Development

Development

What are the consequences of working on this process, in relation to

1) our research interests

What particularly interested me about the research project was the focus on the local level, which helped to uncover the interconnections of various businesses within Lancaster. It enabled me to see more clearly how economies work and the micro-level focus helped to keep the level of analysis to a level which can be overlooked easily. I found it very interesting to see the impact of local citizens on the economy which acted without commercial interest but rather based on intrinsic motivation to better the community. The contact to local farmers provided interesting insights into business models and their particular characteristics which I did not research before. The working of a local food network scheme like the SmartBarrow brought to light a very dynamic and complex interplay of factors that impact on the success of the system. In this regard I feel that I learned more about service design in uncovering and thinking about contact points of various actors with a local service like the SmartBarrow. (Seb, December 2010)

This project has led me to develop a deeper understanding of how technology might be used to enhance community cohesion, through the sharing of narrative hinged on a specific theme – in this case food. I have gained a valuable insight into the use of a theme as a trigger to release the thoughts, knowledge, opinions of community members who can the become actively engaged with the system. It has also been useful in exploring how human-centred service design methods could be useful within my research process as the project has introduced me to learning new methodologies and frameworks for analysis. It has also been useful to reflect on methods I use without seeing them as methods – and understand how some particular methodologies from site-specific art practice are useful within the design resarch process. However what has been particularly key to my research interests has been the benefits of involving participants  within the a team based research process, from an early stage and how this has shaped the research outcomes, which could have the potential to create a meaningful co-design process. (Helen, December 2010)

I’ve learnt a lot about how the others work in terms of methods. I’m interested in the development of mobile technology and this application has been really beneficial. (Keith, December 2010)

It was awkward starting out with a dissenting view of the brief itself when others didn’t question it. For me a critique of the UN millennium goals formed part of a rigorous process. I was surprised more people didn’t have issues with ‘working for’ Microsoft and developing closed systems. It’s incredible now to reflect on how my own assumptions have shifted continuously over this intense nine weeks as does the way I define my core research interests. I set out with an interest in sustainability and an intention to join the transition group in Lancaster but I never imagined having the opportunity to work so closely with them. The process will leave deep traces in my future research, particularly in the importance of prototyping transitions strategies in local communities. I have learnt a lot about the barriers to transition and also the ability for pyschosocial change. Even among the team I can’t believe how we have come together as a group and jointly developed an open system which embraces sustainability on many levels. I think we all stand proud with what we have learnt in the research process. (Jonnet, December 2010)

2) learning about working in an interdisciplinary team

I feel that in particular expressing the relevance and importance of my personal opinion on some issues was difficult to communicate and it is clearly a learning outcome to improve on expressing my views in a more concise manner. At the same time it showed me the importance to train my listening skills further. Patients and efforts to understand one another seemed to be even more a key issue compared to collaborating in “traditional teams”. (Seb, December 2010)

As much as this was an interdisciplinary team it was also a team of individual people whose skills, interests and knowledge stretched beyond their discipline. This was exciting and it was an engaging experience to be exposed to so many inputs and ideas. I also felt that working together as a team, we could support each other and fill in the gaps of knowledge and skills – as we had a collective toolkit to draw on.  I learnt that developing a shared discourse happens gradually but can be aided by paying attention to peoples contributions both spoken and uploaded to shared spaces such as a wiki or a google doc and this is something I would aim to improve at in a future team project.  I also gained an understanding of how Management and Computing have a different relation to the critique of ideas – than the discipline of design. (Helen, December 2010)

I have always wanted to work in an interdisciplinary team scenario in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.The experience was even more fulfilling than I expected and the interdisciplinary aspect became more enriching as we developed a group synergy. Along with the course modules our interdisciplinarity seemed to grow exponentially. Our wide skills set and our open exchange of knowledge and skills made progress fast and full of surprising and insightful interjections and suggestions. Most importantly, it was fun even when we were way out of our comfort zones. (Jonnet, December 2010)

3) introducing each other to new methods

Working in the team meant for me to be faced with very different ways of thinking. In particular the brainstorm activities we did and the high volume of “non-linear” graphics output (e.g. lateral drawings and lots of brainstorming documents using various materials) we produced has been unprecedented in my previous work experience. I perceived this approach as more an “arts” approach to problem solving and I found that it was helpful in creating a picture of the overall situation and in coming to a common understanding of our discussions. However, in the long-run more structured methods would have helped me to gain a feeling of progress. It was only towards the later stages that we briefly agreed on deadlines. (Seb, December 2010)

Although I have undertaken action research before I was introduced to the method of rapid ethnography, this method was useful in order to understand the possible impact and feasibility of the project together with potential users. I also found that the method of creating a business and user model for the project was integral to understanding the micro-details. (Helen, December 2010)

It’s been really interesting to see how others work, Seb doing his business plan and Helen and Jonnet working in such a visual way. It has made me change the way I work a little as you can’t make assumptions about about how other people work. (Keith, December 2010)

There have been so many unexpected outcomes, from Keith buying a proper sketchpad to me and Seb going out clubbing. At times it felt like we undertook complete role reversal, me on business plans and Seb on design. We have all spent intensive periods of time together, both highly academic and purely social and I learn as much by osmosis, by casual conversations beside a fire or sitting beside Keith on the laptop is an education. We felt really uncomfortable adapting to each other’s style initially but now anything goes, we’ve become extremely open and actively seek out challenging new methods. (Jonnet, December 2010)

Implications for the Process

Which part of the knowledge acquired in this project is currently most valid and relevant for digital innovation design processes?

Possibly the most significant research from this project is that it brings attention to the benefits of working at a local level for the design of digital innovation. It presents the need for future work which investigates the potential of local communities of practice, which can enable designer, technologists and communities to decode the needs of specific environments together.  We feel that a contribution to knowledge has been achieved through our use of process alone and this could potentially form the basis of a future paper. We also feel strongly that the SmartBarrow concept warrants development beyond the scope of this study.