prototypers after they had given their first pitch to the scribes (within first 10 minutes).

Generally, nobody was allowed to talk without creating something with their hands at the same time.

We provided play-doh, pens, butcher paper, paddlepops and other props. We find that tactile activity enhances creativity by igniting both sides of the brain.

The idea was that prototyping and storytelling group couldn’t communicate directly, only through the scribes aka social media.

This way the scribes acted as ‘chinese whisperers’, so information between storytellers and prototypers would be filtered and

reinterpreted – as seen in collaboration between various teams in a company or a creative collective.

To communicate between groups, we had storytellers and prototypers pitching to the scribes. This was combined with a narrative game, in which the answer could only be ‘yes, no or maybe’. This had the purpose that content had to be anticipated and interpreted: empathy in practice. We made sure that information didn’t always flow clearly in order to imitate real life situations. At certain points we appointed narrators to help clarifying

Mayhem and confusion. The ODC leaves participants partly in the unknown to simulate how reality, too, only unfolds gradually.

Chaordic time pressure requires us to adapt to change flexibly and creatively.

It was paramount that everyone had a task in the process to give a sense of agency and accountability. crucial aspects, in case the scribes would get stuck.

The 2nd pitch later on would allow the scribes to ask questions but no answers were allowed. This had the effect that the prototypers went back and refined their work according to what was still too complex for an audience to grasp.

After 30 minutes we disrupted the flow by asking the groups to include sensor technology, an Arduino or Raspberry Pi into their prototype. After ten more minutes the scribes got another brief to tweak and bend the story and prototype into one coherent storyboard.

Final pitches: We then had the scribes tell how they saw the story play out using what they had obtained from the prototyping group. They pitched using their storyboard, which was a scripted wall, like an RSAnimate. These drawings were AMAZING!! After we had heard their story, the storytellers and prototypers explained their approaches and added to the converged version of the story with

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

140

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

One group ensures the flow of information between scattered teams.

They are the connective tissue, the keeper of all knowledge, making sure that all elements come together in the end. annotated drawings on the wall. Groundbreaker attracted such a varied bunch of talented people, we had a fantastic outcome.

The power of detachment It was electrifying to see the gentle power of collaboration. The scribes had merged story and prototype coherently, dropping some elements, and tweaking others. They had no problem to do so, because they weren’t emotionally attached to any of the ideas.

Slaughtering darlings for the benefit of an outcome is so much easier when they’re somebody else’s darlings. I thought that outcome was a really powerful takeaway.

The session was developed by Ele Jansen (www.learndoshare.net, Sydney), Lance Weiler (www.rebootstories.com, New York) and Jorgen van der Sloot (www.freedomlab.org, Amsterdam). We’re refining the process further to develop a solid rapid prototyping model for experience design but also for kids as a playful approach to collaborate and to learn creative problem solving skills in conjunction with story. Results will be used on two levels: lessons learned about process feed into Ele’s PhD research and into our design for Lance’s Story Design Lab at Columbia University. They will also be published on www.learndoshare.net. The prototypes that are generated throughout each Open Design Challenge will be featured www.wishforthefuture.com for others to pick up on it and develop it further (launch end of October 2012).

page

141

Essay:

Forget winning.

Learn to fail.

Aron Bonham, Code Monastery Thomas Edison once joked, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that do not work.”

Everyone loves to win; the sweet nectar of victory is universally sought in all walks of life, be they sporting accolades, business achievement or groundbreaking design. Our successes are often what we use to define ourselves.

It’s also frequently how our worth is judged by others. Winning is good, failing is bad. Or so goes general wisdom.

As young children we are unburdened by the concepts of winning and losing, success or failure, we will happily play, try, do, and experiment for sheer joy of discovery. Unfortunately this freedom rarely survives contact with formal education. As it stands, our education system is based on the black and white of wrong and right. Answer all your questions correctly and you move ahead of your peers. Incorrect answers are met with admonition, reproach and potential shame. This may work well for basic arithmetic and geography, but visual arts? Music? English?

Why is failing a bad thing?

When seen as a simple lack of success, failure is generally avoided at all cost. It lowers our

(self)perceived worth to others, and damages our confidence. I personally believe this is a terrible way to view failure! In the context of learning, failure is the most vital element of success; for without failure, we cannot actually know what success feels like! The lessons taught by failure are essential for improvement and constant improvement is the only way to stay ahead of the game. A safer environment to learn from our mistakes is the key to all progress. This environment maybe physical, familial, mental or educational, or any combination thereof.

I can’t put my feelings any better than Tim Harford, “Few of

our own failures are fatal.”

Failure in our daily lives is no big thing, we all lack success when trying something for the first time. This continuous failure; the kind experienced when learning a language or musical instrument is inherent to growth.

I recently decided to learn guitar and as a beginner every single time I picked up the instrument, I failed. I failed repeated, continuously and utterly. But after a period of time learning a song or passage, I started to fail a little less. A while after that I was failing but in more subtle ways, the notes are now correct but timing is not quite right. The timing is great but the notes still don’t flow. And on and on until I can successfully play the tune.

These are small failures, little misses that are essential to life.

No one ever worries about these.

What we need to learn though is how to fail BIG. If every failure is simply an opportunity to learn, newfound knowledge of how something doesn’t work, there

is no difference between big and small. The bigger the ambition, the larger the failure, the more powerful the lesson!

J.K. Rowling considered that

“Failure meant a stripping away of the inessential.” Failure refines, it

hardens, and it strips away the mundane and leaves diamonds in its wake if we learn from it instead of fear it. Henry Ford, J.K. Rowling, Soichiro Honda, Walt Disney, Thomas Edison, The Wright Brothers, Van Gogh, Steve Jobs. All industry luminaries that initially failed. Some very publicly, some spectacularly and other rather more privately.

These luminaries often failed at what they did for many years at a time. How different the world would be if they saw failure as a reason to stop trying something new. As Steve Jobs said:

“I didn’t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.”

In a time when our society needs radical new ideas to cope with population overflow, rapid depletion of resources and the stark crisis of global warming, creativity and design thinking are not just nice to have, but absolutely necessary. Should our education system still be based on punishing failure at a task?

Punishing failure is the fastest way to douse the flame of creativity. We must find new ways to educate that encourage a fearless approach to thinking, trying and adaptive learning from the earliest age possible.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

142

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

GROUNDBREAKER GROUNDBREAKER A COLLECTIVE OF DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION // JUNE 27 - AUGUST 17 2012 // OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

SEASON CLOSE INVITATION 17TH AUGUST 6-8pm OBJECT GALLERY UPSTAIRS, 417 BOURKE STREET, SURRY HILLS What an experiment! We have had 4,470 minutes of intensity filled crowd-share innovation in the Object gallery. You’ve contributed your thoughts and ideas, built rapid-evolution prototypes and created multiple-persona performances. You have held the crowd at tipping point with your provocative mash (the new lingo for innovation debate).

Now it’s time to re-group and celebrate: Groundbreaker season #1 is officially closing!

We’d like to take the opportunity to thank you and explore the next dimensions of collaboration. We want to continue to envision and enact a new innovation culture for Australia and build new modes of creative entrepreneurship in our city.

Registration Essential (numbers limited): http://groundbreakerseasonclose.eventbrite.com/ More: http://ulab.org.au @_groundbreaker #gbkr More info: curious@groundbreaker.org.au

page

143

GROUNDBREAKER Season Close: What is your commitment?

At the conclusion of the seven weeks of Groundbreaker we had held over 4,470 minutes worth of crowd-share innovation workshops and debates.

Eager not to stall the momentum that had been gathered, we flipped the coin and asked our guests to write their commitment to our ongoing collaboration on a card. We gathered the following opportunities, some of which we have already enacted.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

144

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

page

145

“Awesome, great experience, learned a lot about different ways in which people can share their knowledge and experiences to create something new, people have so much creativity to share, expertly facilitated, caring, sharing, coordinated, socializing, learning about different cultures and experiences, exploring the collaborative process.�

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

146

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

“Interactive, fun, informative, thoughtprovoking, stimulating, well-organised, community, challenging the status quo, hopeful, excited, vibrant, interesting, new, dynamic.�

page

147

“The creative process has become more real, and I have described it to colleagues.

I have suggested we might strategise a problem in our workplace loosely based around the principles.”

page

148

“It was interesting to see different points of view of how lost we are when we try to define something that simple. Being lost in doubt makes me think! That’s positive and desirable for every day!” a book by u.lab

chapter

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

“I now have a greater appreciation of the extent to which personal identification with and therefore investment in existing institutions is a barrier to innovation.”

“Broke the mould on how we think, and how to approach problem solving.” page

149

“It was a great opportunity to hear wide range of ideas and meet people with diverse background and experience to collectively extend thinking on specific topics. Given the time limitation of the mash up session it achieved a great result. “It definitely provided me with exposure to the design thinking practice and share experience with other. I have introduced the idea of including an “Alien” with high potential for bring new idea and add value in project groups. I Plan to introduce other design thinking concepts in the organisation.”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

150

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

“The diversity of participants helped me to conceive new ways to engage intergenerational spaces. It helped me to think out of the box and experiment with new ideas collectively-- how would one collaborate with different points of views.�

page

151

“In particular, the forum highlighted to me the lack of emphasis on ‘design thinking’ in the secondary education system, and this impacts on the way I approach the education system in regards to my 2 children, who I think are particularly ‘visual/ spatial’ in their cognitive mode, and therefore possibly not catered for. I have found this really interesting information to digest, and it has changed the emphasis I put on my kids’ achievements in the secondary education system. Thanks!”

“It reinforced what we’re already doing/ saying/reading regarding design thinking.” page

a book by u.lab

chapter

152

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

“New connections, new possibilities, positive, optimistic, friendly, open to all ideas.�

I definitively want to start making my own system of definitions. I want to find the answers looking at where my experience would lead me rather than where I have been taught. page

153

“The MASH+UP presentation

by Rod Simpson helped me to think how mind body and heart interact in the social and personal world.

Especially his depiction of the personal and institutional negotiation / creation space between discourse / thought and the physical.”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

154

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

GROUNDBREAKER

“In the group discussions I realised I had valuable insight to share due to the way my fellow collaborators listened to my opinion.

It has encouraged me to be more vocal in my views through blogging and presenting.�

page

155

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

156

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

chapter three

c.i. labs In July 2012, u.lab contributed to the delivery of workshops as part of the first series of Creative Innovation Labs (CI Labs) held at UTS. The CI Labs are an initiative of the recently formed Creative Intelligence Unit at UTS and consisted of four days, comprising a series of masterclasses in the mornings and design thinking lab streams held in the afternoons.

Participants who collaborated held various ranges of experience from those first time users of design-led innovation processes, to those who use them as part of everyday practice, and right through to those charged with responsibility for leading an innovation culture. U.lab contributed to two of three lab streams, taking participants on a journey where they applied tools and explored methods for creative innovation and crowd-sharing for collaborative problem solving.

Maureen Thurston of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and Jochen Schweitzer of UTS directed the Catalyst stream. In two half-day sessions participants focused on exploring the practices of design as a means to structure and implement strategic business initiatives. While experiencing design-led problem framing and rapid ideation techniques in real world contexts, teams also considered the implications of a design driven approach to innovation on their role as organisational transformation leaders.

The Creative Futures stream was directed by Joanne Jakovich, Wayne Brookes and Melissa Edwards of UTS and was aimed at exploring human-centred, collaborative and creative problem solving. The group invited Steve Vamos of the Society for Knowledge Economics to set the scene by posing the challenge of envisioning innovative ways to enact radical change in Australian workplaces.

The CI labs were an intense and stimulating experience that was fuelled by random connectivity between strangers, brilliant lectures and thoughtful discussions. They offered periods of creative and abstract conceptualisation at times constrained by moments of artificial boundaries to reign in future imaginings and ground abstractions in the realities of current practice. With great attention to detail that was given to its planning and execution, the CI lab experience is testimony to the amazing things that will happen when bringing together a highly motivated and sharp-thinking group of people. This chapter is a roadmap of our explorations and resolutions. page

157

Catalyst

The Catalyst workshops introduced the practices of creative innovation by allowing participants to experience them in the context of a real problem. In addition, the workshop payed extra attention to understanding and managing the complex relationship between deep insight, exerting leadership and facilitating organisational change.

In the first session, participants studied and applied a range of techniques aimed at better understanding complexity and fragmentation of current issues. So-called ‘wicked problems’, for which there are no right or wrong solutions, and which are inherently vague, socially embedded, complex, and often systemic, were deconstructed.

Shared meaning was created through techniques such as using visual storytelling and empathy exercises. Clarifying the problem space shed further light on the real-world

challenges identified by participants in their organisational context. Participants also reflected on challenges presently experienced by many organisations including managing costs, achieving operational efficiencies, resource utilisation, increasing product and service quality, maintaining organisational growth, strategy alignment and developing innovation practices or - lastly - stakeholder alignment and engagement. Through further iteration, participants identified and analysed the language of defining a focal question or problem statement to limit and/or expand the scope of a problem space to finally define the focal question they wanted to work with. Four teams then worked towards four solutions: enable a holistic lifestyle culture for athletes; build greater organisational innovation capabilities for a company; enable greater compassion and care for nurses; and impart

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

158

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

the practices of creative communication for teachers.

The second session concentrated on the design tools and methodologies that are available to explore and imagine the solution space. Participants engaged in the u.lab 5x5 exercise that required teams to rapidly work through the phases of gaining empathy, ideation, prototyping and idea testing. With only five minutes for each step, they experienced how to make design decisions on the spot, generate lots of ideas without judging them, allowing ‘out of the box’ thinking and doing, and translating conceptual solutions into physical representations through building low fidelity prototypes. Moreover, interactive ways of presenting and sharing ideas, and seeking feedback and engaging within and beyond the team were applied while working on the focal issue.

Through understanding not only design processes and mindsets, but leadership roles and responsibilities, participants developed new and improved approaches to addressing the strategic challenges of their organisation or community. The session took participants through a process of re-examining their own experiences as initiators and leaders of strategic innovation and the issues faced by their organisations in implementing change.

This diversity of participants within each lab allowed exploration of new tools and methods for team formation and facilitation, collaborative problem solving, loosening and tightening boundaries, and exploring techniques for behavioural and cultural change. Creative leaders saw how design can be used as a catalyst for innovation that unlocks creativity and redefines what leadership looks like in the context of innovation. page

159

Creative Futures

Anna Zhu Photography

The Creative Futures workshop stream had diverse teams collaborating to design a future world we want to live in. In particular, tools of creative problem solving and crowdshare innovation were used to envisage the workplace of the future. To imagine future worlds, we need to first explore the problems of today, but then go through a series of activities to remove the boundaries of current practices that cloud our thinking. Then through a range of guided activities, we ideate and prototype the future we want to create.

The final challenge is identifying stakeholders in current environments and explore ways to bring about behavioural and cultural changes to make progress towards our FutureScape.

The challenge to which we applied these methods was the Future of the Workplace in Australia. We collaborated with Steve Vamos

whose work as President of the Society for Knowledge Economics* involves designing an Australia-wide campaign to radically shift workplace cultures across all sectors of our economy. The key question of the campaign asks How can we make Australian Workplaces more participative, fair, innovative, productive and sustainable by better utilising the skills and potential of every person at work?

In December 2011, Steve held the ‘Workplaces of the Future Forum II’ where he engaged sixty delegates from a wide range of sectors and backgrounds in a process of listening and sharing with a view to uncover the thinking and mindsets that define the current state of Australian workplaces along with the needs, challenges, and opportunities that are confronting us.

Looking to diversify the approach to his

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

160

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

campaign and to build on ideas generated in the Forum, Steve Vamos introduced the Future of the Workplace challenge to the Creative Futures participants. Rather than presenting solutions generated by the expert Future Forum panel, Steve shared stories with and inspired the Creative Futures participants leaving open the door of creativity. He outlined how the creation of the Future Workplace required an emphasis on people, a bias towards inspiring action and a change in the language of work.

He challenged us to discover ways we can unleash the potential that’s there in everyone, to meet an ambition to change thinking across Australian workplaces. He shared personal career stories and connected these with the significance of interpersonal relationships in workplaces that aspire to this

future. He pointed out that “the truth is that what productivity is about is working better together, not more hours, not necessarily working harder.”

When considering future technologies that will shape the workplace Steve outlined how his experiences in senior management positions at Apple and IBM demonstrated that “technology doesn’t innovate, people do” and that the barriers to technology implementation were essentially change problems. He stated, “If we want to be more diverse, more innovative, more productive, more sustainable, then we’ve got to change things. We have this problem where we fear change, we avoid change, and we don’t embrace it, yet every inspiration we have requires it”.

Steve challenged the CI participants to find innovative ways to answer the question: “What

* Society for Knowledge Economics http://www.ske.org.au/ page

161

would you do if you could change the way people think about work in this country so that it is more innovative, productive, sustainable, fulfilling, diverse, caring, and inclusive?”

The following pages illustrate the 15 u.lab tools we used to explore this question. Several were designed anew for this workshop.

The schedule for the four afternoons was: DAY ONE: Imagining Futures • Working without knowledge of the Challenge on related creativity exercises 1- Futurescape 5x5 2 - Avatar Prototype 3 - Context Imagining • Team Dynamics 4- Line-up “If you were a piece of cutlery...”

• Transitioning boundaries 5- Binary Breaks 6- Tension Map

7- Ecosystem Mapping DAY TWO: Imagining Future Work • Addressing the Challenge Specifically 8 - Travelling Caravan 9- Storytelling DAY THREE: Creating Future Work 10- Stakeholder Map 11- Point of View 12- Action Statement 13- Rapid Solution Matrix DAY FOUR: Final Presentations The final section presents the final outcomes of four of the Creative Futures teams.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

162

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Tool 1: Futurescape 5x5

FutureScapes are imaginary worlds where tensions apparent in existing landscapes dissipate. Fears encountered when imagining future worlds are overcome through prototyping futures constructed on positive emotions. It is a dreamworld furnished by our best imaginings of the future. The 5x5 format propels the development of the ideal Scape at a rapid prototyping pace and the outcome is a futuristic film set where positive emotions are enhanced by the physical confines. There are five steps of 5 minutes each: 1. WHAT IS IN TENSION? Write as many ideas down as you can about what is in ‘tension’ in the city or in life or society?

2. INTERVIEW EMOTIONS. a. Ask the persons next to you about when

they last felt this emotion or experienced this quality. Ask who/when/why/what. b. Write down the situations.

3. FILM SET/STORYSCAPE. Create a model for a film set storyscape that describes a future situation where character/s are embracing the city and your emotion in a new way.

4. PROTOTYPE. Build your film set that presents your idea for the ‘city that embraces [emotion]’. Design a character for it.

5. PRESENT. Build a presentation that involves all the members in the team. Use the character bubbles to speak opinions about the future. Describe your film set.

page

163

Tool 2: Avatar Prototype

Avatars are personas of FutureScapes.

They possess the capabilities required for future work and superpowers for the imagined characteristics required to function in future scapes.

A persona is a fictional character that represents the typical needs, desires and habits of a defined user group. A persona is used to represent interesting observations into one specific, recognisable character. A unique or typified archetype.

The aim of this tool is to get your team thinking about positives and negatives, opportunities and threats of the imagined futurescapes before tying the creative process to the specific case ie. the workplace.

Ultimately you should invoke emotions that are not connected with workplaces and put yourself in a mindset to think about future ideals rather than current problems. Your

prototype must be physical to remain a tangible symbol throughout the design process. It should embody a persona (avatar).

It needs to personify something that will be useful to build your ideas for the next sessions.

Develop a future persona of someone who inhabits the future scape.

A persona should have: • capablities (superpowers) • emotional strengths and weaknesses (pathos) • function or operation (logic) how does it work? what does it do? why?

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

164

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Tool 3: Context Imagining

Where will future work take place? What are the dimensions of space that will motivate us? If well-being is prioritised how would we imagine work surrounds and conditions. This activity aims to prototype the embodiment of future work spaces and places outside the physical confines of current workplaces.

Instead the focus is on invoking the feelings, aspirations and sentiments of productive activity. We invoke the emotional elements of the meaning of work within an ecosystem, e.g. well being and fulfillment, and the people, e.g. the individuals in the workplace scenarios.

Create a space or place where the avatar can be productive, feel empowered, and creative. In this Ideal (s)p(l)ace: what is the work image? Practices, Places, People, Emotions? What does the avatar need to be

productive in their activity? What emotions inspire well-being? What elements of community/society are treasured? What structures enable equity and opportunity?

When are we most productive? Open?

Creative? Spontaneous? How can we create positive feedback loops in ecosystems?

How do we balance tensions: spontaneous v predictable; comfort v activity, etc ...

Build the (S)p(l)ace with words or materials and present it as the future workplace for your avatar living in the futurescape.

page

165

Tool 4: Line-up

During fast incubation mode where creative collaboration is maximised fast gelling of the team is essential to propel project work.

The line-up is a light hearted way to dig beneath the surface and quickly find shared fascinations between strangers by making the ridiculous the norm. Think 15 minutes of speed networking for creativity, where the aim is not to share only professional expertise, but also your inner quirks.

Participants stand in two rows - face to face in pairs. One person has their back to the wall (the interrogated) the other faces the wall (the Interrogator). Each person has a quirky question. The interrogator does the interviewing. They have one minute to ask questions of the the interrogated and stick post-it notes that summarise the answers on

the wall underneath the interrogated’s name.

After one minute it is a chain dance move along one partner and the person at the head of the row moves to the back of the row. The questions are as follows: # Name, current work, biggest hope for the next gen. # a series of “if you were” quirky questions for eg.: If you were an ice cream, what flavour would you be? Why? If you were an astronaut, which planet would you visit first? Why? If you were a superhero, what would your super power be? Why? If you were a piece of cutlery, what would you be? Why? If you were a train where would you be travelling to? Why?

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

166

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Tool 5: Binary Breaks

Crossing binaries disintegrates siloes and encourages transdisciplinary thinking. The activity aim is to construct new concepts or position existing ones within the spaces between binary opposites. Rather than categorisation into distinct categories, binary breaks determines how and where distinct categories can co-exist. After filling the space in-between binaries we encourage participants to think about the flows and connections between constructed binaries. The activity conditions the minds to think beyond false binaries and create new. There are four steps in the process that take five minutes each:

Competition v cooperation; Entitlement v right; Black v white; Life v work; Lady Gaga v Mr Bean‌..?? The aim is to make as many as possible in 5 mins.

2. For each binary create a circle over the top and then name the overlap. What is the place called where both co-exist?

3. Order them into binaries as tree-stacks (above each other). Develop a logic for hierarchy top-to-bottom.

4. Reflect - How is the flow enabled? Are these false binaries?

1. Each small group is presented with paper with two large circles and are asked to write opposing words in each circle. For example:

page

167

Tool 6: Tension Map

A tensions map helps shape the arguments or positions of a topic. We typically use a tension map to articulate all of the angles that a problem could be seen from. The map is particularly useful for breaking down two or more high level topics into detailed components. This map builds on the binary breaks. There are 4 steps.

4. (Reflect) in your group, how did you lay out the circles and why? How can we harness the tensions using the circle statements to enact action?

1. (Think) Interview each other and discuss in a group which 2 binaries circles strike you as most important, interesting or influential.

2. (Make) Make a matrix with your selected binaries. Map the binaries into the matrix.

3. (Action) Using four different coloured stickies for Emotions, Practices, Strategies and People, write down as many examples of both ends of these dichotomies using examples you’ve experienced or know of.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

168

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Tool 7: Ecosystem Mapping

An ecosystem is a philosophy and functional system used to coordinate the complex interacting components of a challenge [or problem]. The ecosystem is the ‘mission’ and ‘action plan’ of the challenge overlayed with the human elements of ‘relationship’, ‘motivations’, and ‘roles’. Unlike a mission statement or an action plan, an ecosystem is not single-directional; it contains complex loops that feedback into different parts. Most importantly, the Ecosystem clearly articulates the human dimensions. It contains Functions, People, Emotions, and Exchanges. Now we take the binaries from all groups and try to make collective sense of them. Overlay the matrices from each group over one another to build a sketch for broader ecosystem.

The Ecosystem Framework designs the components and goals of the Ecosystem. The aim of the framework should be to set out the

ecosystem dimensions such that structure can emerge. To build the ecosystem each group must first turn their tension map into a concise statement through the half-by-four.

Redefine your tension map into one phrase of 32 words that describes a single problem statement you see arising from your matrix.

Narrow it down to 16 words. Then 8. And 4.

Keep the important key words. Each group shares their idea with all other groups and collectively they map out the idea on the wall.

Use string to represent axes, and post-its to stick on the elements [Functions, People, Emotions, Exchanges].

page

169

Tool 8: Travelling Caravan

The travelling caravan is a method for group ideation in large groups. The tools allows ideation to take place in smaller groups, without duplicating ideas already developed, and providing opportunities for organisation and clustering of ideas as part of the process. It is an efficient mode for largegroup ideation.

The travelling caravan is similar to the World Café method for large group dialogue, but is optimised for speed of idea generation, clustering, summarising and presentation.

What would often take up to 2 hours in a World Café can be achieved in around 30 minutes with the Travelling Caravan while still allowing everyone’s voice to be heard.

In advance, we identified 5 dimensions to explore the workplace of the future, and identified 5 sections of wall to host the caravan. These locations need to have some

space in between them to give groups room to move. The participants were divided into 5 groups, and each group assigned to one of the problem dimensions. One member of each group was nominated as the host for that dimension.

For the workplace of the future, we chose to explore the following 5 dimensions: 1. Scale - of organisations, small to large, types of structures 2. Industry- types of industry, breakdown of industries, hybrid industries, emerging industries 3. Management types/styles 4. Workplace/Workculture problems - types / styles of management, specific industries, specific scales, 5. Scope / Breadth - types of targets for our solutions, personal level.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

170

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

The method progresses as follows: 1. In the first round, each group ideates possible aspects of their dimension, with each idea on a separate post-it note. After approximately 5 minutes, each group rotates to the next station in turn, however the host does not rotate but stays with the original

dimension. Unlike the World CafĂŠ method where participants tend to disperse and join any other table, here the group stays together and moves from one dimension to the next - the caravan travels as a unit.

2. The next round begins with the host giving a brief summary of the discussion from the previous group, and then the second group begins their ideation, adding new ideas to the dimension. The host acts as facilitator.

After another 5 minutes, each group rotates again while the host remains fixed.

3. The remaining rounds progress in a similar way with the host providing an initial briefing followed by ideation. However after the third or fourth round, groups start to find it difficult to add new ideas because it seems like every conceivable idea has already been generated. When this point is reached, the

host should then encourage their current group to look for commonality in the ideas already posted and start clustering and organising the ideas into themes. Sometimes this helps the group to identify gaps and add a few more new ideas. In the later few rounds, you can also reduce the amount of time allocated if required.

4. After all groups have rotated through each of the dimensions, you will end up with ideation around each dimension that has already been organised or clustered. Then tthere is one more round where the original group returns to their “home� dimension.

The task during this final round is for the host and the original group to analyse the ideas posted and be prepared to summarise their dimension to the larger group. The host facilitates the presentation but different group members are encouraged to co-deliver the presentation.

In our case, after the travelling caravan had completed all rounds, and presentations had been done, each team was invited to select one post-it note from each of the five dimensions that they would use in the next stage to frame their problem statement.

page

171

Tool 9: Storytelling

Storytelling is a method used to help teams find focus for their problem area. With each team having chosen one aspect for each of the five problem dimensions through the travelling caravan, teams then need to make those aspects more concrete and work out how to connect the dimensions together as part of a single overall problem. Storytelling helps teams to frame their problem statement and articulate a particular point of view on the problem and present it to others in an entertaining way.

Using aspects of their problem dimension, each team is asked to create a story that follows the pattern of a typical fairytale.

Stories must begin with “Once upon a time

_______”. Teams are encouraged to think about the structure of fairytales in coming up with their story.

1. The story usually has one main protagonist (the “hero”) with whom the audience has to be able to identify, or empathise with. This involves character development, for example through a persona or an avatar. In our case the protagonist is likely to be an employee in a workplace.

2. The protagonist is trying to achieve some noble goal. In our case, this is connected to what the team would like to see in a workplace of the future.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

172

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

3. However, along the way, he or she will encounter a problem - often in the form of an antagonist (the “villain�). This might be an evil boss, a sneaky co-worker, or it might be related to a situation rather than a person.

This relates to the team’s problem statement for their challenge.

4. The hero finds a way to defeat or bypass the villain and ultimately achieve their goal.

As part of this, he or she may encounter a temporary setback and/or meet some friends who may give them tools or special powers to help them to reach their goal. This is where other dimensions of the problem area can be woven into the story.

5. Like every good fairy tale, in the end we want the hero to win and achieve his or her goal, and the villain or problem to be defeated. This may hint at ideas for solutions the team may have thought about.

In the end, teams are encouraged to use role play and don costumes to act out their story for the group and engage their whole person in the presentation.

page

173

Tool 10: Stakeholder Map

The Stakeholder Map is a rough visualisation of all the needs, wants, benefits and costs from all of the people who will be influenced or take part in an enterprise ecosystem. The map visualises the need finding research in a way that describes relational dependency and possible leverage points.

Value creation traditionally focuses on optimising processes, products and services to cater for very specific audiences. In an emerging paradigm of social fluidity and sustainability long term growth and value is increasingly seen in economic models that emphasise the sharing of value. The concept of shared value focuses on strengthening the connections between societal and economic progress. The opportunities for sharing value can be identified by re-defining products and markets, productivity, and local cluster development.

Business models that follow this paradigm

may transform capitalism as we know it and unleash a new chapter of global growth that benefits both, business and society.

Shared value creation implies mapping the wider stakeholder relationships and the social environment that is affected by an organisation’s products and services. This may include staff, policy makers, users, customers and many more. The task then is to identify positive exchange scenarios amongst those players that would benefit society at a larger scale. A value system diagram emerges at the meta level, and can then be further developed to the strategic business model level for that organisation. Mapping out the value system is a great way to address the roles of stakeholders who have no direct commercial relationship to the business, yet could play a role in creating shared value opportunities.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

174

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Tool 11: Point-of-view

A human-centred approach to innovation depends on your ability to let a deep understanding of user needs guide you every step of the way. The key task is to uncover the true motivation that underlies a user’s behaviour, identify needs and discover unmet needs. For this to happen you will collect a lot of relevant data, unearth the gems of information, dust off overlooked opportunities and disentangle complex causal relationships.

Observing and Interviewing users are important ways of gathering such information.

From here, a ‘point-of-view’ statement is developed to defines the unarticulated needs of the user. The point-of-view (PoV) statement can be defined as PoV = User Needs + Insights.

Spending time with users is valuable - so make the most of it. When talking to people with first hand experiences, long term habits

and deeply embedded behaviours, you can learn mountains from talking to them and asking the right questions. Sometimes these are spontaneous, enjoyable and accidental conversations, and sometimes interviews require preparation. Especially after prototyping and testing solutions, when following up with users, it is important to plan your interviews. You may not get to every question you prepare, but you should come in with a plan for engagement.

A staged process of empathy must be combined with processes of synthesising and refocus. This requires taking the results from each stage, laying them bare for all to see, decipher themes and trends, deconstruct to uncover insights, refocus your direction and start on developing the line of enquiry for the next stage.

page

175

Tool 12: Action statement

The action statement directs your ideation effort and encapsulates your vision for the solution space. A refined problem frames and reframes the challenge into an actionable statement that will help you generate better and more focused solutions. The often surprising simplicity and embedded deep insights of an action statement guide the team’s thinking processes and ensure that the solution is understandable.

Action statements are questions that open a problem context for brainstorming. Spending time ensuring the phrasing of your question is crucial. It must invoke action, inquiry and personal commitment to improvement of the identified problem. ‘How’ or ‘why’ questions open the problem to exploration and possibility, whereas ‘what’ questions encourage us to merely describe what is.

Typical action statements might startlike this,

‘Why should we...’, ‘How could we...’ or ‘How might we...’

The second part of the question should focus on improving something. This will vary greatly depending on the problem you have identified and the persona you are solving the problem for. The aim of this part to keep the boundaries closed enough to make it actionable without being too narrow. For example if trying to address sustainable consumption your question/s might be: ‘How could we design a portable water solution?’

Action statements should use words like ‘could’, ‘would’ or ‘should’ to open the question to many possibilities. Finally, make the question personal. Add yourselves in the statement.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

176

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Tool 13: Rapid Solution Matrix

The solutions matrix concept systematises and extends brainstorming. This is rapid ideation and solution generation where propositions are organised by degrees of radicalness and implementation. Based on a 5x5 format the rapid solution matrix takes an idea to prototype by combining elements of low risk and radicalness with those that are easily implementable and difficult to implement. Blending ideas on these scales encourages design that can be both innovative, radical and ‘safe’. The steps are: 1. 5 mins - Rapid solution mode - write down 70+ things that address the action problem statement 2. 5 mins - Cluster on dichotomy map..... dimensions are (implementability, radicalness) 3. 5 mins - Choose 4 (one from each quadrant), Choose 2.

4. 5 mins - Break into two sub-groups; Make a brand + slogan 5. 5 mins - Make a TV commercial, a Jingle and a 32 Word Pitch.

The final stage is quick ‘crowd’ feedback.

Each group presents their Jingles and Brands of the two selected solutions (1 min per solution) as if they were pitching to their key user group. All other participants receive one red and one green card. At the end of the each pitch instant feedback occurs by each participant holding up a green or red card to vote for their favourite of the two options.

page

177

Concept 1: Freshworks

Freshworks is a skunkworks for innovative ideas to bubble up through council and government departments. Employees that have the right set of skills are pooled together to build a dream team receiving training in the right skills they need. When this agile and lightweight team is ready, a small lean lowcost prototype is built using the key features of their idea. Having delivered a prototype of their idea, they are released back into their ecosystems to act as catalysts bringing change in government and local councils. As catalysts, these individuals are what will bring change in the processes and thinking of local councils and government. By providing the right mindset, Freshworks allows people wanting to make change to actually implement change via low-cost lean prototypes to address challenges in their ecosystems. Change bubbles from within organizations helping businesses

and local residents respond to challenges in their world in a faster, efficient, and streamlined manner. The federal government would provide the support to get the right materials, resources, and access to jumpstart Freshworks for kickstarting viable projects via successful delivery of working prototypes.

The ultimate aim of Freshworks is to nurture innovation, inspire risk-taking, create innovation champions, skilling the labor force and fast-tracking innovation.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

178

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Concept 2: Learn. Work. Play.

Our idea in empowering children was to create a forum for them to link with people in industry (positive role models) to find out about the wide range of jobs relating to their interests. Together with an industry person, children would be able to create stories of their perception and aspirations for these jobs and share these stories with others through video clips. The stories would be accessed through a social media platform (web or app) developed by children. In using this, children will be able to seek other children interested in similar types of jobs, creating communities within the overall community, linking young people from different parts of Australia in sharing their stories and aspirations for work.

This forum would be children-led, however be a useful tool for parents and teachers for talking to their children about work as well.

The initiative would be kicked off by a TEDx

Kids@Work creating further content for the forum. We also saw in conjunction with this ‘positive work movement’ a soap opera being developed with appealing characters who reversed the negative stereotypes currently prevalent in media.

page

179

Concept 3: Omniboxmosis

“Unbox your organisation. Unbox your talent. Stop stacking yourself! Start flowing!”

Value is not just a paycheck: it is knowledge and growth. It is professional acknowledgement; how people relate to each other. We live in a networked economy, so let’s decentralise and diminish bureaucracy. Omnibox is a business model that understands that human networks are the cornerstone of future workplaces: a model that balances change, routine and retention.

OmniBox helps organisations become intelligently fluid to enable the learning, progression and movement of people as they work. It is a human-centred technological approach to analyse how people interact through work, enabling the organisation to use this knowledge system to fluidly organise people. It allows omnidirectional movement of people and tasks to create an

agile organisation, and to adopt mentoring rather than hierarchical management. It is a user-centred intelligent structure to build a connected workforce through igniting intrinsic motivation. Organisations will be fluid and osmotic, not hierarchical and siloed.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

180

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

C.I. LABS

Concept 4: Calibration Nation

“Giving the workplace tools to connect with childhood wonder”.

Calibration nation is about bringing childlike wonder back to the workplace. It is inspired by the insight that the way adults talk about ‘work’ to young people influences their perceptions about work as they grow. Children are naturally full of curiosity, empathy, innovation, and collaboration. At some stage while in the education system these treasured characteristics fade. As a consequence, current workplaces are commonly occupied by employees without these characteristics..

What would happen if we bought the childlike intrigue to the workplace to re-shape adult perceptions of work? Calibration nation aims to capture the creativity of children to bring a new perspective to the way we operate at work through a series of co-design workshops with kids and adults from a specific workplace.

Children will be the ‘consultants’. They will understand work problems through simple language. Through their natural playfulness they will create solutions that work-weary adults may not have dared to propose. These co-design workshops bring a child-centred approach to workplace problems.

page

181

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

182

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

chapter four

design parramatta

The ParraBlock project was developed in collaboration with Terroir, Aspect Studios, and Richard Goodwin as part of Design Parramatta.

Design Parramatta is a collaborative project between Parramatta City Council and the NSW Government Architects Office. The program engaged over fifteen teams of mixed professionals to propose new ideas for Parramatta’s public spaces, streets and lanes. Its purpose it to merge these proposals into a conceptual masterplan to catalyse future planning for the City of Parramatta.

We formed a multidisciplinary team between business, architecture, landscape architecture and art to produce a future vision for the City of Parramatta. As part of the program we participated in three workshops and two public presentations, where we shared ideas with the other teams and received feedback from a panel of urban design and architecture experts.

Our team was assigned the task of creating an identity and plan for the Parramatta city ring road, a loose collection of streets that could be connected to form a loop.

This Chapter illustrates our team’s proposal: ParraBlock - a vision to radically increase density to create a new ‘north bank’ cultural living precinct, improve the connections across the river, while highlighting the utility of the ring road through a series of landmark urban design insertions.

page

183

Parramatta City Ring-road Our brief for the project asked us to create a unique, compelling and cohesive identity for the Parramatta City Ring Road. At first interpretation, the concept of a ring road seemed implausible, as the seven roads requested to form it were of differing scale, fabric and importance to the city, and in the current context provided little amenity for circling the city.

We started by redefining the brief to consider dealing with a threshhold and a field, not so much a line or a ring. The shape of the suggested roads form less a ring than a ‘block’, and the concept of the ParraBlock in which density of traffic is decreased, and pedestrian mobility is enabled. The perimeter into this block might define a threshold of entrances, which frame and give identity to a new city centre or ‘downtown’ of Parramatta.

The ParraBlock consists of seven existing streets, forming a boundary condition or ‘block’ across which a network or a net of veins run into the city centre from the ring road - past other sites that council is commissioning. This fabric should celebrate the unique multicultural, thriving cultural economy through characteristic zones of blended living-market places. At the threshold into the ‘block’ a series of car parks/ park and ride/ infrastructure for daily needs/ and public transport nodes frame the modal shift from car to ‘Block Citizen’. Here walking, buses, cycling, and light rail shape movement within the Block, and private cars are limited.

We expanded our brief further and speculated whether incentivising positive change through re-zoning could assist in developing a recognisable city centre identity. We questioned what kind of development could stimulate a cultural urban fabric that would facilitate the City of Parramatta’s visionary ambition: “To be the driving force and heart of Australia’s most significant economic region; a vibrant home for diverse communities to prosper; and a centre of excellence in research, education and enterprise”.

In order to address this, the key outcome through our multi-scalar approach was to develop a series of insertions that manifest in an identity for Parramatta: ‘The Parra Block.’ At the core we defined our task an identity-forming project that spans a 20 year plan to create a cultural thickening and a distinct place globally to live, work and create.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

184

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

185

“When I think of Parramatta, I think of its traffic and congestions”

“I think of different place where there are many people from all over the world” “A very busy place, pretty much got everything”

“Boring, plain, frustrating, 1980s”

“Business is what I think of, because I don’t live here, I work here. This is where the business is”

“And right now I think, I hope I think, of growth”

We wanted to understand the identity of Parramatta. We interviewed over 25 people and asked them, “What do you think of when you think of Parramatta?” Here are some of the answers.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

186

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

“I don’t know very much about Parramatta, but the Westfield.

“Food actually, yes, food”

I’ve never lived here, I don’t go out here, I just go to work. So, when I think of Parramatta I think of work.

“I love Parramatta, I work here, I come out here, yes I love it” page

187

We asked people “Where do you think the boundaries of the Parramatta city centre are?”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

188

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

The drawings began to illustrate the array of edges that people perceive, suggesting numerous thresholds from suburb to city. When we overlaid them all, a rich tapestry emerged that offered an urban condition to develop a collective of insertions in addition to a ring road.

page

189

PARA BLOCK LOGO

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

190

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

PARRABLOCK It is important for the identity of any city that it has an identifiable centre and also a boundary. The boundary allows us to identify the city centre and to understand when we are crossing in and out of this space.

The Parramatta City Ring road is a project which brings together seven existing streets in the inter- ests of defining a boundary. The project addresses not only the physical issues related to these streets but a psychological project in that it defines the centre of Parramatta. Therefore, in both its physical and mental components this is an identity project. We call this identity project ‘The Parra Block’.

The Parra Block will be developed via a 20 year plan to create a cultural thickening and a distinct place to live, work and create. At the threshold into the Block, a series of car parks/park and ride/ infrastructure for daily needs/ and public transport nodes frame the modal shift from car to ‘Block Citizen’. Here, walking, buses, cycling, and light rail shape movement within the Block, while the impact of private cars will be reduced.

The key outcomes of our multi-scalar and multi-mode approach will be the physical and mental realization of the Parra Block. In this way, we will manifest an identity for Parramatta.

The four components of the Parra Block identity project are as follows: 1. The City Centre project, confirming the importance of the CBD between the rail and river, its heritage importance (built on the original Georgian grid) and its global importance as a key part of the information economy; 2. The North Bank. By identifying the Parra Block and the City Centre within it, we have discov- ered a large area to the north of the river which could be redeveloped as a major mixed use, arts and cultural hub; 3. Pressure Point projects. A series of pressure point projects must be addressed which ensure the connectivity necessary to deliver the vision. These projects include bridges, river buildings, cycle paths and pedestrian networks; which intergrate the 14 other curated city projects.

4. Software projects. A culture must be developed in parallel with these physical proposals. This will also occur over a 20 year timeframe with small initial projects gathering creative citizens via social media and public engagement to larger and longer term ambitions to develop major cultural institutions.

The following diagrams illustrate our analysis from meta scale, engaging with the urban fabric of Parramatta, leading towards our proposal, which are illustrated in the final perspective illustrations.* *Created by Terroir and Aspect Studios.

page

191

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

192

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

193

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

194

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

195

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

196

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

197

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

198

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

199

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

200

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

201

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

202

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

203

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

204

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN PARRAMATTA

page

205

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

206

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

SOFT LINES

chapter five

soft lines

Where does the best creative collaboration happen, and what has design and the body’s engagement in space have to do with this? At u.lab we are carrying out research into the role of space and atmosphere in collaborative innovation scenarios.

Soft Lines is a study of the spaces and bodies of collective creativity. Through our numerous workshops in diverse spaces, we investigate where the best creative collaborations happen and how design of the body’s engagement in space influence open innovation. Research into creativity processes is common, yet less is known about the architecture of environments that facilitate creative interactions. Our aim is to understand the qualities of body language that correspond to innovation practices and to determine how these might be designed for in space.

In this project we use analytical drawing methods and animation to examine behavioural patterns. Looking at u.lab, Groundbreaker and BikeTank, the work examines these emerging contexts where entrepreneurship, research and education meet the city. This Chapter presents the diagrams that form the first phase in this three part project. They are the starting point for a diagrammatic typology of the spatial ergonomics of crowd-share innovation. This approach suggests that rather designing space from the ‘hard’ lines of architectural drawing, we should consider the ‘soft’ lines of human activity, sound, and attention.

The Soft Lines project was exhibited at the DAB LAB Research Gallery in October 2012. The DAB LAB exhibits the leading creative research of the academic staff and postgraduate students from the UTS Faculty of Design, Architecture and the Built Environment.

page

207

Soft Lines: A study of the spaces and bodies of collective creativity

BUILDINGS ARE OFTEN SEEN AS SHELLS THAT WE INHABIT. WHAT IF THEY WERE A MALLEABLE CONTEXT THAT WORE INTO SHAPE AFTER REPEATED PATTERNS OF USE? THIS STUDY EXPLORES THE SPACES AND BODIES OF COLLECTIVE CREATIVITY. PHOTOS OF A SPACE IN USE OVER TIME ARE RICH SOURCES FOR INSIGHT. BY SPLITTING THE IMAGE BETWEEN BODY AND SPACE, CONCEPTS LEADING TOWARDS A MALLEABLE SPACE EMERGE. ANIMATED PLANS ABSTRACT ACTIVITIES TIME BUILDINGS ARE OFTEN SEEN AS SHELLS THAT WE OVER INHABIT. AND EBBS ANDA FLOWS IN ATTENTION AND WORE INTO WHATREVEAL IF THEY WERE MALLEABLE CONTEXT THAT POSSIBLITY NEW PLANNING. SHAPE AFTERFOR REPEATED PATTERNS OF USE? THIS NEW KINDS CREATIVE THIS STUDY STUDY SUGGESTS EXPLORES THAT THE SPACES AND OF BODIES OF SPACES CAN BE DESIGNED BY STUDYING THE ‘SOFT LINES’ COLLECTIVE CREATIVITY. OF HUMAN INTERACTION, BEFORE GENERATING THE HARD LINES DRAWING. THE ARE CURRENT PHOTOSOFOFARCHITECTURAL A SPACE IN USE OVER TIME RICH WORK SOURCES LEADS TOWARDS BY A LANGUAGE FOR INDUCTIVE FOR INSIGHT. SPLITTINGAND THEPROCESS IMAGE BETWEEN BODY AND DESIGNING OF NEW LEADING FORMS OFTOWARDS CREATIVE SPACE. SPACE, CONCEPTS A MALLEABLE SPACE EMERGE. ANIMATED PLANS ABSTRACT ACTIVITIES OVER TIME IN DISPLAY, FORM, EDGE, AND ANDTHIS REVEAL EBBS AND FLOWS IN TEXTURAL, ATTENTION SOCIAL AND CONTEXTUAL ABOUT COLLABORATIVE POSSIBLITY INFORMATION FOR NEW PLANNING. INTERACTIONS IS EXTRACTED. WORKSHOP EVENTS AT THREE INFORMAL ANDSUGGESTS TEMPORARY CREATIVE SPACES USED BY THE THIS STUDY THAT NEW KINDS OF CREATIVE U.LAB THESE ARE 50THE KENSINGTON ST, SPACESARE CANTHE BE MATERIAL. DESIGNED BY STUDYING ‘SOFT LINES’ OBJECT GALLERY AND THE BEFORE UPN VOID SPACE. OF HUMAN INTERACTION, GENERATING THE HARD LINES OF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING. THE CURRENT WORK DUE TO TOWARDS THEIR IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO URBAN STREETLIFE LEADS A LANGUAGE AND PROCESS FOR INDUCTIVE ALL THREE SPACES UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DESIGNING OF NEW FACILITATE FORMS OF CREATIVE SPACE. CREATIVE ACTIVITY THAT MIXES RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND INNOVATION. IN THIS DISPLAY, FORM, EDGE, TEXTURAL, SOCIAL AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT COLLABORATIVE AT KENSINGTON IS ST EXTRACTED. U.LAB DEVELOPED THE EVENTS BIKETANK A INTERACTIONS WORKSHOP AT –THREE HYBRID OF AND URBAN THINKTANK THAT FOUNDED INFORMAL TEMPORARY CREATIVE SPACES THE USED5X5

BY RAPID THE IDEATION IN OBJECT THESE GALLERY, TESTED NEW U.LAB ARETOOL. THE MATERIAL. ARE U.LAB 50 KENSINGTON ST, FORMS CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION THE OBJECTOFGALLERY AND THE UPN VOID WITH SPACE. GROUNDBREAKER SERIES. IN THE UPN VOID SPACE, NEW MODES HUMAN-CENTRED LED TO EDUCATION TAKE DUE TOOFTHEIR IMMEDIATE DESIGN PROXIMITY URBAN STREETLIFE PART IN THESPACES CONTEXT WHERE UTSUNIQUE MEETS OPPORTUNITIES THE CITY. ALL THREE FACILITATE FOR CREATIVE ACTIVITY THAT MIXES RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND INNOVATION.

A design research exhibition by Joanne Jakovich, Jochen Schweitzer and u.lab DAB LAB Research Gallery, Ultimo 3-26 October 2012

Buildings are often seen as shells that we inhabit. What if they were a malleable context that wore into shape after repeated patterns of use?

This study explores the spaces and bodies of collective creativity.

AT KENSINGTON ST U.LAB DEVELOPED THE BIKETANK – A HYBRID OF URBAN THINKTANK THAT FOUNDED THE 5X5 RAPID IDEATION TOOL. IN OBJECT GALLERY, U.LAB TESTED NEW FORMS OF CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION WITH THE GROUNDBREAKER SERIES. IN THE UPN VOID SPACE, NEW MODES OF HUMAN-CENTRED DESIGN LED EDUCATION TAKE PART IN THE CONTEXT WHERE UTS MEETS THE CITY.

Photos of a space in use over time are rich sources for insight. By splitting the image between body and space, concepts leading towards a malleable space emerge. Animated plans abstract activities over time and reveal ebbs and flows in attention and possibility for new planning.

This study suggests that new kinds of creative spaces can be designed by studying the ‘soft lines’ of human interaction, before generating the hard lines of architectural drawing. The current work leads towards a language and process for inductive designing of new forms of creative space.

In this display, form, edge, textural, social and contextual information about collaborative interactions is extracted. Workshop events at three informal and temporary creative spaces used by the u.lab are the material. These are 50 Kensington st, Object Gallery and the UPN void space.

Due to their immediate proximity to urban streetlife all three spaces facilitate unique opportunities for creative activity that mixes research, education and innovation.

At Kensington st, u.lab developed the BikeTank – a form of urban thinktank that founded the 5x5 rapid ideation tool. In Object Gallery, u.lab tested new forms of crowd-share innovation with the groundbreaker series. In the UPN Void space, new modes of human-centred design led education take part in the context where UTS meets the city.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

208

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

SOFT LINES

50 KENSINGTON STREET, CHIPPENDALE

Kensington St Warehouse, Chippendale

50 KENSINGTON STREET, CHIPPENDALE

URBAN CONTEXT 1:500

PLAN 1:100

URBAN CONTEXT 1:500

PLAN 1:100

Object Gallery Surry Hills

OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

OBJECT GALLERY, SURRY HILLS

URBAN CONTEXT 1:500

PLAN 1:100

1:200 URBAN CONTEXT 1:500

PLAN 1:100

1:200

UPN Void Space, Ultimo

VOID BUIDLING, ULTIMO PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

URBAN CONTEXT 1:500

PLAN 1:100

page

209

Spaces of collective creativity

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

210

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

SOFT LINES

page

211

Bodies of collective creativity

U.LA INNO

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

212

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

SOFT LINES

page

213

Animation stills depicting the arrangement of bodies in space over a single crowd-share innovation event

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

214

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

SOFT LINES

page

215

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

216

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

chapter six

cityswitch

CitySwitch is an international urban innovation program associated with u.lab. But more than that, it can be seen as a form of crowd-share innovation that focuses on the creative productivity generated by bringing together minds and hearts from different countries and cultures.

CitySwitch projects develop innovative ideas through international collaboration and exchange of people. Each CitySwitch project starts with two teams residing in different countries. To kick off the project, one team travels to the other, and then by collaborating with local inhabitants on key issues of urban revitalisation, participants from both countries collectively design future visions for the host city.

The core program of 5-day international workshops are supplemented by local 1-day workshops, symposia and ongoing advocacy. One of the main outcomes of CitySwitch is to develop communication materials such as full-scale prototype installations and videos that help local stakeholders visualise a new future in their city.

CitySwitch1 was established in 2006 with a grant from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and has since assisted four urban revitalisation programs in China, Japan and Australia. It has attracted further Australian and Japanese government funding and individual investment from participants and private companies. Over 150 people from Japan, Australia and China have exchanged knowledge and creative ideas through international design workshops to advance problem solving for pressing urban challenges.

In September 2012, students and staff from u.lab travelled to Shimizu, Japan to participate in the fifth international workshop ‘CitySwitch Minato Fuji 2012’. Over a five day period, Australian and Japanese creative minds worked together to propose new ideas for breathing life into a retiring industrial port in Shimizu. This chapter tells the story of CitySwitch, including our most recent adventures in Shimizu.

1 CitySwitch is directed by Satoru Yamashiro (Japan) and Joanne Jakovich (U.lab, Sydney) working in collaboration with local organisations in each city.

page

217

CitySwitch Creative Activation Model ENVIRONMEN T DIVERSE STA KE

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

PHYSICAL CITY [VACATED]

LOCAL ECONOMY

SOCIAL SUSTA INA

ISSUE

[DECLINING]

[SPATIAL ECONOMIC]

PPROACH YA LIT BI

EXT ONT /C

DEL E MO TIC AC PR

ERS LD HO

CREA TIV E

Joanne Jakovich

SOCIETY

[SHRINKING POPULATION]

MINDSET SKILLS CAPACITIES

PROCESS

BUILD SOCIAL CAPTIAL

ITERATION PARTICIPATION PROTOTYPE

ENGAGING SELF-INTEREST

5 DAY

1:1 PROTOTYPING

COMMUNITY

ACTIVE SPACE

BUILD EXTERNAL EXPOSURE

1 DAY

EVENTS

CULTURAL EXPRESSION

BRAND

TEMPORARY + LONG TERM

INCREASED

SPACE VALUE

TS AC MP

REA LI

ARTEFACTS 12 DAY

ACTIVE SPACE

EMERGING

ENTERPRISES

NARRATIVE

1.5 HR

COMMUNITY OF AGENTS

CitySwitch is an international urban revitalisation project that draws on participatory intelligence of local and visiting designers to build new active systems of engagement in cities.

Through ‘switching’ people between cultures and cities, the project believes that diverse cultural and geographical viewpoints can offer local city areas alternative visions and methods for revitalisation.

The individual projects that have been underway in Japan and Australia since 2006 demonstrate how diverse viewpoints are leveraged to embed new behaviours in the city that contribute to

positive revitalisation.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

218

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

City = urban context, people, place, economy, form, the vessel for over 50% of the world’s population Switch = cultural translation, opposition, other, using these forces to drive creativity through openness to new ideas, sharing, new solutions, new approaches, reenlivened activity Design is an important vehicle for urban change; but design needs to be active.

CitySwitch is investigating

and enacting collaborative models of design that have the capacity to redefine urban development in a way that is socially sustainable and creative. As illustrated in the creative activation model (above), CitySwitch redefines the typical ‘clientdesigner-user’ relationship into a new participatory urban development system. CitySwitch ties together the needs of local stakeholders and builds social capital through creative interventions that incrementally visualise a new future for the city starting with small installations and iterating towards larger projects.

ISSUES ETHICS VALUES MEETING BASIC NEEDS ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP HARMONIOUS BEHAVIOUR PARTICIPATION

MINDSET REQUIRES DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF:

S

H OAC PR AP

SO CI AL

ITY BIL NA I TA US

HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVES PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Social Sustainability Approach Cities are increasingly aiming to achieve sustainability that is economic, environmental and social. In this global context, which demands minimal risk matched with ethical decision-making, design challenges become infinitely complex. Developers and cities alike are hesitant to invest in large projects where the economy or population

REQUIRES BEHAVIOURS:

WELLBEING

HUMAN NEEDS + WANTS ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITS PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY RESOURCE USE HISTORY, TRADITIONS EQUITY IN PARTICIPATION SELF-FULFILMENT + ALTRUISM

COOPERATION SOCIAL & CULTURAL DIVERSITY

HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

DIALOGUE, EMPATHY PARTICIPATION, SHARING COMPROMISE, NEGOTIATION OPENNESS, RELFECTION ENGAGEMENT, INTERACTION PROBLEM SOLVING IN TEAMS

is shrinking. It is in these conditions that CitySwitch approaches the challenge of urban revitalisation from a social sustainability perspective.

While economic and environmental sustainability are relatively well understood, social sustainability, where human ethics, wellbeing and active citizenship are considered, has fewer tools and precedents to

draw upon.1 CitySwitch approaches revitalisation in declining urban contexts by starting with human issues (left hand column above) and developing an intensive program of collaborative design that builds the mindset of social sustainability: dialogue, participation, openness, engagement, interaction, and problem solving in teams (above right).

page

219

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

DRIVERS:

TRY IT

CREATIVITY

EVALUATE

PRACTICAL LEARNING

TOOLS: IMMERSION

PERSUASION

OBSERVATION

STORYTELLING

EMPATHY

COMMUNICATION

PARTICIPATION

NETWORK FORMATION

REFLECT

‘USER’ UNDERSTANDING

ITERATE

ITERATIVE DEVELOPMENT

MODIFY

INNOVATIVE THINKING APPROPRIATE DECISION-MAKING

TRIAL + ERROR

MISTAKES + SUCCESSES

LEARN

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

TRY AGAIN

EVOLVING KNOWLEDGE + EVOLVING METHODS

MODEL

Methodology CitySwitch is an action-based project that improves through ongoing experimentation. It draws on tools of immersion, storytelling and network formation to build a robust platform for public participation (above). The directors of CitySwitch are embedded in academia and participate in the hybrid role of designer, facilitator, educator, and researcher.

In this context, the shared CitySwitch knowledge base evolves via a Participatory Action Research modality

that combines social investigation, research work and action through collaborative practice.2 The central element of the CitySwitch methods is the five-day intensive design workshop. This is embedded in the host city, usually occupying an untenanted space, so that the participants can deeply engage with the particular problems of that city. Four teams of up to ten people work in parallel to explore the challenge through community interviews, site visits, brainstorming,

visualising and prototyping.

In only five days, new visions for the host city are created and in many cases, a full scale prototype of a physical space is created (see projects in following pages).

Stakeholders from local government, business and the community come together for interviews, talks, debates and presentations. The five days achieves a heightened form of programmatic occupation of the urban space that provides impetus for the local community to continue activating the city.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

220

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

CORE STAKEHOLDER

KEY CONSULTANT

CORE STAKEHOLDER

KEY CONSULTANT

BRIEF

DESIGN COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

USAGE

- TENANTS - CUSTOMERS - CITIZENS

SUB

USAGE

- TENANTS - CUSTOMERS - CITIZENS

BRIEF

DESIGN

BRIEF

DESIGN

ACTIVE PARTNERSHIP

BRIEF

DESIGN

ACTIVE PARTNERSHIP

DIVE RSE ST AK EH O

DIVE RSE ST AK EH O

SUB

S ER LD

CORE STAKEHOLDER LOCAL S DESIGNERS ER LD

EVENTS

LOCAL AUTHORITY

CORE STAKEVISITING LOCAL HOLDER COMMUNITY DESIGNERS LOCAL LOCAL DESIGNERS AUTHORITY

LOCAL COMMUNITY

VISITING DESIGNERS

First Steps in a Citizencentric Model of Urban Development CitySwitch members in Izumo city, Japan have begun to generate new built projects in the city that are intimately supported and co-designed by an active local group of urbanists, the local authorities, and the community. The first permanent infrastructure is a sustainable local tourism centre that has recently been completed. Through demonstration of socially sustainable urban design practices via international

LARGE SCALE PROTOTYPES

COMMUNITY OF AGENTS

LARGE SCALE PROTOTYPES

COMMUNITY OF AGENTS

EVENTS SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

SOCIAL ENTERPRISES

workshops and numerous smaller workshops, the CitySwitch Japan team instigated this unique project in cooperation with the local government. The process of co-design of this centre involved numerous community workshops that built on the initial concept generated in the five day international workshop.

Differing to a typical city tourism office, the local community develops the materials (walking and cycling maps, local events, local information) on an ongoing basis that form the

tourist destinations on offer.

In this way, CitySwitch provides an alternative model of urban development where stakeholders from government, business, the design profession, and the community work together in an open and collaborative manner to incrementally test and iterate innovative solutions for a problem (top).

This is a markedly different approach to typical urban development where the client (landowner) and chief design consultant are central to brief development and have limited consultation with community.

page

221

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

12 DAY

URBAN ISLANDS

5 DAY

CITYSWITCH INT’L

1 DAY

CITYSWITCH LOCAL

1.5 HR

BIKETANK SYDNEY

SYDNEY

IZUMO

NEWCASTLE

IZUMO IZUMO

DALIAN

SHIMIZU

SYDNEY

Background of Projects to Date This diagram shows the evolution of international and local workshops developed by the directors of CitySwitch and forming the foundation for the current model. In 2005 and 2006, twelve-day international workshops called the ‘Urban Islands’ were held on Cockatoo Island, Sydney Harbour.

From here, the CitySwitch program emerged as a five-day series collaborating between Japan and Australia.

These international workshops stimulated interest and enthusiasm in

the city of Izumo, and from here the local Japan team instigated a series of one-day workshops with residents and government to ensure the ongoing development of concrete outcomes. In the Sydney context, the local team at U.lab developed the BikeTank; a series of 1.5 hour intensive workshops held in collaboration with the local community, although not formally a CitySwitch program. The following pages illustrate some of the processes and outcomes from the CItySwitch workshops in Izumo and Newcastle in 2008 and 2010.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

222

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

1. Mcmahon, M & Bhamra, T. ‘Design Beyond Borders’: International Collaborative Projects as a Mechanism to Integrate Social Sustainability into Student Design Practice, Journal of Cleaner Production. #23 (2012) 86-95.

2. Hall B. Participatory Research, Popular Knowledge, and Power: A Personal Reflection. Convergence 1981;14:6-19.

CitySwitch Izumo 2008

page

223

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

224

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

page

225

A map of the various temporary street interventions created by the CitySwitch Izumo 2008 participants in collaboration with locals.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

226

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

page

227

CitySwitch Newcastle 2010

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

228

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

page

229

‘Sticky Streets’ tape art and flash mob developed during CitySwitch Newcastle 2010

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

230

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

page

231

CitySwitch Izumo 2010

page

232

page

233

Temporary installations developed during CitySwitch Izumo 2010

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

234

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

page

235

CitySwitch Minato Fuji International CitySwitch Workshop Shimizu Port, Shizuoka, Japan 22-26 September 2012

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

236

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

For five days u.lab students worked intensively on a new vision for a retiring industrial port in the city of Shimizu in Shizuoka, Japan. Hosted by the Suzuyo Company, a key stakeholder and port company in the region, we broke into four teams and assessed the opportunity and feasibility of floating stages, beach front onsens, graffiti art camp, hot air balloon tours and an ambitious new community program of participatory urbanism.

Shimizu boasts a rare urban case in Japan: it is located in the region of the soon to be a world treasure, Mount Fuji, and offers one of the only viewing locations where the ocean meets the mountain. Shimizu has a rich industrial shipping history but is now facing dramatic changes due to the ever-increasing scale of container ships, pushing the business out of the inner harbour into the peripheral zone of Shimizu.

Over the five days, eight students from u.lab and nine students from around Japan merged forces to create new ideas for the Shimizu port area. We visited local business, listened to the needs of the community and invested in heated sprints for diverse and novel ideas through the u.lab 5X5. The photo essay here describes the experiences and outcomes of CitySwitch Minato Fuji 2012.

page

237

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

238

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

page

239

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

240

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

CITYSWITCH

page

241

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

250

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

chapter seven

design thinking education In the u.lab we study design thinking, transdisciplinary methods of innovation, and models for crowd-shared innovation. One of our primary areas of research is the pedagogy of teaching these methods, which includes studying group dynamics, group interaction, innovation in spaces, and new business models.

Each u.lab workshop is grounded in research. Our methods include a pre-interview for all participants, observation during sessions using ethnographic research techniques and post-lab testing. In understanding human interactions during the ideation and problem-solving process, we can track instances where co-creation generates new insights and from here we can seek to foster the conditions where this is more likely to occur. Through heightening emotional and creative capabilities such as empathy, intuition and imagination, u.lab develops creative intelligence.

Learning labs provide rich qualitative and quantitative data on group dynamics and group interaction and the nature and role of innovation spaces. This data finds its way into publications, which help share the insights generated through our programs and activities, and provide input for advancing the engagement with students, academics, business and the community.

For this chapter we invited Leanne Sobel of Macquarie Graduate School of Management to report some of the key findings of her recent study about the state of design thinking in Australia and the opportunities that it presents for business and design. The article reveals the perception and assessment of professionals working in the design thinking space in Australia and calls for educational programs to address the need for design thinking skills. In another article we make the case for new curriculum development and call for business school education to shift from teaching ‘logical thinking and reasoning skills’ to ‘creative skill development’ a la design thinking. Finally, we report on initial findings about the emergence of entrepreneurial design practices from the u.lab programs.

page

251

Could Greater Awareness and Use of Design Thinking Change Business in Australia?

Leanne Sobel Design thinking has been explored internationally as a tool for business seeking innovation as documented by influential authors, practitioners and scholars across business, design, governments and academia1. However, the adoption of design thinking in Australia appears to be lagging in comparison with those practising and investigating it globally. Why is this so?

As a designer, who has worked with business both in the capacity of a designer and design manager, I was always interested in understanding how business and design could work more closely together to achieve greater outcomes. In undertaking my Masters of Management at Macquarie Graduate School of Management the opportunity arose to investigate this very thing, and to specifically look at the rise of design thinking globally and to look at how Australian businesses and the design industry were responding to this. Design thinking has been discussed as a way to bring design closer to business and more importantly as a way to evolve business, to become more innovative in building more productive and dynamic business operations. To me, and my hunch through my own experiences, was that Australia had not yet caught on to the greater benefits of design for innovation and business strategy, and more broadly were Australian businesses adopting or engaging in design thinking? As a result of this sustained curiosity, the opportunity to investigate this arose, and in order to complete my studies I undertook a research report that specifically focused on this subject.

The outcome, Design Thinking, Exploring Opportunities for the Design Industry and Business In Australia, investigates how business and design in Australia are responding to design thinking, and also unveils the barriers and opportunities that exist for both design and business in this field. Interviews were conducted with professionals working in the design thinking space in Australia revealed that: a) Australian businesses are generally not aware of or adopting design thinking, b) the benefits of design and design thinking in the pursuit of innovation by business are poorly understood, and c) the design and business sectors, educational providers and the Australian Government have the opportunity to develop capabilities in delivering design thinking for greater business performance and economic outcomes. The information unveiled by this research provided insights into the way design thinking is perceived, understood and adopted in the Australian environment page

a book by u.lab

chapter

252

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

and as such provides the platform for further research and discourse on the subject within the Australian context.

Specifically there are many opportunities for design and business in the adoption of design thinking in Australia. The research highlighted that there are pockets of interest and awareness throughout the design and business community, and that it is only at the very early stages of development in Australia. Unlike other nations, Australian businesses are yet to recognise the extended value that design and design thinking can bring business in the pursuit of innovation and growth beyond aesthetic pursuits. Furthermore, the design Industry is still defining how to work in this space and is challenged as to how it should communicate the extended value of design to business.

So how is design thinking being adopted internationally and why is it relevant from a national perspective in Australia?

In 2005 United Kingdom’s Economics and Finance Ministry commissioned a report to investigate how Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s) were utilising creative skills in business2. The Cox Review, explored the way in which businesses could benefit from becoming more creatively minded and design-led (beyond design for aesthetic application). Cox argued that design was a key driver for business in creating sustainable competitiveness, increased productivity and thus a contributing factor in the long-term economic successes of the UK. Cox highlights the responsibility for the UK Government in promoting the value of design for business in this context. Additional research was conducted in tandem to the Cox Review3 resulting in subsequent initiatives led by the government and the UK Design Council4. The Cox Review was commissioned to specifically investigate SMEs in the manufacturing sector; however, Cox makes a point that these principles should be applied to other industries and larger entities in the same pursuit.

The Danish Government has long supported design as a key national economic driver through the integration of national design policy and design programs5. In The Vision of the Danish Design 2020 Committee6, design is explored as: 1) a key enabler of innovation in enterprises, 2) developing solutions for social problems, and 3) developing design approaches for innovation leading to national growth.

Here, design is proposed as a concern for the Government because of its impact on the economy, productivity and business growth, additionally also for its broader application in society. Similarly, the European Union has also pointed to design as a way of approaching such broad economic and social problems facing the international community7. In New Zealand, the Better by Design program supports business in developing design-led approaches, in which the objectives for business growth are geared to enabling the development of local exporters, which for a small, isolated nation is critical to national growth8. Furthermore, design thinking is

page

253

also explored as an approach to developing sustainable business practices in their pursuit of such outcomes9. This sentiment is supported by many who write on the subject of design thinking in that today’s global challenges and business growth should be considered in the frame of the ‘triple bottom line’: for people, planet and profit10.

The terms design, creativity, and innovation are used broadly in the above literature; however, the way in which the process and application of design is described aligns to the methodologies and definitions of design thinking as written by authors in both business and design. The broad application of design as a tool from a national point of view highlights the opportunities for application across not only design for business, but also design for community, not-for-profit organisations and government departments alike. This broader application is relevant for the business community globally in light of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

As design thinking has gained momentum globally, Australia appears to be lagging in the adoption of this movement. Such initiatives coordinated by the UK Design Council and UK Government11, The D-School by Stanford University12, the Design Management Institute in the USA13, and New Zealand’s Better by Design Program14 have been instrumental in igniting the discussion and providing streams in which both business managers and designers can explore and engage in design thinking.

While there are some state-based initiatives in Australia – such as the Ulysses program and ‘Queenslandersign’ in Queensland15, the Integrated Design Commission in South Australia16 – and a national design thinking pilot program delivered by Enterprise Connect17, there is very little tangible evidence across design, business and government that a concentric effort has successfully been made towards the development of design thinking in Australia. Emerging through the gaps, however are industry and professional groups seeking to explore and build design thinking within the Australian context. Examples are the Australian Design Alliance (ADA), a group seeking to build the awareness of design for business through the development of a national design policy18; and community engagement and industry events such as Design Thinking Drinks, Groundbreaker (a u.lab initiative) and the Creative Innovation Conference19.

The government has indicated some interest in design thinking with the development of a pilot design centre within the Australian Public Sector20. However, the National Innovation Agenda21 and Skills Reforms22 fail to show significant exploration of exploiting the capabilities of the design industry or design thinking in driving innovation for Australia. This is despite recommendations towards investigating the role of liberal arts and creativity for innovation as outlined in the Venturous Australia Report23.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

254

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

What opportunities are there for the Australian business and design community in the adoption of design thinking?

There is a tremendous opportunity to develop a hybrid space between design and business, to enable appropriate platforms for exchange, shared learning, and experimentation of design thinking for business. The Australian government plays a key role in recognising and communicating the value that the Australian design industry can bring to business, thus supporting the application of design thinking to drive innovation and increased productivity in Australia. Furthermore, the adoption of a national design policy that recognises the value of design and design thinking for business to support the innovation agenda is paramount.

Design thinking presents the opportunity to develop new ways of thinking and working in design and business globally. However, due to the immaturity of the field in Australia there is limited opportunity to learn through experience and develop skills on the job, and additionally a lack of skilled personnel that come with such experience. In comparison to education globally, Australian educational offerings that explore the principle of design thinking for design and business are largely absent. This lack of education compounds the issue of developing appropriate skills in this field. It also presents a question as to how Australian businesses continue to compete globally if mainstream businesses internationally are hiring graduates who understand and use design thinking at the core of business strategy. This presents an opportunity for educational providers to develop relevant offerings across undergraduate, post-graduate and professional/executive education in order to bridge this gap.

The evolution of design thinking also provides new roles for Australian designers in facilitating design engagement and design thinking, to embed design-led practices within business and assist in building design savvy organisations – that being designers working more explicitly in the corporate world. In order for designers to achieve this however, greater understanding and awareness of business language is required and more dynamic collaborative partnerships between designers and nondesigners will assist in achieving this. On the other hand business managers and students studying business management would benefit greatly from more extensive education that introduces the concepts of design thinking, to creatively navigate business problems in order to build more dynamic and innovative Australian businesses and successfully respond to customers’ ever-changing needs. This includes greater understanding of how to leverage both the process of design, and creating design outcomes for business strategy and design thinking embedded into a business culture – a way of being and an attitude toward decision making on a daily basis24.

The intention of this study was to provide the design industry, business, and government with insights into the opportunities that design thinking presents business and design in Australia. Innovation has the potential to impact and

page

255

influence all Australians; therefore the opportunity to develop and integrate design thinking for broad innovation pursuits across design and business in Australia cannot be ignored. Design thinking most certainly can assist business in seeking new ways to operate and address the complex business problems, specifically facing the Australian economic and business environment today. Such opportunities present new ways of working for business and design professionals in Australia and as such educational programs need to change to cater to this. Furthermore business in Australia need to expand their view on what design can contribute to business success and explore the greater benefit of design thinking in this context.

1. Brown, T & Katz, B 2009, Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organisations and Inspires Innovation, HarperCollins, New York.

Cox, SG 2005, Cox Review of Creativity in Business: building on the UK’s strengths, HM Treasury, London.

Danish Enterprise & Construction Authority 2011, The Vision of the Danish Design 2020 Committee, Denmark, DOI 978-8792518-65-1.

Fraser, H 2009, ‘Designing business: New models for success’, Design Management Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 56-65.

Jacoby, R & Rodriguez, D 2007, ‘Innovation, growth, and getting to where you want to go’, Design Management Review, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 10-5.

Martin, R 2009, The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Nussbaum, B, Berner, R & Brady, D 2005, ‘Get creative’, Business Week, vol. 3945, pp. 60-8.

2. Cox 2005 3. DTI 2005, DTI ECONOMICS PAPER NO.15. Creativity, Design and Business Performance, DTI, Department of Trade and Industry, November 2005, UK. 4. DCMS 2011, Creative Industries Economic Estimates: Full Statistical Release 8 December 2011, Department for culture, media and sport UK. Design Council UK 2008, The Good Design Plan: National design strategy and Design Council delivery plan 2008–11, London, viewed 15 August 2012 Design Council UK 2010, Design Industry Insights: Comments and conversations on the business of design in th UK 2010, London, UK. Design Council UK 2011, Design for Innovation, facts figures and practical plans for growth, London, UK. 5. Scherfig, C, Brunander, M & Melander, C 2010, ‘From the World’s First Design Policy to the World’s Best Design Policy’, Design Management Review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 6-14.

6. Danish Enterprise & Construction Authority 2011, The Vision of the Danish Design 2020 Committee, Denmark, DOI 978-8792518-65-1.

7. Council of the European Union 2010, Conclusions on Innovation Union for Europe, Brussels.

European Comission 2011, Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union, Belgium, DOI 10.2777/27497.

8. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise 2011, Better By Design, viewed 1 August 2012, <http://www.betterbydesign.org.nz/> 9. Salmon, P, Cowan, S, Sturmer, N & Aldridge, B 2010, Sustainable Business Design, Better by Design.

10. Berger, W 2009, GLIMMER how design can transform your life, and even maybe the world., The Penguin Press, New York.

Koo, Y & Cooper, R 2011, ‘Managing Corporate Social Responsibility Through Design’, Design Management Review, vol. 22, no.

1, pp. 68-79.

McBride, M 2011, ‘Triple Bottom Line by Design: Leading as if Life Matters’, Design Management Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp.

6-14.

Brown 2009 Valade-Amland, S 2011, ‘Design for People, Profit, and Planet’, Design Management Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 17-23.

11. Cox 2005; Design Council UK 2008, 2011 12. Stanford University Institute of Design 2012, d.school - Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, viewed 15 August 2012, <http://dschool.stanford.edu/> 13. Design Management Institute 2012, DMI home page, DMI, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/index. htm> 14. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise 2011; Salmon et al. 2010 15. Arts Queensland 2010, Queensland Design 2010, Arts Queensland for the Queensland Government, Brisbane, <http:// www.arts.qld.gov.au/policy/design2020.html> Queensland Government 2012, Ulysses - transforming business through design, Queensland Government, viewed 17 August 2012, < http://www.industry.qld.gov.au/key-industries/730.htm> 16. Integrated Design Commision SA 2012, Government of South Australia, viewed 15 August 2012, <http://www.integrateddesign.sa.gov.au> 17. Enterprise Connect 2012, About Us : Who are we and what do we do?, Australian Government, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://www.enterpriseconnect.gov.au/about/Pages/default.aspx> 18. ADA 2012a, About, ADA, viewed 15 July 2012, <http://australiandesignalliance.com/about> Queensland Design Council 2012, National Design Policy Event Brisbane 7 May 2012, Australian Design Alliance 15 August 2012, <http://vimeo.com/46668542> 19. Creative Innovation 2012, Creative Innovation Asia Pacific 2012, Creative Universe, viewed 17 August 2012, <http://www. creativeinnovationglobal.com.au/Ci2012/> Design Thinking Drinks 2012, Design Thinking Drinks: Conversations about Design Thinking, Deborah Kneeshaw, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://designthinkingsydney.wordpress.com/> Groundbreaker 2012, Groundbreaker, u.lab, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://www.groundbreaker.org.au/> u.lab 2012, u.lab About, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://ulab. org.au/pages/about 20. Public Sector Innovation 2011, APS Innovation Action Plan,

by Public Sector Innovation, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

21. Australian Government: Department of Innovation, Science and Research 2009, Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century, by Australian Government, Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Innovation Industry Science and Research 2011, Australian Innovation System Report 2011, ISBN: 978 1 921916 09 0, Australian Government, Canberra, 22. Australian Government, 2012 Skills for all Australians: National reforms to skill more Australians and achieve a more competitive, dynamic economy, by Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 23. Cutler, T 2008, Venturous Australia: Building strength in innovation, Cutler & Company Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

24. Jenkins, J 2010, ‘Creating the Right Environment for Design’, in T Lockwood (ed.), Design Thinking : integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value / edited by Thomas Lockwood, Allworth Press, New York, pp. 23-33

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

256

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

A Call for a New Pedagogy for Design Thinking Education Jochen Schweitzer and Joanne Jakovich

As the appetite for design-led, human-centered innovation grows, and the idea of design thinking evolves, its relationship to strategic innovation is assumed but largely underexplored. As educators and researchers designing academic programs and research projects in strategic innovation and design thinking we are struck by the lack of programs and literature that capture the philosophy of strategic design thinking and how it can and does relate to innovation. Strategic design thinking meets the growing global demand for graduates who are able to think strategically and creatively to deal with the increasingly wicked problems being faced by organizations today. A number of recent developments in the global context support the need for learning programs (in and outside of universities) based on the principles of design-led, human-centered innovation: a) There has been a strong call for the higher education sector to consider creative thinking as central to their research and their teaching1 and it has been proposed that the single most important contribution university education can make to economies and society is to cultivate imagination and resourcefulness by using aesthetic or design logic typical in the arts, design and other creative industries2.

Design logic, in contrast to analytical logic, is characterised by divergent thinking, de-contextualisation, chaos and play; it embraces reflection and openness to othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perspectives. Educators need to develop a parallel set of appropriate pedagogical techniques that can be used to encourage and illustrate divergent thinking and imagination3. Unfortunately, business schools, and universities in general, have lagged in developing such techniques.4 b) The IBM Global Leadership Survey5 showed that approximately 80% of the CEOs of more than 600 of the top organisations worldwide indicated that their biggest challenge for the future is the ability to deal creatively with risk and uncertainty.

Economies around the world, and in the West particularly, are facing significant challenges as geopolitical and global economic ambiguity brings shifts in global economic power.6 Increasingly, and because of such challenges, education offered through business schools has become the focus of significant criticism, particularly in relation to poor theory informing poor practice.7 Business schools are under pressure to provide work ready graduates and future generations of leaders who can handle complex environments in creative, ethical and sustainable ways. Accordingly, there is a need to innovate the ways in which students are educated, and the way

page

257

universities design their programs, to meet the challenges we face at national, social and international levels. c) The need for change in the business curriculum is also called for by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) report, ‘Business Schools on an Innovation Mission’, who argue for universities to do much more to develop business students’ creative and innovative thinking skills8. Even so, the examples that the AACSB showcases in terms of the ‘creativity curriculum’ in business schools are for courses that include a creative stream analogous to artsbased processes and activities, but offered as stand-alone entities within standard business courses with the aim of encouraging business students’ use of creative logic for the development of a creative and innovative product. They are not integrated into the programs, but added on. Existing educational models based on design thinking principles are also restrictive with regard to the number of students completing such courses. For example, the Design School at Stanford University, offering one of the best known and successful educational programs based on design thinking, is delivered as an elite program, available only to the best and brightest students.

While finding some answers in the designing disciplines, organisations have started to adopt some of the specific problem solving practices that have been developed particularly around the way designers deal with the framing and re-framing of problem situations. Such design-led innovation practices or design thinking represents a set of tools, methods and techniques that can support a profound shift in organisational problem solving.9 These practices hold great promise for broader application. Yet, while universities are mandated to develop students’ creative and critical thinking ability and imagination, there is evidence that, in education curricula, academics predominantly concentrate on students’ logical thinking and reasoning skills, with critical creative skill development all too often being neglected. As such, the development of these skills needs greater focus.10 Unless innovations in teaching are embedded within curriculum design, the impact and practice relevance of business courses cannot be sustained. Indeed, for many universities the assessment of students rather than curriculum design tends to drive how education is delivered and curriculum is designed.

U.lab programs respond directly to calls for curriculum renewal11 in order to foster integrative thinking and creative problem solving by utilising design logic and principles. This is supporting the Australian government agenda for embedding creativity and imagination in business curricula as presented by Senator the Hon. Kim Carr.12 With a number of emerging programs and formats u.lab addresses a range of educational goals. It supports the integration of technology, creativity and innovation in a business curriculum by creating an inclusive learning environment for the generation and incubation of design thinking innovation, creative problem solving and entrepreneurship. Furthermore, it strengthens the standing of practice-

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

258

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

oriented learning through active engagement with business, the professions and community and exemplifies real case based teaching and business venture incubation.

The overall objective is to engage students with the practices and principles of the designing professions to prepare future leaders to apply interdisciplinary ways of thinking and supply knowledge economies with a quickly adaptable and talented work force13.

1. McWilliam, E. (2009) Teaching for creativity: from sage to guide to meddler. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 29(3): 281293.

2. Chia, R. (1996) Teaching paradigm shifting in management education: University business schools and the entrepreneurial imagination. Journal of Management Studies 33(4): 410-428.

Kerr, C. & Lloyd, C. (2008) Pedagogical learnings for management education: Developing creativity and innovation. Journal of Management & Education 14: 486-503.

Robinson, K. (2001) Out of our minds: Learning to be creative.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ryman, J., Porter, T. & Galbraith, C. (2009) Disciplined imagination: Art and metaphor in the business school classroom. International Journal of Education & the Arts 10(10): 1-25.

3. Ryman et al. 2009; Kerr & Lloyd 2008 4. Pink, D. (2004) The MFA is the new MBA. Harvard Business Review 82: 21.

Cowan, D. (2007) Artistic undertones of humanistic leadership education. Journal of Management Education 31(2): 156-180.

Teixeira, C. (2010) The entrepreneurial design curriculum: Design-based learning for knowledge-based economies. Design Studies 31: 411-418.

5. IBM (2010) Capitalizing on Complexity, Global CEO Study.

6. Lyon, R. & Clegg, W. (2011) Changing Pace: ASPI’s Strategic Assessment 2011, Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

7. Ghoshal, S. (2005) Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1): 75–91.

Pitsis, T. & Clegg, S. (2007) Interpersonal Metaphysics -”We live in a political world”: The paradox of managerial wisdom. In E. Kessler & J. Bailey (Eds) Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Wisdom, Sage: Thousand Oaks, 399-421.

Khurana, R. (2009). From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. USA: Princeton University Press.

8. AACSB International (2010) Business schools on an innovation mission: Report of the AACSB International Task Force on business schools and innovation, AACSB, Florida.

9. Burry, M.C. (2005) Homo Faber. Architectural Design: Design Through Making 75(4): 30–37.

Dunne, D. & Martin, R. (2006) Design thinking and how it will change management education: an interview and discussion.

Academy of Management Learning & Education 5: 512–23.

10. Bessant, J. (2009) Tapping the Creative Core.

11. Bessant (2009). Teixeira (2010).

12. Carr, K. (2010) Collaborating for Success. http://archive. innovation.gov.au/ministersarchive2011/Carr/Speeches/Pages/ COLLABORATINGFORSUCCESS.html. Accessed 17.10.2012.

13. Teixeira (2010).

page

259

Designing Entrepreneurial Work Environments: Exploring Emergent Design Practices Jochen Schweitzer Melissa Edwards Natalia Nikolova

In this paper we aim to outline an approach for fostering entrepreneurial creativity by utilizing design-thinking methodology. We explore ‘designing’ as a practice driven approach to entrepreneurship that involves iteration and play during problem solving, team divergence, a stimulating and ‘porous’ space, and entrepreneurial creativity that emerges from interpersonal relations within and between teams of entrepreneurs embedded in open networks.

Our insights are based on three empirical studies involving graduate and postgraduate students, academics and business professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds who were given the task to develop creative and entrepreneurial proposals in response to complex social issues, such as waste, traffic congestion, and urban sustainability.

Other studies have conducted similar approaches to foster creative problem solving, and examined outcomes and effectiveness.1 Our research builds on that work and provides new insights into the emergence of creativity as a relational process. Whereas previous studies focus the problem for creative solving within a specific business, we set the problem context outside of any singular organisational context, instead including complex and networked social issues. Furthermore, in contrast to previous work that focuses on collaboration of participants from one or two disciplinary backgrounds, we aim at enhancing the capacity for divergence by maximizing disciplinary diversity. Furthermore, a subset of the workshops and entrepreneurship sessions we studied were open for the public to join. We compare such open and emergent processes that created a porous environment allowing for opportunities of serendipitous collaboration to more specific and contained processes of collaborative creativity.

Theoretical Background and Gap About eight out of ten CEOs of the top organisations worldwide foresee that their

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

260

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

biggest challenge for the future is to deal creatively with risk and uncertainty.2 Increasingly, and because of such challenges, current management practices have become the focus of significant criticism, particularly in relation to poor theory informing poor practice.3 Accordingly, there is a need to innovate the ways in which we deal with complex problems to meet the challenges of the future. The purpose of this research is to address this need by developing, testing and evaluating various practices and modes of creative thinking and doing based on design thinking. More specifically, we seek to understand how process-based design approaches can foster a creative mind-set and enable mental as much as physical spaces for divergent thinking to spur emergence of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Design thinking is being promoted as a critical practice4 in fostering innovation, particularly through collaborative processes of learning and knowledge creation;5 it represents a set of tools, methods and techniques that can support a profound shift in organisational problem solving.6 While finding some answers in the designing disciplines, organisations have started to adopt some of the specific problem solving practices that have been practiced by designers in dealing with framing and reframing complex design challenges. Meanwhile, in entrepreneurship, there is a shift happening away from a focus on logic and analysis of business opportunities where the entrepreneur is considered key in capitalising upon structural opportunities, towards a focus on the processes of entrepreneurship embedded within a network base.7 Jack, in particular, proposes that a combination of both structure and the relational ties between individuals within networks provides the deepest insights leading towards entrepreneurial activity.8 Being deeply embedded in broader networks of actors, enables entrepreneurs to imagine and empathize with ambiguous future customer needs, which fosters the development of novel solutions, products and services.9 Little is known, however, what are the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ingredientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; that stimulate entrepreneurial activity. While existing research sees creative problem solving as a dynamic, complex and subjective process, which is taking place in a stimulating social environment, we do not know much about how we create the conditions for this process to flourish. In this study we seek to close this gap by exploring the entrepreneurial practices within structural dimensions of space, team structure and so-called rhizomatic processes. We build on the challenge proposed by Gibb to engage in entrepreneurship through an intra-disciplinary lens.10 Entrepreneurship pushes disciplinary boundaries and contexts and provides a means for embedding design thinking processes in work environments.

Space Tyre and von Hippel argued that while research on creative thinking and entrepreneurship has concentrated on emphasizing the importance of communication for successful problem-solving and knowledge creation, the importance of the physical setting for these processes has been nearly overlooked.

page

261

“People’s usable skills often depend on their physical settings because people act skilfully by using specific machines or tools, by interpreting physical cues, by exploiting their intimate knowledge of local idiosyncrasies, and by responding to stimuli embedded in a specific context”.11 Therefore, seeing, touching and manipulating objects is often as important for improving understanding as hearing and explaining. Recent research shows that there is a growing understanding of the importance of space as an enabler of creativity and that the work space as a place for emergence of entrepreneurial or creative thought needs to be designed differently than “normal” work places. Magadley and Birdi discuss the advantages of innovation labs as “dedicated physical environments or facilities with collaborative work spaces in which groups and teams of employees can engage with each other in order to explore and extend their thinking beyond and above normal boundaries”.12 They suggest that spaces designed for fostering creativity have a different physical layout, a range of high- and low-tech supporting tools, and expert facilitators13 and show that such spaces have a positive impact on creativity and on participants’ attitudes towards it. Zitter et al. refer to the difference between designable elements of the learning environment on a scale from highly specified to highly emergent.14 They claim that adaptive elements are necessary in an emergent environment so as learners do not feel overwhelmed by the lack of structure.

Building upon these works, we designed a space that has the elements cited in the literature but is inclusive, rather than exclusive: it was specifically designed to invite outsiders to become insiders, i.e. to participate in the work happening, as well as to stimulate insiders, i.e. the participants, to seek interactions with outsiders. We adopted some adaptive tools, but the overall process remained emergent.

Team Structure In this study we explore how cognitively diverse students in interaction with industry and end-users collaboratively solve problems facilitated by design thinking methodology. Cognitive diversity, while creative, is also conflictual: for example, there can be disagreement about the task content and the task process.15 Although, people might agree on certain “general” objectives—e.g., to develop a new prototype for a product—team members will have different preferences regarding different problem solutions. In other words, faced with the same situation, their “why”, the “what to do” and the “how to do it best” can be distinctly and problematically different. Such differences are not necessarily resolvable via information sharing; when individuals share information but not the multiple realities through which they seek to reduce uncertainty and make sense the same materialities, artefacts and ideas will be rendered differently.16 Traditionally offered mechanisms for developing of shared cognition such as training, job rotations, feedback programs, and working with other individuals for longer periods,17 are not applicable for teams that form and dissolve quickly. Others have offered very general solutions arguing that “crosscultural dialogue” requires the establishment of communication that stimulates “mutual understanding rather than mutual blame”.18 Our study shows how processes

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

262

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

based on design thinking methodology enable collaborative problem solving while utilizing the benefits of cognitive diversity. We highlight in particular two aspects of design thinking methodology that proved to be especially helpful for our participants in channelling their cognitive diversity towards creative solutions: first, “the imaginary transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another”,19 also referred to as “empathy”, in our case directed towards the needs of future customers, and second, the experimenting and prototyping of creative solutions with physical materials, which resulted in the creation of visual representations of participants creative solutions, or boundary objects.20

Rhizomatic Process: blurring dualistic boundaries Design logic, in contrast to analytical logic, is characterised by divergent thinking, de-contextualisation, chaos and play; it embraces reflection and openness to others’ perspectives. Teal highlights the inherent contradiction between design thinking and traditional approaches stating that design thinking is perceived as “a-rational, a-causal, and a-logical”.21 However, he continues in the Deleuzian tradition to break the dualism between logic and a-logic and instead proposes a ‘rhizomatic’ approach to understanding design that enables “non-linear, complex and enmeshed knowledge to find equal footing in our design processes to those logical and rational procedures that we tend to lean on”.22 Acknowledging complexity in the creative process requires a logic that is non-linear yet not anarchic. Similarly, Martin notes that abductive reasoning or thinking about ‘what should be’ is central to the design thinking process.23 Abduction relies upon synthesis between inductive and deductive reasoning. Such reasoning is thought to enhance creative breakthroughs.24 Abduction, induction and deduction are combined in an iterative process in design thinking. The iterations are not linear, yet the underlying reasoning techniques are structured and designed. We purposefully designed tools that encouraged learners to iteratively move between boundaries of logic and a-logic, and to generate ideas through abduction. Whilst these structured tools were designed, the workshops themselves unfolded in a non-linear manner that maximised the potential for creativity to materialise.

Approach and Method We report on and evaluate a process of design thinking delivered through a purposely-constructed entrepreneurial space and program. In order to develop a deeper understanding of the creative process, the practices and the issues that arise when an interdisciplinary team engages in creative problem solving processes, we completed three pilot projects: (1) four ‘Creative Minds Sessions’ (CMS) with a mix of undergraduate students and academics who were invited to tackle the problem of excessive consumption. Participants were selected from various disciplines in order to achieve a maximum diversity in knowledge and skills; (2) ten weekly one

page

263

hour problem solving sessions with students, academics, business and community members who were invited to group spontaneously and address current urban issues; they had to come up with solutions within this one hour; and (3) a series of workshops involving postgraduate students from business, design, IT and engineering, who met twice every week for 13 weeks to develop entrepreneurial business proposals to address complex issues (E.lab). All participants elected to take part in these workshops and were invited to engage freely with other participants and develop ideas that would invoke action towards social change.

We adopted a mixed-method approach incorporating a variety of information sources. The first two projects were visually documented to study the processes that enabled creative problem solving. For all three projects, we made detailed notes after each session and conducted pre- and post-workshop interviews and surveys with participants and analysed documents and the outcomes of the projects.

Data analysis followed what Corbin and Straus refer to as a grounded theory framework, which is an open-ended discovery of emerging themes.25 We started with an open-ended coding that allows both explicit and tacit themes to be identified.

Subsequently, we identified emerging themes related to several classes of categories including, ‘dimensions of space’, ‘creative mind-set’, and ‘emergent creativity’. Each of these key themes are discussed in further detail below.

Workshop Participant Evaluation

Expectations of the Learning Experience Students who attended the Creative Minds and E.lab sessions were targeted as ‘sharp thinkers’ through a network of lecturers across the faculties. The initial responses indicated that most students were not sure what to expect from the workshops. They defined their hopes as ‘broaden my understanding/perspectives’, ‘to think in new ways’, ‘meet new people’, ‘gain different insights’, ‘gain more confidence in idea generation’, ‘learn a new approach to problem solving’, ‘get broader knowledge of working with different people’. Ultimately they were expecting a different mode of engagement and to enhance their learning in terms of creative problem solving.

Interdisciplinary Team Engagement and Learning Most of the participating students had previously worked in an interdisciplinary team. The problems they identified as most typical in such teams can be summarized under the following categories: ‘a lack of shared understanding’, ‘conflicts regarding different applications of knowledge’, ‘lack of teamwork’ and ‘problems with communication’. The benefits of their previous interdisciplinary experiences were ‘learning from different viewpoints’, ‘synergies between individual expertise’ and ‘sharing different problem solving perspectives’.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

264

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

After the end of the workshops, most of the students felt that the workshops developed or exercised their skills to work in an interdisciplinary team.

Furthermore, most students stressed that the interdisciplinary team environment stimulated creative problem solving. As one student stated,

“I found it helpful in opening up to new concepts and ideas outside of my normal train of thought. I also thought it was good in the way my thinking was challenged, and also challenging others around me in a constructive way to see things from a different perspective”.

From the students who had never previously engaged with interdisciplinary teams, one stated that the process helped them exercise collaboration in a broader context, whilst another agreed that the process helped to develop their interdisciplinary collaborative skills stating:

“It defiantly challenged my personal Point Of View (POV) and showed me how to absorb others POVs without passing judgement.”

Of the students who expressed a lower satisfaction with the workshops, most reported that group issues were a major problem and a roadblock for achieving the outcomes they had hoped for. While they still recognized the advantage of working with people with different knowledge, skills and views, these students were part of teams that were less successful in creating shared understanding and a ‘common language’. Such ‘negative’ experiences were still perceived as very important as they allowed students to operate in a real life work environment and sensitized them to problems that typically arise in such situations.

Feedback on the Method The method was designed to have an underlying structure to facilitate fast paced engagement with a complex issue through intense brainstorming, and rapid iterations of prototyping and testing of potential solutions with a broad range of the public. At various points the students were forced to reflect and present their current iteration to members of the project team and external experts. This underlying structure was cited by students as one of the key benefits of this creative problem solving approach, as exemplified in the following statements:

“Made me approach problem solving in defined, sequential steps; which I felt made it easier to go through the process because by the time we were at the prototype stage, I felt we had clearly defined our target audience and knew exactly how to approach it”.

Another student stated:

“I have learnt that I responded well to a structured approach to creative problem solving. The design process interrupts my tendency to skip ahead to the end goal. Due to its structure, a momentum is created on each small task. I had previously thought that freelance experimentation was the best approach to creative thinking in groups. Also, I

page

265

previously felt that a collaborative approach to problem solving was only theoretically viable and inefficient, and would usually approach and task as an individual. The process allows for this collaboration and a better solution.”

Positive engagement was reported with the major dimensions that evolved as emerging practices for entrepreneurship: 1. Researching and Framing; 2. Business Planning and Forward Thinking; 3. Designing Solutions; 4. Building Relationships and Communicating; 5. Prototyping and Testing; 6. Facilitating Change.

However students across the board reported the greatest level of satisfaction with the first dimension, Researching and Framing. The following quote is illustrative of this engagement:

“I learned a more creative approach, looking at needs and ideas rather than looking straight ahead to possible solutions and therefore hindering the creative process.”

When later asked where they developed the most insightful experiences most students referred to the prototype and testing (dimension 5) of their ideas with “people in the street”. The following student response is indicative:

“I felt inspired when researching via interviews in the street, when empathizing, when involved in decision-making and prototyping, when learning from others, when relating aspects back to the Design Process, when surprised by results, when overcoming challenges. Inspiration leads to more risk-taking which enables more creativity.”

Most students stated that the process enabled them to ‘generate new insights into the complex problem’.

Visual Documentary Analysis While the surveys we conducted provided us with students’ perceptions of the design thinking process and methods that we applied, the visual documentary offered richer insights into how the participants utilized the space, used the process and method and generally, interacted with each other and with external actors, such as academics, experts and the public throughout the duration of the sessions.

We now provide a summary of our insights based on our interpretation of the visual material.

Dimensions of Space The workshop series were enacted in a space purposely designed to enable and encourage multiple modes of interaction and movement. The visual data demonstrated this flux and movement in the work space that was devoid of the usual expectations of a classroom setting. Three deliberate spaces indicated the modes of engagement; a stage with screen and lounges for formal pitches and discussions, lounges for sharing food and conversation and a workshop space for action, iteration and prototyping. Observations of the visual data demonstrated how the open space allowed movement and interaction and signalled the message of ‘no boundaries’. page

a book by u.lab

chapter

266

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

This allowed students to move around and interact spontaneously with students who were not part of their team, academics and visitors. Participants played with the provided tools and equipment stimulating the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;inner childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to physically explore and express ideas. We observed students, academics and professionals engaging in playful interactions. Set outside of the formal university learning spaces, the space served as an interface between academia and the community. In contrast to other innovation labs, the open doors of the space attracted passers-by and enabled participants to immediately test their ideas in the community. This openness further signalled to participants that they were encouraged to spontaneously engage with others who were not formally participants. Such approach greatly stimulated a network-enabled type of collaborative creativity, groupthink and entrepreneurship.

Creative Mind-set The majority of participants in the workshops experienced a raised self-awareness of their capacity to be generatively creative. This was both a product of their own capacity to think creatively, and an awareness of how their creativity could be heightened through developing their thinking in interaction with peers, academics, industry advisers, end-users and the community. The later occurred after the former. We noted that some participants struggled to materialise their ideas in early iterations of the creative process. While masters of their ideas, they were amateurs of the prototype. After playing for a while, they built trust in their groups, brought humour into their creations and were able to work with materials to their individual strengths. After several iterations they moved quickly and immersed with materials to build and create. In their reflections, they expressed surprise regarding how their collective capacity could develop a workable prototype solution for a complex social issue. In this state of heightened sensitivity several students reported changes to their own behaviours and attitudes towards the issue at hand; they saw the issue differently.

Emergent Creativity The work environment was a hub that acted as an incubator for creativity that emerged from the interaction amongst participants, non-participants and their engagement with the iterative design thinking process. The materialisation of ideas occurred through synchronous convergent and divergent thinking. Creativity emerged through a process that was structured in such a way as to avoid structure; it maximised the agency of participants, but provided a road map to aid student navigation. This road map consisted of several engagement modules based on design thinking methodology, such as empathize, frame, ideate, build, iterate, test, and improve. This process was supported by the space that encouraged spontaneous collaboration, feedback seeking and interaction. Content was not structured allowing the participants to unleash their imagination when addressing a complex social issue.

page

267

Furthermore, creativity emerged through loosely developed relationships between divergent thinkers. Creative ideas materialised as participants synchronously but also spontaneously operated within the work space. While all participants reported that collaborating with people from different disciplinary backgrounds was challenging, they perceived it as simultaneously stimulating. It was obvious to all involved that there were serendipitous opportunities to fill gaps in their own knowledge by learning from others. When the gaps in knowing were filled, participants pushed beyond their usual thought patterns. When they were pushed to embody their ideas and materialise them through prototyping their ideas were synthesised and they quickly collaborated synchronously.

Discussion and Conclusion In this paper we explore how problem solving processes and entrepreneurial work environments can be designed to encourage creative emergence. We provide empirical evidence of three pilot workshops that highlights the significance of space, process and mind-set to the emergence of creativity. In our research we have designed what Zitter et al. define as a ‘highly emergent’ learning environment.26 While the underlying process was sequential, it was iterative and porous enabling learners to move freely and at their own will back and forth between creative stages and spaces. Similarly to Zitter et al. we found that adaptive elements of the learning environment are essential, however our study differs in that our approach to the sequential design process is more porous and emergent. We claim that emergent learning environments are appropriate where industry professionals and academics work closely with students, and such environments could be replicated by organisations wishing to engage creatively with customers, suppliers and the community. Furthermore, our approach confirms recent arguments in the literature on entrepreneurship that creative problem solving requires imagination of future expectations, which are per definition unstructured and ambiguous, rather than pre-given problems or unmet needs.27 We found that asking the study participants to engage with ambiguous, complex social issues and not restricting their choice of problem or solution path, stimulated their imagination and creativity opening their perspectives to the needs of potential/future customers. We noted two important aspects of this creative process. Firstly, it became clear that the ability of the participants to empathize with their potential client was crucial for unleashing their creativity. The insight that clients or lead-users are important sources of innovation is not new.28 However, while traditionally, organizations concentrate on the needs of their existing customers or on expected needs based on past experiences with customers, we agree with Chilles et al. that truly novel ideas require the “construction of new, never-before-experienced events” through imagination visualization and empathy.29 Secondly, in order to transfer ideas gained through empathy into concrete products or services, entrepreneurs need

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

268

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

DESIGN THINKING EDUCATION

access to a collaborative environment/space and diverse physical materials and objects that help to visualize their ideas and test them quickly and repeatedly with potential users. Thus, we found that creativity emerged in collaboration through loosely connected networks, where participants are drawn together in an emergent learning and work environment. They synchronously materialize ideas into workable prototypes in-action through interactions with other active participants, the community, end-users and professionals.

1. Boni, A.A., Weingart, L.R. & Evenson, S. (2009) Innovation in an Academic Setting: Designing and Leading a Business Through Market- Focused, Interdisciplinary Teams, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 407–417; Ungaretti, T., Chomowicz, P., Canniffe, B.J., Johnson, B., Weiss, E., Dunn, K., & Cropper, C. (2009) Business + Design: Exploring a Competitive Edge for Business Thinking, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 74 (3), 4-11; Magadley,W. & Birdi, K. (2009) Innovation labs: An examination into the use of physical spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management 18(4), 315-325.

2. IBM (2010) Capitalizing on Complexity, Global CEO Study.

3. Ghoshal, S. (2005) Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1), 75–91; Pitsis, T. & Clegg, S. (2007) Interpersonal Metaphysics -”We live in a political world”: The paradox of managerial wisdom. In E. Kessler & J. Bailey (Eds) Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Wisdom, Sage: Thousand Oaks, 399-421.

4. Messner, M., Kornberger, M., & Clegg S. (2008) Critical practices in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry 17(2), 68-82.

5. Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2009) The winter of our discontent: The design challenge for business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education 8(4), 576-586; Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2006). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 34(1), 65-92.

6. Burry, M.C. (2005) Homo Faber. Architectural Design: Design Through Making, 75(4), 30–37; Dunne, D. & Martin, R. (2006) Design thinking and how it will change management education: an interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5, 512–23.

7. Parkhe, A., Wasserman, S. & Ralston, D.A. (2006) New frontiers in network theory development. Academy of Management Review, 31 (3), 560–568; Jack, S.L. (2010) Approaches to studying networks: Implications and outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 120-137.

8. Jack (2010).

9. Chiles, T., Tuggle, C., McMullen, L., Bierman, L. & Greening, D. (2010) Dynamic creation: Extending the radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 31(1), 7-46.

10. Gibb, A. (2011) Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of development of entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm: The case of the International Entrepreneurship Educators’ Programme (IEEP). International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(2), 146-165.

11. Tyre, M. and E. Von Hippel (1997) The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science 8(1), 71-83.

12. Magadley & Birdi (2009: 315).

13. See also Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U., Janssen, S. & Van der Lugt, R. (2007) Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 53–65.

14. Zitter, I., De Bruijn, E., Jan Simons, P.R, & Ten Cate, T.H. (2011) Adding a design perspective to study learning environments in higher professional education. Higher Education, 61, 371–386.

15. Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K. & Xin, K. (1999) Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28; Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. & Neale, M. (1999) Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.

16. Schutz, A. (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World.

(Translated by George Walsh and Frederick Lehnert.) Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; Weick, K. (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14, 516-532.

17. Mathieu, J., Goodwin, G., Heffner, T., Salas, E. & CannonBowers, J. (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2), 273-283.

18. Schein, E. (1996) Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9–20; see also Isaacs, W. (1993) Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.

19. Norman, R.& Ainsworth, P. (1954) The relationships among projection, empathy, reality, and adjustment, operationally defined. Journal of Consulting Psychology 18, 53–58.

20. Star, S. & Griesemer, J. (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations,’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387- 420.

21. Teal, R. (2010) Developing a (non-linear) practice of design thinking. JADE, 29(3), 294-302.

22. Teal (2010: 297).

23. Martin, R. L. (2009) The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business School Press.

24. Ungaretti et al. (2009).

25. Corbin, J. M. & Strauss, A. L. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

26. Zitter et al. (2011).

27. Chiles et al. (2010).

28. Von Hippel, E. (1988) The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

29. Chiles et al. (2010: 15).

page

269

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

270

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

chapter eight

NFC futures

NFC FUTURES is the theme of our third iteration of the Entrepreneurship Lab class.

Twice yearly we invite a group of enthusiastic Masters-level students from different disciplines across the university to engage with a challenge based around current industry opportunities. Together we go on a journey through which the students are equipped with tools for human-centred design and design thinking to devise possible solutions for the problem.

The problems we engage with are ‘wicked’ in nature, in that there are no neat packaged solutions, and none that are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, merely better or worse.

Creating possible solutions and building prototypes helps us better understand the problem area itself. And the solutions are never really final, but continue to evolve, sometimes even after the semester is finished.

All of these statements apply to our NFC FUTURES challenge. NFC is Near Field Communication, a technology for very short-range radio communication, usually between an active device like a smartphone or tablet, and a passive ‘tag’.

Communication only takes place when the device is within 10cm of the tag, which leads to the notion of ‘tapping’ to activate the communication. NFC is currently in the early stages of adoption.

The Entrepreneurship Lab is also about collaboration. Our collaboration this semester extends beyond the university and includes an industry partner who shares our vision for human-centered, design-led innovation, and is invested in developing NFC businesses - Commerce in Motion. Others have proposed ‘obvious’ uses for NFC technology - the collaboration between u.lab and Commerce in Motion is about finding some of the less obvious areas where NFC can shine.

NFC FUTURES is an exciting convergence of students, university academics, industry mentors, human-centred design-led innovation and a technology on the cusp of adoption. This chapter captures our journey.

page

271

Incubating NFC Futures Patrick Crooks & Mark Jones, Founders & Directors of Commerce In Motion

The ever-nebulous ‘future’ must one day arrive. When it does, it is often technology providers who lead and capitalise on resultant changes in consumer behaviour.

Seemingly overnight we all start to use technology that was unheard of moments before and can hardly imagine life prior to possessing some new magical ability. Think Googling, texting, Wikipedia, Facebook, even mobile phones themselves.

NFC is one such technology that is moving from ‘one day’ in the future to today very quickly. NFC is driven by the promise of contactless payments and strongly supported by Google. Presently 7% of mobile devices in Australia have NFC capability. This penetration may seem low, but this will move past 20% within 12 months in our estimation.

Globally 9 of the top 10 handsets include NFC and 25% of the 4 million Android devices today have NFC, with 1 million more activated every day. In Australia Android devices are selling at 2X iOS devices and each year Australians purchase 9M smart phones, with these handset turn-over rates it won’t take long for NFC devices to be common place.

Additionally the technology is open-source, built on reliable and accessible protocols and requires little bespoke knowledge, hardware or software to implement. This leads to mass experimentation and low costs of entry for solutions that were previously complex and expensive.

Commerce In Motion is very excited to be working with the UTS u.lab in creating the NFC Futures program for this incredibly exciting and very human technology.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

272

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Getting started at Commerce In Motion For years, mobile payments players have been agonising about how to service people’s needs “for the last mile” –easily paying for things outside of the bank branch.

As a veteran of many successful mobile banking deployments in a number of countries, Patrick Crooks realised that to make payments truly simple, the issue wasn’t the last mile, but the last centimetre. NFC provided an elegant solution by allowing people to simply “tap” their phones to make a transaction. He was hooked.

A serial entrepreneur with around 20 start-ups under his belt (including co-founding South Africa’s largest privately held IT company), he realised that NFC could then redefine business models far beyond payments themselves.

Patrick teamed up with Mark Jones in March 2012 in an attempt to transform some of the myriad of ideas bubbling up into a viable business. Mark brought over ten years experience working in senior roles on some of Australia’s largest digital media properties and has particular experience in commercialising all aspects

of these operations. Together they had the technology potential and the essential user insights covered.

While many observers may quip that NFC stands for “not for commerce” – at Commerce In Motion they were determined to prove them wrong. Many times have the pair ripped apart and rebuilt the Commerce in Motion business model while trying to find the key ingredients for a solid business. And with each iteration the goal of a profitable NFC based business inches ever closer.

page

273

Some of these considerations can be captured in the SWOT chart on the left.

After direction comes momentum After having met with a number of the top international players in NFC, they realised that there were many people experimenting with great ideas, but very few who were able to condense those into a robust business opportunity and then commercialise it in a manner that was sustainable and profitable.

Once they had confirmed they were on the right track with their clients, investors and mentors, they sprung into action building a credible NFC Startup Factory with the following ingredients: • Ingredient 1: Awesome people • Ingredient 2: Epic opportunities • Ingredient 3: Energised innovation environment and network • Ingredient 4: The business model for the factory • Ingredient 5: High levels of credibility in the NFC community • Ingredient 6: Funding • Ingredient 7: Some solid NFC success stories, Some awesome clients • Ingredient 8: Exit strategies that work

NFC: Not For Commerce: Creating Great Businesses With NFC there certainly are more ideas than there are people who can deliver on them.

It seems every time we explain NFC to someone they spawn a myriad new uses.

We like to say NFC ideas are like bellybuttons, everyone has one!

The two realised that they could attract the right calibre of (awesome) people by creating the right environment (ingredients 2 to 8). And so, like any great chef, they were off to the market to find the best ingredients available.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

274

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

With a flood of ideas it becomes a challenge to filter and select a few ideas within your capacity to deliver. It is extremely tempting to dive straight into solutions mode â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we are all too aware that â&#x20AC;&#x153;when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nailâ&#x20AC;?.

Through adopting a well defined, human-centric process the likelihood of producing a successful product or even whole business is dramatically increased. Our association with NFC Futures has helped to highlight the importance of understanding the underlying people and problems before even considering what the right solution will be.

[ Adapted from the Business Model Canvas www.businessmodelgeneration.com ]

page

275

Through our incubator and partnering business model we have now the ability to take on board numerous concurrent product developments. Direct involvement, from mentorship to management, enables us to steer as required and maximise the potential for any NFC based business opportunity.

We believe NFC technology will change the way people live their lives, we hope that through our NFC incubator we can help entrepreneurs make a successful business from this change.

Commerce in Motion: Moving forward Even though it is a relative start-up itself, Commerce in Motion is well positioned to lead the way in NFC innovation and commercialisation in Australia.

We have already started building a portfolio of robust products (organically as well as through acquisition, and increased our team as a result of this). These products have really helped us understand the market, each other, and our processes a lot better.

We are in the process of finding additional awesome people to add to our team, and are adding to our hundreds of existing smaller customers by continuing to secure large “anchor clients” as partners, who will serve as a beachhead for commercialising our new products.

In the near future we will also be formally launching the “NFC on Tap” brand – a brand platform that shows our commitment to making NFC more pervasive in our day-to-day lives.

The u.lab Collaboration As a growing, commercial operation in a rapidly evolving market place Commerce In Motion does not have a lot of time to spare. The alignment with an educational program had to fit. We found through u.lab and NFC Futures an excellent fit in consumer-focussed pragmatism and commercial realities being front and centre. The multi-disciplinary mix of the students and the fact they are of Masters level was also appealing for us to see where they might push our product boundaries and test our own knowledge of

taking this new technology to market.

What is perhaps most exciting is that projects generated from this collaboration should result in real products and businesses that can deliver these students real returns. We sure hope to continue to support the products that prove viable wherever possible.

History is littered with bright-eyed university students who have done just that and gone on to rewrite the rules of business, think Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg. Through its sponsorship of UTS’ Entrepreneurship studies and the NFC Futures course we hoped to be a catalyst for just such a change of fortune for lucky students able to explore opportunities for NFC products and services.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

276

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

page

277

The Entrepreneurship Lab Wayne Brookes

The Entrepreneurship Lab is an interdisciplinary design thinking environment within which students leverage their own discipline knowledge to innovate new approaches for solving components of a big picture problem. Students work collaboratively in mixed teams to apply the skills and practices of ‘Design Thinking’ and ‘Creative Enterprise’ to develop solutions that catalyse social purpose into the reality of business.

This semester’s subject includes postgraduate students from Business, IT and Design, working with the NFC FUTURES brief to produce working prototypes that could be the seed for a new start-up enterprise at the end of semester. During workshops, industry and university mentors work with students to help unlock creativity and turn ideas into entrepreneurial action.

The Entrepreneurship Lab inherently adopts an experienced-based learning (EBL) pedagogy. The three main characterising features of EBL1 are all present in the Entrepreneurship Lab: 1. Involvement of the whole

person - intellect, feelings and senses. For example,

every week begins with a ‘stoker’ - a physical activity to shift participants’ frame of mind and stoke the fires of creativity. Every week,

page

278

teams pitch their ideas, often through role plays and prototype demonstrations.

When trying to identify possible user needs and insights, teams are encouraged to empathise with the feelings of the people they talk to. When stuck, we encourage teams towards action rather than just thinking as a way to move forward.

2. Recognition and active

use of all the learners’ relevant life experiences. Teams are

specifically designed to maximise diversity, not only in previous study discipline, but in terms of gender, age, cultural background and life experience background. Each team member is encouraged to use their own skills and knowledge throughout the design process, and to share that experience with others in their team to further broaden each person’s T-shaped profile.

3. Continued reflection upon

earlier experiences in order to add and transform them into deeper understanding. Teams

iterate through many cycles of gathering user needs and insights, extracting from that a specific problem, and then identifying and prototyping solutions to test. Throughout these iterations, teams are encouraged to reflect on and hone their understanding of the design thinking processes and tools, so that by the end

of the semester, applying the tools becomes second nature.

The Entrepreneurship Lab also takes a toolbelt approach to problem solving.

Non-design disciplines like business and IT often focus on either knowledgecentred or process-centred learning, frequently with rigid constraints. While the Entrepreneurship Lab does teach an underlying process or framework within which we operate, the focus is on equipping participants with a series of tools that can be applied at different stages.

Teams are encouraged to be mindful of what stage in the overall design process they are currently working in, and to choose appropriate tools to support their objectives. By iterating through the stages many times, students get to try out different tools and to reflect on the effectiveness of particular tools for particular purposes. By the end of the semester, students have a deep understanding of not just what tools are available, but when to use them, how to apply them, and why to choose one tool over another.

Many of the tools we used have been discussed in the previous two u.lab books, so here we will just highlight some of the areas we either haven’t covered in much detail before, or are new for this semester.

a book by u.lab chapter 1.

Andresen, L., Boud, D. and Cohen, R. 2000, ‘Experience-Based Learning’, in G. Foley (ed.), CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION NFC FUTURES Understanding Adult Education and Training, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 225-239.

APPLICATIONS OPEN: Entrepreneurship Lab 2012 Ever wanted to be an entrepreneur?

Or maybe you already are? Do you want to better understand the creative processes that drive innovation? Take your ideas and turn them into prototypes? Work with people who think differently than you? Explore and enhance your own creativity?

Change the world?

•

The Entrepreneurship Lab is

an interdisciplinary design thinking subject within which students leverage their own discipline knowledge to innovate new approaches for solving components of a big picture problem. Students work collaboratively in mixed teams to apply skills of Design Thinking and Creative Enterprise to develop solutions that catalyse social purpose into the real world of business.

The subject establishes interdisciplinary entrepreneurial collaboration through participation between the faculties of DAB, Business, and FEIT and cooperation with local entrepreneurs and design thinkers, who form part of an embedded mentoring program set up to support the entrepreneurial proposals.

• Technology collaboration + JAPAN DESIGN WORKSHOP

This semester’s Entrepreneurship Lab will focus on applications of an innovative technology that will soon be available globally. Together with an industry sponsor you will be developing technology applications with a real chance to further pursue your venture after finishing the semester. We will also travel to Shimizu to collaborate with students in Japan and PARTICIPATE in a CITYSWITCH workshop FROM 22-26 September, 2012. This is an optional component.

•

Apply now

We have limited spaces and maximum intensity, so students interesting in taking part need to send a compelling statement for selection as well as demonstrate enthusiasm for a bigger picture motivation (more info about u.lab below).

- Required elements: - a 200 word personal Statement - a 10-bullet-point Manifesto (outlining your philosophy - of life, work, play or..?)

- an Image that captures the essence of the above - and a list of your skills demonstrating your ‘T’-shape profile (broad skills + functional/disciplinary skill) – diagrams welcome.

page

279

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

280

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

page

281

Teaching Methods

people in other fields.

After each individual has shared their own T, we create a massive collective T to illustrate the level of diversity in the room: diversity of disciplinary background(s), hobbies, languages spoken, ages, genders, cultural backgrounds - some deep, some broad. From this, we reflect on and discuss which characteristics of diversity we want to try and achieve in our teams. For example, we started with diversity of disciplinary background and gender as two key features we all wanted to see in our teams.

Our preferred team size is between 4 and 6 participants.

So with our characteristics chosen, and number of teams established, we collectively decide who will join which teams, with an explicit goal to maximise team diversity.

This semester, to give each team an initial push in different directions, our

industry partners, Commerce in Motion, suggested a range of application domains for the teams to start exploring.

So each team began their design challenge with a technology in mind (NFC) and an application domain to begin exploring. Our five application domains are aged care, entertainment, health, retail and safety/construction.

These domains gave our teams their initial push-off - a new world to start exploring.

As our teams began exploring their domain, they shifted their thinking based on what they found. For example, our aged care team broadened to look at ‘healthy aging’ more holistically. Our safety/ construction team explored not only safety in the construction industry, but the broader issue of workplace safety.

Of course participants’ circumstances change too, for example, some students join the class late, and others

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

282

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

The Teams Teams are the lifeblood of u.lab, especially in the Entrepreneurship Lab. Because they are so central to what we do, we approach team formation with great care and consideration. Like everything else in u.lab, there’s no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to teams, but we can make choices to maximise our teams’ potential for creativity and innovation.

We begin each semester by asking students to share their T-shaped profile. A T-shaped individual is one that has a few areas of deep strength or expertise, plus a breadth of other knowledge and experience. T-shaped individuals are becoming increasingly valued by the world of business as people who are experts in their own field, but have the capacity and desire to interact with and contribute to the work of

change their mind about participating, so we expect the teams to evolve over the first few weeks. But each evolution keeps in mind the underlying principle of maximising team diversity.

Stokers Stokers are activities to help participants shift their mindset and wake up their creative energy.

We use them for example at the start of a class. Everyone comes to class with different morning experiences - maybe your train was running late, or you were stressing over another university assignment, or the barista got your coffee order wrong. Or maybe you just found out you got good marks in your other uni assignment, or the bakery had your favourite pastries in stock, or that cute guy or gal on the train winked at you.

Either way, you’re probably not in the right frame of mind for engaging in intensive teamwork and creativity!

Stokers can help bring you into the present and focus your mind from other distractions. They are designed as activities that require your full attention and concentration. They’re also good for lifting your energy levels at other times, for example when you’ve been in a phase of deep contemplation or discussion, but need to move into an active mode like ideation or prototyping.

The stokers we use are inherently group activities. So the added effect of stokers is

to build a sense of community and trust with fellow participants. They also help create a set of shared experiences and language for the community of u.lab participants. When someone shouts “Danish Clapping Game”, everyone in u.lab can spring into action, while the uninitiated look on in confusion.

Here is a selection of stokers we use. While IKO IKO is a u.lab designed stoker, the others are borrowed from others, acknowledged overleaf.

A special thanks to Moritz Gekeler, Claudia Nicolai, Hedi Pottag and many other teachers at the HPI School of Design Thinking at Potsdam University and the d.school at Stanford University for teaching us warm-ups and stokers.

IKO IKO IKO IKO is a catchy song originally released in 1965, but covered by several artists since then.

To use as a stoker, start by getting a copy of the lyrics , and notice that the song comes in four verses (plus a repeated chorus).

Divide the whole group up into 4 - each subgroup gets one of the verses. Each group starts by practicing their own part separately, to become confident with the lyrics. After a bit of practice, the whole group comes together, and the song is sung in rounds with each group repeating only their own verse. Group A leads off with their verse. As they reach the end, Group A starts repeating their verse, while Group B also joins in with the second verse.

The process then repeats for Groups C and D until everybody is singing at once.

Because of the cacophony of voices singing together, it really doesn’t matter if some participants are not good singers, because individual voices are rarely heard. This is a good stoker to lead with before pitching because it encourages participants to be confident with their vocal projection.

page

283

Danish Clapping Game We first learned about the Danish Clapping Game from the Copenhagen Game Collective. Two people face each other and clap their hands together according to a set of rules until one of them mistakes the cue and claps out of turn. That person is then out, and moves to the back of the line while another person moves up front to take their place against the victor.The rules are simple: The game begins with both people clapping their hands against their thighs, then clap both hands to the other person’s hands at chest level (the centre).

From there there are three possible actions: • clap thighs then move both hands to the left • clap thighs then move both hands to the right • clap thighs and raise both hands in the air If both participants move their hands in the same direction as each other (left, right or up), then on the next turn, they must clap each others’ hands together in the centre.

If someone misses the cue to clap in the centre when they are supposed to, they are out. We play the game by forming two lines of people, so that when someone is out, the person behind them in line moves to the front to take their turn. As players get more experienced, the game speeds up.

Ninja / Extreme Ninja Ninja is a game that is well known, but its origins are unclear . Teams of around 5-8 are ideal. Everyone begins by forming a small circle and putting their hands together in the centre. At the shout of “3...2...1...NINJA!”, everyone jumps back as far as they can and adopts a ninja pose.

From there, each person takes a turn at moving, with someone nominated as the starting person. The person whose turn it is makes one smooth ninja move, aiming to tap another player on their body (or to make it a little harder, you can say you must only tap their hand). The person under attack can twist their body to dodge the incoming hand, but must keep their feet in position.

Once tapped, you are out and move away from the circle. The game progresses until one person is the supreme ninja.

Extreme Ninja is a variation on this game where once a person is tapped (out), they must move behind the person who tapped them, and shadow that person’s moves as closely as possible. The game continues as before, but by the end, each ninja might end up with several shadows!

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

284

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Toaster, James Bond and the Puking Kangaroo This game goes under a variety of names because there are many variations.

To kick off the game, everyone forms a circle, and one person is chosen as the leader who stands in the centre.

The leader points to a random person in the circle and shouts out the name of a pose that they (and their neighbours) need to adopt. In our version, we start with three poses: • Toaster - the chosen person is the toast. The two people on either side of them join hands and the person who is the toast stands in the middle.

The toast bounces up and down.

• James Bond - the chosen person becomes James Bond, by forming their hands into the shape of a pistol and adopting a classic James Bond pose.

The two people on either side become Bond girls, who pretend to fawn over the secret agent.

• Puking Kangaroo - the chosen person becomes the kangaroo. The kangaroo bends from the waist and leans forward, as though they were vomiting (puking). The two people on either side form their hands into a circle in front of the kangaroo as if holding a bucket to catch the mess. The kangaroo should make sound effects.

The leader continues pointing at people randomly in the circle. If someone is already engaged in a pose with someone else when they are pointed at, they stop what they’re doing and move into the new pose. To increase the difficulty level, the leader can increase the speed.

http://www.copenhagengamecollective.org/danish-clapping-game/ http://ultimateninjacombat.com/ http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/belle-stars-lyrics/iko-iko-lyrics.html http://www.youthwork-practice.com/games/Elephant-Toaster-Puking-Kangaroo-Game.html

page

285

Collaboration Dynamics This is version 3.0 of the Entrepreneurship Lab, and each time we learn and evolve. One of the areas in which we have evolved our practice over time is in the process of selecting teams, and managing team dynamics throughout the semester.

Team dynamics are always a delicate topic. Our teams are comprised of adults, all of whom are studying a postgraduate degree and many of whom are either currently working, or have work experience. So all of our participants have worked in teams before and had to manage team dynamics. But some of the additional challenges of the Entrepreneurship Lab are the diversity of the team, and the pressure to come up with new ideas weekly.

One thing we have learned is that people from different disciplinary backgrounds often have quite different styles of working, and this can cause tension within teams until a team finds its own rhythm.

Another aspect of our teams is that everyone has other commitments to attend to. This might be other university subjects they are studying concurrently, or fulltime employment, or family and other commitments. This leads to some team members being able to contribute their energy to a greater or lesser extent at different stages throughout the semester.

For Entrepreneurship Lab 3.0 we are trialling the idea of individual team members evaluating their own team contribution (self assessment) as well as evaluating the contribution of other team

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

286

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

members (peer assessment).

Because we recognise that individual contributions will vary from week to week, we complete three separate evaluations throughout the semester to find each team members’ average contribution across the whole period. To facilitate the data collection, we are using SPARKPLUS software developed at UTS1. The data is useful at the end of the semester when ultimately each individual will receive a grade for their contribution to the Entrepreneurship Lab. But more importantly than collecting data is encouraging frank and open conversations along the way, and helping to manage expectations. And as we evolve we’ll continue to add techniques to our facilitator’s toolbelt to help our teams function to their potential.

page

287

Throw Away Your First Idea In the literature on innovation and entrepreneurship, there’s a common mantra of fail early, fail often, fail cheaply (or some variation). The basic premise is that if an idea isn’t good, the earlier you recognise it and throw that idea away, the sooner you can pick a new idea and move forward. Ideas are plentiful, right? But often we invest so much time and energy in thinking up our best idea and trying to develop it to perfection that we’re reluctant to throw that idea away, even when others don’t think it looks quite as good as we do. Sometimes we need to be given a push to let go of our ideas.

In the Entrepreneurship Lab, the participants have a major deliverable due about half way through the semester. The deliverable includes a pitch, a video,

a research booklet, draft business model and a prototype. Our teams took the best idea from their ideation and honed it into a professional presentation.

They were all very proud of their work, and justifiably so - the presentations were all good. But in hindsight, was this really their best idea?

For E.Lab 3.0 we decided to give them a push to let go. Immediately after their mid-semester deliverable, we told the students that within one week, they had to produce two more prototypes using ideas that were different to the one they had just pitched.

They were forced to let go of their most precious idea and go back to their ideation (or ideate more if necessary) and look for other alternatives that they could develop into quick’n’dirty lo-fi prototypes.

But did we really want them to throw away their best idea?

Well the truth is that you can’t

really kill a great idea. If that first idea was really as good as they thought it was, it was bound to re-emerge in some form down the track.

But it is important to remove the blinkers and at least explore other possibilities.

Some of our teams did make significant direction changes after this, while others continued down their original path, perhaps bringing in elements from other ideas they explored.

Sometimes we all need a little push to let go.

1. http://spark.uts.edu.au/

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

288

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

page

289

NFC Futures Brief “The best way to predict the future is to design it” Buckminster Fuller (1895 – 1983) “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

Alan Kay (American computer scientist), quoted at 1971 meeting of PARC.

The NFC FUTURES project explores new dimensions of creative thinking to design radically creative NFC applications that can augment everyday work or life by carefully designed objects, gadgets, games, methods, toolkits, softwares, spaces, furnitures, prosthetics, mindsets, systems, services and so on.

The project has a human-centred approach, and focuses on designing entrepreneurial solutions for diverse futures where NFC technologies can help communities adapt to a new vision for humanity and creativity. In particular, we are interested in the celebratory and inspirational interventions that bring a human element of play into design. How constructed human interactions enhanced with new technologies form new kinds of urban/social realities is one of our interests. Under new technological conditions, human social behavioural patterns have infinite scope for creative change and insight. How we might enliven and celebrate the processes of change in a human light is the challenge for entrepreneurial design.

Working in mixed teams, we propose design innovations and business models that span health, media, architecture, industrial design, entertainment, urban planning, information technology, performance, art and more.

Your Task In teams of 3 to 5, design a radical NFC (near field communications) application to solve any of the challenges in your chosen context, and to bring this design into an entrepreneurial business model ready for pitching to potential investors. To get to a solution, you will iterate through numerous prototypes, learning to test and fail so as to move forward.

What is NFC? Near field communication (NFC) is a set of standards for smartphones and similar devices to establish radio communication with each other by touching them together or bringing them into close proximity, usually no more than a few centimetres. Present and anticipated applications include contactless transactions, data exchange, and simplified setup of more complex communications such as Wi-Fi. Communication is also possible between an NFC device and an unpowered NFC chip, called a “tag”.

There’s Only 1 Rule: Have Fun This is intended as a fun, intensive and deep-diving challenge that will span the semester. We will work intensively, but the most important mantra is to have fun. When we have fun we learn more and we collaborate better. Often our best insights come when the pressure is sidestepped with creative play.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

290

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Assignment 1: Research + Draft Venture Proposal DUE: Week 6 WEIGHTING: 30% Teams are to develop a proposal for an entrepreneurial solution for an NFC FUTURE in their chosen context.

Submission Items: • Team Pitch (7 minutes) • Project Report – Preliminary (5 copies printed and professionally bound) • Physical model or Prototype (major) plus any supporting prototypes (minor) • Film (2 minutes) • Business Model Canvas and description (min.

1000 words) Assessment Criteria: • Depth and rigour of empathy and research process to develop a defined scope within the NFC FUTURES brief.

• Originality and clarity of Design Problem definition.

• Creativity and innovation of proposed entrepreneurial solution and evidence of iteration.

• Integration and design impact of all media to communicate the research, process, problem definition, proposed entrepreneurial solution and business model.

Assignment 2: Project Report DUE: Week 10 WEIGHTING: 20% Digital submission.

The task is to document and report on your interviewing, testing, iterating, designing processes and business model in a book chapter format for inclusion in the book. See previous semester’s submissions for guidance.

Submission Items: 1. Book Chapter / Project Report including: a. Context research and reflection. b. Documentation and analysis of the interviews and testing in context. c. NFC FUTURES entrepreneurial proposal. d. Demonstration of iterative design and testing. e. Preliminary Business Plan and refined Business Model Canvas.

Assessment Criteria: • Depth and rigour of research process and relevance of resources.

• Design of the interview and testing method and clarity of findings.

• Clarity and articulation of the text pitching the proposed NFC FUTURES application and its impact on the community/context of use.

• Coordination and design impact of the layout to communicate the research, process, and findings in line with the proposed concept.

Assignment 3: Final Venture Proposal DUE: Week 13 WEIGHTING: 50% Teams are to pitch their final entrepreneurial solution and business model for the NFC FUTURES application.

Submission Items: • Team Pitch (10 minutes) • Small booklet or brochure to accompany your presentation (10 copies professionally printed and bound) • Physical model or Prototype (major) plus any supporting prototypes (minor) • Film (3 minutes) • Business Model canvas and Business Plan (min.

2000 words, 10 copies to accompany your pitch) Assessment Criteria: • Integration of combined empathy and research processes to refine an original Problem Definition within the NFC FUTURES brief.

• Insight and understanding of market/business environment, and understanding and application of relevant management concepts.

• Creativity, innovation and finished working quality of the entrepreneurial solution.

• Coordination and impact of all media to communicate the research, process, problem definition, proposed entrepreneurial solution and business model.

• Professionalism.

page

291

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

292

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

C T F A N H D R A H Alexandra Sabastian Swahel Karukapallil George Christopher Deigan Budiharyanta Budiharyanta

page

293

most common causes of fatalities in construction 27%

long term contact with chemicals or substances

13%

vehicle incidents

11%

falls from heights or contact with electricity

most common workerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s compensation claims: 35%

Muscular stress due to repetitive movement

26%

falls, trips and slips

16%

hit by moving objects

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

294

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

938,000 australians work in the construction industry 13,670 claims (37 each day) require one or more week off work due to work-related injury or disease The percentage of people employed in the construction industry who are exposed to potential carcinogens is estimated at 55%

The Australian construction industry has a fatality rate of 4.4 per 100,000 workers.

Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s over 42 deaths!

Construction industry workers experience a rate of injuries nearly 25% higher than the rate for all Australian workers

Sources: SafeWork Australia 2010 The Australian Construction Safety Journal Autumn 2011

page

295

Accidents resulting from human error are a major cause of concern at worksites How can we reduce accidents resulting from a lack of information at worksites?

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

296

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

introduction In August 2012 Lonsdale Street in Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CBD was beset with scenes of violence and rioting as construction workers conficted with police on horseback and armed with capsicum spray. The dispute reached its peak when the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union became involved after employees of construction giant Grocon Construction expressed dissatisfaction with certain safety procedures.

For over a week thousands of construction workers held a blockade on the Emporium building site, allegedly costing Grocon over $370,000 a day.

Safety in the construction industry is an extremely high priority. In spite of this 13,270 claims for workers compensation due to workplace injuries were made in 2010 by construction workers. Considering the industry employs over

938,000 people this equates to around 37 employees each day requiring one or more week off work, costing the industry hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. With this information in mind we wanted to know what we could do to make improvements to the safety of the construction environment and better the lives of all those affected by injuries and fatalities that can and have occurred.

empathy Our first step was to better understand the situation by better understanding those employed in the industry. We held many interviews with a variety of people across construction and maintenance platforms. The majority of these interviews involved approaching unsuspecting workers and asking for a few minutes of their time. For the most part this was a relatively simple task however it became apparent during the early stages that it is far better to approach individual workers rather than groups as, for some reason, groups of male construction workers appear to be intimidated by a lone woman asking to interview them, while male & female workers are quite comfortable being approached on their own.

The reasons for this are unknown by we suspect it has something to do with a

self-consciousness of how they are perceived in front of their colleagues. In any case, by interviewing various maintenance and construction workers we were able to ask simple open-ended questions such as: - what is the best thing about your job?

- what is the worst thing about your job?

- what works?

- what doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work?

- whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s broken?

- how would you fix it?

During this process we learned it is standard in the construction industry to work 6 days a week, sometimes up to 12 hours a day. This presented a challenge since it became apparent our target demographic worked long hard hours so opportunities to interview them were rare and short-lived. Interviews needed to be quick and

direct so as not to waste the limited time they had to speak. For posterity and future reference we elected to record our interviews but when given the choice none of our interviewees wished to be videoed or named, so we recorded audio of the interviews only and have kept their identities anonymous as promised.

In spite of the brief nature of our interviews we were able to perform one in-depth interview by phone with a long-time employee of the construction industry. This interview was instrumental in providing deeper empathy with the industry and those who work in it.

page

297

Collection of data

Further to our initial empathy work we set about collecting secondary data on safety in the construction industry, using sources such as Worksafe Australia, ABS and industry specific journals to better understand the statistics of what the biggest threats to construction worker safety are. From this data we were able to ascertain the following: The top construction workers compensation claims are: • muscular stress

due to repetitive movement (35%) • falls, trips & slips (26%) • hit by moving objects (16%) The top causes of fatalities in construction: • long term exposure to chemicals or substances (27%) • vehicle accidents (13%) • falls from height/ contact with electricity (11%)

Other data obtained during this phase was information on safety equipment and clothing used by workers on construction sites, information on standard safety procedures and information on specific construction related hazards.

Statistics sourced from SafeWork Australia (2010)

Recurring Themes

Ideation and NFC

After collecting primary data in the form of interviews and secondary data in the form of statistics we analysed our data to look for patterns and recurring themes. During this process we noticed a strong theme emerging of safety becoming a problem when people are careless or complacent. Other themes that emerged were time consuming paperwork, inconsistency across the industry with regards to safety checks, and also camaraderie within the workplace and genuine concern for the wellbeing of colleagues.

After collecting data and analysing it we were able to move on to the fun creative part of the process. We employed a series of ideation techniques largely centred around mind-mapping and brain storming in different forms. We set ourselves time constraints, we used textas and post-it notes, we used our minds and voices for idea generation while using our hands to paint chairs in vivid colours, we considered feedback we’d received from classmates and teachers... all the while considering the problem and where NFC could solve it. We came up with a variety of solutions for a variety of problems and shared them with each other, discussing the pros and cons,

particularly how NFC would be the best fit to our solution.

We agreed on the best course of action. We arrived at NFC HardHat.cons, particularly how NFC would be the best fit to our solution. We agreed on the best course of action.

We arrived at NFC HardHat. and also camaraderie within the workplace and genuine concern for the wellbeing of colleagues.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

298

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

page

299

skills

Premiums

Training Medical

Reporting

Data

Insurance

Lendlease

Workers

Stakeholders Responsibility CONSTRUCTION

Accountability Record keeping

Equipments

Chain of command

Goggles Communication Verbal

Shoes

Gloves

Hard hat

In-writing

meeting Safety briefing

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

300

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Machinery Electrical hazards

Restricted areas

Chemicals Vehicles

Access

Injury RISKS

Ongoing training

Training

SAFETY

Insurance

Death

repetitive stress

$$$

family

Risk assessment templates Follow-up checks

Exhaustion from long work hours page

301

EMPATHY INTERVIEW:

what do you like about your job?

“Each Thursday the money comes in & that’s one good thing. You get some times when you get the day off once a month for RDOs and that sort of thing, it’s all fair”

“Bein’ outdoors & in the fresh air an’ that”

“Teamwork and communication, that’s pretty vital. That counts for our safety and more importantly pedestrian safety”

What don’t you like about your job?

“The environmental conditions, I mean it’s long hours”

“Coming to work each day. Working 6 days a week, sometimes 10, sometimes 12 hours a day. It’s not the best but you gotta do it to earn the money.”

“Yeah there are hazards but you don’t really think about that... or you try not to.”

“6 days a week, we work 6 days a week. That the construction industry, 6 days a week.”

“The weather conditions make it very difficult”

“We sit down and discuss all the risks and issues involved in that. Will it disturb people around you? What are the risks of failure? Is there risk of injury, death...”

“On hazards and risks”

“Yeah there are hazards but you don’t really think about that or you try not to.”

“Whenever you turn up to the site (you need to) understand if anything bad has gone up”

“If they haven’t done their risk assessment you can essentially sack them”

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

302

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Reporting AND Recording safety “Some clients will have their own job sheet that you have to fill out before you attend or begin work, our one you have to do as well, on-site, whilst you’re doing their one. Pain in the butt, but has gotta be done”

“Every time we do work we need to assess what the risk is, write down a whole lot of notes... I think everyone would say “we wouldn’t have to do it if people didn’t do stupid things to begin with”

“Doing it electronically is pretty good.

While you’re at the job site rather than sitting down having a stop working meeting and yeah... a bit annoying. The old paper way was at least an hour”

Image by Jeff Eaton from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffeaton/6586676089/ used under CC BY-SA 2.0 licence.

PERSONA: Colin

“Variety is a good thing, ‘cos I’ve got a lot of skills being in the industry that long so everyday is a different job for me, love it.”

“You get old boys that I’m working with (laughs). That’s probably the worst thing about this job, useless useless workers... yeah”

Gender: Male Age: 42 Construction Site Experience: 25 years Likes his job and role variety Dislikes working 6 days a week Seen many changes in the industry Owns a smartphone: adopting of new tech

page

303

IDEATION:

Stakeholders

Problem statement

Empathy interview BRAINSTORMING In-depth research

Internet & Other references

Insight

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

304

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Themes Providing access control

IDEAS

NFC HardHat

NFC

Providing vital information

Sketch / Modelling

Specific user Prototyping

Refined design page

305

Solution: NFC hardhat THE NFC HardHat is a non-powered chip for every single person who enters into the construction environment.

“As important to your safety as your hard hat” The chip can be unobtrusively attached to the worker’s clothes, for example, clipped to the back of their hard hat.

Functions:

Access control

Emergency Details

The NFC HardHat concept supports multiple functions from a single, wearable chip design.

The chip contains vital information about worker’s personal details, working qualifications and medical details.

The chip, when combined with NFC-enabled lock mechanisms can therefore be used determining eligibility to access machinery, vehicles and working areas based on the qualifications/experience deemed to safely operate machinery or access an area.

Additionally, access can be logged and audited later in the event of an incident - making personnel accountable for the areas they work in.

In the event an accident does occur, the ability to apply correct first-aid is vital. By scanning an NFC hardhat with an NFC-enabled smartphone/tablet, a first aid officer can immediately access details of the identity and medical information of an injured worker and what past incidents or conditions they have had.

When time is vital, having this information available instantly can have significant meaning for the ability to treat an injured worker.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

306

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Incident Auditing

Accountability

When access control is used with NFC HardHat, audit logs can be kept for all accesses to an area, or machinery operated. This provides a valuable timeline to reconstruct the series of events leading to an incident.

Since this can also provide evidence to counter fraudulent compensation claims and promotes improved safety practices, the company may also benefit from lowered insurance premiums.

Since all accesses can be logged, individual employees become more accountable for their actions. For example, if hazardous substances go missing from their storage facility without being properly checked-out, a log of all people who may have accessed the storage area would be available.

This provides a personal incentive to follow workplace operating procedures.

Prototype of an NFC-enabled lock

Ignorance is no excuse: The NFC HardHat ensures only qualified individuals can access specialised equipment and areas

page

307

NFC Hardhat Uses

NFC HardHat

Employee’s data

Age Blood allergic

Medical information

Painter Driver worker

Access control

10 years OHS

Work title Training & experience

Who

Advanced Trucks

Very Dangerous !!!

Vehicles

Chemicals

How

Anyone engaged in work associated with physical hazards as well as any person or business charged with providing a safe work environment for employees engaged in potentially dangerous activities can benefit from the NFC HardHat.

Chips/tags are issued by construction site offices and then self-scanned by workers where necessary. Information on the chip can be easily selfmanaged by site staff using specialised software.

The chips are cheap and easy to re-generate.

Information is stored on the chip and in a company database - if a worker forgets or loses their chip, a new one can be programmed in seconds.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

308

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

No Entry

Restricted areas

Reflections The process and journey to arrive at HardHat has been gruelling but rewarding.

Unlike any other subject or assignment each of the four of us have undertaken in our various degrees, this one has required more dauntless perseverance and a willingness to pursue the path untrodden than we had anticipated. It took us by surprise but we jumped right in. We wouldn’t be in u.lab if we weren’t risk takers up for the challenge. We’re proud of our product but we wish to state that it is in no way comprehensive. The challenge of creating a prototype incorporating NFC has meant we’ve needed to consider why NFC would be better in this situation than, for example, RFID or QR codes on a smart phone. There are many situations where NFC is the best option… and we’re still looking for them. We feel that although our empathy and secondary research was of high quality and considerable depth, without being able to spend a substantial amount of time on construction sites performing far longer interviews we believe some crucial insights may have been missed, which would have been essential to delivering a solution to the problem we were presented with. We believe HardHat is a solution but not necessarily the solution. Our research is ongoing and our answer is out there. Watch this space.

page

309

BUSINESS MODEL Canvas

Key partners

Key activities Value propositions

• • • • •

•

Client Employees Employers Insurers Suppliers, e.g. truck manufacturers • NFC chip manufacturer, NFC reader manufacturer • Chips, readers • manufacture compatible equipment

•

Platform - provide information Control access

• • • • • • • • •

Key resources • Employees • Data (physical, intellectual, human)

• • • •

Safer workplace Reduce fatality Ignorance is not an excuse Empowered employees Simple system/ operation Cheap to produce Easy to maintain accurate record keeping NFC chip ‘hardhat’ NFC reader device Ongoing maintenance Customization Information sharing

Cost structure • • • • • • •

Manufacturing of devices Design of platform Production of software Consulting to design systems to integrate with clients needs Human resources Consultancy Training cost

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

310

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Customer relationship

Customer segments

• •

•

• • •

Formal and informal Present -> lack of interaction address gaps in information sharing better communication, faster exposure times complementary devices that work on same platform

• •

Construction companies Construction workers Government

Channels • Website • E-mail, phone, in person, fax

Revenue streams • Efficiency in reporting • Package tailored to project • Reduction in insurance premiums through increased safety procedures and accurate reporting • Maintainance, R & D on the platform

page

311

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

312

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Aram Mustafa Hassan Khan Genevieve Lovell Eric Yu Huang

page

313

The Brief U â&#x20AC;&#x201C; lab semester 2 2012 is about a piece of technology called near field communication: nicknamed NFC. The NFC purpose is to record/dispense data at close range (10 cms). The purpose, type of data, process and physical appearance of the tag was the idea for the semesters brief. Once we were allocated team members, each team choose a theme, and set of on the semesters journey. Our team chose entertainment.

Fact seven: Kings Cross is the densest residential area in Australia â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and more than 25,000 people come to the area after midnight on weekends. Some six thousand people per hour pass the Coke sign after midnight. Just less than a decade ago this number was just 1 or 2,000. Darlinghurst resident action group

What is entertainment?

(Vogel 2011): Entertainment: anything that stimulates, encourages or otherwise generates a condition of pleasurable diversion It is something that is universally interesting and appealing because, when it does what it is intended to do, it moves you emotionally. As the Latin root verb tenare suggests , it grabs you: it touches your soul.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

314

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

How did the team start?

The week prior to us starting class, a young boy had been killed in Kings Cross. He, like approx. 16000 other young people on a Friday and Saturday night, go to the Cross to be entertained. What the group discussed is why?

Why go to Kings Cross?

Entertainment is the focus of a leisured lifestyle.

Thinking about entertainment and why young people go to Kings Cross for entertainment.

One can generalize … by extending beyond the individual. While Lanagham (2012) probes individual identity and ressentiment as fueling carnivalization … regions take on identities and cultures too. Carnivalesque people in urban areas create contextual effects : they define coolness, a mood of tolerance, social diversity and hip creativity.

So regions and urban areas can acquire a distinctive aura by joining a diversity of sub cultures – even no individual can fully join them into his personality… so that is the point: these cultures still clash, a little or sometimes a lot.

page

315

empathy map

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

316

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

SYNTHeSIS 2X2

going out vs getting home

safety vs freedom

page

317

IDEATION

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

318

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

“Individuals move themselves to locales that constitue alternative environment and that provide opportunities for mood altering experiences “(Zillman 1987) Problem Statement Young people want to go where there is a party crowd who want to drink have fun and not judge each other. Having an exciting night with alchohol and drugs can be dangerous, but young people want to party.

Point of view To creat an environment where there are controls with out being obvious.

product statement Young people carry ID. the id card holds an nfc chip is a swipable device. when activated it will upload to facebook, is a bar tab, a person locator, is a pre-paid debit card.

function I swap my card and my facebook information includes the person I have just swap card with. I go to the bar and purchase a drink by using my card which is a pre-paid debit card. when we want to find our friends in another club we activate locator

“WILD Experience with safety net” page

319

Business canvas model

•Governments: -Police -Licensing -Transpot •Clubs •Banks •NFC chip supplier or manufacturer •Logistics provider

•Hardware problem troubleshooting •Production of NFC tags •Data Network •Revenue generated from tag sales

•Central Server •NFC tag •Copyright design (wrist bands, jewellery, etc.)

•Designers •Outsourcing

•Safty: -No need to c -Drink limit -Avoid drink -Easy with Tr •Record keep activities •Business fo

•Cost associated to: -Designing -Outsourcing -NFC chips -Tech support personnel

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

320

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

•Youth

•Online user feedback •IT support team •Club Staff (bouncer)

•Most retail stores such as 7 Eleven, Target, Coles, etc.

•NFC tag subscription •Tech support fees •Transaction fees •Vendor kick backs

carry wallet

drive ranspotation ping of

or banks

page

321

pitch

Price: Free card to users because of advertising.

The tag can be alternated with various types.

NFC Tag readers will be installed at participating hotels, clubs, bars restaurants and food out lets in the Kings Cross area.

Cons: why participate? NFC tag readers not widely distributed Measures drinks not blood alcohol

Pros: Cashless and so money safety, hands free so cannot drop or lose ( wristband), contains ID for immediate identification, contains medical information for emergencies, can contain transport concession if applicable. The NFC tag will immediately pick up a contact ( if activated ) and go straight to facebook. NFC tag will act as a locator if activated for contacting friends or in emergencies. NFC tag can be programmed to measure number of drinks.

Ideation round 2 The boy meets girl concept is still alive, however, we went to the cohort for advice and for them to support out endevaour. In a second pitch, we asked the cohort to vote on our ideas and they resoundingly choose Karaoke! So we spent time thinking about how all the concept of by meets girl would work and incorporate karaoke.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

322

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Ideation transition to Karaoke

page

323

Business canvas model (karaoke) Karaoke Bars + Karaoke machine manufacturers + Clubs + Banks • Students (People) • NFC chip supplier or manufacturer

Song selection help + DJ + Problem troubleshooting + Data Network • Revenue generated from played songs Songs Playlist database + DJ personnel + NFC tag + Copyright design (wrist bands, jewellery, etc.)

• Designers • Outsourcing

Socialising + New level of singing entertainment + Easy access - Singing - to payment - Song list - Photo memorabilia • Record keeping of song activities • Business for karaoke bars Online user feedback + Membership + Karaoke Staff (DJ)

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

324

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Billboards + Charitable events + Facebook + University cafeteria gathering Students + Adults + Children

DJ and karaoke staff + Photo Printing + Outsourcing + NFC chips karaoke machines - Event space rentals (clubs, public parks, university premises, etc.)

NFC tag subscription + Advertisers + Songs publicity + Photo prints

page

325

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

326

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

TAPSOL

Shuai Guo Karn Rastogi Victor Varlamov

page

327

"Don't find fault, find a remedy."

- Henry Ford, Founder of Ford Motor Co. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

Leonardo da Vinci

"The absolute fundamental aim is to make money out of satisfying customers" Sir John Egan

“Information technology and business are becoming inextricably interwoven.

I don't think anybody can talk meaningfully about one without the talking about the other.”

Bill Gates

“The odds of going to the store for a loaf of bread and coming out with only a loaf of bread are three billion to one.”

Erma Bombeck

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

328

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Point of View Standing in a line, a queue, is a simple fact of life. Whether at the bank, department store or even waiting for a job to print, we spend a significant part of our lives affected by a queue. Long queues at tourism attractions are unavoidable when you and thousands of other families go on holiday at the same time and place. One of the great opportunities in Australian business is to kill the queue.

HOW MIGHT WE BRING THE EXPERIENCE OF SHOPPING CLOSER TO ONE OF TAKING A DRINK OR AN ITEM OUT OF OUR OWN FRIDGE, AN EXPERIENCE THAT HAS NO BOUNDARIES, IS COMFORTABLE AND REMOVES THE BARRIER TO MEETING OUR DESIRE?

page

329

Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s your view?

Do too many businesses make you wait too long to buy their products or services?

Is the problem worsening as service and retail companies cut staff?

Which companies have the longest queues, either instore or for their call centres?

What has been your worst experience waiting in queues?

Have service companies been slow to use technology to reduce queue time?

We wanted to know what was happening during the peak periods of transactions rather than overall averages, and how many employees would have to be scheduled to minimize waiting time. We designed various alternatives in scheduling, which would be used to optimize employees, and their work schedules, alleviating the problem of waiting. Effective use of modern IT can be seen as a requirement to succeed in retail market.

For this project, it was assumed that customers are inanimate objects. These ideas were traditionally applied to service industries, such as grocery stores, fast food restaurants, retail stores and banks. Other applications of this project would be production

processes or printer or library queues.

How can technology make it faster and easier for customers to buy products or service, so they have a better customer experience and more time to spend? And where there is dead time in the customer experience, how can it be reduced?

CUT the line

sAve you time page

a book by u.lab

chapter

330

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

OUR PRODUCT The basic problem in the retail industry is that stores are not realizing efficiencies that would result from better applications of technology in their daily operations. Every store has counter where you can make a payment. So every counter needs an employee to process the payment. Labour rates are increasing every now and then and it is difficult to find employees in the middle of the highway, hence to solve this problem we plan to design a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Self Served payment Systemâ&#x20AC;? to decrease waiting times.

This self-service payment system will be equipped with a user-friendly touch screen, a credit/debit card reader, and software for completing the process at the backend. For this

system there will be a system administrator who will have the rights to enter the menu with their current prevailing prices. He/she can enter anytime in the system by a secured system password to change the contents by adding or deleting an item or changing its price.

Now when the customer enters the store, he/she will enjoy his/her traditional shopping experience however with the help of the touch screen using the intuitive graphical user interface, right from the selection of language and payment confirmation will help the shopper make quick purchases and decrease his/her waiting time.

He will select from the options according to his choice and the system will display the payment

amount he has to make once he has finished with his purchase basket. He will have the option of paying the bill by cash, debit card or a credit card. The user will slide or TAP his card and the system will check for the validity of the card and the payment will be made. A receipt will be printed or emailed containing the purchase, making the experience quick and easy.

Qless

by TAPSOL

page

331

Anticipated Benefits

1.This will minimize the number of employees at the back of the counter.

2.The system will help to reduce the cost of labour.

3.The system will be less probable to make mistake, since itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a machine.

4.This will avoid long queues at the counter due to the speed of execution and number of optimum screens to accommodate the maximum throughput.

5.The system will be available 24 hours for 365 days, because the machine is not going to take any sick or vacation leave.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

332

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

As you can see that the Customer places the order, which is read by the internal order system, and the order is then sent to the food preparation person for execution. In the mean time the customer makes the payment. If the payment is made in cash there is a cash collector actor or there is a bank system for credit/ debit card processing and keeping the balance cash amount.

page

333

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

334

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Process All-embracing empathy research as well as academic and general research has given fuel to the TAPSOL process. Ideation and open discussions within the team along with external advice has been enormously value adding. The problem TAPSOL has been addressing has evolved as new information, associations and gaps have

exposed new insights in our respective problem area.

This fruition process has lead TAPSOL to the present problem statement and our distinctive TAPSOL invention.

An assortment of prototypes and extensive testing has assisted in shaping the product to its current stage of development.

page

335

EMPATHY

The purpose of this was to find out more about our user group by asking questions that can tell us how they see their shopping experiences. This included interviews with friends, peers as well as shoppers in stores.

We found that people dont like waiting and get frustrated about shopping if the lines are too long. :It puts them offâ&#x20AC;?.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

336

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

EMPATHY interview

page

337

DESIGN PROCESS

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

338

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Steve

Steve is a professional who works long hours, when he is not working, his time is spent at social events with friends. He is a very practical person and tries to do everything efficiently to make the most of his day. The use of the resources he has at home is limited by the small amount of time he spends at home. He lives a very “stylish” life and tries to follow the “alternative” approach to fashion. One of the most important things he does during the day is his long shower, which helps him relax, meditate and think about his work , his friends and life in general.

USER PERSONA Social Time Poor Business

Fasion Stress

page

339

entrepreneurship lab

STEVE

SEE

SAY

crazy crowds people are animals confusion parking issues

"I cant stand the rush".

"Its pretty much like going to the ZOO".

"I wish they had more parking" "I love to shop, but there are just too many people around".

FEEL Happy Bored Excited Cant care less Love the atmosphere Enjoyment

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

340

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

TAPSOL

Ideation

page

341

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

342

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Living library

Nicholas Manthorpe Kimba Warnes Srikanth Srinivasan

page

343

OUR PRODUCT

Many seniorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; most prized possessions are often hidden away or not shared enough with others and while the stories and experiences seniors associate with these items are very important to them, having the opportunity to talk about these things can be difficult. Many seniors feel that they still have much to offer the community (especially the youth), in terms of life experiences, wisdom and insight, and professional skills.

We want to return the library to its status as a community centre for people of all walks of life and all ages and feel it would be the perfect spot to display a living display of all the locals in the area, with the focus on senior citizens sharing their stories with the local youth. For 2 months at a time, locals will be able to display an item of great value to themselves at their local library and record a video to go along with it. Anyone interested in the item can swipe an NFC tag that will start the video on their smartphone, see a list of related books available and have the ability to contact the actual person who owns the item.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

344

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Background Research In our initial phase, interviews were held with 8 senior citizens residing in an independent-living, low-care retirement village, two of a group member’s grandparents, one senior citizen neighbour, as well as the manager of a highcare nursing home and a retirement village residential property specialist.

What challenges have you encountered?

Keeping up social life Keeping up with social live and keeping on with news in newspaper/on TV

People think that older people aren’t interested/ don’t want to learn

A intellectual stimulation is important (Example.. Lawyers working till 85)

Everyone is different in “old age” Privacy and dignity Cost Feeling “useful” still and being able to act as young as they feel

Our initial interviews revolved around identifying specific issues and values important to aged citizens, as well as focused on uncovering the range of issues which concerned aged care, particularly to do with difficulty older citizens have performing daily activities.

Maintaining one’s dignity, living independently in their own home, and remaining a part of society were the three most important issues. Based on research showing the need and desire for people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible, we decided to focus on coming up with a that would allow people to remain in their own homes.

What is aged care?

As “aged care” comes with such a wide spectrum of meaning, it was important for us to first decide on which area we wanted to focus, whether that was people living in nursing homes with high level requirements or retired citizens living at home who simply needed the occasional bit of help around the house.

Key themes Identified Very wide spectrum in terms of needs Everyone is different in “old age” Very wide spectrum in

terms of needs

Privacy and dignity

Cost “Intellectual stimulation is important (example.

Lawyers working until 85)”

Older people gain energy/vitality/agility from being with young people and are encouraged to move and be excited for life and young people gain insight into life and widen their gaze and be encouraged to go in the right path and avoid certain pitfalls and save their life from mistakes

page

345

HEAR “I hear about many new kinds of technology and I am not against them, I just need to be convinced it’s worth it”

Some technology seems intrusive.

They see the youth of today as being disconnected from senior citizens

They know how society talks of old people - They wanted to redefine what ‘growing/getting old actually is’.

say & DO

to use the extra time for productivity and enjoyment” They are passionate about community involvement and interacting with people from all demographics.

“I want to be able to live in my own home independently”

SEE Feelings of community were less strong than when they were children

Remaining mobile and “part of society” is very important Being able to do the activities or hobbies they love is a must It is important for older people to be in contact with people of all ages Older people like sharing their stories/life experiences/wisdom Some seniors have too much time on their hands after retirement and “wish

Think & feel Privacy is very important for older people

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

346

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Aging with dignity is Most important to meâ&#x20AC;?

Young people are losing the art of communicating a technology is great for medicine, etc. But must be cautious when it comes to things like how it impacts physical communication (ie. Hug or voice verse. Text or letter verse. Email)

User They feel that they still have practical skills and knowledge to share even if they are retired

Sharing of knowledge and experiences is important They want to be recognised and contribute to the community

Interested in sharing their life experiences and stories to the rest of the community

Needs

To be involved with the community Both young and old gain from spending time together

Insights

Retired senior citizens (example. 65+)

A sense of identity can be felt through objects which hold a unique meaning for people

Being able to share their stories Maintaining an active social life Expressing their individuality To change societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoint of older people

Seniors need to be with people of all ages

page

347

POV Retired senior citizens want to remain socially active within their communities while still being able to share their stories and engage with other people of all ages.

Young people can learn from older peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life experiences and skills, while older citizens can have the opportunity to pass on insights and wisdom to the younger generations.

Problem Statement Older people can have trouble being heard and remaining in an active role in the community. They are enriched with life experiences, knowledge and skills, which are not being recognised.

How can

we enable seniors to connect with the community and share their stories?

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

348

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Personas

MEET JIM Jim is a 75-year old retired musician who lives in Surry Hills with his wife.

He loves going to the summer music festivals

in Sydney, especially the smaller neighbourhood ones.

He

collects vintage acoustic guitars as a hobby and he would love to join a casual band but doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know how.

Jim feels that

music is a great way to bring the generations together and would love the chance to share his talent, love of music and collection of guitars with the community.

MEET AGNES Agnes is 72 years old and has been retired from teaching for about ten years.

Losing her husband two years ago has taken

a toll on her social life, especially since her sonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s family lives in another state.

While she stopped working long ago,

she still feels the need to share her knowledge and passion with others, particularly her love of dolls.

Agnes is very

proud of her collection of fine dolls from England which she started collecting as a child.

Each doll carries a unique

story for her and brings back happy memories from her youth.

Being a teacher at heart, she would love to see that passion ignited in a youngster.

page

349

Problem mapping

Acceptance

Disengagement Lack of

Lack of Interaction

Activity to do

Family support Confusion. Social Experimental Self

Mental

Seniors Lack of Activities.

Worth Want to Enjoy themselves

Practical Skills. Interests/

Stimulation

hobbies.

Isolation

knowledge

Individuality

worthy Stimulation.

“How do I pass the time?” page

a book by u.lab

chapter

350

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Exploring Interests plus

Share Skills Wisdom

Sharing Stories

Morality Sharing Insight Interaction Teaching

hobbies Opportunity To Connect Sharing Stories Opportunity to Connect

Nostalgia

Evoking a message

Recollection of stories

Community Showing Acknowledgement

Teaching

Learning new skills Mentering Opportunities

“How do I pass the time?”

Character Development “Bringing together” diverse demographics New learning experiences page

351

Business Model Canvas

Customer segments - Retired senior citizens (example. 65+) - who are interested In sharing their life experiences and stories to the rest of the community and have the opportunity to do so - Local community libraries - they will be able to reassert their position as community centres for people of all ages and become the connection venue of the neighbourhood) local community libraries

Value proposition - Local communities have the opportunity to hear a biography of local seniors in the neighborhood.

- Seniors can have the opportunity to share their experiences, knowledge and skills to an interested audience.

Customer relationships -Community -Youth groups -Senior citizens -Library focus groups

Key partners -Local community centres

-Local councils

-State government

-Local businesses

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

352

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Channels -Marketing and advertising will initially be done in libraries, community centres, aged care facilities, grocery stores -Print media ads in seniorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; publications

Revenue streams -Sponsorship -Advertising revenue

Key resources Physical resources: Libraries Intellectual resources: Computers Most important resource will be seniors sharing their stories

Key activities -Interviewing and data collection from seniors -Human interaction and development

Cost structure -Costs will mostly be associated with initial advertising and promotion-Direct labour due to interviewing and recording information -Display facilities in the library

page

353

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

354

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Proposed Solution The diagram as well as the previous illustration narrative depict the use case of the retired senior citizen that has been identified with having the need to express his individuality, through the aid of his favourite object, the banjo. He got the opportunity to share his interest in music through using the library as the main medium to communicate his passion to the rest of the community by showcasing the object as well providing a testimonial video. The idea behind this concept was ‘sharing a story’. This in itself can help bring together young and old as well as educate and inform the population on their own community’s shared interests. This could be a campaign for a “Resource My Life” concept, which allows seniors to communicate their experiences, skill and knowledge through the joys of story telling directed towards the community. This community can gain the passion and insight from the elders and hence enrich their own lives.

page

355

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

356

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Harry Aznavoorian Lauren Grundeman Priya Patel Andrew Winata Kenny Xu

page

357

Inactive and overweight children need to exercise in order to stay healthy both in the short and long term.

Additionally by developing good, healthy and active habit early, people are able to avoid the long term health problems and complications associated with inactive lifestyles.

Problem Statement How might we motivate overweight children to exercise in a way that is accessible, flexible and engaging?

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

358

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Australia, as with much of the western world, has an ongoing struggle with the topic of health and healthcare particularly in regards to obesity.

Due to the increased strain of an aging population, rising healthcare costs and the exponential growth of cardiovascular disease in western society, obesiety is quickly becoming one of the most vital issues in healthcare.

Children & Obesity

Todays Children

The number of overweight children in Australia has doubled in recent years, with a quarter of children considered overweight or obese. Causes of obesity in children include unhealthy food choices, lack of physical activity and a seditary lifestyle. All of these factors contribute to the onset of cardiovascular disease.

Children and young people today are spending more and more time indoors, exercize and outdoor activities dont have the short-term gratification that modern forms of entertainment do particularly video games.

Gamification is a powerful way to engauge younger audiences. So what can we do?

Would you have guessed that the top 2 leading causes of deaths in Australia are currently cardiovascular related diseases (CVD)?

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Cardiovascular Disease, Australian Facts 2011

page

359

The Solution...

We bring the games OUTSIDE

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

360

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Introducing...

PLay @ Re-Space A way for children and young adults to get out and be active through the use of gamification in NFC enabled spaces.

Re-Space will attempt to address the health issues faced by children, young adults and young parents in three primary ways;

First

to make it easier for young people to access and connect with healthy activities through the re-imagining of inner city spaces through the use of NFC nodes and activities.

Second

to encourage the production of healthy behaviors and repeated exercise through a rich cognitive rewards and gamification scheme.

Third

to make exercise and active lifestyles even more attractive and social through events, applications and social connectivity.

page

361

Empathy Research

The Empathy Map

Our team conducted extensive research and interviewed a cross section of people in Sydney to understand their attitudes on exercise and obesity. The key objective was to identify if there were any similar views people had on motivation on exercise.

The empathy map outlines the key findings of the interviews that were conducted.

Overall, the results were consistent with people who exercised. However, some of the results were quite interesting since most of them did not mention future health benefits as their main motivation to exercise.

At the conclusion of the interviews, the team analysed the results and formulated ideas on how NFC technology could assist with motivating people to exercise.

Some of the Questions we asked....

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

362

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

page

363

PERSONAS Throughout our empathy research we identified several key groups that required additional motivations or activites.

Name: Michelle & Stella Age: 9 School: Forrest Lodge Primary School Year: 4 Exercise Attitude:

Michelle: Enjoys outdoors sports such as soccer and softball Stella: Enjoys gymnastics once a week but prefers watching tv

Name: Jane Age: 42 Company: Wicked Campers Job Title: Receptionist Job Description: Meets and greets clients

Time at Employment: 5 years Exercise Attitude: Jane is a mother of two with two children, she rarely has time between work and house activities to exercize but recognizes the importance of a healthy lifestyle for both herself and her children.

Name: Michelle Age: 19 Company: NAB Job Title: Call Centre Representative Job Description: Responds to calls Time at Employment: 1 year Exercise Attitude: Michelle walks to work if she can be bothered. Michelle feels that she has a fast metabolism and exercise makes no difference to her outstanding figure.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

364

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

How did we get there?

Awere examining the topic of health from two different perspectives. Firstly from the realm of the healthcare industry and medicine.

Secondly through the lense of preventative and lifestyle based approach.

After exploring

both options and examinging not only the people involved and conducting extensive empathy activities we decided to focus our attention into the development of a preventative based solution.

These solutions would exemplify

short-term incentive for people to have exercise as well as encourage active and social lifestyes to prevent people from ever having to go to a hospital.

page

365

Our intial concepts involved developing social games to encourage people to get out and about

later we began to examine the concept of utilizing NFC to produce pathways throughout environments

Further on we developed solutions that would use new technology to reinvent spaces and tie them to our previous ideas

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

366

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

page

367

PROTOTYPING

In developing our first prototype we looked at focusing on the way that people interacted with the technology and how the two primary parts of the infrastructure would work together in a daily context.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

368

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

Initial Prototypes Initially we examined different ways we could introduce NFC into spaces , in order to add value

Developing THe Concept We proceeded to develope a network of NFC nodes and spaces that would provide a platform for developing applications and different products.

Designing For a User Finally we designated a user group and a specific space, in this instance children and young adults within a park environement and proceeded to develope an example, prototype application for this space. - A scavanger hunt

The scavanger Hunt The scavanger hunt application would allow for young children to interact with one another and a space through hidden NFC nodes around a park area. These nodes would be revealed through interesting activities and provide a short term incentive to keep active.

These game type applications also provide families a way to stay active together .

page

369

NFC @ RE-SPACE Re-Space will utilize near field communications (NFC) in its activites to promote physical presence within the game and provide an interesting and contextually relevent way to combine an active lifestyle with technology.

The proximity required for NFC makes it a great vessel for fitness applications as it requires a physical presence in order to transfer information.

Device infrastructure Although expensive, smart phones make the perfect interactive tool for the NFC spaces in ReSpace. With their decreasing price and increasing adoption of NFC technology they will allow users to interact with their environment

in new and interesting ways.

Additionally by utilizing an existing technology capable of multiple applications we can explore many different avenues through multiple application development, each able to target different audiences.

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

370

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

How does it work?...

Š Harry D Ong @HadeoDesign

page

371

IN future Re-space will also act to: Create social relationships through shared activities Promote local Business through cooperative sponsorships

promote sponsored events and activites

Offer a network for Tourists

Introduce seasonal events such as Scavanger hunts

Offer a means of friendly competition for people of all ages

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

372

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

The business model Canvas and Financial Future In order to realize any system a certain level of financial support and viability is required As a product, Re-spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s infrastructure is low cost. non powered NFC nodes implemented in long wearing plastic or composite sign materail will act as the nodes.

Re-space will attempt to generate revanue through means such as: Collection of user data such as usage statistics, areas visited and types of activities engaged .

Insurance cooperation schemes such as the reduction of premiums for frequent users, as they will be more active than infrequent users Infrastructure rental and application development leases - companies may wish to sponsor or create their own applications or products to operate on Re-space infrastructure Increased tourism and support - the infrastructure of Re-space will offer a unique oppertunity for tourism as foreigners with NFC enabled devices will be able to enjoy local flavour and unparalleled access to culture in their own native languages and pace.

And potentially more! as Re-space is an ecosystem and an infrastructure the possibilities for growth both financially and in usablitliy are endless!

page

373

page

a book by u.lab

chapter

374

CROWD-SHARE INNOVATION

NFC FUTURES

page

375

page

376

u.lab Catalysts: Collaborators who energise the network of crowd-share innovation Sasha Abram is a designer, thinker, lover, learner. She believes that we can all contribute to making this a better world and have fun while doing it!

Andrew Ashton is a wild mix of creativity, management, marketing, strategy, travel, sunshine, snow and everything in between today folks. There will be a max temperature of just the way you like it as today is a little different with periods of creative problem solving, insight and outside the box thinking. http://au.linkedin.com/pub/ andrew-ashton/16/180/9a0 Vida Asrina is a believer in the power of writing down dreams is the first step to them come true. Coming from a small post-disaster and conflict area Banda Aceh makes Vida fascinate by cultural diversity and social/humanity issues. She loves music, traveling, and painting. And Vida is a coffee lover.

Matthew Ayres is Managing Director, Growth and Innovation Asia-Pacific a boutique consultancy

focusing on top line growth.

Prior roles have included Global Head of Strategy and Innovation, Lend Lease Corporation; Group Head of Growth & Innovation, AMP Limited; National Director, Strategy, General Electric Capital. Matthewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work focuses on high level industry and group-wide strategic business growth.

Sarkis Aznavoorian is an advertising pleb and international man of mystery.

Sarkis enjoys music, games, technology and making things. Has a fantastic beard.

Baptiste Bachellerie is the co-founder of South Of The Border (gosouthoftheborder. co), and a Master of Business candidate. Affable brigand born in Paris, he combines metrics-driven decision making - influenced by his time at Amazon - with humancentered design to foster meaningful innovation in local communities.

customer experience. Hanno holds an MBA from Fuqua School of Business, Duke University and studied Business and Economics at the University of Wuerzburg and University of Berkeley.

Mal Booth is the University Librarian at UTS where he is on a mission to implement the Library of the Future.

Mal was formerly Head of the Research Centre at the Australian War Memorial and responsible for its library, archive and the Memorialâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s web strategy.

Aaron Bonham is a tenyear veteran of the postproduction industry, before getting an offer to work for Apple that he could not refuse. At Apple, Aaron saw that mobile devices were the future of personal computing.

So began Code Monastery, born of a desire to help people re-design, re-think and re-imagine the way they do business in an ever connected world.

Steve Baty, principal at Meld Studios, has over 15 years experience as a design and strategy practitioner. Steve is a contributor of public discourse through articles and conferences. Steve has led design-driven strategy and innovation projects across a broad spread of industries including: financial services, tourism, travel, transport, consumer electronics, manufacturing, government, and the arts.

Dr. Wayne Brookes has technical expertise in distributed and Internetbased computing technologies, as well as research and experience in university leadership in teaching and learning. He believes in interdisciplinary collaboration as a means for delivering user-centred technology design and innovation, and is a cofounder of the u.lab.

Hanno Blankenstein is Director at S&C, a strategic design firm. He concentrates on strategy and product innovation with a focus on new business models, product, marketing and

Jordan Bryon is an filmmaker, specializing in participatory storytelling.

Currently, sheâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s co-creating platforms with Dharavi slum dwellers in Mumbai, fusing entrepreneurship,

page

377

storytelling, creative technologies and local knowledge to help them generate better income.

Before, she created a mini-series with orphans in Uganda; a cross-platform production with elderly; and a new media installation with a public housing community.

Sonja Caraian is a mechatronics engineer and PhD candidate in robotics, currently working in the field of Human-Robot Interaction with a focus on non-verbal communication and sensing human cues. Other interests of Sonja’s include food system and environmental sustainability, cooking, photography, and nature.

Patrick Crooks is CEO of Commerce in Motion, an NFC technology incubator. Patrick is addicted to innovation.

He has participated in over twenty start-up ventures, co-founded South Africa’s largest privately held IT company employing 1200 people, and consulted on innovation in 15 countries.

He has built mobile banking ventures in developing countries serving millions of previously unbanked people.

Chris Deigan is a IT guy. He is curious about all things.

By day Chris play lifeguard for the Internets, by night, he try to learn and experience new things. A hobby of Chris’ is maintaining that he is too busy to have an actual hobby. http://ctd.id.au/ Emil del Rosario completed a Masters of Business Administration at UTS. Emil was awarded the 2011 MBA scholarship for outstanding international student. He

page

378

has extensive corporate finance experience in a ‘Big 4’ accounting firm. A foodie, traveler, entrepreneur, Collaborator, design thinking rookie, facilitator, researcher, social business advocate.

Micky Du has over 15 years experience in the advertising and design industry, and has co-owned and managed Du Brothers Design, a successful design studio for 9 years Johannesburg and Sydney.

He was Creative Director at two of WPP’s leading agencies in Asia Pacific – Ogilvy & Mather Advertising Worldwide and The Brand Union, an international branding consultancy in Singapore. He now specialises in creating Brand Identities and continues to liaise with his associates throughout the region as well as globally collaborating on a number of key branding projects.

Dr. Melissa Edwards’ research interest lies at the intersection of social capital and power, where the practices of management and organisational behaviour can be re-framed through emergence, or the understanding of networks from the inside, and entrepreneurship. She is a core member of the Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre and the u.lab at UTS. Daniel Egan-Wyer is a mechatronic Engineer with a bit of a passion for coding robots. If you need something to beep, flash or have a technological wow factor Daniel is your man. Daniel was internationally grown and experienced; and he

strives to create technology that just works.

David Gravina is inspired by the people he met and the success of early experiments in using design to make a difference, he launched one of Australia’s first values driven agencies Digital Eskimo in early 2001. David’s career highlights include the award winning Your Rights at Work and Message In a Bottle campaigns.

Selena Griffith is Senior Lecturer in Design Studies at COFA, UNSW where she coordinates courses in Design Management, Design Practice, Innovation and Collaboration. Selena is also co Founder of Social Innovation Sydney – a support network for emerging Social Entrepreneurs and Co Producer of Live Futures 2020 an annual festival.

Lauren Grundeman. After 15 years of working full-time in the banking and finance industry, Lauren Grundeman decided to have a career break and attend university on a full-time basis. I enjoy pitching and brainstorming my ideas with fellow students.

I am determined to paint a chair before the semester finishes.

Ele Jansen is a discoveress, younger sister, North European, experience designer, ethnographer, sharer, midnight drawer, passionizer and sound opulencer. With www. rebootstories.com she designs experiments for collectives to create purposeful stories that become micro agents for change. The results feed Ele’s PhD in media anthropology

and www.learndoshare.net, a platform on collaboration, design fiction and speculative innovation.

Dominique Jaurola is a business designer. New products and businesses with human-centricity are in her focus. She led a groundbreaking initiative to infuse foresight on humans to strategy, product, design and marketing at Nokia. She is the founder of Hunome, an Internet application building ‘how humanity works’ mind-maps from shared perspectives. www.hunome. com http://linkedin.com/in/ dominiquejaurola Dr. Joanne Jakovich is an architect specialising in the activation of urban spaces through bottom-up collaborative methods. She is a co-founder of u.lab and catalyst of a new generation of urban engagement projects such as BikeTank and CitySwitch that embed entrepreneurship and social innovation into the city.

Mark Jones is Commercial Director of Commerce In Motion, where he leads the commercialisation of companies that link the physical world with the digital economy through NFC. His background as Digital Director at Fox sports, as well as the various strategy and operational roles within News Digital Media have given him the perfect platform to achieve this.

Tess Julian is Director of ratio, a consultancy which offers research and training in organisational and industry innovation and

related fields. She is currently collaborating with the Hargraves Institute and has co- designed the Innovator Recognition Program (IRP™ System) with Allan Ryan, Executive Director Hargraves Institute.

Dr. Julie Jupp has broad interests in design innovation, project management, and digital technology. She has co-created intelligent decision support systems for building design, delivery and facilities management.

With a vision of a new mode of design and project delivery, she is spearheading the development and use of digital technologies in interdisciplinary design teams, and is co-founder of the u.lab.

Manuela Yunhye Kim is a visual communicator who loves serendipity between the world of enticing books, glorious food and addictive music .She is a dreamer and ambassador for the future. Manuela believes that by understanding yourself and the world, trying to collaborate with a multi-disciplinary group to bring more appealing solutions is the core U.LAB. Dr. Nathan Kirchner was celebrated in 2011 as one of Australia’s and the US’ top ten young scientists due to his research on human-robot interaction; research that was undoubtedly shaped by his educational background in robotics and psychology, and by his passion for, and experience in, user-centred design.

It was this same platform that drove Nathan to be one of the founders of the multidisciplinary innovation hub known as u.lab.

Deborah Kneeshaw has over 20 years experience in design. In her own business, as well as an adjunct faculty member of the Australian Graduate School of Management from 2005-10, Deborah has helped business leaders from organizations such as Westpac and Qantas as well Govt and NGOs use design thinking to innovate. She is the founder of Sydney’s popular Design Thinking Drinks.

Paul Lin is a researcher, educator, boundary spanner. Paul is running along the Sydney coastline wondering how do we get good ideas to diffuse and be adopted? How can we develop social innovation in Australia? How do we get broad scale social change?

Because this is an amazing place and this is our time.

Dr. Danielle Logue recently joined the UTS Business School after completing a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Science (MSc) at Said Business School, University of Oxford, graduating with distinction. During her doctoral studies, Danielle was a visiting scholar at Stanford University and also the recipient of numerous scholarships, awards and honours at the University of Oxford, including a Clarendon Scholarship, Green Templeton College Doctoral Scholarship, Oxford Leadership Prize and a University of Oxford Vice Chancellor’s Award.

Genevieve Lovell is a grandma who is learning a new way to think at 60+, oldish but goodish. She sees that we haven’t got started so wanting to keep up with those who will skite that they did it all for us - if only they knew

page

379

that actually we did it all for them.

Nicholas Manthorpe is an adrenaline junkie, foodie and naturalist at heart, he seeks to fuse my three great passions with his natural born marketing talents in a sustainable and ethical manner.

Unashamedly set on living the good life, Nick wants to bring as many people along with him. Who’s in?

Anna Moran is a Student, Friend, Sister, Daughter, Definite Foodie, Staple-Gun Aficionado, Insulation-Foam Distruster, Perpetual Wanderer off the Beaten Track, Information Junkie, Reader, Watcher, Listener, Questioner, Researcher, Writer, Talker, Glass Overflowing Type, Cliff Enthusiast, Nature Addict, Caffeine Appreciator, Sleep Lover, Sugar Fiend, Believer, Skeptic, Daydreamer, Strategist, Innovator + Collaborator.

Anita Morandini is pole-vaulting between large-scale urban environments and intricately crafted architecture. She works in the wild territory of “Wicked Problems”. Anita is most interested in strategic design, engaged with complex environmental problems outside the traditional boundaries of urban design. Anita is even more interested in developing a genuinely collaborative way of working in her profession.

Sumaiya Moushumi is a recent graduate in Architecture, have lot of ambition and dreams to make a difference in the world and the way to achieve my dreams. I love to work with people, for people and community. Love to traveling, hanging out with

page

380

friends, music, concerts, sketching and painting and I am daydreamer.

Caroline McLaren is a business strategist that couples her sharp analytical mind with an innate curiosity and drive for innovation to create new cogenerative paradigms. She has worked in management consulting and marketing with Bain & Co and Yahoo!7. She facilitates Trampoline events on a regular basis. She is a founding member of Hub Sydney. @carolinemclaren Ian Muir has nearly 20 years of experience in Service Design and innovative problem solving in Financial Services as well as Industrial Automation in a variety of sales, marketing, product management and software development roles. Ian also does freelance work with local and international organizations consulting on Customer Experience design.

Aram Mustafa’s fist time of seeing Jupiter moons was in his sixes. After that Aram never gave up to see the moons again until he saw them once again on 2010 with his own telescope. Aram love playing with my calendar, and draw lines on paper!

Sutapa Nandy is a recent graduate in Accounting. Currently working as a records keeper for clients. Soon starting to work for her own business to make a difference to the society and create social difference and Sutapa is willing to play hard, to reach the extra mile.

Dr. Natalia Nikolova has substantial expertise in the area of relationship building and

management, particularly in client-advisory relationships.

She also has an in-depth understanding of complex team dynamics typical for project-based organisations or organisational forms. Her focus is on multidisciplinary research and teaching.

Natalia is a core member of the u.lab.

Priya Pan is a business student with lot of enthusiasm to enhance her marketing management and networking skills. She believes that along with creativity and bit of exposure of fashion industry would definitely help her to achieve her passion of becoming a successful business women in lingerie and underwear world.

Steven Pozel’s career has spanned across North America and Australia over the last thirty years, and operates across areas of visual culture including design, visual arts, craft, digital media and education. Steven is the Director of Object: Australian Design Centre (ADC), which as an organisation reveals the cutting edge of design and visual culture to broad audiences.

Cristian Ruiz Ramos is a designer with a punk way of thinking. Deep ecologist wannabe, fair dancer, skilled cook, caffeine intolerant. Social Innovation, Sustainability and Design Thinking are the things that Cristian is into.

Cristian knows how to manage fancy product design but he thinks it has to contribute fixing the mess by thinking outside of the box.

Linette Salbashian has chronic creativity symptom.

Therefore she writes things down-Linette is a writer.

Linette also created her own alphabet. She loves walks, talks, singing-playing the guitar. Currently an architectural student. Working for a residential property developer.

Linette loves cities, traveling, cooking. Her purpose in everything she does is to create community and homes.

Dr. Jochen Schweitzer is an industrial engineer turned management academic at the UTS Business School and cofounder of u.lab, a multidisciplinary innovation hub. He has extensive experience in strategic business planning, organisational transformation, innovation and change management and a special interest in design thinking, entrepreneurship and social innovation.

Eldridge Segura studies IT to get the knowledge to create the toys he envisages every time he is solving problems; these come from all aspects of Eldridge’s life. So far Eldridge has seen innovations in the market that he dreamed before they appeared. Therefore, Eldridge is start walking one step ahead those innovators.

Roderick Simpson is a principal of Simpson + Wilson Architecture + Urban Design; Associate Professor in Urban Design, University of Sydney; along with interests in urban renewal and regeneration, ecologically sustainable design and strategic urban design. Rod’s interest in cultural uses for many of the redundant industrial sites around the harbour led to work with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust where he was manager of urban design, and contributions to HHT’s Harbourings exhibition at

Museum of Sydney. Most recently he led the urban design of the Sustainable Sydney 2030 Strategy for the City of Sydney.

Leanne Sobel is a communication designer, working in roles across design/client/ project management and design education. She has recently completed a Masters of Management specialising in Marketing Management, including the completion of a research report, which investigated ‘design thinking’ in Australia, specifically exploring the opportunities and barriers presented for business and design.

Rangan Srikhanta is a social entrepreneur using market principles to achieve government scale social change.

He is CEO of One Laptop Per Child Australia. He has raised over $6m from Corporate Australia to date and distributed over 5,000 XO laptops to remote and rural children.

Srikanth Srinivasan likes being out of the comfort zone and taking risks. He always looking for an adventure and a lesson to learn from it. Sri sees life as an unfinished puzzle, “we’re all looking for the final piece to complete the picture that we foresee”.

Want to join Sri in the search?

Krisdewanto Suryopamungkas is a little bit of everything; he has never been expert at anything, but always good enough at everything. Never like to study but he learned quickly when he needs to. Kris has a Creative mind in a bureaucratic organization. So hoping to spread the creativity and while doing that still having fun.

Hasan Syed’s ingredients: foodie, techie, audiophile, media junkie, nerd, traveler, pragmatist. Preparation: Mix in large bowl of life. Bake in oven at 350 degrees for 25 years. Throw into world with abandon and mix interesting experiences. Once done, let loose to see what happens.

Serving recommendations: with side of tenacity, passion, and distraction.

Siobhan Toohill is Principal at Pure and Applied, a design studio to create better, more sustainable places, services and experiences. As deputy chair of the Green Building Council and a director of the Australian Building Code Siobhan is actively involved in shaping national building standards and rating tools.

Nicole Velik a creativity and innovation facilitator, trainer and consultant. She is founder of the innovation company, The Ideas Bodega. She has facilitated and trained organisations across The United States, Australia and Asia.

When she’s not overhauling brands and nurturing ideas, she can be found pursuing my other passion, music. Recently her song ‘Tonight’ was used on a national Channel Ten promo for the American TV drama, Medium.

Professor Michael Wallach has spent periods of time working in several countries around the world (USA, Israel, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa) in the development of my patented vaccine (CoxAbic®) against one of the most important health problems in the chicken industry, Coccidiosis.

I have worked in both academia (Rockefeller University,

page

381

New York, USA, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel and UTS) and industry (Teva Pharmaceuticals, Israel) gaining a great deal of real world science, business & entrepreneurial experience.

Kenneth J. Waldron is Professor of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering at UTS. He is also Professor Emeritus from the Design Group in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of Stanford University. He holds bachelors and masters degrees from the University of Sydney, and PhD from Stanford. He works in machine and Robot design, and design methodology of Mechatronic systems.

Manjula Waldron, PhD (Stanford): Teaches and does research in promoting interdisciplinary design for diversity, resiliency, healthy ageing at Stanford University and design thinking and healthy futures at the University of Technology Sydney.

Previously as a Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the Ohio State University she specialised in integrated design, aids for disability, and holistic health.

Job Wallis: Father, Teacher, Student, Business Owner, Lover, Husband, Farmer, Surfer, Biker, Sailor, flâneur, Dandy, Spiritual tourist, Il Duce, Organic Mechanic, Dumpling dilettante, auto didact, 3D digital earth construction worker, augmenter of reality, empathy tester, follower of the prophets of science fiction, Karaoke Fascist, Occasional Grump, Singer, poet and peace maker, love to share. www.xdvisuals.com

page

382

Nathan Wiltshire spends way too long daydreaming every day. He says:“The future economy is without our grasp yet seemingly beyond our reach. Often we ask ourselves what world do we want to live in? Freedom, fairness, family, and perhaps fun? It’s time to do something about it. “ Andrew Winata has a mixed background in business strategy, technical studies & management, east & west, truly embracing cross disciplinary work. Loves techie stuff as well as the great outdoor.

Always interested to learn new things to put into the mix. Sharing is caring. Jack of all trades, working on his masters now.

Jacqueline (Jax) Wechsler is an independent design consultant, lecturer and postgraduate research student.

She consults as Jax Interactive on human-centred design and innovation projects. Jax tweets at @jacwex and blogs at http://cocreatingchange. com. She is passionate about the power of design for enabling better futures.

Michelle Williams is a connector, facilitator and thought leader in social innovation and is the founder of Ideaction. Michelle brings together groups from business, government and society to create projects that enhance community harnessing the power of people and technology.

Michelle tweets from @mia_ will and blogs at ideaction.co Kayla Wu is in the process of life transition for years, from the east to the west, from a teenager to a young adult, from learning life to practicing. The greatest enjoy-

ment from life is adventure.

I consider myself a design strategist with a deep social conscience fascinated with the intersection of design and social innovation.

Kenny Xu is a big fun of collaboration and learning new things. Kenny is passionate about exploring this world and meeting people from different parts of the globe. He hopes his skills can support him to do what he loves in the future and leave the world a better place than when he first arrived.

Opher Yom-Tov is the National Manager of Customer Centered Design and Innovation at BT Financial Group. Before joining BT, Opher spent ten years in design and innovation strategy with global design firm IDEO. Fiona Young is an architect and a learning environment specialist. At BVN Architecture she is involved in research in pedagogy and learning space design, stakeholder engagement, briefing, the development of experimental learning spaces, and learning spaces that respond to, and engage today’s and tomorrow’s learners. Fiona is Chair of the NSW Chapter at Council for Educational Facilities Planners International.

Huang Yu has just experienced a series of intensive team works in u.Lab. “We interview people, hang out in clubs, Karaoke bar, pitch ideas and sing songs to help boy meets girl.”

He found that was fun to do and he is proud of what they have done.

http://ulab.org.au

http://groundbreaker.org.au

http://biketank.org

page

383

page

384