Changing the change

This post has been written by the conference coordination team:
Ezio Manzini, Jorge Frascara, Carla Cipolla,
Cludio Germak, Brunella Cozzo, Paolo Peruccio, Sergio Corsaro

The Changing the Change Conference is going to start. It will be the result of the efforts done by a large group of people: the coordination team, the advisory committees, the peer review committee, the invited speakers and discussants and, of course, and first of all, the many design researchers who prepared and sent their contributions.

As coordination team, we already know the selected papers contents, what the invited speakers and discussants will present and the side activities that will be proposed. On this basis, we are reasonably sure that these three days in Torino will be dense, interesting and agreeable. What we don’t know, because it cannot be planned, is if all these good ingredients will generate a real meaningful event: an initiative where the “being there” of many people generates a particular kind of positive energy. That is, a conference the value of which is much more than the sum of its formal presentations, discussions and entertaining activities.

Changing the Change has all the potentialities to become one of these meaningful events. But this possibility depends on a complex mix of factors and on the unforeseeable mesh of interactions that will be built in these three days.

In the next days we will be in Torino, driven by common interests: it will be up to us, and to our capability of “being here”, the possibility to transform a conference program in a meaningful event. And, therefore, the possibility to generate the energy we need to make this Conference an important step in the right direction. That is, in the direction of sustainability.

The phrase, “Changing the Change,” which the organizers have chosen for the title of this conference on design research, has meaning on different levels. In its largest sense, it connotes a change in the way we do research. I suspect that this was the fundamental reason for its choice.

We need a new collective process for introducing a different model of design research. This we might call the level of purpose. What should we do? Another meaning of “Changing the Change” relates to strategy. How do we as a community of researchers organize ourselves in order to achieve this new purpose. We have to change the way we organize our research activities in order to achieve new ends. And third, “Changing the Change” refers to new products or outcomes that might be developed through research. If we join together the three terms: purpose, strategy, and product, we have an agenda that can guide us as researchers in a powerful new direction.

I think that the Conference should produce, as final document, a design research agenda for sustainability: a short text where emerging themes are focalised and promising directions of research are indicated.

I know that saying this involves some risks: conference final documents are quite common and often they are nothing more than rhetorical declarations of good intentions. This is true. But I think that we have to take this risk: the meeting of a worldwide community of design researchers is, in my view, both a cultural and a political event. And an event like this should leave a trace (in the community’s culture) and give directions (about future steps to be taken). Not only: in a previous design conference (the Cumulus Design Conference in Kyoto of March 28, a declaration was signed – see Yrio Sotamaa in the Newsletter 5). I think that this Declaration, having been signed by a large number of design schools, is not only highly symbolic (having being signed in Kyoto) but also potentially relevant. Now, of course, something has to happen to implement it. The design research agenda for sustainability that I am proposing, in my view, should be considered as one of Kyoto Declaration possible implementations: a document that will have to give research directions in order to develop the necessary design knowledge to make it real. That is, for us, to Change the Change.

In this perspective, some organisational choices involving the Conference and its preparation have been taken to facilitate a process that, in a bottom-up and peer-to-peer spirit, should be able to generate shared ideas. In practical terms, during the first two and half days of the conference, listening to the presented papers, participating to the initial Round Table, talking in the bar or whatever else conference-related conversations take place, the participants will progressively focalise on the themes that, in the Changing the Change perspective, will appear as the most relevant and demanding in terms of design knowledge. In the Conference last session these themes will be discussed in different meetings and, finally, in the general assembly.

In conclusion, in parallel to the selected paper presentations, that is, the “academic stream” (that of course will be the core of the Conference), there will be also a “political stream”: an open space aimed at giving participants more possibilities to interact, to bring their own ideas and to collaborate on the preparation of a final document. This political stream will be a bottom-up process of theme definition oriented to build, in a participatory way, the design research agenda for sustainability” that will be the Conference final output and (hopefully) the first step of some post-conference actions.

In order to concretely move in this direction, this discussion should start now and should regard both the anticipation of some emerging themes and the proposal on how to facilitate, during the Conference, their definition process. These Newsletters and the blog on the CtC Website are places where this discussion could easily happen.

Changing the Change is a moment of intensity in a continuum of action, or this is the way I think it should be, and is the spirit that I see in Ezio’s “Design Research Agenda for Sustainability.” Conferences are very charming occasions: they include nice friends, exciting people, interesting papers, new faces, and enjoyable social events in unfamiliar friendly places. But if they do not become arrival and departure points for a continuing action, and if, in this case, a change in the current changes is not generated, the effort would not make sense.

Will a group be generated as a consequence of the conference, a group that will take the issue of sustainability and design to the capillary circulation of culture internationally? Will a constant flow of communication be generated or intensified, so that like-minded designers, engaged in changing the change could work more in concert? Will the conference provide the necessary drive and the indispensable tools that are needed to develop design research internationally toward a sustainable society?

As a bottom-up event, the organizers can only aim at creating favorable conditions for things to happen. It will be up to the participants to transform the event into a departing point. I agree with Ezio wholeheartedly about the emptyness of manifestos that are not supported by programs of action. It is easy to write nice things; but it is difficult to integrate new challenges into everyone’s agenda, challenges that are certainly worth while, but that need imaginative work and sustained effort. We believe it is possible, and we hope that the conference will make that possibility even stronger, through the exchange of ideas, experiences, visions and tools.

At the Institute without Boundaries, changing the change has meant tackling local problems that have global repercussions, while also speculating on global issues to devise frameworks within which local agents can contribute solutions to those issues. Walking on both sides of the line, from systems theory to generating examples and embodiments of design innovation, the faculty and students fluidly interact with experts to exchange knowledge, build ideas, test prototypes, and formulate systems. Over the past number of years, this process of experimentation has generated a number of insights on change that are worth consideration, especially in the context of a world where global forces connect and impact communities in the most unpredictable ways. Here are some of our insights:

Sometimes, the world is good as it is and we don’t have to change it as designers. Sometimes we need to stop trying to change the world and let it be.

Other times, the rapid pace of change demands that designers mitigate change, acclimatizing people so it becomes bearable, channeling it into a direction that is evidently beneficial all.

When inexorable change becomes dehumanizing, degrading, alienating or brings about conditions of injustice or inequity, designers can work with civil society to postulate alternatives, to dream alternative realities that society can adopt. Designers can change the change as they control the embodiments of change.

When rapid or massive change is needed to avert crisis or imminent extinction, the redesign and reinvention required may be too critical to leave to designers alone. In these instances, design needs to interact with science, sociology, economy, and politics to generate possibilities that ensure survival and open avenues of opportunity.

Working with students from diverse backgrounds in arts, design, business, science, economics, sociology and informatics in an environment without professional boundaries, where students, faculty, and visiting experts embrace challenges together has made clear to me the complex readjustments required of design methodology. This past year, we have been working on design solutions for sustainable housing for Guanacaste, a region in Costa Rica. How could we help from such a great distance? How could our inter-professional team generate relevant solutions? To address these challenges, we experimented widely, conducting extensive research, showing up in person to charrette, collaborating with other academic institutions, finding on-the-ground NGOs to stimulate, roping in experts local, national, and international, and even working with elementary school children. We learned that their problems were ours.

Experimentation, while not always successful, taught us how varied methods generate different design results. Knowing which approach may generate a particular result can empower communities, designers, and clients and if not to change their change, at least to guide it positively.

Any economy that intends to maintain its sustainability in time needs to explore, on a continuous base, scenarios and hypotheses for constant improvements and advance.
All stakeholders of an economic system need to devote attention and resources to innovate and create the conditions for their sustainable profitability while creating recurrent improvement of the quality of life.

This challenge is common to all type of economies in all geographical location. Micro and macro economies, all together concur to form an interdependent global economic system always in search of balance and sustainability.

In this environment “innovation” is an imperative, and all the stakeholders in the economic system are in search and in demand of innovation.

The challenge is the one to qualify innovation and rank it on a model that indicate it social nature and its social economic impact. This new model is relevant to redefine long term strategies and frame short term investment roadmaps.

To support the strategic process of testing options that optimize the balance and the coherent fit between short term innovative solutions and long term vision and direction it is relevant to develop and adopt new methods of research for innovation that fast, effective and economic.

Design research methods represents to day one of the new answers to this need. Influential Business magazines such as Fortune, Time, Business Week, Fast Company devote more attention to it disseminating the experiences and promoting its adoption.
Philips Design has pioneered in this field during the last two decades and has demonstrated , with the support of business consulting companies such as Mc Kinsey and Kaiser, how Design Research provide speed and focused effectiveness.

Design has it foundation in a techno-humanistic culture and performs its creativity interfacing connecting and integrating society, end user, technology and economy.
Autonomous fields of research such as societal foresight, Business spaces, Industry development and technology development and innovation are taken therefore in an accelerated integration by Design Research maximizing time and investments effectiveness. But even more important than this, Design Research builds on the core competence of the Design Culture providing tangible options for solutions and innovation that maximize end user, societal and customer centric effectiveness and are easier to be validated because of their articulated, visual and understandable representation.