MakerBot have announced that their Botcave™ Retail Store in Brooklyn will open on November 26th. This is a physical retail space that will retail MakerBotsand Arduinos as well as kits from Adafruit, Evil Mad Science, Jimmie Rodgers, Sparkfun and Liquidware.

This reflects increasingly obvious emergence of retail and commercially focused models growing around open source, crowd-sourcing, social product design and citizen led approaches. [Perhaps better understood as citizen/retail/production models.] Examples include Ponoko, Shapeways, Nervous Systems and perhaps most obviously DOIY and Quirky.com.

Here innovation is observed in the research, design, supply chain, production and distribution mechanisms employed. Quirky, for example, employs crowd sourced (social) product design, research and development. This is complemented by a pull production system, requiring a predetermined level of sales before products are actually produced. This low risk (agile, pull) approach is an interesting development for production and retail of consumer goods.

My research has been looking at models such as these for some time and in doing so I have found many failures and obviously sub-standard models. While it is early for such models it is obvious that Quirky (for one) is something to watch out for.

For the models that didn’t survive or are destined for the retail administration/bankruptcy graveyard I suggest that their primary failings or short comings are related to the client/citizen side interaction, how the citizen/consumer interacts with the model, the effort required, barriers to participation, incentive to participate and a simple lack of consumer awareness.

My forth-coming paper* with Dr. Leon Cruickshank begins to address the client/citizen side of such models through consideration of the role of design as applied to such models. We suggest that through appropriate service design, design of (citizen) processes, provision of toolkits, design or supply of proto-designs** these citizen/retail/production model will be substantially enhanced. (Throw IoT into this mix and we have a perfect storm.)

Retail kids WAKE UP!

>>More to come<<

*SVID 2010
**Related to the known concepts of unfinished, modular and under-design.

“Playbour” is one of those new hybrid words that bored creatives and techno-supremo’s keep brandishing around when talking about all things digital. The catch on and then we’re stuck with them. This one however tells the story of the current emerging superpower of Social Media. A tool that people are only really beginning to understand how to use and exploit.

So, what is “Playbour”? Well, take a pinch of play, throw in a dash of labour and hey presto, you have yourself a nice little oxymoron and the word “Playbour”. These are two polar opposite words. Play by definition means “not work”, work quite obviously means “not play”. But when mixed together, they generate new meaning. A bit like “Military Intelligence” or “Girly Man”. “Playbour” itself refers to a new paradigm in how companies, individuals, organisations and networks can achieve goals and tasks. Think Mechanical Turk, but you don’t have to pay the workers.

As an avid iPhone app downloader, with apps ranging from sports to an autism calculator, from Twitter to banking, yesterday, I came across a new app named Waze. Waze has been billed as a “Social GPS” where users, over time, will score points in return for mapping out roads and traffic. FourSquare meets TomTom. Users can “steamroller” new roads, map road directions, and collect “goodies” along the way in a pac man-like chomp. It’s constantly updating, and, as with other forms of social media, it complies to your usual core Network Theory rules. The more people that use it, the more value it holds.

But why would people engage? Well, because there is an element of play, a dabble in the realms of fun and most importantly, there is a competitive edge to it. Well, there can be, if your that way inclined…

When we begin to delve into it a little, there are plenty of examples of the power of play. A fortnight ago, Google turned the homepage of the worlds most famous search engine into a simple Pac-man environment. You could chomp your little way through the “G”’s and “O”’s of Google and and avoid those pesky little ghosts of 1980’s fame. I spent perhaps five, maybe 6 minutes playing it. The rest of the world? Well they spent 4.8 million hours, of work time. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I dare say that is somewhat more work than your office gets done, ever. Imagine if you could harness that power.

Imagine if the millions of users and hours involved in Farmville could be used to actually plow fields, plan cities or at the very least, power Wales. The power of Play is immense. Points and Prestige are rapidly becoming the new Pounds and Pence. So, sack all your staff, make the work a game and pay them in “highscorer” bonuses. Who knows, might even work for British Airways.

Collaboration is a coat of many colours – it exists in many forms and for many ends. It can be fun, it can be exciting, it can be extremely hard work and it can take you outside of your comfort zone. In its very best form it gives everyone involved a chance to learn something, to produce something meaningful and not just merely contribute from their own single perspective. HighWire’s strap line ‘creating innovative people for radical change’ doesn’t quite capture the collaborative nature of much of our work and of our thinking. But it’s there, it’s definitely there.

We held our first workshop on Tuesday around the general theme of emotive physicality. What do we mean by this? Well, there’s a sense that physical products can engage and affect us in ways that are different to digital media. Can we make use of these possibilities and provide experiences that seem more natural, more intuitive and maybe more fun? This is what we’ll be looking at over the next few months and the workshop allowed us to kick start the whole process.

As part of our collaborative approach, we were honoured to have both Taylor Nuttall from Folly and Alexandra Deschamps-Sonsino from Tinker working with us for the day. They are both truly inspirational.

So, how did it all work out? Well, in the spirit of DIY culture and just ‘making stuff’ the initial warm-up session felt like you’d just entered a primary school classroom, but with less tears. This was surprising; to be honest I’d been expecting more tears. After the ‘getting to know us all’ session with card, felt, scissors, glue, string and balsa wood we then proceeded into the next sessions armed with only post-it notes for support. Stripped bare, we brainstormed ideas around data and data sources, connections and transformations, and finally physical realisations of these data sources and associated transformations.

There were a few novel interpretations of what data would be useful – ‘confusion’ was identified, along with a ‘busyness’ indicator. A cluster of ideas developed around ‘emotional states’, specifically asking the question about capturing the emotional states not of individuals, but of groups, such as an audience. The prize for the most inventive transformation must surely go to the inspired choice of ‘magic’. This struck me as a wholly appropriate way to think about transformations and maybe even interaction design in general. Interaction that has a sense of wonderment about it may be interesting indeed.

Final concept realisations were developed in the heady atmosphere of both the post-it notes and the contents of the craft boxes. Carnage ensued and fun was had by all as teams were rather naughtily swapped at half-time and inherited another team’s half-baked ideas. The physical models produced included adaptive architectures, connected gardens, handbags that dripped e-pheromones, and an interventionist God. What more can I say?

The day was rounded off in rather fine style with fizz and cake. I believe we may have judged the concepts too and awarded a rather special prize.

For me, this was the beginning of a journey. Collaboration, to work well, has to be based upon trust, building of relationships and of mutual interest (and passion) across a broad topic area rather than short-term specific questions. For those interested in forms of collaboration with Universities I can recommend reading Knowledge Exchange and Universities and Business produced by the Centre for Business Research.

One thing that clearly jumped out to me personally was the Renaissance nature of this developing field. It’s clearly post-disciplinary; skills and expertise are required in a wide variety of areas across art, design, engineering, and computing. We also need to both incorporate and synthesise theoretical approaches to help us understand and support these type of interactive experiences.

A final word – it’s likely that we’ll be running more of these workshops, focusing more on practical skills covering, e.g., arduino, processing and rapid-prototyping techniques. If you’re interested in these or in broader collaboration, please do get in touch.

Stemming from Lord Carters Digital Britain report during summer 2009 the Digital Economies Bill (DEBill) put forward by Lord Mandelson has dabbled in controversy from conception to its completed passing through the house of commons last month. In the beginning only the technorati and digitally adept raised protest. But now with the use of the technologies the bill has the potential to stifle, the concern has spread to the average Joe of Digital Britain.

After three readings and a rather uninvolved, forced through “wash-up” debate opposed only by a few, namely Tom Watson and the Liberal Democrats, the Digital Economies Bill is now the Digital Economies Act. 189 votes to 47. But what implications, if any does the Digital Economies Bill have on innovation and creativity?

In a 2005 paper written by Brian Uzzi and Jarret Spiro on Creativity and Collaboration, they state that “Creativity is spurned when diverse ideas are united or when creative material in one domain inspires or forces fresh thinking in another” (Uzzi and Spiro 2005). A uniting of creative ideas can spark innovation and in the case of Digital Britain, aid in the growth of Digital Economy. Today I read an article in The Guardian about the Downfall of the remix culture. The article refers to the mostly youTube found Downfall parodies. For those of you not familiar with the series of spoofs, the short clips are taken from the movie depicting Hitler’s last days during the war, housed in his underground lair. Each parody is then based around current events with subtitles to suit. Although morally questionable, the parodies have developed a cult-like following, with parodies depicting Hitler’s displeasure at events from the death of Michael Jackson, to not receiving an iPad in the initial release phase of the Apple device. The original Downfall’s producers have now complained to Google (owners of youTube) and asked for the clips to be removed. By the decreasing video count, it would appear that Google is already complying. To me this is an obvious mistake by the producers. They are removing what is obviously a huge marketable following. A viral campaign created for free, by others. They have achieved the Holy Grail of new media advertising, and they didn’t have to lift a finger, well other than the fingers they lifted to produce the movie in the first place, obviously. I would venture that more have witnessed a Downfall Parody, than Downfall itself. However, with this aside, the compliance of Google and the very willingness of the movies copyright owners to have the content removed, shows the very closing of the creative door posed by the DEBill. Could we be seeing the beginning of the end for the remix parody creative platform? Unlikely. It will just move underground, occasionally popping it’s head up above the parapet, but it is possible.

“Over regulations wastes the extraordinary opportunity for democratic creativity that digital technology enables” (Lessig 2004).

I once read a paper on Design and Design Thinking. In this paper the writer toyed with the idea that there were no longer any truly original ideas. She believed that we had reached a stage in human knowledge and tacit understanding whereby ideas were just adaptations of previous ideas. Whether you agree with that or not, it does pose an interesting question about the effects of a an “economy spurring”, “innovation starting” bill that would beat “new media” with the same stick it used to keep “old media” in check.

Mandelson presented the bill as having the main purpose of tackling online copyright infringement, bringing connectivity to the masses and stimulating the economy so that Britain can “compete and lead in the digital economy” (Adults 2009). Wide ranging technology reforms and super-fast broadband are both necessary for the next steps in a fully fledged digital economy. Digitally urbanising the sometimes isolated rural communities around Britain. Connectivity and human interaction (even digital) are key to collaboration. There is in turn, links between collaboration and creativity and subsequently creativity and innovation. So as a digital creative, these are exciting and most promising prospects. However in execution, the reality may be somewhat different. Mandelson has said that he intends to “bring legal order to the internet” (Porter 2010) which is by no means an enviable task. But what does legal order mean? Well, essentially, post bill, it is the digital equivalent of those policemen you sometimes see in Times Square, the ones with the white gloves, directing traffic, stopping cars and sometimes issuing tickets. Now imagine those same policemen standing on the M25 during rush hour and you can start to see where this becomes a problem.

The bill contained a number of clauses that were, depending on your stand point, either good or bad. Good if you’re on the side of the BPI (the governing body for the British Record Industry and new found friends of Lord Mandelson) and bad, if you’re anybody else. There has been much comment from bloggers, journalists and those politicians opposed to the bill and most tend to agree that, while good in parts, the bill tries to do too much. With little expert opinion or research taken into account, it is evident that the DEBill is suffering from lack of quality over quantity. It does too much and a lot of what it does do, it does badly.

A good example where the DEBill falls short in the task at hand, is its failure to take existing systems into account in the clauses which it refers to its blanket rules for choking and subsequent banning of internet traffic. For years, universities the length and breadth of the country have relied on a system named JANET, ‘The UK’s Education and Research Network’. All universities in Britain are connected to the JANET backbone and through JANET they are connected to the world. If JANET detects that a user of a network is infringing on a piece of work covered by copyright, then ‘she’ informs that institution. That institution then compares JANET’s report to their own log records and the individual ‘infringer’ is warned. An institution of 10,000 users can expect one warning per week. Not a bate rate. I use a JANET connected university service upwards of thirty hours a week. Now imagine that so do the other 9,999 users on my ‘average’ university network. That’s 300,000 hours of network traffic a week. One wayward surfer doesn’t seem so bad to me. Not when you consider the possible beneficial nature and outcomes on learning, creativity and innovation of the other 299,970 hours. Admittedly my example (and probably maths) is flawed, but it does illustrate a point. To date, this system has generally worked quite well. A quick slap on the wrist, a “don’t do it again”, and everybody is happy. There is even acknowledgment that the power of this warning through word-of-mouth has greater influence than the warning itself. I like to call this the diffusion of a bollocking.

Universities and their cohorts of students, lecturers and staff are privileged with access to information and works that the average digital consumers are not. This is why a blanket ruling in this situation would not work. In the example above, imagine the implications if actions of one affected the many (9,999). In an open letter from the web giants Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo, Mandelson was urged to drop the now infamous, and now retracted, “Clause 18”. This clause would have enabled the Government, or more namely the Secretary of State, to shutdown any site that enabled users to “infringe”. Potential candidates for shutdown? Google, eBay or even the university network I’m currently using to research this piece. Twitter is definitely a law breaker. The Secretary of State would also have new powers over copyright law. They would now be able to make changes at his or her discretion. Where is the democracy the western world chases in that?

Here-in lies the problem as I see it. The DEBill is seeking to impose old copyright sanctions designed for print (atoms) on new media (bits)(Anderson 2009). Whereby before, it was possible to create all encompassing rules and governance to limit the unlawful copying and distribution of works covered by copyright, there are now so many niche’s and medium, it is no longer possible or effective. Learning is the act of taking shared knowledge and digesting it in a way that makes sense to the learner. Mandelson’s new ‘toy’ has the potential to limit that process at the very first step. With the retraction of “Clause 18” came “Clause 17” and amendments to “Clause 8” effectively invoking the same powers. The new and revised clauses detail that the Secretary of State can take down any site that has infringed, is infringing or is about to infringe if sanctioned by a court. Which on one level equates to punishment of intentions, not actions. To me theses clauses are more inline with Orwell’s 1984 than a modern digital, innovative community rising from the ashes of a recession. They have the potential to impeach your civil liberties and stifle the connectivity that the Digital Economy Bill itself holds as ideals.

In The Lawyer Magazine Lord Mandelson is quoted as saying that he wants to “give teeth to the statutory provisions” and increase their effectiveness (Porter 2010).  But the now passed bill has the potential to pull those teeth from the leading edge of Digital Britain’s economy, leaving digital creatives and innovators reaching for their digital dentures. With the proposed changes brought by Mandelson’s clauses, only the BPI really has anything to gain. They sure up a sinking ship of a business model, for a while at least. In Sweden recently, similar changes were made to their digital economy governing laws. Internet traffic dropped, sharply. It came back. It even rose to heights much higher than before. This time however, the majority of the traffic was encrypted or nestled safely behind VPN’s. The DEBill risk the same eventuality. Push the piracy underground, then make it harder to trace. Perhaps it is time for a rethink in business strategy.

Last year I was watching a documentary on the BBC about a young lady who was producing music from a room in her small flat. The music wasn’t exactly to my tastes, a little bit like a swung-cat-hitting-a-still-drum if you ask me. Then again, I have heard worse. Her marketing ploy was simple but really rather ingenious. She was printing copies of her music and taking it to the street venders around Rio (the ones that normally flog the pirated slightly dodgy sounding tat) and gave it to them for free. The venders kept all the profit, and she gets her name out and into the Rio music scene. She would then go on to make her money from gigs and performances. A little like how musicians used to make their money back in the hay days of Radio. Would effort and funding be better directed at business model innovation in the music industry?

As part of the DEBill’s first clause OfCom’s remit was to increase from television and radio, to “all media services”. The intention was to allow OfCom to facilitate investment in high speed broadband up and down the country. However, this clause was retracted by Stephen Timms on behalf of the government during the third reading. Apparently to appease Conservative members voting on the bill. A proposed landline tax was ear marked for the finance bill in the same period which was likely to tax £8 per landline, per year and was to be used to fund the installation of a high speed broadband network. I would theorise that an increase of any tax preceding an election does not make for good politics, which perhaps explains its exclusion.

For some reason, it would seem that the smaller, less business involved parties such as the Green Party and to some extent the Liberal Democrats are more opposed to the bill than the Red and Blue of Labour and the Conservatives. “The Green Party considers this piece of legislation to be illiberal, unworkable and ill-advised. We would have opposed its introduction had we been represented in the Parliament and remain opposed to its implementation.” A response to a letter sent from the Open Righta Group’s “E-Mail your candidate” campaign

So where does this animosity towards peer-to-peer file sharing and deep seated hatred of digital copyright infringement stem from? Why are the government taking the side of the big corporates and chastising the innocent for the actions of a few? Well, perhaps unfairly, Mandelson’s whereabouts and acquaintances immediately preceding the writing of the bill, have been called into question. In The Guardian’s article “Mandelson web cutoff plan ‘potentially illegal”, it was suggested that there was perhaps some link between Mandelson’s “secret meetings” with music and film executives. Mandelson is believed to have had a series of meetings with Lucian Grainge before and after Grainge’s consultations with Lord Carter on his Digital Britain Report. Grainge, the head of Universal Music and an influential, vocal anti-file-sharer is believed (by some conspiracy theorists) to be the catalyst for the Governments about face on the findings and recommendation of the Digital Britain Report. Then at the beginning of August, Mandelson was also said to have holidayed with David Geffen, a Hollywood “power player” and also an anti-file-sharer. Soon after, and in the face of the governments own Digital Britain Report, Mandelson released plans for the Digital Economy Bill. But to be fair to Mandelson, he did say he didn’t do it… In an open memo to The Guardian in response to their article regarding his cutoff plans and interaction with the two Hollywood big shots, Mandelson states that during his meeting with Geffen “internet piracy was not covered” and that Grainge was merely part of a plethora of individuals consulted. I myself am not so convinced. It seems odd to me that the government would commission a report, define guidelines and then meetings with those who stand to lose the most should be merely coincidental before a governmental change of heart. But then again, I do love a good conspiracy.

So what does the DEBill mean for new media? Well, to start with, “Clause 22” states that Channel 4 must now support the people “making innovative content” as well as increasing their focus on children and young persons programming and news. This is a step in the right direction. It forces a broader view of where the channel sources their content from. User Generated Content (UGC) is all the rage on the internet and has been for sometime. It’s only a natural progression that this should now spread to main stream television.

While on the point of UGC, it is an important side note to add that while in favor of a tightening of the copyright ‘purse string’ and a strengthening of the enforcement of the law, the BPI are not in favor of greater protection for the small creators of UGC. Britain’s industrial prowess was developed from a men-in-sheds mentality many years ago. UGC is just the modern equivalent. Other areas of new media to be dabbled with by the DEBill are; Video Games which under “Clause 41” now fall under the Video Recordings Act 1984, effectively invoking powers to ban game title if they are deemed too inappropriate for us little folk to play; and Radio, the government now has the power to specify a digital switch over.

Interestingly, released shortly after the DEBill became the DEAct, the BPI announced an increase in profits despite piracy. This raises further questions about the use of the ‘wash-up’ phase.

Privacy is the next big issue to leave a gritty taste in the mouth of most of the digital society. Under the new rules, ISP’s will be asked to monitor ALL traffic in and out of your house. TalkTalk has named this as ‘an infringement on our human rights’ and even questions the legality of the DEBill. TalkTalk are also concerned about the increased chance of hackers, hijacking the internet connections of the general public to avoid copyright choke hold. Stephen Fry, an avid Twitterer is outraged at the impositions of the DEBill titling it “ill conceived” and “epically foolish”. Fry also goes on to lend his ‘internet pull’ to TalkTalks anti-DEBill campaign ‘Don’t Disconnect US’, a campaign informing the general public of the changes they face. As a result of the campaign the government was handed a 20,000 signature strong petition with 7,000 people actually writing to their MP’s. 38 Degrees also raised money, through donations, to place anti-DEBill advertisements in newspapers.

So with summer tantalisingly close, wouldn’t it be lovely to sit in a open air cafe working on a report, or emailing a friend? Well, free WiFi, that’s likely to go. Under “Clause 10” businesses that supply free WiFi are then also responsible for the content their patrons (and free-loaders) access, effectively making them ISP’s. As these are ad hoc Internet Service Providers, they are therefore liable for the £250,000 fine name in “Clause 15” if they do not choke and then ban those ‘infringing’.

So now, at the time of writing, Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister and will be for at least one more week. Today Gordon (or “Gordy as I like to call him over a glass of Whiskey”) has been quoted as saying to Tim Dobson, Pirate Party Candidate for Manchester that he will “look into repealing the Digital Economies Bill”. Sadly I do get the feeling that this may just be a stab at conscripting those with the keys to Digital Britain to side with the same party that wrote the bill in the first instance. Not to mention what a tremendous waste of time and money it has all been.

As a ‘digital creative’ of Britain you face a number of changes that you now have to cope with. You now not only have the same privacy and choking issues that everybody else faces, but you also have restrictions over what media you can access, remix or adapt. No more Downfall parodies for you my friend. There is a plus side though. The government was forced to withdraw “Clause 43”, its orphaned works policy. This basically said that any work under copyright, was no longer under copyright, if the holder of the copyright could not be found. This was protested most vehemently by photographers and artists alike and withdrawn by the speaker.

http://duckrabbit.info/blog/2010/03/stop-section-43-or-else-this/

I can’t help but think that the now increasing costs of serving the internet to British households and businesses faced by ISP’s such as Virgin, TalkTalk and BT, may be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps on the development of super-fast broadband? After all, we are, on average one of the slowest connected countries in the developed world. Korea accesses the World Wide Web at over ten times the speeds we achieve in the UK. So you might say, we in Britain, are currently not the standard barer for a Digital Economy in full flight.

I have obviously chosen to omit comment on parts of the DEBill. For example I have not explored the implications on health and mental health. For example in a modern digital society with an increased rate of reliance on the internet, what are the implications of internet disconnection? But I’ll save those little gems for future posts. I might even make a little series of them.

A response to a digital play brief aimed at teenagers and attempts to subvert mass consumerism. Teenagers want to both belong and to sit outside. As Quentin Crisp said – “the young always have the same problem – how to rebel and how to conform at the same time”. They want to distinguish themselves from the crowd, experiment with self-identity and develop new values for a new generation. What is the world’s current obsession? What do we seem most concerned about? It’s clearly economic growth. And our response to this? It seems we need to consume more products. Consume more products, keep buying, keep, in that dreadful phrase, ‘economically active’. What a marvellous opportunity to rebel – almost perfect! Simply stop buying so much stuff. Stop buying stuff. Stop it. Be proud of it and celebrate it.

The koppla bracelet (named after the Swedish for connect) symbolises this rebellion. A commitment to the five values of be active, connect, take notice, learn and give is rewarded through seeing your bracelet turn from its original colour through to pristine crystal. A symbolic transformation that connects you with a new way of living. Commit to these values and you will see a change in your life and it will be made visible to others through the koppla bracelet. It becomes a symbolic totem for a generation. The bracelet is not just symbolic, but functional as well. It incorporates a range of technologies to sense your location, sense your activities, provide communication and provide physical feedback.

These technologies are used as part of its first service offering, launched in connection with events surrounding the Cultural Olympiad. The koppla bracelet provides connection to the community of wearers and access to a special kind of music service. A service that reflects the five core values and enhances a musical experience – we give digital music a home, geo-locate it and make it only possible to listen to it when you’re actually in the location. Artists can decide to locate their music on a beach, on a mountain, anywhere where they think will enhance the musical experience and make it special again. Finally, we provide access to the koppla bracelet and technologies to 3^rd party service providers to enable wider development of digital play services that embody the five values of be active, connect, take notice, learn and give.

I love low-fidelity prototyping – in particular I love the way it often provokes a conversation which wanders well away from the original topic under discussion. The beauty of low-fidelity prototyping is it allows the viewer to fill in all the missing bits from their own perspective – it gives a really personal account of what they would want, on how they are already visualising it. It allows the imagination to run free.

This came back to me whilst at a workshop last week with Daria Loi, Lucy Suchman and Alexandra Deschamps-Sonsino who were discussing design prototyping. The ethnography work from the UX group at Intel looked interesting – but it seemed to be as much about shaping future markets and selling utopian science fiction stories as it did about understanding social practices. There was much talk of the political economy at work here – big organisations can bring all the clout of the mass media and celebrities to the table. Does this really free the imagination? Or does it simply provide an unavoidable view of the future?

A HighWire forum with Monika Buscher, Daria Loi, Alexandra Deschamps-Sonisino & Lucy Suchman took place this week. Opening with an introduction by Monika we proceeded to discuss innovation.

Alexandra CEO of Tinker.it spoke of the Arduino chip and the growing community of tinkerers who engage in projects using this chip.

‘Arduino is an open-source electronics prototyping platform based on flexible, easy-to-use hardware and software. It’s intended for artists, designers, hobbyists, and anyone interested in creating interactive objects or environments.’ Arduino

This platform is interesting to consider in terms of democratising innovation, the community which grows around it provides a source of support and information for individuals working on projects using the chip, and the open source chip facilitates innovative use. Within this elements of participatory design, collaborative design and prototying emerge.

Building on the post below, it’s worth understanding the practical benefits of this negotiated appreciation of the nature of meaning and knowledge and why this is especially pertinent to a design-led approach.

Anyone with a passing understanding of design will be familiar with the need to deal with emergent, unfocussed and fundamentally unsolvable problems on a day to day basis (see Wicket thinking).

This comfortableness of good designers with not being in control of processes, use, reaction to, or reading of the design of knowledge exchange activities where the actual knowledge transfer is very much uncertain a pretty comfortable thing to get to grips with.

This is not an academic analysis (although there is a paper I have written about this subject here), it’s the result of the interaction of philosophy with working with over 50 companies in the past 12 months in a series of knowledge exchange events and activities.

The experience from there is that the skill is … digital marketing agencies, to high-tech SMEs to new projects with the nuclear decommissioning industry that the skill is engendering a context and approach that facilitates the flow of information between parties. This can be hard information or softer things like perspectives/opinions.

This is much more powerful than trying to ‘imprint’ knowledge on people, also because you are ‘flowing’ with participants and releasing their potential, the process is more enjoyable for everyone.

Over the past 2 years, I’ve devoted myself to understanding innovation and to an extent I think I’m just about getting there with a paper published in Design Issues (one of the top 2 design journals) reviewing the relationship between Innovation and Design, and through my IDEAS collaboration, am working with some of the top academics working in Innovation in the UK, particularly Prof. J Howells,Director Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (Manchester Business School).

The realisation I’ve come to is that fundamentally Innovation is too nebulous and general a thing to really grasp. There are deep-rooted academic traditions and perspectives for example to the OU and the University of Surrey from 60’s and 70’s and subsequent activity that make it difficult to have an impact in the area, but more, that it’s not possible to get grip on it as an entity it’s too polysemic. Building on this realisation the thing I’m most interested in, and I think is most significant to the broader innovation debate, is the process that enable innovation and fundamentally this means some aspect of knowledge exchange.

I’m always drawn to the fundamentals, the core texts, the paradigms that shape understanding and only then drawing these into design practice not just for grounding in the real world, but also to test and prompt new abstract theories understanding and further applications. An example of this approach is an engagement (tussle) with Michel de Certeau and his tactical/strategic differentiation (see The Practice of Everyday Life for more). I reacted against his rather gloomy assertion that engagement in non-hierarchical ways was inherentl limited to the fleeting tactical engagement with little prospect of progress or impact beyond a fleeting two fingers to authority. In the past I’ve proposed an approach that counter-strategies drawing on Situationist ideas of recuperation, arguing that this itself in itself can be turned to a positive approach, instead of recuperation (or strategic activity defusing radical thinking it can be subverted to make ideas and actions more impactful , engaging and significant.

The reason for this digression is an excellent seminar Jeremy (Howells) gave on Knowledge at a recent research retreat I helped organise for IDEAS. The underlying premise of his seminar was that knowledge cannot by its nature be transferred, so problamitising the whole concept of knowledge exchange or transfer. He argued that only information can be exchanged and it becomes knowledge in the recipient of the exchange. This has profound implications for the nature, fidelity and content of the knowledge that is ‘defused’ between members of any network of exchange.

Jeremy was drawing on economics, philosophy of knowledge and sociology but several members of IDEAS with backgrounds in business and entrepreneurship theory were diametrically opposed to this view that seems very comfertable to someone with my background. The exciting thing for me was the fact that this debate has to draw in notions of authorship and meaning that introduce a new dimension (and one I’m instamatly familiar with), into the debate about knowledge exchange. Things like de Certeau’s concept of proprietary distributed meaning and the value of negotiated meaning and exchange in communities and emerging framework of knowledge or understanding exchange becomes very significant in developing understandings of knowledge exchange in the more generally (ab)used sence.