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