There is a growing interest
within governments, business and militaries in design and
designing. Of course, design
takes many forms when embedded in these contexts
depending on the influences from
divergent ideas about designing and the concomitant
innovators of the ideas.
I have had the honor to be
invited to introduce design—advanced design and systemic
design—to people in several of
these organizations—particularly military—over the
past few months. I have come to
appreciate the challenges facing champions of design
within governmental agencies and
military organizations. They are self-tasked with
making a case for a new strategy
and for demonstrating the value of using such a
strategy when confronting
challenges of immense complexity and consequence.
Through my experiences with
people working within these systems I have become more
familiar with the norms guiding
their professional lives—I have come to appreciate that
design is a fundamentally
different strategic approach to action and change when
compared to the normative
approaches presently in place. For example, ‘training’ is the
predominant approach to building
competence for action and ‘war gaming’ is a
predominant approach to
preparation for action within the military. The question is what
is the nature of the 'game'
militaries and governments assume they are playing? (e.g.
Simon Sinec’s video ).
Are they entrained in the mindset of finite game players or
infinite game players?
Extracting from James Carse's
book; Finite and Infinite Games:
• A finite game is a game
that has fixed rules and boundaries, that is played for the
purpose of winning and thereby
ending the game.
• An infinite game has no
fixed rules or boundaries. In an infinite game, you play
with the boundaries and the
purpose is to continue to be part of the game.
• Finite players try to control the
game, predict everything that will happen, and set
the outcome in advance.
• Infinite players enjoy being
surprised. Continuously running into something one
didn't know ...
• To be prepared against surprise
is to be trained. To be prepared for surprise is to be
educated.
It appears that the assumption by
many is that conflicts and wars are finite games with
endings that produce clear
winners and losers. Designing, on the other hand, allows
people to strategically engage in
infinite games where there are no right or wrong
moves—only creative or prudent
moves taken consistently over time.
The question for those interested
in introducing design into organizational cultures that
are designed to play finite
games is how would changing to an infinite
game strategy
—designing—better serve the needs
for safety, security and peace? Or in the case of
business—which uses 'war'
metaphors often—how can design help their bottom line?
The US has been involved in many finite
games of war over the past few decades and
has not decisively won the peace
and security desired—paid for in blood and treasure.
Design, as an infinite
game strategy, is worth a try. People are coming to
appreciate
that maybe conflicts and wars are
not games—finite games—at all. Design is a way to
not continue to ‘play the game’
but to be persistently engaged in renewal, adaption and
advancement whether in conflict,
states of readiness or peace.
Comments
Post a Comment