I've been asked to be a Discussion Catalyst for a few months on the Transforming Transformation site - a huge discussion group featuring some varied points of view. It's from the guys at NextD. You can have a look at it here.
So here's my second catalyst question:
As a designer, I'm a magpie for things I can think with and bounce ideas from. Other disciplines provide rich food for thought, especially they have a different take on the world. It matters little whether they are right or wrong for the purpose I have, all they need to do is to stimulate my thinking further. Like good nutrition.
We work a lot with stories as a means to prototype propositions, so often we explore the narrative theory to use in thinking about and constructing these, or indeed to break the rules entirely.
Thinking about transformation, Todorov has well-acknowledged reading of narrative structure as transformation, and I thought I'd offer this up as something to think with.
equilibrium as an initial stage;
disruption of that equilibrium by some event;
recognition of that disruption by some agent;
reaction seeking to counteract that disruption;
restitution of equilibrium, but in a new form.
On first reading, it's a symmetrical process. It's unlike anything I've seen in real life, but useful all the same to be able to name stages. It acknowledges the break of the equilibrium that occurs, and the reaction necessary to create the new equilibrium. It understands that the agent must react to regain an equilibrium. Then the new form of equilibrium has the potential to be something that is not enforced. It could even be co-produced.
As a model, it's simplicity leaves space for expansion. We can design-in new elements, experiences and interim stages using Todorov's as the basic model.
By way of contrast, it reminded me of the awful change curve that HR people use to describe the transformation people go through within organisations. Often people are given it as an a4 handout whilst they are being told they no longer have a job. It speaks of denial, resistance, exploration and finally commitment, and to be honest is one of the most crude models in its use. It embodyies a particularly negative attitude to people going through the cycle. Sometimes (if they're lucky) they get a fuller version which goes on to describe shock, fear, depression...but in a graph for some reason it becomes a management tool. It's the Borg model of change - resistance is futile.
So my catalyst question for this week is - what models do you find helpful? And what models do you think actually hinder the work of transformation? And why?
We work a lot with stories as a means to prototype propositions, so often we explore the narrative theory to use in thinking about and constructing these, or indeed to break the rules entirely.
Thinking about transformation, Todorov has well-acknowledged reading of narrative structure as transformation, and I thought I'd offer this up as something to think with.
equilibrium as an initial stage;
disruption of that equilibrium by some event;
recognition of that disruption by some agent;
reaction seeking to counteract that disruption;
restitution of equilibrium, but in a new form.
On first reading, it's a symmetrical process. It's unlike anything I've seen in real life, but useful all the same to be able to name stages. It acknowledges the break of the equilibrium that occurs, and the reaction necessary to create the new equilibrium. It understands that the agent must react to regain an equilibrium. Then the new form of equilibrium has the potential to be something that is not enforced. It could even be co-produced.
As a model, it's simplicity leaves space for expansion. We can design-in new elements, experiences and interim stages using Todorov's as the basic model.
By way of contrast, it reminded me of the awful change curve that HR people use to describe the transformation people go through within organisations. Often people are given it as an a4 handout whilst they are being told they no longer have a job. It speaks of denial, resistance, exploration and finally commitment, and to be honest is one of the most crude models in its use. It embodyies a particularly negative attitude to people going through the cycle. Sometimes (if they're lucky) they get a fuller version which goes on to describe shock, fear, depression...but in a graph for some reason it becomes a management tool. It's the Borg model of change - resistance is futile.
So my catalyst question for this week is - what models do you find helpful? And what models do you think actually hinder the work of transformation? And why?
Answers on a postcard...
Recent Comments