Studio VI - Week 12 & 13
Following the workshop we ran with colab members, we received some feedback from Ben on Monday of week 12.
He gave some generally positive good feedback with some constructive ones to let us know on how we can further improve and justify the decisions that we’ve made. What really stuck out to us was when he made the comment that our project is “good” but not “great”.
Although we created some meaningful insights in a field that is definitely a relevant issue, especially in New Zealand, nothing about the project that we did or the way approached was exploring the fringes of what’s already available. It’s true that we’ve been doing Co Design which can be considered quite a new approach to solving issues but it’s a discipline in itself. I think what Ben was talking was that we weren’t doing anything to challenge the borders of that discipline that makes it a Creative Technologist project.
Upon reflecting on what Ben had said, it gave us a realisation that although we have been using Co Design methods, we haven’t necessarily been working within the discipline of Co Design. Let me explain. Co Design is the approach of empowering non-designers to be able to design a solution based on an underlying issue or opportunity that they’ve uncovered. It’s giving someone alternative tools for drawing besides a pencil or giving someone alternative tools for driving besides a wheel. It’s primarily focused around enabling to come up with a solution.
What we’ve done is used Co Design methods to create an experience for the participants. The focus isn’t what they make at the end of it but the learning about themselves and others that’s important. It’s the gaining of insight.
Having said that, we Lara and I thought... “It’s not creative technologist enough”.
Ben tried to help us by giving us an example of a direction that we could take. He sent us a link to Story Cubes. It’s a play device that encourages and inspires people to create stories procedurally, based on a number of dices with prodding images. How he saw us taking it was that we as Creative Technologists could create a new tool that hasn’t existed before that could act as an alternative for some of the ones in the Co Design arsenal.
With this in mind, Lara and I analyse what each tool that we used was doing. What was their purpose and what were the adding to the experience. We decided to break down the workshop and its activities into a framework, listing their purpose. Listed below is the step by step framework.
Create a safe and supportive environment.
Provide an opportunity to become aware of other participants.
Provide a platform for participants to express themselves.
Allow participants to share.
Provide a framework for participants to empathise.
Allow participants to share the experience.
These steps are what we think lead to a successful workshop. Logically, I asked, what are the possible concepts that we can build around one or two of these steps. Lara on the other hand had a different idea.
That’s what started our week long endeavour on creating a proposition for an online tool that embodies the framework that we’ve made to recreate the experience of encouraged emphatic behaviour through an online medium. The reason for online is because we envisioned it being a resource/tool that organisations that we approach could refer people to. They have a strong online presence so it makes sense that we go with what has been working for them.
Of course, it brings up a number of risks and considerations that could alter how the online tool differs from the workshop but these are all mentioned in our proposition. In the end, we’ve come up with a strong foundation for a specific outcome with strict guidelines on the purpose it has and what needs to be done to ensure it’s delivered.
Happy overall.











