Co-creating human-centered futures

Co-creating human-centered futures 

Creative collaboration as a way towards tackling the ecological crisis – and for the University for Life and Peace 

Benedikt Ewald 
benedikt.ewald@hpi.de 
Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam, Germany 

Abstract 
The conventional ways of working on problems of a societal or systemic scale – like the global ecological crisis – have proven to mostly be shockingly ineffective, be it scientifically, politically or in the form of civil engagement. This paper outlines the most important aspects of an alternative, in itself transformative approach based on empathy, collaboration and experimentation that could offer new avenues towards effectively tackling wicked problems of a global scale. 

Introduction 

The global problems we face today, such like battling climate change in a globally fair and effective way, can no longer be solved from a single angle or perspective. Instead it needs explicitly cross-disciplinary approaches which are able to consider and deal with the multitude of perspectives from different stakeholders operating on very different levels and under different paradigms. 
This exploratory paper wants to make the argument for a mindset which draws from methods and principles of human-centered design, future(s) studies and philosophy to shape our attitude, language and action towards a more effective approach for climate change and beyond. 

The problem is the problem 

Problems of a societal or even global scale, like climate change, do not present themselves to us in a linear fashion. This means, they cannot be easily separated into isolated parts such as definition and solution, which can be tackled separately or incrementally – instead, they are “wicked problems” in the way Horst Rittel introduced them in the 1960s (and C. West Churchman reported it in 1967): 

Wicked problems in his definition are a “class of social system problems which are ill- formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing.” 

Rittel identified the following properties (following Buchanan, 1992): 

1. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation, but every formulation of a wicked problem corresponds to the formulation of a solution.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rules.
3. Solutions to wicked problems cannot be true or false, only good or bad.
4. In solving wicked problems there is no exhaustive list of admissible operations.
5. For every wicked problem there is always more than one possible explanation, with explanations depending on the ‘Weltanschauung’ of the designer. 
6. Every wicked problem is a symptom of another, “higher level”, problem."
7. No formulation and solution of a wicked problem has a definitive test.
8. Solving a wicked problem is a "one shot" operation, with no room for trial and
   error.
9. Every wicked problem is unique.
10. The wicked problem solver has no right to be wrong – they are fully responsible
    for their actions.

Originally formulated as a definition of the typical problem designers are confronted with, theses definitions hold true for every of the pressing, multidimensional, gobal problems of our time, such as the questions of resources and energy, climate change, the right economic system, migration or violent conflicts. These questions are usually open, dynamic, networked and complex (Dorst, 2015); this means they 

• -  do not have a clear boundary,
• -  change over time,
• -  have many connected elements which have
• -  multiple non-linear relationships
• 
  According to Dorst and Rittel, these kinds of problems cannot be solved with a conventional linear logic. These rely either on deduction (natural sciences), and need knowledge of the governing law and the elements to determine the outcome, or they rely on induction (humanities, social sciences), for which the rule can be inferred from the knowledge of the elements and the outcome.
• 
  Deduction:

  

• Induction:

  

  
  Practical problem solving knows a third form, which is takes an abductive form: we know what we want to achieve (a value or concrete outcome) and we generally have the “know how”, so we just need to find the elements to which the “how” (working principle) can applied to and used for.
• Conventional Problem-Solving (Abduction):

  

  
  But what if we are faced with a completely new problem both in terms of elements and structure for which none of the known and tested problem-solving strategies work? Then we are in the realm of the logical structure “Aduction-2”, representing an ill- defined, open ended problem in the fashion of a ‘wicked problem’.
• 
  Abduction-2:

  

  This type of abduction, where only the final value is known and both the elements and working principles needed to achieve it have to be found along the way, is the ‘core’ of problem solving in design (Dorst, 2011), and it were also designers like Ernst Rittel and later Kees Dorst that first pondered on and subsequently formalized the specifics of these types of ‘wicked’ problems academically. While the usual scientific or disciplinary frameworks tend to either abstract or reduce complex problems to an extend which makes their insights mostly inapplicable for the real-life problems at hand, designers 
•  

• 

  had to make their solutions work in the real world for real people, even though the problem was unstructured. One exception is the domain of theoretical physics and informatics, which has been explicitly grappling with complex to chaotic systems by mathematical means at least since the beginning of the 20th century without collapsing their non-linearity – though, as the name says, mostly theoretically. 

• Mathematicians and physicists were also among the first to offer a clear definition of where the linear realm ends and the complex begins and how to deal with it. Although their rigor rests upon exact mathematical formulations, their concepts nevertheless have had an impact beyond theoretical physics, informatics and biology. They were quickly adapted for societal questions, primarily organizational and economical ones, e.g. by Ralph D. Stacey, who formulated the often adapted ‘Stacey Matrix’ (see Figure 1). FIGURE 1: Stacey, 1999; adapted by Speller, 2001. 

• The Stacey Matrix sets apart the different realms of simple, complicated, complex or chaotic problems according to the growing (un-)certainty and (dis-)agreement involved in both problem definition and strategy. Its many adaptations connect these different realms directly to specific solving strategy and have become especially popular for visualizing the application of different project management methodologies (waterfall, agile, design thinking etc.). Going further into this would lead too far for now, but it makes clear one important point: Non-linearity does not mean the problem is impossible to solve – it just means that we need different strategies than working off the linear standard procedures still prevalent in our political and economic reasoning. 
   

• We are large, we contain multitudes 

• Ambiguity and non-linearity are not only bad news. They are also a chance – if one knows how to handle and approach them and therefore willing to give up on knowing or finding the one solution. Because ambiguity and non-linearity also means that there is room for chances, choices and a multitude of perspectives instead having to collapse them all into one ‘right’ one. As Rittel already stated in 1972: “Solutions to wicked problems cannot be true or false, only good or bad.” This means there are many possible solutions to a wicked problem, and they only differ in the adequacy – which is again a matter of perspective, - again, Rittel – “depending on the ‘Weltanschauung’ of the designer” – and, as I would like to add, every stakeholder involved or even bystander. This might not be so surprising by a problem formulation which has a certain ‘value’ as an outcome, but it nevertheless is important to keep in mind as it leads us to the realization that this means there is not one possible, objective future, but many different futures depending on which perspective is stressed.
As one of the most reknowned futurist, Jennifer M. Gidley, puts it in her Very Short Introduction to the Future: “the concept of a singular future is inherently power-laden”, as it robs the future of its malleability and quite violently present only one perspective as the legitimate one without any alternatives. Instead, “[t]he pluralization of the future opens it up for envisioning and creating alternative futures to the status quo” (ibid.); it makes different ways forward possible in a semantic way in the first place. 

• 
  What do we need to create these multitude of alternative futures making the different possible perspectives visible? 

• 
  First of all, we need to know about the different perspectives and values involved in the problem in the first place. Which means, we need to know more about the people involved; their needs, their wishes and their dreams. For this, again a look towards design is useful. One answer to the question of how to deal with the complexity of the problem was to deconstruct this complexity by looking at it from different human perspectives, based on empathetic inquiry, and subsequently designing the solution in a human-centered way from this standpoint of empathy. This means taking these needs and wishes seriously and as a starting point. This means any estimates about the feasibility or viability or implementability of solutions comes later; the first focus is much rather its desirability for the people involved and affected by it (its ‘users’). 

• 
  But the approach of human-centered design (HCD) often does not solely rely on researching about and talking to the respective users, as this still leaves room for misunderstanding or -misinterpretation. To ensure the inferred need is correct as well as the initial solution developed matches it most HCD processes have quick prototyping and testing phases built into it, plus inherent iteration circles to ensure an optimal problem-solution fit. This close back and forth between problem and solution space subsequently using the built solution go back and better understand the problem in the first place via more informed inquiry also leads to the notion of a “co-evolution” of problem and solution in design (Maher, Poon, & Boulanger, 1996). This goes so far as to involved the users in the process via co-creation in shared making-sense or brainstorming sessions. 

• 
  This close connection to the user has a two-fold effect – one, it helps building “better”, which means more user-centered solutions; on the other hand, it engages the user in building these solutions from early on and therefore let her participate in the ownership of the solution. Both factors tackle an inherent problem with solutions designed for 
  someone instead of with someone: the big part of convincing or motivating the user to actually use the (“objectively better”) solution provided. Most social problems, and especially climate change, do not lack the technology or the ideas needed to tackle it; it is just very hard to get these accepted and implemented in the form and mindset they are provided, which is: from the outside as the objectively best solutions. 
  HCD flips this paradigm around – not the scientifically or technologically most advanced and effective solution is the best, but the one that helps the user best from his own point of view. Just like Kant turned the attention of philosophical inquiry away from the object, after realizing its deficiency as an answer to our question, towards an inherently subjective stance as the only one accessible to us, this constitutes a similar “Copernican revolution of design”. 

• 
  “As a species, we have never been more conscious, more globally connected, or more capable of radical positive change than we are today”, states Jennifer Gidley (2017). But just one sentence later she also makes the condition clear: “if only understanding, passion, and will can be engaged” (ibid). For this we need exactly these new forms of participative, collaborative design putting the actual people involved in the problem as stakeholders first and involve and engage them in the solution as well. There exists a broad range of methods and tools out there on how to do this from the realms of HCD, participatory design, design thinking, policy design, future(s) studies and so on, which turn the paradigm of a top-down, objective/predictive/empirical approach around and make space for participation and most importantly, a multitude of perspectives, in contrast to only a singularity of solutions. 

• This mindset change is akin to a cultural transformation and has to happen on many levels to eventually also tackled to deeply engrained prejudices and assumptions letting us fall back into the old paradigm again and again. Following Edgar Schein’s three levels of culture (1985), exactly these underlying ‘basic assumptions’ are the hardest to tackle and change directly, which is why we have to work our way towards them through changed (tangible and experienceable) practices to change together values and beliefs hindering progress on a more systemic level step by step. Putting the emphasis on practical, small step solutions instead of the idea of solving the whole intertwined system of problems that climate change is not only makes it manageable, but also makes it feel manageable. This emotional and motivational hurdle is the decisive one nowadays. 

• 
  Talking and acting differently 

• There are two more aspects in line with these considerations I want to highlight before concluding this first, rather cursory and abstract essay: the importance of positive language and positive experiences to make a change. 

• 
  To make space for the possibility of new beliefs and motivation in the first place we also need a language which allows for this. The concept of ‘framing’ as a notion for the vocabulary we use to talk about specific issues has been popularized by the sociologist Elisabeth Wehling in the recent years (see e.g. Lakoff & Wehling, 2008). It goes back to a much broader sociological concept of how we make sense of the world via verbal and non-verbal concepts and schemes, interpreting and capturing what we perceive as reality (Goffman, 1974). Frames are both collectively and individually constructed, and heavily influence our decision-making on both levels (see the psychological ‘framing effect’, one cognitive bias highlighted by Tversky and Kahneman in their seminal paper 
  on framing in 1981). The good news is though that sociology, psychology, future studies and philosophy all have developed ways to make these frames conscious and subsequently and critically analyze and deconstruct them. Just to name a few there is the critical futures approach (see e.g. Gidley, 2017), the historical-critical deconstruction in the tradition of Hegel, found both in the critical theory and pragmatism (see e.g. Honneth, 2010; Rorty, 1989; etc.), the modern sociological stream of building on frame analysis as language critique (e.g. Lakoff, 2004; Kuypers, 2009) , hundreds of journal papers in psychology etc. Also Kees Dorst calls his approach of finding a semantic bracket linking outcome and working principle in design “frame creation”; finding apt frames for him is the central work of designing (Dorst, 2015). 
  Point is, we need to consciously and collectively create a framing which allows to think and talk positively in the first place and allows for a multitude of perspective: a stance of optimism, inclusivity and plurality. 

• 
  But changing the way we talk is not enough, we also need to make this experienceable and tangible. As mentioned before, there is not only one problem nor one way to solve it. Instead, there are many different small solutions which have its time and place of application. But because the problem situation is so dynamic, we cannot take a lot of time to plan and develop solution to then apply them down the line. The problem situation most probably also has moved forward and the solution developed in isolation and planning might already no longer apply. Therefore, we need to get into a mode of constant experimentation, which I would describe as a way to be in constant dialogue with the problem reality. By constantly testing increments and beta versions of solutions we can learn as we develop, and we can include the stakeholders into the process not only as receivers of the product, but include them into the development process. Also, this makes it possible to celebrate many small progresses instead of waiting for the one big leap, which also has a motivational aspect to it. And if one of these incremental solutions does not work, then at least not a lot of time and resources have been wasted and also the resulting frustrations are smaller and/or even shared, potentially strengthening the bond between designers and stakeholders. 

• 
  Conclusion 

• In this cursory essay, I tried to make the case for a tri-fold approach to tackle the problem of climate change on a methodological level: 
           -  Radical, human-centered collaboration based on empathy and inclusiveness 

           -  A mindset of experimentation and continuous testing 

           -  Consciously proposing a new way of language allowing for possibility, plurality 
and positive change in the first place 


• All the levels work together to change the existing paradigm of fixating on the one, high- level, mostly political or regulatory solution in working against climate change. Instead, we need a multi-level, multi-perspective approach which makes all people users and stakeholders of the process, creates a mindset of opportunity and chances, and is able to continuously tell small success stories. This amounts to nothing less than a cultural transformation in the way we think and act about and upon the problem of climate change. But it does not render all the knowledge acquired and technology developed useless – on the contrary, it works on a human-centered level to bring these already existing solutions to full impact by looking at the desirable outcomes and futures first 

  and then match the existing technologies and insights to it. 

• 
  References 
  Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. 
  Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532. 
  Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation. MIT Press. 
  Gidley, J. M. (2017). The future: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. 
  Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press. 
  Honneth, A. (2013). Das Ich im Wir: Studien zur Anerkennungstheorie. Suhrkamp Verlag. 
  Maher, M. L., Poon, J., & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalising Design Exploration as Co-evolution: A Combined Gene Approach. Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD: Proceedings of the IFIP WG5.2 Workshop on Formal Design Methods for Computer-Aided Design, 3–30. 
  Kuypers, Jim A. (2009), Framing Analysis, In: Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action, edited by J.A. Kuypers, Lexington Press. 
  Lakoff, George (2004). Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing. 
  Lakoff, G., & Wehling, E. (2008). Auf leisen Sohlen ins Gehirn: politische Sprache und ihre heimliche Macht. Auer. 
  Rittel, Horst W. J. & Webber, Melvin M., Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Working paper presented at the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, November 1972. 
  Rittel, Horst W. J., On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the First and Second Generations, Bedriftsokonomen, no. 8: 390-96. 
  Rorty, Richard M., (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press. 
  Schein, Edgar H. (1985). Defining organizational culture. Classics of organization theory, 3(1), 490- 502. 
  Speller, V. (2001) The next challenge – getting evidence into practice. World Conference on Health Promotion and Health Education, Paris, France. 
  Stacey, R. D. (1999) Strategic management & organisational dynamics: the challenge of complexity. Financial Times Prentice Hall, New York. 
  Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1981), The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science, 211 (4481): 453–58. 
  West Churchman, C., Wicked Problems, Management Science, (December 1967), vol. 4, No. 14, B-141- 42