As referring back to my first post on this learning blog, you can notice that one thing that I was looking forward to gain through this course was “get crystal clear on my goals of a PhD thesis”. By finishing the course, I have learned a lot of things, by reading papers provided during the course, now I know better “how” to start my research, how to set up my research questions and my goals, how to find suitable means of data collection, how to reflect upon my activities, how to observe openly, how to make use of the techniques like “dialogue” instead of discussion, how to present my findings and a lot more. Furthermore, I would for sure take into account the phases of “Theory U” in the process of writing my dissertation, cause I found it very useful.
Creation of success requires a strong foundation in each individual pursuing it. For a person who is an extreme procrastinator like me, I’ve found that using great tools and methods, like creating observation weblogs or make use of sharing files tools for the group work, would be very effective for eliminating procrastination and keep me more connected with my project.
As a PhD student who is at the beginning of her way to write a dissertation I found this course very productive. In order to achieve specific goals or results it’s not useful just to know how much time you spent on doing things, but as well you need a tool to measure achievements as well. That was the first time I created a learning journal, but it is not going to be the only one, because it was a productive method that helped me a lot to keep track of my learning.
M.M
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
B9- Overspill, theoretical background & reflection
In the last part of the session on 21 of Jun, “Theory U” by Otto Scharmer has been presented and all the KCTs reflected upon their project according to the “Theory U” steps. As in my group, only I and one other group member were available and we made our reflections together.
Here I would like to write about my personal learning from the “Theory U”.
• Co-initiating:
Seeing with fresh eyes,
Suspending,
Listening to others.
• Co-sensing
Sensing from the field,
Redirecting and seeing from the whole.
• Presencing
Letting go, connecting to the source with open mind and heart.
Questions like: What is my work?
• Co-creating
Letting come, crystallizing visions and intentions,
Envisioning what seeks to emerge,
Prototyping.
• Co-evolving
Linking the head and the heart by embodying.
As my own interpretations during the whole process of the project, I have been able to learn to go through the process of listening and observing. It is important to consider the fact that people have different backgrounds and we as group members should learn how to give space to each other to exchange our ideas and how to listen to each other mutually.
According to Scharmer the “presencing” phase (at the bottom of the U), requires “the open mind, the open heart, and the open will”. During this course, we practiced this phase in our outing session, which was not very productive for me personally. Now when I review everything one more time and when deeply thinking about the aim of the theory u, I noticed that my problem was that, I have been a bit blind minded and was just thinking in a some kind of the closed-loop and did not really used all of my senses openly.
As in the phase of crystallizing, the group was much more successful than the other phases of the theory U, in a sense that we finally became capable of getting crystal clear in our intentions and prototyping.
In general the coherence between our project steps and the theory U increased by time. In other words, as we moved from the “presencing” phase to “co-creating”, the results were more in alignment with the theory U.
M.M
Here I would like to write about my personal learning from the “Theory U”.
• Co-initiating:
Seeing with fresh eyes,
Suspending,
Listening to others.
• Co-sensing
Sensing from the field,
Redirecting and seeing from the whole.
• Presencing
Letting go, connecting to the source with open mind and heart.
Questions like: What is my work?
• Co-creating
Letting come, crystallizing visions and intentions,
Envisioning what seeks to emerge,
Prototyping.
• Co-evolving
Linking the head and the heart by embodying.
As my own interpretations during the whole process of the project, I have been able to learn to go through the process of listening and observing. It is important to consider the fact that people have different backgrounds and we as group members should learn how to give space to each other to exchange our ideas and how to listen to each other mutually.
According to Scharmer the “presencing” phase (at the bottom of the U), requires “the open mind, the open heart, and the open will”. During this course, we practiced this phase in our outing session, which was not very productive for me personally. Now when I review everything one more time and when deeply thinking about the aim of the theory u, I noticed that my problem was that, I have been a bit blind minded and was just thinking in a some kind of the closed-loop and did not really used all of my senses openly.
As in the phase of crystallizing, the group was much more successful than the other phases of the theory U, in a sense that we finally became capable of getting crystal clear in our intentions and prototyping.
In general the coherence between our project steps and the theory U increased by time. In other words, as we moved from the “presencing” phase to “co-creating”, the results were more in alignment with the theory U.
M.M
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
B8- Creating New Realities
That was basically the last session of this course and the groups were supposed to present their prototypes. The presentations were as follow:
KCT 1: Predicting Future
This group had three prototypes.
First Prototype: Simulation; Implement unexpected events in standard simulation.
They had made a simulation on pedestrians in the subway. A random place in the subway had been chosen and then the pedestrians' behaviour when some obstacles appeared through their way had been simulated. That was a simulation of how unexpected events could affect the whole situation.
Second Prototype: Short Movie
That was a short movie about a person that has a job interview and so many unexpected events happen through his way to the interview place. Unexpected events, as a bomb explosion, road construction, train delay and so on. The key point was "What happens if very improbable situation occur at the same time?"
Third prototype: Board game
Aim: Transport the injured people from the accident place to the hospital.
My interpretation: I liked the creativity of the group in terms of using different media for their prototypes, but in a way I did not find any good coherence between these all three prototypes. Furthermore, was it really creating a new knowledge? Didn’t they just get into the conclusion, that all of us knew before?
KCT 2: Environment
My group started to present the business plan as our first prototype and continued with the webpage and finally closed it up by our posters.
My interpretation: During the presentation, my group members received some interesting questions. Some students were totally disagreeing the idea of “Earth enterprise”. Their argument was that the company services are not tangible enough, so that the idea would not be appealing for the customers, which I do not agree with totally. In my mind the business plan that we have created is rich enough in this term. Furthermore, it is always a problem for companies who are offering services to people rather than products.
The other question that rose was about the fact that how the company would guarantee that the use of the” management tools” in order to provide environmental friendly services, would not damage the environment itself? And the solution is that we believe that it is not just the tools that help us to create something, but it is important how to use the tools.
KCT 3: Homoeconomicus
This group had created a "decision map", in order to visualize the decision making process. They made an interview with a guy and created a decision map out of his answers in the process of making a decision.
As their conclusions, they mentioned the following points:
• People maximize pleasure and minimize pains,
• Life values can be classified into long-term and short-term,
• Distinguish between goal-oriented and pleasure-oriented,
• Both of goal-oriented and pleasure-oriented goals can have negative impact on the decision making process,
• Keep the goals in the mind in the shortest way to achieve it,
• Ideally in order to maximize value, the decision maker should maximizes both goal-oriented and pleasure-oriented values,
• It can be done simultaneously.
My interpretation: The presentation was creative; the fact of interviewing someone over a webcam was kind of breaking the borders. In terms of the context of the project, again these questions are in my mind: “, was it really creating a new knowledge? Didn’t they just get into the conclusion, that all of us knew before?” Ignoring these questions, I really enjoyed the group effort and work and the fact that they were not as lost as my group, and they were on the right track from the beginning was interesting.
KCT 4: Hierarchy
This group had created a new organizational method. A method, in which there exists some hidden/unhidden ways of contacts between the employees that would let the top manager to get to know what is really happening on the down levels on the organizational chart.
My interpretation: The idea was creative. I personally can consider it as a “New Knowledge Creation”.
M.M
KCT 1: Predicting Future
This group had three prototypes.
First Prototype: Simulation; Implement unexpected events in standard simulation.
They had made a simulation on pedestrians in the subway. A random place in the subway had been chosen and then the pedestrians' behaviour when some obstacles appeared through their way had been simulated. That was a simulation of how unexpected events could affect the whole situation.
Second Prototype: Short Movie
That was a short movie about a person that has a job interview and so many unexpected events happen through his way to the interview place. Unexpected events, as a bomb explosion, road construction, train delay and so on. The key point was "What happens if very improbable situation occur at the same time?"
Third prototype: Board game
Aim: Transport the injured people from the accident place to the hospital.
My interpretation: I liked the creativity of the group in terms of using different media for their prototypes, but in a way I did not find any good coherence between these all three prototypes. Furthermore, was it really creating a new knowledge? Didn’t they just get into the conclusion, that all of us knew before?
KCT 2: Environment
My group started to present the business plan as our first prototype and continued with the webpage and finally closed it up by our posters.
My interpretation: During the presentation, my group members received some interesting questions. Some students were totally disagreeing the idea of “Earth enterprise”. Their argument was that the company services are not tangible enough, so that the idea would not be appealing for the customers, which I do not agree with totally. In my mind the business plan that we have created is rich enough in this term. Furthermore, it is always a problem for companies who are offering services to people rather than products.
The other question that rose was about the fact that how the company would guarantee that the use of the” management tools” in order to provide environmental friendly services, would not damage the environment itself? And the solution is that we believe that it is not just the tools that help us to create something, but it is important how to use the tools.
KCT 3: Homoeconomicus
This group had created a "decision map", in order to visualize the decision making process. They made an interview with a guy and created a decision map out of his answers in the process of making a decision.
As their conclusions, they mentioned the following points:
• People maximize pleasure and minimize pains,
• Life values can be classified into long-term and short-term,
• Distinguish between goal-oriented and pleasure-oriented,
• Both of goal-oriented and pleasure-oriented goals can have negative impact on the decision making process,
• Keep the goals in the mind in the shortest way to achieve it,
• Ideally in order to maximize value, the decision maker should maximizes both goal-oriented and pleasure-oriented values,
• It can be done simultaneously.
My interpretation: The presentation was creative; the fact of interviewing someone over a webcam was kind of breaking the borders. In terms of the context of the project, again these questions are in my mind: “, was it really creating a new knowledge? Didn’t they just get into the conclusion, that all of us knew before?” Ignoring these questions, I really enjoyed the group effort and work and the fact that they were not as lost as my group, and they were on the right track from the beginning was interesting.
KCT 4: Hierarchy
This group had created a new organizational method. A method, in which there exists some hidden/unhidden ways of contacts between the employees that would let the top manager to get to know what is really happening on the down levels on the organizational chart.
My interpretation: The idea was creative. I personally can consider it as a “New Knowledge Creation”.
M.M
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
B7- Crystallizing, designing & prototyping / Part two
Phase C- Prototyping: Explore prototyping scenarios
My personal feedbacks from the prototyping process:
The business plan idea was going good; it was making sense for all of us. It was making the project look more feasible and real. Furthermore, it was in alignment with the webpage prototype, it was kind of providing us with the final ideas of how the final prototype must looks like.
Also I think that our three prototypes would enable better communication between the designers and final users. For examples the collages/advertisement posters are based on environmental issues and how management techniques that our company would offer (which are mentioned in the business plan) would deal with them.
Difficulties:
As it was the first time for all of the group members to make a prototype for not an automobile project for example, it was a bit different. It was so interesting to go through the process and see how as it was developing from the first abstract idea and getting more and more complete.
Furthermore, in terms of difficulties it is worth to mention that a degree of skill and experience was inevitably necessary to be able to use the prototype as an efficient tool. The other factor could be time limitations, a perfect prototype would come up when the appropriate amount of time is dedicated to it. In our case the group faced time pressures. But in general the group was satisfied with the ideas, process and the prototypes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
