Crowdy McCrowdface problems generate Boaty McBoatface solutions.

( or, How the wisdom of the crowd capsized a boat naming challenge. )

(This was an article that I originally wrote as my entry to a HeroX.com blog writing challenge, Sept. 2020. It has since been edited to better reflect my perspective on using "crowdsourcing" as a tool for ideation)

In March 2016, 124,010 people chose Boaty McBoatface as their favourite entry for the Name Our Ship Contest launched by The Natural Environment Research Council, the UK's leading public funder of environmental science. The Council inadvertently tapped into a wise-cracking crowd! So, what happened?

• Is Collaborative genius at work or just a bunch of jokesters having a bit of fun?

• Getting buy-in from the public for serious scientific endeavours

• The wisdom of the crowd gets lost in the hilarity of it all.

• What motivates the crowd to participate?

Is there a better way to get the public on board with the launch of a very expensive ($287 million!) brand new research vessel to roam the polar seas than inviting them to participate in a name-the-boat contest? A naming contest is fun. It's easy. Just submit a name and vote for your favourite, no muss or fuss. You could spend as much time investigating the history of the Research Council and their various endeavours to come up with the perfect name. Or you could submit: "Its Bloody Cold Here," "What Iceberg?", "Captain Haddock," "Big Shipinnit," or how about, "Science!!!" Funny stuff that didn't require a lot of thought.

A naming challenge offers a rather binary solution space. To put it another way, determining the “success” of the solution without any objective criteria, apart from appropriateness, does not give the crowd much cognitive load to carry (hence the humorous entries). A true challenge is only as good as the rubric by which the solutions can be measured. This is not to say that crowdsourcing a name for any artifact is a bad idea, but just be prepared to wade through many bad ideas.

The Natural Environment Research Council’s intent was noble. To get people interested in the kind of scientific research that they do. But Scientific research is painstakingly slow, deliberate and esoteric by nature. It seemed appropriate at the time, one might imagine, that this is a great way to get the public on board: launch a non-technical, friendly naming contest. But it’s not exactly crowdsourcing citizen science! What could go wrong?

But who would have ever thought there would be well over 100,000 people giving the thumbs up to one of the silliest entries? Was this crowd not somehow automatically curated because the Natural Environment Research Council issued the challenge? I’m sure the government agency types thought they would be reaching out to the more science-minded crowd.

Wisdom of the Crowd or just Bad Ideas?

“I voted for Boaty McBoatface, and I did it for fun, laughter and anti-pomposity,”
said one participant.

 Was the wisdom of the crowd really at work here? Blue sky ideation was undoubtedly present in its most creative form. The most voted-for entry is indeed a funny name in a sophomoric way and identifies a catchy naming formula that spawned a litany of Namey McNameface names in many other categories ever since Boaty McBoatface hit the news.

 So, whatever happened to the wisdom of the crowd? “Who cares what the sodding boat is called?” laments another contest observer. This is a telling comment. Who DOES care? And what does it matter what some boat is called? Winning this type of contest or challenge is akin to playing the lottery. There were no tools offered to help contestants strategize a process to get to the perfect name. There were no tools because there was nothing to offer other than announcing that a new research vessel was about to leave the dry dock.

To be clear, there is a vast difference between participating in this crowdsourcing naming contest than merely voting for a favourite entry. The former takes a little more cognitive effort (but not that much), and the latter is essentially just a reaction and only requires a click, and it’s almost too easy.

100,000 is certainly a large and persuasive voting bloc, but 100,000 name suggestions are just overwhelming and unnecessary. The more “name-ideas” you get, the greater the chance they will cover the gamut from the soberly serious to the incredibly silly. The point for the contest designers was to get just enough people involved to garner some media coverage, and they got more than they bargained for.

Perhaps asking the crowd to provide a rationale for their name suggestion or why they voted for a particular name may have tempered the response and reduced the volume. But this would undoubtedly invite more of the same type of non-sensical entries but with different dimensions: From a heartfelt “this is why I think this is a good name ” to the simple-minded “ why not”? Naming things is incredibly subjective, and with no constructive way of measuring the effectiveness of one name or another, you’ll get as many opinions about what makes a great name as you have names.

 So what’s the problem with asking the crowd for name ideas? It’s not what you ask; it’s how you ask it. Crowdsourcing a name for a boat seems like a democratic move to be inclusive. But without some serious guideposts, you’ll get responses that will be all over the map.

What motivates a crowd to participate?

 Why do people participate in crowdsourced challenges in the first place?*

1. Love of problem-solving

2. Love of learning new things

3. Desire to make positive changes

4. It's all about the prize

 Within this framework, it becomes evident that naming contests don't have a lot to offer in return for the time and effort spent to participate. The problem to be solved is one-dimensional. Is it even a problem? And there's not much to learn. What a thing is named hardly matters in any socially meaningful way (it's just a boat), although you might learn a little about the organization.

 It's not really about creative problem-solving. Also, the "problem owners" gave themselves an out – which is tantamount to saying we'll go along with the crowd's choice only if we like it... It's no wonder Boaty McBoatface was voted as the favourite.

Inviting the global village to help solve challenges may sound like the most democratic thing you can do. It's an open invitation to all interested in the subject matter at hand to participate. Although this is not a new way of finding the best ideas amongst a crowd**, access to these challenges has been supercharged by the advent of internet technology. It's easier to learn about the challenges, find like-minded collaborators, and conduct research to get all the information you need to inform your solution. The caveat for the authors of any challenge is to address the critical crowd motivators. If your challenge can't match any of these, your contest will likely run aground.

 At the very least, the Natural Environment Research Council got more publicity than they ever imagined. Many more people are now aware of who they are and what they do and that they just spent 283 million of public money on a boat. What's the lesson here? There are several.

Crowdsourcing Tips

1. The authors of a challenge need to be highly Transparent (contest rules aside).

Please don't ask the crowd for their input and then ignore them. In the boat naming contests, the contest-authors did make it known that they have a right to veto the crowd's choice. But to have to rely on this backdoor escape hatch will sour the crowd's mood.

2. Naming contests for serious endeavours don't fare well under the weight of a large crowd.

People will game the system, and although there's not much to gain – your name gets to go on an obscure ocean-going vessel, poking fun at the true intent of the contest is the next best thing.

 You must make the contest challenge if you want the crowds to help and expect them to put their best foot forward. If you ask the crowd an easy question, you'll always get Boaty McBoatface as your answer.

*Lanier, Jaron. You are not a gadget: A manifesto. Vintage, 2010.

** https://www.crowdsource.com/blog/2013/08/the-long-history-of-crowdsourcing-and-why-youre-just-now-hearing-about-it/

The Rise of Non-Experts.

Image by G.Shewchuk

The world is awash with experts. Many self-proclaimed, others are true geniuses, fonts of profound knowledge. But what exactly is an “expert,” and what defines expertise? Is it just having mastery over the subject matter in a particular domain of study or inquiry? An expert in Mythology, for example, is intimately familiar with her subject matter through years of reviewing the literature, exploring hypotheses, sharing ideas with like-minded individuals and through personal reflection. Is this dedication and study to one area of interest the stuff that makes one an expert?

A reputation for being an authority or expert on a particular subject is achieved by adding new insight to an existing body of knowledge. When contributing to a body of knowledge in academia, this new knowledge’s novelty, originality, and integrity is rewarded with certification. A degree is conferred as a kind of proof that you know your subject matter well, so well in fact that you’re considered an authority in this domain so much so that others may consult you.

 Having expertise is an obvious prerequisite when dealing with complex problems that threaten one’s life. Aortic regurgitation, for example, is a problem that you want experts to solve. The optimal outcome is no regurgitation, with the patient living longer with a better quality of life. The constraints and variables that define this type of medical problem are well-known, well documented, and highly successful in guiding surgeons. And if a cardiologist encounters a patient with a heart problem that they have never seen before, they consult with other experts in their field. A heart problem may indicate something amiss somewhere else in the body, and it may involve more than just that muscle. Still, medical professionals are trained system thinkers, so they seek other experts who are more familiar with other body functions and systems. Experts work with other experts tied into the same network of interaction.

Expertise and expert reasoning is based on evidence. The veracity of this evidence is, in turn, dependent on repeated experimentation, documentation, dissemination, and peer review. To grow a body of knowledge and find new insights, as the saying goes, you’ll need to stand on the shoulders of giants. These are the individuals, experts who spent lifetimes in pursuit of knowledge. They know their stuff.

Problem Solving and Innovation

“I begin with an idea and then it becomes something else.” - Pablo Picasso.

Art Fry (co-inventor of the “stickie note”) defines innovation this way: “Innovation is where people switch to a new practice or use a new product.” Innovative thinking, however, does not require subject matter expertise. A new practice or process is a future state. It’s not here yet; there is no evidence for a new idea, and it’s still just a figment of someone’s imagination. It becomes real only when embodied, evaluated, and implemented. And it only becomes an innovation when adopted by others and used.

The simplicity of Picasso’s quote on ideation belies its profundity. Ideas are mutable, fluid, coalesce with other ideas, or splinter off in new directions and lead to new ideas. They are like rivers with tributaries – each rivulet finds its course when it flows over the contours of the land. Ideas lead to other ideas. Thinking is about constant revision. Writing is rewriting; thinking is rethinking. The process appears to flow in a particular direction, but you’ll never know where it may veer off or when it may run dry. Unconstrained ideation is blue-sky thinking or riffing on the ideas of others like an intellectual improv. Professional designers use the “Yes, and” principle in collaborative working sessions. You listen to a colleague expressing an idea and then add to it, “yes ( you make an interesting point) “and” (this also brings to mind…). This is not about expertise or experts sharing ideas. This is about listening for any nuance in the discussion that sparks an insight or leads to another idea. 

So-called professional thinkers (knowledge workers, designers, entrepreneurs, et al.) are just like any Josephine on the street, and the only difference is that they are adept at using mental models or creative thinking tools to structure their wild thoughts. On the other hand, Josephine may stumble upon a new idea without knowing how she got there.

Ideas naturally propagate, and they are also very social. Ideas are exposed to other forces as soon as they are expressed. The ideas of others buffet your ideas, and then they mutate – one idea begets another, and then another. Soon you have hundreds. Of course, this does not mean that they are all good; in fact, they are probably not very good at all. But that’s the point. Ideas are abundant, and it’s as common as quartz dug out of the ground. But without uncovering lots of this “raw material” first, you would never have enough to extract any precious metal.

Earlier in this article, I referred to the highly specialized field of cardiology. Solving problems in this domain requires deep knowledge and expertise. But what types of problems could a non-expert solve, even in this professional domain? What if the issue faced by the heart surgeon requires solutions that lie outside the field of her expertise? What if there was a particular kind of stitching technique used by, let’s say, ancient Egyptian cobblers, that if applied to her suturing work, could reduce tissue damage? How would she ever know this process exists? Expanding her knowledge of surgical techniques by researching more literature in cardiology would never get her closer to the idea of using an ancient stitching process. Only a non-expert, unaffiliated with a particular area of interest, could help.

When Expertise collides with Serendipity

“One sometimes finds, what one is not looking for. When I woke up just after dawn on September 28, 1928, I certainly didn't plan to revolutionize all medicine by discovering the world's first antibiotic, or bacteria killer. But I suppose that was exactly what I did.”— Alexander Fleming[26]

Fleming was indeed an expert, as was Picasso. Their process is, in fact, very similar, although artists are arguably more attuned to serendipity. It's worth noting that these "aha" moments, these sudden realizations that a unique solution has been discovered, are mere seconds in a lifetime of arduous work.

On the other hand, Picasso revels in starting experiments that have no constraints beyond the plane of the canvas or the pigment of his paints (cite). His first principles are the marks he makes on a page, both random and intentional. This is the way an artist works. The patterns "speak" to her as she engages in a dialogue with her canvas, and like many vibrant conversations, you never know what subject will come up next. The beginning does not give away the ending.

 Not everyone can capitalize on serendipity like Fleming, but most can begin a process like Picasso to start with an idea and see where it takes you.

A body of knowledge is never static. New theories, principles in any domain continually change and evolve. What was once a "fact" may now be fiction. When continuous investigation, experimentation and scrupulous inquiry collide with serendipity, suddenly your previous hypotheses are proved or disproved, or you stumbled upon something entirely new and so compelling that you change the direction of your inquiry.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein.

Everything is connected. If you can't find the information you're looking for, the internet must be down. Experts are blinded by what they know, and it's hard to escape your thoughts, the body of knowledge you've acquired over your lifetime.

Non-experts are not constrained by what they don't know. On the other hand, experts are acutely aware of what they don't know. And they spent a lifetime building knowledge based on evidence. Making wild assumptions is not the typical way forward for a "knowledge" professional to take a leap of faith.

Non-expects may not label their process or identify critical features of their problem-solving methods. When you're not constrained by what you know (or believe you know), your approach to solving a problem is also without limit. Just because you can't name your process – is it inductive or abductive reasoning, design thinking or integrative thinking? – does not mean you won't find an innovative solution.

Problem Solving is About Constraints.

A problem has edges. There are boundaries, a scope. What are we solving for? Are we looking for a new device, product or service to do XYZ? Instead, if the proposed solution does ABC, it’s not solving the right problem. Identifying the scope is step one. But the scope can change if you re-frame the problem. As a non-expert, you rely more heavily on intuition and are more influenced by your own biases, while experts suppress their biases and strive for objectivity. Experts are specialists who have deep knowledge in a particular field. But digging deeper into the same subject matter to find ways to solve a new problem will only uncover the usual suspects.

Although professional thinkers are trained to collaborate, their colleagues and associates play in the same sandbox. It stands to reason that if you’re a scientist investigating the efficacy of cancer drugs, your lab mates are usually looking in the same direction. How do you breach the boundaries of your knowledge when you’ve been steeped in it for a lifetime? Correcting your position or cleansing yourself of biases that naturally occur when gaining mastery over a particular body of knowledge is very difficult. Eliminating biases and group-think is the basis for building diverse teams, bringing together experts from various fields. Individual polyglots are rare. Teams of individuals with diverse experiences are not. Diversity, in all its forms, world views, preferences, aptitudes and interests, ensures that problem spaces are investigated from every angle. When various viewpoints collide, novel ideas are generated

sources

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/create-the-medici-effect

Maker, C. June, Aleene B. Nielson, and Judith A. Rogers. "Multiple intelligences: Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving." Teaching Exceptional Children 27.1 (1994): 4.

Mello, Abby L., and Joan R. Rentsch. "Cognitive diversity in teams: A multidisciplinary review." Small Group Research 46.6 (2015): 623-658.

Haven, Kendall F. (1994). Marvels of Science : 50 Fascinating 5-Minute Reads. Littleton, Colo: Libraries Unlimited. p. 182. ISBN 1-56308-159-8.

Using causal loops diagramming to demonstrate how the "housing first model" works.

View fullsize

(Click on image to enlarge.) Interpreting text through the lens of visual design clarifies the key drivers in the "vicious cycle" of the homelessness problem. 

(This image is part of a gigamap originally designed for the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care: Mental Health in Ontario)

The Healthcare Client Journey Mapping Process

Theses maps are based on a real-life event to inform an assignment (Design for Healthcare, Delft University of Technology - via edX online). Through semi-structure interviews with my participant (client) and by using the principles of visual design, friction points and potential solution spaces are identified.
(please click on maps to enlarge image)

View fullsize

View fullsize

Sketching is thinking.

Concept sketch for a package and communication design problem

Ever walk up to a while board during a work session with your team and have this urge to make a mark on that slick surface when you’re struggling to articulate a thought? You’re tentative, you’re still thinking, then the marker hits the surface and your thought crystallizes.

Why does this work? 

The “doing” (drawing/sketching/making) is the thinking, “doing and thinking are complementary” (Schön, 1983). There is enormous value in thinking-out-loud-visually and it arises out of the sheer freedom one has to think, without being confined to a formal lexicon or syntax. (1)

I imagine it to be this way: all thinking is fluid, your emerging thoughts are open to new inputs (or should be), always in the state of flux. When expressing thoughts in prose, Hemingway put it this way: "all writing is re-writing”. Your first words and thoughts suggest other words and thoughts and so on, until finally you have an idea ready for expression. This is precisely why teams must be supportive of the emergent, incomplete thoughts of their members. Thinking out loud requires patience.

So, when you make that first mark, any line, it may suggest an axis, or a time-line or the spine of a stick figure. Hereafter, that line and the discussion in the room will prompt the form and function of the next one, and the one after that. It's in this way that the very act of sketching informs thinking.  

references:

1. Shewchuk, G. (2014). Translating Domain Expertise through Visual Sensemaking. (Major research report) OCAD University

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practicioner: how professionals think in action (p. 1983). New York: Basic Books.

The most important question: Why? (x5)

It's always the hardest question to answer and even a harder one to evade, especially in the 5th iteration of the same question. The heart of the matter is often a surprise to both the questioner and "questionee." Try it next time a client asks you to create a "viral" video for them...

Analysis and Synthesis in the Designer’s Process

Ackoff’s DIKW pyramid

After all of the problem-finding and framing, the data collection and parsing, the iterations and the incubation an insight may finally surface. But how exactly did we get there? Using Ackoff’s pyramid (1988) as a mental model to describe the movement of ideation from data collection to an insight although remarkable as a structure in it's own right is in insufficient. Dissecting the process appears to destroy any hope of finding any definitive structure or element that defines the actual synthesis when shifting from one stage into the next. A real insight into a problem comes into view not because we are following a particular critical thinking methodology, but because we are just “doing something”. With visual thinking the “doing” is in the way we physically change the “space” the data-chunks occupy. The sheer physicality of visual design appears to be a significant factor for the elicitation of tacit knowledge during working sessions.  

The strangemaker’s process meets Ackoff’s DIKW pyramid

All critical thinking methods are important because they make us address data in a very structured way. They can not actually lead the team to the insight, the methods only re-frame the data through a sensemaking process. The cognitive manipulation of data and the visual design “aesthetic” may inspire new ideas in this way too. It's not just the work done on the "wall", but it's also the energy conveyed by solvers, their physical stance, their passion and the embodiment of an emotion. “Gesturing does not merely reflect thought: Gesture changes thought by introducing action into one’s mental representations. Gesture forces people to think with their hands” (Beilock & Goldin-Meadow 2010). When working with Ackoff’s DIKW pyramid  and analyzing my research data it occurred to me that there may be a “parallel” sequence that visual designers engage in while they work. The “other side” to sensemaking is governed by the tendencies of designers to also include their own-way-of-knowing in this process. They are applying their knowledge of how visual design artifacts begin to develop form, in this way they too are searching for the right answer or a kind of truth.

If concepts can be expressed as perceptual images that are the result of artistic or strangemaking activity, then a surface covered in pigment or ink, engages our cognitive faculties as percepts (Arnheim, 1972). The concepts or propositions embodied in sketching (or prototyping) at this stage are meant to remain open to interpretation. Both the artist and scientist are not certain where their open inquiry may lead them. Picasso said that “I begin with an idea and then it becomes something else.” The plastic arts may be only a medium for self-expression, not scientific inquiry. The artist is not solving a problem that is objective to her. She will always surrender to her medium. The medium will tease out of her a proposition, a form, a color sequence, a melody, or an experience. She cannot predict the outcome but only nudge the direction the final form may take. 

This is curiously similar to the way we may function as human beings in a complex organization. We can participate in a demographic process and make our wishes known, we may even be able to persuade others to accept our point of view. We also need to “see deeply” into the data we gather in a research process to find meaning in it. We codify, chunk and parse data until we find a pattern that makes sense to us. How the artist perceives her world and creates her art is the same way a scientist conducts an experiment and verifies an hypothesis. A scientist and artist both understand that they live in a world of phenomena that unfold as “network of genera” and not as a sequence of disparate events. The artist expresses her understanding of the natural world through the art she creates. (Arnheim, 1972). The scientist may seek to measure results and quantify evidence, but she is also after qualitative facts. 

(from my final Masters of Design research report, with edits and revisions, OCAD University, 2014: “Translating Domain Expertise through Visual Sensemaking.” )

How visual design supports knowledge translation.

View fullsize

This is a complex work flow diagram that captures the premise of a research paper. Although the subject matter is not within the visual designer's domain,  through an iterative design and discussion process with the author the final result is successful and effective. The action steps are clear and "comprehensible" to a non-expert audience while being rich enough to give bimolecular scientists enough information to understand the author's concepts and processes.

It’s not really brain surgery (although a background in brain surgery probably wouldn't hurt). A deeper look into the scientific subject matter that you’re dealing with is essential even when telling the story from a higher level of abstraction. The salient details of the visual content is not always readily expressed by the author despite their deep expertise in the subject. Time constraints and the fluidity of the research process makes it challenging for a designer to understand the exact requirements of the author(s). The only way forward is to rapidly iterate and share. This process is both additive and subtractive.

The typical diagram that illuminates research or educational text has 3 jobs.

Audience facing:

1. Engage. The designer utilizes principles of aesthetics and graphic design to create appealing visual imagery without adding unnecessary or redundant elements
2. Move the plot. Use visual cues to tell the story and assist the reader
   in moving from concept A to concept B. 

For the investigator:

1. (3) Help clarify the author(s) their own thought process. Is this the best way to tell the story? Are all the actors and actions necessary in order to convey the key points that need to be covered?

The beginning.

The best place to start is where others have finished. Use the visual language of the particular domain you are working in (derived from research figures)  and choose the most effective and simplest visual structures that have already been developed as a guide to re-imagining them to suit a specific message.

The invisible made visible.

View fullsize

The process of visual design is as much a function of the formal interaction between point, line and plane as it appears on a surface, as it is the conscious choices a designer makes. This formal interaction is a powerful and complex force that guides the designers actions until the end of their process is in view. Letting the point, line and plane “speak” to you, or in essence show you the way, is an essential and often mysterious dialogue that leads to surprising visual insights and discoveries.

Can we put this force to work when solving problems that are not bound by the constraints of a physical medium? In other words, can we map this interaction onto problem spaces that involve complex human experiences and needs, rather than just manipulating visual structures into pretty objects?

How Do Visual Designers Work?

I had no idea that I had actually had a "process", nor did it seem to matter much to me or my output. I put it all down to intuition, practice, hard work, luck and little bit of natural talent. In other words, you would "just do it". So for over 20 years it's been an invisible process that yielded successful outcomes. Or so I thought. My work was always well-received, but it generally just "average", brilliant solutions were rare. I got the job done, I got paid, I moved on to the next brief.

While studying for my Masters in Design, I was forced to think long and hard about what it is I do as a visual communication designer. I've also been called upon to talk and teach others about where good visual design comes from. Arguably, the process is as shown above. And I describe it like this: It's a circular force that moves in opposite directions, but eventually propels you forward. The forces are comprised of two distinct mind-sets, Sensemaking and Strangemaking. 

Sensemaking is “a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively..." Gary A. Klein

Strangemaking is what an artist does, to "make objects ‘unfamiliar,' to make forms difficult to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged." (Shklovsky /Wikipedia) 

These are polar opposites motivations and when combined are potent drivers behind the designers process.

- G. Shewchuk

From schematic to visual experience.

View fullsize

The design process is lost in a sea of iterations. Why elements have been left out or revised is never revealed to the client. Showing your thinking is always good if you have a receptive audience, otherwise it may just be confusing and time consuming. The design process is continuous and stops when a temporary consensus of acceptability is reached amongst the key stakeholders. 

User experience testing is continuous and but even when it works well, it may be still be time for a refresh. The “beauty” of an interface is only “skinning" deep and often follows the trends of the day. Function on the other hand is always the thing. It’s not just the engine that drives the interaction it justifies the very existence of software or a device in the first place. Unfortunately given the sheer number of apps out there, function is too often eclipsed by form.

Of course the best device or tool has the fewest moving parts to get it’s job done. My sharpie is the go-to device for expressing ideas quickly when the wetware (my brain) has an idea.

(note: the layout shown above was an exercise in visual thinking as part of my introduction to a prospective client)

Changing behaviour with visual cues.

I had the opportunity to volunteer at a local hospital for a few hours a week, monitoring visitors to the Critical Care Neurosurgery Unit.  This unit is locked behind a set of double-doors. It’s locked for security, hygienic and privacy reasons. All hospital and volunteer staff have card access only.

Volunteer’s task:

1. Determine the needs of the visitor and call the appropriate health care pod and nurse
    
2. If entrance is permitted, the magnetic locks are released, the visitors are instructed on hand hygiene, then allowed to enter
    
3. If permission to enter is not granted at the time of request, visitors are asked to wait in the adjacent waiting rooms until signalled to enter

The Observation:

Visitors will often congregate outside the unit entrance, waiting for staff to enter or exit, then rush in whenever some exits the doors. Hospital staff will not interfere with their entry since they will not be aware of which visitors have been given permission to enter the unit.

View fullsize

Bird's eye view of the Visitor's section and Intensive Care Unit entrance way.

The doors in question are the same colour as the hallway walls. They are also plastered in signs and notes of various sizes. Many of these signs are office-printer-generated and poorly designed. They are tattered, inconsistently multi-lingual and badly placed. The doors are dented, scuffed and dirty. In effect the doors have been “corporately graffitied” and as such appear to be the entrance way to some cafeteria rather than protecting a highly sensitive healthcare suite. 

Design intervention:

If the doors were stripped of all extraneous signage and either painted a different colour or veneered with a different material to stand apart from the rest of the interior, this would reaffirm the “specialness” of the area behind the doors. This visual signal would deter visitors from being overly aggressive about breaching this entrance way without permission.

Some healthcare spaces are an unfortunate labyrinth of hallways and exits with way-finding systems designed for appearance rather than real guidance. Imagine a complicated space so well-designed, with visual nudges in the form of colour, shape and texture (not text based signs) that invisibly encourages the most appropriate behaviour of its inhabitants. 

Building Momentum for Scholastic and Social Success in the Future

This is the executive summary for an innovation challenge project from the Lumina Foundation: Shaping the Next Frontier in Postsecondary Education

A literature review of the current and projected state of postsecondary education paints a picture of a pedagogy that blends tools and processes developed by rapid technological advances, aggressive industry intervention and an evolving academia. There is no shortage of strategies and tactics available to earn a formal education which is open to learners from all demographic segments. But a wholesale disruption of the entire educational system is also on the radar.

For the postsecondary education system to remain viable in the future, the emergent needs of learners must account for a shift from the Knowledge Economy to the Human Economy1. The key characteristics of highly functioning members of this economy will be: creativity, passion, integrity and collaborative initiative. In addition, the system must also protect the main revenue stream in its business model and demonstrate the true value of tuition fees to the learner. This is of course based on the premise that “credentials” matter and formalized scholastic success in the form of official certification (as a degree) is as critical to the well-being and employment success of a graduate, as it is to academia itself. 

View fullsize

Popular culture makes heroes out of individuals who have achieved monumental success by carving out their own path in life and avoiding traditional educational institutions all together. The signals on the horizon also suggest that corporations will hire for “soft skills” and train in situ for other capabilities, all the while offloading even more of their analytical skill needs to AI based machines.

How do you make traditional credentials relevant in the age of the Human Economy? 

Eliminate them. Instead of focusing on the earned credits and credentials, shift the focus to the specialized content of human-centered programs that offer guidance and instruction in the social skills needed for the Human Economy. Credentialing is then eclipsed by the effectiveness and quality of the courses offered. The proof must be demonstrated by the success of alumni. Corporations will take on the burden of instructing learners about the technical aspects of their organization. What they require in their new hires is not subject-matter knowledge but rather socially adept, empathetic, creative and collaborative individuals capable of discovering new insights.

G.Shewchuk

....

Sources:

Hines, A. THE END of WORK as WE KNOW IT.

Seidman, Dov. “From the Knowledge Economy to the Human Economy” Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/11/from-the-knowledge-economy-to-the-human-economy

How: Why how we do anything means everything. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

The Future of Student Needs: 2015 and beyond The University of Houston Foresight Program on behalf of Lumina Foundation Jun. 2014

http/singularityhub.com/2015/11/19/automation-is-eating-jobs-but-these-skills-will-always-be-value.pdf

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-work-five-issues-nexteconomy-james-manyika

http://time.com/2806663/american-education/ Here’s the Real Problem With America’s Educational System | TIME

http://www.technologyreview.com/review/533406/what-are-moocs-good-for/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chirag-kulkarni/5-nontraditional-educatio_b_6156156.html

http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/author/luba/

http://gowithfloat.com/2011/02/fragmentation-and-nfc-in-your-pedagogy-dont-worry-its-not-painful/

Grok a doodle: creative discovery through visualization

I couldn't resist using the words grok and doodle in the same phrase. Sorry about that. But the post is serious. I would suggest that "thinking-out-loud" on paper, or a white board, or any surface for that matter, generates connections and insights that we could not unearth by linguistic means alone.

The language of the line is often a very personal monologue. It's a sensual connection from your brain to your hand and to a piece of graphite/stylus/pen/fingertip and finally to a surface.

The sketches shown above we recorded on my iPad. Many were generated during lectures and workshops at OCAD University. I have hundreds. Was I not paying attention? I graduated with a Masters, so I retained some things! I believe sketching amplified my attention. If I was intrigued by a particular phrase or idea I would create images that reflected that focus. More often than not, the strokes, colours and shapes are "random". They are generated without precept, free flowing, dictated by nothing but the look and feel of the lines and colours themselves. They are however, imbued with tacit knowledge and with careful review this will become evident to the sketcher.

I can look at a sketch created 2 years ago, which to anyone else looks like nothing in particular, but for me it will create an immediate recognition of something in the moment when it was created. The "thing" I recognize is not necessarily an idea. It could be a feeling, or even a sensation, but it may also reveal something novel and unexpected.

G.Shewchuk

Design Doing.

If you’ve been following along you’re now well-versed with Design Thinking as a holistic, human-centred approach to finding novel and durable solutions to complex problems that arise in the social sciences. You’ve seen the examples, read the blogs and watched Dave Kelley (founder of IDEO) on TedTalks. But can you put your money where your mouth is? If you’ve kept up with your homework you certainly can and you may even be handsomely rewarded for your effort.

Where can I practice what they preach?

Innocentive.com offers a fascinating venue for aspiring and veteran design thinkers alike. The overwhelming number of challenges target expert practitioners in the natural sciences. But for those of us more accustom to mixing it up with fuzzy issues that involve diverse stakeholder groups, there’s plenty of work to be done in those domains too.

The following is small subset of social and marketing innovation challenges that have been offered in the past on the Innocentive platform:

The SUDEP Institute Challenge: Preventing Epilepsy Seizures:

How might we create processes or tools for people with epilepsy that supports and aids compliance to the most effective lifestyle and medicine regimen that was designed to control their disease?

Switching Patients to Improved Forms of Existing Medications:

Without the usual channels of mass communications (i.e. telecommunications, broadcast, online and direct marketing ) how might we inform and reassure patients that their current medication is being replaced with an improved formulation that simplifies their daily dosing routine?

High Blood Pressure Self-Management on a Box:

How might we re-tell the rather long and complicated story of blood-pressure-measurement best practices in a way that could fit on the actual packaging of the medication itself?

Communicating About Ingredients – Nutrition, Value, Sustainability: 

Just what is it about the inclusion of meat byproducts in pet-food that deters purchase by some pet-owners? How might we navigate through the complex regulatory restrictions for ingredient listing practices and convince pet-owners that they are not getting the full story on the box? 

Ford Motor Company-  Create Accessories to Enhance the Driving Experience:

How might we design novel accessories or apps that support drivers and enhance their self-sufficiency when traveling in remote regions.

Maximizing Retail Merchandising Space:

If you can’t make your convenience store physically larger, how might you showcase and sell more product? What technological tactics or architectural features could you put to work to engage your customer even before they cross the lease-line?

Capturing Institutional Memory and Knowledge

Attrition and the usual turn-over of staff erodes the natural stores of institutional knowledge that accumulates over years of collaboration amongst internal workers, contractors and suppliers. How might we devise strategies and create best practices for capturing institutional knowledge across the breadth and depth of an organization?

...

Challenge is good for for you. Some people risk life and limb on a rock-face, but why not take a hike through Himalayas of the mind ( Gord Downie's phrase) to discover innovative directions to human-centred solutions that actually work.

(Full disclosure: Since early 2014, I participated in all 7 of the innocentive challenges listed here, producing award-winning solutions for 3. All winning solutions are protected by an NDA but for those of you who are interested in more details, you can contact me directly. Other details can be found here.)

Visualizing social interaction with simple shapes and vectors.

(The definition of reciprocity: "the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another.")

The essential nature of these interactions should be evident at a glance. The true complexity of social dynamics are not revealed this way, but at the very least, some of the salient characteristics are demonstrated: 

• indirect reciprocity: benefit passed on to an unknown connection in the future
• direct reciprocity: immediate shared benefit 
• self-interest (non-reciprocal): insular benefit 

When these visuals are combined with more information and other elements they work like mnemonic devices that enable comprehension the more complex the data map becomes.

The difference between "co-creation" and "crowdsourcing."

Multidisciplinary collaboration on difficult problems is essential in order to tease apart complex interactions and influences amongst all the stakeholders and problem-owners. The various perspectives on the same problem reveal novel connections that would have otherwise been overlooked. It's essentially a co-designing or co-creation process.

Crowdsourcing portals that seek solvers often encourage team participation. The logistics of making virtual teams work can be alleviated with a myriad of online sharing, thinking and meeting tools. The questions remain, regardless of the team's virtual or real-time presence, how to manage a discovery or insight? How do multiple solvers working together on the same problem move in the same direction in order to develop and articulate this insight? 

My personal experience with "co-creation" typically involves smaller teams (5 or less). The bigger the team the more difficult it is to track ideas and maintain an egalitarian perspective on all of the input. Big teams require expert facilitation. Although many ideas may be tabled, only one can move forward. Lesser solutions or alternatives often confuse the problem-owners and dilute their confidence in the overall "range" of the solutions presented. Crowdsourced solutions, whether or not they are a function of one solver or a team appear to have a natural solidarity with their creators. Crowdsourcing will ideally provide a wide range of ideas from a diverse set of solvers which problem-owners (seekers) will then judge on it's own merits. 

To co-create or crowdsource?

I think the nature of the problem will suggest whether or not it is better to co-create or crowdsource. Co-creation works well in open, monitored forums (e.g. IDEO.org / "amplify challenges") and with smaller dedicated teams convened to work on specific challenges within an organization. Tapping the crowd is more effective for sourcing a large number of novel solutions for very specific problems (e.g. innocentive.com - offering financial incentives for solutions to difficult problem and  governance initiatives that involve large stakeholders groups). In these cases, problem-owners don't interact individually with the participants who share their ideas.

Another important variation on crowdsourcing is akin to getting the pulse of a stakeholder group rather than actually finding actionable solutions. After all, Henry Ford's customers only knew that they wanted to get from A to B to faster. 

Groupthink kills discovery.

We’ve heard it all before.  “Leave your ego at the door.” “There’s no ‘i’ in team.” “Invoke the wisdom of the crowd.” “Two heads are better than one.” And so on. There is no denying the importance of collaboration and the participatory design process but you can’t really park an ego. It tends to follow you around. Striving for healthy self-awareness is key. Not only for expressing your perspective on any evidence that has been gathered, but also to trigger the release of tacit knowledge. Making an assertion is not about the volume of an individual voice or the rhetoric of a personal preference. It’s about finding an original insight which appears to spring forth from a single fresh perspective, while surrounded by many.

Whimsicons

With constant and consistent use, what was once odd or confusing becomes a convention

The meaning of an icon is often enriched with a single word to eliminate ambiguity. Once a graphical convention is established, as in the ubiquitous “human form” then exploring unconventional configurations of the same essential graphical elements allows for broader and more whimsical expression. And it's just plain fun too!

The Shoefie, Vigilance and the Number Zero.

The shoefie, vigilance and the number zero are the essential insights that drive the solutions to the following crowdsource challenges:

• Increasing Shoe Sales
• Keeping Drivers Safe in the Australian Outback
• Raising the Awareness of Sudden Death in Epilepsy*

The path to a novel solution is always self-evident.

But only self-evident in your imagination! As soon as your thought process hits the “air” many of your "first" ideas tend to crumble or just evaporate. Thinking out loud is the best way to exorcise the biases and assumptions we all have. This is not to suggest that a personal bias is detrimental to solving problems, in fact, a unique point of view and even a wrong-headed assumption may point to a better solution

It’s never easy to re-frame a problem statement, and it’s even more difficult to “unlearn” those cognitive patterns that only lead us down well-worn paths to typical solutions. We need novelty and innovation not because it's de rigueur, but because there is no other way to broadcast the signal in the noise and to satisfy the growing complexity of stakeholder needs. 

*The solution documents to these challenges are available for review by email requests only. Also see the  case study section on this site. Please note that some details may be omitted to satisfy the NDA’s.