Murphy Open Social Mapping Workshop
1 like851 views
The document discusses open social mapping, which combines actor modeling, social network analysis, and crowdsourcing to map stakeholders in a system. It aims to center stakeholders by allowing them to map themselves, rather than relying on representative models. Potential benefits include increasing trust, identifying disconnects, visualizing diversity, and facilitating shared understanding between stakeholders. Examples of open social mapping projects in Canada are provided. Design considerations for open social mapping include engagement, data privacy, power dynamics, and ensuring interoperability between maps.
![References
Collopy, F. (2009, June 7). Lessons Learned — Why the Failure of Systems Thinking Should Inform the Future of Design Thinking. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from Fast Company website: https://www.fastcompany.com/1291598/lessons-
learned-why-failure-systems-thinking-should-inform-future-design-thinking
Geiger, D., Rosemann, M., Fielt, E., & Schader, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing Information Systems - Definition, Typology, and Design. Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012, 11.
Gopal, S., & Clarke, T. (2015, December). System Mapping: A Guide to Developing Actor Maps. Retrieved from http://fsg.org/tools-and-resources/system-
mapping?utm_source=fsg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=07182016ecocyclemapping&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Download%20the%20Guide&utm_campaign=07182016ecocyclemapping
Human Centered Design Toolkit. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit
Jones, P. H. (2014). Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems. In G. S. Metcalf (Ed.), Social Systems and Design (pp. 91–128). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54478-4_4
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 36–41. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/images/articles/2011_WI_Feature_Kania.pdf
Kolko, J. (2010). Sensemaking and framing: A theoretical reflection on perspective in design synthesis. Design Research Society. Retrieved from http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/DRS2010/PDF/067.pdf
Lukyanenko, R., & Parsons, J. (2018). Beyond Micro-Tasks: Research Opportunities in Observational Crowdsourcing. Journal of Database Management, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2018010101
Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003
Muller, M., & Druin, A. (2012). Participatory Design: The Third Space in Human– Computer Interaction. In J. Jacko (Ed.), Human–Computer Interaction Handbook (Vol. 20126252, pp. 1125–1154). https://doi.org/10.1201/b11963-57
Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A Strategic Framework for Customer Relationship Management. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.167
Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The Dawn of System Leadership. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 13(1), 27–33. Retrieved from https://networkpeninsula.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/The_Dawn_of_System_Leadership-1.pdf
Van Alstyne, G., & Logan, R. K. (2007). Designing for Emergence and Innovation: Redesigning Design. Artifact, 1(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460601110525
Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2007). Get the Whole System in the Room. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 30(3), 4–8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219115072/abstract/34CBD29280604DB0PQ/1
Wendt, T. (2017, January 10). Empathy as Faux Ethics. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from EPIC website: https://www.epicpeople.org/empathy-faux-ethics/
whitcroft, aimee. (2018, November 20). Mapping the openX ecosystem. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from quicksand website: https://medium.com/quicksand/mapping-the-openx-ecosystem-8033ab9e5fcf
whitcroft, aimee. (n.d.). The #openX ecosystem - a map [Ecosystem map]. Retrieved from https://kumu.io/aimeew/the-openx-ecosystem
2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 28](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/twdzeg3tfe0oi5tkpftw-signature-1716f5e0890e7423a3cafa2091d35592abef3b5aa1a176696897810212c6f833-poli-200104204548/85/Murphy-Open-Social-Mapping-Workshop-28-320.jpg)
Murphy Open Social Mapping Workshop
- 1. Getting the whole system into the... map Addressing key issues in Open Social Mapping Oct 18, 2019 Ryan J. A. Murphy + Lewis Muirhead (with Jennifer DeCoste and Heather Laird) ryan@systemic.design
- 2. Introduction • From the RSD8 call for proposals: • “Building, activating, and amplifying capacity to co-design and co- produce with real stakeholders has always been a challenging commitment.” • The challenge is that so many methods abstract the real stakeholder • E.g., personas, journey maps, projected empathy • Best case: representatives of every relevant stakeholder group 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 2
- 3. Introduction • When we work with stakeholders, we observe, and we agglomerate or synthesize our observations into models, theories, prototypes, and so on. • These tools are useful! But: • When these tools are based on bad information, they are less useful, potentially even risky 3
- 4. Introduction • What if we could engage all interested stakeholders? • This option is newly feasible… • Crowdsourcing & data science, cheaper/better platforms for engagement • … desirable … • Systems change leadership, network weavers, collective impact • … and viable. • Systemic design principles and approaches 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 4
- 5. Open Social Mapping • “Open social mapping” combines actor modeling, social network modeling and analysis, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, and crowdsourcing • The idea: stakeholders map themselves • As a result, open social mapping platforms may help systemic designers understand the aggregate of many stakeholders (rather than depend on representations) • Even better: open social mapping platforms help to map the dynamics of social systems—who works with who, what barriers are common to which stakeholders, etc. 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 5
- 6. Possible benefits: • Centering the stakeholder • It is possible to visualize and even connect directly with real stakeholders in these social systems • It may help build trust and transparency with/between disparate stakeholder groups • Systemic CRMs • Designers can identify key disconnects between subgroups or individuals and make those connections • Increase contrast on the unknowns in a social system • These maps make visual the diversity of a stakeholder group, helping designers to investigate who might be missing or excluded • Stakeholders can see themselves (+ others) • Decentralizes the tool by providing the same utility to stakeholders as generated for the project team 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 6
- 7. Possible benefits: • Open Social Maps facilitate “frame translation” • As stakeholders reconcile their data (e.g., challenges, work, etc.) with the instances represented on the map, it becomes easy to see when the same concept is represented by different language • Open Social Maps challenge boundary frames • The modeling of real social networks allow designers to make informed decisions about who and what to involve in deeper investigations 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 7
- 8. The #openX ecosystem 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 8
- 9. British Columbia Council for International Cooperation (BCCIC)’s Movement Map 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 9
- 10. BCCIC’s Movement Map 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 10
- 11. BCCIC’s Movement Map 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 11
- 12. BCCIC’s Movement Map 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 12
- 13. The Interoperable Mapping Project (IMP!) • Maps developed with civil servant and multi-sectoral innovation groups in Canada • Collected over 350 meaningful entries across 7 mini-open maps and one larger map • Maps continue to develop slowly • Some maps took off: people co-opted and changed IMP to their own needs • Kind of like Creative Commons, licensing and networks-of-networks may be needed to keep it together. 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 13
- 14. 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 14
- 15. 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 15
- 16. A reason for mapping • Our Purpose: • Increase awareness of who is doing what in the region • A tool for practitioners to find each other, connect, and scheme virtuously together • Demonstrate to Government and other potential funders the breadth and scope of what is happening, what is needed in the region - speaking with one voice • Our Goals: • Build relationships – connecting actors within the network, strengthening existing relationships • Unearthing initiatives, creating momentum for new initiatives through collaboration • Identifying critical levers for change/intervention by observing patterns surfacing in the map 2019-10-18 Open Social Mapping 16
- 17. Social Innovation is a spectrum! 2019-10-18 Open Social Mapping 17 Changemakers People who are well past thinking and are fully invested in doing. They have chosen a strategy and are taking action and are willing to experiment and find themselves succeeding - and failing - but always learning. Contributors People who are determined to move to action, because not everyone is personally or organizationally ready to take part in changemaking work Supporters People who recognize injustice in the systems around them, even when those systems are serving them just fine... Participants Those doing important work in communities but not yet working regionally, or able to contribute to work focused on systems change because their attention is focused on the survival of specific programs or services for their clients.
- 18. 2019-10-18 Open Social Mapping 18 Designing the map
- 19. Designing the map • Geographical location • Stakeholder type (Government, Board members, Funders, “friends of”, various project Advisory councils, etc.) • Issue or focus area (e.g. Youth, Housing, Seniors, Food security, specific project initiatives, etc.) • Community Connections: Community project groups / activity workgroups / Partnership relationships / Affiliations • Population serviced (e.g. what demographic groups are served by this work) • Events that they may have attended... 2019-10-18 Open Social Mapping 19
- 20. Designing the map—Tags • Arts / Culture / Heritage • Agriculture / Food security • Poverty & Affordable Services • Housing & Homelessness • Health and Wellness • Education • Equality / Diversity & Inclusion • Sustainable Cities and Communities • Rural issues • Mobility / Transportation • Water Use / Conservation • Affordable and Clean Energy • Economic Development • Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship • Shared Community Spaces • Environment / Climate Action / Conservation • Justice / Criminal matters / Public Safety • Governance and democratic institutions • Leveraging Partnerships • Digital / Open Data • Indicators and Measurements • Philanthropy and social finance • Public Engagement 2019-10-18 Open Social Mapping 20
- 21. 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 21
- 22. Discussion • A moment for questions/thoughts before the hands-on part begins… 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 22
- 23. Workshop—four key issues • Promotion, engagement, data capture and upkeep • How to reach widely, sustain momentum, maintain data, and transfer ownership? • Privacy of data • What are participants comfortable with? How to support and involve the vulnerable? • Power dynamics and politics • Who leads these projects? What of language? • Interoperability and redundant maps • Preventing self-mapping burnout, helping maps help each other 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 23
- 24. The Systemic Design Process 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 24
- 25. The Systemic Design Process 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 25
- 26. The Systemic Design Process • (1) idealization • (what are the ideal states or conditions of this issue?) • (4) requisite variety • (what are the options available to potential solutions?) • (5) boundary framing • (what constraints hold on this issue?) • (6) ordering • (what are the most important components of open social mapping, and how do they relate?), and • (8) generative emergence • (what potential changes might make a difference?) 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 26
- 27. Report back • What did we find? 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 27
- 28. References Collopy, F. (2009, June 7). Lessons Learned — Why the Failure of Systems Thinking Should Inform the Future of Design Thinking. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from Fast Company website: https://www.fastcompany.com/1291598/lessons- learned-why-failure-systems-thinking-should-inform-future-design-thinking Geiger, D., Rosemann, M., Fielt, E., & Schader, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing Information Systems - Definition, Typology, and Design. Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012, 11. Gopal, S., & Clarke, T. (2015, December). System Mapping: A Guide to Developing Actor Maps. Retrieved from http://fsg.org/tools-and-resources/system- mapping?utm_source=fsg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=07182016ecocyclemapping&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Download%20the%20Guide&utm_campaign=07182016ecocyclemapping Human Centered Design Toolkit. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit Jones, P. H. (2014). Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems. In G. S. Metcalf (Ed.), Social Systems and Design (pp. 91–128). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54478-4_4 Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 36–41. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/images/articles/2011_WI_Feature_Kania.pdf Kolko, J. (2010). Sensemaking and framing: A theoretical reflection on perspective in design synthesis. Design Research Society. Retrieved from http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/DRS2010/PDF/067.pdf Lukyanenko, R., & Parsons, J. (2018). Beyond Micro-Tasks: Research Opportunities in Observational Crowdsourcing. Journal of Database Management, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2018010101 Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003 Muller, M., & Druin, A. (2012). Participatory Design: The Third Space in Human– Computer Interaction. In J. Jacko (Ed.), Human–Computer Interaction Handbook (Vol. 20126252, pp. 1125–1154). https://doi.org/10.1201/b11963-57 Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A Strategic Framework for Customer Relationship Management. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.167 Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The Dawn of System Leadership. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 13(1), 27–33. Retrieved from https://networkpeninsula.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/The_Dawn_of_System_Leadership-1.pdf Van Alstyne, G., & Logan, R. K. (2007). Designing for Emergence and Innovation: Redesigning Design. Artifact, 1(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460601110525 Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2007). Get the Whole System in the Room. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 30(3), 4–8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219115072/abstract/34CBD29280604DB0PQ/1 Wendt, T. (2017, January 10). Empathy as Faux Ethics. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from EPIC website: https://www.epicpeople.org/empathy-faux-ethics/ whitcroft, aimee. (2018, November 20). Mapping the openX ecosystem. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from quicksand website: https://medium.com/quicksand/mapping-the-openx-ecosystem-8033ab9e5fcf whitcroft, aimee. (n.d.). The #openX ecosystem - a map [Ecosystem map]. Retrieved from https://kumu.io/aimeew/the-openx-ecosystem 2019-10-18 | Open Social Mapping 28