of social change toward sustainability.”
Ezio Manzini (2015, p. 62)
Design for Social Innovation (towards sustainability) was popularized by design academic Ezio Manzini. The ideas inspiring this approach started to be developed in the 2000s with international activities that focused on finding sustainable solutions and lifestyles in a European context, such as the European research EMUDE, the UNEP Program CCSL, and the international conference ‘Changing the Change’ (see
Subchapter 4.2.2.). This pursuit ended in the creation of the DESIS network (Design
for Social Innovation and Sustainability), a network of design labs that promote social innovation toward sustainability. The DESIS labs are composed of teams of professors, researchers, and students who aim to start or facilitate social innovation processes (Manzini, 2013; ‘DESIS network’, n.d.).
Design for Social Innovation argues for a notion of design as sense making, a process that proposes alternative worldviews by framing key issues in a new way, giving them new meanings (Manzini, 2015, p. 29-31). In Herbert Simon’s definition of design, proposed in his book The sciences of the artificial, design “is concerned with how things ought to be (...) in order to attain goals and to function”. Manzini suggests that the common interpretation of this definition is one of design as a problem solver. However, a design concerned with how things ought to be also implies making sense of things. In this way, design is also a producer of sense, a contributor in the social construction of meaning (Margolin as cited in Manzini, 2015, p.35).
Design for Social Innovation is defined as the “expert design contribution to a co- design process aiming at social change” (Manzini, 2015, p. 63). The definition of social innovation used by Manzini is the following, given by Mulgan: “innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organisations whose primary purposes are social” (Mulgan as cited in Manzini, 2015, p. 8). The design practice implies creativity, a vision, and applying all the design skills and capabilities to promote and support social innovation; this means using tools from service design, which is concerned with the quality of interactions involved, and strategic design, that focuses on the creation of partnerships between the actors involved
44
(Manzini, 2015, p. 59). It is worth mentioning that this approach aims for social change toward sustainability across all social classes, enabling the regeneration of common goods, social fabrics, and reduction of environmental impact (Manzini, 2015, p. 65).
This design approach is said to be evolving, as practitioners are identifying and creating replicable skills and methodologies (Drenttel and Mossoba, as cited in Irwin, 2015). In effect, scaling out or amplifying effects of social innovations can only be achieved by developing ways to replicate the experimental experiences without compromising their human characteristics of small and local (Schumacher, as cited in Manzini, 2015, p.9).
5.2.1. Diffuse design and collaborative organizations
Human beings innovate when dealing with problems; this is Manzini’s perspective on humans’ innate design capacity. However, design is not everybody’s profession. Manzini (2015) suggests that, concerning Western or Westernized societies, two types of design can be identified: expert and diffuse design. To help visualize design actors and roles, Manzini proposes the following design mode map (see Figure 09). As shown in the image, expert and diffuse design can have an approach of problem solving or sense making, although the boundaries can blur as radical innovations always imply new meanings.
Figure 09. Design mode map
Adapted from Manzini (2015a, p. 40).
The diffuse design mode includes grassroots organizations, that aim to solve local problems often driven by political or ideological motivations, and cultural activists, that promote new ideas and spaces for debating them. In turn, the expert design mode includes design and communication agencies, that use their knowledge and tools to conceive new products, services, and communicational artifacts, and design and technology agencies that aim to solve complex problems by working in
Design and technology agency Design and communication agency Cultural activists Grassroots organizations EXPERT DESIGN DIFFUSE DESIGN PROBLEM SOLVING SENSE MAKING
interdisciplinary ways (Manzini, 2015, p.42-43).
Collaborative organizations refer to a new type of grassroots organization that uses social networks for connecting and collaborating in the resolution of real- life problems. Collaborative organizations are considered bottom-up initiatives because “the precondition for their existence is the active involvement of people directly concerned” (Manzini, 2015, p. 83). Nevertheless, their evolution depend on complex mechanisms such as receiving top-down support from institutions, civic organization or companies, or exchanges with other organizations alike in a peer-to-peer modality. The promoters of these organizations are also referred to as creative communities, “people who invent and enhance solutions to everyday life problems by recombining an reconfiguring factors that already exist, giving them new functions and meaning and achieving results without waiting for wider changes in the system” (Manzini & M’Rithaa, 2016; Meroni, 2007).
Within collaborative organizations, people are said to be exploring new ideas of quality of life, as new behaviour and values emerge. By engaging in these initiatives that put solutions into practice, they engage in a ‘search for quality’, that evolves in different ways along their development (Manzini, 2015, p. 90). Diverse types of encounters are enabled, in varying degrees, according to the organizing rules. Collaborative encounters can be characterized in four dimensions: active, collaborative involvement, social tie strength, and relational intensity. These can be used to map and understand the qualities of interactions a collaborative organization enables (Manzini, 2015, p. 107-108). Moreover, interactions qualities can also be analyzed in terms of ties (strong or weak) and relational intensity (relational or formalized) (ibid).
5.2.2. Distributed systems and cosmopolitan localism
New production and consumption networks have been increasing due to technological innovations, such as for instance the Internet, mobile phones, and social media. Those networks are referred to by Manzini as distributed systems (Manzini, 2015, p. 4-5). Drawing on professor of urban eco-innovation and expert on distributed systems Chris Ryan, Manzini explains that these systems disrupt the mainstream production models because they enable new connections between the small and large scale, and the local and global levels. Moreover, even when these models are based on technological innovations, its implementation rely on people engaging and adopting them, which means they disrupt and innovate on a social basis as well (Manzini, 2015, p. 17).
46
approaches that support local economies. According to Biggs, Ryan & Wiseman (2010), a distributed model is a network where infrastructure and service systems are located close to resources and points of demand. Services are delivered by small and connected systems and in accordance with the opportunities of the local given conditions. As opposed to the linear manner in which traditional production models provide resources (goods, food, water, transport, and energy), distributed systems “involve a decentralised division of physical components, ownership and responsibility, overseeing a more cyclic movement of resources” (see Figure 12) (Biggs, Ryan & Wiseman, 2010, p. 10-11).
Distributed systems, as in natural systems, are more resilient. They can be found in nature, infrastructure, food networks, fabrication, and economies (Manzini, 2015, p. 18-20). Some examples from the biological and built environment are: brains, fungal mycelium, food cooperatives, community gardens, and some local water and energy supply solutions. Peer-to-peer networks are also examples of distributed systems. One of its qualities is that they are resilient systems. Their diversity, redundancy and modularity are key characteristics that turn complex systems flexible and robust. Widespread failure, a “back-up” capacity and the ability to work collectively or independently, are all features that prevent the spread of failures in the system (Biggs, Ryan & Wiseman, 2010, p. 12-13).
‘Cosmopolitan localism’ builds on the network quality of distributed systems. The framework of cosmopolitan localism illustrates the idea of a new sense of place that is taking place according to Manzini (2015), in which the local and small scale is emphasized but benefits of global flows of ideas, goods or people, due to the openness of being connected to other ‘locals’. This notion calls for a balance between local and global, as opposed to globalization (Manzini & M’Rithaa, 2017).
DISTRIBUTED production model FOOD ENERGY WATER CENTRALISED production model waste waste waste water treatment biogas plant WATER FOOD waste waste ENERGY
Figure 10. Contrasting centralised and distributed systems