Specifically, the memo highlights the role of user innovation in continually shaping the nature of the web and its importance to society. According to Horrigan, as late as the 1990′s, the internet was primarily conceived of as a vehicle for one-to-many communication, similar to traditional media systems like television. This shifted dramatically during the 90′s as many users began to actively converse with one another in dial-up online communities. The phenomenon of many-to-many communication was taken to the next level with the emergence of blogs around 2004; millions of users were suddenly broadcasting their own perspectives across the web. Horrigan suggests that the latest evolution of the trend is the mass collaboration enabled by broadband and mobile internet access.

Horrigan argues that the throughout its history, the web has come to be defined by “user co-creation“. In his words, “turning users loose to find ways to use communications capacity is the animating principle for innovation in the digital society“. Coming from the user-centered design tradition, this principle is not new to me. However, I find it interesting to imagine how this consideration might influence the formation of technology policy. In my discipline, we believe strongly in giving users a central role in the design of products and systems through methods such as ethnography, participatory design, and usability evaluation. But of course, every design is constrained and influenced by the organizational, political and economic systems that it inhabits. What would it mean then to apply a user-centered philosophy to the formation of these meta-structures?

Horrigan advocates two possible implications for communications policy in the U.S. First, he suggests that the diversity of mobile internet users is a potentially huge source for creative adaptation. According to results from PEW Internet surveys, “users would appreciate policies for wireless devices and networks that keep the gadgets and their connections open to outside innovation.” Google’s Android is one example of an industry-created platform that provides access to outside developers. Going beyond such voluntary programs, Horrigan suggests that policymakers should to take action to “make sure openness is one of the rules of the wireless road.” While I am unsure how open development models could be mandated by the government, I agree that it would be a great thing for users.

Second, Horrigan addresses possible policy solutions for connecting Americans who currently are without access to the internet. Discussion about digital divide has traditionally focused on issues of physical access or education. I find it insightful that Horrigan also implicates poor usability of technology as a barrier to adoption. Despite growing understanding of user-centered approaches in the IT industry, Horrigan correctly reminds us that there is significant room for improvement: “the fact remains that the nature of modern gadgetry is daunting to many people, especially older ones.” How can the government improve this situation? A good starting point would be to focus on improving the usability of government e-services. Personally, I have often been dismayed at some of the extremely unnavigable and poorly designed government websites that exist. Public services, more than anything else, need to be as user-friendly and accessible as possible. Horrigan recommends that the new administration “consider guidelines for contractors serving less tech-oriented population segments,” and thus “play a catalytic role in nudging industry to improve usability and relevance through procurement.”

Consider a more direct approach to influencing the private sector: the government might try to legislate usability requirements for technology products similar to handicap accessibility laws for buildings. That is perhaps too restrictive of a measure to gain much support, but its interesting to consider the potential benefits and damages. In general, I think its a positive thing when user-centered values and approaches transcend the context of interface design to influence larger societal discussions about improving public services and providing equal access for all citizens.

References
Obama’s Online Opportunities: What Our Research Suggests about where President-elect Obama’s Technology Policy May Lead
By John B. Horrigan, Associate Director for Research, Pew Internet & American Life Project

After being stranded in the Detroit Airport, we finally arrived in Paris a day late and arrived at the venue already fifteen minutes into our 24 hour competition. While we were selected to the finals based on our long-term design project, the IU Energy Challenge, the final round was a bit different. Each of the six teams were given a design challenge and had only 24 hours to work through the problem and prepare a presentation. The problem was complex; we were given a description of an information system for monitoring air quality that involved multiple stakeholders and multiple technology components. Our task was to ensure the projects success by redesigning the end-to-end user experience.

We got off to a slow start, having already been up for two days straight. But after a short power-nap we started to gain some momentum and proceeded to break down the problem by articulating goals of the interconnecting stakeholders. Our work space provided some surreal inspiration: it was right on the boardwalk of the Seine with a superb view of the Eiffel tower at night. We also had some tough competition as all of the finalists teams were extremely focused. All of the teams worked through the night, right up until the 2pm deadline. Here’s a photo of Will and I having just finished the marathon design session:

A few days later, we presented our design to a distinguished panel of judges including Surya Vanka of Microsoft, Tom Chi of Yahoo and Ok/Cancel fame, and Neil Churcher of Orange. Interacting with these experienced design professionals was probably the most valuable part of the event. They provided excellent comments and criticism on our design rationale and even took the time to give us personal feedback after. Overall the final round was an amazing learning experience. I think our first place success is really a testament to the quality of design education that we have received at Indiana.

Below is a pic snapped from the stage of the super-over-the-top award ceremony at the Louvre.

And here we are really enjoying our over-sized cardboard check:)

Chief among them is the notion of design as service. In their book, the Design Way, Nelson and Stolterman write that design is about creating intentional change in the real world. As such, a designer must always work within limited time, resources and knowledge. And furthermore, design is never solitary, but is rather defined by dynamic relationships, working in service of others.

This is related to the idea of service learning, a method in which a student learns experientially by engaging in community service. I consider my capstone a service learning project in that my primary objective was to create a tangible result for the benefit of the IU community; any intellectual goals came secondary. Committing to this outcome put significant constraints on the project: technical, organizational and temporal. But by negotiating these constraints, I feel that I have learned a great deal about professional design practice.

For instance, I now have much deeper appreciation for the role of prototyping and strategy in design. In the HCI/d program, we use the PRICPS framework (Predispositions, Research, Insights, Concepts, Prototype and Strategy) as way to practice the essential components of a design argument. Most of the projects I’ve worked on in school have consisted of thorough exploration of PRIC, but usually stop short, leaving the PS as an afterthought at best. In contrast, this capstone was a great opportunity to immerse myself in prototyping and strategy.

Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO wrote a nice article about the core role of prototyping in design:

“Design thinking is inherently a prototyping process. Once you spot a promising idea, you build it… the goal is to elicit feedback that helps us work through the problem we’re trying to solve. In a sense, we build to think.”

I remember what my advisor, Eli Blevis, said when I first approached him about the energy contest: “Sounds great! Now go build it. ” I remember being a bit taken back. I suppose I am a person who tends to over-think and over-research details before acting, which is why I like to explore as many alternatives as possible in the early stages of design. However, in retrospect, it was the perfect advice. I already had the basic concept; what I needed to do was refine it, and the best way to refine is by prototyping.

Implementing a hi-fidelity, production prototype also gave me the opportunity to work though strategic elements of my design in a way that could not have happened otherwise. In putting on the Energy Challenge, the interactive component was really only one piece of the puzzle. I spent as much time, if not more, coordinating various stakeholders, planning the event, designing the promo poster and publicity, etc.

For a design to achieve success in the real world, social, technical, business and organizational contexts are as essential as user experience. The ability to integrate all these elements into a long-term strategic plan is an invaluable design skill that I hope to continue to develop throughout my career. Of all my experience in grad school, I am most proud to know that the IU Energy Challenge will endure so that this year’s modest successes might be improved on from year to year.

“From March 20 to April 17 2008, more than 9,000 students living in Indiana University dormitories competed to reduce their energy and water consumption in IU’s first-ever Campus Energy Challenge. Throughout the competition, the Energy Challenge Website provided frequent updates on consumption data, competition standings, and conservation tips. This dynamic web-application evokes a sense of fun and motivation by giving students helpful feedback that supports and encourages their conservation efforts. At the end of four weeks, students conserved an estimated 446,139 KWh of electricity and 613,919 gallons of water. Remarkably, the students’ conservation efforts resulted in an estimated $26,000 in avoided utility costs and 801,454 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, which is equivalent to taking 67 passenger cars off the road for one year.

The site design features dynamic, interactive data graphics, which allow students to easily compare their consumption with other dorms and track changes over time. The site also includes a list of suggested conservation actions and educational information to raise awareness about climate change and other environmental consequences of resource use. While many information visualization tools exist, rarely has this type of interface been designed for non-experts in mind, and for the purpose of motivating environmental action. Through competition and an engaging user experience, the Energy Challenge Website seeks to transform perception of the basic resources on which we depend—and so often take for granted—and make them visible, valuable and meaningful.”

To begin, what impact does HCI have on the environment and what is the role and responsibility of the designer in this situation? The environmental problems stemming from producing, using, and discarding electronic products are well-documented. These may include the depletion of natural resources, emission of greenhouse gases, and release of toxic chemicals. However, design theory often overlooks the material circumstances of the production-consumption cycle by focusing solely on the intellectual process of creating and documenting ideas. This is especially the case in interaction design when the output of design–computer software–is made of digital rather than physical material. This in no way exempts interaction design from environmental concerns, however, because all software is closely connected and dependent on the use of physical computer hardware. Software products do have immense environmental impact, but indirectly through their interaction with hardware products [1].

Krippendorf [3] pays special attention to the material consequences of design in his theory on the “context of genesis. ” Following the laws of thermodynamics, he points out that the creation of any product necessarily consumes energy and produces waste: “all production requires work but irreversibly increases entropy and pollution. ” He further observes that “all artifacts are ultimately retired, recycled or decomposed and collectively influence the environment in unintended and barely understood ways. ” Unfortunately, in the case of interactive technology this process happens all too quickly and at huge cost. Computers require great amounts of energy and resources to produce, but are quickly discarded as new models render them obsolete.

This ecological cost can be considered as one example of, in the language of Nelson and Stolterman [5], “the evil of design. “ According to the authors, design is evil whenever undesired consequences are brought into the world or when balance and harmony are disrupted. Environmental degradation certainly qualifies as evil under this definition. Nelson and Stolterman point out that evil can occur even when a design is considered good in many other ways. They also classify three different forms of evil, all of which can be found contributing to unsustainability. Natural evil refers to the necessary and unavoidable loss that occurs anytime something new is created. Whenever a new interactive technology is designed something older will be obsolesced and possibly discarded as waste, a dynamic that Blevis has described as “linking invention and disposal. ” Accidental evil happens as a result of “ignorance, carelessness or inattention. ” This is perhaps the most common reason for unsustainable design as designers fail to consider the complex material consequences of production and consumption. Finally, willful evil refers to intentionally harmful acts of design such as when a designer knowingly creates environmentally destructive products in the pursuit of personal profit.

Considering entropy and the various potential evils of design, avoiding ecological harm seems a difficult if not impossible task for interaction designers. To minimize environmental impact, a designer must anticipate wide-reaching, systemic interactions that are not typically considered within the scope of the average design project. Nelson and Stolterman describe the many ways that designers often try relieve themselves of moral responsibility for the broad emergent consequences of design action. However, because there are no absolutes to rely on, they argue that “designers must learn to accept design responsibility as something integral to each designer’s character. ” Thus, because even small design acts can have far-reaching destructive consequences for humanity and the biosphere, all interaction designers are ethically responsible to make a conscious effort towards sustainability.

If the issue of sustainability is by definition long-term, wide-reaching, systemic, and complex, how can we ensure that it is integrated and adequately addressed in the design process? An ecological approach to design requires reflection on such disparate factors as the type and sourcing of materials, the process of manufacture and distribution, intended and possibly unintended uses, the longevity of use, potential for recycling or disposal, etc. In contrast, current HCI methods are rather narrowly focused on a single user interacting with a system in a predefined context. True, a few approaches such as Activity Theory and Situated Action seek to understand more emergent, social aspects of the design situation. However, they are still confined primarily to immediate work settings, and have reportedly been too complex to easily integrate into practice [6].

To avoid potentially disastrous ecological effects, interaction designers need practical design-oriented methods that help them understand and anticipate systemic interactions. One promising approach is Blevis’s Sustainable Interaction Design framework, in which he provides a rubric of possible material effects and several design principles to be used in both design criticism and critical design [1]. Another promising framework is currently being developed by Nathan et al [4] called Value Scenarios. It involves the use of scenarios to consider possible long-term outcomes, indirect stakeholders, pervasiveness, and value implications that may arise from new technologies. The benefit of both of these methods is that they can be flexibly applied in practice to generate design insights and do not require an over-burdening amount of theoretical knowledge.

Ultimately, no method or theory can be relied to guarantee a benign and sustainable outcome: “there are no theories, methods, techniques, or tools that can calculate, predict or envision the truly best future reality” [5]. Instead, designers must rely on their character–their personal beliefs, values and skills, cultivated through reflective practice [7]. A strong adherence to values can be compromised by an organizational system which places a designer in a limited role with predefined desiderata. A consideration of values can also be compromised when an engineering approach to design is taken that assumes a narrow, a priori criterion for success like functionalism or usability. Nevertheless, a designer must cultivate a strong character of leadership in order to work within organizational constraints and affect change.

Assuming that a designer is able to effectively integrate sustainability into practice, what insights and concepts have potential for creating sustainable interactions? If transformation towards entropy is an inevitable process, then the goal for sustainable design is to pursue strategies that “slow down the inevitable processes of decay. “ Krippendorf suggests several recommendations to this end, including designing products that can adapt to user’s changing needs, can direct their own recycling, and that prevent the needless decay of other artifacts [3]. Similarly, Verbeek [8] suggest four different approaches to ecodesign: lifecycle analysis, shifting from products to services, recycling, and extending the service life of products. This last aim of extending service life is an important strategy for slowing down the process of decay by designing products which are culturally durable, in the sense that they inspire care-taking and longevity of use. There are many different ideas and approaches expressing the qualities that make a design culturally durable. Some of these include beauty, meaning, symbolism, value, wholeness, and ensoulment [5].

One particularly well-developed theory for designing products that inspire care is Verbeek’s notion of a material aesthetics. Verbeek is primarily concerned with the way technologies mediate our actions and experience with the world in a sensorial way. He argues that the “psychological lifetime ” of products can best be extended not by symbolism, but by directly involving people in their functioning. He advocates for products that are transparent, such that they invite renewal and repair and that are moreover engaging in that they allow the person to relate to the product as a material, rather than purely functional or symbolic object.

These are promising strategies, however extending the psychological lifetime of products is not a sufficient solution to sustainability by itself. All interactive technology will eventually lose its functionality and be recycled, decomposed or else become pollution. More importantly, culture is dynamic and ever-changing. Humans, at least in recent history, are predisposed towards constant improvement of existing technology [2]. Culture evolves, and over time, people come to prefer newer designs and ideas. At some point, older patterns in design will no longer fit into the cultural ecology and will be retired. Sustainable design can effectively slow down this process of decay and obsolescence, but it cannot stop it. Thus, we must design for graceful decomposition as well as longevity of use.

Blevis’ principle of learning from natural systems is informative in this case. In natural ecosystems, energy is constantly in flux as matter is transforming from one state to another in a complex system. No individual organism endures forever, but no energy or matter is effectively wasted either. Everything is used to its maximum efficiency and reused in cycles of successive destruction and creation. Following this model, we can say that the challenge of sustainability is not so much to ensoul objects as it to ensoul material in the most universal sense. Objects will necessarily come and go, but if people are inspired with respect and appreciation for the basic resources of matter and energy, then perhaps they will invest care and maintenances of their world as a whole, using everything to its maximal efficiency and preventing harmful waste and destruction. To me, this notion of appreciating all matter is synonymous with the design vision of connecting each detail to the larger whole: “To see the world holistically, as a divine wholeness, where every single aspect of the totality of experience is also seen as a member of, or even the same thing as, the divine” [5]. This is the vision which inspires my design philosophy and character.

References
1. Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal & reuse. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems:503-512.
2. Friedel, R. (2007). The Culture of Improvement — Technology and the Western Millennium. The MIT Press. Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. In Design Studies 24 (2003) 507-522.
3. Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition That “Design Is Making Sense (Of Things)” Design Issues, Vol. 5, No. 2. (Spring, 1989), pp. 9-39.
4. Nathan, Lisa P., Predrag V. Klasnja, and Batya Friedman.(2007). Value scenarios: a technique for envisioning systemic effects of new technologies. CHI ’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.
5. Nelson, H. & Stolterman, E. (2003). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Educational Technology Publications.
6. Rogers, Yvonne, (2005) New Theoretical Approaches for HCI, ARIST: Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, no 38, 2004. http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/yrogers/papers/ARIST_Rogers.pdf
7. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York, NY. Basic Books.
8. Verbeek, P-P, (2005). What Things Do — Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.

Reading the book from a design perspective, I’ve been thinking about all the individual decisions that have led us to the current system and the intentions behind them. My conclusion is that many creations of the food industry can be see as brilliant designs when viewed in context of an isolated problem. When you view those designs in the context of the wider system however, the appear in a different light.

For example, the invention of synthetic fertilizer would seem to be a brilliant solution to produce more food for humanity–until you consider the nitrogen flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, creating a dead zone the size of New Jersey. Or on the other end, the invention of the supersize soda would seem to be a brilliant way to give consumers want they want and increase profits both–until you consider that one in three children today will develop diabetes. The design of fast food drive-thrus and cup-holders in cars may seem like a user-centered approach to accommodate our contemporary lifestyle. But when you reflect on the fact that 19% of American meals are now eaten in cars, I think its good cause to question the broader cultural values and practices that result from our individual design decisions.

In a complex world, designing responsibly means thinking systemically, and taking time to reflect on the wide-reaching unintended consequences that might result from action. As I’ve been discussing with my classmates, HCI discourse tends to focus on only the impact technology has to an individual user or organization, giving little attention to the broader societal impact. (Eli Blevis’ paper on sustainable interaction design may be the first well-recognized work to deal with this.) I wonder, how can we encourage systemic, long-term reflection in the design process? Can their be methods, tools, and exercises to help us anticipate unintended consequences?

Lucky for Bloomington residents, this weekend’s conference plenaries are being broadcast live via satellite to IU (click here for details). I stopped in today and checked out a provocative talk by Jay Hartmann, CEO of PAX scientific. PAX is an industrial design firm that uses patterns found in nature to improve industrial products. As Hartmann explained, millions of years of evolution have resulted in forms and systems that are unparalleled by human technology in their elegance and efficiency. PAX studies these ‘optimized geometries’ and applies them to design cleaner, more efficient and benign industrial products. For example the natural spirals have been used to create better fans with a variety of applications.

This overall approach to industrial design is known as Biomimicry and has been written about by Janine Benyus (see more here). Of course the strategy of using natural models as a means to design sustainably is not new. Permaculture design is based on this approach applied to food production, landscaping, and land-use. In the context of architecture, Christopher Alexander advocated for structure preserving transformations in his book Nature of Order. And most recently, Alexander’s work has inspired Eli Blevis to include the principle of “using natural models and reflection” in his manifesto for Sustainable Interaction design.

Hartmann’s talk suggests that this approach is gaining traction in the industrial world, which can only have positive implications for sustainability.

1) In his book, Design Methods, John Chris Jones describes how in traditional craftsmanship, small incremental changes are made over long periods of time based upon successes and failures of use. This results in extremely well-adapted artifacts, refined to specific conditions of use and to the environment. In contrast, the modern design process is characterized by a separation among design, production, and use, as well as a rapid rate of innovation. In this context, I wonder, is it still possible to produce technology that is well-adapted and does no harm?

2) Uday Gajendar makes a strong case for how striving for craft can elevate quality and improve the user experience of an interaction design. I believe it is implied in this statement that interaction designers should be involved in the production of, for example, graphics, code, or interaction hardware. There are many complex skills involved in the production of interactive systems. How should a designer balance these production skills with all of the other skills need in design?

3) The notion of craftsmanship has connotations of an intimate, tangible relationship between the craftsperson and their material. The craftsperson works in an intensive hands-on way in the creation of each artifact and as a result, each artifact is unique and has an aura of authenticity. Is such possible when the material is digital? As mentioned above I think designers can experience an intimate, semi-tangible relationship with their creations, especially by participating in production. The “tangibleness” of this might grow as we increase the materiality of interactive experiences. But can interaction designers ever achieve an aura of authenticity when their works can be perfectly and infinitely reproduced without cost?

As Gillian Smith points out (in her forward to Designing Interactions), Interaction Design has drawn heavily on the ‘existing expressive languages’ of non-digital mediums. She breaks these traditional languages down into 4 ‘dimensions’: 1 – words and literature, 2 – painting, graphic design, iconography, 3 – product design, 4 – film and TV.

I agree that much of interactive design to this point, even the really good stuff, has been interesting mash-ups of these various traditions. True, many new activities and applications for both work and play have been afforded by computers. But if you think about the really compelling elements of your favorite digital products, I find that they mostly come the 2nd or 4th D traditions: either really nice visual communication, or immersive cinematic experiences.

I agree with Smith that we need ‘an independent language of interaction with smart systems and devices, a language true to the medium of computation, networks, and telecommunications’. Of course lots of innovation has occurred to take advantage of the unique opportunities afforded by digital technology, and it continues to rapidly. The internet is one space in which we are seeing some promising activity (and a lot of hype as well) in this direction. The whole ‘web 2.0′ and ‘wikinomics’ phenomenon can be seen as web developers trying to craft a language ‘true to the medium’ of networks, and to utilize the power of vast numbers of people networked together.

While I’m excited by these new innovations in web applications, I agree with Smith that we have more than a little way to go to achieve compelling interactions on par with “the breathtaking innovativeness, the subtlety and intuitive “rightness” of Eisenstein’s language of montage”. I think one of the main challenges to this is something Smith touches on in the beginning of her section on Good Interaction Design. Its also I think related to a concept introduced by Lowgren and Stolterman.

Lowgren and Stolterman present their notion that interaction design works with a ‘material without qualities’. By this they means that digital artifacts can take on so many different forms–and the forms possible are constantly shifting due to technological advances–that is very hard to pin down a set list of qualities to describe the medium, as say a sculptor could describe their stone. They make this point more clear by suggesting that we think of bits as our material. Pondering this for a minute, I begin to realize that are an infinitum of possible physical forms and consequently qualities that bits can take on as they are presented to a user.

This fact, as pointed out by G. Smith, is one of the central challenges for interaction designers. In contrast to physical objects, which offer direct feedback when manipulated, “with computers… the distance between… keystrokes and screen image… and what’s happening inside the computer is usually much less direct. Our physical world and the computer’s virtual world seem miles apart.” In other words, the virtual world, the world made of bits, tends to have a lack of physicality at least in the sense that we are familiar with.

However, all digital artifacts have an aspect that doesn’t seem miles away and of which qualities can be quite easily pinned down: hardware used for display and input. While there are vast possibilities in this area too, for most part digital interaction to date has consisted of some basic elements of monitor, keyboard and mouse. It occurs to me now that there a lot of limitations in this configuration, and that by switching it up we might greatly reduce the percieved ‘distance’ between the physical and virtual world. G. Smith talks about the 4 dimensions of previous traditions that interaction design draws upon. I might argue that the 3-D, that is the language of traditional product design, has been the least utilized. With hardware advances this is changing a lot though, and the result is the introduction some much needed physicality to our overall language of interaction.

For example, camera based and multi-touch user input.(I’m sure you’ve all seen many example videos. I believe this one comes out of IU.)

Lev Manovich takes an approach of digital materialism, focusing heavily on the physical conguration of user and hardware. When he was writing the dominant form was still monitor, mouse, keyboard. If we apply his analysis to these newer forms of interface hardware, how does our conception of the medium change?

As I remarked in my last post, seeing a concept independently replicated by someone else is a common experience, but one that inevitably provokes some reactions. In addition to feeling validated in my thinking (and a bit jealous that I couldn’t capitalize on the idea ;) , I am also caused to reflect on my creative development in the past year. It occurs to me that one year ago, upon seeing such a technology, I would have said to myself, “wow thats cool. how the hell do people think of such creative stuff?” And here I am today, looking and saying to myself, “yes thats cool. I thought of that too!”. I don’t mean this as to rest on my laurels and suggest that I’ve achieved some visionary abilities. Rather I just want to reflect on the process which enhances one’s creativity so that I can better continue to do so.

Coincidentally, a first-year student recently brought up this issue on one of the I541 blogs. I reproduce my comments here just so that I won’t forget these insights:

I felt exactly the same way at the beginning of the program. I always considered myself far more analytic than creative. I was the guy who questioned and shot ideas down rather than generating wild new concepts. Man, has a lot changed for me since then! While I still don’t consider myself any kind of artistic visionary, I now have a lot of confidence in my potential for imagination and creativity.

Reflecting on that change, one of biggest assets is as you noted: working with peers. Not only can their creativity be a source of inspiration, but learning to collaborate on really hard problems will seriously challenge you to step out of your comfortable habits and ways of thinking. On that note I would strongly encourage you to be a facilitator on one of the later projects. I found that being forced to lead a group in a creative process is a great way to pull some creativity out of yourself.

Another asset is what Marty has emphasized for project two: constraints. Counter to intuition, constraints really do enhance imagination. Why? Simply because under contraints, imagination is the only way achieve your design goals. This is where your analytic, or ‘devil’s advocate’ tendency can be of service. When you’re never satisfied with any idea, it propels you to keep trying, generating concept after concept until you’ve found a great one.

Of course there’s also time to suspend all analysis and criticism. Exercises like brainstorming are good for this, where ideas are repidly generated and no one is allowed to criticize.