Holistic Innovation Center
Posted by Michael Koch in Academic on October 8, 2010
The “Holistic Innovation Center”, a concept coined and researched in a recent project coordinated by the SportKreativWerkstatt GmbH in Munich, is a new kind of space/location for “doing innovation”. The main idea of the project was to develop and test an integrated solution – involving innovation processes, meeting formats, participation formats, but also the design of a space/location where all this can take place.
In the project such a space was created and operated (in an evaluation period from april to may 2010). During the “active phase” the participants where asked to contribute to innovation in the area of health care (“Gesundheitsföderung”).
The following text from the Website of the Holistic Innovation Center lists the visions (in German language only):
DAS HOLISTIC INNOVATION CENTER IST:
Ein realer Ort für Open Innovation – zum Mitdenken und Mitmachen
Ein Schmelztiegel für die Gestaltung der Zukunft
Eine Begegnungsstätte für Visionen, Ideen, Trends und innovative Produkte
Innovationsberatung und Denkfabrik
Ein Fenster zu Innovations-Communities
Testcenter und Showroom
INNOVATION ZUM ANFASSEN UND MITMACHEN:
Im Holistic Innovation Center kann jeder, der möchte, dabei sein.
More information on the project can be found on the project Web site or be requested from the project organizers at SportKreativWerkstatt. Also see a recent blog post by SKW.
The core idea of “Holistic Innovation” is also described on the Web site on Holistic Innovation and in a recent book by Eckehard Moritz.
Project MACE – Metadata for Architectural Contents in Europe
Posted by Michael Koch in Academic on September 21, 2010

The EU-funded project MACE is aimed at improving architectural education, by integrating and connecting vast amounts of content from diverse repositories, including past European projects existing architectural design communities.
Among many other issues the project is also dealing with ways to visualize the content and the connections between the different content objects – using interactive tables, interactive large screens etc. Some very nice examples of this work can be found at http://portal.mace-project.eu/ – e.g the interactive installation at Venice Biennale 2008.
Using Large Screens for Brainstoming
Posted by Michael Koch in Academic, Tools&Methods on September 21, 2010

Lets start with an interesting project in the ModLab at University Bochum. As stated in the earlier post, the researchers in Bochum are working on using large interactive screens in modeling workshops.
At CRIWG 2010 (see paper in Springer Link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t37w158gp31h4216/) they presented a brainstorming tool to help in brainstorming phases during modeling. The interesting aspects of the tool:
- integrated in modeling tool (SeeMe) – so you can continue to work with the ideas generated during the brainstorming session in the (process) model
- workshop participants can use different devices to enter data – whatever they have at hand: laptops (via WiFi), smart phones, iphones …
The presentation of this tool made me look for other brainstorming solutions for large (interactive) screens and mobile devices (for data entry). And there is a lot of it out there … however, there is little that does brainstorming (and not mindmapping), supports group work (and not only single user work), and supports mobile device input and large screen display (and not only web-based work).
In the following I will present a list of tools and services which looked most promising to me (feel free to comment on it or add to it in the comments):
- Edistorm – “Edistorm takes the metaphor of sticky notes on a boardroom wall and brings it online allowing anyone – anywhere to brainstorm with only a web browser.”
- Wiffiti – “Wiffiti publishes real time messages to screens in thousands of locations from jumbotrons to jukeboxes, bars to bowling alleys and cafes to colleges.”
- GroupSystems or ThinkTank – a “classical” suite that also includes brainstorming support
PATONGO – Patterns and Tools for Non-Govermental Organizations
Posted by Michael Koch in Academic on September 20, 2010
In the project PATONGO Fernuniversität Hagen and other partners in Germany are addressing a very interesting innovation problem: how to help the employees and voluntaries in a large non-govermental organization, the Evangelical Church in Germany, to learn from each other, to innovate.
The PATONGO project (www.patongo.de) aims at improving knowledge exchange among practitioners in the Evangelical Church in Germany through a process facilitating retrieval of challenges and matching solution ideas. The organization of such a process is challenging due to the large number of users (250.000 employees and 1 Mio. voluntaries), high degree of geographical and organizational distribution into parishes, and a broad spectrum of areas of practice. Both, priests as well as voluntary parish leaders need to act and lead in new areas of practice.
While a large part of work is done in local parishes sometimes opportunities for personal meetings and relationships across organizational borders occur sporadically. Meetings among leaders often serve the purpose of informal exchange of experiences. However, due to the wide variety of challenges, practices, and topics people do not always meet others with matching experiences. Thus, it is felt that some coordination ensuring that contacts among complementary people could be established would be helpful. From this, we can identify some challenges that are typical for large distrib- uted organizations featuring a diverse set of challenges and practices:
- Employees and voluntaries often face new challenges, and develop new local good practice.
- While an exchange of good solutions for a concrete challenge may be valuable in a specific situation such exchange rarely happens due to the high coordina- tion overhead.Computer Supported Reflection of Good Practice67
- Employees and voluntaries often know only local colleagues. Exchange across geographical and organizational boundaries rarely happens although it would be beneficial in order to avoid repetition of mistakes or reinventing the wheel.
- Even when exchange happens at global meetings it remains difficult to find others with matching experience and become engaged in discussions. Thus, new ideas are generated during discussions at random if at all.
(from “Computer Supported Reflection of Good Practice”,
Till Schümmer, Martin Mühlpfordt and Joerg M. Haake,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010, Volume 6257, Collaboration and Technology, Pages 65-80)
Part of the project is to design workshop formats to create ideas and to condensate ideas / solutions to patterns, but also creating a virtual platform (www.geistreich.de) to allow people all over Germany participate in the process.
A Computer-Model for the Creative Process Beyond Simple Brainstorming
Posted by Marc René Frieß in Tools&Methods on September 20, 2010
To build computer systems which particularly support creativity, an abstract process model is necessary. Most creativity support systems used in practice, so far only address a simple gathering of ideas in the style of a less-strict version of the Brainstorming-technique. Our main goal was, to find a more generic model which allows for the instantiation of more complex creativity techniques. This model will be explained within this article.
The creative process is most commonly described as a linear phase model. Although the various proposed process models (e.g. Nemiro, 2004; Nagasundaram, 1994), differ from each other in many aspects, a general pattern can be found in all of them: the sequence of two distinct phases, which are characterized as divergent, followed up by convergent phases. A practical approach to creativity support, where those two phases show up, are creativity techniques such as Brainstorming and –writing, Mindmapping or the Six-Thinking-Hats. Creativity techniques are mainly determined by rules, activities and constraints. For example the Brainstorming technique proposes the following rules: “Criticism is ruled out”, “Quantity goes before quality” and “Combine and expand existing ideas”.

Figure 1 shows the model which we design especially for the use within a computer system. The model suggests a creative process, consisting out of a set of so called “ProcessPhase(s)” which can be divided into “DivergentPhase(s)” and “ConvergentPhase(s)”. The ProcessPhase can contain a pre-given problem, a set of participants, a set of ideas, a time limit and information whether the phase is conducted anonymously or not. For divergent phases, the set of ideas is typically empty, for convergent phases it is initialized with ideas resulting from a precedent divergent phase. An “idea” is modelled as a modular and flexible construct which can be expressed as (a combination of) sketches, texts or images in divergent phases. There can also be an upper limit of ideas (maxIdeas) and a set of related stimuli. To rate (and select) ideas in the convergent phases, they can be attributed scores or comments (or both). There is also a scenario attached to a convergent phase, which defines a context for the idea evaluation that is formulated and judged with respect to certain criteria (e.g. leading to an overall evaluative question “How feasible are the ideas in scenario XYZ?”).

IT-support for co-located creativity
Posted by Marc René Frieß in Tools&Methods on September 14, 2010
Co-located situations still play a major role in today’s business life. Meetings and workshops are still favored to be held co-located, due to the possibility of non-verbal communication, socializing, faster communication and coordination and increased efficiency. Despite this importance which comes especially true for being creative, IT systems so far have not been designed to particularly support those situations in a natural way. Traditional IT such as personal computer “is very often absent or shut down because it is considered disruptive to communication and the creative flow. […] Using single-user systems in a collaborative setting leads, in most cases, to a communication breakdown since the user’s concentration has to shift away from the group and towards the computer in order to use it.” (Hilliges 2007)
To go one step further and to provide a workspace which allows for an intuitive and natural collaboration and interaction, we designed a tabletop interface for especially supporting co-located creativity. Based on multi-touch input, every user has his own input channel into the application but is also able to interact with the other team members by directly looking and talking to each other. In the following video, published at the ITS (Interactive Tabletop and Surfaces) 2009 conference, we present our approach.
Socio-Technical Integration und UI / Sozio-technische Integration and UI
Posted by Michael Koch in Tools&Methods on September 10, 2010
Unter einem soziotechnischen System versteht man ein technisches System (z.B. eine Software, die auf vernetzten Rechnern läuft) zusammen mit dem sozialen System, das dieses technische System nutzt (also der Gruppe von Personen, die das technische System zur Kommunikation oder Koordination untereinander nutzen, mit ihren sozialen und organisatorischen Strukturen). Arbeiten im Bereich der Rechnergestützten Gruppenarbeit (wozu auch der Einsatz von Social Software in Unternehmen gehört) zeigen, dass eine erfolgreiche Gestaltung (und Einführung) eines Informationssystems sich immer parallel mit beiden Aspekten beschäftigen sollte. Aus diesem Grund werden bei der Gestaltung von Informationssystemen seit längerem die beiden Faktoren Technik und soziales System bzw. Organisation mehr oder weniger gleichberechtigt betrachtet.
Neben den beiden Facetten Technik und sozialem System ist in letzter Zeit noch eine dritte Facette immer wichtiger geworden für die Gestaltung von Informationssystemen: die Schnittstelle zwischen Technik und Benutzer bzw. zwischen Technik und sozialem System. Dies betrifft vor allem die vielfältigen Möglichkeiten neuer (ubiquitärer) Benutzungsschnittstellen. Die Betrachtung von Benutzungsschnittstelle(n) darf dabei wieder nicht isoliert erfolgen, sondern muss im Einklang mit der Berücksichtigung von Technik und sozialem Kontext durchgeführt werden. Dabei spielen vor allem Aspekte der Integration eine entscheidende Rolle – die Integration zwischen technischen Diensten, die Integration zwischen technischem System und sozialem Kontext (über die Benutzungsschnittstellen) und die Integration zwischen den Benutzern (über Technik und Organisation sowie sozialen Protokollen). Bei der Berücksichtigung aller drei Facetten (der Integration) sprechen wir von “soziotechnischer” Integration.
Folgende Abbildung zeigt die Zusammenhänge von links nach rechts:
- links ist die Integration zwischen verschiedenen Diensten zu sehen
- in der Mitte sieht man die Integration zwischen Technik und Mensch – über verschiedene Benutzungsschnittstellen
- und rechts schließlich die (durch die Technik unterstützte) Integration zwischen den Menschen
Nach unserer Erfahrung ist eine gemeinsame Betrachtung der drei Facetten von entscheidender Bedeutung für die Gestaltung nachhaltig erfolgreicher Lösungen. Gemeinsame Betrachtung/Bekümmerung heisst dabei z.B., dass man für die Bedürfnisse der Personen (im Kontext des sozialen Systems) die Möglichkeiten der Benutzungsschnittstelle und die Möglichkeiten der Kombination von Daten passend ausnutzt.
Die in obiger Graphik dargestellten drei Facetten lassen sich auch noch aus einer andere Richtung betrachten: Die Betrachtung geht von den Daten aus (links), die erst einmal über geeignete Benutzungsschnittstellen sichtbar gemacht werden müssen (Mitte) und dadurch zur Kommunikation, Kooperation und zum Wissensaustausch beitragen. Wir finden in diesem Bild also die Entwicklung von Daten über Information zu Wissen wieder. Die richtigen Daten werden in Form von Informationsobjekten an den richtigen Orten sichtbar gemacht um Personen zu helfen Wissen (=Lösungskompetenz) zu generieren.
Ein Beispiel für die Betrachtung von Benutzungsschnittstellen im Zusammenhang mit dem sozialen System sind die Interaktionszonen, die wir rund um an halböffentlichen Orten aufgestellten interaktive Wandbildschirmen (CommunityMirrors) beobachten konnten (siehe dazu auch folgende Abbildung).
Neben der „Aktiven Zone“, in der ein oder mehrere Benutzer mit dem Wandbildschirm und vielleicht auch miteinander interagieren, konnten drei weitere Zonen identifiziert werden:
- die „Aufmerksamkeitszone“, in der weitere Personen bewusst die Aktivitäten der Benutzer in der aktiven Zone beobachten und teilweise auch mit diesen kommunizieren,
- die „Wahrnehmungszone“, in der Personen den Wandbildschirm und die Aktivitäten darauf bzw. damit beim Vorbeigehen eher peripher wahrnehmen.
- die „Außenzone“, in der die Inhalte auf dem Schirm nicht direkt wahrnehmbar sind. Trotzdem kann der Schirm an sich bzw. die Aktivität um den Schirm die Aufmerksamkeit erregen.
Zwischen den Zonen ist dabei ein dynamischer Austausch zu beobachten. Beispielsweise kann durch attraktive Inhalte auf den Bildschirm die Aufmerksamkeit von Vorbeigehenden geweckt werden, wodurch diese in die Aufmerksamkeitszone „gezogen“ werden. Weiterhin zeigt sich ein so genannter „honey pot“-Effekt: Sobald die Aufmerksamkeit eines bzw. mehrerer Benutzer gewonnen wurde, sehen andere Benutzer, die vorbei gehen, nicht mehr nur noch ein technisches System, sondern auch die am sozio-technischen Gesamtsystem beteiligten Interakteure vor dem System. Durch gewecktes Interesse kann sich dies in einer Kettenreaktion als Multiplikator positiv auf die Nutzungsintensität auswirken. Die ubiquitären Benutzungsschnittstellen können mithilfe gezielte Ansprache der Benutzer in den jeweiligen Zonen die zonenübergreifende Interaktion und Kommunikation fördern und so einen wertvollen Beitrag zur soziotechnischen Integration der IT-Systeme liefern. Im Gegensatz zu Desktop-Systemen wird der aktive und gemeinschaftliche Austausch der Personen vor dem Bildschirm und so letztlich eine natürlich-zwischenmenschliche Kontaktaufnahme gefördert.
Project Laboranova
Posted by Michael Koch in Tools&Methods on July 7, 2010
In the EU funded project Laboranova (from 1.6.2006 to 30.7.2010) a tool set for supporting early-stage innovation has been developed.
The Laboranova website tells:
Laboranova supports innovators, teams and companies within the development and management of innovative ideas and concepts. The methods and tools guide the users through the process of the early-stage innovation starting with
- team building,
- generation and management of back- and foreground knowledge,
- idea and concept generation and management
- and the idea or concept evaluation and selection.
Laboranova secures transparent procedures and decision making on a solid knowledge base aiming at product, process or service innovation. Laboranova provides the web 2.0 tools supporting the early-stage innovation.
The current list of tools includes market based idea systems, (distributed) brainstorming tools, social network visualizations, meeting support tools etc.
ModLab University Bochum
Posted by Michael Koch in Academic, CaseStudies on June 2, 2010
“The Institute for Labor Studies at the Ruhr University of Bochum has build a laboratory for moderation techniques. With this installation complex discussions and decision-making processes can be supported, which commonly appear during the design of applications for information and communication.
Mind mapping and modeling are supported on laptops and in a well-equipped environment on interactive walls. The laboratory, which can also sometimes be used by the public and businesses, integrates state-of-the-art components, such as interactive screens and projection screens. The main component consists of a five-meter-wide interactive wall.
Different types of software tools are used in this context and also further developed. Where issues of available technical components are of main interest for the manufacturers, from the research point of view, the question arises which value is added to the problem solving by the use these components. In studies, methods with and without the use of technology can be compared to determine their suitability in multiple fields of application. ”
See: http://www.imtm-iaw.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/projekte/modlab/index.html.en
One very interesting application which is researched in the ModLab is the
SeeMe – Semistructured Sociotechnical Modeling-Method (SeeMe) – we will talk about this in another post soon.
Totem Building
Posted by Bettina in Tools&Methods on June 2, 2010
Shaped by our own preferences and ‘lenses’ each of us tends to evaluate, assess and understand situations in our own particular way – which is not necessarily identical to the viewpoint of others.
However, what ever we would like to achieve, it is important that we have a shared and mutually understood and accepted picture of our starting point as well as of our destination.
‘Totem Building’ is a process that facilitates the elicitation of different viewpoints and perspectives while at the same time avoiding an atmosphere of ‘if I am right you must be wrong’. Totem Building is essentially the capture of the essence of something that might otherwise be more intangible or difficult to describe. Through the process of creating the totem and agreeing on its elements a shared understanding of participants is achieved.
In general, in the Totem Building process participants are asked by the moderator to create two ‘representations’, one of the status quo and one of a desired, future status whereby an important third step is to identify specific and concrete steps and actions for how to move from the current to the desired scenario. In the process participants are encouraged to use the following components:
- Between 5-10 words
- Metaphors
- A set of 72 Cue Cardz (for an example see first picture)
- A Zolo set, consisting of up to 48 different 3- dimensional elements (for example of creature created see second picture)
After the small group exercise (up to 6 work best) the results can then be then shared more widely with the rest of participants. By the way, this lends itself to story telling!
There are two key aspects and benefits of this approach,
- It uses visuals (not only words). This facilitates a deeper discussion and exchange; with words we assume we share the same meaning and concepts; with visuals we know we might not and do therefore have to go into more detail and explain more to communicate our views.
- It externalises issues thereby making them less personal, facilitating an open dialogue that is humorous yet allows us to communicate what needs to be said.
The idea for this workshop setup / methodology came from an article by Angela Dumas: “Building Totems: Metaphor-Making in Product Development”: PDF of the article







Recent Comments