Skip to main content

Ranjan's history of NID

I recently reviewed a time line of the history of NID (India’s National Institute of Design) developed by my friend and colleague, Prof. M P Ranjan. https://www.academia.edu/4573892/Baatein_NID_2013_Lessons_from_NID_History_Rev_Fin_Lr.pdf?email_work_card=view-paper
 It is a wonderful history of the many forms of design that have unfolded not only at NID but in many places around the world as well. In particular it is a marvelous story of the development of NID as a leading design institute that serves both India and the world. 

At the time of his untimely death Ranjan was working with me to see if there was a concept/term in Sanskrit that described the relationship between those who were served by those who served them. In my work with C. West Churchman, the term ‘client’ was often used to describe such a relationship—which was unsatisfactory to both of us. It sounded too legalistic and did not capture the ‘conspiracy’ (i.e. breathing together) of the intimate relationship between designers and those they serve. We were always looking for an alternative descriptive term. 

The terms ‘customer’, ‘consumer’, and ‘user’ are used by transaction designers—those who create things or services to sell to others—but those terms described relationships that were quite different from the relationships of agency, service and fiduciary contracts present in social systems design. Terms like ‘end user’  are used by designers who create things as ‘change agents’ effecting other’s lives. None of these terms describe the complex relationships formed in design cohorts created to serve others.

I was very excited to see what Ranjan would find for our consideration but unfortunately it was not meant to happen. Ranjan was the ideal scholar-practitioner and understood, as well as appreciated immediately, what my quest was and why it was important. His energy and intellect is very much missed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Center for Systemic Design draft prospectus

    PROSPECTUS Center for Advanced Systemic Designing Introduction  Our futures can be approached in four ways: 1) drifting—adapting to whatever happens,  2) colliding—reacting and enduring,  3) retreating—backing away from undesirable states or conditions, or   4) advancing—navigating into desirable states-of-affairs. The norm nowadays is to drift, collide or retreat into the future. The fourth approach, the proactive approach, is the more apt response given the complex challenges and rising expectations that are the new norm for the foreseeable future.  The fourth approach depends on the agency of individuals who have the capacity to handle the challenge of securing desired outcomes in indeterminate situations on behalf of concomitant stakeholders and clients. They achieve this by serving—design agency—as members of design teams and design cohorts. These systemic designers are skilled polymaths who have the ability to create assemblies of essential elements into coherent whole system

Design, Wicked Problems & Throwness

Horst Rittel is one of the seminal residents in my 'Berkeley Bubble'. Recently a friend and colleague sent me an article about ‘double-wickedproblems’ . I have become ever more aware of the increasing number of references to ‘wicked problems’ in all forms of media that seem to have missed Rittel’s deeper insights . This brought up the concern I have about the use and miss-use of the term ‘wicked problem’.  The term ‘wicked problem’, first introduced by Rittel in West Churchman’s seminars at Berkeley, was in reference to his conceptualization of the impossible challenge of dealing with significant social issues using traditional, rational, ‘problem solving’ methods. In most cases what are miss-diangnosed as ‘wicked problems’ are actually complex or complicated problems that can be simplified or broken into smaller 'tame' problems allowing for a straight forward 'problem solving' approach to be taken. This approach is believed by many to be capable

'sketch-note feedback' from keynote

  This is a sketch-note done of a recent keynote of mine. It is an invaluable form of feedback for a presenter. It shows what someone else heard from the presentation, how topics were related and what concepts were foreground and what were background — all from the perspective of an attentive listener. This is an invaluable service. Much more valuable than just a transcript of critical reviews. The sketch-note author in this instance is Manisha Laroia — Thank you Manisha.