PIN-C 2012 Richard Tabor Greene's paperTWO

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 10
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
PIN-C 2012 Richard Tabor Greene's paperTWO
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  THE CULTURAL WORK OF INNOVATING: CULTURES DESIGNING THEMSELVES RICHARD TABOR GREENEMASTER, DTMA BEIJING; PROFESSOR, KEIO UNIVERSITY, SYSTEMS DESIGN AND MANAGEMENTRICHARDTGREENE@ALUM.MIT.EDU ABSTRACTThis paper is forest not tree—what the wholeoffers the particular. It counters academia'stradition of accumulating particulars (that HerbertSimon called “a weakness” of modern science).This paper induces abstract dimensions and theory(of design anthropology) from sixteen diversecases across 40+ years, 3 continents, 11 industries.Dimensions of difference (itself a design method)for each pair of the 16 cases were articulated, thengrouped by similarity across cases. The result amodel of design anthropology as: 1 overarchingreality—design as un-culturing, anti-designing, un-designing, civilizational self-negation, 5 forcesinfluencing design, 5 influences on design fromother Novelty Sciences, a 5-part ontology of design(designer, design purpose, design process, thedesign itself, design kinds), and 9 operations indesigning: undoing rightnesses, global creationautomata, crossing fields, undoing bias, expandingscope and scale, deploying design process protocols, applying negation powers, audienceestablishing and enchantment, model repertoiresreplacing single right-y models, designing sheer  performance (a show business). Westerncivilization as a whole has been identified as a self-negating culture (of cultures) so design as as un-designing fits that essence interestingly. Thiselemental view of design as an operation withinand of cultures that self-negate elucidates whytraditional cultures “decorate” in festival design,though they self-negate in tooling design.INTRODUCTION Indigenous cultures, when they encounter the West, are puzzled by why Westerners and their systems break everything down into parts, they optimize, often ruiningwhole society traits in the process that they appear blindor oblivious to (Geertz 1981). Academics perpetuatethese Western ways in their journal and paper norms— allowing ever narrower, more analytic, merely empiricresults as if to move whole society elephants using ever smaller bees.Recently (Gottlieb 1993) spiritual movements in theWest, like recurrent Buddhism, ethical movements, likethe Environment movement, and others have challengedWestern ways of researching and designing to stopforgetting or slighting wholes in their optimisticoptimizations of parts.Fortuitously, the web's arrival, in our hands thanks toMr. Jobs, and others, provided a ubiquitous hand-heldaffordable platform (in 2/3s of the world that isindustrial already) for vastly expanding the scope of who designs and what they design for. That expansionof scope brings traditional cultures into designing anddesign outcomes in a big way, explored in diverse ways by the cases reported here. Social analogs of these webexpansions are emerging (Greene 2001)—treating persons as computational entities in interesting andempowering ways.This paper presents sixteen very particular design andinnovation cases, many from major culture changeareas, product development programs, and major corporations, that all play the whole against the parts,and vice versa, in replicable ways and designalgorithms. From these cases, this paper reports theinduction of abstract dimensions of design and participatory innovation as culture work. The model of that, thusly produced, is then used to suggest futuredirections for an Anthropology of Design.A Proviso. This paper, to an extent, practices one traitof indigenous cultures, starting with views andquestions of wide scope. From that expansive start point, it classifies, and distinguishes cases (and the ideasthey embody) to come up with abstract dimensions of difference. Dimensions of difference is a formal designmethod (Greene 2001). Here we use it to design atheory, not a chair or productLITERATURE AND THEORY Participatory Innovation Conference 2012, Melbourne, Australia 1  Xerox PARC hired anthropologists of work, 35 yearsago, Lave and Wegner (Brown and Duguid, 2000), toexplain why some kinds of knowledge flowed better  between organizations than between departments withinthem. The “communities of practice” concept emergedfrom this work, and was used to explain Silicon Valley'ssuperiority to MIT's Route 128 in total number and sizeand design impact of ventures generated(Brown andDuguid 2000). The same concept was used to explainthrough serendipitous encounters on campus, not foundin elearning systems, why face-to-face educationsystems would, for quite a long time, have more valuefor those being educated and those hiring people witheducations, than elearning systems. Learning what wenever imagined was there to learn has huge value sovital minds, people, and places need surprise, mixture,and the unexpected. Jane Jacobs, half a century ago,wrote this down (Jacobs 1961), confirming decadesearly, what PARC anthropologists of work rediscovered.Talcot Parsons (Parsons 1939) talked about religions ascode factors, in societies, determining in a quiet way(usually) larger more impressive action factors. In the1960s across the industrial world, a great number of democratizations of religions appeared—from the IonaCommunity off England's coast, to the Faith and LifeCommunity at the University of Texas to the Institute of Cultural Affairs Oombulgurri hours walks from Darwin,Australia (ICA Chicago 2000). Participatory religionre-vision and re-design set the stage for more general participatory re-design of cultures of various lessfundamental sorts. To the extent that blue suits, vice presidents, large hierarchies are not essential to business, but rather essential outcomes of malehormones, the prevalent organization form of businessesworld-wide, is a religion too—a belief about how to selland make profit with no data at all supporting theefficacy of blue suits, vice presidents, and monkey rank hierarchies. Silicon Valley founders, when interviewed(Greene 2012), insist this is indeed the case—they arededicated to revealing that most of what the East CoastUSA thinks is essential to doing business is in fact mere belief, a particular religion of doing business, spawnedin protestant parts of Switzerland centuries ago (Weber 2002), attenuated in Nordic Europe (Emery andThorsrud 1976).There are dozens of models of innovation (Greene 2011)and the role of culture and participation in them, variesgreatly. A few of them highlight these two—cultureand participation. Ethnic diasporas is such a model(Granovetter 1985). SIXTEEN CULTURE WORK CONTENTS OF INNOVATION Dimensions of DesignCoveredby theCases MACROMICROCULTURESPIRIT NOVELTYSCIENCESCROWDDESIGNERSSOCIALAUTOMATADEMOCRATIC RULES OFORDER DESIGN ASCULTUREWORK ARTS &DESIGNSCAUSINGINNOVATIONECSTATICFLOWMICROJANEJACOBS First FiveCases IDEA:investigate allways noveltygets into theworld inrelation to eachotherIDEA: wwebenables entirepopulations asdesigners orappliersIDEA: increasethe degree of idea interactionbeyond whatoccurs inbrainstorms byreplacingbrainstormswith socialautomata fordesigningIDEA: modifymeetings, 2steps, todemocraticrules of order,thendemocraticrules of design,so all attendeesdesign meetingsthey thenexecute, thehold meetingsthat designother thingsIDEA: measurethe culture of devices , of users, of interfaces thenfrom theirinteractions of their specificculture traitsspecify neededdesignsIDEA:communitysocial processandorganizationallearningdynamicsimbalanceanalysisspecifying artsand images fordécor, festivals,and themesIDEA: we workand play toachieve emptymind states of ecstasy, thefamous “Flow”state of havingall facultiesengaged attheir limitIDEA: thegranularity of zones in urbandistrictsvertically andhorizontally is aprinciple JaneJacobs shareswith SiliconValleyreplicationsCASE: betweenscienceworkshopswheredesignersinvent,inventorsdesign, gamersinnovate,innovatorsdesign, etc.CASE: MITalums designchanges indesign itself viacrowdsourcinginteraction onLinkedInCASE:dimensions of differenceautomata doneat KeioUniversity SDMCASE: businessmodels designsat ING TokyoCASE: iPhonefeaturepredictions forApple designgroupsCASE: ICAChicago walltop bannerdécor showingquarterlythemesCASE: videogame designsthat add 256system effectsin groups tilluser flow statesemerge fromplayingCASE: DTMABeijing idea of small grainzones inskyscraperswith bands of commerce-shops-servicebusinessesevery 5 to 7floorsCULTURE OF:professions andfields inacademiaCULTURE OF:heroic lonemaledesigner/creatorCULTURE OF:micro-organizationCULTURE OF:recursion—design of designingCULTURE OF:devices, users,marketsCULTURE OF:artprescriptionsCULTURE OF:spirit liberationCULTURE OF:designers SecondFiveCases IDEA: balancedrepertoires of plural diversemodels replacesingle right-ymodelsIDEA: sociallydo what theweb achieves inexpanding whodesignsIDEA: inventnew way todeliver newhightechnologies bypopulations of smallinteractingagentsreplacing PHDsin R&D labsIDEA: thefeminity of productivity,mostimprovementsin designs andprocessesreduceexcesses of maleness inthemIDEA:innovating as ananti-cuture,anti-bigorganizationcultureIDEA: masscomposing of massperformancesto reoirientindigenouscommunity asthey discussneededchanges viaconversationsabout 64aspects of anycommunityIDEA: USassimilation of Taguchi toindividualist,analytic USculture, wherein Japan hismethod is asocial way toreduce designsubsystemteam conflictsIDEA: city-ficationreseasrch onhow we turnwildernessesand new placesinto homes 2 Participatory Innovation Conference 2012, Melbourne, Australia  CASE: Procter &Gambleassessment of their use of 60models of creativityCASE:the totalqualitymovementglobally in 3decades gettingall parts of allcompaniesredesigningwork processesyearlyCASE: AIsoftware circlesswitchJapanese statswith USsoftware inNew Jerseydrug companiesand XeroxCASE: EDSsolution cultureimplementations at GeneralMotorsCASE: SiliconValley as anti-East, anti-big,anti-WallStreet, anti-MBA culture inventurefounderinterviewsCASE:communityquality cabaretin LowelaplapMajuroCASE:evisceration of Taguchi methodin current MITand Stanfordteaching/researchCASE: mobile,eventsubstitutes formicro-zoning inBeijing newneighborhoodsCULTURE OF:search for rightanswersCULTUREOF:de-professionalizationCULTURE OF:techno-democracyCULTURE OF:dominantsystem gendersCULTURE OF:anti-cultures of design itself CULTURE OF:self building of anthropologiesof self CULTURE OF:academiaCULTURE OF:human nicheadaptations The key variable distinguishing overseas ethnic groupsthat spawn ventures that grow to medium or large sizeand groups that generate no more than local small shopsthat die with dad or mom in a few years, turns out to bewhether social structures in intermediate-ranges-of-trustexist in that ethnic society---churches for example or kinship groups, if combing 20 or more families, enablemedium scale enterprises to grow and expand later tolarge size. It turns out there are high trust ethnic groupsthat fail to make shops grow due to small scale of socialnetworks of trust among them.We can summarize the above discussion:• Western blindness to whole, fragmentation of view, person, profession, knowledge,academics (from indigenous viewers, fromfailure handling contemporary major issues)• web expansion of who designs and what theydesign (from technology)• web expansion brings the culture of whodesigns and culture of what is designed andwhom that is designed for into prominence• communities of practice funnel knowledgeflows across organizations not acrossdepartments within organizations (fromworkplace anthropology)• code factors controlling action factor outcomes(from sociology)• participatory renewal of religions responding toglobal exposure now web exposure to others'absolutes (from social movements of the1960s)• business hierarchy forms as a religion of doing business (from Silicon Valley founders)• networks of intermediate scale trust (fromethnic diaspora businesses).Taken together the above suggest the following:• GLOBALIZATIONS of person, system,knowledge, design, innovating: 1) standard products/shows/services globally distributedturn each house into a museum of the world,relativizing traditional local belief and cultureways and systems• DESIGNS AND INNOVATIONS ASPERFORMANCES the audience is crucial— what looks innovative to Western “developers”for example, to “natives” can be seen as a grossmaladroit joke or delusion (the Westerners alltoo often “help” a traditional culture in waysthat are silly, often because they act withoutknowing the community, its people, its ways,and end up consulting local gangsters due totheir language skills—example: womencarrying water 2 kilometers uphill daily,Westerners horrified at “the work” involved,natives comfortable as hard work is life itself)• THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGEFLOWS information, beliefs, ideas flow muchmore easily some ways and places than others,the success of design and innovation, done participatorily or other ways, depends on thesocial lay of the land.• DESIGN AND INNOVATION AS CULTUREWORK designs that work in a community,innovations that “take” to a community, stick  because a culture or two of that communityhave been penetrated, or replaced, or improved; designs and innovations that bounce, that do not “take”, all too often bounce because they were oblivious to cultures of thedesigners-doers or those of the audiencereceiving the design/innovation performances.DIMENSIONS FROM PRIOR STUDIESPrior research already identified some general abstractdimensions of the relation of design and culture:• cultures designing (Geertz 1981—indigenousarts)• culture of designers (Cross 2009—designthinking)• designing cultures (Vaill 1989—design high performances)• design as culture work (Nadler et al 1992—org Participatory Innovation Conference 2012, Melbourne, Australia 3  design)• cultures of designers interacting with users(Emery and Thorsrud 1976 —self designingteams)• cultures of designers interacting with eachother (Liefer reviewed in Kolko 2008—  brainstorm protocols)• cultures of indigenous people—wholes(Campbell 1949—tribal myths)• cultures of industrial people—fragments(Simon 1996—sciences of the artificial)• indigenous “flow” ecstasy as goal of industrialdesigns (Csikszentmihalyi 2009—everydaycreativity)• design as un-designing, anti-culture work,innovating as un-organizing (Brown andDuguid, 2000—communities of practice &commerce)• meta-creation in design, meta-design—thedesign of scales/aims of designing (Flavell2001—meta-cognition)• design process lock-in (Wallace and Gruber 1989--culture of right ways)• design lock in (Arthur 2009—learning costlock in)• users/wiki designing (Postrel 2011—pre-finish product release & vaporware)From the cases below our hope is to find patternsamong the above, new dimensions to add to them, and away to portray effectively (for theory and application)their inter-relations.RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THIS STUDY• CAN THEORY BE DESIGNED THEWAY FASHIONS & DEVICES GETDESIGNEDcan a wide variety of cases of designculture interaction suffice, if input to acommon design method (dimensions of difference) to allow derivation of ageneral, powerful, applicable model of all important dimensions of anAnthropology of Design• WOULD ABSTRACT DIMENSIONSOF A THEORY OF DESIGNANTHROPOLOGY LEAD TOPOWERFUL NEW WAYS TODESIGNhow can powerful already noticeddimensions of difference in culture-design interaction be generalized,improving areas of design far from theareas where they were first noticed(example: indigenous culture health,daily life “flow” states, as goals of industrial lifestyles and designs---isindustrial design de-civilizing work?un-industrializing work?)• CAN THE MOST CREATIVE PARTSOF DESIGN BE AUTOMATED,MADE SYSTEMATIC, EDISON-IZEDcan we use such a model, if and whendeveloped, to interpolate newdimensions between existing ones andto extrapolate new dimensions beyondexisting dimensions series?DATA AND METHODSThis paper derives dimensions of a theory of theAnthropology of Design via applying a design method —dimensions of difference analysis—to a test datasetwith just enough variety to produce interestingdimensions and a lot of depth and access to data of thecases involved, so dimensions derived will be specificand interesting, rather than vague and overly general(and overly obvious).One case from every 3 years in the author's 45 years of design consulting was randomly chosen from the severalconsults in any 3 year period (dice rolled). The caseswere paired, and dimensions of difference for each pair were articulated, those dimensions grouped and groupsnamed, recursively. The result of that was meshed withdimensions already identified in the literature, bothcategorically and in causal path form, till a final modelof a manageable number of dimensions and sub-dimensions resulted. .EVALUATION OF DATAThe author's consulting practice involved years inEurope (at Thompson Electric Paris and NV Philips,Eindhoven), in Japan (at Matsushita Electric and SekisuiChemical), and in USA (at EDS, at Coopers & Lybrand,at Xerox PARC). Non-profit design work for NGOs inall 3 continents was also done---village incomeincreases for Jeju, Korea villages, participatory law and policy design meetings across 42 cities in Japan, totalquality election circles for Ted Kennedy and NewtGingrich re-election campaigns in the USA, massworkshop venture business design events in Chicagoand Yubari, Hokkaido, Japan, 40 Invent Events for Siemens, Germany. So choosing the author's practice isradically narrow, yet this particular practitioners' cases4 Participatory Innovation Conference 2012, Melbourne, Australia  are unusually widely distributed by locale, method,type, goal, and result. As a test case they offer usefulamounts of variation and the advantage of great depth of access to what was going on, intended, andaccomplished in each case.CASE ANALYSES   (Synopses Only Here) Case 1: Novelty Sciences Paired 18 Novelty Sciences (design, creativity, innovation,gaming, composing, performing, and 13 others) wereidentified then workshop combining them in pairs were begun. An early workshop of nominated creatorsdoing design and designers asked to create things wasdone to explore the role of design in creating andcreating in design. The singularities in design protocolswhere steps took much effort or time to enact, andwhere alternative ways to go got explored before one or two were chosen, were found to be where one or moremodel of creating competed for designer attention anduse. Designers trained to identify and articulate suchmodels of creativity at conflict, were found to designfaster with more creative outcomes (though these were pilot early studies, with too few cases for statisticalvalidity of result). Case 2: Repertoires of Models Defeat Single Right-yModels After a famous consultant applied her fully validatedand reliable model to tweak 42 environment variables tocreate a “creative” culture at P&G, the result wascopying 8 years later, a successful Japanese hot pad product. Delayed copying was not a satisfactory-toP&Gworking definition of creativity so they sought adifferent multi-model approach. Assessment of degreeof use of 60 models of creativity in one fifth of P&G'slarge research organization was done, finding 7 modelswell supported and 53 models missing. Four of themissing models were chosen and new hires competentin them were assigned to stymied projects. Threesignificant mother patents resulted 18 months later, eachled by one of the new hires. Case 3: 371 MIT Alumni Design the Future of Design  A casual question posted on the MIT alumni page of LinkedIn produced over 200 A4 pages of answers by atotal of over 371 alumni. Twenty turning points in the4 Participatory Innovation Conference 2012,Melbourne, Australia wereidentified and those offering turning pointcomments were given skype or email interviews askingthem why they changed discourse direction and whatthey felt about the direction change that they produced.The result was a 216 point new model of design as usingimposed systems to enact survivable system traits inwhich sustainable traits were embedded. 2100+ copiesof a book summarizing this crowd-built design approachwere sold. Case 4: Totalizations (De-professionalizations) of aBody of Knowledge, World-Wide If someone asked you to redesign or arrange for theredesign of nearly all the business processes in theworld in 30 years, neither you nor anyone else wouldstart or have any hope of success, yet the Japaneselaunch of a movement called Total Quality, by strippingquality knowledge from the rule of a profession—calledquality assurance—and totalizing treatment of it in 22ways. This unleashed mass distribution, world-wide of common process modeling and improvement means,used to redesign tens of millions of business processes.This was massive design, following a global standard protocol. Case 5: Replacement of Brainstorming as How toGet Creativity into Design A casual perusal of any recent Design Societyconference proceedings (here it was ICED2011 inCopenhagen and ICDC2010 in Kobe) shows that design protocols overly depend on brainstorming as how thenew gets into minds and designs. After decades of  brainstorm observations and studies, one would think something else might be noticed or invented. TRIZ,from Altshuler and Russia, got added at MIT andStanford a few years ago, but brainstorming and TRIZare just two simple tools and not specific enough for allthe novelty that design actually produces. Weacademics must be missing something and hiding thatomission behind too many appeals to brainstorms.Von Neuman, the dominant mathematician of the 20thcentury in many ways, ran the world's first socialautomaton in Princeton Stadium at the start of WorldWar II, with columns of students doing differentcalculations to inputs from the people sitting left of them and passing the results of their assignedcalculation to people sitting right of them. This wasdone in war exigency when computers were notavailable. Recently (in graduate design classes at KeioUniversity in Japan), cellular automata from computer theory (Wolfram) were transformed by analogy intosocial automata with humans in arrays passingintermediate results to each other in set flows, eachhuman applying an operation assigned to him/her.These social automata cause ideas to interact muchmore strongly than in brainstorms, and design outcomesfrom them tend to include significantly more noveltythan brainstorms.  Case 6: Non-Expert Delivery of New Technologies The old way of delivering new technologies to bigindustrial organizations was 2 years of PhDs doing a pilot application often so big, expensive, complex, and Participatory Innovation Conference 2012, Melbourne, Australia 5
Similar documents
View more...
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks