Download to read offline
Uploaded byRichard Anderson
Question everything - Designing more effectively for social impact
The document discusses how standard human-centered design practices are often inadequate for addressing complex social issues, especially wicked problems like healthcare and homelessness. Richard Anderson critiques conventional approaches and suggests the need for a deeper understanding of ecological relationships and design implications, encouraging workshop attendees to reframe their approaches to more effectively target social impact. The content aims to foster critical thinking and awareness of biases within design processes while proposing a more holistic view of problem-solving.
More Related Content
Similar to Question everything - Designing more effectively for social impact
Question everything - Designing more effectively for social impact
- 1. QUESTION EVERYTHING Designing more effectively for social impact 28 March 2018 RICHARD ANDERSON [email protected] @riander OE Strategy www.oestrategy.com ATX
- 2. Standard human-centered designpractices are often well-suited for well- structured problems, but fall short for considering the broader social implications of solutions to well-structured problems and for attempting to address ill-structured or so-called “wicked societal problems” (e.g., our broken healthcare system, homelessness, addiction to social media or electronic devices). Richard will review many of the common characteristics of well-structured, ill- structured, and wicked problems, and, with the workshop attendees, will discuss their implications. Then, by questioning everything about the standard design process for well- structured problems, Richard will identify common process shortcomings, present examples of projects that ignored such shortcomings as well as of projects that didn’t, and provide attendees with the opportunity to experience ways of how to address such shortcomings. Attendees will emerge better able to target social impact intentionally and better able to design for achieving that intentional social impact. ABOUT THIS CLASS
- 3. WHAT IS SOCIALIMPACT? The effect of an activity on the social fabric of the community and well-being of the individuals and families. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/social-impact.html
- 6. PlayPumps were goingto harness the energy of children to provide fresh water to sub-Saharan African villages. They didn't.
- 7. The “reductive seduction”is not malicious, but it can be reckless. For two reasons. First, it’s dangerous for the people whose problems you’ve mistakenly diagnosed as easily solvable. There is real fallout when well-intentioned people attempt to solve problems without acknowledging the underlying complexity. There are so many examples. As David Bornstein wrote in The New York Times, over four decades of Westerners working on clean water has led to “billions of dollars worth of broken wells and pumps. Many of them functioned for less than two years.” One classic example: in 2006, the U.S. government, The Clinton Foundation, The Case Foundation, and others pledged $16.4 million to PlayPump, essentially a merry-go-round pump that produced safe drinking water. Despite being touted as the (fun!) answer to the developing world’s water woes, by 2007, one-quarter of the pumps in Zambia alone were in disrepair. It was later estimated that children would need to “play” for 27 hours a day to produce the water PlayPump promised. …Second, the reductive seduction of other people’s problems is dangerous for the people whose problems you’ve avoided. While thousands of the country’s best and brightest flock to far- flung places to ease unfamiliar suffering and tackle foreign dysfunction, we’ve got plenty of domestic need.
- 14. Is ‘standard’ HCD adequate fordesigning for (positive) social impact? Often: No!
- 15. POSTER CHILD FORDESIGN THINKING Stanford d.school
- 16.
- 17. BASIC PROCESS FROMQUESTION TO ANSWER https://medium.com/digital-experience-design/how-to-apply-a-design-thinking-hcd-ux-or-any-creative-process-from-scratch-b8786efbf812#.6cvmqimrf
- 18. HCD = iteratedobservation, ideation, and testing
- 21.
- 22.
- 23. THE PROBLEM SPECTRUM well-structuredill-structured ‘wicked’ standard HCD
- 24. today’s focus well-structured ill-structured‘wicked’ THE PROBLEM SPECTRUM
- 25. from Wikipedia Rittel &Webber’s 1973 formulation of wicked problems:
- 26.
- 27.
- 28. Main Projects ThisYear Focus on Improving Civic Engagement
- 31. A FEW COMMONCHARACTERISTICS Can’t fix, only mitigate Can’t just throw it out there to see if it works Old / legacy systems, processes, policies, & laws impose constraints Risk & change aversion Those on the inside don’t understand the end-to-end journey Lots of roadblocks and previous failures
- 32. How might weadjust our approach to more effectively design for social impact? must
- 33. A bit about myjourney
- 34. A bit aboutRichard Anderson Usability/ Discovery Adventures
- 50.
- 52.
- 56. A bit about yourjourney Introduce yourself to someone you don’t know. What drew you to today’s class?
- 57. It’s not exhaustive. We’renot going to solve world hunger. It’s an opportunity to explore a number of different aspects of how we do what we do. It also provides pointers to some online literature for you to continue your exploration of this topic. TODAY’S CLASS
- 58. Questioning the adequacy of standard HCD
- 67.
- 69. INNOVATING ON WEARABLES Wearablesshould not be defined primarily through their form (technological objects one can ‘wear’) or technical functions (tracking, nudging, reminding). We can develop more useful insights about the role of these technologies in our lives are when we conceptualize wearables in terms of the relationship they have to our bodies, social selves, and our personal identities. Every wearable and object holds the promise and potential to mediate the relation to the self as an embodied being; social relations of belonging; and autobiographical relations. How might we think about designing wearables if we reframe its potential: • as a tool for discipline and control? • as technologies of belonging? • as autobiographical objects?
- 70. Questioning the goalof reducing friction
- 71. A COMMON GOAL:REDUCING FRICTION
- 72. Poor design createsfriction. … Whenever friction occurs, someone becomes frustrated.
- 75. INTENTIONALLY DESIGNING FRICTIONBACK INTO THE EXPERIENCE Design for skill building Design for self-reflection Design for collisions Design for confrontation http://99u.adobe.com/videos/55963/steve-selzer-designing-for-friction
- 77.
- 78.
- 79. EXERCISE IN CONSIDERING THE ROLEOF FRICTION
- 80. CONSIDERING FOOD WASTE Whatare some ways to change behavior by: • reducing friction? • adding friction? https://foodsaving.weebly.com/food-waste-in-hong-kong.html
- 81. Questioning the adequacy of not considering the entire ecosystem
- 88.
- 89.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93. EXPLORING THE HEALTHCAREECOSYSTEM One of the biggest internal shifts in the healthcare industry in the recent past has been and continues to be the systemic move from “fee-for-service” care to “value-based” care. Practically speaking, “fee-for-service” was an easier revenue and innovation model to understand. Things cost what they cost, and businesses were reimbursed for procedures based in part on the number of them performed. The path from product to outcome was clear—making the measurement of effectiveness straightforward. In the value-based world, success is tied more closely to outcomes—how much a patient’s health has improved. As a result of this shift, many medical device companies find themselves stuck at key points in the innovation process, grappling with defining “What is the value? Who evaluates the value? And, “How do we measure it?” https://thrivethinking.com/2017/04/10/healthcare-innovation-seize-opportunity/ Identify the key stakeholders in the ecosystem and then: • map the relationship between the entities (as you understand it today) • speculate on the beliefs and values that each entity presently holds Fee for service Fee for outcomes
- 94. EXPLORING THE FOODSUPPLY ECOSYSTEM Identify the key stakeholders in the ecosystem and then: • map the relationship between the entities (as you understand it today) • speculate on the beliefs and values that each entity presently holds http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions/food_waste_challenge.html
- 95. Questioning the adequacy of typical exploration of design ramifications
- 107. Every day asdesigners, we are contributing to creating a new world – one filled with international social networks, virtual personal assistants, and self-driving car fleets. In lieu of a long history of shared culture with these technologies, we need new stories and mythologies to address the societal implications of these transformations.
- 111. Questioning the adequacy of typical design research
- 116. not just “theneediest residents”
- 119.
- 129. How can designresearchers avoid this?
- 132.
- 133. ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR BIASES “In2011, team members from Design Impact (DI) and Tarsadia Foundation (Tarsadia) discussed design’s role in addressing critical human needs. “…designers often build relationships with outside organizations in order to take on social impact projects. While these relationships may include business and government partners, more often that not, designers work with non-profit organizations in some capacity. We went on to discuss a critical gap at the intersection of the design and non-profit worlds; namely a lack of understanding between each group for the other’s processes and models for change. These two disciplines often speak different ‘languages,’ work at different speeds, and operate under different incentives. This communication issue is a key factor that can hinder productive collaboration. The DI and Tarsadia team identified a common goal: support productive collaboration between designers and organizations working to address critical human needs.” https://www.d-impact.org//wp-content/uploads/2015/06/guide_final.2.pdf For each of the primary entities in your ecosystem: • identify your personal beliefs and biases that could come into play • explore how you might work to get around these
- 134. Questioning the adequacy of fast-paced, lean work
- 138. GOOB vs. timeto generate ideas MVP vs. big picture Scientific test & measure vs. empathetic Speed vs. slow, conscious design
- 141. Questioning the adequacy of project-framed engagements
- 145. Questioning the adequacy of typical commercial goals
- 150. LOOK TO MODELSOF SHARED VALUE SOCIAL VALUE CORPORATE VALUE
- 151.
- 154. Questioning the adequacy of designing for user goals & feelings
- 158.
- 159.
- 160. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Fall inlove with the problem Consider the whole system Establish long-term relationships Be creative Follow-through Reframe the problem Change must be sustainable
- 161.
- 162. Getting started with designingfor social impact
- 163. QUESTION EVERYTHING Designing more effectively for social impact 28 March 2018 RICHARD ANDERSON [email protected] @riander OE Strategy www.oestrategy.com ATX
- 172.
- 175. QUESTION EVERYTHING Thoughts? Questions? Many thanks. RICHARD ANDERSON [email protected] @riander OEStrategy www.oestrategy.com ATX