Biomimicry

I finally finished reading Biomimicry by Jean Benyus. I had a hard time getting through some of the denser chapters, i.e. computing, and had to think back to biology courses I took in my bachelors, but it was worth the effort.

What a great book. It runs the gamut from food to computing to business; it's accessible without condescending to the reader and very well written. I especially liked the chapters on permaculture and medicine. I highly recommend it to all engineers and designers.

Even though the book was first published in 1997, almost everything written is still important/relevant in today's context. I am looking forward to her next book.

Links:
Check out her TED talk.
Read an excerpt here.

Now reading: Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman.

Pre-invitation flyer

I finally finished the pre-invitation for our symposium today. Hopefully, it will be printed by tomorrow and I can start stuffing envelopes. After many delays and problems with graphic designers... in the end it's done and I even learned some photoshop tricks (rays of light) in making it. The globe and sun are not mine...Here it is:

The role of designers?

Awhile ago I joined a student initiated project, the Post Socialist Russia Project as a sort of webmaster and content developer. Alas, I am no longer involved in that project, but I am still interested in the themes we were developing and in the larger context of that project.

We were trying to investigate how designers could approach problems of social orgainzation from a grassroots level, and to address the problem of how people should live together. In an inspiring talk by Leslie Kavanaugh, she pushed us to not shy away from being “political” as designers, pointing out the whole spectrum between the two extremes of Hypercapitalism and Communism...

I am definitely not a moralist, and so I am automatically cautious and skeptical when confronted by causes and ideologies, especially empty ones. At the same time, as a pragmatist, I am deeply convinced that there is something wrong with business as usual, and with the way design is carried out. I am at once intrigued and repelled by words like "sustainability" and "user-centered." How much are lies and empty promises chipping away from the credibility of real issues? These words are extremely loaded and empty at the same time.

On this topic, I found a nice paragraph in an article expressing exactly what I mean about the problem of how "sustainability" is used in architecture:

There is a great deal of discussion in design, architecture, and construction circles on creating sustainable environments, and there are also widely varying opinions as to exactly how sustainability can be introduced and approached. Current debates indicate that the term encompasses more than the physical and economic aspects. It includes social, cultural, and behavioral dimensions. Observing contemporary architectural practices, however, reveals that there are two major missing dimensions. On the one hand, there is an emphasis on the physical aspects of sustainability, while socio-cultural and socio-behavioral dimensions are oversimplified. On the other hand, there is a heavy reliance on top-down policies and strategies with the aim of developing guidelines to be implemented for the betterment of environments. Strikingly, this takes place at the expense of other bottom-up strategies that aim at sensitizing users toward understanding the key issues underlying sustainability. These two missing dimensions socio-behavioural dimensions, and bottom-up strategies offer a rationale for the professional community everywhere in the world to use sustainability as a term in their daily discourse. Nevertheless, even while talking about it, they do not yet use sustainability or utilize it in their daily practices. This article presents a critical voice on the current developments and efforts in dealing with sustainability of built environments, by adopting an alternative comprehensive approach that places high value on "trans-disciplinarity"...

Even after months of research on this topic, I still do not know where I stand. The more I read, the larger the problems loom. Slowly I am becoming convinced that Leslie is correct. Designers should consider their personal stance within the greater society and the world; the how and to what extent is up to the individual. Introspection of fundamental philosophical questions are sorely lacking in our speed and technology obsessed culture.

Contextmapping Symposium

A contextmapping symposium was held yesterday in celebration of 5 years of contextmapping and the graduation of the first PhD ever in the field. The program lineup consisted of two talks by Liz Sanders (Make Tools) and by Jacob Burr (U. Southern Denmark) and ten Pecha Kucha style talks by recent graduates deploying contextmapping techniques in practice.

For the first time in my experience, the van Grintenzaal was totally packed. The whole ground floor of IDE was crammed full of curious and enthusiastic people. I found the symposium extremely inspiring and filled with positive energy. The most interesting part to me, however, came when former students of the faculty came up to express in four minutes their experiences with contextmapping; first as students and now as young professionals. It was inspiring to see the broad context in which contextmapping is now being applied. These fields range from business consultancy to social design to young startups to IT marketing.

Below is a short summary of "the highlights" of the lectures (in my opinion). The lectures should become available online at some point on collegarama.

--
To begin the symposium, Prof. Pieter Jan Stappers gave a short introduction to contextmapping. For those unfamiliar with contextmapping, it is based on the credo: "users are the experts of their own experience." From this viewpoint, it is then up to designers to bring out the tacit knowledge and latent needs of users through a variety of mapping techniques involving users. With these techniques, the roles of users, designers, and researchers become mixed up, increasing the complexity of life, but in a positive way...

Next up was Liz Sanders speaking about exploring co-creation on a large scale and about her experiences with contextmapping at NBBJ, a large U.S. architecture firm. She didn't really say too much that I hadn't already heard before, but I was glad to hear that she is working on bringing a human centered approach to architecture and planning, two fields of design that are almost totally disconnected with people. She argued that it doesn't make sense that so much revenue goes into market research for products, such as shavers, that serve one person at a time, and not for buildings like hospitals that serve thousands of people at a time.

Liz then showed a two axis graph with "product" vs. experience on one axis and visualization for selling/telling/shifting vs. visualizing for making on the other. She explained that architectural tools fall mostly in the "product" and visualization for making (i.e. elevations, plans) quadrant. Shifting from "product" to experience and to visualization in the language for end users, is the domain of more user-centered design tools. A few examples of these are: experimental animatics, experience models, visioning workshops, experience timelines, and 2D and 3D participatory modeling. Unlike selling/telling/sharing tools of architects (renderings, fly throughs, 3-D models), the user-centered tools are not exclusively for use after the end of the design phase...

- Visioning workshops - collectively imagining future experiences, i.e. run two
sessions, one with designers and one with clients to get an overview of the
perspectives different parties.
- Experience timelines - imagine unfolding the experience through the lens of several years.
- 2D or 3D participatory modeling - i.e. Velcro modeling for the ideal patient room or a physical walkthrough of a scenario of live use.
- Personas & scenarios - puppets

She mentioned that during workshops, it is beneficial to give people a choice to either make stuff or tell a story. This choice lets people express themselves more confidently. Design is shifting from "designing for" to "designing with." She argues that through participatory design, clients and participants come to feel ownership over the results thus rendering "selling" unnecessary.

The second speaker was Prof. Jacob Buur on Ethnographic Provocation, whom I didn't find very provocative at all. However, he did make a brief distinction between lead user, design anthropology, and participatory design approaches. Within the framework of ethnographic provocation, he discussed two case studies and the (pretty obvious) benefits of ethnography. But anyways, here are some inspirational bullet points I copied from his slides:

- ethnography as shared material
- ethnography as embodied prototypes
- ethnography framing user engagement

anthropology for design/anthropology of design

Workshop with Prof. John Ehrenfeld

As I mentioned earlier, I organized a workshop with our workgroup, sustainable living and working.

I thought the workshop yielded pretty nice results, especially during the mind mapping session. The group was a mix of people both familiar and unfamiliar with the ideas presented in Sustainability by Design with different degrees of interest in the field of sustainability. The workshop got participants thinking about a wider and more positive vision of sustainability than the visions often offered by mainstream media. It was nice to have people ("experts") from DfS and people from the new research portfolio to put their heads together in thinking how to deploy these ideas in the design world. I especially liked the ideas about curriculum changes that could be impemented at the TU to get students out there to work with real people in real on real problems. I also liked the idea that the edges and boundaries between groups/places are where positive change can start. Finally, we had a discussion and question answer session with Prof. Ehrenfeld. This weekend I finally typed up the results. Here they are, plus notes from his lecture. I will just copy and paste...
--

0. Content
1. Introduction Prof. John Ehrenfeld
2. Mindmap Activity: What should/can be the response of designers and the design profession in the face of sustainability issues?
3. Discussion
4. Reading List
--

1. Introduction Prof. John Ehrenfeld

We began the meeting with a short introductory talk by Prof. John Ehrenfeld. In his introduction he commented on the fact that the human condition is certainly not wonderful and is getting worse; it is also abundantly clear that the non-human world is threatened by these developments. He indicated that these problems are rooted in modern, cultural concepts, and that a new way of viewing the world is needed to create a “flourishing” and sustainable world.

An alternate vision to our current societal concept is the notion of sustainability as flourishing. Flourishing demands change, not improvements on (that would be eco-efficiency) our modern culture. Eco-efficiency, the focus of sustainability in the past, subscribes to the same types of services and beliefs as the current system; a system that is not working.

Our current culture is one about having, about never being satisfied. Flourishing doesn’t depend on material wealth but on wholeness, relationships, and a different belief in self. It is about being (he references Heidegger). In this model of flourishing, humans are focused on being and experiencing instead of having.

Instead of viewing the world with a reductionist eye, and instead of learning to analyze through deconstruction, the world should be seen as a technically complex, unpredictable, system that behaves in strange and unexpected ways. This kind of world view leads to a different conclusion on how things should be governed (so that they don’t ultimately collapse).

Historic theories of change fall into different classes, i.e. Marxist dialectic or Revolutionary Theory. These are all examples of top down guidance, and don’t help if we want to avoid crisis. We need another theory of change…a subversive theory. Introducing change through everyday products is subversive. Products can have values and messages coded in them.

“Solutions” to our problems come in two pieces:

1. Through the redesign of institutional structures that carry new values (cautionary principles that reflect a complex world).
   
2. Through the design of everyday artifacts that carry new kinds of values.

The two button toilet was a revelation for Prof. Ehrenfeld when he first visited the Netherlands. It is at once a teaching device and a carrier of values. It forces people to stop and reflect on what drives them which in turn can change behavior over time.

Ehrenfeld explains that his model of human behavior is a sociological one, not a rational one. In his opinion, people collect knowledge from an accumulation of experiences which are constantly shaping them. Most actions of a human in the world are intrinsic and executed without consciousness. When everything works seamlessly, nothing changes. Change in behavior means breaking down this transparency; Nature does this all the time, by being unexpected. Designers have had the wrong directions for a long time. They have been asked to make transparent products that fit the functions and are user friendly. These kind of products don’t instigate thought or reflection. Products like the two button flush or speed bumps ask people to stop, slowdown, and wakeup while subversively reprogramming ingrained habits.

The world can be changed through design. Product designers can instruct people on whom they are and what they should do, with a different set of values in mind. Small, subversive notions can sneak in and replace old values without frightening or threatening the people. This is a problem that the main movement has been facing, because it is built on notions of fear and scarcity. The notion of sustainability is about the positive image of flourishing, a concept based on nature.
--

2. Mindmap Activity (What should/can be the response of designers and the design profession in the face of sustainability issues?)

Map 1

• There is a theory from psychological treatment (Carl Rogers), which is aimed at helping people with mental problems to get back on the right path. The method tries to bring out qualities of: authenticity, respect, acceptance, and understanding in patients. These qualities are considered already inside every person.
• Based on this thought, how can we reach this care for self, others and the world?
• Designers think for others which is moralistic in a way. Thus, do we want to steer people and if so, who are we to decide if this is right?
• Using this theory, the right thing is already in everyone, wanting to be expressed; an attitude which is more positive than current one of direction and steering.
• Through products and product engagement, designers can enable to bring out the best in people through enabling versus steering.
• To bring this about, designers have to have much more interaction with people.

Map 2

• There could be instructive and interruptive tools, i.e. two search choices, a windmill or oil powered search on Google.
• It’s about awareness of human values and also about questioning technology.
• Instead of starting from something like the iPhone, another starting point from the other side could be to start from an activity or value, i.e. encouraging walks.

Map 3

• How might we address design practice and designers so that we shift from making things people want to have to things which help people express their being?
• If this is to happen, design practice has to change, and first of all, designers have to change to be able to make these products.
• How could this goal be implemented at the TU Delft in both architecture and ID to make the transition from the present to this vision?
• Look at the nice things already happening in society where people are already experimenting with how to go from having to being.
• The picture sums it up (mindmap3). It shows places with common people with common consumption patterns, and the edges between them. Where they come together is where the most interesting things can happen.
• The edges are where things are not well organized, and unclear, like squatters, i.e. non-monetary exchange systems (LETS). All kinds of things happening at the edges.
• We could have something like that at our faculty, like explore labs or free experimentation for people to develop their own ideas.
• People out of HS are very internet minded. That is where they try to find their information. Instead, we should try to encourage them to go into real life. In the curriculum, we could take them by hand through excursions/lectures to work with real people and neighborhoods, to solve real problems.
• We have this kind of bias towards the Unilevers and Philips. Most students want to work there, but some actually want to solve nice projects. How can we foster that?

--

3. Discussion

Prof. Ehrenfeld liked the results of the mindmapping exercise, especially the idea that positive aspects of "being" are already inherent within everyone waiting to be expressed. However, he commented that it didn't make the problem any easier. Implementing these ideas are both intellectually challenging and challenging to implement in practice.

Paraphrased questions/answers/discussions:
Q: What about cultural dependencies? In India it is easy to deploy ideas with the right role model or lead user because it’s such a hierarchical system there. In terms of Western society, is it the media, television, or how do we begin creating public awareness. Do we have an equivalent of lead user?
To be a lead user you have to be credible in what you are espousing. Small movements are where it is happening in a real way.

Q: What kind of suggestions would you give ID staff, in terms of education? Should sustainability be taught like religion?
If it’s something religious, it would be the kiss of death. It has to be something more universal than religion. It has to do more with spirituality, which is lacking right now. Religion and spirituality are disconnected, at least in the United States. If anything designers have to look more like starving artists. Artists typically have shown the world as it is. Being is the way of the world, deep down there, longing to get out. Designers have an opportunity to bring that out. Whether it’s in a more technocratic way or a more user way, it’s all about functionality. It’s about bringing forth.

Q: TU Delft is not that interdisciplinary yet. How can ID work together with other disciplines?
There is not necessarily an interface between every discipline, nor is it necessarily needed. Design is a deliberate action to bring some vision into being or solve some problem; this is not engineering. Engineering is about making more efficient products; these ideas don’t fit into the framework of engineering. Similarly, life science looks at human beings as machines with which to tinker. It would be nice to see those faculties go beyond that model of what the world is all about and espouse these ideas, but don’t count on it. Designers thus, have a unique opportunity.

Q: As opposed to engineering which is about solving problems, is it maybe about emergence?
Sustainability is an emergent quality. It only comes out when a system is working. No rules can be written for complex systems and the emergent qualities are often qualitative in nature. The current financial systems create money. Money can be made back. Emergent qualities like confidence, trust, and security are less easy to gain back. Thus, flourishing can only come forth if the system of life is working.

In design there are now two things missing:
1. The notion of complexity (don’t ever really know what is going to happen when a product is deployed), there are always unexpected consequences.
2. The model of human being. The context is basically for companies that want to sell things to people to have. This is a historic barrier that will have to be overcome. Engineers are making things bigger and better but not different, in design there is a chance to make something different.

Q: Will we have enough time? You say we have to do it in small changes. I read all the time about peak oil, peak gas…
Maybe, maybe not. We’ll know when we get there. There is some urgency, but you do what you do. Most people are not positive when looking at the trends. The dominant theory is mitigation, when it’s broken we’ll fix it, but will we have technology at hand when it happens? The picture is pretty bleak: income distribution becoming worse, social breakdowns are increasing…we are running out of time, but the future is unpredictable. You can only do the best you can. This attitude is not pessimistic or optimistic.

Q: How was your own transition into this way of thinking?
It was a gradual transition from chemical engineering to industrial ecology to today; small steps were taken into world of philosophy and sociology, all the while becoming more basically satisfied.

Q: What about green washing? Is it destructive to the good things?
Sustainability has become a buzzword and there is a great danger in this. It diminishes criticality of the word, but it is something real, and will happen for a long time to come. However, a lot of people who see through this

There is also the self fulfilling prophesy, where the NGOs come along and say no, your company isn’t green, and companies have to become more sustainable.
In the beginning my attitude was, if I can’t measure it, I can’t handle it. There is more clarity developing, ideas of flourishing are happening. Again, reducing unsustainability does not create sustainability. Almost everything green has to do with reducing unsustainability. That’s what’s dangerous about using words carelessly, it fuzzes the socks.

Q: What about Cradle to Cradle?
C2C is not a new idea, but about branding and egos. The ideas behind C2C have aready been known in industrial ecology for a long time. It is critically important, but again has to do with reducing unsustainability. I don’t think there are that many institutions that have this kind of context that accepts these ideas as okay propositions and questions the underpinnings.

Q: We are not really skilled about knowing how people are. If we want to know how to get the best out of people, or stimulate “being,” who can we cooperate with?
Cooperate with colleagues who have the same ideas. The idea of engagement is very important. Care is a manifestation of being.

Q: What do you think of ambient intelligent and smart products?
They are seeing comfort as a commodity. But again, it’s never either just “being” or just “having.” It’s not to be or to have, it’s to get back some being. “Having” is bad when it’s all there is. Being efficient, nothing’s wrong as long as it’s not the end, as long as it’s the means.

Conclusions…
It’s about the mundane and small… sneak these things in. Design is about everyday life! Devices always talk according to Bruno Latour. Messages are coded into devices. One example is of the European hotel key chain, which is so heavy that it says, “leave me at the desk.”
--

4. Reading list

- Abraham Maslow
- Erich Fromm
- Albert Borgmann (how technology produces either a fullness of being or the opposite, i.e. furnace versus fireplace, same commodity of heat)
- Bruno Latour
- Martin Heidegger

Sustainability in HCI, Ubicomp, etc.

I made a quick survey of several HCI and Ubicomp papers in order to summarize the main topics and research questions, regarding sustainability, that have been considered the most important in the interaction design community.

In the recent past, the importance of addressing sustainability has permeated the interaction design field. Indeed, sustainability is now considered a competitive requirement and legitimate business concern beyond a mere social concern (Nathan, et al.).

The dichotomy presented by Mankoff, et al. is quite appropriate for grouping some of the HCI and Ubicomp community’s concern. The distinction between sustainability in and through design reminds me of Chris Ryan’s thoughts on the two way transformation between sustainability and design. In other words, sustainability can reconfigure design practice and the other way around is also true. Within these two domains I group research questions/topics, some of which show up on the ITP Sustainable Interaction Website in an alternate organizational scheme.

(1) Sustainability in Design, where sustainability is considered as a part of material design process (use, re-use, reduction, and recycling).

- How can sustainable practices be incorporated into the design process (Hasbrouk, et al.)?
- How can more sustainable Ubicomp models be designed (Hasbrouk, et al.)?
i.e. how can we move away from a model of obsolescence in the IT field?
- What new methodologies/criteria/evaluative tools are needed?

(2) Sustainability through Design, which concerns how sustainable lifestyles can be supported through design (this is broken down further in a scale approach, zooming out from the individual level to the greater societal level).

- How can interaction design and IT technology contribute to more sustainable
systems design? Well…Ryan talks a bit about how IT technology is an enabler of
distributed economies/networks model.
- How can design support and enable
more sustainable lifestyles (scripting, persuasion, goal-oriented support)?
- How can IT technology be harnessed to encourage activism/social
change/sustainable lifestyles through, i.e. social networking?
- How can IT technology help us “move beyond consumerism as a central driver” (Nathan, et al)?

I consider the first mostly related to environmental sustainability, i.e. LCA approach; the second relates to both environmental and social sustainability. Another possible dichotomy is between the material and behavioral dimensions of sustainability (Nathan, et al., 2008). However, everything is interconnected, and I think it is both more poetic and practical to think in terms feedback and co-transformation.

Finally, I find it encouraging to read that the CHI community is considering ways to “move beyond a framework of guilt…to designing IT interventions that help people experience the environment in positive ways,” (Nathan, et al). These thoughts are in line with Manzini’s words,

"transition towards sustainability must see the germination and consolidation of
a new idea of well-being and a new production system that will make it possible
to live better while reducing the weight of our activities on the environment
and regenerating the physical, social and cultural quality of places, and the
Planet as a whole." – from, A New Design Knowledge

The emphasis is on living better!


References

- Hasbrouck, J., Igoe, I., Mankoff, J., & Woodruff, A. (2007). Ubiquitous Sustainability.
- Mankoff, J., et al. (2007). Enviornmental Sustainability and Interaction. CHI 2007, April 28 – May 3. San Francisco, California.
- Nathan, L., Blevis, E., Friedman, D., Hasbrouck, J., & Sengers, P. (2008). Beyond the Hype: Sustainability & HCI. CHI 2008. April 5-10, Florence, Italy.

Scavenger-innovator

Yesterday Loucas sent me a link to an article on John Thackara’s Doors of Perception blog. The article was about how design practice and education has to undergo a paradigm shift, and three steps to achieve this. Although I did not totally agree with his three steps (especially not the affirmation that new language is needed – why is there always so much emphasis on semantics?), one quote I found very inspiring and relevant was:

"Offer them your scavenger-innovator design skills"

I really like this term, scavenger-innovator, because it implies a level of practicality, versatility and a roll-up-your-sleeves attitude that I think is really great. Now I am contradicting myself by getting attached to new vocabulary and catch phrases...