Questions Issues

So on September 14, 2011 I had a chance to explore these issues. I joined a discussion along with 30 other people led by Dr. Peter Jones at Design with Dialogue that asked “Can a powerful question change the world?” We started our discussion with the question “What question is burning to be asked in your life right now?” Although simple enough, we wondered how this question worked for us and spent some time doing other exercises before we explored it further.

During the DwD session we practiced different methods of exploring the impact of what powerful questions could produce. The session was divided into three separate challenges. The first one was called the question game, in which participants engaged in conversations that were entirely made from questions. The second challenge was to look carefully at the process and practice of asking questions. The third and final challenge was to explore how questions might direct a purposeful, intended response.

The first challenge was particularly interesting. Only asking questions to continue a conversation is incredibly difficult, and I might add, awkward. As performed in this exercise it literally hurt our brains. Sometimes as a participant I found this method of conversation argumentative or even aggressive. It sometimes felt that the other person was not listening and you wanted to shut the conversation down. On the other hand — and depending upon the other person involved — the conversation became silly. In some ways, not having to answer the questions took the pressure off because you didn’t have to be the expert or the one with the answer. One person noted, “It’s almost like two magnets pushing against each other.”

The second challenge was broken down into three other questions:
1. What is the function of the question?
2. What is the effect of a question on the person being asked?
3. What kinds of questions have potential to engage a better experience?

Albeit not as silly as the first challenge it became apparent that there are many facets to fully understanding questions. For example, when characterizing the question being asked we sometimes look at the energy or enthusiasm of the person asking, the scale of the real problem being addressed or even the age of a person taking the lead. For instance, if the person is younger there might be more time to solve the issue, whereas, if that person is older they might have more knowledge to bear. Questions might be mere inquiries, examinations or research. They might be asked in an exclusionary or an inclusive way, and depending on how we view the question it will affect how we answer. There were many more ideas that came out of this challenge, too many to mention but it suffices to say that these were simple questions that produced a lively debate. By the end of this challenge it was obvious how creatives could better use this knowledge to build better opportunities with their clients.

Dialogue sketch composed by Patricia Kambitsch.

The third challenge produced a plethora of ‘post it notes’ that covered many different questions from the audience as noted in the picture are below.

Specific powerful questions

Questioning myself

In the end I realized the most important thing to do is ask the right question. Far too many people have an answer already in mind when they ask, or the question they ask is too vague. I know in the future the way I ask and the way someone responds is something I will be looking at more carefully.

KAOSPilot’s Intelligent Ecology

Uffe gave us only a quick synopsis about KAOSPilot and referenced it as a school whose purpose is to ‘create positive societal change through personal growth and enterprise’. He also gave us a small diagram on where he believes KAOSPilot is situated. This he calls ‘The Intelligent Ecology’.

But for the majority of his talk Uffe Elbaek led a frank discussion for three hours on his experience of birthing an extremely large and socially sensitive project from point zero to fruition in a condensed time line of only two and a half years. During this time Uffe had to not only deal with the many third parties involved, such as the political organizations, vendors, sponsors, and citizens of the city of Copenhagen but also the very basics of putting together a team from scratch. I mention this because when he started the team it was only one person deep – himself. As the key organizer he had to start by resolving some of the key issues such as time, money and people. Was there enough time to get this event off the ground, was there enough money to support the event and who were the people that would support and participate in the Games to make them a success.

He viewed all these questions as if he was forging long-term relationships with every stakeholder that he encountered. He wanted his team to become the nucleus of a communications hub for lively two way discussions and not just a central hub where directives were given. He encouraged the organizational structure to help strengthen conversations between the stakeholders themselves. This he believed helped augment the stakeholders’ relationships within the greater Games community.

Because of his belief in openness Uffe didn’t start this undertaking with his own concept of what the Games should be but instead he developed a plan of action that he calls the ‘Dehok Project Model’.

It starts with the ‘idea’ and ends up with the ‘how’ – how to implement. You will of course notice in the diagram that the ‘concept’ does not get recognized until the ‘need, purpose and value’ get realized. As a side note he quoted a common saying in Denmark for ‘purpose’ which I will have to paraphrase: “Your purpose must be so succinct you can pee it in the snow”. (this one I will always remember)

Uffe believes that the Dehok model is useful to combat what he calls the ‘Project Paradox’, whereby most projects start with an ‘end date’ but very little accumulated knowledge with which to make proper decisions. Here the goal is to compress the gap between the decision and knowledge curve as best as possible.

The Dehok model allows the core team to realize an open outcome rather than a predestined one because it indulges varied experiences to manage change. More specifically, this model does not focus on the final concept but instead encourages the team to focus on a consensus allowing them to work together in an atmosphere containing less internal conflict. He believes, as do I (and most of us I imagine), that a cohesive team structure is best united to solve a set of problems when they all believe in their common goals. This process starts with an idea but consistently appreciates the requisite variety of ideas that develops through different personalities. Of course the end goal is a mutually beneficial outcome.

This talk was one of the better more comprehensive ones that I have ever been to. My suggestion would be to go see him if you have the opportunity. Thanks Uffe.

The other week the following question was asked of the group: “What does (a) design(er) offer to a process of transformational change?” As a group of individuals we spent some time writing down our independent thoughts about this question on post-it notes and then pooled our ideas on a wall. We each talked briefly about our ideas and then afterwards our group attempted to coalesce our results into a minimal number of unnamed but broadly defined categories.

Results

These results are uneditied and in their raw form taken from the post-it notes.

Group A
Open Mind
Deep Listening
Overcoming the fear
Space to challenge assumptions

Group B
Cross Discipline
Fresh Perspective
Consensus

Group C
Inclusive
Collaborative
Different Perspectives
Collaboration

Group D
Make Decisions
Curration
Intuitive
Efficient Organization of Ideas
Analysis
Understanding of when to keep going and when to leave it alone

Group E
Work optimally within constraints
Functional Solutions
Constraints can be operational or creative

Group F
Appropriation/Adaptation
Ideas can be borrowed and adapted

Group G
No Starting Point
Sense of Randomness
Divergence then Convergence
Adapt to the Unexpected
Welcome emergence
Explode it open then narrow it back

Group H
Contextualize
Synthesize

Group I
Iteration
Refine, review, refine, review

Group J
Elegant
Esthetics
Harmony

Group K
“Simplexity”
Make it clear, coherent and comprehendible
Feels effortless
Clarity

Group L
Multiple formats of presentation
Give Ideas Context
Communicate for mutual understanding and progress
Tell ideas as stories
Illustrative explanations

After inspecting this list I can say we failed at keeping the groups down to a minimum, but I think the content of the list speaks volumes about how design can help create solutions to issues. Too often we think of design as an end result but it should be part of the conversation that helps us evolve better solutions. Just as it is a designer’s job to create something worth taking notice of, when applied properly, the process of design can help concepts or ideas be more readily understood.