The eight-day Social Lab was complete. The two teams spent two days on prototyping, reached out and listened to users’ feedback. Then we presented the findings to the public.
We followed the principles, that we generate prototypes from stories, and identify gaps between what we expected and the reality. With one single afternoon, each group generated more than ten ideas. Some were within the system while some were more outside, some were more radical than others. And each group then picked up three among all.
The Urban Nomads chose ‘Homeless center on wheels’, ‘Revitalizing the market’, and ‘Redesigning park’. The Smarties chose ‘Yoyo van’ (mobile clinic and transportation cab), ‘Third-age empowerment’ (a platform for the elderly to help each other and share materials and knowledge), and ‘Park revolution’ (redesign the park on Nam Cheong Street).
What if the prototype was not well-received?
I missed the session when participants listened to people’s feedback. From the whatsapp messages and blogs, certain prototypes were not welcomed. For example, Jan reported that some did not understand the concept of sharing resources, and some elderly people did not like an underground park. Also, bounded by the physical limitation that the narrow park was situated between two streets, improvements are difficult to attain.
For the Yoyo van prototype, the group realized that there were existing services available. But they quickly spotted out that those services were either difficult to book, or the service might not reach to old districts. The prototype aimed at filling this particular gap.
The Urban Nomads also faced a similar situation too.
Failure in prototype is not the end of the world. It can mean we haven’t understood the community yet (we got immersed in Sham Shui Po for one week only after all). It also implies that we prevent a policy suggestion from being criticized after going public.
The Big Day
Seven days’ effort distilled into two-hour presentation and exhibition. Almost a hundred people showed up to listen to the Open Class. Jos and Wieteke introduced how the Lab Sprint was run. They were amazed by the two teams’ commitment, such as the never-ending whatsapp messages and the 59 blogs. They had to top up their data usage, and urged the teammates to stop working at night!
Then came the two groups’ presentations. Presenters introduced the prototypes as well as the process, and the importance of stories.
During the exhibition and sharing session, Brian from the Hong Kong Jockey Club (the left), and some other audiences said that they first heard of ‘part-time homeless’, and some people preferred to sleep outside to at home. This is because these people did not like to stay alone facing four walls. They got their connection with other homeless people.
Dennis, an audience of the Open Class, told me that the Feed Forward methodology was good, especially locals can comment and improve the prototypes. Locals know the best. His friend, Katherine, thought that the prototypes needed to be ‘more realistic’, because resources were limited. More research could be helpful.
Brian, in particular, reminded us of constraints of policy-making. Big policies usually target at average persons. A bad consequence is groups at the two ends may be neglected. For me, this can explain until recently the government formulated policies targeting low-income persons who cannot benefit from previous relief measures (those commonly known as the “N have-nots”).
He added that he appreciated the use of stories in formulating solutions. ‘Humans process stories well,’ he said.
Kim Salkeld, the head of the Efficiency Unit, recognized the two teams’ effort. While we may hate lengthy discussion and endless meetings, he affirmed there is ‘no think-save device’. His more stunning message was: there is no shortage of money, but practicable ideas.
Jos and Wieteke returned to the Netherlands, and teammate Angela back to Taiwan. Teammates are taking a rest from the courses (or, well, busy with work immediately). We’re thinking what to do next. Some have been arranging meetings. Some are interested in attending the 10 Day Fest: 108 Stories of Social Innovation.
My afterthought
I believe, even though we’re not able to step forward, we still learn one thing from our experience: Be humble in front of our citizens. They know the best.
It is easier said than done. I’ve seen a few people who have strong judgement towards other people or political issues. They have strong preconceived notions on the society. Social tensions have been mounting. An example would be the discontent towards migrants from the Mainland. There seems to be no room for dialogue.
It may be tempting to ignore them, but for changemakers, giving up dialogue is not an option. Devising policy to help the needed is easy, gaining support and consent from stakeholders is difficult. How can we involve them? This is my thought when writing this post.
