Design seeking and scaling v1
1 like1,177 views
This position paper by Cook and Bannan proposes a model for design research that emphasizes design creativity and scalability in workplace learning, drawing on Rogers' theory of diffusion of innovation. The paper focuses on the first and fifth phases of their model, particularly how collaborative technologies can enhance individual and organizational learning through the establishment of personal and professional networks. The authors advocate for addressing systemic pain points and creating educational innovation clusters to facilitate the widespread adoption of technology-enhanced learning.
Design seeking and scaling v1
- 1. Reconceptualising Design Research for Design Seeking and Scaling Short position paper by Cook and Bannan, June 2013 **Critical comment and pointers to related literature invited** Contact: john2.cook@uwe.ac.uk Figure 1 represents a model for Design Research that extends existing approaches so that they take account of design creativity and scaling of design (the latter in terms of numbers of users and the complexity of research projects). The model draws on some of Rogers’ (1983) notion of diffusion of innovation, particularly his ‘model of stages in the innovation-decision process’ (p 163) and the ‘five stages in the innovation process in the organization’ (p. 392). However, the experience of the authors and other research have led to the model; we particularly draw on experiences of Learning Layers1 for scaling in workplace learning and part of the Learning Layers Design Team PANDORA, which is exploring collaborative support for maturing local living documents and the building personal and professional learning networks using mobile and social media (Cook, 2013). Phase one (Prior conditions) and five (Diffusion at scale) are the focus of this position paper as they provide an innovative perspective on the potential of collaborative technologies that are embedded in workplace practices, and which contribute to and help to scale learning on the individual, group or organizational levels; specifically, this paper contributes conceptual and methodological work (Design Seeking and Scaling model) and original technology design (PANDORA Design Team case study). Figure 1 1 Learning Layers is a 7th Framework Large-scale integrating project co-funded by the European Commission; Grant Agreement Number 318209; http://learning-layers.eu/; Cook is a work package leader in this project.
- 2. Starting from the top left of the diagram and moving clockwise we have five related phases: Prior conditions, Persuasion, Design decisions, Research Process and Diffusion at scale; these are now described in turn below. The Prior conditions (Rogers, 1983, 163) phase recognizes the need to look at previous practice, felt needs/problems, innovativeness and the norms of the social system. We extend this notion prior conditions and ‘agenda-setting’ (Rogers, 1983, p. 392) by making an explicit link to ideas surrounding design creativity and the question ‘how do design ideas arise’? Design seeking is a key concern here, and this draws on the concept of problem seeking (Cook, 2000) rather than mere problem solving. In the early design process we can say that “knowledge is essentially problematical: it is not just a question of solving a problem, it is more a question of seeking out the nature of the problem and then devising an approach to solving it” (Cook, 2000). A related notion that of the ‘Problem frame’ (Jackson, 2001), which provides a set of concepts used when gathering requirements through a process of parallel, as opposed to hierarchical, decomposition of user requirements (which could then be used for creating specifications for computer software). The ‘learning theory’ in part of the PANDORA Design Team (e.g. see Cook, 2013) involves the objective of designing to support the construction of locally trusted Personal Learning Networks (Cook and Pachler, 2013; this has appeared in the Learning Layers Project ‘Scaffolding Model’ (Ley, Cook et al., 2013)). As a worker’s or group’s connections and confidence grow, they build what we are calling a Professional Learning Network. First stage of scaling is the building, maintaining and activating Personal Learning Networks. Second stage is where professionals move from local trusted personal networks out into wider networks that can potentially include anyone. This is what we are calling Professional Learning Networks (Cook, 2013). ‘Designing for scale’ needs to be considered at this early stage, there are three key aspects to this: diffusion of innovation, systemic pain points and Clusters. ‘Diffusion of innovation’, (Rogers, 1983) is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. A key notion for us is that for Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) to be adopted on a large-scale it needs to address an empirically based ‘systemic pain points’ that, if addressed, have the potential to attract significant take up by other groups of professionals who face the same problem (see Cook, 2013 for an example taken from UK Health Service). This notion of solving ‘systemic pain points’ for scaling links closely to but extends phase of ‘Informed Exploration’ (Bannan-Ritland, 2009). Scaling through ‘Clusters’ involves a “geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities (external economies)” (Porter, 2008). It is important to distinguish managed Clusters from unmanaged clusters or agglomerations/lumps with no organisation or team working on behalf of the cluster members to get them to move in the same direction. The Learning Layers project is working with clusters in Healthcare and construction by building sustainability beyond project horizon by promoting a network of Education Innovation Clusters (see Figure 2) to serve other clusters with services and technologies to
- 3. speed uptake of new learning methods and technology. Key additional concepts (which link this phase in a double headed arrow to the fifth phase) are organisational cultures and contexts; this work is pertinent here in terms of drivers and barriers. Figure 2: Education Innovation Cluster2 Our second phase is called Persuasion (Rogers, 1983, p. 163) and this relates to the perceived characteristics of the innovation as well as the need to keep large project teams ‘on board’. ‘Redefining’ (Rogers, 1983, p. 392) is a key notion here, whereby the “innovation is modified and reinvented to fit the organization, and the organizational structures are altered”. Other key concepts for us based on our experience are: ‘Co-design’, e.g. working with Health Professionals in NE England. ‘Team negotiation’ in larger projects, the need for shared theoretical concept. ‘Interdisciplinarity’ and different cultures are an issue in larger projects – we are evolving the notion of the use of artifacts as tools for design discourse (e.g. to engage wider community and assist scaling via an innovative Open Design Library: Cook, 2013). ‘First cut innovation decision’, the innovation is modified to fit the organization. The PANDORA Design Team emerged from the Open Design conference in Feb 2013. In the UK, health sector national guidelines are published by NICE (http://www.nice.org.uk/) in three areas. Guidelines are interpreted locally by General Practitioners (GPs) and used in local Health Practices. Focus groups (Feb 2013), part of Layers Ethnographic Study (WP1), and Expert interviews has confirmed that communicating these ‘local living guidelines’ can be a problem (it represents a systemic pain point). Research Process is the third phase where we are ‘clarifying’ (Rogers, 1983, p. 392), this refers to the “relationship between the organisation and the innovation” in that “the innovation is defined more clearly”; this relates to design seeking. Other key concepts for us based on our experience are: 2 Thanks to Tor-Arne Bellika for letting me reuse this slide (taken from a US Office for Educational Technology report http://goo.gl/yTHRr), and providing me with insights and references on Clusters.
- 4. ‘Theory check’. A core issue is one of how to embed theory into the design process; at the moment this is the biggest challenge for Learning Layers. We need to keep reminding ourselves that this is about testing theory not just coming up with some solutions to user problems; theory provides an explanatory frame that facilitates an analysis of what works and what does not work across multiple contexts that are complex and different. ‘Users’ are of course all important and their involvement cannot be underestimated. ‘Technology’ - The Network section of the MoLE app3 is provided by Layers partner Tribal; this provides the possibility to create a set of relevant contacts to assist an individual during the ‘building, maintaining and activating Personal and Professional Learning Networks’. ‘Multi-layered project’ (see Cook, 2013 and diagram below, from Learning Layers) ‘Learning’ – the adapted MoLE app could provide the possibility to create a set of relevant contacts to assist an individual during the ‘building, maintaining and activating Personal and Professional Learning Networks. In the fourth phase Design decisions are made, particularly in terms of ‘Routinizing’ (Rogers, 1983, p. 392), whereby the “innovation becomes an ongoing element in the organization’s activities, and loses its identity”. Other key concepts for us based on our experience are: Co-design Empirical work Theory Check Design artefacts Prototypes Our fifth and final phase is Diffusion at scale. ‘Generalizing’ is a process whereby design seeking takes place to ascertain whether a solution to a systemic pain point in one sector 3 http://www.tribalgroup.com/aboutus/news/Pages/TribalSmartphoneAppaimstoenhanceinternationalreliefefforts.aspx Figure 3:
- 5. could be used for the other sectors, e.g. in construction where parallel systemic pain points appear to exist. Other key concepts for us based on our experience are: ‘Clusters’ (see Figure 4, from Learning Layers) and discussion above. ‘Evaluation’ (for example see Bannan-Ritland, 2009). Figure 4: Scaling through Clusters The double headed arrow coming out of our phase five in our model (Figure 1) back to phase one allows us to check our assumptions. The arrow to phase four is iterative feedback loop to inform scaling. The arrow to phase three is a feedback loop to inform theory. Keys research questions If scaling is to work, does the model drive us to think about how to engage and build up trust and relationships? Does the model represent the non-sequential nature of design seeking and scaling? Please add … Next step Please contact: john2.cook@uwe.ac.uk with comments and etc References Bannan-Ritland, B. (2009). The Integrative Learning Design Framework: An Illustrated Example from the Domain of Instructional Technology. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Enschede, Netherlands; SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. Cook, J. (2000). Cooperative Problem-Seeking Dialogues in Learning. In Gauthier, G., Frasson, C. and VanLehn, K. (Eds.) Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 5th International Conference, ITS 2000 Montréal, Canada, June 2000 Proceedings, p. 615–624. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer-Verlag. Available: http://www.academia.edu/attachments/30950194/download_file
- 6. Cook, J. (2013). Reshaping workplace design to facilitate better learning, Invited talk 24th April, Division of Learning Technologies, George Mason University, USA. Slides are available: http://t.co/K1DkaEE2s1 Cook, J. and Pachler, N. (2012). Online People Tagging: Social (Mobile) Network(ing) Services and Work-based Learning. British Journal of Education Technology, 43(5), 711– 725. Link to paper http://tinyurl.com/8ktmuau Jackson, M. (2001). Problem Frames: Analysing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley. Ley, T., Cook, J., Dennerlein, S., Kravcik, M., Kunzmann, ., Laanpere, M., Pata, K., Purma, J., Sandars, J., Santos, P. and Schmidt, A. (2013). Scaling Technologies for Informal Learning: A Multilevel Theoretical Analysis of Scaffolding at the Workplace. Short paper to be presented at EC-TEL (European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning), 18-20 September, Cyprus. Porter, M. E. (2008). Clusters, Innovation, and Competitiveness: New Findings and Implications for Policy. Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness Harvard Business School. Presentation Stockholm, Sweden. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.