| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision |
| marine_colab:lab_approach_essay [2017-03-29 10:43] – nik | marine_colab:lab_approach_essay [2017-03-29 11:59] (current) – maja |
|---|
| |
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/19388984770/in/album-72157650383972831/}} | |
| |
| ===What are the key aspects of the lab approach?=== | ===What are the key aspects of the lab approach?=== |
| Co-creation and peer learning are the cornerstones of the lab-approach. The lab approach encourages participants to question, extend and borrow methods from each others' practices. Sometimes they constructively challenge assumptions, other times they find unexpected synergies between disparate approaches and ideas. The more diverse the participants' backgrounds, the more they can learn from each other. In a multistakeholder group, every person is an expert in some areas, and a novice in many others. One person's weakness is likely someone else's strength. When combined, they can complement and support each other. A participatory process - such the lab approach - connects individuals' diverse skills and personalities into a whole that can ideally become more then the sum of its parts. In a systems change lab no individual expertise can ever fully cover the breadth of subject matter. Realising just how interdependent we are (as individuals, collectives and societies) can be a humbling experience. Yet interdependence also brings about a sense of agency and responsibility - "what I do matters; my actions influence all other actions". The lab process acknowledges individual contributions and engages each participant as a team member contributing to the group's collective intelligence. | Co-creation and peer learning are the cornerstones of the lab-approach. The lab approach encourages participants to question, extend and borrow methods from each others' practices. Sometimes they constructively challenge assumptions, other times they find unexpected synergies between disparate approaches and ideas. The more diverse the participants' backgrounds, the more they can learn from each other. In a multistakeholder group, every person is an expert in some areas, and a novice in many others. One person's weakness is likely someone else's strength. When combined, they can complement and support each other. A participatory process - such the lab approach - connects individuals' diverse skills and personalities into a whole that can ideally become more then the sum of its parts. In a systems change lab no individual expertise can ever fully cover the breadth of subject matter. Realising just how interdependent we are (as individuals, collectives and societies) can be a humbling experience. Yet interdependence also brings about a sense of agency and responsibility - "what I do matters; my actions influence all other actions". The lab process acknowledges individual contributions and engages each participant as a team member contributing to the group's collective intelligence. |
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/19388806580/in/album-72157650383972831/}} | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/19388806580/in/album-72157650383972831/}}\\ |
| |
| Participatory processes appreciate the importance of aligning personal and collective development, intellectual and experiential learning. Successful participatory processes include a multiplicity of formats that speak to a range of faculties - some participants excel verbally, others visually; some have a penchant for analysis, others for synthesis; some prefer introverted activities while others thrive in extroversion. Furthermore, the participants' faculties and preferences aren't a fixed constant. They depend on a range of internal and external influences, from things as visceral as back-pain to the a group being affected by shocking news. No process designer can ever plan for every contingency. So, how can participatory processes that work with the heterogeneity of aptitudes, experiences and personalities be designed? It is more akin to planting and tending a garden than building a highway. Process design is about finding a delicate balance between cultivating and letting grow, between guiding and stewarding. | Participatory processes appreciate the importance of aligning personal and collective development, intellectual and experiential learning. Successful participatory processes include a multiplicity of formats that speak to a range of faculties - some participants excel verbally, others visually; some have a penchant for analysis, others for synthesis; some prefer introverted activities while others thrive in extroversion. Furthermore, the participants' faculties and preferences aren't a fixed constant. They depend on a range of internal and external influences, from things as visceral as back-pain to the a group being affected by shocking news. No process designer can ever plan for every contingency. So, how can participatory processes that work with the heterogeneity of aptitudes, experiences and personalities be designed? It is more akin to planting and tending a garden than building a highway. Process design is about finding a delicate balance between cultivating and letting grow, between guiding and stewarding. |
| The word "laboratory" derives from the verb "laborare", to work. So what is the "work" in the lab approach? The lab incubates and conducts experiments that contribute to desired systemic change. Experiments tend to be designed iteratively and usually include several cycles of research, implementation, prototyping, reflection and sharing. The process starts by finding a way to do the smallest thing possible that could contribute to achieving the larger vision. The experiments can scale up or change with every iteration, which can substantially reduce risk. The iterative, experimental nature of the work in a lab approach makes its outcomes more adaptive to changing conditions, and therefore more resilient and relevant in the long term. Some experiments succeed, others fail. Either outcome can provide useful data, as "compost" for the next iteration. The experimental process and results are openly shared and adapted as needed, assuring more effective systemic outcomes while avoiding catastrophic failures. | The word "laboratory" derives from the verb "laborare", to work. So what is the "work" in the lab approach? The lab incubates and conducts experiments that contribute to desired systemic change. Experiments tend to be designed iteratively and usually include several cycles of research, implementation, prototyping, reflection and sharing. The process starts by finding a way to do the smallest thing possible that could contribute to achieving the larger vision. The experiments can scale up or change with every iteration, which can substantially reduce risk. The iterative, experimental nature of the work in a lab approach makes its outcomes more adaptive to changing conditions, and therefore more resilient and relevant in the long term. Some experiments succeed, others fail. Either outcome can provide useful data, as "compost" for the next iteration. The experimental process and results are openly shared and adapted as needed, assuring more effective systemic outcomes while avoiding catastrophic failures. |
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/21490488068/in/album-72157650383972831/}}\\ | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/22702445914/in/album-72157650383972831/}}\\ |
| |
| What could an experimental cycle look like? Each iteration of an experiment begins with the articulation of a relevant question or challenge, followed by examining the context, mapping the current situation and emerging tendencies. This research should be conducted in the field whenever possible and take into account all stakeholders (human and otherwise). "Learning journeys" are a particularly valuable way to collect information directly in the field, with people who are immersed in or affected by the issues the experiment is attempting to resolve. Based on information gathered in the research phase, experimenters formulate a hypothesis as a basis for a concrete, testable experiment. The first iteration of the experiment can be a simple prototype, designed in such a way that it can be completed in a short amount of time and with minimal resources. The challenge is to design the simplest possible experiment without loosing sight of the big picture; the prototype (no matter how crude) should test the hypothesis and provide useful answers for the larger, systemic questions. After the experiment is completed, the process and results are evaluated to find out wh.at worked, what didn't, what has been learned, and what can be improved. The insights are shared with the lab members and publicly if appropriate (to elicit feedback from a wider group of stakeholders). A new cycle then begins with adapting or refining the question, possibly expanding the context, creating a new hypothesis or reformulating the existing one, then gradually refining, branching or scaling the experiment. Experimental cycles begin and end with inquiry. Through multiple cycles the lab gradually accumulates capacity and extends its knowledge base, while simultaneously scaling the reach and impact of its results. | What could an experimental cycle look like? Each iteration of an experiment begins with the articulation of a relevant question or challenge, followed by examining the context, mapping the current situation and emerging tendencies. This research should be conducted in the field whenever possible and take into account all stakeholders (human and otherwise). "Learning journeys" are a particularly valuable way to collect information directly in the field, with people who are immersed in or affected by the issues the experiment is attempting to resolve. Based on information gathered in the research phase, experimenters formulate a hypothesis as a basis for a concrete, testable experiment. The first iteration of the experiment can be a simple prototype, designed in such a way that it can be completed in a short amount of time and with minimal resources. The challenge is to design the simplest possible experiment without loosing sight of the big picture; the prototype (no matter how crude) should test the hypothesis and provide useful answers for the larger, systemic questions. After the experiment is completed, the process and results are evaluated to find out wh.at worked, what didn't, what has been learned, and what can be improved. The insights are shared with the lab members and publicly if appropriate (to elicit feedback from a wider group of stakeholders). A new cycle then begins with adapting or refining the question, possibly expanding the context, creating a new hypothesis or reformulating the existing one, then gradually refining, branching or scaling the experiment. Experimental cycles begin and end with inquiry. Through multiple cycles the lab gradually accumulates capacity and extends its knowledge base, while simultaneously scaling the reach and impact of its results. |
| -Lucy Neal</blockquote> | -Lucy Neal</blockquote> |
| |
| | |
| | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/21490488068/in/album-72157650383972831/}}\\ |
| |
| ==== Marine CoLABoration: a case study in the lab approach ==== | ==== Marine CoLABoration: a case study in the lab approach ==== |
| One simple way to foster emergence in a lab is to begin the process by introducing participants to each other as creative humans. As one of the participants noted: “We were freed up from organisational responsibility and brought together also as individuals not feeling that we always had to represent our brands. Facilitation was very important”. It was our hypothesis that playful co-creation could bring people together quicker than an expert debate or power-point presentations. For example, the first encounters of Marine CoLABoration included comparing personal "worldchanging experiences", visualising skills and personalities present in the group, and collaboratively designing future scenarios for the lab. Gradually, discussions shifted focus from individual to collective engagement. The first hypotheses and experiments emerged from participant-lead "open space" sessions about challenges with valuing the ocean in their current work: “The open space allowed us to explore what we wanted to know and what we wanted to do, without being pushed for results”. There was enough time and space for the participants to learn from each other, to learn by doing. Some ideas continued to develop and grow, others petered out. Collaborative teams were formed as required and dissolved when they became unnecessary. Rather than strictly directing the process, the lab approach encouraged fluid movement of ideas, inspiration and people. It brought to light where the participants' aspirations and energies lie. It allowed people to step up when leadership was called for and to forgo propositions if they had no traction. Marine CoLABoration became a "space to experiment with different ways of thinking and learning from others". The direction of the lab emerged from the work done in the lab. | One simple way to foster emergence in a lab is to begin the process by introducing participants to each other as creative humans. As one of the participants noted: “We were freed up from organisational responsibility and brought together also as individuals not feeling that we always had to represent our brands. Facilitation was very important”. It was our hypothesis that playful co-creation could bring people together quicker than an expert debate or power-point presentations. For example, the first encounters of Marine CoLABoration included comparing personal "worldchanging experiences", visualising skills and personalities present in the group, and collaboratively designing future scenarios for the lab. Gradually, discussions shifted focus from individual to collective engagement. The first hypotheses and experiments emerged from participant-lead "open space" sessions about challenges with valuing the ocean in their current work: “The open space allowed us to explore what we wanted to know and what we wanted to do, without being pushed for results”. There was enough time and space for the participants to learn from each other, to learn by doing. Some ideas continued to develop and grow, others petered out. Collaborative teams were formed as required and dissolved when they became unnecessary. Rather than strictly directing the process, the lab approach encouraged fluid movement of ideas, inspiration and people. It brought to light where the participants' aspirations and energies lie. It allowed people to step up when leadership was called for and to forgo propositions if they had no traction. Marine CoLABoration became a "space to experiment with different ways of thinking and learning from others". The direction of the lab emerged from the work done in the lab. |
| |
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/22702445914/in/album-72157650383972831/}}\\ | |
| |
| {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/22717534524/in/album-72157650383972831/}}\\ | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/22717534524/in/album-72157650383972831/}}\\ |
| ==== Acknowledgements ==== | ==== Acknowledgements ==== |
| |
| We would like to thank Vali Lalioti, http://valilalioti.com for contributing her team-coaching and business innovation expertise to designing and facilitating the process, Louisa Hooper and Andrew Barnett for their vision, engagement and co-ordination, The Marine CoLABoration members for their creativity and commitment and everyone at CGF UK for their support https://gulbenkian.pt/uk-branch/our-work/valuing-the-ocean/. | We would like to thank [[http://valilalioti.com|Vali Lalioti]] for contributing her team-coaching and business innovation expertise to designing and facilitating the process, Louisa Hooper and Andrew Barnett for their vision, engagement and co-ordination, The Marine CoLABoration members for their creativity and commitment and everyone at [[https://gulbenkian.pt/uk-branch/our-work/valuing-the-ocean/|CGF UK]] for their support. |
| |
| ---- | ---- |
| |
| Maja Kuzmanovic and Nik Gaffney are co-founders of FoAM, a network of transdisciplinary labs at the intersection of art, science, nature and everyday life. Their work can be found on the FoAM website http://fo.am and you can follow FoAM on twitter @_foam | Maja Kuzmanovic and Nik Gaffney are co-founders of FoAM, a network of transdisciplinary labs at the intersection of art, science, nature and everyday life. Their work can be found on the [[https://fo.am/|FoAM website]] and you can follow FoAM on twitter [[https://twitter.com/@_foam|@_foam]] |
| |
| ---- | ---- |
| |
nik