A summary of:
Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B.S. (2004). Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.
Part 4 – Meeting Our Future (part 1 of 2)

(Image: Namaste, 1994, Alex Grey)

Charles Taylor argues in his book A Secular Age that the Industrial Age changed the way we conceive of ‘meaning’, that it became inextricably linked with ‘progress’. “‘Somewhere in the last generation of two,’” says Senge, “‘the very word “old” became a pejorative term. Now it’s synonymous with worn-out and obsolete, and ‘new’ automatically means improved and superior. This might be perfectly fine in talking about machines, but tragic for living systems” (178). So this section challenges this formulation of meaning which we instinctively presume to be true. The authors quote Debashish Chatterjee in his opening remarks for a seminar on leadership at MIT: “‘I’ve been guided in my work by the notion that older is often better. If an idea has been around for a few thousand years, it’s been submitted to many tests – which is a good indicator that it might have some real merit. We’re fixated on newness, which often misleads us into elevating novelty over substance’” (179). Some would disagree with this, I realize, but it is perhaps a partial justification for turning back to spiritual traditions for inspiration and guidance.

Perhaps this modern predicament could be characterized as a lack of grounding. This happens when you are constantly into the future; you are simultaneously running away from the past, where your wisdom is located. The authors quote a “senior officer from the United Nations” who ended his presentation to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis with this harsh evaluation: “‘I’ve dealt with many different problems around the world, and I’ve concluded that there’s only one real problem: over the past hundred years, the power that technology has given us has grown beyond anyone’s wildest imagination, but our wisdom has not. If the gap between our power and our wisdom is not redressed soon, I don’t have much hope for our prospects’” (187).

The authors see some hope in the trends in modern physics and the accompanying changes in the modern scientific worldview. The rejection of the vision of the world as “Newtonian billiard balls”, and the embracing of electromagnetic and quantum fields “transformed the Newtonian worldview of isolated particles, [and thus] potentially transforms the particle nature of the isolated self” (188). I, too, find this hopeful, in that we are beginning to wake up (again – for this was what various religious traditions told us) to the truth that we are all connected. “Connectedness is the defining feature of the new worldview – connectedness as an organizing principle of the universe, connectedness between the ‘outer world’ of manifest phenomena and the ‘inner world’ of lived experience, and, ultimately, connectedness among people and between human and the larger world. While philosophers and spiritual teachers have long spoken about connectedness, a scientific worldview of connectedness could have sweeping influence in ‘shifting the whole,’ given the role of science and technology in the modern world” (188). I cannot prove this, but I imagine that this worldview made it possible for us to embrace the Internet as a means of connecting to others in new ways. And I’ve been asked to justify my decision to focus on the Internet as a technology that I want to design more ‘spiritually’, and I think this is as good as any: that this utopian vision of the Internet as the great connector of humans amounts to huge spiritual potential, potential that I feel we have not fully realized because we have settled for it as it was first conceived.

Physicist David Bohm is quoted here saying, “‘The most important thing going forward is to break the boundaries between people so we can operate as a single intelligence.  Bell’s theorem implies that this is the natural state of the human world, separation without separateness.  The task is to find ways to break these boundaries, so we can be in our natural state’” (189).  (And, ““Einstein spoke of the ‘optical delusion of our consciousness,’ whereby we experience ourselves ‘as something separate from the rest.’  ‘Our task,’ he said, ‘must be to widen our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty’” (203).)  What does this mean if we were to apply it to the Internet?  Does the Internet really connect in this way? – or does it in fact entrench our separateness by alienating us first from ourselves (requiring the creation of avatars) and then from each other (avatars relating to one another)?  The question we should be asking is where are the opportunities for diminishing the illusion of separateness?

This section also seems to justify my mission in a more fundamental way, i.e. it calls for interdisciplinarity as a means of assuaging the problems that arise from siloed thinking. “The basic problem is ‘fragmentation,’ said [physicist David] Bohm, a way of thinking that ‘consists of false division, making a division where there is tight connection’ and of seeing separateness where there is wholeness. Bohm called fragmentation – in our view of the universe and of ourselves as separate from one another and nature – ‘the hidden source of the social, political, and environmental crises facing the world’” (190). In a sense, my research would amount to a blending of technology, modern scientific thinking, psychology, sociology, management, design and spirituality. Consider this:

“Master Nan said, ‘What has been lacking in the twentieth century is a central cultural thought that would unify all these things: economy, technology, ecology, society, matter, mind, and spirituality. There are no great philosophers or great thinkers who’ve been able to develop the thinking that unifies all these questions.’ The decline in integrative awareness and thinking has been replaced by a focus on business and making money as a default common aim. When Otto told Master Nan he thought human culture was on the verge of a new spiritual awareness, Nan agreed but said that it might not develop as most expect. It ‘will be a different spiritual route from that of the past, either in the East or West. It will be a new spiritual path’” (211). “Or, as Otto puts it, ‘What’s emerging is a new synthesis of science, spirituality, and leadership as different facets of a single way of being’” (212).

I resonated with this quote, because it seemed to imply the need for something like the HighWire programme, but also assert the need for spiritual thinking within academic discourse.

Reflections on article at: http://www.distancelab.org/projects/mutsugoto/

What a sweet idea! -  “Instead of exchanging e-mail or SMS messages using generic interfaces in business-like venues, Mutsugoto allows distant partners to communicate through the language of touch as expressed on the canvas of the human body. A custom computer vision and projection system allows users to draw on each other’s bodies while lying in bed. Drawings are transmitted ‘live’ between the two beds, enabling a different kind of synchronous communication that leverages the emotional quality of physical gesture.”

This is an interesting example to discuss in regards to my personal definition of spiritual technology (admittedly still taking shape). At first this seems to be an attempt to design for human values, namely intimacy. As the article says, “Human intimacy is a significant but often neglected part of modern life. More people now than ever carry on long distance relationships with romantic partners, sometimes for extended periods of time. However today’s communication systems are impersonal and generic. E-mail, for example, is often read and written on the same computer and at the same desk that one uses for any other kind of communication. Phone calls and SMS messages are sent and received between partners on the same devices used for work and business.” But where this goes wrong, I suppose, is that takes this characteristic of modern society as given, unquestionable, or at least unchangeable… and in fact, if it took off, would reinforce the structures that make this lack of intimacy possible. To say this more clearly, it is like applying a tourniquet to hemorrhaging society (Senge et al., 2004, would call this “shifting the burden” (204)), in short, propping up the structures that in turn enable decreased intimacy by preventing us from reaching what I would call a Turning Point, or Breaking Point. If we were, instead, to reach a point where we could finally say, “I hate this lifestyle that means I can’t be with the people I love!” we might actually change as a society. But if we create technologies that make these “realities” of modern life palatable, we calcify them in practice and in our mindsets.

I sometimes think we’re asking the wrong questions.  The question perhaps should not be, “How do we create technology that offsets the side-effects of a technologized society?” (think of taking pills to counteract negative side-effects of other pills, and on and on).  Should we not be asking, “Where did we go wrong?”  I think this is why it’s important to me to approach technological innovation from a spiritual perspective, i.e., to not avoid the deeper questions.

I was pointed to this article on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11793847

The idea is that rather than have lots and lots of weak ties (read: friends in name only), the site helps you foster stronger friendship ties. These ties are designed into the system by limiting the number of friends you can have. I think it’s similar to going back in time to film cameras, before digital: You really had to pick your moments, not waste the film. When digital came along, you could snap as many crap pictures as you liked, because they didn’t cost anything to throw away. But is this a good model for friendships? Is this a fair comparison to Facebook?

There is some evidence – cited by the article – that humans can only manage 50 friends, so the notion that Facebook promotes, that we can have 1,000 if we wanted, cheapens the very word “friend”.

I think if we value true “friendship”, we ought to be thinking of ways to make that word meaningful again in the era of Facebook. People ask me all the time what I mean by “spiritual technology”, and follow up with, “Can you give me an example of one?” I now have an example. This is getting closer to what I’m talking about: Asserting human values over and above technological capabilities.

Kees Dorst | Interpreting Design Thinking – Long version from Business 21C on Vimeo.

A summary of:
Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B.S. (2004). Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.
Part 3 – Becoming a Force of Nature

This section is all about marrying your intention to action, and believing that you can get there. For inspiration, the authors quoted Margaret Mead, who is known for saying, “Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has” (134). But this notion of being a lone warrior somewhat dilutes the truth that being effective has to do to some extent with tapping into – if not the zeitgeist – this ‘field’ they alluded to earlier, which we can do by ‘presencing’. “The transformation of will that arises from presencing was beautifully articulated by George Bernard Shaw: ‘This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose you consider a mighty one, the being a force of nature, rather than a feverish, selfish clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy’” (133). Or, simply put by Victor Hugo: “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come,’ said Victor Hugo” (131).

I like the idea of making my methodology as spiritual as possible, to walk the walk as it were. For this reason, I like this passage that explains from a spiritual perspective the process of developing one’s intention:

“…John White, one of the original founding partners of the Institute of HeartMath, said, ‘Often people need greater clarity before they can act decisively and with full commitment. Once they see clearly their heart’s intent, their focus becomes like a laser – a powerful, coherent beam, as opposed to an incandescent, incoherent light. An earnest commitment from the heart emerges, vision becomes clearer, broader, and more inclusive of others. Strength of will is replaced by energetic integrity and a knowingness of ‘what else is there’ or ‘I can’t afford to not do this’” (135).

I suppose the idea is that it’s important to put love into your work. As Mother Teresa said when asked how one can do great things, “You cannot do great things. You can only do small things with great love” (139).

The chapter also seeks to dissuade us of the notion that you need to “to know how to do something before you can do it” (149). Instead, the authors argue that the key is getting the intention right, and then beginning what is effectively a prototyping process. As they say, “the creative process is actually a learning process, and the best we can possibly have at the outset is a hypothesis or tentative idea about what will be required to succeed. Robert Fritz characterizes the essence of the creative process as ‘create and adjust.’ We learn to do something truly new only through doing it, then adjusting” (149). Along the way, they explain, the creator will go through a series of “small ‘U’s’” (149). One author describes this process as “chaordic,” i.e., “how order emerges from chaos” (172).

Finally, this chapter asks the important question of how you create major change. They suggest that in some cases, we have to make the brave decision to kill a dying system so that a better one can be born in its place. As someone the authors interviewed said, “‘Maybe what’s needed right now is to stop trying to keep the system alive artificially and perform a controlled emergency shutdown’” (165). This reminds me of a question that I was asked by a college professor that has changed my life forever. He asked, ‘If you really want to change something, do you do it by helping as much as you can to fix it, or do you try to speed up its collapse?’ He was referring to the economy at the time, and asked whether you are better off donating money, or becoming an investment banker who tries to increase the gap between rich and poor. This idea, the notion that the only way to make Real Change is to destroy the current system and all that props it up is something that I constantly think of when I see something in the world I don’t like. In the case of the Internet, the question is whether you try to tweak it as it is now to begin to accommodate our spiritual needs (as an afterthought), or to somehow push us closer to the tipping point where we see the need to abandon our old ways. I suppose there is a third option, however, and that is to provide an alternative, and see if people want to switch to this new rail.

A summary of:
Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B.S. (2004). Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.
Part 2 – Into the Silence:
Chapter 6 – An Emerging Understanding: The U Theory
& Chapter 7 – The Eye of the Needle: Letting Go and Letting Come

In this section we are introduced to a concept the authors call U Theory – a framework for a new process of thinking. They have drawn a diagram, in the shape of a U, representing the path that the great thinkers take:
1) (At the top, left) “Sensing”: “‘observe, observe, observe’ – become one with the world”;
2) (Down to the bottom of the U) “Presencing”: “‘retreat, and reflect” – allow inner knowing to emerge”;
3) (Up again, top right) “Realizing”: “‘act swiftly, with a natural flow’” (88).

The key seems to be in the ‘presencing’ step, which they say, “constitutes a third type of seeing, beyond seeing external reality and beyond even seeing from within the living whole” (90). But the authors go even further, clearly seeing this stage as a spiritual state of being: “The bottom of the U is where, in Joseph’s words, you discover ‘who you really are as a servant or steward for what’s needed in the world” (91). In many ways, this is not unlike meditation: “We choose the term ‘presencing’ to describe this state because it is about becoming totally present – to the larger space or field around us, to an expanded sense of self, and, ultimately, to what is emerging through us” (91); “Getting to the ‘different place’ that allows presencing to occur begins as we develop a capacity to let go and surrender our perceived need to control”; and “The seeds for this transformation lie in seeing our reality more clearly, without preconceptions and judgments” (131).
(96).

The authors, indeed, link this practice with Buddhist tradition: “Developing a capacity to let go allows us to be open to what is emerging and to practice what Buddhism and other meditative traditions call ‘nonattachment.’ In Buddhist theory, two Sanskrit terms, (96) vitarka and vicara, are used to describe the subtle attachments of mind. Vitarka characterizes the state of ‘seeking,’ when our attention is attached to what we’re trying to make happen. Vicara characterizes the state of ‘watching,’ when, even though we’re not trying to force something to happen, we’re still attached to an outcome we are waiting for. With either, our mental attachment makes us blind or resistant to other aspects of what is happening right now. Overcoming the traps of vitarka and vicara requires continual letting go” (97).

The point of this U trajectory is not to be spiritual, per se, but to see results. The authors argue that engaging in what amounts to a spiritual process will lead to better outcomes. The difference, if we were to make an analogy to scientists: “‘most scientists take existing frameworks and overlay them onto some situation,’ while ‘first-rate ones sit back and study the situation from many, many angles and then ask, ‘What’s fundamentally going on here?’” (85). And while the latter are not any more intelligent than the former, they are able to make the real breakthroughs. Eleanor Rosch, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of California at Berkeley talks about the need for all science to be done with the “‘mind of wisdom’” (98). And she sees this as an almost artistic outlook: “Great artists naturally operate from this other level and always have.’ This ‘other level’ entails a different sort of knowing, what is called in Tibetan Buddhism ‘wisdom awareness.’” (98). Rosch suggests that the trick is in recognizing that “‘mind and world are not separate’” (98), as Buddhism teaches.

Now, psychologists are not the most receptive audience when it comes to pithy spiritual sayings; so in terms that are more palpable for the academics, Rosch has come up with two categories of knowing: ‘primary knowing’ and ‘analytic knowing.’ The former, “arises by means of ‘interconnected (98) wholes, rather than isolated contingent parts and by means of timeless, direct, presentation’ rather than through stored ‘re-presentation.’ ‘Such knowing is open rather than determinate, and a sense of unconditional value, rather than conditional usefulness, is an inherent part of the act of knowing itself,’ said Rosch. Acting from such awareness is ‘spontaneous, rather than the result of decision making,’ and it is ‘compassionate… since it is based on wholes larger than the self’” (99). And:

…all these attributes – timeless, direct, spontaneous, open, unconditional value, and compassionate – go together as one thing. That one thing is what some in Tibetan Buddhism call ‘the natural state’ and what Taoism calls ‘the Source’ (99).

Primary knowing has also been described as tapping into a field of knowledge. The authors again draw on Buddhist teaching: “Tibetan Buddhism talks about emptiness, luminosity, and the knowing capacity as inseparable. That knowing capacity actually is the field knowing itself, in a sense, or this larger context knowing itself’” (99).

Of course, we do not tend to operate on this plane. And furthermore, our technology is beating the capacity to reach that plane right out of us. As the authors say matter-of-factly, “The problem is that most of us have spent our lives immersed in analytic knowing, with its dualistic separation of subject (‘I’) and object (‘it’). There’s nothing wrong with analytic knowing. It’s useful and appropriate for many activities – for example, for interacting with machines. But if it’s our only way of knowing, we’ll tend to apply it in all situations” (99). To me this signals a potential point of intervention, though I hardly know yet what this means in terms of new design concepts. Can we develop technologies that are not built on – and thereby reinforce – this dualistic thinking? My initial reaction is that blurring the boundary between ‘I’ and ‘it’ seems like the misguided goal of VR technology. But then again, immersion, which I have argued elsewhere is certainly not a spiritual evil, does just that – blurs the distinctions. How could you build a system that allows for the kind of immersive experience that something like meditation does? And if part of analytic knowing is it’s linear nature, is there a way of designing for more nebulous, non-linear interaction with a computer? Do we always, for example, need to be oriented around our selves, our avatars and profiles, when we engage with the Internet? Could we be and experience multiple perspectives simultaneously? Is there a way of attaining what Ohashi calls ‘alien self’?:

Ryosoke Ohashi, a scholar of Japan’s leading twentieth-century Zen philosopher, Kitaro Nishida, used the word ‘alien self’ to describe what arises when the localized sense of self fades: ‘Something which is quite alien to me enables my existence.’ Eastern traditions often label this ‘nothingness’: ‘This nothingness enables my existence and also my relation with all.’ But ‘in traditional Christian terminology, this absolute alienness could be said to be God. God is in me – although Nishida doesn’t directly say ‘God.’ But something that is quite alien to me is in my own self’ (101).

More obviously than immediately suggesting design interventions and concepts, this section very clearly advocates a particular methodology that I should probably try to use in my PhD. My supervisor had been describing a non-linear design process to me, that sounds much like this: about doing the linear bit that’s necessary for the literature review, but simultaneously allowing the intuition, completely uninhibited, to make leaps. The thing that I really like about this section is that I now have a spiritual justification for using this design methodology. This ‘presencing’ in my PhD is, effectively, spiritual practice applied to design thinking.

And lastly, I think one of the points I should argue in my PhD is that this spiritual process – which the design community would to some extent embrace (though perhaps not always in Buddhist terms) – would be tremendously helpful for coming up with radical innovations in computing, which is more biased toward and traditionally linear. Infusing computing thinking with spiritual ‘knowing’, and borrowing methodologically from design, I will argue, might just be the key to really changing the world.

A summary of:
Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B.S. (2004). Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.
Part 2 – Into the Silence
Chapter 5 – The Generative Moment

“…’Adam said that the volume needs to be turned up in order for him to hear. Maybe he’s not so different from the rest of us – we all must spend our lives learning to ‘hear the silence.’ The Indian teacher Krishnamurti said that this is why real communication is so rare: “Real communication can take place only where there is silence.” But there is also something more in this silence that goes beyond opening the heart and seeing “from inside”’” (79).

This above story exemplifies the difference between spiritual and non-spiritual communication. Spiritual communication is about listening. Non-spiritual communication is about talking; which reinforces the informationist notion that ‘more is better.’ We design all sorts of technological tools that help us do more talking… but do we have anything that is aimed at helping us be better listeners?

In the previous section, the authors mentioned an experience of radical change at a steelworks that began with learning the skills of dialogue. Researchers from the MIT Dialogue Project taught these skills to both management and union teams, who had previously been locked in fierce arguments that were seemingly irresolvable; “Then the teams began to meet together – and after only a few meetings, the combined group began to discover the ability to have ‘real talk’ about difficult issues. Eventually, tangible consequences became evident in the plant: dramatic declines in accidents and absenteeism, as well as improvements in productivity. The backlog of grievances fell from 485 to zero. Union and management were starting to work together to address systemic issues that had been neglected for decades” (34). I saw this at Corus too. The union leaders talked about the importance of respect, honesty, openness… and this all enabled them to listen to each other better and actually solve problems. I have a feeling that this insight will be the source of at least one mini-solution that I come up with in the course of the PhD.

This section has also given me an idea for a focus group. One of the authors tells the story of when he was involved in seeing the end of apartheid in South Africa. Leaders created two stories to share with the people as inspiration: one of the ‘low road’ and one of the ‘high road’. It allowed people to see the importance of taking the high road, making the more difficult decisions that would lead to a better future. This kind of storytelling might be useful in my writeup for justifying the need for radical change with regards to our technological engagements. Also, the author explained that further steps were taken to involve people in thinking about and creating an alternative future. They brought people together, and they came up with 4 possible scenarios: 1) The Ostrich, characterized by putting one’s head in the sand; 2) Lame Duck, where government was crippled and made no progress; 3) Icarus, where radical changes were made too quickly and came crashing down; and 4) Flamingo: “The scenario called “Flamingo” was one that no one particularly liked initially because flamingos take off very slowly. But they also take off together. As the group thought through these different stories, they came to the conviction that the only viable way forward was “Flamingo”’” (74-5). I wonder if it might be worthwhile holding a focus group and having participants imagine future scenarios and see what conclusions they reach about how we must proceed.

LOOKBOOK.nu is an online community which allows members to upload photos of self created fashion looks, to tag the brand of the clothing and to hype (vote) others looks thereby increasing karma (reputation). So from a network economics and participatory psychology approach LOOKBOOK.nu ticks the boxes and has consequently grown into a considerable fashion presence. (Attention economy and social media/network theorists such as Yochai Benkler would love this.)

The standard of the ‘looks’ and creations on LOOKBOOK.nu rivals even the best of current fashion photography and professional creations. Go look if you don’t believe me. This crowd sourcing, consumer generated content approach to fashion blogging draws in social groups across the spectrum, think preppy, fashionista, hipster, & scene kid, they are all there with their dedicated followers. From each ‘look’ it is possible to click through to the retailer, to search looks according to colour, brand or style.

That LOOKBOOK.nu is home to a 200,000 member strong community and a global worldwide readership of over 3.5 million unique visitors per month indicates that this resource is worth unfathomable value to the retail and fashion industries. And of course they have begun to realise this.

Gap for example has been running a competition through LOOKBOOK.nu Team Skinny Vs. Flare which called for members to post looks declaring their team (including Gap clothing of course) the prizes awarded are in the hundreds of dollars and Gap uses the images in their upcoming advertising campaign. Mass exposure of Gap products, masses of traffic generation,  free fashion shots, sounds like a whole lot of free work to me.

I am really interested to talk with LOOKBOOK.nu about the ins-and-outs of their model, the possibilities of revenue generation are many with this site, exciting. Well done Jason Su and Yuri Lee.

This weekend I will be attending “To Catch a Neutrino” by Dr Marieke Navin on Sunday at the 9th Manchester Girl Geek Tea Party.

‘Neutrinos are the most enigmatic and elusive of particles. They can transmit information from the furthest reaches of space and it is this unlikeliness to interact that makes them so interesting to study. Marieke will give you a whistle stop tour of the world of neutrino astronomy then bring you back to Earth to man-made neutrino beams and why we are firing them through the Earth, across Japan and why the study of neutrinos will help us solve some of the mysteries of the Universe.

Marieke Navin took 3 years out after doing an MPhys in Physics and Astronomy at the University of Sheffield. In this time she travelled, volunteered and worked as a debt collector. Marieke returned to Sheffield and has recently completed a PhD on the neutrino oscillation experiment T2K in Japan. She spent 6 weeks working down a mine in the Japanese Alps refurbishing part of the detector. Marieke was runner up in the 2007 FameLab competition and now works as Science Communication Officer at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.’

If you are there come say hi!

HighWire update: Last week we took some of the new HighWire cohort to FabLab Manchester to let them play. FabLab is somewhere you’ll be able to find us if we go missing. On this venture we escaped to eat and discoveredMadLab hidden away in the Northern Quarter also. We have also been discussing the idea of ‘impact’ and what this means for HighWire, academia and industry. Lots to come. Watch this space.

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.