MindBlog Dansk

citizen-centred innovation - anthropological methods - service design - public development - communication - idea and concept development - innovation strategy - cross-institutional collaboration

Search results

Christian Bason

Why is innovation a terrible word?

By Christian Bason July 12th 2010

I’ve had my government-issue HTC smartphone for a while, but it wasn’t until recently that I noticed that the phone maker has written ‘htc innovation’ with miniscule letters on the side of the unit. As if the company wanted to make really sure that I realise I am holding an innovative piece of technology. Probably the wording was slashed on last-minute by the marketing people. ‘It can’t hurt’, they might have been thinking. Who doesn’t want innovation?

Innovation is everywhere, and everyone is claiming it. From my phone maker to producers of washing detergent to space agencies and national governments, innovation is something many people agree is somehow important, but few can really express how. ‘Innovation’ becomes a panacea for any problem because, in essence, it expresses that whatever the challenge is, it is being dealt with successfully. But like a wet bar of soap, ‘innovation’ somehow eludes a firm grip. Paradoxically, we want it, but can’t really express it. That is why, when we at MindLab drafted our communication strategy three years ago, it stated that “‘Innovation’ is a terrible word. But there’s nothing wrong with its content”.

How does innovation become a terrible word? In organisations that are not used to working in new ways, which do not enthusiastically embrace new ideas, and which do not necessarily thrive on on-going change, innovation can become a diffuse, abstract and perhaps even dangerous term. Innovation may be perceived as  anything from wild creativity, ‘letting your hair down’, to a management fad, or to loosing control to risky experimentation. No wonder that some people, and in my experience in particular people in government, dislike the word.

However, if ‘innovation’ wasn’t part of our vocabulary, we’d have to invent it. Innovation is the only term we have that captures the notion of creating something new that works. It embodies the dialectic of inspiration (generating the new ideas we need to create the future we want) and execution (the practice of getting things done to create value).

As opposed to ‘creativity’ or ‘invention’, innovation is therefore, and perhaps surprising to some, highly practical. The best of  the (vast) literature on innovation not only offers extremely useful perspectives on strategy, leadership and organisation. It offers a set of professional approaches, tools and methods which can help make the process of creating the new solutions we need, whether it be a new product or a public service, conscious, strategic and systematic.

Because the concept and practice of innovation offers us something valuable, or even essential, we need to take very seriously those who dismiss it. Rather than just slapping the word on everything we, as scholars and practitioners, say or do, we must take care to give it the meaning and content needed for the sceptics to become curious and, eventually, embrace it.

But to place the practice of innovation more squarely at the heart of government, we need to continue to show what it is, and how it works in practice. That is why we at MindLab spend so much time documenting and sharing our cases with others within the ministries we are part of, and beyond — online and in person. To be convincing, innovation has to be concrete.

As for my phone? Well, it works OK. But honestly? There are more innovative models out there.

Christian Bason

Can diversity give us systematic innovation?

By Christian Bason March 16th 2010

So, yesterday morning I was interviewed by Danish national radio about systematic innovation. What is that?

The occasion was that on March 15th, the Copenhagen-based think tank Monday Morning launched its ambitious “The Entrepreneurs of Welfare” report on how innovation happens in Danish government. More than 2400 people from government, business and the third sector (myself included) have contributed to the study, which emphasizes that what everyone wants in order to create change is ‘freedom’ and ‘responsibility’. OK…?

More interestingly, although the report shows that new welfare solutions are certainly bubbling up to the surface everywhere in Denmark’s public landscape, the depressing fact is that very few of the innovations are goundbreaking or transformative. Further, the solutions often happen randomly, carried through by a few lonely entrepreneurs and in spite of the multitude of barriers we all know characterise new thinking in government.  My answer: Seems like we need more systematic and strategic innovation.

What is then systematic innovation? ‘Systematic’ is about conscious, explicit, with purpose. And ‘innovation’ is about divergence and variance. Maybe even risk.  So… could we systematically, purposefully, stimulate the variance that drives innovation?

Does a homogenous welfare state like Denmark not need to strengthen the ability of institutions to experiment with their own unique models of service delivery — and arrive at what they believe is the best way of creating value to citizens? If yes, we might need to forget the ‘one size fits’ all model, and start accepting a greater divergence of delivery models. Should we encourage more privately-run day care institutions, schools and hospitals? Should we strengthen the opportunities for NGO (third sector) actors to contribute with their skills, expertise and commitment in care for handicapped or for tackling environmental challenges?

Should governments’ role be less of running the core operations of the welfare state in search of ever-higher homogeneity, but rather to encourage vastly different delivery models,  only measuring them on their results? What might be required of our systems,  organisations and (not least) funding if we were to accept that innovation is driven by variance,  not homogeneity? Could ’systematic’ innovation also be about government consciously encouraging and managing diversity? What might that mean to equality, and to what we define as the welfare state? And more importantly: What level of energy and passion might be released if we embraced diversity and rewarded success?

Nina Holm Vohnsen

Labour market montage 1

By Nina Holm Vohnsen October 26th 2009

Academic work I // sketch for a presentation. I take a shower. Make a cup of coffee. Nescafe. Hotel room. I only pour half of it in my cup. Or I won’t sleep. I sit at the desk. I forget what I’m doing. Stare at the paper. Write the heading. The coffee. Tastes bad. Look at my cellphone. There is sand on the table. Look at the paper. Thoughts wanders off. The coffee. Tastes bad. Makes even real milk taste UHT. Why do phone cords always coil? Look at my mobile. Turn on my computer. The coffee. Surprisingly bad. I forget why I turned on the computer. Then I remember, though it wasn’t the reason to begin with. I switch to standby. One bullet on my list. I look at the coffee. Was it that bad? Yes. I finish it. Almost. I go insane. Push it away. Look at the mobile. Lean back in chair. Look out the window. Look at my mobile. Put down my pen.

Thought I // inspired by David Mosse. What if all the clever plans and schemes that policy makers go about developing serves no other purpose than being creative obstacles to those whose job it is to translate the politicians’’ intentions into practice? Thought II // inspired by Tim Ingold. How might you rethink policy (understood as an attempt at a prescriptive design) when you take seriously that shape giving is a constant process resulting from people’s engagement with life, each other and their physical surroundings and not an execution of any grand plan?

Irrelevant detail I // green eyes. Her irises are at least twice as big as any I have seen until now. They stabbed me or no one in particular through the stench of urine. Two gigantic jewels hovering above the cardboard box. Oh! She was just a junkie.

Academic work II // field work. He holds out a plastic bag. I don’t understand what he is saying, only that he wants me to look inside the bag. Guesstimate; there is about 40 boxes of pills in this plastic bag that he has brought with him into the computer room. He brings coffee and tea for the employees and the participants who have been referred to ‘the ’sickness benefit package solution’. He hands me a cup of coffee with milk and asks me who I am? Praises the employees. And then; the plastic bag. He intents something but I have no idea what. I look into the bag at the pills. I think he tells me that he wants to talk to his caseworker about the pills. I know nothing about pills. Here is what I know: He holds a string of rejected job applications; if he doesn’’t get a job he wont be able to bring his wife to the country; the municipality has invested in a ’sickness benefit package solution’ to get him full time employment; they pay around 1000 kr a week for 25 hour that are meant to put him ‘the citizen’ at the center and bring him closer to the labor marked. Here is what he knows about me: Nothing. 0. Zero.

Rasmus Kolding

Design as a driver against climate change

By Rasmus Kolding September 29th 2009

This is a small film we produced in the aftermath of the Manuel Toscano speech & workshop during Copenhagen Design Week. Music by Apollo Music.

Anette Væring

MindLab event during Cph Design Week 09

By Anette Væring September 8th 2009

MindLab hosted a speak and a workshop on Sep. 2nd, on the topic of ‘Design as a driver against climate change’. The speak was given by Manuel Toscano, from the NY based design studio ZAGO.

See the video and the pictures below.

Christian Bason

What could design do for government?

By Christian Bason August 25th 2009

INDEX seeks to improve life. So does government.

Copenhagen this week is dominated by design. On the beautiful Kgs. Nytorv square, world class designs are on display in transparent plastic bubbles. This Friday, a select few of them will win the prestigious biannual INDEX:Award in categories like body, home, work and play.

Now, that’s all very well. But there isn’t an INDEX: prize category for government.

What if there was? Could design also change the way government works? For INDEX: the slogan is “design to improve life”. Believe it or not, but most government agencies are created to improve how society works and how life in society is lived.

What if design thinking characterised the very way government develops new services and policies? At MindLab we are increasingly learning how design can dramatically improve the process of shaping future visions for society, both in the abstract and the very practical. From climate change strategies to how we meet individual citizens at a job centre, the design process offers us a new way of realising desirable outcomes.

What could be the contribution of design to government? Here are some suggestions:

See everything as an experiment.

Challenge the status quo.

Value the citizen.

Be concrete.

Co-create.

Visualise.

Iterate.

Could these seven principles transform how government works? Perhaps. When a network of 25 design experts and practitioners meet in Copenhagen this coming weekend for another design event, the Co’creation summit, to write a manifesto for the future of design, my guess is that some of these principles will be part of the package. For many of the participants, this will not be very surprising. But if public managers really, really took design to heart, it could be the beginning of a revolution.

Jesper Christiansen

Policy-based evidence or evidence-based policy?

By Jesper Christiansen June 25th 2009

“If we want people to innovate, the responsibility has to be with them” (John Seddon, 2009)

At MindLab we often experience how innovation the public sector can be a complex matter in a system that seems to be built for stability and not for development and change. John Seddon addresses this issue in his new book ‘Systems Thinking in the Public Sector’ where he tries to come with solutions for what he calls “the failures of the reform regime”.billede1

According to John Seddon innovation in the public sector is drowning. An intense monitorism poses systems of extreme control which leaves public workers demoralized in a high rate. Seddon argues that this is due to the neglecting of one almost too evident matter: the creation of systems based on the implementation of service experience from the points of view of workers and users.

He introduces what he calls ‘systems thinking’ which is based on the basic thought that the design of the system determines how actors behave. The only plan you will need, he argues, is knowledge by studying the system and the flow of demand in customer terms. Seddon puts it this way: “Things always go wrong. If something is going wrong predictably, you can only turn it off by re-designing the service”.

This should be done by involving public workers in control and development. “If you want someone to do a good job, design a good job to do. Workers have to have the means to control and improve their own work. The work of managers then changes to a cooperative role, working on the system. Working on the work with the worker”.

The measuring of public service should instead be based on the actual local work that is being done and in this way make room for variety and unexpected innovation. Thus, for Seddon there is no good way to set up target standards because they will always be arbitrary and never fit on a broad scale. This means, as we often underline at MindLab, that the complexity of public demands should be taken into account and policy should aim at coping with these rather natural and human circumstances.

This doesn’t mean that governments should stop talking about visions and purpose. As Seddon puts it: “It’s entirely legitimate for the government to talk about purpose, but it must be the managerial responsibility to make choices about measures and method”. This changes the locus of control and puts public workers at the centre of understanding and improving their work. As it should be according to Seddon to avoid a regime “that looks for policy-based evidence, not evidence-based policy”.

Quotes taken from the lecture ‘Cultural change is free‘ at 2009 conference of the Human Givens Institute.

Also read “Systems Thinking in the Public Sector” (John Seddon, Triarchy Press 2009) and check out The Systems Thinking Review.systems-thinking-cover

Christian Bason

Larry’s three laws: Lessons from Stanford’s Center for Design Research

By Christian Bason June 25th 2009

“We are dogmatic about prototypes.” So says Larry Leifer, a university professor and the Founding Director ofStanford University’s Center for Design Research. Over the past 25 years his institution has produced more than 40 design research Ph.Ds, all of whom are closely cooperating with some of the world’s leading companies to solve specific problems. When you visit the Center for Design Research, as I recently had the chance to do, you are struck by how down-to-earth and practically focused the work of the institution is. The design school is linked to Stanford’s engineering area, and the engineers’ feel for technology and practical problem-solving is contagious. Many of the students have obtained a Masters degree in technology before coming to the design school. A peek into the school’s biggest room reveals 4-5 groups of students working dedicatedly on projects for companies like BMW, Panasonic and SAP. Flat screens are ubiquitous, the walls are all covered with whiteboards, and large notices describing case studies and project descriptions hang beneath the ceiling. Lego bricks lie scattered on the shelves, and in one corner of the room sits the entire dashboard from a German passenger car. On the other hand, there are no partitions separating the various workgroups, and no bookshelf stands more than waist-high.

Work environment at Stanford's Center for Design Research
Work environment at Stanford’s Center for Design Research

“We believe that in a knowledge environment, we ought to be able to see each other,” says Larry Leifer. He says that over the years he has become known for “Larry’s three laws”, which describe the work of the design school:

#1: Design is a social and technical activity
#2: Preserve ambiguity
#3: All designers redesign.

What is the significance of the three laws? From MindLab’s perspective they also make sense when you apply them to the public sector’s development processes. Let’s try to reinterpret them:

#1: Public sector innovation involves the generation of a deep understanding of the social reality we want to modify, as well as finding solutions – including technological ones – that are capable of bringing about positive change. Only a minority of public-sector innovators would disagree with that assertion. Maybe we are just not good enough at being at the leading edge with regard to the latest technological advances. For instance, how many public organizations have fully exploited the potential that mobile technology offers?

#2: Public sector innovation requires being willing to stick with uncertainty and ambiguity well into the development process. In our experience, this kind of divergence is essential for sparking off the understanding of a problem, as well as for generating novel solutions. Sometimes you have to take a detour in order to reach your goal. However, this is an area where public development officials, and their bosses especially, begin to lose their nerve. “When will we reach our target?” “Now is the time for us to bring this to a conclusion.” “Precisely how does this activity help us to solve the problem?” Such doubts are understandable, but sterile. The innovation process requires having confidence that it will hit its mark even when it doesn’t seem as though it will.

#3: Public sector innovation requires iteration: being willing not only to design a possible solution, but also to test and redesign it. At MindLab we believe that the learning process that unfolds through experimenting with partial solutions, obtaining feedback from citizens and businesses, and then refining the solutions, is extremely valuable. It merely requires a willingness to get involved with incomplete measures or initiatives, plus the courage to accept the consequences of the feedback we receive.

So where do the prototypes fit into this picture? Well, a prototype – whether of a dashboard or a public sector service process – makes a solution tangible. And unless it has been made tangible it cannot be tested or developed further. At the same time, the prototype is a tool that demonstrates how it is possible to turn ambiguity into something concrete and turn it into a solution that combines social processes with technological opportunities. It is therefore quite reasonable to be dogmatic about using prototypes. Without them we would be breaking all three of Larry’s laws.

Larry Leifer talks about design research
Larry Leifer talks about design research
Christian Bason

Welcome to MindBlog

By Christian Bason February 28th 2009

Today MindLab powers up the dialogue on innovation in the public sector – and you’re invited to take part in the conversation. We will actively use this blog to share experiences, case examples, research results and methods from our collaboration on innovation projects in the three ministries MindLab is a part of: The Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs, the Ministry of Taxation and the Ministry of Employment. In addition we will look far beyond the Danish state administration to gather new perspectives  on innovation: From other public sector practitioners, from academia, from the private and third sectors and of course, from Denmark and abroad.

We are launching this English variety of the blog in the hope that MindBlog will prove relevant not only for our colleagues in the three ministries, but for everyone with a passion for transforming the public sector and creating value for society.

No matter where you are, we hope you will let yourself be engaged with us and the themes we address.

In short, it is our ambition that MindBlog will be the most valuable place to harvest inspiration and knowledge when you work with public sector innovation. As far as we can see, that place is missing today, even as innovation has become nearly as much of a buzzword in public organisations as it has been for decades in the private sector. Exactly because the term is pretty much everywhere, and thus in risk of losing both content and meaning, we believe it is essential to stimulate a more nuanced and deeper conversation about how to create better social solutions, and turn them into reality.

Meanwhile, two particular perspectives characterise the prism through which we at MindLab see the world – and those two perspectives will also influence this blog:

The first perspective is user-centered innovation: How can we best involve citizens and businesses directly in the innovation process, and what kind of value can it generate? How can users, civil servants and other stakeholders participate in a fruitful interplay, that can trigger new ways of thinking about public services and public policy?

The second perspective is cross-cutting collaboration and alliances: How to promote a sound process for cooperation across departments, sectors, and across public, private and social domains? It is our experience, that to place citizens and businesses at the center of the innovation process automatically forces us to think beyond the traditional “silo” organisation of the public sector we know. That places the two perspectives in a natural relationship to each other.

All of MindLabs staff contributes to the blog. That means that you can expect a broad palette of angles and approaches to innovation, which also represents our different professional backgrounds – from design to anthropology, and from media to political science. We experience it as a strength in our daily work that we hold different perspectives and interests – we hope that you will experience the same. Enjoy your reading. We look forward to hearing from you!