Images shape who we are and how we see and understand the world we live in. Images are so powerful that they leave a lasting impact and sometimes even change our perception of people, places, events, and things. Wherever we go, whatever we do, images have practically become a part of our everyday life. In schools, websites, and advertisements for instance, visual feasts make it easier for us to comprehend things, they excite us, and draw our attention, thus creating a better memory recall and a better way of sending messages across multiple channels.
In meetings, workshops, conferences, and seminars, we have what we call graphic facilitation and graphic recording. These methods make use of large-scale imagery to facilitate and record group activities. For many projects, aligning stakeholders on the current state of work and what they are going to do can be quite challenging. This is where graphic facilitation and graphic recording come in and play profound roles.
The Grove patriarch David Sibbet pioneered the graphic facilitation method to help people see their thoughts individually and collectively, and make decisions and communicate effectively. Graphic facilitation allows groups to brainstorm, analyze, discuss, and create solutions that truly work. We use graphic facilitation to help stakeholders capture information about their current state, understand the challenges they face, and bridge communication gaps that might exist.
Information overload can become a communication impediment and what graphic facilitation does is it creates shared meaning, allowing groups to share the same understandings of a problem and find quicker solutions. In terms of diversity, it’s also a great tool in building ideas from different points of view. Graphic facilitation also ensures that everyone is on the same page. Experience-wise, graphic facilitation has resulted to increased clarity and understanding of key themes, improved team performance, and better conflict resolution.
Graphic recording, on the other hand, involves recording people’s expressions and ideas. Graphic recorders or artists translate conversations and simplify them into drawn images and texts. Graphic recording creates messages that have better retention rates, and just like graphic facilitation, it boosts collaboration and ensures that everyone contributes. No one is left behind. It’s a great tool that can enhance our skills in decision-making, team building, and strategic planning.
From Paper to Pixels
Traditionally, we use markers and white paper to facilitate a workshop, but recent technological advancements have given rise to faster and more efficient tools like IPEVO’s wireless interactive whiteboard system. It’s a user-friendly and versatile interactive whiteboard that has unlimited colors. You can instantly save information on a cloud system. And unlike traditional graphic recording and graphic facilitation tools, this whiteboard system allows you to store meeting history data. If you make a mistake, it’s easy to track and modify it. The system is paired with video projector and supports up to four users who can work together on the same whiteboard.
Of course we know that the traditional paper method is here to stay. However, we are quite confident that wireless interactive whiteboard systems would become extensively popular in the next years to come, making graphic facilitation a central place for business decision making.
We’ve come to a time when more and more people are greatly becoming dependent on visual information and experience. In today’s digital age, capitalizing on the various audio-visual communication tools can allow businesses and organizations to better manage their staff and daily operations. Images don’t only have the power to persuade us and change our beliefs. More importantly, images have the power to deeply connect us with others and reframe the world into a more sustainable one.
Unprecedented economic changes are making significant impacts in economic systems that have led to revision, and creation of new policies and business models. The advent of the industrial economy for instance, has caused both turbulence and growth to businesses which paved the way for experts to develop, improve, and create sustainable business models and principles that we are actually using and adopting today.
The industrial economy in gist
The industrial economy can be categorized into three types – linear, circular, and performance economy. Linear economy is characterized by a straight and close-ended procedure. We extract raw materials from nature, turn these materials into products, sell them, use them, and then eventually throw them away in landfills. This process has led to tremendous environmental problems that have also created concerns on the availability of raw materials and their increasing costs. This became a precursor to the circular economy – the antithesis to the wasteful and environmentally threatening linear economy. Unlike in a linear economy, products and services in a circular economy are designed in ways where materials can be reused in new products or services of equal or higher quality. Going a step further from the circular economy is performance economy which focuses on selling the use of a product instead of selling the product itself.
Performance economy is a strategy?
We’re all likely familiar with the idea of selling a good. However, are we familiar with the idea of selling the use of a good? Performance economy consists of the idea that instead of selling the goods, we sell the usage value of the goods. It focuses on the goal of generating the highest added value possible of goods for the longest time while consuming few materials and little energy as possible. Swiss architect Walter Stahel, the genius behind this notion, came up with this idea as part of his circular economy strategy. The performance economy is basically an extension of his circular economy vision which is about preventing wastage and creating jobs through reusing and extending the service-life of goods.
Performance economy pioneers
Walter Stahel and Genevieve Reday were the brains behind what we now know as economy in loops or circular economy. They created an economic vision that focused on competitiveness, waste prevention, resource saving, employment generation, and economic competitiveness. Industrialized countries were among the first to adopt a circular economy model since it was because of the negative impacts of industrialization that circular economy came to be. In 2014, the executive body of the European Union adopted a zero-waste program that became the legal framework for a circular economy in EU-member countries. Countries in the EU are slowly adopting a circular economy and creating circular economy legislations that projects a savings of around 600-billion Euros. EU members Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden are leading in terms of crafting and applying strategies and laws on reusing and recycling wastes. Non-EU member Scotland and Asian economic giant Japan are also among the leading countries that are adopting circular and performance economy practices.
Companies like GE, Elite, 3M, Michelin, Target and Dow are integrating circular and performance economy policies and strategies to address environmental and economic challenges. For instance, Michelin is offering mobile tyre regrooving and replacement services and retreading worn tyres for reuse. Furthermore, when you see a product or service being advertised nowadays, you’ll notice the emphasis on what you’ll get when you get such item or service. Consumers have become more conscious about the products they buy or services they avail hence, the focus is now more on the value you get rather than on the product you just bought.
Employment and Entrepreneurship
Apart from waste and resource management efficiency, the performance economy also envisions providing sustainable and efficient job opportunities. Employment has been greatly affected by the shift in economic policy and the shift has seen improvements in terms of providing job opportunities for more people. Today’s dominant economic paradigm deviates from the take-make-use-dispose feature of the linear economy that once ruled the industrial era. The shift from a linear economy to a circular one enabled the transformation of consumer behavior and production chains – ensuring that resources are enough for all and for future generations. Activities under circular and performance economies are projected to create jobs and reduce unemployment by a significant number. In fact, a joint study by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) and Green Alliance reported that improvements in resource efficiency can help improve Britain’s employment situation. The findings also state that by 2030, Britain could require over half a million jobs and reduce unemployment by over 100,000. That’s if Britain is consistent with its circular and performance economy development plans and activities.
World economies have come a long way. The challenges brought about by industrialization has led to countless possibilities and opportunities, including sustainable outcomes. Performance economy has led organizations into thinking smart – by economically profiting while at the same time contributing to sustainable development. Organizations and companies get a big financial benefit by reusing, remarketing, remanufacturing, repairing goods and materials. Consumers on the other hand benefit from reduced costs of goods and services. Both ends also positively impact the ecological systems that’s why in a sense, it’s a win-win situation.
Transformation has taken a new definition in this era of constant disruption. It’s no longer just a concept or a theory; transformation has already become a necessity and a reality.
Most of today’s societies – both developed and underdeveloped, face growing global crises and unprecedented changes that have profoundly shaken the core of traditional norms and practices. Disruption is starting to shape industries, markets, and our future. And people and businesses need to continuously grow and adapt to such changes in order to achieve and maintain success. If there’s anything that we can learn from these things, it’s that shifting our perceptions and strategies, and embracing disruption can lead to transformational results that we seek.
For the Presencing Institute’s Otto Scharmer, the global crises and unprecedented changes we currently face can be framed in three major divides namely the ecological divide, the social divide, and the spiritual-cultural divide. The ecological divide speaks of the disconnect between self and nature. The way we treat our environment has long-lasting effects be it on the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food we eat. The social divide, the disconnect between self and other, speaks of the gap between social classes. Inequality, poverty, and violence continue to plague our societies because opportunities are not equal. The spiritual-cultural divide, which is the disconnect between self and self, is a reflection of the disconnect between our current self and our emerging future self. It speaks of the way we deal with our innermost self, thoughts, and feelings. Burnout, depression, and other mental health issues are manifestations of the spiritual-cultural divide. These three divides represent the massive failures of our institutions – we have created results that nobody really wanted. Thus, we need to change the way we view and face these challenges. We need to change towards a more humane and sustainable world that values every individual.
From Ego-system to Eco-system
How then should we shift our outdated economic and business thinking into contemporary practices that consider everyone’s well-being? Scharmer offered quite an interesting and informative article regarding this by introducing eight institutional innovations that as a set can help businesses run more intelligently across silos and boundaries. It seems that shifting our economic logic from an ego-system to eco-system awareness is the key create an economy that considers the well-being of all. From nature, entrepreneurship, money, technology, leadership, consumption, governance, and ownership, reinventing our processes and concepts, and encouraging collaboration in these vital areas can redefine the business environment and change the way individuals treat life and business on a fundamental level.
U.Lab, a hybrid massive open online course (MOOC) platform run by Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (M.I.T.), recently offered two social innovation-focused programs – Leading Awareness-based Systems Change and How to Sense and Actualize the Future. The two programs offered unique insights on collaboration, co-creation, and succeeding in the emergent future. The programs’ introductory film says it all – a business cannot continue to run the way it goes and there’s a need to bring sustainability principles on core values of a business. True enough, what we need in this disruptive age is to create a profound innovation. We need new ways to connect to the more genuine aspects of our self and encourage consciousness in the way we manage things. Perhaps you would also agree that today’s businesses need to integrate personal and ethical values into their system to help make it more sustainable.
Futhermore, the edX-U.Lab course “Transforming Business, Society and Self” that Scharmer hosted is highly recommended. The course presented his Theory U framework and offered excellent and effective community practices that will really make you think deeply about how you can resolve the different divides.
Following U.Lab since its inception, it has brought a great first impression on a personal level. The courses offered new and authentic insights – leaving old business principles and gearing towards a fresh and spontaneous approach that really fuel growth and competitiveness. It’s actually quite idealistic but this approach will surely revolutionize today’s markets. These programs strengthen our individual capacities and the capabilities of organizations in responding to disruptive challenges through an innovation ecosystem.
Today’s emerging approaches are life-changing. Often we’re so consumed of the challenges the world brings that we somehow forget the very essence of our human existence. We forget about the people around us and focus so much on the problem instead of creating solutions. Understanding the concept of Theory U will make you realize that today’s challenges can be solved by allowing our current and best future self to listen with each other. It’s as simple as listening to others, listening with your heart and mind wide open, co-evolving, co-creating, and allowing inspiration and common will to emerge.
For nearly a century creativity has been understood as a key ingredient of business creation across thousands of design who took shape as product, service, solution and social planning. Participative innovation comes with a new set of values to reinforce the creative potential of organisation. Participative innovation is ether understood as an internal phenomenon of organisation or a manifestation which is happening outside the boundary of the corporate structure. Initially we would have a look to both the aspects. In house participative innovation refers to the fact that workers and managers associate to create new business models and solutions for the consumers. We call participative innovation the point that the workers who are involved in the creative process are not supposed to be in charge of innovation contribution. Participative innovation implies that an organisation would have adopted a politic of democratization of the creative process across its managerial layers to leverage new business opportunities. For the past 3 decades, participative innovation has grown significantly. The company Google who institutionalized this value, made it mandatory to workers to involve themselves in prospective projects a certain amount of time from their schedule. It is believed that number of Google innovation came from this initiative. Giving workers some freedom to problem solving in the ever fragmented industry leads companies to new areas of business development. Today, there is a common acceptance that participative innovation is promising. More recently participative innovation has got a new sense by including public and user participation. Participative innovation advocates the importance of including the user on the conceptualisation of product, service and policy. This second aspect of participative innovation interest us more particularly has it may lead to social entrepreneurship.
To demonstrate the potential of participative innovation I shall dress a parallel with design thinking that is most of the time a non-inclusive discipline. Bruce Nussebaum has demonstrated that failure in design thinking is due to monopolistic approach by most companies and political groups towards the society with regards to value creation. Rather than wanting to “change the world” through design thinking and business it should be like society leaders support people in making the world as they want using participative innovation. In short, it is questioned that shifting the power of design thinking from the designer’s hand to the common man’s hand could lead to a more effective way of producing innovation. In this research I try to demonstrate that social changes lead people to be increasingly reactive to systems and solutions presented to them. We witness a re-appropriation of the industry, the politic and the social.
At the lecture of sociological concepts of identity, and essays from notorious designers, philosopher and business mam we assume that our economy could be at the beginning of a new economic order that would give power to consumer as a democratic necessity to balance the corporate lobby. This approach sometimes referred as ‘prosumerism’ would radically transform the purpose of design in the corporate environment. It is therefore believed that corporate would be re-elected to the role of social enabler rather that been the creative think- tank of the consumerist society has it has been the case since the Second World War. However, participative innovation leads to large questioning in time of economic recession and environmental instability. Participation is negatively associated to “working for free” with concerns in terms of intellectual properties. Today’s businesses are facing the issue of associating with the consumer through participative innovation while maintaining a climate of fair exchange.
By stimulating participative innovation business and society put themselves at risk that a large part of the creative potential slip from their hands and get developed by third party individuals and organization. However participative innovation requires the nest of a cybernetic environment for business development what make it mandatory for businesses to concede part of its intellectual production. As Prahalad and Krishnan mention in the New Age of Innovation; “"No firm is big enough in scope and size to satisfy the experiences of one single consumer" and that is the whole challenge of a participative innovation approach. User requirement get so fragmented that no business can have the capacity of responding to all the facet of the consumer experience. This statement also implies that ultimately, firms would depend on individual and/or start-up to generate the value necessary to respond to the needs of unique consumers.
Patrick Roupin is an expert in innovation, design, strategy & entrepreneurship.
Ashrefunisa Shaik is an expert in organizational transformation & sustainability.