Rare is the opportunity to come face to face with a reflection on theory-in-practice in a business setting.

A design, by its very nature is a strongly evidence-based and explicitly documented theory on “what you could and probably should do”. But no matter how strong the evidence base or compelling the insight and documentation, the client and environmental circumstance often makes the choice about what actually happens.

Over the past four years, we have worked with a large ICT Group who has been through much change, all of it intended to connect them as an internal enabling group to the customer and service-oriented world they operate in. Importantly, all of the change has been driven by a service design approach.

The hard work of moving from design (why and what do we need to do) through build (what we need to make) and implementation (making it operational) may be endorsed by top layers of management – which is absolutely critical – but the reality of the day-to-day is often led by those at Team Leader and EL2/Director* level. Those who have to do their jobs, lead their teams through the change, as well as cope with the change.

With service design, this is why we insist on those people being part of the design team itself. As we’ve said before, we believe, if you’re pragmatic designers the value of the design to the client is that it can be made, and that they, themselves, can make it. But as Yogi Berra said:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is.

As part of a recent workshop to engage the final area of the Group with the design they had been involved in shaping and work through next steps, we invited leaders from the middle-management (EL2) level to share their experiences after nine months of living and operationalising the design in practice.

Importantly, we asked them not to talk about what was in the design (value propositions, work flows, roles and responsibilities, etc), we asked them to share their experiences of ‘the design’ with their peers in the room about to go through the same thing.

Some of the highlights of what they shared included:

  • Some things you design don’t happen, but as a “not yet”, not “not at all”.”
  • Try things out before you embed – you will find adjustments to work, to the plan, to the vision.”
  • “See it working to make it work, that way you can evolve and fine tune.”
  • People will want to see an org chart, but do things in bite-size chunks so people can also see how you’re moving towards being service-oriented.”
  • We needed to make it work, but the design allowed us to translate the Executive vision into reality.”
  • “A final reflection for where I know you guys are, be patient – this stuff really does evolve.”

From our own reflections, we were able to conclude

  • The design met, and continues to meet a service intent.
  • The business and customer goals are being met – even as they evolve over time.
  • The elements of the design we knew to be most important – value proposition, design principles, conceptual framework – stayed true. While they were possibly the most visionary elements at the beginning and hard to connect with for some of the Team Leaders, the vision provided the common reference point for the leaders and practitioners to stay on track, adjust and evolve.
  • The process of engagement and true collaboration is critical so that the output isn’t the only thing remembered once build starts.
  • Never be afraid to invite the voices of past design work in.
  • When you do invite the voice in, let them talk as peers, not through you.

To be honest, when we asked our design collaborator in, we were a bit nervous. Our speaker had come from one of the most complex and impacted parts of the ‘new’ business. But we needn’t have been nervous – her words spoke of experience, and good or bad that’s at the heart of the design and the heart of the reflections we needed (and all designers should hear). Moreover, in light of some recent ongoing commentary about mediocrity in IT leadership in the public service, we needn’t have been worried because we are fortunate enough to work with these kinds of capable and brave public servants all the time.

*EL2 means and Executive Level employee in the Australian Public Service.

Leave a comment

As the end of 2016 rolls around we wanted to leave this globally tumultuous year, albeit a professionally landmark year for us, with four major learnings from us; as designers, collaborators, practitioners and passionate pragmatists. It’s not earth shattering, but they’re things we want to remember, and might be of use to our clients, our industry and maybe even contribute to world peace!

 

 

1. Being true to your design approach differentiates you

The service design (or actually more broadly design) market has become exceptionally broad from the one or two companies that existed when we were founded in 2003. In 2016 there was no shortage of new start ups, agencies getting acquired by big players and our usual list of collaborators and competitors. This vibrancy in the market is great, it ensures there’s competition and keeps us on our toes and fresh.

It has also taught us this year that it means we can be MORE true to ourselves, not less. When there are different players in the market you can really differentiate yourself and ensure what makes you different as a design agency comes to the fore. We have some little markers that we set prospective clients – will we actually get to their users? Are they willing to collaborate not just “buy our outputs”? and Are they happy with a small agency that doesn’t embed? (because we don’t think embedding works).

This year we’ve been able to respond to requests for quote and be quite strong on these markers – not just chase work that’s called ‘design’ but doesn’t actually fit our definition of design to fill our pipeline.

And the result when we are clear to prospective clients about our approach is that they get results. Their investment in us is rewarded with disciplined and focused design processes and our very approach means we are highly aligned with those clients who engage us – it’s a win-win!

 

 

2. Interdisciplinary works and is much more rewarding

This year yet again proved to us that there’s no room in our world for discipline snobbery. We often tell clients that being design-led is a great position to be in, but that design alone isn’t the only discipline they should be relying on.

Increasingly the mantra of the ‘interdisciplinary dance’ (thanks long-time mentor Jim Faris) becomes more and more real for us.

We’ve worked with teachers, architects (both landscape and IT), telcos, developers, project managers and program offices, specialist consultants, contract managers, social workers, children, parents, and many others this year; and each time we rely on these subject matter experts to bring the best out of us and help in the creation of meaningful design insights and solutions.

The more other disciplines are our collaborators and the less they are ‘participants in a design workshop’ the better our work becomes.

 

 

3. The Power of the well-made but not exact prototype
Sometimes the small things help big shifts. When a client was struggling to be on the same page about a conceptual shift to how they delivered services we decided it was time to mock-up a traditional A4 tri-fold brochure. We put stock photos with smiling faces articulating earnest but authentic customer needs. We plotted a service offering with different with icons and colours. We presented the brochure without preamble or comment to a team of strategic leaders.

It immediately got people talking about the right things, debating the real business problems, and enjoying the potential for solving their problems. It shifted people’s thinking from hypotheticals, to a shared understanding and a way forward.

Sketches are fantastic for most prototypes, but every now and then you need to call on the powers of being a designer and having access to graphic design, communication and copywriting skills and make a client see a possible future.

 

 

4. Designers need to get something made sometimes, to reality check good design
We were lucky enough to win an Australian Good Design Award this year in the Service Design Education Category and for Best Overall Service Design for our work with Macquarie Primary School. The project involved simultaneously working with a team of little designers and big educators on service design in practice in order to redesign the School car park.

The car park was designed and it was implemented. Every aspect of the Design Specification was put into practice. That doesn’t often happen in the design business (and with 13 years of DMA, and collectively, 34 years of design practice under our belts, we know). The win was truly fabulous for our team. But the car park getting made was equally so because you don’t always get to see how your design plays out when it hits the reality of a complex organisation – and a public school with its multi-user environment is an extremely complex environment.

But we had another win in this area when the work we’ve been doing with a major federal agency designing their operating model reached its conclusion with the final enabling area being designed – bringing an entire group, normally focused on ICT as a black box, into a more service-oriented mindset and practice. Designs that we, and other people have undertaken over the years have been tested, re-evaluated, diagnosed, re-diagnosed, adjusted, and as a design program, they all still fit together with core service principles and business intent remaining flexibly steadfast.

It’s brave of any large Agency to invest in a small company like ours – instead of a large Consultancy that ultimately might not deliver a bespoke, integrated solution, but instead offer a “proven” one. That’s the best thing about what our design partners demand of us, and what they allow us to challenge them to achieve. This connects us back to our first learning – being true to our design approach, but respecting and supporting the courage our clients/design partners make to invest in success.

It gives us faith in the system when we, and the people we’re fortunate enough to work with, truly want to make a difference to, and for people.

So, 2016, in many ways you were perplexing, but for us – you weren’t so bad ;)

Leave a comment

carparklaunch

As a service designer you, funnily enough, design! You make sure there’s an intent, you understand the needs of your sponsor, stakeholders, users, you confirm your parameters and constraints and you use prototyping, iteration and testing to make your very best guess at what will work. You document it all in a compelling evidence-based story called a Design Specification and you hope you’ve done something to instill a design mindset in the multi-disciplinary team you collaborated with. And then usually (however increasingly not for us but more on that later), you leave the business to it to do the work of implementing the solutions.

For our DesignInSchools project with Macquarie Primary School – taking a group of 10 and 11 year-olds through a formal design process on a real problem – we didn’t really just leave the business to it because implementation and then evaluation are critical subsequent steps to design actually making the difference you intended.

Principal Wendy Cave, as sponsor, champion, point-of-pain-sufferer and driver (literally and metaphorically) would keep us in the loop of all the conversations and negotiations she was having with Police, Road representatives, Education Directorates, all the while being driven herself by the team of students in the IMM (Implementation Managers Macquarie).

And this week we were so proud to rejoin our colleagues, team-mates and friends at Macquarie Primary School to launch the implemented design that our team of Year 10-11 students and their teacher Faith Bentley developed.

All of the elements of the design have been implemented, and in a couple of cases, beneficially extended:

  • Solution 1: Representation and Reality – A map showing functional zones, layout and peak/off-peak usage guidance has been developed and made available electronically to all users.
  • Solution 2: Sign Zones – Road markings have been updated, zones clarified, and layout adjusted to aid functionality of all users (i.e parents/carers, students, staff, walkers, drop-off/pick-up users, visitors). Accompanying signs are mix of instructional messages and friendly-toned guidance.
  • Solution 3: VIPs (Very Important Presence) – the physical presence of people in the car park at peak times on a volunteer basis is now fully rostered. The School calls them ‘Vesties’ and “they are invested in creating a positive car park user experience”.
  • Solution 4: Speedbreaker – a concrete speedhump has been installed at the entrance to focus the drivers attention as early as possible on the mixed use environment they are moving into.
  • Solution 5: The Great Divide – a designated ‘safety zone’ that is enacted by use of cones and Vesties at the peak 15 mins in the morning and afternoon. The divide effectively splits the road in half and ‘forces’ drop-off/pick-up behaviour (not park and stay in a drop-off zone). The impact on the flow in peak times is remarkable.

vestiesmedley

With anecdotal reports of “a completely different experience for all now” in the carpark this project – this experience – has been outstanding.

 

See also:

ribboncut

1 Comment

vesties

Spring has sprung here in Australia but in a few days both DMA Principals will be feeling the post-Summer glow of the Northern Hemisphere Autumn. For the first time in 13 years, DMA is closing up shop fully for a holiday.

When you run a small business the pressure is always on to be open and available. But sometimes it’s important to refresh and be, well, unavailable. And our clients also need to know that they get to continue using our design work and building on it, even when we aren’t here.

So as we are winding down to head North we have been buoyed by a picture sent in by one of our great collaborators – Macquarie Primary School. The school has implemented key elements of our award winning design with them – including the introduction of Very Important People (or Vesties as they have become known) to improve the experience of their carpark.

Real design, supported by real implementation, leading to real outcomes.

We are always excited by the range of work we are involved in. At the moment we are working on the introduction of nature play spaces in traditional playgrounds, the user experience for solar residential batteries, understanding what ‘vendor management’ means in an evolving IT landscape and designing a future service delivery workforce of 10,000 people in a large agency. It takes great clients and hard work and we’ll be back ready to continue tackling these big issues on October 17!

Wherever you are we hope you give yourself time to breathe and refresh as well!

Leave a comment

DangerousIdeas

We are currently supporting the ACT Council of Social Services (ACTCOSS) Biennial Conference – “ACT2020 Citizen Voice, Community Vision“.

And when we say currently, we mean it. Participants are ‘as we write’ involved in a world cafe session discussion dangerous ideas such as:

  • What changes can we make to restore / strengthen the democratising spirit of the community sector in the context of marketisation?
  • Put yourself in the shoes of public servants. What would you find hard if you had to do their job?
  • What if we took the idea of citizen voice seriously when we think about reproductive and sexual health and rights in our community?

And many others.

But we were so blown away by the keynote speeches at the start of the session, that we’ve taken time out from taking notes to think out loud about one concept in particular above – restoring the democratisation of the community sector in regards to the development of public policy.

DMA’s approach, because of our training, experience and the timing of our entry into service design at the turn of the century has always been one of ‘designing the best experience possible for people using and delivering government services’.

This approach has necessarily and deliberately separated administrative design (the experience of the services as determined by the policy and political processes) from policy design (the decision on which ‘levers’ are put in place to seek determined policy intent and outcomes).

But then we heard Prof Susan Goodwin speak, and that got us thinking about the alternative.

Prof Goodwin raised the historical context of where much public policy was developed as a result of the response of service deliverers to the needs of the people they dealt with. She asked why this democratisation and responsive approach to policy – that is, policy defined by the response of service deliverers to the lived experience of their ‘users’ rather than purely the current dominant practice of ‘evidence base’ and ‘detailed research’ as determinants of policy positions.

The call to arms for the re-democratisation of the public policy process asks fundamentally for a change in the current approach:

Research and Academic Expertise > Policy Development
> Political Approval and filtering > Legislation and Regulation Development
> Administrative Implementation > Review and Evaluate

to a much more democratic vision driven by up-front responsiveness, not to the elitism of empirical evidence and markets, but to the lived experience as understood by the very people receiving services and the organisations delivering them.

We have no doubt people would argue now that the lived experience IS a part of public policy development now.

The question for us as designers is how to enable a move from lived experience influencing part of public policy development to lived experience, and the citizen voice, being funded and supported to be the key driver of public policy development.

It’s a big question. It forces us to reflect on our view from designing the best possible administration of public systems, to using our skills to influence democratisation of the current public policy ‘industry’. We don’t know the answer, but we do know the dangerous idea has us thinking.

*In case you’re curious about the René Girard reference it’s for us to take a look at his writings The Scapegoat, and how his investigation of myth uncovers what he calls the scapegoat-mechanism, the tendency of society to collectively transfer guilt onto a sacrificial victim.

Leave a comment

POC

With an election campaign underway in Australia there has been a lot of talk that seeks to distinguish between the private and public sector.

On one hand, the incumbent Government has started a public dialogue about the delivery of Government services by the private sector; the other side of politics is focused on highlighting the outsourcing of key Government services to the private sector as a risk – even making part of its platform a focus on looking closely at “consultant and contractor fees” paid by the private sector.

Without taking sides in this political debate (we’ll leave politicians to the argy bargy and focus instead on how to design services better for users of government services), we have been reflecting on just what the ‘private sector’ means to some people. Because it isn’t one single, definable, generic thing.

When it comes to the intersection between government services and private service deliverers, there are many active groups:

  • The large commodity providers.
  • The small and medium commodity providers.
  • Generic business consultancies.
  • Specialist service agencies.
  • Outsourced service providers.

All quite different, each with a role, each offering something and at the same time requiring strong public sector management to deliver quality outcomes. But none especially ‘evil’, or ‘untrustworthy’ just because they are private.

As private practitioners ourselves, we’re always looking for inspiration and sources – be it public sector design, industrial design, graphic design. From our perspective, if you wanted your government services designed and built, why shouldn’t you expect they be as beautiful and useful no matter where they came from. For example, imagine the outcome if one of our favourite sports designers, POC designs approached a complex public program with us and a Government collaborator.

Surely the best of both sectors should deliver for people – it’s what we do every day.

 

Leave a comment

GoodDesign16

We are so proud to have received the recognition of the Australian design community for our work with Macquarie Primary School on DesignInSchools.

This program that took a group of 10 and 11 year-olds through a formal design process has been an outstanding success. It was also an outstanding collaboration between ourselves and some of the best educators in Australia – the team from Macquarie PS led by Wendy Cave.

To win Best in Category Service Design: Education Services and Best Overall Service Design – in a competition that attracted nominations from the best of the best (with over 400 entries from across the globe in multiple categories) makes us very proud.

 

 

2 Comments

LittleDesigners

There is an increasing focus in the design and innovation world on design education beyond the traditional university level to younger and younger students.

In Australia for example, as part of the Federal Government’s ‘Ideas Boom’, there has been a formal focus on STEM and innovation approaches as part of everyday learning in primary and secondary schools.

Whilst completely respecting these approaches (we think investment in STEM is critical for building the capability of all people in modern economies) the missing link for us has been the layer of design – thinking creatively to solve problems from a collaborative and human-centred position.

So we were somewhat excited in late 2015 when we were approached by one of Canberra’s most outstanding local government schools – Macquarie Primary School – to develop and implement a program with their little people we have called Design In Schools 2015 (#DiS15 on the socials).

A Design Partnership Born out of Mutual Respect

In early 2015 DMA was engaged by ACT Health to undertake research into the parental/carer preferences for encouraging active travel within their households. Macquarie Primary School was a pilot school for the project. During the short piece of research we realised we’d been introduced to a pretty special teaching and learning group at Macquarie and we set about building a strong  relationship with the Principal, Wendy Cave and her Executive Team including Deputy Principal Brendan Briggs.

In November 2015 an opportunity arose to explore, with students at Macquarie, design as a problem-solving discipline and how it can act as an extension of their education focus on research as a viable career path. This was to build on the school focus of inquiry-based learning and research, and to show that these are skills and approaches that have ‘real world’ application.

Having seen us in action on the Active Travel project, Wendy asked us to present to the kids about what we do, as service designers, ‘for a living’. But we wanted more. Talking to kids (‘little people’ in Macquarie vernacular) would be good, but we reasoned working with them to actually undertake some service design would be great.

So rather than presenting to the students about DMA as a company or service design as a discipline, it was decided that a collaborative design project be developed so that the ‘little people’ at Macquarie, could practice being designers.

  • For Macquarie, the students would learn how to apply their existing research skills into a new approach or methodology (Service Design) and school management would get a focused, professional piece of design work undertaken around a key school issue – the experience of their school car park.
  • For DMA, the project would be a chance to see how ‘little people’ think and work through a formal design process.

For the school community, a detailed design specification with recommendations on how to address car park safety and enhancing the experience of the car park for users would be delivered.

The desire to undertake the project was both to satisfy an interest we have as designers in how younger people think about and interact with design concepts before having any formal design training and to also engage with a teaching cohort who are outstanding educators and researchers in their own right.

The Design Project – A Better Car Park Experience

We’ll write more about the approach and methodology later, but we essentially introduced a group of 11 year olds to being part of a service design team over six project sessions moving from intent through to design research, analysis, prototyping, prototype testing and solution development. The topic was a real problem in the school – the perception that the school had a dangerous car park and the intent of the approach to problem solving was that we lead the process, but the students led the solutioning, not the adults (despite some voices of protest from a couple of adults).

The sessions were split between the end of 2015 when the little people were in Year 5, and the start of 2016 when they had come back to school to be in their final year as Year 6s. The same group of 18 + their amazing teacher Faith Bentley stayed with us for the life of the project.

As well as trying to solve a serious issue for the school, we were interested in exploring some key themes as we moved through the project:

  • Would ‘little people’ take to purposeful play, rather than just play?
  • Would theory through practice, rather than ‘teaching design skills’ be a successful model?
  • How would ‘little people’ think and cope with formal methodological processes?
  • How would ‘little people’ cope with being expected to act as collaborators – organising to work as much as being ‘led and taught’?

We were also interested in seeing first hand, whether the oft quoted reflection ‘if only we could be as creative and open thinking as children’ was actually a real concept. Would we see floods of openness creativity and innovation, just because this was a group of young people? For guidance and inspirations we found ourselves referring to Sir Ken Robsinon’s Changing Education Paradigms talk.

Initial Reflections

We are going to talk and write about this a lot more once we are done (we delivered the draft design specification to Wendy this week), but after interviewing some of the little people (our team) and their teacher Faith (our design partner) towards the end of the project, we wanted to share their responses to design.

The sound is ordinary but the reflections are extraordinary ;)

  • Listen to some of the little people talk about design (2.39)

  • Listen to our design partner Faith Bentley talk about design (4.05)


Enjoy! There’s lots more reflection to come on this project that we were delighted and in the end honoured to be part of.

You can see our reflections from the field on this project by checking out #DiS15 on Instagram or Twitter

2 Comments

Another working year comes to a close at DMA HQ.

Christmas Greetings!

Christmas Greetings!

This year we have applied our service design skills to the worlds of ICT, taxation, biosecurity, domestic violence, community co-design of services, working with little designers, homelessness, the service experience of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities, Justice Reinvestment, the future of travel, active travel for school children and many other areas along the way.

It’s time for these service designers to take a breath and re-charge after an amazing year of creation, collaboration and making.

To all of our partners, in particular the countless front line service deliverers who gave us their time this year (and for whom there is no real ‘down time’), thank you and we look forward to seeing you in January!

Leave a comment

5lessons

We’ve been busy at DMA with some amazing projects over the past couple of months. This period has seen us covering topics as wide ranging as domestic violence, homelessness, biosecurity and ICT as service.

The one thing the projects have had in common is the label and intent of ‘co-design’.

We usually don’t use the term ‘co-design’. We do service design, we collaborate, iterate, navigate, all the -ates! We help work out how things are, how things could and should change, and then we define and describe that change. But ‘co-design’ as a term is hot (or, at least, back). For the most part, when we’re approached for some co-design it’s totally appropriate, but we’ve definitely been learning some new lessons and firming up some truths.

 

Lesson 1: A workshop alone is not co-design

For us the process of design involves deep research (desk and in the field), observation, collaboration, analysis and synthesis. A technique within collaboration is developing and delivering a workshop, but the workshop itself, on its own, is not co-design.

We’ve been faced with requests for co-design processes where we, as the design leads, have had no opportunity to do background research, no influence over attendees, and been required to prepare ‘co-design templates’ for use but no further involvement – that is not ‘co-design’. It disrespects the discipline, but worse, it disrespects the people you want to co-design with; from recipient to deliverer.

In fact, when offered a project like this recently, we said no.

Luckily with our clients, and our appreciation of the constraints of community organisations and some Departments, when faced with only limited opportunity to do background research and a requirement of a workshop-only approach we’ve been able to set the activity to work optimally by:

  1. Talking directly with subject matter experts in order to design the workshop with respect to known and shared knowledge.
  2. Describe to the client the types of people who NEED to be invited to make a working session buzz.

The resulting and hard-earned “we trust you” in the development of material means we’ve pulled off some amazing (but tight) co-design processes. It can be done lean, but the workshop isn’t enough.

That brings us to our next lesson…

 

Lesson 2: Co-design must be a led process

We define co-design as:

The process of deliberately engaging users of the system, deliverers of services and other experts, being led by experts such as designers, to actively understand, explore and ultimately change a system together.

In practice what this means is that just because you have an activity to elicit collaborative development of services as a designer, you do more than facilitate. You lead. You challenge. You push. You set up design activities that take the pressure off participants to begin with a blank page, and instead start with a framework for people to collaboratively fill in as a prompt for conversation.

People are there because they know their stuff or have lived experience, that means designers must provide the freedom to explore with focus, within intent.

The wonderful result we’ve experienced is skeptics of the process turning around, quiet voices turning vocal, and insight and content developing that has moved change agents from discussion to action.

But that doesn’t mean it’s all rainbows and sunshine…

 

Lesson 3: Sometimes empathy means you just have to shut up

We recently ran a series of workshops to explore the service needs and expectations of a number of different cultural groups and demographic cohorts in identified geographic areas of need. These have had to be repeatable and scalable and result in content that turned into practical information. Two workshops stand out where with all the background research, preparation of the event for participants, and all the ‘design professionalism’ in the world meant almost nothing when faced with very justifiably angry people – not with us personally, but with the agent we represented, and the system they are, by their reckoning, ‘forced’ to operate under.

As much as we wanted the participants to “just work with us to get what we needed for our design-led process”, we realised we had to just shut up. Just listen and make sure to listen to understand, not to get ready to respond.

What we were doing made sense, and worked for 90% of the audiences we’d engaged, but design is about people, and experiences, and empathy. And sometimes letting people just ‘be’ is important in terms of creating community (not just design outcomes).

Related to understanding before responding is…

 

Lesson 4: Analysing and creating are different processes

So don’t try and do them at the same time. This especially matters when you’re dealing with multiple projects, not to mention multiple topics.

Analysis gives you focus. You must develop understanding of what you have before moving too quickly to what it means. It helps the people you’re co-designing with. It helps to be more effective when multiple artefacts for multiple audiences are required. That means sometimes you have to demand this time and focus of the client, of participants in a workshop.

When you do this, then you can really create something together.

Which brings us to our final lesson…

 

Lesson 5: There is no co-design without people

No matter how ideal or not a co-design process is, they don’t happen at all without agencies willing to think differently, and uncover possibility. In all five projects, the agencies we worked with were willing to open up their traditional decision-making process to the sometimes difficult and confronting process of co-design (even when they asked for it).

And for every great agency you need willing participants. To get true lived experience of service systems and deep insights about service delivery, you need experienced and willing service deliverers and users. And this means taking them away from their day jobs. It was a shock for us to realise that many of the participants in our processes not only had to do the day job but were also called upon to go to so many co-design activities some barely have time to do their work; so you need to respect that.

 

Postscript: participants, service delivers and agency representatives have sought us out to express their appreciation of the co-design experience and it makes it all worthwhile:

  • “I truly believe that for the first time we have been able to talk about what’s important in a way that embraces the expertise and experiences of the sector. Thank you for designing a process that has enabled us to talk about the important things in a non-threatening way.”
  • “[the] design work is really connected to the experience of people and workers. It matters, and it makes a difference.”
  • “[the experience was] very genuine, and created a space for the sector to have conversation that it doesn’t always have – and it was good being pushed by knowledgeable outsiders.”
Leave a comment