Category Archives: Make

Design, innovation outcomes

Game Changing – Adapting Workshops for Emergence

Written by . Filed under Learn, Make. No comments.

In this DwD session with Stephen Sillett, we explored the nature of emergence in structured facilitated workshops and the approaches to breaking structure in planning and convening to create the conditions for generative emergence. A good cross-section of Toronto’s current generation of innovation leaders attended, about evenly balance between social innovators and business/design consultants. Th first sketch of the evening mapped the sectors and approaches from particpants during our check-in.

 

The Process

We used the Groupworks Pattern Language (available for download) to discuss and incorporate instigating (evocative) patterns for emergence. Several key patterns are core to engaging vitality and dynamic emergence in a group intervention: Emergence, Improvise, Letting Go, and most of the patterns included in Flow and Faith.

While these sound like simple expressions within a convening structure, they are not easy choices in practice.  When actually facilitating large group interventions, we often follow a strict plan of events, agreed upon in advance with our sponsors and stakeholders. Two questions explored in the session:

How do we best change options or parameters of a scripted workshop while maintaining integrity of the purpose and ensuring high-value outcome intended?

What happens when we change the structure and process of workshops, possibly violating key elements of a plan or facilitation approach?

The function of non-dual experience, BOTH / AND becomes operative here.  How do we know how (and when) to restructure, reduce, accelerate, or improvise within a well-defined group process? How does an interplay of structure and emergence in facilitating group interventions relate to these shifts?

Experienced group facilitators know well the difference in experience and participation between following a script and drawing out emergent engagement. However, experience also tells us there’s a balance, between some structure and some emergence, and a dynamics shift that occurs between them. Are these transitions between structure and emergence the key to creative balance in workshops? Also, even with experience these is a point at which we realise that changes to the workshop context, content of process fall outside previous encounters, and levels of uncertainty rise. How do we deal with this uncertainty? When should we say “let’s give this a go!” and when “this is not viable, it is not ethical to proceed!”


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sketches by Patricia, playthink.com. Harvest of evening final dialogue, as summary.

Small groups developed engagement stories and models for exploring these interventions in engagement. These were developed from several design provocations:

  • Use of time:  Some activities are multi-day journeys, others 1-day, 1 hour or last only 10 minutes.
  • Modularity: How do we scale to the needs of our stakeholders?
  • Intensity: Activities may vary in their level of intensity regarding participation, accountability, pressure to meet deadlines, level of physical activity
  • Outcome: Some processes may work toward consensus, others toward proposals, others are more fluidly co-creation .

 

 

Co-Creating Civic Proposals for Systemic Change

Written by . Filed under Make, Think. Tagged , , . No comments.

How might we move or collective thinking and action beyond single-issue social action?

Does it make sense to build our urban worlds and future societies by winning one political issue at a time?

Can we design civic business models for our cities and society?

In February’s Design with Dialogue we workshopped our framework for co-creating civic design proposals with a group of 35 citybuilders, ranging from youth activists to City of Toronto people to architects and SFI students.

A significant design challenge of our time is anticipating the relationships of multiple environmental and social problems as a complex system of nonlinear relationships. However, we cannot think about, model or discuss the relationships well, especially in the heat of discussion with deliberative groups and decision making processes. We need not only better engagement and dialogue processes for citizen deliberative problem solving, we require relevant tools.All social services, determinants of health, and economics are complex and interrelated. So why do we expect any political body or activist group to get it right? Only meaningfully diverse, multi-stakeholder groups can envision the variety of interests and outcomes in complex social systems.

With the OCADU Strongly Sustainable Business Model Group and with Strategic Foresight & Innovation students we designed a relevant framework from the common language of business model tools, adapted for civic decision models for flourishing cities and settlements.

The Flourishing Cities framework adapts a design tool for strongly sustainable business models as a visual organizer for engaging stakeholders in co-creating normative  operational guidance for civic groups, community planners, and local governments. Flourishing can be understood as “to live within an optimal range of human functioning, one that connotes goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience,” or as John Ehrenfeld states it:

“Flourishing is the possibility that human and other life will flourish on this planet forever.”

This visual model enables a participatory mapping of propositions, values, and preferences that might yield significantly better group decisions for sociocultural and ecological development and governance in any planning engagement. Participants developed working models in 30-40 minute studio sessions, and presented compelling narratives for issues in:

Climate Change Action and Citizen Motivation

ClimateChange

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community Equity

FlComms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affordable Housing

AffHousing2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Placemaking for Well-Being

Placemaking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An additional table developed a model for Textile Waste Recovery.

 

The Flourishing Business Canvas is shown below, the basis for the Flourishing Cities model adapted in the workshop.

Unlike the Flourishing Business Canvas, the “Cities” canvas has not been employed in actual practice yet. This is a proposed concept, developed from extended research and is presented as a model for further inquiry and evaluation.

Presentation and references from DwD Flourishing Societies Framework.

 

The Co-evolution of Connected Citizens in Canadian Governance

Written by . Filed under Make, Think. Tagged , , . 1 Comment.

Can we motivate civil society to form a collaborative approach to Canadian governance?

 How will governing – public decision making – be influenced through citizens evolving new digital and place-based channels?

The January DwD was a public workshop convened by OCADU’s Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab) as part of our ongoing SSHRC-sponsored action research conducted during 2014.  We hosted 25 participants in reframing and representing key challenges and future innovations that might influence civic participation and governing across Canadian government sectors.  A current model of the Gigamap (large-scale system map) as a departure point for participant contributions, you can contribute to the discourse by building on and critiquing the findings of a recent major workshop via card sort and dialogue mapping.

DSC_2025_lowres

Governance in our digital era is a central challenge facing government institutions and societies in the coming decades where information ownership is uncertain, power is dispersed, and authority and accountability need to be reconceived. Last November  we convened a diverse group of practitioners, policy experts and academics to explore how digital technology and new flows of information have been influencing governance and government practice, and where it might have potential to more significantly transform analysis, engagement, policy, service delivery, and accountability.   We are seeking many perspectives on the promise and concerns of digital engagement, and the positive possibilities for designing and delivering public policy and services. We want to hear your views on how governments at all levels in Canada might re-conceive various governance practices as digital tools and practices continue to evolve.

DSC_2012_lowres

We are interested in discovering how the practices and expectations of governance are and will be shifting from the vantage point of citizens and other stakeholders, communities, and sectors. We aim to explore how Canada – with all of its levels of government and regional diversity – might evolve as a basis for considering how government practices ought to transform.

Gmap KK baseline-sm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Digital era governance can be understood from a technology-centric viewpoint or a governing practices perspective, which largely colours the values and strategies under discussion. Since the start of the Internet era, governments have sought greater efficiencies and interaction with citizens and stakeholders.  Digital governance includes issues such as citizen rights and uses of data, the questions of government control through ICT, and the online management of benefits and services. It is now simple to pay parking tickets online. But understanding the core issues and arguments in legislation remains as murky as ever. Is it fair to suggest that digital rights may filter the power of citizen access?

We asked participants to do some homework to familiarize themselves with some of the issues and trends in “digital governance” and the larger trends concerning Canadian government relevant to discussions.

Gigamaps:  The Gigamap presented at the Ottawa conference was displayed in the workshop as an evolving model. Final visual maps may appear more like this online Gigamap on the Circular Economy from a student team in our OCADU SFI course. Maps may include system diagrams as found in this student project on the adaptation of veterans to civilian life http://resetremembrance.ca

 

Facilitating Co-Creation – Design Patterns for Dialogue

Written by . Filed under Learn, Make, Think. Tagged , , . No comments.

How do we design dialogues?

With 35 participants, July’s DwD explored the patterns for design for dialogue events, for clients, organizations, and communities. We explored the patterns and elements of effective group processes expressed in both theory and our experience, with guidance from emerging process design tools.

  • What patterns and modes of engagement enable committed participation and reflective inquiry?
  • How might deepening our awareness of the essential elements found in our best methods foster successful group outcomes?
  • How might these patterns differ between arenas, whether creative organizational workshops or in civic dialogues?

Based on a workshop taught in the OCADU Strategic Foresight and Innovation program, Peter Jones shared a foundation for workshop design patterns for group dialogues in any setting.   Working with the Group Pattern Language Project as a source of structure and tools the session addressed:

  • What patterns for dialogue structuring might best enable our own, everyday group work situations?
  • How do we select and adapt best-fitting practices and methods to create mindful, evocative learning communities for creative inquiry?
  • How can we learn from these patterns to co-create new methods or group structuring approaches?

The ultimate goal of the workshop was to co-create better workshop designs and deepen competency through collaborating with peers, using the resource of the pattern model and toolkit.   Participants offered 5 of their problems or upcoming opportunities in their current practice, including an urban youth summer camp, a 24-hour intensive retreat, a community  engagement series with underserved immigrants, a new UofT course program and an international workshop in Lisbon.

Participants co-created new workshop plans with the patterns and shared ideas, exercising the pattern language for meaningful workshop design problems.

The group pattern cards can be downloaded and ordered from GroupworksDeck.org.

waymaking

Creating a kit for learning and teaching Waymaking.

YouthCamp

Designing a youth summer camp program.

Charette

Designing a sustainable cities retreat workshop.

Rexdale

Designing community engagement for an underserved neighborhood.

 

The Hosts

Peter Jones and Chris Lee guide this session on group design patterns. Peter is co-founder of Design with Dialogue and associate professor at OCAD University, in the Strategic Foresight and Innovation MDes program. Peter runs the innovation research firm Redesign and has been engaging groups of all sizes and shapes since the mid-1990’s. He is author of the early handbook of facilitation process, Team Design (1998), We Tried to Warn You (2008), and the recent Rosenfeld title Design for Care: Innovating Healthcare Experience. His work can be found at designdialogues.com

Chris Lee is a Toronto based facilitator and process designer. He runs Potluck Projects, actively using concepts and participatory methodologies from the Art of Hosting, Asset Based Community Development, and Person-Centred Planning to support groups in achieving collective outcomes that are greater than the sum of its parts. He also works with the YSI Collaborative, a network and community of practice that accelerates and amplifies the conditions for youth-led organizing and engagement in Ontario.

The Art of Listening: Learning to Harvest a Collective Story

Written by . Filed under Learn, Make, Understand. No comments.

DwD 05.14.14

How does deep listening create a context for the emergence of meaning? How might our ways of listening inspire a deeper experience and reality of community? 

May’s DwD explored collective and intentional listening as a way to explore how we make sense of the stories we tell about our communities, and where possibilities for new narratives might emerge.

Hosts Kaitlin Almack and Chris Lee were inspired by their recent involvement in the Art of Social Innovation training to share a process called the Collective Story Harvest.

We began by exploring our personal listening styles and looked at Otto Scharmer’s four different ways of talking and listening:

  • Downloading – Speaking and listening to confirm what we already know.
  • Debating – Listening for novel information.
  • Reflective – Listening with empathy. Subjectively and from the heart.
  • Generative – Listening to the whole field and with the possibility that you might be changed by what you hear.

Participants were then invited to pair up engage in a listening exercise centred on the following question: What is an experience that has deepened your understanding and relationship to community?

DwDMay2014 Question

Withindwd may group pairs, each partner took 5 minutes to respond to the question, while their counterpart listened without interrupting.  After each person had her 5 minutes of being in a story-telling role, the pairs were given another 5 minutes to engage in regular dialogue about their experiences. Some questions we explored in the group debrief included,  What did you notice about your own listening? What was it like to be listened to? 

 

We then learned and practiced the Collective Story Harvest process. This storytelling process builds on our capacity for targeting listening and group learning while offering a gift to the story holding as well as the group as a whole. We broke into four small groups, where intrepid story-tellers shared stories of their experiences in community.  Peter Jones shared about founding of Design with Dialogue; Kelly Nakamura told of her finding inspiration to change the mission of her business; Stephen Sillett told a story about working with immigrant communities in the Niagara-Welland district; and Emma Sobel told of her experiences as a student working in First Nations communities.

dwd may 2014

Within each group there were listeners who were tasked with following specific narrative themes and arcs.  We listened for themes such as the narrative structure, leadership, magic and synchronicity, and the role of listening.  There was also a witness role – someone who held the entire group and the story-teller and listened without any predetermined lens.  After each story, the listeners reflected back to the storyteller the themes they were listening for.  We then broke into a cafe-style conversations, grouped by the themes and roles we had been in, and re-grouped for a final harvest and dialogue about where we might use this process in our own lives.  One of the suggestions was to use this as an-end-of-project review.  Other participants remarked about the rarity it is we have in our lives to simply listen, whether with a specific lens or not, and how bringing that intention can help us to collectively make meaning without immediately jumping into debate about what we are hearing.

dwd may harvest

For more information on the Collective Storytelling Harvest process, here is a video from the Art of Hosting Community.

ABOUT THE HOSTS

Kaitlin Almack focuses on multi-stakeholder collaboration and social learning for sustainable development with experience brokering partnerships in Cambodia, Germany and Canada.  She has a M.Sc in Environmental Studies and Sustainability from Lund University.   Kaitlin is a consultant with ICA Associates where she specializes in facilitating and designing change labs, sustainability strategy, community based adaptation and multi-stakeholder engagement.

Chris Lee is a Toronto based facilitator and process designer. He runs Potluck Projects, actively using concepts and participatory methodologies from the Art of Hosting, Asset Based Community Development, and Person-Centred Planning to support groups in achieving collective outcomes that are greater than the sum of its parts.  He also works with the YSI Collaborative, a network and community of practice that accelerates and amplifies the conditions for youth-led organizing and engagement in Ontario.