Designing collaboration


Published on

This class was the second lecture in the Design Thinking course as part of the Service innovation design program in Laurea University of Applied Sciences in Lepavaara, Finland. 2011.

Published in: Design, Technology, Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hola, soy Mariana Salgado y estoy muy contenta de a pesar de la distancia poder participar de este evento tan importante. Cuando leí la convocatoria a una reunión de accesibilidad en museos les escribí a las organizadoras del evento preguntándoles si podía mandar un video. Me pareció de lo más inclusiva y profesional su respuesta positiva y por eso armé esta presentación. Daniela y Violeta me dijeron que haga una charla dirigida a museos con bajos recursos. Y si, entiendo la idea, si vengo de Finlandia a hablar de nuevas tecnologías debo estar acostumbrada a hacer proyectos con presupuesto generoso. Creo que yo hubiera tenido el mismo prejuicio. Pero no, desgraciadamente no tuve la suerte de hacer proyectos muy grandes, ni de mucho presupuesto. Si bien Finlandia produce y consume alta tecnología, en el area de los museos no lo muestra.
  • Designing collaboration

    1. 1. Design ing collaboration. boundary objects, co-design, knotworking and P2P By Mariana Salgado Design Thinking course Laurea University of Applied Sciences
    2. 2. Multidisciplinarity is a non-integrative mixture of disciplines in that each discipline retains its methodologies and assumptions without change or development from other disciplines within the multidisciplinary relationship. An interdisciplinary field crosses traditional boundaries between academic disciplines or schools of thought, as new needs and professions have emerged. Transdisciplinarity connotes a research strategy that crosses many disciplinary boundaries to create a holistic approach.
    3. 18. Design as a social process Bucciarelli, Louis L. Design Collaboration: Who's in? Who's out?. In Design Spaces. Edited by Binder Thomas and Hellström Maria. p.64-71
    4. 19. Participants spend time and energy discussing, listening, proposing, and arguing with one another
    5. 20. about their proposals which will ultimately fix the form of the design
    6. 21. This sort of negotiation and exchange is hard work
    7. 22. But it enriches end results
    8. 23. Design engages different participants- individual with different competencies , technical interests and responsibilities .
    9. 24. Sometimes each participant work alone , searching, innovating, modeling, testing and conjecturing within their own domain. Defined by their own particular expertise .
    10. 25. He has to identify his expertise and be able to communicate his findings to the other. Each participant has a certain freedom and authority over the others. He needs to justify his proposal is his authority is to carry weight.
    11. 26. Each participant needs not just to listen, but actively consider the merits of the proposals and claims from the others. No one person knows all the required to carry through the design.
    12. 27. A collective sense of good and bad may be constructed in the process of designing.
    13. 28. If the social negotiation goes well and participants trust each other's competence it becomes apparent in the critique phase.
    14. 29. But the important point is to open up the design process to outsiders . To recognize their contribution early in the design process.
    15. 30. Free up the process to engage the client , the customer and the user early in the process when the concepts are still in flux.
    16. 31. For that we need boundary objects that can motivate dialogue.
    17. 32. Boundary objects Star, Susan Leigh, Griesemer, James R. (1989) Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 387-420 Phleps, Andreas F. and Reddy, Madhu. (2009).The influence of Boundary Objects on Group Collaboration in Contruction Project Teams. Group 09. Florida. USA. Gal, Uri; Yoo Youngjin and Boland Richard J. The Dynamics of Boundary Objects, Social Infrastructures and Social Identities. Working papers on Information Systemss, 4 (11). http://sprouts
    18. 33. Artifacts, documents, vocabulary that can help people from different communities build a shared understanding. Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    19. 34. point of mediation and negotiation Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    20. 35. Ambiguous enough to allow for negotiation Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    21. 36. Contain sufficient detail to be understandable by both parties utilizing the object Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    22. 37. Although neither party may understand the full context of use by the other. Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    23. 38. Carry information and context that can be use to translate, transfer, and transform knowledge between communities of practices. Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    24. 39. The value of the project comes when that tacit knowledge from various individuals is shared. Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    25. 40. Boundary objects play a role in codifying that tacit information that is communicated to others Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    26. 41. More they are use, more are trusted Picture by Pulpolux !!!
    27. 42. In today business we are working more and more in flexible networks rapidly emerging and disappearing.
    28. 43. Participants do not know each other beforehand and need to be able to quickly create collaborative partnerships for productively coordinate their activities.
    29. 44. Knotworking is the expert work that takes place in these projects. It represents dynamically changing and distributed collaborative work.
    30. 45. Knotworking Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the Center does Not Hold: The Importance of Knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard & U.J. Jensen (Eds). Activity Theory and Social Practice: Cultural-HIstorical Approaches. Arhus University Press, 345-374.
    31. 46. In the Free-Libre and Open Source movement there is a conscious effort to engage as many interested and competent parties as possible. Picture by CraigMarston
    32. 47. They claim that in this way they produce a robust system at a faster pace .
    33. 48. This way of doing things is P2P production. RocketRaccoon Picture by RocketRaccoon
    34. 49. P2P production Bauwens M. (2005) The Political Economy of Peer Production. In Kroker A, Kroker M (eds) 100 Days of Theory. Available online: Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks : How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. {Yale University Press}.
    35. 50. Good examples are talkoot
    36. 51. and Wikipedia
    37. 52. The common characteristics of the good collaborative projects is that the rules are clear to everybody. Picture by doug88888
    38. 53. Picture by doug88888 Goals are shared though the outcome might be unclear or unknown.
    39. 54. There is ability to manage conflicting interests . Picture by E-nat
    40. 55. There is a believe and an interest in making the proposal grow in a dialogue with the others Picture by rachelkillsemo
    41. 56. re-examining own assumptions. Picture by JimFenton
    42. 57. together roles shared responsibility social process co-design boundary objects prototypes teamwork P2P collaboration
    43. 58. Thanks! [email_address] [email_address]