DAY 5 W 11 SEP AW V. 1.0, 072413
CHAOS OR UTOPIA: IS THE FUTURE DOOM OR BOOM? HOPE OR HYPE?
IS THE SINGULARITY NEAR?
WHO AM I?
“Predictions of the future are almost always wrong. The best you can do is understand the forces that are likely to create change, constantly scan early signals and hypothesize alternatives along force trajectories”
– Futurists’ Concensus
” ‘Normative’ scenarios are narratives of the future we want”
– Futurists’ Concensus
“Future vision scenarios give tangible visual form to the goals of normative scenarios. Their ‘aspiration pull’ can alter the course of events”
– Arnold Wasserman
“The best way to predict the future is to invent it ”
– Peter Drucker (often attributed to Alan Kay)
1. What are the contrasting views of Futures Studies?
2. What Futures Studies methods are useful for designers?
3. What made FUTURAMA so compelling that we redesigned America to reify it? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
4. Is THE SINGULARITY a Worlds Fair fantasy?
5. Will droids replace or augment us?
4:30-5:00 EST Student dyads interview each other: What are your reactions, thoughts, questions about the Future Studies essay.
Compare, contrast & critique the Hardin Tibbs future vs Perez et al Successive Surge Model. How can designers use/contribute to Future Studies?
How would you make the Hardin Tibbs and Perez models more useful/usable to accelerate & scale diffusion, acceptance, adoption/execution?
Do academic and policy-wonk studies influence the future course of events more or less than widely consumed popular dramatizations of the future in entertainment media genres like Sci-Fi and Future Fantasy literature, films, videos and games or visit-the-future visions like worlds fairs, theme parks and industrial exhibitions?
Create a visualization of your reflections on the readings. Upload visual representation to course wiki prior to class.
5:00-5:30 EST Teams present their concept maps (10×3) Post concept maps on the wall and upload to course wiki page. All discuss.
5:30-6:00 EST PS presents results of Kolb Learning Styles Inventory. Student teams interview each other about the results. What are your reactions, thoughts, questions? Does your profile represent you accurately? A lot? Somewhat? Not at all? How might we use this inventory to help structure effective project teams? Make a concept map: What we like, don’t like, question, would change, agree with, disagree with, don’t understand, want to know more about. Post concept maps on the wall. All discuss.
6:00-6:15 EST Break
6:15-6:30 EST AW leads review & discussion of alternative Future Pathway Models: WBCSD, PLANPGH, PGH 3.0, & others TBD.
6:30-7:00 EST PS & AW lead process to select projects and form teams; i.e.: Class brainstorms components they think we should pursue as pathways to LIFE2050/PGHX.0. Then individuals sign up for their preferred component, indicating choices 1, 2 and 3. Finally, AW & PS will assign each student to a team offline, balancing individual preferences against maximum diversity 0f background and learning styles. Teams will be announced Day 6.
7:00 EST PS PRESENTS ASSIGNMENT 2 + CLASS DISCUSSES. All general discussion about the course, student expectations, questions, concerns
7:20 EST CLASS END
REFERENCE & RESOURCES For further exploration TBD
STUDENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES: Measurable or Observable Knowledge, Skills, Attributes, Ability to Apply, Interpret, Create, Design, Explain, etc. TBD
OTHER REFERENCES & SOURCES TBD
5-A View, download & prepare to evaluate & discuss Grantfunders For Education (GFE) learning journey to PGH:
ANDREW ELLIS VIDEO:
A NEW WORLD OF LEARNING Click here to view.
GFE/CI LEARNING JOURNEY TO PGH GFE Pittsburgh Online_FNL_051213
CI BRIEFING FOR GFE PGH LEARNING JOURNEY http://bit.ly/1bGWrWK
A RENAISSANCE OF WONDER http://www.edfunders.org/sites/default/files/A_Renaissance_of_Wonder_Online_Final.pdf
LEARNING JOURNEY UPDATES http://bit.ly/1bGYDxz
Prepare to discuss what Andrew was/is trying to do, what struck you, what you question, would change, agree with, disagree with, don’t understand, want to know more about re. this GFE Learning Journey. Compare, Contrast, Evaluate, Good/Not good, Cool/Not Cool.
5-B Bring in an example of COOL DESIGN & prepare to discuss in terms of the the DIMENSIONS OF THE HEURISTIC DESIGN FRAMEWORK: LEVELS, FRAMES and DOMAINS
Here is the HEURISTIC DESIGN FRAMEWORK and some relevant reflections:
You can’t get from where you are to where you want to be without a plan. Teams working on projects need a PROJECT PLAN to give structure and direction to their work, to coordinate effort, track progress toward ultimate goals and interim milestone objectives and to allocate roles and responsibility for tasks and deliverables. Project plans can be very complex, like the “Critical Path” algorithms used to manage large complex, multi-actor projects in construction, aerospace, defense and product development. Or a project plan can be very simple. One should apply the rule of “parsimony”, or what Herb Simon called “satisfying”; i.e.: the plan should be no more complex than it needs to be. Here are some examples of simples project plans:
Here is a work flow calendar I used in preparing this DEXIGN THE FUTURE course. The initials represent the names of the responsible persons: CI_CMU CURRICULUM WORK CALENDAR
Here is an even simpler work flow calendar for a client project. Again, the initials indicate who is responsible for particular tasks: PROJECT PLAN
This is a bit more detailed table-style work plan. For the DEXIGN THE FUTURE teams it would be a good idea to add a column on the right showing who is responsible at each step: PROTOTYPING PROCESS PLAN
Project plans don’t have to be ugly and boring. Here is a simple project plan that is “prettier” than the others. I didn’t do it here, but it might also be a good idea to add simple graphic icons to the plan to make it more scannable at a glance.
HEURISTIC DIMENSIONS OF DESIGN
How do you define a space? Take a physical space like this Graduate Design Studio. You define it by its dimensions. Not only by its most obvious dimensions, like its length, width and height, but by a plethora of other dimensions. For example, what are its sensory attributes – light, air, temperature, smell, acoustics. Or aesthetics – color texture, tactility. Or its affective factors – how it makes you feel, is it welcoming? Comfortable? Energizing? Aversive? Are the proxemics of the space Sociofugal or Sociopetal? What about its utility? What is its intended use and how well or poorly does it afford usefulness and usability? What about legibility? Is the room intuitively self-explicating or does it require a lot of instructions? Then there is the whole technological infrastructure of the space – and how well the technology affords the desired social dynamics of the learning programme. What about the economics of the space? The cost/value of building, running and maintaining it? Are there political dimensions to do with scheduling, administration, priority? Amenities? Spaces for intensive privacy, collaborative teamwork, serendipitous encounter?
Now imagine the dimensions required to describe a more complex space, like a city in all its physical, social, economic and political complexity. Or how about a conceptual space like Life in 2050? Or a problem space like designing Pittsburgh 3.0?
To help me tackle the space of complex design problems, with their myriad dimensions – some well defined, but more ill-defined – I have developed a kind of shorthand framework, a small superset of rule-of-thumb dimensions or heuristics shown in this HEURISTIC DESIGN FRAMEWORK. – Arnold Wasserman