Public space & community Archives - Osmos2022

Planning with empathy: Tools to guide complex design processes

Julia Rocha — Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:51:23 +0000

/// Publication

Public space & community

Spatial design and territorial planning is increasingly confronted by complex challenges that could be mitigated through a service oriented approach to design.

Service design is a growing discipline that helps transform how products, services and digital experiences are delivered. Spatial design disciplines, such as urbanism and architecture, have much to gain from these methods and approaches – offering constructive ways to deal with complexity and deliver projects well suited to end-users. Should spatial and service design be combined or treated as two distinct and complementary segments of design that can help cities improve health and well-being?

The design of spaces, goods and services

Service design is a growing discipline which has helped transform how products, services and digital experiences are delivered. Spatial planning and design have much to gain from these methods and approaches, to address complexity and render projects more connected to end-users. Service design has relatively recently emerged as a discipline and remains a convergence of industrial design, graphic design, sociology, psychology, business administration and other domains. With roots in the growth of service-based economies from the 1950’s, experiences were increasingly treated as a product that could be designed. By the 1970’s, services were increasingly built into physical products, resulting in product-based services and service-based products. Understanding how an ‘end-user’ engaged with a product or service helped drive a radically different approach to design whereby products or services are constantly tested or prototyped to validate the outcome before it is launched onto the market (Stickdorn & Schneider 2011).

Spatial planning functions on a very different scale and timeframe than the design of many products and services. For example, a website can take weeks or months from design to implementation, while a spatial plan can take years or decades. Service design has been slow to be adopted in spatial design projects due in part to the new skills required and possibly because it is treated as unnecessary or a distraction. Examples of alignment of spatial and service design focused largely on institutional projects such as hospitals or infrastructure such as airports.

Publication

2022 ISOCARP conference in Brussels

Case study: Rue Haute

Year: 2022

Authors:

Adrian Vickery Hill, Laurens Van der Cruyssen, Peter-Willem Vermeersch (Archipelago / KU Leuven), Jo Van Hees (Archipelago)

Location: Brussels

Team: Adrian Hill, Laurens Van der Cruyssen

Sector: Public space & community

Services: Vision, sharing knowledge, engagement

The case study project

The Site Haute social housing site consists of a little over 200 apartments and once housed some 400-450 people. The eight buildings were built largely between the 1950’s and 1970’s and consists of 5-13 storey modernist style blocks surrounding two public squares. The site contains a number of outdated or under-used spaces. It contains a space dedicated to a crèche on the 13th storey of the tallest building, an activity which has since been considered inappropriate. There are various shops and communal spaces, which have become degraded or are difficult to use. It also contains public spaces which are regularly inhabited by youth from the neighbourhood, resulting in anti-social behaviour.

The complex is owned and managed by the City of Brussels’ social housing agency, Logement Bruxellois / Woning Brussel, and is one of various housing complexes in the neighbourhood under management by the housing service which is currently undergoing renovation. The site is located in Les Marolles (FR) / De Marollen (NL), one of Brussels’ densest, poorest, yet most diverse and vibrant neighbourhoods.

In 2022, a team involving Brussels based practitioners from four practices (archipelago, Office U, Osmos Network and Tractabel) were commissioned to conduct a feasibility study for the site.

Four quadrants of design

Spatial design and services design are complementary but share different traits which make it hard to expect a design to practice simultaneously from the mindset of a spatial design and a services or any other form of design.

One way to look at distinctions in design disciplines is through Richard Buchanan’s 1992 seminal paper titled “Four Classes of Design”, where he highlighted the need to consider complexity in design. Building on this concept, it is possible to plot various design disciplines across two axes.

Design with empathy

Empathy is a term used regularly within service design to stress that there is a focus on understanding the needs of the end-user. Empathy can be distinguished by cognitive empathy (imagining and seeing through one’s eyes) and affective empathy (being able to feel similar feelings to those experienced by someone else). Both cognitive and affective empathy have a reflexive impact on the designer as it changes the way one perceives a situation (Cox et al 2012). The designer thus becomes a medium for the needs of the end-user. In service design, the design brief is often contested during the research phase and reframed. The outcomes may not be clear from the outset, problems may be addressed in a wide range of ways – through a service, through the development of a tool or a space.

Spatial design approaches problems from a different cognitive perspective, whereby space is a medium to address the design brief. The scope, brief or budget of spatial design is often well defined.

Case study experience

Analysis phase: Designing for a population of 400-500 people can be extremely challenging, especially for a site containing a diverse population. One of the key outcomes from the service design process is a collection of personas and user-journeys which are tools to help designers empathise with the end-users.

In this project a total of nine personas were created. The personas revealed issues and opportunities that may not have emerged through the interviews or analysis phase. For example, the persona of a concierge was made. In practice the project has been without a concierge for many years. The concierge’s persona revealed questions around the need for this role and larger governance on the site. Another outcome came from the need of communal space within the site to build community. This had been identified by the housing agency and other stakeholders. The personas offered a nuanced insight into what kinds of spaces would be needed. Personas and user-journeys have their limitations and suffer critique (Lino & Basoli 2020), but they remain a valuable tool if interpreted by an experienced practitioner.

Scenario delevopment phase:This phase focused on developing and testing scenarios.

Before the scenarios were developed, the personas were presented to the spatial designers. This gave the spatial designers a chance to ask specific questions that could be elaborated or role-played by the service designer. Through representing the personas, it was possible to consider nuanced design solutions.

Concept development phase: This phase, unrealised at the time of writing, involves combining aspects of each of the scenarios into a masterplan project.

This selected scenario will be tested through a focus group. Considering that focus groups will involve a wide variety of participants, some with very poor literacy skills of classic design tools (such as plans and models) it is important to identify issues that are of value. Empathy with the outcomes of the analysis and personas can help identify those issues that will generate useful dialogue.

Consolidation phase: At this phase, the two forms of design consolidated the outcomes of the project in very different ways. The spatial designers wrapped up their work in the form of conceptual plans, tables and even visualisations of the results. The service design focused on how to communicate the outcome with the stakeholders that were engaged throughout the project.

Reflection – aligning spaces and service

The case study shows the virtue of having a team member or partner that takes responsibility for the service design and helps to interpret the results for the spatial designers. This shows that spatial and service design are best if conducted as parallel or symbiotic elements of a design team in much the same way as an architect would outsource engineering.

As a closing reflection, this case study involved a multi-disciplinary design team, with very complementary skills and an eagerness to collaborate. In practice, the value of service design could be lost or considered overwhelming if the spatial design team or the client is unprepared to embrace the design approach.

See more insights:

Designing means not ends

Julia Rocha — Mon, 29 Aug 2022 19:40:17 +0000

/// Publication

Public space & community

Humanity has a good idea of what a sustainable future looks like, but struggles to get there.

There is no recipe to address complex environmental problems. There are no playbooks to roll back the effects of climate change, to protect urban areas from flooding or to improve biodiversity. Despite having access to innovative solutions, we’re often bogged down by bureaucracy, overwhelmed by change, halted by available resources or lost in complexity. Humanity has a good idea of what a sustainable future looks like, but struggles to get there. Process design can help.

Process design offers concepts, methods and tools to support designers and non-designers take an inclusive approach to address complex problems.

Until recently, design was considered a craft resulting in products or services. Design has been treated as an end, rather than a means, and the design process has been seen as the mysterious art of the designer.

Yet the process of designing can be a vital aid to manage complex or wicked problems, to explore ideas and to open dialogue. Process design offers an inclusive and iterative approach that guides teams or groups of actors to move from analysis and research to ideation and designing to reach meaningful outcomes.

Dealing with complexity means entering into the unknown. Just like an explorer embarking on a new journey, one should depart prepared with the right equipment. This guide has been written to equip practitioners, design teams and project managers with basic process management skills to help become more confident in thinking about both the means and ends of a project.

We developed this guide within the five year Connecting Nature project, supported by the European Commission through Horizon 2020 funding and focused on the practice of Nature-Based Solutions. However it is perfectly applicable to almost any place-based or community oriented problem.

Project: Connecting Nature

Funding: European Commission Horizon 2020

Year: 2017-2022

Partners included: University College Dublin, DRIFT, ICLEI Europe, University of East London, City of Genk, City of Glasgow, City of Poznan, City of A Coruña, ProMalaga (Malaga), City of Burgas, SERDA (Canton of Sarajevo), ANEL (metropolitan area of Nicosia), City of Ioannina, Pavlos Melas (Thessaloniki), University of A Coruña, City of Burgas, Bioazul, Climate Alliance, Helix Pflanzen

Overall budget: € 11 400 000

Location: Europe/ Global

Team: Adrian Hill, Hanne Van Reusel, Julia Rocha, Laurens Van der Cruyssen

Sector: Ecosystems, public space & community, production

Services: Vision, process management

The structure of the guide

The guide provides an introduction to the concept of designing processes (Chapter 1). It presents a case study, the Stiemer Valley in the City of Genk (Belgium), a project focused on embedding Nature-Based Solutions to revitalise a forgotten polluted creek (Chapter 2). The guide introduces a methodology based on the ‘Double Diamond’ process, to provide structure to the process (Chapter 3). It then applies the process to what has happened in Genk, showcasing examples of concrete actions along the six main steps (Chapter 4). Collaboration and engagement do not happen naturally, so we consider conditions for this to happen (Chapter 5). The end of the guide presents a small collection of ten practical tools, ones we think can help anyone to get started (Chapter 6), and we also consider some tips for putting ideas into action (Chapter 7).

Why means justify ends

The guide commits a short section to understanding the DNA of a problem and problem solving. We dust off a few established concepts and introduce a few of our own. For example, it can be useful to gauge the complexity of a problem. The Stacey Matrix offers a very useful, albeit imperfect, discussion tool to establish how a problem is perceived. We present the Edward De Bono’s classic six hats process, that can help to ensure that mindsets help see a problem from different angles. We present the different between stakeholders and end-users, which in many projects can appear self evident but is general poorly explored. We also present an adapted version of the ‘Participation Ladder’ to explain the connection between power and decision-making.

The process of process design

Process design is about the means enabling the ends. Projects, no matter how complex and messy, often follow a similar process of opening (diverging), exploring (emerging) and closing (converging). We have used the ‘Double Diamond’ process, a design methodology that was presented by the UK design council in 2004 and since has been applied readily within the fields or services and human-centred design. The process in the guide is the result of years of practice, translating the double diamond to a simple and easily explainable six steps.

This six step process we use within out team, to align partners and also to communicate with clients or external stakeholders. In many cases, the client or project already has a structure in place. In such cases, to avoid complicating what may already be a complex process, we keep the six steps as an internal process.

Every problem is a nail...

…if the only tool you have is a hammer. There are a vast range of design tools that are very helpful to support design processes. We have included ten examples of tools we consider useful, but these are far from an exhaustive list. It is important that practitioners know the opportunities and limits of thinking tools as they can be very quickly become redundant (read about the Pentahelix tool). In Osmos we have a collection of some 30 odd tools, our go-to tools which are regularly being updated and adapted.

Do I need to be a designer to design processes?

There is a myth that only trained designers are able to deal with design. In some cases this is true – a bridge should be in the hands or a certified engineer and not a lawyer. However, design is a human quality – everyone is making decisions and judgements on a daily basis. We have a natural capacity to structure our reflections and plan ahead, qualities characteristic of the human mind. Therefore, we consider that process design should not be the exclusive domain of the trained designer. Rather, it is a framework for dialogue between actors involved with addressing complex problems.

See more insights:

Stakeholder mapping with the Pentahelix

Julia Rocha — Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:47:03 +0000

/// Tool

Public space & community

Observing the crowd before getting on stage.

Stakeholders mapping is one of the first things we do after kicking off a project. In 2015 we cobbled together a model referred to the Pentahelix, which we find remains incredibly useful. Little information was available when we started to use the model, which forced us to build a theory and practice around it. This article covers the genesis of this model, present some of the main concepts and cover how we use it.

Where does the Pentahelix come from?

The Pentahelix concept builds on two previous innovation focused models: the Triplehelix and the Quadrahelix. It is useful to understand how each model works as they all remain useful means to read stakeholders.

Tool

Sector: Ecosystems, public space & community, production

Services: Vision, process management, engagement, sharing knowledge

Triplehelix

The Triplehelix that can be traced back to post second World War technical innovation, noting the importance links between knowledge, industry and the public sector. This trilogy of actors are rather obvious and co-dependent. The public sector uses its tax base to finance knowledge institutions to develop fundamental research that is risky and poorly understood. Knowledge institutions (universities and research organisations) explore innovative technologies, materials and processes. The business sector commercialises them. To close the loop, the public sector reaps the rewards through taxes. Smart-phones would have remained a caricature on Star Trek and never revolutionised the communications industry had it not been for public research investment.

“The Triple Helix thesis is that the potential for innovation and economic development in a Knowledge Society lies in a more prominent role for the university and in the hybridisation of elements from university, industry and government to generate new institutional and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge.” University of Stanford’s Triple Helix research group*.

In other words, knowledge requires firstly the public sector to support experimentation and R+D, taking an almost blind risk that businesses would never make. Likewise, it needs the public sector to develop the conditions or demands for innovation – particularly in terms of communications, transport and resources. The military is a good example of this, that were experimenting with technology appearing decades later in ones smart-phone (yes Steve Jobs owes his gratitude to the military). Once the conditions for experimentation and development are created, the natural remaining partner is business that can find a practical way to release the product to the market.

Quadruplehelix

The Triplehelix is rather generic however if the innovation cares about people, then users must belong to the stakeholder list. The problem with the Triplehelix is that the trilogy assumes they know best for the market. Not everyone wants to have the same plates, clothes or colour television. The late 70’s brought about a wave of the ‘individual collective’ that was hard for both retailers and politicians to account for. Evidently people (consumers) matter. This introduced an additional stream into the helix, the users, thus creating the Quadruplehelix.

The Quadruplehelix is no longer four isolated groups but rather ‘stakeholders’ each have a valuable contribution to be made within an R+D project. The Quadruplehelix brings these actors closer together and has brought the conversation down to the ground. However the fourth dimension, the users, appear to be treated as consumers/users for local business innovation and services rather than genuine partners for co-creation and to build on place based knowledge. It is also a model that is very appealing to the IT industry rather than place-based issues where money and entrepreneurship pose quite different interests.

The penta: from business to complexity

A final step to reach the ‘penta’ is the distinction of capital and business — both represent quite different stakeholders. Business stakeholders are often aggressive, competitive, take risks and are prepared to fail. Capital, including finance and ownership of resources, is much more risk averse and tends to involve small incremental change.

This has meant that the Pentahelix can go far beyond R+D, technology and science and enter into a spatial dimension involving innovative business models, social networks, wicked problems and so on. The Pentahelix is thus an ideal tool for working with complexity and economic models, rather than consumer/market driven business innovation models.

The Pentahelix model as it stands was inspired by a number of tools that we had seen, however when we began to test it there was little literature to reference. More recently environmental projects have embraced the ‘Quintuple Helix’, which we have found to be a useful theoretical concept but much harder to apply in practice (see the original source to the Quintuple Helix here).

Stakeholder interest + relations

Stakeholders that are driven by too many interests can disrupt a project by not being clear about their objectives. But it is impossible to say that you are only interested a few things: we have driving interests and supporting interests. This all is relevant to context. Stakeholders generally prioritise one interest over others. Professional knowledge, career, wealth and home are generally the the strongest interests motivating stakeholders. It is useful to establish what a stakeholders’ professional motivations are and if their personal interests will play a strong role.

A second issue involves stakeholder relations. It is quite normal that stakeholders bring personal or institutional friction that can stifle building positive relationship. Opportunity always creates the most effective bargaining chip — where stakeholders have a perceived sense of gaining, then personal issues can be overlooked and revised.

Stakeholders Vs Actors

Stakeholders generally refer to organisations that are connected to a problem or project out of interest or organisational motive. Stakeholders may not have an inherent interest in a project problem. Actors are those stakeholders that actively partake (with or against) the development of a project.

Projects generally involve coalitions and constellations of different stakeholders and interest groups. Even if there is a relatively good understanding of the stakeholders, the place, problem or timing may result in different levels of interest or engagement. Mapping out stakeholders is therefore an art in curating which actors should be taken into consideration. The Pentahelix is based on five stakeholder types:

Public sector: including administrations and elected officials.
Knowledge sector: most notably organisations focused on expert knowledge.
Businesses: providing business services through material and immaterial goods.
Civil society: the NGO or third sector that is accountable to a community (excluding private lobby groups).
Capital (and finance): which can involve land, finance and the ownership of technology and resources (but not the exploitation).

Actors can fit into more than one category, particularly if they are a large public authority. If this is the case, it is best to define which department is responsible according to the actor type.

As there is no formal way of knowing which are genuinely interested, it is useful to run a mapping exercise during an early project team meeting, where possible with a client or the main project partners.

Stakeholders Vs Actors

The Pentahelix is highly useful, yet imperfect. It is especially relevant at the beginning of a process, as a ‘quick and dirty’ analysis tool, when little is understood about the landscape or stakeholders. It is also very useful for bring the project team together in reflecting which stakeholders are likely to be be affect or further engaged. However, the map can be very synthetic and quickly becomes redundant once the team engages with the stakeholders. Stakeholders rarely fit cleanly into a particular segment. The Pentahelix is certainly useful throughout a project as a reminder of the stakeholders that exist and need to remain engaged.

See more insights: