Design Research Studio

Albert Yang
Aug 28, 2017 · 36 min read

8/28/2017 — First Class Thoughts

I thought the first studio class was an exciting start to the semester! Even though it was essentially a 2.5-hour long lecture, talking about design for service, social innovation, and transition design was really inspiring to hear about. I’m excited about the balance between lecture and exercises/activities to help us learn new principles, especially in comparison to previous studio experiences that were more freeform in terms of workload and class structure.

For me personally, it was really helpful just to visualize on the whiteboard the differences between design for service, social innovation, and transition design. I like that newer fields like the latter two are continuously shapeshifting and evolving in their current forms; it’s just really exciting to me to see how my own views of the fields develop and what new mindset can come from learning the frameworks of each design field. Whatever different mindset I come out with by the end of the semester, I hope it’s something that I can carry on into my professional life regardless of which field my career will fit into (if any).

Regarding the Transition Design framework that Terry talked about, the part that stuck with me the most was the “Mindset and Posture” portion. The idea that the solution might not always be clear, or even exist in the way we expect it to is something that I may often find demoralizing, so I’m hoping I’ll keep the excited outlook I currently have (as of August 28, 2017) throughout the semester. Pulling in knowledge from other disciplines is also something that I was interested in, since I feel like a lot of design solutions that we’ve done in the past have been developed from our own design-biased perspectives. I think it’d be interesting to work with other disciplines and also explore how they approach similar problems using different methods.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transition_Design_Framework.png // Diagram by Terry Irwin, Gideon Kossoff, and Cameron Tonkinwise

Finally, going back to discussions about systems thinking is admittedly intimidating for me since I don’t think I had a firm grasp on the concept when I took the class in freshman year, but I’m excited to expand on my knowledge of what it is and what it entails. I found it really helpful for there to be a variety of examples (BP oil spill, peak oil theory, acupuncturist, etc.) when talking about systems thinking and the transition design process. I think I definitely struggle with “seeing and understanding the relationships between parts at different levels of scale,”¹ so I hope the exercises we do this semester can allow me to practice viewing individual systems as a whole rather than distinct parts (and vice-versa).

¹a definition for “systems thinking”


8/29/17 — Thoughts on Leverage Points (Meadows)

The reading on leverage points was really helpful in understanding places of intervention in a more organized structure. The parts near the beginning (parameters and buffers) were a bit harder to grasp, but the reading became a lot easier to digest once I understood them. The organization of least “effective” to most was helpful to me in breaking down the parts of a system, and where interventions can take place.

I appreciated the constant example of a house as a system, with the leverage points as parts such as bathtubs and thermostats. While things were clear and easy to understand, I was a bit put off by the tone I got from the writer at times. I started thinking about how it seemed like she viewed systems analysts as those who will help “save” the future. I’m not saying I don’t agree that systems thinking will be a beneficial framework for design in the future, but it made me think about whether or not such designers view themselves as “saviors” of the planet, or people who just “know more.” It’s like those people who say that if they were in charge, the world would be a better place. I don’t think that’s the case in this situation, but it just made me curious as to how designers, both in and out of the CMU School of Design, view themselves. Going off of that, it really reminds me that a lot of mindset and posture portion that Terry was talking about is really dependent on who you’re talking to. Everyone responds in their own way to people, so it’s definitely something to keep in mind so that I don’t get in the habit of appealing to one type of person. Flexibility in mindset is important!

Notes on the Meadows reading

I feel that the reading talked about systems in a more technical manner, breaking it down into numerous pieces that could be understood. That being said, I’m excited to learn more about complex systems and put the leverage points as a concept into something more tangible. I also think the most important leverage point, transcending of paradigms, can be interpreted as remaining flexible while thinking about systems. Overall, the reading brought a lot of different ways to view systems as a whole and its parts. I wouldn’t have thought of information flows as a place of intervention, so it was interesting to me to see an intervention that isn’t just related to switching around numbers or policies.


9/3/17 —Research on Clean Air Problems

I’ve been looking up articles related to air pollution and the problems it causes for not only the general public, but wildlife and the environment as well. Upon first glance, or at least the first thing our group thought of when we considered the consequences of air pollution, was the increased risk of asthma attacks and respiratory problems. The range of consequences, however, extends far beyond those issues — in Pittsburgh specifically, “the current state of our air quality increases the risk of premature death, asthma attacks, lung disease, heart disease, cancer and other adverse health effects.”¹ (Pittsburgh City Paper). Increased risk of dangerous health effects is especially prevalent in infants, older residents, and those already with respiratory problems.

I additionally looked at problems caused by air pollution in cities outside of Pittsburgh. In particular, the Department of Environmental Protection in Massachusetts provides a PDF that explains the numerous risks associated with dangerous toxins in the air. Many of the consequences explained are related to the environment, such as eutrophication², climate change, acid rain, and damage to the ozone layer. Admittedly, my mind hadn’t gone to the natural environment when we were talking about problems in Pittsburgh. I think that reading about the environmental consequences has really provided me a great first-hand example of how complex these systems are, and also got me thinking about different leverage points that could be explored when dealing with an all-encompassing problem such as access to clean air.

As for solutions or improvements I read about in my early-stage research, I found an interesting example documented by the Clean Air Council³. Shenango Coke Works was a factory that produced coke, a chemical necessary to the production of steel — and one of the most toxic p0llutants. The Clean Air Council collaborated with Allegheny County Clean Air Now (ACCAN) to inform the public about the health effects of toxic air, and often had staff check if the factory was following city regulations (they weren’t). Over time, Shenango Coke Works shut down, (potentially) due to the intense scrutiny and forced regulation from the public and the organizations. While this is just one example I read about, it’s interesting to consider how much public awareness played a role in the shutting down of the factory. It’s usually not the first solution or intervention I would think of, but the implied consequences can be great — that public education can be a long-term solution to historically-prominent issues such as air pollution. Just as I write that, I realize that access to education is another issue in its own right, which also proves that these issues within Pittsburgh (and other places in the world) are more than just individual problems, but rather part of a huge interweaving web of global issues. If there is to be any suggested intervention, it’d be great to talk to other groups and see how the problems relate to one another!

¹https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/pittsburgh-has-been-going-green-but-the-citys-air-quality-is-still-pretty-gray/Content?oid=2643357

²increase in algae growth, which damages ecosystems and limits biodiversity

³http://cleanair.org/public-health/pittsburgh-air-pollution/


9/6/17 — Class and Ojai Reading

The lecture about wicked problems in Pittsburgh was a topic that was a long time coming being here at CMU. It was extremely informative to have several problems about the city organized and distinguished into their own categories. That being said, I think it’s interesting that all the issues are related to each other in their own way. I felt like the research I did on clean air quality over the weekend was an eye-opener in terms of seeing how seemingly different issues, such as air quality and public education, are part of the system as a whole.

Over the past week, I started having thoughts about my role as a designer and where I fit in during the process of dealing with wicked problems. Terry mentioned earlier that a lot of our jobs is to learn about separate issues, and gather a variety of skills and knowledge to contribute to design solutions. I started thinking to myself about how people from other fields spend their entire lives learning the things we try to teach ourselves in a relatively short amount of time; what makes us more qualified to be the “designer” within these projects? I talked a bit with Nina about this and she mentioned something that stuck with me: “The problems we’re trying to solve right now were created by designers in the first place.” I thought this was something really interesting to think about; how do we know that what we’re doing in the right thing? I supposed transition design as a concept attempts to look into both the short- and long-term consequences of our solutions, but there’s only so much we as human beings can predict about our future.

As a result, the Ojai reading was very beneficial to me to ease my concerns about where I come into the picture as a designer. The designers are the “planners” that “bridge the gap between proposed solutions and users (stake-holders) and work at the intersection of viability, feasibility and desirability.”¹ I think a lot of design, while it is about learning and becoming knowledgable about a variety of fields, is also about knowing enough to understand the separate parties and act as the middleman when working with them.

Getting a look into the transition design process was helpful to me in envisioning how such a complex topic can be tackled. I feel like the reading is essentially the culmination of the multiple design thinking classes we’ve taken, and to me that’s really important to see how the different subjects within each class come together within a design framework. The roles of mapping, envisioning, and backcasting reminded me a lot of the systems assignments that we did, and I’m glad we’re bringing it back since I think it’s a great time to refine those skills and apply what we learned in a more real-life context. The lifestyle narrative vignettes felt very familiar to me since it’s similar to creating personas and people to design for. I’m interested in seeing how to translate the “normal” design process of figuring out who to design for through personas into envisioning solutions for these different stakeholders. I’m still a bit confused as to the role of backcasting, but right now I interpret it as a way to work backwards — figuring out what the ideal situation is for numerous stakeholders and learning where points of intersection within their separate goals are. Over the course of this studio, I think it’ll become more clear as to how this framework fits into our project.

¹Terry’s Ojai briefing, slide 22


9/6/17 — Fritjof Capra Reading (Deep Ecology)

In the Fritjof Capra reading, he discusses the idea of public perception regarding the paradigms we as human beings are a part of, as well as a concept called “deep ecology” — a type of spiritual awareness, which asks questions about the aforementioned paradigms and focuses on seeing all living things as part of a complex system. He argues that a change in perception and understanding of how we currently live is vital to changing our paradigms so that they become more sustainable and able to last for future generations. Being able to change our paradigms is not just understanding where we went wrong as a society in our practices, but realizing that our values must change as well. I was particularly interested in his discussion about “self-assertive” versus “integrative” tendencies, and how society values competition, dominance, and streamlined/linear thought processes. Sometimes it feels like the world has become less empathetic as a whole, and to me it was enlightening to see a similar, yet more detailed and deconstructed viewpoint in the reading.

Self-assertive VS integrative tendencies

Capra also discusses the difference between deep ecology and social ecology, which focuses more on human-made political structures, cultures, practices, and social constructs. He then brings ecofeminism into the mix, which discusses the viewpoint that the domination of women by men throughout history is representative of humankind’s overarching expansion over nature. It talks about the links between feminism and topics associated with nature and ecology as a whole. When I read about this, I was a bit confused as to where he was going with the topic, but the discussion regarding ecofeminism ended almost immediately. I think it’s a topic that I’d like to be more exposed to since it does seem like an interesting concept (and I really don’t think I got a strong grasp of what it actually is). I feel that the three topics are a bit heavy to unpack upon my first reading of them, so I hope I’m able to apply some basic frameworks or mindsets that they advocate for into my thinking processes.

Finally, when Capra discusses ethics and how scientific facts are part of “human perceptions, values, and actions,” I start to get a bit lost. The first example my mind goes to is animal testing, which is a super controversial topic and I’m not really sure how I feel about it personally. While I do acknowledge that advancements in medicine and other scientific fields have emerged as a result of animal testing, ethically it just doesn’t sit right with me. Nevertheless, I feel that it’s not really my position to say whether or not something like that is right because I don’t know the full extent of the benefits and consequences. I thought that the ecocentric values that Capra mentions would have to be something that is refined more, since there’s obviously way more topics besides the killing of other living beings that deep ecology would have to tackle. There are payoffs that I don’t really think have a “right” answer (ethically or intellectually), so it’ll be interesting to see if a thought process like deep ecology could actually be feasible in the future (I’m trying to think objectively here!).

  1. deep ecology — spiritual or religious awareness, asking questions regarding how we live and the paradigm we are a part of; focus on seeing all living things as part of a system, and understanding environmental consequences
  2. social ecology — focused more on social organization and human-made political structures, cultures, practices, and social constructs
  3. ecofeminism — view that domination of women by men is representative of humankind’s domination over nature, a being which is commonly associated with women

9/11/17 — Worldviews and Stakeholders Lecture

The lecture on worldviews reminded me a lot of what I’m learning in another class I’m taking, Persuasive Design (under the HCI department). While this lecture was much more in-depth, I couldn’t help but relate worldviews and belief systems back to the concept of “nudging,” where governmental bodies attempt to alter public ideas and perception by presenting them with alternatives that appeal to them in simple, cheap ways. For example, promoting the idea that everyone is doing a certain action makes it more likely for a person to follow the mob mentality. This, however, requires the hiding of plans and knowledge to slowly trick the public into following what the government wants them to do. I found that this contrasted well with Terry’s lecture on worldviews, which suggests that one key aspect of dealing with other belief systems is to understand, empathize, and collaborate with them. While it tends to be impossible to find a solution that appeals to all, understanding different backgrounds and worldviews is key to seeing what values may be aligned, and how they can be used as leverage points.

Old cigarette ad (compare this to present-day ads on smoking!). Worldviews can evolve and change over long periods of time

I enjoyed learning about the concept of consequences and root causes, and how our problems today that we face in our everyday lives have the potential to be traced back to a widespread wicked problem. To me, this is great in practicing more systems-based methods of mapping things in my mind; creating the link from a minor problem to discovering the root cause as a result of our worldviews is a really interesting practice that I hope to utilize whenever I find myself tackling a small problem. Originally, I felt that this seemed relatively useless in terms of solving minute issues, but I’m glad Terry suggested the idea that these links and relations between differently-sized problems could be used to guide how I approach issues of any scale.

Notes on today’s lecture regarding worldviews, consequences + root causes, and stakeholders

Regarding stakeholders, I felt that the lecture today was super informative for me since I feel like I haven’t had in-depth exploration of stakeholders since systems (or at least I don’t think I’ve went super deep into mapping them and their relationships since then). The connections between different parties and discovering compromises has always been a tricky topic for me to think about; throughout my life I’ve been told that it’s impossible to satisfy everyone, but even if it’s possible it still seems extremely unlikely to find a fitting solution. I think the way the lecture framed stakeholders and their oppositions/alignments made the entire concept much more digestible. The focus on building relations between stakeholders and discovering new ways of compromise through similar alignments was particularly interesting to me; one of my worries is that in a situation where different priorities and stakeholders come together, groups become too stubborn to make any progress. My hope is that, by the end of this project and these exercises, I’ll be more comfortable and knowledgable about how to deal when situations like that arise when working with others.


9/13/17 — Post-Initial Stakeholders Exercises

I feel like while the triad-ing exercise was helpful in relating different stakeholders together, it also made things a bit confusing since we were a bit confused as to the scale of the problems. For example, one of our stakeholders was climate change activists, and we wrote that one of their hopes was to “work towards the survival of humanity” or something along those lines. I would assume that most, if not all, stakeholders would be part of that, even if their outward intentions don’t seem like it (maybe I’m just optimistic???). Where does the line between outward and internal intentions get drawn? I think it would’ve been helpful for us to look back and try to map outward actions to why each stakeholder behaved that way — maybe it was a fear of job loss or rejection, which is why they resorted to actions that conflicted with another stakeholder. This concern is probably something that could be answered when communicating directly and in-person to the stakeholders, but it’s still something interesting to take into account when doing exercises in a studio environment like this.

Stakeholder map state at the end of class (work in progress!)

Adding on to my previous question, I feel that breaking up into three pairs made it harder to think along the same lines in terms of scope for each stakeholder’s hopes and fears. It was a great exercise to be able to think about each how each hope or fear might connect to others; I felt that it took a while to get used to since it seemed that there were very few connections on the surface, but understanding the hopes and fears of stakeholders in more long-term scales really helps make connections and gives insight into each group. This is unrelated, but I was losing my mind when people started to move sticky notes closer to each other to connect them since we can’t predict what other relations can be made to notes that had been relocated. Also, it gets confusing to outside viewers to see which notes begin to which stakeholder… but maybe that’s just a minor concern………?


9/17/17 — Block and Jungk Reading

I read the Block reading first, which seemed a bit repetitive in terms of its message. Block describes Western culture and media (among other things) as catalysts for our isolationist mindset, and continuously mentions the need to be more communal and hospitable in our daily lives. While I understand the message, I think it would be a lot more meaningful or helpful to think of what societal infrastructures lead to a growing trend of isolationism and independence. Additionally, the reading doesn’t really dive deep into understanding the pros and cons of individualism; obviously people are feeling more helpless and almost foolish if they focus on interdependence, so how can there be an intervention that affects such a culture? While reading, I was reminded of a small web game, The Evolution of Trust, that explains some game theory concepts that are related to why or why don’t people trust each other. Essentially, why work together for equal rewards when you can act selfishly and gain more? Overall, I think the Block reading has good intentions but it would be a lot more informative and thought-provoking if it dived more into specifics regarding potential plans of action and leverage points. Talking to others about creating a sense of belonging and social capital being of utmost importance is tricky; how does a person talk about these things and not be seen as an optimist ready to be taken advantage of?

Screenshot from “The Evolution of Trust” game (http://ncase.me/trust/)

The Jungk reading was a good complement to Block; I felt that the workshop structure of the text made it a lot more informative and action-provoking. I found myself really enjoying reading about how decisions are always being made by a select few who either know what everyone wants or work to satisfy their own desires; it asks a lot of questions about what Western culture values (domination, corporations, wealth), as well as the hypocrisy of people who have power (not limited to tech leaders but even including designers). I feel like I appreciated that part because it’s important to either be aware or try to be aware of one’s own hypocrisy so they can notice the blind spots in their mindsets and approaches to problems. Jungk’s own experience with a workshop in the 60s was a good example of the type of designer I strive to be; I feel like I personally might get frustrated if I don’t get the responses I expect, or things don’t really turn out the way I hoped in the research phase. Within my ideal self, I hope to be able to turn that frustration into a more productive outlook: how can I change my worldview to be more accepting of other understandings? While I like to think that I’m empathetic to most others, I don’t have a lot of experiences discussing things with people from super different backgrounds. Over time, I hope to tackle this problem in my career as a designer.


8/18/17 — Post-Skit and Stuart’s Futures Lecture

To be honest, I was totally against the idea of doing skits for the class; I felt that it seemed juvenile and treated it as more of a “fun” exercise than a thought-provoking one. With that being said, the skits were more enjoyable than I had expected, and the discussion we had afterwards brought up a lot of interesting points. I thought the balance between stereotyping and trying to genuinely understand stakeholders’ perspectives was a good topic to bring up. Many of the skits (including mine) seemed to keep things lighthearted, which was a positive aspect, but I feel like we only acted like this because many of us cannot accurately empathize with the stakeholders we were portraying. One thing I noticed about the skits is that many groups had similar stakeholders; for example, me and Tiff portrayed Mayor Peduto and a city official whereas several other groups portrayed other politicians. I feel like this is an interesting scenario where we have different groups viewing their problems on different levels of scope, such as on a national level or a community level.

Stuart’s talk acted as a refresher for Futures (from last semester) for me, as well as a lecture that introduced complex models that I still have to look into to truly understand. In particular, applying the concepts of inside-out and outside-in thinking would really help me understand it better. I think our research on each group’s wicked problems could definitely use more insight on how the current infrastructure is handled. For example, finding out what parties or organizations are responsible for public transportation budgeting and how that could potentially affect air quality concerns. Essentially, I feel that diagramming the process to how changes are made in the present could be beneficial in our research.

“Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context — a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.” — Saarinen

The haiku exercise was a bit depressing; everyone has such a pessimistic view of the future! Here’s mine about communities in 2047:

Diverse collections

It’s super cheesy, but I feel that while diverse (ethnic) populations are on the rise, perhaps it will be a result of diversity in work industries or something else. My haiku is purposely vague, but I think it’s an accurate representation of my perception of the future. My second one is just as cheesy:

Waking up to work

I’m worried that for me personally, I still won’t really know my life purpose or give myself a “life goal” to work towards. My life currently feels like I’m just doing things so that I can have a job and then figure out what to do with my life, but I worry that I’ll never have an answer to anything. I think it’d be good for me to break out of the mindset of “go to college, get a job, start a family, etc.” and just act more spontaneously in doing things I’m interested in (not that I’m not interested in the things I just listed…)

Dator Reading

Dator brought up a lot of inspiring and insightful ideas about the generation of futures scenarios. I personally thought the question of whether or not we were responsible for the satisfaction of future generations was an interesting concept. In today’s more individualistic world, people seem a lot less interested in the future of society, or at least just want to solve every problem through technological improvements. Actually, as I type that, I wonder if those people are working towards future sustainability through technological improvements or are just working on such projects to fulfill their desires of wealth for themselves and their own descendants?

The breaking down of scenario generation into convergent (observe and reflect on the present situation) and divergent thinking (use of creativity and out-of-the-box idea generation) was a helpful way for me to see how designers fill such a role. I came into design sort of believing (in the most general sense) that it was a bridge between technology and art, and I feel that the concepts of convergent and divergent thinking are within the same vein. It also really applies to how the School of Design teaches us process and how to work from understanding the research we find at the beginning of each and every project. Debono’s “Six Thinking Hats” was also a more helpful breakdown of how a session of futures scenario generation could work. Separating the roles into more concrete and one-dimensional parts really helped me understand how designers could work together in a more efficient manner — I think it’d be a great exercise to do in class so I have a better understanding of it!

Finally, the last section about the role of futures studies was 50% a quick refresher on the Futures course for me, and 50% a good summary of how I should approach futures studies. Sometimes I worry that futures scenarios because more about figuring out a most-likely path and learning to design from there, but the clarifications at the end gave me more insight on how futures scenarios should be generated and where they should fit into within the design process.

9/24/17 — Lecture and Hawaii 2050 Reading

Last Wednesday, we talked more about the generation of alternative futures, and the overall purpose of futures studies. Unfortunately, I still feel confused about the latter; it seems that we’re always talking about what it’s not, like it’s not supposed to be a “most-likely” scenario and it’s not about predicting what’s going to happen in the future. I’m a bit lost as to what it actually is because while I understand that generating alternative futures is a way to explore different outcomes of current and developing practices, I don’t know what other people are supposed to get out of this. Are futures studies just for designers/futurists or are they supposed to help other people look into how their actions could affect the “path through possibility space”?

There are so many different “branches” of alternative futures that I think would be helpful to dive deeper into, specifically the possible, probable, and preferable scenarios. I know we’re not going to go into all of the scenario tree nodes, but I’d probably be better off with that if I understood the overall purpose behind our limited amount of scenario generation.

My group was assigned the “grow” scenario, and we discussed a potential future in 2050 where society has developed newer green technologies and the United States has flourished in almost all aspects of the STEEP (social, technological, economic, environmental, political) forces.

My group’s notes on STEEP developments in 2050 (“grow” scenario)

The most interesting part to me was considering how each of the four future plots (grow, collapse, discipline, transformation) was not mutually exclusive. I think while brainstorming sticky notes, our group fell into the trap of thinking that the “grow” scenario was almost utopian; once we realized this, however, we course-corrected and started to think about the consequences of all the technologies that were being developed. I found that experience to be the most important part of the exercise because a lot of the time I feel like designers are acting like they’re solving the problems and blowing off or failing to consider the long-term consequences that our solutions may have on other audiences. I think things will become much clearer later on, because I currently think that learning how to design while looking into the results of our actions is arguably the most important part of becoming a future designer.

Hawaii 2050 Reading

I found the reading to be a good example of what we’re trying to do with our activities; I wish we had read it last week before we started brainstorming futures scenarios, but maybe it was for the better since it probably would’ve clouded our free judgment. Again, I felt that the introduction talked a lot about what futures thinking isn’t, when it could’ve talked more about what the purpose is. The reading briefly touches on the point that the scenarios are meant to get people thinking about what their own futures could (or should) be. It mentions that the seeds for each scenario exist in the present day, and I wish that the reading elaborated more on that for each scenario.

I would’ve really liked to see how each scenario came to be, since I’m sure there was a lot of research and process that went into each of them. The most troubling thing I read about was the transformative society that involved teleportation devices (???). It sort of lost me there because I don’t really know what developing technologies in the present-day are even remotely similar in to that. I wasn’t sure if it was supposed to be a sort of fun scenario write-up or to get me thinking about what direction humanity could take to make such a scenario a reality.

The biggest thing I got from the reading is that each scenario should probably be seen as an extreme outcome of the possible paths society can take. The real future (not that I’m able to predict it…) is definitely going to have aspects of all of them. Again, that brings up the question of the purpose of creating each of these scenarios. In my mind, I’m thinking I would prefer to go into each scenario and cherry pick the possibilities that may be plausible, and create another alternative futures scenario with them. Overall, I think that “starting a discussion” about a preferable future is a really useful outcome of reading these scenarios, but I think that it would be much more beneficial and exciting to talk to non-designers and non-futurists about what their goals are. One worry I have when developing futures scenarios is getting lost into what I would consider a “positive” or “negative” outcome, when each scenario means something different to each stakeholder. I hope this is addressed or at least elaborated upon in future lectures.


9/25/17 — Four Generative Scenarios Activity

The activity was helpful in seeing how other groups approached generating a futures scenario and what aspects they considered. The most notable thing I noticed about everyone’s scenarios is that sustainability played a major part in the resulting events. I was wondering whether people wanted to focus on sustainability because we’re exploring concepts of transition design, or whether each of us genuinely believe that sustainability should be the top priority for society as a whole. The “moral” of grow, discipline, and transformative scenarios was to support sustainable practices and focus on green energy; collapse was the only scenario that had the opposite message.

completed worksheet

The most interesting scenario to me was discipline, since it seemed almost utopian due to all the positives that results from top companies dominating the world. These included improved quality of life, sustainable lifestyles, distributed wealth gap, and generation of jobs due to new construction, among others. While the scenario was framed to be extremely positive, I discussed it with my group and almost all of us thought it was actually dystopian below the surface. I feel like the scenario became a “too-good-to-be-true” story, and that the lack of privacy and autonomy (due to mandatory green education reforms) made it more undesirable. With that being said, it’s interesting to think about how autonomy can promote individualism, which brings a host of wicked problems in itself. It makes me wonder what sacrifices and balances must be made to push society towards a disciplined future that doesn’t involve complete sterility of what makes people unique.


10/1/17 — Three Horizons Lecture and Wahl Reading

In class (Last Wednesday), Stuart talked more to us about the concept of “backcasting” and asking the question “how did our desired future happen?”; This question was answered with the “Three Horizons Model” framework, which charts present, near future, and distant future societal innovations. This concept was further explored in the Wahl reading, which talks about how the three horizons relate to one another and how to develop a “regenerative future.”

The first horizon represents the prevailing/present system. The second is the space of transition, where conflict arises due to difference in personal values and desires. Finally, the third horizon represents the “idea” or “vision” of the future, as well as the seeds in the present that can affect how the future scenarios play out.

I think the Three Horizons framework is a strong framework to use when determining our vision for the future and how our current actions could lead to it. Within the class context, however, I feel like using the model doesn’t really make sense because a lot of what we’re doing is just spontaneously writing down things we hope for. While the seeds exist for something like a ban on plastic bags in the present, there’s no telling how strictly something like that will be enforced and what will happen with the current ones. Additionally, not using plastic bags probably doesn’t even cross the mind of the vast majority of people due to different priorities and lifestyles. I think the lack of communication with legitimate stakeholders makes this exercise a bit unnecessary, and while I understand that these activities are just to get in the habit of thinking about these frameworks, I’m worried that doing it without the stakeholders will lead to bad habits when we actually do apply these in real-life scenarios.


10/2/17 — Lecture on Max Neef’s Universal Needs

At the beginning of class today, we reviewed each group’s ideal timelines and backcasting methods. I learned a lot about how to present information when the client or viewer has limited knowledge about the assignment; I feel that our group might have focused a bit too much on the content and getting each sticky note to be detailed rather than viewing the timeline as a whole. I hope in future instances I’ll be able to combine both precise detail as well as rough overview presentation to allow outside viewers to easily jump in on the conversation.

Regarding the lecture, I thoroughly enjoyed learning a framework about human needs that was distinct from Maslow’s hierarchy!

Max-Neef’s List of Universal Needs (taken from Terry’s lecture slides)

The scale of satisfiers was the most interesting part to me, since I really hadn’t thought about the “consequences” of designed products in this framework before. A lot of the universal needs listed by Max Neef are really broad, and purposely so, and I think I took a lot of these needs for granted. Things like freedom and idleness weren’t really things that I considered deeply when thinking about how designed products and experiences had affected my life. The concept of synergistic solutions almost makes it seem like it’s impossible to find an existing product that has been designed this way; sometimes it just seems like everything was designed to serve a purpose, but also at a cost that affects a group of people in some negative way. I’m really grateful to have been exposed to the different types of satisfiers so I can consciously re-evaluate my designs to avoid accidental inhibitions.

I was a bit lost towards the end regarding the “Domains of Everyday Life” and how to utilize our lifestyles as contexts for design solutions. The biggest thing I got out of it was the concept of cosmopolitan localism, and its contrast with the current system of a centralized institution controlling our needs. Everyday life becomes homogenized and our lifestyles are over-reliant on the economy and job market. I’m a bit confused on how the current system involves the “loss of control” for society, since it was framed a bit negatively in the lecture. I’d like to look more closely at examples of the issues caused by centralized institutions, and compare that side-by-side with aspects of cosmopolitan localism. I think these concepts will become a lot clearer when we consider places of intervention later in the semester; I’m looking forward to seeing how to address wicked problems in a more hands-on approach.


10/6/17 — More Max Neef Exercises

We talked more about Max Neef’s Theory of Universal Needs, and how while there are a limited amount of universal needs, there exists an infinite amount of ways to satisfy them. We then moved to applying his theory to our own ideal timeline, imagining ways to intervene so that the near future can go towards what we envision. Our goal was to create a synergistic solution, so that we solve problems that exist in the present while avoiding inhibiting consequences and also allow for future growth.

In-class activity notes

I examined our ideal timeline and looked for specific traits about the future that we should try to work towards. From there, I listed out how each of Max Neef’s universal needs are affected by those future traits. The majority of my findings revolved around the concept of working from home and its potentially negative aspects. One concern of mine is that an increase in work from home can end up making life more sterile and closed off, leading to a decrease in social interaction and peer-to-peer discussions. A lower birthrate can also contribute to these consequences, so I thought about a product that could allow for community members to get together and work on their own side/personal projects. Here are some other brainstorming ideas I listed:

  • service that brings people together to work
  • carpooling app to find people going to similar locations
  • service that takes people on spontaneous trips/weekend getaways
  • community workshops
  • app that gamifies the lack of driving

I think the last one is a product that could encourage people to be more mindful of their vehicle’s gas consumption and push towards a lifestyle that utilizes greener modes of transportation. Nevertheless, I’m interested in fleshing out these ideas and think of more before Monday’s class. While working on these, I’d also like to consider who these would be for and whether I’m really designing for society as a whole or a specific stakeholder that I’m more familiar with. I feel that these questions would help me better understand my line of thinking when brainstorming ideas, and how to avoid habits that may hinder my ability to design for unfamiliar audiences.


10/8/17 — Service Design Reading

The reading was an extremely informative introduction to service design! Before reading this, I wasn’t sure what exactly service design referred to; it’s just such a general term that I couldn’t pinpoint what is or isn’t considered “service design.” I think the biggest takeaway for me is that the generality of the term is a pretty accurate depiction of what it actually is, since it can refer to any kind of service and the processes that go into it from development to shipping to user interaction. The reading was descriptive in talking about the numerous different entities that are involved within the process; a really helpful exercise would be to map out an existing service and all its users, employees, and partners.

I’m a bit less clear on the touchpoints portion of the reading, since it’s also extremely general but I feel like there’s not really a boundary on what a touchpoint actually is or what its purpose is. They’re described as points where the service users interact with the service and produce outcomes, but the types of touchpoints also mention service employees and partners. Does this imply that the service employees are also service users? Is everyone a service user in the development of the service since they’re technically interacting with the service to produce their own outcome? I’m sure touchpoints will become clearer over time as we discuss in class, but it’s just a bit contradictory to me right now.

Source: http://interactions.acm.org/blog/view/service-design-101


10/9/17 — Service Design Workshop with Molly!

Prompt: Create a music sharing service

Our group came up with an app that users can download to interact with stickers placed around cities on street lights, inside buildings, and occasionally inside ride-sharing cars. These stickers lead them to a collaborative Spotify playlist specific to each sticker, to sort of “geotag” a location and represent it through music. Users can listen to what previous people who have visited the location have added to the playlist, or just add their own. We decided to hilariously name it: “HearHere.”

We also talked about monetization of the service, and its potential influence on understanding a community’s culture and providing opportunities for local bands to make themselves heard. If a band is interested in sharing their music on a specific sticker, they can pay an (undecided) fee in order to have their songs be at the top of the queue each time a person adds a song.

In our presentation of the concept, I portrayed a Lyft driver in an Emmy award-winning performance; Lily and Kate (“Jenny” and “Amanda”), riding the Lyft on the way to da club, would interact with the HearHere sticker on the back of my car seat, and play their own music on the Lyft ride.

Ideas!
Use case scenarios (left) and an example of a user flow (right)

Today’s exercise was super fun and helpful in distinguishing a service from a product. What I got out of the really quick exercise was a stronger understanding of touchpoints (points of interaction) and maybe a better grasp of potential business models. While I’m sure that our exercise today was in no way how a real organization does its business model (we had an hour anyway), I still enjoyed going through several different ideas, creating use cases with scenarios, and showing what we came up with in such a short amount of time!


10/10/17 — Practical Service Blueprinting Reading

I’m really grateful that we’re receiving a lot of content on service design and sort of drilling in the process into our heads rather than discussing a framework, applying it once, and moving on to the next step. This reading was a really nice supplement to Molly’s lecture and the activities we did in class! It was particularly helpful for me because I still had trouble understanding what blueprinting actually was. To be honest, the reading left it a bit vague in terms of what it should be, but maybe that’s the point. What I got out of it is that blueprinting is a way of organizing ideas around different scenarios, stakeholders, and touchpoints, and synthesizing patterns and processes around each of them. I just realized what I wrote five seconds ago is also super vague, but I’m sure it’ll make much more sense when we actually integrate blueprinting into our in-class service design frameworks.

Service Design Blueprinting Process Steps(www.practicalservicedesign.com)

10/16/17 — Design for Social Innovation (Cheryl)

Today’s lecture and exercise was actually really helpful in answering the questions I had about transition design and the purpose of our studio. Maybe I’m just an emotional rollercoaster, but I’m feeling a lot better about the work we’re doing after learning about how paradigm shifts rely on a variety of social innovations. For our previous activities, it felt like we were trying to tackle so many issues with one solution, and I was really lost in what we were trying to do. In hindsight, I wish this lecture came earlier in the semester so that we had a greater understanding of what our ultimate goal was.

Our potential design interventions, mapped

The exercise was pretty fun when we were thinking of design interventions and just brainstorming any idea, regardless of how crazy they were. I think that a big problem we had was that we focused more on needs that could improve the lives of fishermen from our perspective. Since we hadn’t met the fishermen in person and gotten to know them, it felt like we really didn’t prioritize the fishing culture. It seems that while we value sustainability and saving the environment, it’s possible that our methods didn’t align with the culture that the fishermen highly value. It’s interesting to think about how sometimes we as designers try to think of solutions, but they can be so out of touch with the real-life situation if we don’t actively work together with the clients. Just as a reminder to myself in the future, here are a few questions that we were to ask ourselves when designing for social innovation:

  • Who gives us permission?
  • Which stakeholder takes precedent?
  • Who is the client?

10/21/17 — More Social Innovation!

We talked a bit more about social innovation and learned a different framework on how to map out different levels of solutions and interactions. I found this framework to be pretty similar to what Cheryl was talking about, but this one went more into detail regarding the impact of each intervention. When we went into groups and tried to come up with air quality interventions, we decided to do solution-first, followed by solution-mapping; in other words, we came up with a bunch of different solutions and then tried to put them on the Pathways in Social Design matrix.

Source: http://www.socialdesignpathways.com/how-to-use/

In hindsight, I think it would’ve been better for us to go into each module of the matrix and think of solutions that would fit. This would give us a greater variety in our solutions and also get us thinking about what level of impact we’re aiming for within our intervention. We didn’t really get to mapping half the matrix before the fire alarm went off, but it seemed like the row we struggled with most was the systems/innovation level change; it seemed like a lot of the interventions are interlinked within each other, so it’s trick to determine whether a project intervention would be considered part of a systemic change. I think almost all the columns could be part of the same project, just on different levels of scale, so it seems to me like the only difference would be in how each person interprets what our intervention would be like and what our goals as a group are.


10/25/17 — Discussing Potential Interventions

In Monday’s studio, Stuart and Stacie clarified what we had done and provided a way for us to view studio. Before this class, I feel like I had been pretty lost in what we were aiming to do over the course of this semester — maybe the constant framework after framework after mapping after framework primed me to think that it was all we’re doing this semester? I think that viewing the interventions as more methods of research was something that helped me see that maybe there didn’t have to be a set destination for these projects, so I’m starting to try to explore how the projects can answer questions about the wicked problem topics.

Today’s studio was a bit of a different experience; we held conversations with other topics about interventions they were proposing and formed groups based on the conversations we had. I really struggled finding a group that struck a balance between what skills I felt I could provide and what I was interested in. I think my main problem comes from being a generally picky person and always looking for that “perfect” scenario, so I kept going from group to group and thinking there was a better option elsewhere. I’m 80% sure this is why I would definitely have a gambling problem. Regardless, I eventually found a group that plans to use speculative design to create an installation or experience to help inform people about their individual impacts on the environment. I’m excited to see the different directions this project can go — digital screens, physical/digital environment hybrids, tactile experiences, etc.

I feel like this studio was a wake-up call to how I approach my decision-making process. I already know I’m super indecisive, but sometimes I see it as a positive in that I second-guess a lot of decisions and explore different options that would ultimately provide the biggest pay-off/benefits. Stuart suggested that being able to find what I am interested in within these broad projects is a skill that I should develop, which I agree with. I hope that through the course of this project I learn more about how I approach decisions and discover what makes projects interesting for me. I think this will help me grow and understand how I want to proceed with design within my career goals.


10/30/17 — New Half-Semester, New Me

I’ll be documenting on a brand-new(!) Medium post because it’s sort of a pain to have to always scroll down, and I feel that starting on our question-inducing interventions is worthy of a new story! :)

Link: https://medium.com/@albert95014/air-quality-intervention-senior-studio-7881a08c0062

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade