All posts by Marco Steinberg
Whew! What a week. I just got back from Abu Dhabi (which brings with it a weather swing of 50 degrees!), where I was a speaker at the World Future Energy Summit, talking about Sitra's Low2No approach to sustainable development. We will post my talk & presentation as soon as it’s available from the WFES website.
It’s been an interesting two days meeting people and connecting thoughts & opportunities. In the context of what is happening here at Masdar, Low2No is an interesting, globally relevant, alternative strategic approach to meeting the sustainability challenge in the built environment. Masdar is undoubtedly a great global experiment creating a carbon neutral city solution from scratch. Low2No addresses the other challenge: how to do it in a legacy-ridden market such as Europe? Not only do we need to better understand what a sustainable city model is but in Helsinki, and Europe generally, we need to understand how to transition from the current legacy system (infrastructure, political, financial, cultural) to a sustainable solution. It’s not only about what that “it” is but, most importantly, how to get there.
Events like the World Future Energy Summit are of interest as they help create a community around strategic issues, bringing many stakeholders together. On a practical level I had some great meetings, many of whom I’ve been connecting with virtually and now they've finally materialized in person.
Yesterday I had a nice chat with Dan Kammen. We shared notes on what we are doing and rekindled our conversation which began a year ago with Low2No. Also met Khaled Awad briefly- was good to finally connect with one of the driving forces behind Masdar. Lastly, but not least, it was a real pleasure to spend some quality time with Peter Sharratt. Trained as an architect, frustrated with the object obsession the profession has developed, now working in the strategic systems/decision making space… he gets it! He is also very insightful about the global opportunities of the Masdar model. Look forward to seeing him in London soon and continuing our partnership around Low2No.
On a more cursory note: my stay in Abu Dhabi was a bit brief, but it's always exciting to be in a new culture/country. There is a real underlying beauty to this place that is challenged by a new physical and cultural layer that has been built in minutes. The challenge here seems to be how to build a future without losing track of the rich heritage and culture that is embedded here. We are talking about finding a balance between the 10 years of new, versus the thousands of years of old.
Aside from the summit, business continues as the usual whirlwind of activities. Had great talk with Darrel Rhea, a friend who is acting as an advisor to HDL, reviewing what we are working on. Hanna was looking at storefront spaces in the city for one of our HDL experiments, Minna was researching catering and cost cuts in the City of Helsinki (interesting combination but they're separate issues), Bryan visited TEM, and with the time difference Justin is working with Adriel and Ezra on the Challenge Briefings at this very moment. We're working on securing our keynote speakers for September as well as a few very busy guests. And…. our team just expanded: we are joined by the talents of Seungho Lee, Masters student at the School of Art and Design (now part of Aalto University). From Korea, to Helsinki, to HDL. Welcome aboard!
I’m on my way to a meeting, so forgive me for the haste with which I jot down the start of an idea (I’ll expand later, but this is too important to start later).
We had an inspirational morning in Bangalore today. One of them was with Poonam Bir Kasturi and her team at the Daily Dump project. This is an amazing project driven by a critical issue: Sustainability. While the term is growing with “cult-like” popularity, most of the airtime being given is from a 30,000 feet perspective. Poonam’s team is deeply rooted in the complexity of the problem as it confronts daily life. The focus is on waste, tackling it from a composting perspective through a systematic design approach that is rooted in meaning, culture and economic realities. This is not a “deep dive” into the problem, but rather a powerful example of how design is being applied to create real social innovation by re-designing its value chain (sorry, I hate this business term, but you get what I mean).
Over a wonderful lunch, we discussed many issues primarily focusing on design innovation, the team’s “subversive” way of redefining problem boundaries, and culture…. seems like our discussions, almost without exception, end with the question of culture.
I have many thoughts racing through my mind as I realize my growing skepticism for what I would call “board room innovation”. Back on this topic and Poonam’s work shortly…
Hong Kong is a great window onto the future…..and yesterday we caught a glimpse of it courtesy of Lorraine Justice, Martin Smith, and Babette Strausse. As Bryan mentioned one of the topics we converged on was Design Education. I think that at the end of the day, design’s greatest value proposition is in its education.
It has always been with great dismay that I have had to acknowledge how little we invest in the art of teaching this most valuable asset. My first experience teaching (which is just about universal with anyone who has taught) is that I was simply thrown into the classroom and expected to swim. After all if one designs, one must know how to teach it, right? Well, try again… not really (actually far from it)….. So it was wonderfully refreshing to hear Lorraine and Marty talk about their investment into the art of teaching (take a look at the Design School’s Education program- I think this is very visionary work). And Lorraine, you have to write about your insights on this topic!
But how much of an audience is there for design education? Well we have the professions we serve, the growing businesses community that is awakening to design.…. and more fundamentally, a growing base of decision makers who need better strategic tools to confront an ever growing complex world. This is all on top of an exploding developing market of design education. Lorraine spoke with great clarity and vision about our changing global landscape, and the reality is shocking. Here’s a fact I’ll leave unanswered: guess how many new design schools are emerging in China? And it does not end there…. the thirst for the innovation process called design is insatiable, and well… you can see how that puts a critical lens on the design question of “how do we prepare those who teach design to be effective?”
Our education discussion posed another interesting question (its late so I’ll leave this one unanswered too): given the same innovation process, will all cultures innovate the same way? What kinds of cultures will spur what kind of innovation?
I think the challenge for countries that are homogenous, obedient, consensus driven, highly structured, and/or risk adverse (this describes Finland in many ways) is that the environment may color the kind of innovation that can be leveraged. A process alone is not enough. China’s culture will shape the kind of innovation it will prepare its students for… my guess would be that it will prepare great incremental innovators, but will have a hard time with those innovations that need a higher level of re-thinking, critique, and counter-culture perspective. Finland too, will have an innovation challenge. While it has the right ecosystem for innovation, its challenge will be to create the right conditions for thinking differently in a consensus driven culture.
One of the things I did today was spent some real quality time with Jan Wahlberg, Minister Counsellor at the Finnish Embassy in Tokyo discussing Japan, its culture, and questions of design and national competitiveness. Despite being in a world of new characters, I’m surprised by how accessible Tokyo is.
Mmm. Breakfast.
There are few cultures that have engrained design as deeply and to such a high degree than the Japanese. It’s hard not to notice that everything you touch and see has been carefully planned and developed: shapes; colors; packaging; food; buttons; gadgets; signs; and tickets. And it does not stop there, rather it permeates to all aspects of culture and behavior. There is an astounding sense of coherence, of one voice. It would be simplistic to suggest that the Japanese are somehow born with a more acute sense of the aesthetic; that they possess a unique “design” gene. Rather, this coherence and refinement is a reflection of its culture.
Finland is not dissimilar in certain regards, especially when it comes to the “one voice”. Finland is a small country (this -actually- being the biggest difference with Japan), with a high degree of literacy, and a very homogenous culture. Decision making in this context is, relatively speaking, easy. I think this is something that we will want to leverage at our next Helsinki Design Lab. It will enable us to prototype ideas that require systemic change.
But I’m also wondering how much of a liability can this “one voice” be. In this context there tends to be less need for discussion; fewer points of contention; less angles on an issue… so the danger is that rather than expand, the collective understanding contracts. This in turn may limit the ability to find the space for innovation, to think and see differently. So how does a national innovation strategy in a “one voice” context differ from that in other contexts?
What is a Milan tram doing in San Francisco? Well the simple answer is that they bought & brought it over. But the more fundamental question is one of identity: how could such an iconic American city have such an iconic Italian tram? Can two distinct national identities coexist?
One way design has been leveraged is as a differentiating tool. First to shape products, then to shape brands, and - in the best cases - ultimately leveraged to shape national identities. We do have, after all, distinct expectation about German, Italian or Scandinavian design. Each one conjures up a specific value system, a way of living… an ideology. I have friends from all corners of the world who have a more “Italian” temperament, or a more “Scandinavian” attitude.
Today, ideas, people, and opportunities move and mix at unprecedented rates. In this global world San Francisco may more in common with Milan than it has with Nebraska or rural West Virginia. As I prepare to head out to Tokyo today I am left wondering if the differences in the world outweigh their similarities. Will national boundaries continue to define the boundaries of competiveness? If not, what is the role of national innovation policies and of design as “differentiator”?
Innovation during these hard economic times is not for the weak. Sure, it has become a popular term, but few understand it better than Darrel Rhea, CEO of Cheskin. For one simple reason: Darrel does not just talk and sell innovation, he actually walks the talk. He actually knows how to innovate, and he has a track record that would make most of our jaws drop. But what does “innovation” look like during these hard times?
Darrel and I spent the afternoon today in San Francisco, talking about design and the changing “innovation” landscape. It’s clear that companies are panicking, and with panic comes a nervousness and antsyness for immediate results. The appetite for the upfront investment, and the calm and focused mindset necessary to carry it out… well that seems to be all but gone. I think we should hand over our businesses to firemen. I’ve never seen anyone more calm and collected, than a fireman dealing with an emergency. Staying focused helps you make better decisions. Isn’t innovation about getting you to a better place? About making better decision? While I understand that companies are scrambling for cash, it seems foolish that they jettison their calm during the time that they need it the most.
So what will be the effect of the stimulus package on innovation? While undoubtedly it will help stimulate opportunities we also need to be mindful not to throw too much and expect that it will resolve our problems. In some places cash helps, in others it’s like fuel to a fire. There is no better way to kill early innovations than by throwing too much at it. What works in a small, informal setting will get obliterated when expectations grow too fast and too much; when there is more organization that content. It’s like overwatering a seedling. I’m starting to think that the stimulus package really needs a designer…..
On Tuesday, Obama spoke about the budget. He outlined its central role in redefining areas critical for the US’s future competitiveness: Education; Healthcare; and Energy. While these issue all have tangible, measurable daily meaning to us, the term “budget” is rather abstract. A budget is no more than the overall organization of expenditure, or is it?
Today I met with David of the Institute for Responsible Investment and we had a very interesting discussion. I find it fascinating to delve into the intersection between financial issues and social values. In addition to the traditional argument of competitiveness, Obama’s speech had strong threads regarding the need to “do good”. But what is – in a broader sense- the connection between expenditure and social good? How can we see that these resources are organized, injected, and accounted for in ways that help promote broader social values? How does a corporation that wants to “do good” in terms of sustainability see and measure its ROI in these terms? These are multidimensional, complex issues that will require synthesis.
In all of this the question of how, and what, you measure will be critical. What will our “next generation” indicators look like? I think design has a role in shaping many of these questions.
Today I spent time with the research team at the Helen Hamlyn Centre in London. Stunning work looking at applying design to bring innovation in healthcare (one of many areas of focus): Maya gave us an overview of their low cost disposable surgical tools; Johnny talked about their resus-station; Sally showed the graphic design of injectable medicines; Rob walked me through their Smartpods. All stellar work, well worth a study!
While the tangible outputs of their work were great design solutions, the real jewel is the process. Much of our discussion focused on an innovation cycle that does not stop at concepts, but pushes it beyond to implementation. When we talk about healthcare getting all the right stakeholders, identifying key champions, finding the right funding (money, after all, does not come without strings attached!), framing the problem productively, keeping focus, having the right stewardship…. well, it’s not easy. And it does not happen overnight. But this is a design process that enables the design solution to shine.
The great challenge today is not so much great ideas, but implementing great ideas. In an age where risk is a risky proposition, being able to demonstrate that a new way of framing problems (through design) leads to better solutions is critical. But without an innovation process that spans the continuum of inception to implementation it’s hard to make the ROI argument…. because there is no return!
Design is perhaps best described as “pattern recognition”. Today I met with Zary and his colleagues at Wireless@KTH in Stockholm. At lunch we talked about the barriers to innovation in the wireless sector and suddenly I caught onto a pattern. Many design communities define the “consumer” differently as they have diverse cycles of innovation… it’s not rocket science, but sometimes it’s the small revelations that help make our world a little more coherent.
The “consumer” question gets a different answer depending on who you ask. In the product world you do consumer research, figure out what people want, and then design for that need. In architecture, who knows who the consumer will be 50 years from now? And if it’s a public building, by nature it defies any single profile but rather must be inclusive of anyone and anything. These two design communities, while related, have fundamental difference. Same goes with device and infrastructure communities in the wireless sector. The device world is consumer focused, churning products on a quarterly rate; the infrastructure world on a 50 year trajectory providing needs that have yet to be defined. But what happens when consumer services require both aspects to be coordinated & integrated?
What happens when the appliance providers need to work with the architecture providers to create a sustainable living solution?
Off to London now, were I look forward to meeting up with Rama and his colleagues. Nothing like good people over a good meal!
In a few days we’re starting the Almost Grand Tour of 10 cities in 10 days to reconnect with some familiar faces from Helsinki Design Lab 2008 and make some new friends too. This is one of many ways for us to start developing HDL 2010. We’re thinking of Helsinki Design Lab 2010 as a crucible for strategic design on the global scale, so what better way to start than to visit designers around the planet and see what they’re up to?
My travels will take me to Stockholm, London, Boston, San Francisco, Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangalore, and back to Helsinki. Along with my colleagues Bryan, Minna, and Pia (who are each joining me on various stops) we’ll be updating this blog daily with some reflections on the trip and the people we meet.
Helsinki Design Lab 2010 is still a ways off, but we’re getting started early and thought that some of you may want to get a peek into organizing a global event like this. Where better to start than introducing ourselves?
I joined Sitra, The Finnish Innovation Fund, as Director of Strategic Design last August. For the past 10 years I’ve also been an Associate Professor at the Harvard Design School, where I am currently on leave. While at Harvard my work focused on healthcare system design and sustainability issues for small and medium-sized enterprises .
Here at Sitra I head the Strategic Design & Networks team. While I was adamant about adopting the term “strategic design” I also recognize the potential downside to this word combo… design means everything and nothing. And strategy… well that seems to color everything worthy of attention these days! Putting linguistics aside, I think strategic design is important because it describes what we do (I hope!) and it reframes the word “design” in a more competitive context, which is critical if design is to be understood as a valuable asset. If you’re reading this blog, chances are you already value design as a way of thinking. At Sitra I’m working to make sure that designers have not only the interest in involving themselves with strategic decision making, but also the opportunity.
But why the term “Strategic Design,” you may ask? Design requires the integration of multiple deep knowledge sets; visualization of complex multidimensional problems; and the ability to synthesize conflicting views, data points, and opinions in hopes of developing a holistic understanding so that we can create better and more complete answers to our problems. Traditionally design has been used to help shape better objects (a phone, cup, car). At Sitra my team is using design to help shape better decisions.
I think the bottleneck with today’s large scale challenges (such as health care, the environment, education, justice) is that we don’t even know how to think about them. We all know that heath care is a problem… but what exactly is the issue and how do we make operable something so large and messy? Strategic design helps us ask the right questions and shape decision-making towards more complete and holistic solutions. Better vision leads to better solutions… this is our hope.