WHITE PAPERS
Humantific
©
The ReReThinking Series
Occupy
Reimagining
Design
Interview with GK VanPatter of Humantific
By Wycliffe Raduma
Aalto University Design Factory
Helsinki, Finland
www.aaltodesignfactory.fi
DESIGN
2.0
Product / Service
Design
SENSE
Making
STRANGE
Making
DESIGN
3.0
Organizational
Transformation
Design
SENSE
Making
CHANGE
Making
DESIGN
4.0
Social
Transformation
Design
SENSE
Making
CHANGE
Making
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
Q1 Wycliffe Raduma: In the first CEB [Future of Innovation]
conference in Helsinki, in September 2009, you challenged Aalto
University’s designers to reach into the realm of organizational
innovation by designing strategies and systems rather than products
and services. Two years have passed since the conference and you
have visited Aalto University a few times during this period. Do you
perceive that Aalto University has risen up to the challenge? Has there
been a noticeable shift towards the desired organizational changes?
Garry K. VanPatter: Hello Wycliffe: Happy to do this with you.
Sure, ask me a really easy question to get us started.
Yes, I do well remember speaking at that 2009 Future of Innovation
Conference in Helsinki. I met many terrific people there doing
interesting work including some Aalto leadership folks who were
working on the university combine initiative at that time. It seemed
then like an ambitious undertaking. I do recall that several Aalto
leaders were interested in the NextDesign Geographies Framework
of Design 1,2,3,4 in addition to what Humantific does. As you know,
NextD Geographies is a framework that makes a distinction of scale.
For those who might not know: it acknowledges for example, that what
goes on in Design 1 in terms of methods and skills is very different
from what goes on in Design 3 or 4.
Many still see
Design 2 as
a nice tidy,
manageable,
in-the-box future
for design.
At that Helsinki conference I did talk about the fact that around the
world many graduate design schools have imported the American
orientation that the furthest reach of design thinking is product
and service creation, what we call Design 2. It was in 2003 when
we started pointing out that leading practices had already moved
beyond that picture. I repeated that message at the 2009 Helsinki
conference. Not everyone welcomes this perspective as many remain
involved in the Design 2 business. Many still see Design 2 as a nice
tidy, manageable in-the-box future for design. This view was popular
in the new business press for a considerable time and was subscribed
to willingly by numerous high profile design school leaders in the US.
We have never agreed to surrender to such a limited perspective of
possibilities for design.
We have never
agreed to surrender
to such a limited
perspective
of possibilities
for design.
At the Helsinki conference that day I talked about the fact that
the strategic opportunity and challenge today for graduate design
education is to reimagine design beyond that stay in-the-box picture,
and create a school or program focused on skilling beyond product
and service creation.
www.humantific.com
2
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
I asked the Helsinki conference audience to do a quick “Reality
Check” exercise. I suggested that they look out into their own
communities and ask themselves; How many of the challenges that
they see in Finland can be solved by creating more products,
or more services?
It is an exercise that I have asked audiences in India, Denmark,
Switzerland, Canada, United States and many other places to do and
it is one that typically serves to break the Design 2 fascination trance
as it seems obvious to most that other kinds of skills beyond product
and service creation are already needed.
I asked the
Helsinki conference
audience how many
of the challenges
that they see in
Finland can be
solved by creating
more products,
or more services?
It is a relatively simple step to then ask: if that is the case, why then
do so many product and service creation oriented schools continue
to be created? These are difficult questions that very few others
seem to be asking design education leaders.
What we are really doing and have been doing for nine-ten years via
NextDesign Leadership Institute and Humantific is advocating and
modeling a much broader interpretation of what is possible for design.
Since 2003 we have been out in the global community talking about
the need to reimagine design beyond the present paradigms, certainly
beyond Design 2. Whether we knew it at the time or not, early on we
became design reimagination advocates. Not everybody gets that.
Not everyone is happy to see strong advocacy in that direction.
What we found over the course of 9-10 years is that not everyone
is up for that journey. So be it.
We had no expectations around Aalto and were not asked by any Aalto
faculty members to do any follow up work. We were delighted to be
invited by the students to come back to Alto Design Factory to speak.
What we saw in the implementation of Aalto and the Design Factory
in particular is that for whatever reason, the leaders decided to focus
on a different challenge than the one touched on at the Future of
Innovation Conference that day. In reference to the Design Factory
evidently that challenge was: How might we create (another) high
profile graduate product and service creation program in Finland?
That seems to be the challenge that the leaders of the Design
Factory chose to work on, and what they built seems to have met that
challenge. So be it. All very interesting, constructive developments but
none of that really has anything to do with the “Reimagining Design
www.humantific.com
3
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
CoCreation is Rising
DESIGN
DESIGN
DESIGN
DESIGN
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Traditional
Design
Product / Service
Design
Organizational
Transformation
Design
Social
Transformation
Design
Language A
CONTENT
PROCESS
Language A
CONTENT
PROCESS
Adaptable Inquiry
Adaptable Inquiry
Language B
Language B
CONTENT
PROCESS
CONTENT
CONTENT
PROCESS
Language A
Language A
PROCESS
CONTENT
PROCESS
Language C
(Algorithms)
PHYSICAL VIRTUAL
PHYSICAL VIRTUAL
PHYSICAL VIRTUAL
PHYSICAL VIRTUAL
The difficult truth is,
gearing up to
educate a new
generation for the
Design 2 practice
space is simply not
enough to catch up
to where the already
reimagined leading
practices were in
2003, let alone
lead the practice
community today.
www.nextd.org
Copyright © 2005−2011 NextDesign Leadership Institute. All Rights Reserved.
Source: GK VanPatter & E Pastor: NextDesign Geographies, 2003-2011.
Beyond Design 2” challenge posed at the future conference in 2009.
What I heard that day was “Thanks for pointing out the geographies
of Design 3 and 4. Lets go create a Design 3 and 4 school.” That’s
evidently not what happened, or has not yet happened.
The difficult truth is, gearing up to educate a new generation for the
Design 2 practice space is simply not enough to catch up to where the
already reimagined leading practices were in 2003, let alone lead the
practice community today.
Q2 Wycliffe Raduma: Aalto University programs are indeed
educating product and service designers, engineers who design,
develop and operate infrastructural systems, and economists and
business (wo)men who find market opportunities and generate value
and employment opportunities. However, programs and activities
within Aalto are beginning to incorporate more and more society
driven projects and initiatives such as: the establishment of the Aalto
Tongji Design Factory (ATDF) for cultural, educational and economic
collaboration in 2010, the Good Mill project and the Aalto Hub project
in 2010-2011, and the recently launched Unicef Impact projects*.
www.humantific.com
4
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
Do you believe that Design 1 and 2 still need to be taught in order
for the current society and infrastructure to function?
Garry K. VanPatter: You make a good spokesperson for Aalto
University and the Design Factory Wycliffe. I have no doubt you
could make a case for all the good initiatives underway there at
Aalto, and I am sure there are many.
Regarding your question; It is really none of our business, but certainly
I would be delighted to see Aalto move beyond American-centric
Design 2 skill-building. Initially Aalto seems to have missed that mark.
Are you building a consumer society there? Is that an underlying goal?
Perhaps the good news is that with so much going on at Aalto and
new initiatives in no short supply, much seems to be still possible
beyond what appears to be a Rev 1.
The delicate truth is that design schools tend to build programs around
what faculty members know how to do and are comfortable doing,
so no big surprise there. As I stated earlier, a lot of energy today gets
directed towards recreating alternate versions of graduate design
programs that already exist elsewhere. Historically, these recreations
have often been based on programs that exist in the United States,
whether this importation suits local conditions or not. As in the
business community, it’s easier to create “same as” or “similar to”
programs rather than something that is grounded in real community
needs, truly different and, or future forward.
You can fly to many parts of the world today and find rewrapped
America-centric product creation graduate training programs, in
India, China, etc. No big news there. This importing worked well when
everyone was building consumer societies. (Some still are, but many
have moved on.) That importation works considerably less well today.
Even in India where they are still building the consumer part of their
society, questions are beginning to be raised by astute members of the
local design community in reference to such importation. There
is an awakening underway!
The delicate truth
is that design
schools tend to build
programs around
what faculty
members know
how to do and
are comfortable
doing.
It’s easier to create
“same as” or “similar
to” programs rather
than something that
is grounded in real
community needs,
truly different and
future-forward.
I am guessing that your question regarding current society functions
is about supporting current societal needs. If what you mean by
supporting “current infrastructure function” is training young people
to work at Nokia as product creators then I would simply suggest
reflecting on the original, very broadly stated intentions of Aalto
leaders. That’s really what it all comes down to. To a large degree,
www.humantific.com
5
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
this is a question for leaders: Is there a good fit between the stated
objective, the investment made, as well as the outcome?
As I recall, that original Aalto rhetoric sounded a lot like the outcome
of combining 3 universities was a giant leap that was destined to
change the world. If, after all of that expenditure of energy and capital
Aalto and the Design Factory ends up being a high profile trade school
for Nokia product creators this would surely represent a significant
anticlimax to the cross university combine initiative. Sure it might be
useful to create such capability in Finland but is this really a cause for
Aalto to be undertaking with all of its resources, energy, investment,
media coverage, etc.? Is this a solution sized to the initiative that was
undertaken? What happens when or if Nokia changes course? What
does such an outcome have to do with the present and future of
design? What does it have to do with reimagining design?
I am not the officially
designated creator
of difficult questions
for Aalto leadership.
Obviously these are questions for Aalto leadership that I am assuming
someone somewhere is asking or has already asked. I am not the
officially designated creator of difficult questions for Aalto leadership.
I’m sure leaders in the local community there are quite capable of
doing so.
No doubt for some, creating an American-centric product & service
design trade school might be a great outcome, and for others not so.
Of course supporting current society infrastructure function might also
be about supporting community needs in Finland, or Europe…getting
out into the community to help with real challenges. As stated above,
that kind of supporting requires a quite different toolbox than product
and service creation with its preassumed solution paths. Without some
kind of sensemaking distinction framework for the geographies of
design, this need might not be crystal clear.
In many ways, it
comes back to the
degree to which we
are prepared to
reimagine design.
In many ways, it comes back to the degree to which we are prepared
to reimagine design. Around the globe one can see there are a lot of
half-baked, foreshortened, stay-in-the-box reimagining efforts. Many
are focused on Design 2. The situation reminds me of a picture seen
on Facebook. In reference to the reimagining of design (we have
added the speech bubble) I will share it here.
www.humantific.com
6
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
We often take
issue with those
who seek to keep
design in a nice,
tidy, limited scope,
and that includes
unenlightened
folks inside the
design community
as well as
competitive folks
operating outside.
Source: Unknown image from Facebook altered with speech bubble by NextD.
In terms of understanding this picture I can also share a related short
story with you and your readers: Several years ago a professor in a
graduate design school in Australia wrote to us at NextD to thank us
for presenting alternate possibilities for design. What he told me in
his email stayed with me for a long time and still does today. He told
me that he was recently scolded by the Chairperson in his design
department not to be “encouraging young design students beyond
their place in the world”. That astonishing statement captures a lot of
what exists under the surface in reference to the reimagining of design
and the often present deficit in that regard.
NextD is about exploring and embracing broader possibilities for
design. It is true that knowing and not accepting your preassigned
place in the world can generate some heat. You can see that heat
around much of what we do with NextD. We often take issue with
those who seek to keep design in a nice, tidy, limited scope and that
includes unenlightened folks inside the design community as well as
competitive folks operating outside. What we are doing and why is
not always understood. In a world in motion, staying inside any box
preassigned by others is a formula for extinction.
www.humantific.com
7
In a world in motion,
staying inside any
box preassigned by
others is a formula
for extinction.
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
Q3 Wycliffe Raduma: You have pointed out the necessity of Design
3 and 4. Do initiatives such as Good Mill, ATDF, Aalto Hub and the
Unicef Impact fulfill the criteria of Design 3 or 4?
Garry K. VanPatter: Not sure what you mean by “fulfill the criteria”
but lets try this: What I saw when I was at Aalto several times, meeting
with Design Factory graduate students and talking with someone who
is an advisor to the Aalto presidents is that the students are quite
capable of seeing needs and creating initiatives. Not surprisingly, what
they need help with is what we call skill-to-scale. Right now most
graduate design schools remain in what we call the cross-over mode,
which means many young people are being skilled to create products
and services, but tasked with enormous organizational and or social
change projects.
Many young people
are being skilled to
create products and
services, but tasked
with enormous
organizational and
social change
projects.
Whether through project assignments or their own initiative many
students are crossing over into Design 3 & 4 with Design 1 & 2 skills.
If you are operating with no distinction framework you might not
be conscious of this, but many students soon discover cross-over
disconnect. By that I mean they discover that they have a toolbox,
a skill-set for a different context that is now no longer the one in
which they desire or are expected to work in. We advocate more
transparency of such issues up front, more skill-to-scale up front.
In our travels, in our meetings at various graduate schools we look
for keys to Design 3 and 4. On my last visit to Aalto Design Factory
I met with several graduate students who wanted to show me their
projects. In those discussions I asked them a fundamental Design 3,
and 4 question: How did they frame the challenges that they were
working on? Did they know what open challenge framing was? None
of them did. Upstream from product and service, how do challenges
get framed? I introduced the very basic ideas to them. The general
reaction was OMG (Oh My “Gosh”).
Open framing is a
central aspect of
Design 3 and 4
because you are
working upstream
from product and
service brief
assumptions.
Open framing is a central aspect of Design 3 and 4 because you are
working upstream from product and service brief assumptions. Unlike
in Design 2, no predetermined outcome streams are present. There
are no assumptions made that new products or services are going to
be required outcomes. So from our perspective “fulfilling the criteria”
is less about handing out an assignment headlined “Social Innovation”
and more about skilling to the scale and type of challenges. Open
Challenge Framing is but one of several key aspects of Design 3 &
Design 4.
www.humantific.com
8
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
SenseMaking is Rising
DESIGN
DESIGN
DESIGN
DESIGN
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Traditional
Design
Product / Service
Design
Organizational
Transformation
Design
Social
Transformation
Design
SENSE STRANGE
Making
Making
SENSE
Making
STRANGE
Making
SENSE
Making
CHANGE
Making
SENSE
Making
SMALL
SENSEMAKING
CHANGE
Making
At the scale of
Design 3 and 4,
there is typically
much more
sensemaking
and co-creation,
and thus much
more skill in this
direction required.
LARGE
SENSEMAKING
www.nextd.org
Copyright © 2005−2011 NextDesign Leadership Institute. All Rights Reserved.
Source: GK VanPatter & E Pastor: NextDesign Geographies, 2003-2011.
Two other key dimensions that we look for are awareness of
sensemaking and co-creation. At the scale of Design 3 and 4 there
is typically much more sensemaking and co-creation, and thus much
more skill in this direction required. The shift in emphasis shown in
this one diagram above from NextDesign Geographies has tremendous
implications for design education. Few Design 2 oriented schools
reflect this shift.
What we advocate is: instead of asking students to work in cross-over
mode adapting their Design 1 or Design 2 toolbox to Design 3 and
4, lets ask the faculty to adapt and start teaching skill-to-scale. Right
now very few graduate/post graduate design schools are doing that.
Asking the students to do the adapting during and after they leave the
program has unfortunately become somewhat of a design education
standard. This occurs in large part because the world is in motion at
a change rate that has outpaced graduate design education. With
the students in mind, we advocate changing where the responsibility
for adaptation resides and this change of responsibility occurs in the
direction of the program leaders.
www.humantific.com
9
With the students in
mind, we advocate
changing where the
responsibility for
adaptation resides,
and this change of
responsibility occurs
in the direction of the
program leaders.
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
Q4 Wycliffe Radum: What is a good balance 1 and 2 vs. 3 and 4 in
modern society?
Garry K. VanPatter: Many leading design oriented practices have
ongoing projects across each realm as a deliberate operational
strategy. For many, the challenge is proportion modulation, not
exactly balance. Design 1, 2, 3, 4 are operational realms that exist
simultaneously in any modern society. One does not replace the other,
although as professional practice activity spaces, some are shrinking
and some are growing.
Of course it is no secret that design practice leaders in many countries
have for several years, been working hard to get into the Design 3 and
4 business and for good reason. That reason is called globalization.
Design practice
leaders in many
countries have been
working hard to get
into the Design 3
and 4 business,
and for good reason.
That reason is called
globalization.
For graduate students it is important to understand what’s happening
to each activity space in their societies, by that I mean having a sense
if it is expanding, contracting and why. Are fees growing or shrinking.
What are the impacts of globalization? The NextD Geographies
Framework can be helpful in such discussions.
In North America, a lot of what Design 1 focused companies used to
be paid a lot of money to do is simply gone. By gone I mean either
offshore or taken over by software.
Globalization, along with the ever present “Everyone is Everything”
movement, has flooded the shrinking Design 1 activity space.
Eager folks in China and India will do your web site for $150.
You might not hear this news at your design school, but if you are
training for a life in Design 1, get ready for a bumpy ride. As a feebased professional activity, that space is shrinking in most societies,
not expanding. These are not abstractions. This is real life. This tends
to be a conversation that is missing in most graduate design schools.
Some mistake the
notion of Design 3
and 4 as a cool
concept, as an
abstraction that may
or may not occur.
It is no such thing.
Some mistake the notion of Design 3 and 4 as a cool concept,
as an abstraction that may or may not occur. It is no such thing.
That migration upstream is a real financial, not conceptual necessity
already well underway. All the major design consultancies in the US
have been engaged in this upstream direction for years. Globalization
is a force that is very difficult to argue with.
www.humantific.com
10
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
Globalization is one of several very real practical forces underpinning
the reimagining of design. Don’t miss that train. Don’t get run over
by it.
Q5 Wycliffe Radum: Thank you Garry. Two last questions: some
initiative has been taken in establishing collaboration between
Aalto, Pace, and Parsons. What do you believe Aalto can gain from
establishing a presence in New York?
Garry K. VanPatter: The short answer is that New York remains
an amazing city of great complexity in a society of even greater
complexities. Manhattan is always a work in progress, a giant
experiment. With the population of the city being greater than that
of most Nordic countries, including Finland, you are going to find a
lot of differences. The scale of challenges encountered here is rather
different and the US certainly has its fair share at the moment.
Our culture is extremely diverse and with that diversity comes the
magic along with the stresses and strains of this place.
New York remains
an amazing city of
great complexity
in a society of even
greater complexities.
Much can be gained by any school or organization by simply having
a presence here where so much is going on, however imperfect all
of that might be.
There are always tremendous incoming and outgoing energies.
You become part of that stream, adding to it, taking something away.
New York also remains a media capital so it can help with exposure
and attention, which seems to be important to your program leaders.
Keep in mind that graduate design schools here are not free.
They tend to be rather expensive, so the cost of attending is another
dynamic present here that is not in the mix in most Nordic countries.
Apart from that I cannot comment on specific local schools.
In general what we see with New York City based graduate design
schools is considerably less inspiring than the city itself. Over the
course of the last 10 years as well as today, what we have seen and
still see, is slow adaptation to change already underway in leading
practices. In part this can be explained by the not often talked about
Catch-22 student avalanche phenomenon. Mainstream graduate
design schools here benefit from having a never-ending avalanche
of young applicants who want to come to the city to study. From
a change making perspective it’s not difficult to see that such an
avalanche translates into important drivers of change being absent
www.humantific.com
11
In general, what we
see with New York
City based graduate
design schools is
considerably less
inspiring than the
city itself.
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
for many of the design schools here in New York. Why change?
Why adapt when the students keep signing up regardless?
What we find in the US is that more timely change, more
reimagination, can be found in the outsider graduate design programs
such as Herron which is located far from New York City. One might
say that this is the age of the outsider design program with the
mainstream schools playing catch up to a large degree although they
often have louder voices and get more attention in the design media.
Ho Hum.
Recently one of the high profile graduate design schools in Manhattan
launched with great fanfare, a service design program. Evidently this
represented leading progress for themselves and their students. Its
leaders creatively attempted to position that realm as the foremost
extension of design today. All great progress but of course those
assertions regarding the edges of design are utter nonsense. Service
design has been operationally superseded for at least ten years. It’s a
downstream toolset but this is more or less where the four or five NYC
graduate design schools tend to be.
Service design has
been operationally
superseded for at
least ten years.
There are a few stirrings here and there this year but for the most part
graduate design education here in NYC remains in reimagine deficitland. Whether everyone wants to admit it or not, most graduate design
schools in NYC remain far behind the reimagining design curve.
It might surprise you, but at the moment, Humantific does not hire
graduates from NYC graduate design schools, or should I say to
date we have not, simply because they tend to be equipped in other
directions, primarily towards Design 1 & 2. Other firms probably do
hire them.
Of course our role here is not to rain on anyone’s design education
parade. Obviously we see the parades and once in a while someone
will ask us what we think about them, but for the most part we stay
out of it.
In conversations like this one, we do feel some responsibility to
point out, from the perspective of practice, that other possibilities
for designers being in society, helping out beyond product and service
creation, not only are possible, but already exist. Why would design
education leaders not want to hear that story, not want to embrace
such possibilities?
www.humantific.com
12
We do feel some
responsibility to
point out that other
possibilities for
designers in society,
helping out beyond
product and service
creation, not only
are possible,
but already exist.
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
I am sure your readers can appreciate that design consultancy
leaders are certainly not waiting around for the graduate design
schools to reimagine design.
In practice that work has been underway for many years. Sharing
some visibility into that reimagined state, from a Humantific
perspective, was more or less what I was doing at the 2009
conference. It was a bit of a reimagining design rewind for us.
Since that moment the reimagining has continued and we are
always happy to exchange perspectives on this challenging subject.
At Humantific we are getting ready to publish a white paper on this
subject so feel free to stay tuned. Design Practice ReReimagined:
Why MetaDesign is Not Product, Service or Experience Design.
Those readers of yours who would like to know when it is published
can subscribe to the Humantific Quarterly newsletter on the front
page of the Humantific web site: http://humantific.com
I am sure your
readers can
appreciate that
design consultancy
leaders are certainly
not waiting around
for the graduate
design schools to
reimagine design.
Q6 Wycliffe Raduma: To close off, what would be your call-to-action
for the education programs within Aalto?
Garry K. VanPatter: As I indicated at the beginning of this interview
when you asked me about the impact of the future conference, calls
to action from the outside tend to generate little action. It’s a human
condition thing. Some might say an ego thing. The good news is that
right now calls for change action, reimagining action in graduate
design education are often coming from the students attending inside
the programs. This is occurring particularly in countries where students
have to pay dearly to attend. They want tangible outcomes, tangible,
skills for this era and the next one rather than the previous one. That
is understandable since it is their future livelihoods that are at stake.
Regardless of where they happen to be studying we always suggest
to graduate students and post graduate students that they become
directly involved in advocating for meaningful skills at the scale that
they are being asked to engage.
The good news is
that right now, calls
for change action,
reimagining action
in graduate design
education are often
coming from
the students
attending inside
the programs.
This not an unreasonable request but don’t expect change to occur if
you don’t speak up. If students find themselves in a program where
the “Teach Yourself Co-Creation” model persists its not too late to
speak up.
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/_nextd_teachingcocreationnow
www.humantific.com
13
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
Lets think about this in mid-air for a moment. Yes, I know what might
be useful! The Reimagining Design movement that NextD has been
a part of for so long could use a little “occupy” action! Yes it might
be a good moment to give Reimagining Design along with its partner
Reskilling Design a boost of energy and certainly we would welcome
others to the Reimagining Design Party!
Getting the design education community to get moving beyond
the teaching of product and service creation is going to take a
superhuman effort from inside along with some “encouragement,”
explaining and modeling from outside. It remains a complex subject
and change is difficult for any community. Certainly graduate and
post graduate students inside can contribute to that much needed
combined reimagining design effort. We are always happy to help
others in their reimagining. Regardless of all the hurdles, creating
such a school, such a program remains a huge opportunity space.
The Reimagining
Design movement
that NextD has been
a part of for so long
could use a little
“occupy” action!
Apart from the heavy lifting, lets also not forget to have a little fun
along the way!
The design communities are like intertwined dysfunctional families.
They always have been and probably always will be. Don’t expect
perfection. It’s not going to happen, certainly in my lifetime. Once we
acknowledge that and are at peace with it fun seems more possible.
Good luck to you and yours Wycliffe. Lets keep the lines open
between us. Come visit again anytime.
GK VanPatter
Co-founder, Humantific
www.humantific.com
14
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.
WHITE PAPER 2
Humantific
©
Occupy Reimagining Design
Further Reading
NextDesign Leadership Network (Open Group)
http://tinyurl.com/3pp3ffn
Next Design Geographies: Understanding Design Thinking 1,2,3,4
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/nextdfutures2011_v02
Understanding Design 1,2,3,4: The Rise of Visual SenseMaking
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/understandingdesign1_2_3_4
ReReThinking Design Thinking
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/2_rerethinking.design
NextD Reality Check
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/realitycheck2011
Teaching CoCreation Now
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/_nextd_teachingcocreationnow
CoCreation Is Rising
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/cocreation_is_rising
SenseMaking is Rising
http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/sensemaking_is_rising
Questions?
Please direct all questions to programs@humantific.com
www.humantific.com
15
© 2011−2012 Humantific & Aalto Unversity. All Rights Reserved.