questions of desirable rather than survivable

Articles such as–"what will work look like in 2030?"—are constantly being posed in public: e.g. "What will education look like in...?", what will this organization look like...?", "what will healthcare look like...?", "what will conflict look like in...?" etc. etc. If it were possible to answer such questions by predicting or making trend assessments and projections there would be no alternative to do anything but try to get very good at adaption and survival (antifragile, resilient, etc).

Certainly some things cannot be modified or changed in the environment–such as the effects of natural laws–but the questions that ought to be posed for contexts and particulars that can be changed should focus on "what would be desirable in...?", "what ought to become a reality in...?", "what needs to become a reality in...?" etc. In other words, we should be asking design questions that are actionable rather than merely asking questions that are only reaction-able.

Comments

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

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

Ethics and Design

A recent article in Fast Company, titled “ Stanford’s Most Popular Class ...”, dealt with a class titled ‘Designing Your Life’. The first time I was introduced to the idea that one could 'design' their life was when I was a graduate student at Berkeley. Over the years, My friend and mentor C. West Churchman —a polymath Professor at UC Berkeley—had written and lectured on the concept of the ‘Design of a Life’ with a focus on questions of ethics in whole systems. He was very concerned with the ethical behavior of individuals within business, governmental and institutional organizations as they ‘designed’ or planned interventions in complex social systems. Ethics was at the center of designing behavior from West’s perspective. West Churchman and Harold Nelson, Mill Valley, CA (1990's) Reading further in the Fast Company article on Stanford’s class, Bill Burnett—the Executive Director of Stanford’s design program—is quoted as saying: … "Design doesn’t s

Accidental Vagrant

Search This Blog