Archives For science and design

Design for Complexity: The Hidden Power of Networks

October 16, 2012 — Leave a comment

I recently moderated a fascinating session at the World Economic Forum ‘Summer Davos‘ in Tianjin, China. Two network scientists, Cesar Hidalgo of MIT and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi of Harvard, discussed the underlying science of how networks operate and how this knowledge might be applied to business and economics.

At the outset of network science a key question was raised: are networks random? If so, all nodes would be more or less similar to each other. But that is not the case. The reality is that certain nodes have more connections than others and play the role of hubs. New nodes in a pre-existing network tend to connect with highly connected nodes. After a certain threshold, the removal of highly connected nodes can make a whole network fall apart. Thus interconnectivity is beneficial but also brings in vulnerability: if you and I are connected we can share resources; meanwhile your problems can become mine, and vice versa. This happens in many different kinds of networks, from financial systems to social media to electrical power grids. Numerous complex systems can be mapped and analyzed, such as transportation and biological systems.

Network science and tools are readily available to shed light on factors that were not considered in the past and to inform decisions in many different sectors and organizations. The adoption of network science and tools for decision-making are especially powerful when designing for complexity. Hidalgo even proposed that the future economic growth of nations can be predicted based on an analysis of networks of production.

In our own organizations, network visualizations and analyses can be used to inform management decisions by looking at how employees connect to each other and how information flows through networks.

Here’s more from the session on the power of networks: weforum.org/sessions/summary/power-networks.

(posted also on my LinkedIn Thought Leader blog)

In design of government, design thinking, designing for impact, economic recovery, organizational design, science and design, strategic thinking, visual design , , , ,
permalink

Design for Emergence: From Newton’s Blueprint to Darwin’s DNA

October 2, 2012 — Leave a comment

Like most designers, I am quite comfortable with the notion of designing simple things. I can pick up just about any object and tell you how it was made, and I could probably have a reasonable crack at designing an equivalent of it, even though I’m not a particularly technical person. That’s because it’s possible to definitively know everything important about a simple object: its form, the market for it, and the best method of manufacturing it. The traditional design process entails figuring all of this out beforehand and ‘making it so’ in the world. The essence of this Newtonian model of design, which personifies control and defining every outcome, is the blueprint.

As designers and leaders in increasingly complex systems, we need to go beyond designing blueprints. Like Darwin, we need to consider a future of constant evolution and emergent change. We need to design for human needs amid unpredictability on a global scale. But how? We can start by working with a design model beyond the blueprint: our own DNA.

At one level, genetic code represents a biological view of design, because it is an ‘instruction set’ for biological behavior. On another level, it represents the idea that code is only the beginning of something: it sets off a series of behaviors. While most of us don’t understand how to work with genetic code, many of us do understand how to work with software code. The digital design revolution—more open-ended than ever—points the way. How might we go beyond Newton’s blueprint in other areas to design for emergence?

(posted also on my LinkedIn Thought Leader blog)

In design thinking, emergent design, science and design , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Design renews its relationship with science

February 26, 2011 — 3 Comments

bug1

I have noticed a growing conversation recently concerning the relationship between design and science.

Adam Bly, founder and editor of Seed magazine, did much to get this conversation started, aided and abetted by Paola Antonelli, Curator of Design and the New York Museum of Modern Art. Some of her columns on the topic of design as it relates to science are excellent, as was the Design and the Elastic Mind show she hosted at MOMA a couple of years ago. Unfortunately the magazine ceased its print version in 2009 but there is still great material on the website.

My own view is that the latter half of the twentieth century saw a steady decline in designs interest toward science and technology as engineering inserted itself between the two. This is not a criticism of engineers who, in places like silicon valley, performed wonders with the new technologies of micro-processors, storage, networking and software to create the products and services we rely on today. The same is true in other fields such as aeronautics and bio-medicine. No, my criticism is of the designers and scientists who have relied on engineers to provide the translation between their two fields. My concern is that in this translation much is lost that could benefit scientists, designers and the end user.

I wonder how much might be gained if designers had a deeper understanding of the science behind synthetic biology and genomics? Or nanotechnology? Or robotics? Could designers help scientists better see the implications and opportunities of the technologies they are creating? Might better educated and aware designers be in a position to challenge the assumptions of the science or reinterpret them in innovative ways? Might they do a better job of fitting the new science into our lives so that we can gain more benefit?

If scientists were more comfortable with intuitive nature of design might they ask more interesting questions? The best scientists often show great leaps of intuition as they develop new hypotheses and yet so much modern science seems to be a dreary methodical process that answers ever more incremental questions. If scientists had some of the skills of designers might they be better able to communicate their new discoveries to the public?

The twenty-first century will be the scene of significant scientific developments that may fundamentally change our human experience. I am intrigued by how different that change might be if scientists and designers could figure out how to work better together.

I am off to TED next week for my annual dose of new ideas about science, and many other topics. I will be on the look out for scientists who might be interested in hanging out with some designers.

In science and design , , , ,
permalink