Three Design Cases

The strategy employed in this work to develop theory is based on reflection in action, or research into practice, and it demonstrates how redesigning design can work.

These examples are designs that attempt to improve an existing situation; they are discursive events aiming to redesign design and improve or alter the

understanding of design. These three conferences have initiated a discourse to reshape the understanding of design and its link to management. Most

importantly, this discourse is documented, allowing further discussion and analysis of its most important aspects.

The second and the third conference were executed, based on the premise that design can be designed. Therefore, the conditions are not the same as those for the first conference, as in later two conferences the author’s role changed from a participant to a designer with responsibility and a specific function to perform.

The Design Workshop Conferences in 2002, 2010 and 2011 (Cleveland, Milan, and Barcelona)

These conferences were structured as two-day events, where 60-80 designers, experts, and managers were invited to participate in a discourse. The conference initiators required the participants to submit short statements (1-3 pages in

length) prior to the conference, in order to initiate and prepare the discussion and facilitate the brainstorming sessions during the event. The conferences were structured as design ‘charrettes’. The word charrette usually refers to a

collaborative design session, in which a group of designers drafts a solution to a design problem. In an online dictionary, we can find that the term is described as ‘a final, intensive effort to finish a project, esp. an architectural design project, before a deadline’ (Webster's Online Dictionary). Usually, in such a session, the main group divides into sub-groups, in order to facilitate discussions on specific topics, with each sub-group required to present its work to the full group as material for future dialogue. This arrangement was followed at each of the three

events, because it was proven to produce outcomes, while leaving room for creative interactions, collaboration and cultural exchanges through co-design.

The discourses held by the participants before, during and after the conferences had been reviewed and summarised, allowing these conferences to be viewed as design cases in effort to reframe and redesign design within a discursive act.

It is particularly important to draw attention on the influence of the design practice from one conference on the next, as this assisted in evaluating the experience and incorporating the preceding conference outcomes into the design of the subsequent event .

For instance, ensuring attendance of a few individuals that are widely known in the field made the conference much more attractive for famous designers and theorists.

At the same time, it was evident that some of the invitees based their decision to attend on the relationships they had with other potential participants. This is evident in the comments such as, ‘if he will appear, I need to have a key note,’

or even further, ‘if he is invited, I will not be able to participate.’

As can be seen from the above, ensuring the participation of some individuals was a political struggle and required considerable amount of diplomacy.

Still, for most invitees, it was important to know that some key names in the field would attend the conference. Still, as noted above, as some key individuals had difficult relationships, it was difficult to design the invitation list. The process was made even more complex by the design of the conference workshop, which prohibited giving any individuals a greater significance, in order to facilitate discussions and problem-solving.

Another important design element was the composition of the conference

workshops itself. The experience gained at the first conference held in Cleveland in 2002 revealed that workshops should be guided by the general statements of selected provocations to the plenary session, which would facilitate the open discussions in the plenary session. The process should continue in the breakout in workgroup sessions and lead into the discussion and presentations on special themes. Finally, the workshop should end in the presentation of these results in plenary sessions. In adopting this approach, the conference sessions could be viewed as a designing process.

One of the selection criteria for the speakers in the plenary sessions the

conference chairs adopted had been the submission and the content of the so-called provocations (a short provocation paper to question the conference themes), which had been the basis for issuing the invitations to the potential participants. The conference chairs had the assignment to select the ‘most interesting’ provocation papers to be presented at the plenary session.

The remaining provocations that were submitted were included for presentation within the breakout sessions.

The third aspect to be considered had been the design of the workgroup sessions, as it was important to assign the workgroup moderator. In addition, forming the workgroups was also a challenge, and their composition proved very difficult to determine.

After the first draft of the conference design and the workgroups had been send out, some immediate feedback arrived, with some individuals requesting

reassignment to different workgroup sessions. Some invitees went as far as to name the individuals they would not like to be in the same workgroup with, based on the experience from previous conferences they attended.

Therefore, the composition of the conferences held in Milan and Barcelona took some time to rearrange, as it was necessary to accommodate specific

requirements of certain attendees. In two or three cases, the invitees cancelled their participation due to not being chosen as a presenter in the plenary session.

It thus transpired that being given an opportunity to present within a plenary session was seen as some kind of a key note, even though all participants had been informed that the conference design did not allow for this distinction.

Since the conference was designed to be held as a two-day event, with an evening of networking, the workgroup sessions aimed to generate some

dynamic. Therefore, the session participants were changed in order to promote more open discussions and prevent them from being dominated by only a few individuals. For the same purpose, individuals known to be good moderators where chosen as workgroup session moderators.

Despite the aforementioned measures, the process of scheduling sessions and assigning attendants was difficult. For example, some of the selected chairs struggled to maintain a discussion, allowing certain individuals to take over. In a

few instances, some of the participants even left the workgroup sessions, since the discussion did not go in the ‘right’ direction, as they argued and complained.

The criteria employed when composing the workgroups were:

a. Overlapping themes in the submitted provocations b. Known contribution of discourse in the field

c. Background in different professions, allowing designers, managers and technologists to discuss the topics of interest from their perspectives d. Positive opinion of the participant, based on previous conferences and

workshops

e. Known political issues with other participants and former conflicts

Workgroup chairs were selected based on the following characteristics:

a. Known as excellent facilitators b. Various professional backgrounds

c. Strong characters, capable of defending their views in case of political attacks

d. Known as a leader in the professional field

The following example shows a conference setup and the compositions of the workgroup sessions: