Sharing knowledge Archives - Osmos2022 https://osmosnetwork.com/tag/sharing-knowledge/ Wed, 30 Nov 2022 15:36:20 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 https://osmosnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Artboard-7-150x150.png Sharing knowledge Archives - Osmos2022 https://osmosnetwork.com/tag/sharing-knowledge/ 32 32 Planning with empathy: Tools to guide complex design processes https://osmosnetwork.com/planning-with-empathy-tools-to-guide-complex-design-processes/ https://osmosnetwork.com/planning-with-empathy-tools-to-guide-complex-design-processes/#respond Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:51:23 +0000 https://osmosnetwork.com/?p=6680 /// Reflection
Spatial design and territorial planning is increasingly confronted by complex challenges that could
be mitigated through a service oriented approach to design.

The post Planning with empathy: Tools to guide complex design processes appeared first on Osmos2022.

]]>

/// Publication

Sharing knowledge

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:

Portfolio

Publication

Reflection

Further reading

 

References:

Cox, C.L. et al (2012) The balance between feeling and knowing: affective and cognitive empathy are reflected in the brain’s intrinsic functional dynamics, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 7, Issue 6, August 2012, Pages 727–737

 

Lino, C. & Bazoli, G. (2020) The trouble with Personas, https://www.designit.com/stories/point-of-view/mindset-over-matter-part-one blog post accessed 28/8/2022.

 

Stickdorn, M. & Schneider, J. (ed) 2011 This is Service Design Thinking, BIS Publishers, Amsterdam.

The post Planning with empathy: Tools to guide complex design processes appeared first on Osmos2022.

]]> https://osmosnetwork.com/planning-with-empathy-tools-to-guide-complex-design-processes/feed/ 0 Stakeholder mapping with the Pentahelix https://osmosnetwork.com/pentahelix/ Tue, 12 Jul 2022 09:47:03 +0000 https://osmos2022.avhill.opalstacked.com/?p=1402 /// Tool
Observing the crowd before getting on stage. Tool: Pentahelix stakeholder mapping

The post Stakeholder mapping with the Pentahelix appeared first on Osmos2022.

]]>

/// Tool

Sharing knowledge

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:

Portfolio

Publication

Reflection

About the tool

The post Stakeholder mapping with the Pentahelix appeared first on Osmos2022.

]]> Revisiting the role of a bridging actor https://osmosnetwork.com/revisiting-the-role-of-a-bridging-actor/ Mon, 05 Sep 2022 20:38:35 +0000 https://osmosnetwork.com/?p=5239 /// Case study
Complex projects depend on good facilitators. Publication: Bridges to Local Economies

The post Revisiting the role of a bridging actor appeared first on Osmos2022.

]]>

/// Case study

Sharing knowledge

Complex projects depend on good facilitators.

After a decade working on local economic development, we reflect on a project that helped to launch Osmos. The multi-disciplinary methodology and tools that emerged from this project have survived well and since have been refined and adapted. However, the case studies used in the project have evolved considerably and we reflect on how the transition from idea to action could have been more effectively executed.

The TURaS (Transitioning towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability) project, financing through the European FP7 programme between 2011-2016, to address the increasing challenge to accommodate more than 50% of the world’s population in cities while also addressing climate and environmental issues. The project involved researchers, local authorities and business partners from 16 cities in 11 different European countries. It explored new transition strategies for European cities to build resilience and sustainability and reduce their urban ecological footprints.

 

In Rotterdam, Stuttgart and London, the focus was on flood mitigation and stormwater management. In Brussels, Rome and Seville, the focus was on sustainable local businesses. In Dublin and Nottingham, the focus was on activating derelict sites to increase urban biodiversity and improve urban community life. We worked on a couple of fascinating issues such as the concept of a Community Interest Company, temporary use and product-systems services. The results of our work was a guide called “Bridges to Local Economies: Strategies for place and community based economies”.

Publication

Project: Transitions for Urban Resilience and Sustainability – TURaS

Funding: European Commission Framework Period 7 (FP7)

Year: 2011-2016

Partners included: University College Dublin, University of East London, Bruxelles Environnement | Leefmilieu Brussel, Cita Metropolitana di Roma, ProMalaga, Bioazul, BIC Lazio, European Business and Innovation Centre, Climate Alliance, Helix Pflanzen

Overall budget: € 8 869 490.70

Location: Europe

Team: Adrian Hill, Stephan Kampelmann

Sector: Ecosystems, public space & community, production

Services: Vision, process management, sharing knowledge, engagement

What is a bridging actor?

The guide presented the role of a bridging actor as a mediator between places, people and local resources. The role could include facilitating, moderating, care-taking, programming, developing visions and a range of other responsibilities. We kept the specific definition open as the context of the project or problem will ultimately define what role does.

This kind of role has generally been poorly defined or in many cases problem owners (be they public authorities, businesses, research agencies and universities or community organisations) struggle to find the right organisation to support them in dealing with complex community- or place-based problems. Often architects, urban planners or engineers are commissioned, yet they are professions that are poorly trained in process management and complexity. Accountancy and business consultancy experts are also often targeted but they often lack design skills to explore solutions unique to the local context. We therefore considered it important for this guide to flesh out skills and capacities that a bridging actor could offer to address complex place-based problems.

 

The role of the bridging actor is by no means new. However, over the last decade, we’ve seen increasing interest in it. Human-centred design and services design are emerging branches of design that are helping offer skills to both spatial designers and business and finance experts. In 2015, when the guide was written, ‘Design Thinking’ was a trending within business circles and progressive parts of the public sector to empower designers and non-designers with design techniques emerging from sociology and psychology.

 

In reflection, since the guide was written, we do not see a radical increase in the demand for ‘bridging actors’. However, we do see a large increase in the acceptance of complexity and a shift towards adaptive governance and prototyping. We have also seen an increasing interest in participation, engagement and inclusion in projects of all types. This is positive news, yet the bridging actor still remains a useful figure that is rarely stipulated in contracts or tenders.

Bridging strategies, are they still relevant?

In the guide, we presented four bridging strategies:

 

  1. Connection between elements and the system
  2. Cooperation between pioneers and the establishment
  3. Alignment of particular and common interests
  4. Collaboration between communities and entrepreneurs
 

These four examples portrayed what a bridging actor would do in theory. We have found that in practice, projects are far too messy to fit into clean boxes. These four bridging strategies are helpful in showing the diversity of conditions but are less useful in the field.

Is the process methodology still relevant?

The bridging actor is not just a person or team, we considered it to be a service. In 2015 we developed a methodology that we considered suitable to support the bridging process, what we called the ‘transversal planning process’. The process consisted of seven-nine steps, depending on the type of project. This process served us, as a team, to structure and follow projects. But in retrospect, the process was far too challenging to convince clients and many partners to use it as it appeared too complex.

 

As our repertoire of design tools broadened, the ‘Double Diamond’ became our go-to methodology. This methodology, developed by the UK Design Council in 2004 and common in the realm of industrial and services design, offers both a simple yet profound way to communicate design founded on research and allowing for flexibility and adaptability. The methodology was remarkably similar to our transversal planning process that we developed before we discovering the double diamond. With so many variations of the Double Diamond process, we felt the need to make some adaptations. We settled on six steps which we use either as an internal guide for project management or to help aligning partners.

How have the tools evolved?

The guide included four tools that we developed and are still in use. Most of our projects begin with stakeholder mapping involving the ‘Pentahelix’. We have linked this tool with others such as personas and power-interest maps. The second tool, the ‘Chart of Emotions’ (what was called ‘Back to the Future’ in the guide) is another tool that we use to kick off almost every project and have found this incredibly powerful to learn about people’s interests. The ‘Project-Environment Canvas’ (called in the guide ‘The Vision Dashboard’) is used regularly during the Define phase of a project and helps with reframing the scope. Finally, the ‘Dialectic’ is a tool that is used less often and mostly when dealing with mediation.

How have the case-studies evolved?

The guide presented ten case-studies to illustrate how the bridging role could be applied in practice. Almost a decade later, it is high time to revisit where they have evolved. Of the ten, it is useful to highlight the five physical case studies that were largely facilitated or driven by public authorities.

 

The Brussels Crown Barracks and Studio C were cases involving significant public and private finance and where momentum has helped to push the projects forward and be realised however the role of the bridging actor had different outcomes. In Crown Barracks (now called USquare), a public development agency took over this role and helped ‘develop’ the project, which by all intents and purposes has been considered successful due to a well attended temporary use activation process. Studio C has had a similar development process, albeit much slower and the role of the bridging actor during the planning stage was given to a private real-estate agency that was poorly equiped in dealing with the community or transition processes.

 

The Barking Riverside Community Interest Company was launched by development agency, a public private organisation. It remained limited in its community building capacity and independence and therefore the community has struggled to embrace it. Regardless, with pressure from London’s housing market, development is continuing and is resulting in community building activities which has been triggered by development conditions.

 

Two other projects, the Parco Agricolo Casal del Marmo and the Solfatara di Manziana have had a very different fate. These two projects evolved little since 2015. In both cases, there was political will and interest yet no budget set aside to kick-start the process and little long-term alignment with other public and private agencies, which were waiting for financing to emerge. Likewise, there was interest from the private sector to invest, however the bridging actor in both cases struggled to deal with the bureaucracy in building public-private partnerships. For both projects, the bridging actor lacked political and financial capital to get the ball rolling and likewise was unexperienced in developing large projects.

In conclusions, what are the right conditions for the bridging actor?

These are four takeaways for the role of the bridging actor.

 

  1. The bridging actor should be buy-in from critical stakeholders and actors. Not every organisation, be it public or private, needs to be signed up but there should be enough momentum and commitment to ensure the project can be developed or problems can be addressed. If there is not enough engagement, the process should be stopped. This should not be considered a failure as it could save a lot of time and resources in the long-term.
  2. The bridging actor should be seen as independent. Even if the bridging actor is engaged (paid) by one of the stakeholders, it is important that the bridging actor has sufficient independence and neutrality to be trusted and not feel uncomfortable about pointing to the elephant in the room.
  3. Avoid jumping to conclusions. The bridging process must reveal a sufficient understanding of the project or problem before looking for solutions. To avoid remaining vague, it is useful to regularly synthesise and summarise input.
  4. Complex projects do not need complicated processes. The bridging actor must retain the role of facilitator and present a clear process and goals. However, the process should also be adapted if it is not serving its purpose. Avoid confusion about the process at all costs!

See more insights:

Portfolio

Publication

Reflection

Further reading

The post Revisiting the role of a bridging actor appeared first on Osmos2022.

]]>