#ctec503b2

As I previously and pretty sarcastically posted, the first brief for Block 4 states that Block 4 needs to be the final piece of the puzzle that I started in the previous 3 blocks, made using the same methods and approaches. I thought I’d look at what my approaches were for those three blocks to see what I might be supposed to do this time.

Block 1: Transitus

In this block, I worked on the script and story for our movie, and then helped with odd jobs during filming.

My way of writing the script was to focus on the characters and story first and try to make a good film from that.

...

Doesn’t sound good in this context, does it?

My way of working out what we should communicate on the technological/future society side of things was to bounce ideas off of the other team members, see what they had to say, see what could work in the script, what might make a better story, etc. I’d repeat that a few times until I thought we had some good ideas.

Block 2: Prezi and the IoT

Oh, boy. This one was pretty damn disconnected for me - my process was different every week.

At first, I couldn’t find a group - it took me a while to find some people with whom I could discuss any ideas in the first place.

Then we took a while to decide on an idea, and I was out in charge. Consequently, we explored possible areas to investigate for a week or so, not really getting anywhere.

Once we decided that we were going to explore ideas around food, we actually got somewhere - we explored causes of lack of food and stuff, and got some pretty good ideas and reframings of ideas. We put together a pretty good Prezi presentation.

Then it turned out that the Prezi wasn’t meant to be presented and I decided that the ideas we had on ours weren’t that useful for making proposals, and nor did they have to do with the IoT.

So the final week or two was spent thinking about more IoT-y ideas that I didn’t write down or really start developing until 3 days before the deadline. Of course, my grades suffered greatly due to my throwing away of the ideas we had worked on in our group Prezi and lack of devoted development of my ideas.

JK. I got 10/10. Because of reasons.

Block 3: Prototypes

I slacked off a bit in this one. I think I helped the others with their prototypes more than I worked on my own, and I think it showed in the quality of my data - although not so much with my part of our report.

As a group, our focus was largely on the space junk drone and dream ideas, and we did some prototypes for our VR warfare early on too. This left us (really, just me - this was my fault) with little time for prototypes of my simplified IoT. We ended up doing one prototype about half an hour after we came up with it and one survey with 2 days to go.

We still ended up getting 4/5, a higher mark than my group (largely the same people) got for the first assignment, the only one I worked on with any real enthusiasm.

In conclusion, the method that I used to develop my ideas in the past 3 blocks was pretty disconnected, and worked best when I left the work to the last minute (and worst when I enjoyed it).

INTERNET OF THINGS PROPOSALS - DISABILITY MANAGEMENT IN 2076

KELLY ROSE LEECE - 15897448

Proposal 1

The Problem - Employment restrictions due to the impairment/unequal opportunities. A significant aspect of this issue comes down to the fact that many impairments can hinder the patient’s ability to perform tasks required for the employment. Furthermore, this issue becomes greater when many employers may discriminate against those with impairments and choose not to hire them, regardless of whether or not the impairment may impact job performance in 2016.

Business has been revolutionised by 2076 - with the Global Economic Hub changing how the world  trades. GEH allows for all business industries to merge into the world of the sharing economy. The concept refers to an online, connected trade market - including stock exchange, finance and other economic industries. The digitisation of the business world allows for anyone and everyone to contribute to the development of first-world economics, and to create a powerful platform for innovation, anywhere. The GEH allows for anyone to contribute at anytime through IoT, thus removing physical impairments from being a potential issue in the business world. Online, there’s not such thing as a physical limitation.

The positives of this initiative are practically endless. Fast and efficient business on a global scale, on an open platform encourages honest and reliable business. However, the key behind this concept is that it does not limit work to what one is physically capable of. Physical impairments do not exist in a digital world, and thus many disabled individuals can experience employment once again. It also means that unemployability could be significantly reduced as anyone could become a business mogul.

The negatives of this initiative must also be considered. Online business is always at risk of security issues (hacking, fraud, theft, etc) and thus intensive security regimes may need to be placed.

Proposal 2

The Problem: Lesser quality of life due to the impact of the impairment itself upon the individual. This primarily focusses on physical impairments, such as amputated limbs or various stages of paralysis. The issues considers the relationship between the individuals with these impairments, and the physical limitations and restrictions placed upon them in 2016.

In 2076, there are no such things as limitations. What would previously have been considered a physical disability is now as much of a hindrance as the common cold. This is due to the development of Smart Prosthetics - prosthetic limbs and artificial exoskeletons that are not only lightweight, durable and comfortable, but are also connected to the Internet of Things. These highly intelligent devices can not only allow the user to continue with daily life as though their impairment had never existed, but also act as both sensors and actuators - constantly reading data (such as weight of user/force applied to the prosthetic, environmental conditions, and more) and responding to the never ending changes in the data in the same way the human body would naturally respond. Furthermore, all of this data would be accessible through the Internet of Things for both the user and manufacturer to access for personal adjustments and further research of the product (in order for further development).

The positive outcomes of these devices are endless, especially on a deeply personal level for those affected by physical disabilities. The ability for an individual to walk again, or to simply even open a jar by themselves again would simply feel normal again and that speaks volumes. Furthermore, the IoT capabilities within each device would allow for each prosthetic to be completely specialised to the individual needs of each patient, meaning that the limb/exoskeleton would be designed to help the individual as much as possible.

However, it is important to be aware of the potential issues around the concept, particular in regards to privacy and security. Having a limb connected to, and sharing live data with the Internet of Things could lead to information about the individual in unsafe locations. It must also be considered that outsiders (ie anyone that is not either the consumer or manufacturer) could access and submit data to and from the limb, would could result in dangerous situations.

Proposal 3

The Problem: Social discrimination against patients with various physical, mental or other impairments. This problem considers social relationships, particularly in regards to the management of negative relationships between society and those patients with various impairments. It is important for our future to decrease and prevent cases of the discrimination that is very prevalent today.

The biggest cause for discrimination is misunderstanding, in my opinion, and thus the countermeasure for this is simple - education. Through the relationship between people and the internet, the education system in 2076 is almost entirely digitised. This system does not involve the abolishment of schools, but rather implements an interface to be used withins school for teachers guide students through digital lessons. Content can be revised to include any changes that may be needed. Furthermore, the interface is highly accessible, meaning that anyone can, and is encouraged to, explore and learn about anything. Disability is one of the many topics that could be taught in far more depths and efficiency with this interface.

The pros for this interfaces are not lacking. The system allows for highly efficient and well-planned education. Also, given that the interface is entirely digital, there would also be room for the interface to be available in multiple languages. This provides an opportunity for the world to reach a stage of global equality in regards to education.

This was my idea of a long-term solution to Big Data and the IoT - centralising and standardising the IoT. Devices in the IoT are, as I wrote, “developed without regard to any centralisation and are seldom able to communicate with each other.” I figure that somehow standardising the way IoT objects handle information would make the huge amounts of data they produce way easier to handle and use. It could make devices able to talk to each other much more easily, too. I also figure that the ways they’re standardised should be open-source and not owned by anyone.

...

That was pretty much my entire thought process for that one, too. This was my second least well thought-out idea.

One of my proposals for Block II was an app that keeps track of IoT objects.

The concept was pretty simple: Just about every IoT object you can buy has an app for it. Individually, they’re all convenient, but if you take the IoT as seriously as a Colab lecturer you’ll end up with way too many apps to keep track of, all doing different things and needing individual attention. So why not make one conglomerated app that encompasses and keeps track of all of them?

...

That was pretty much my entire thought process, to be honest. This was my least well thought-out idea.

As I continue through Block 2 of Studio II, the next stage of the journey lead me to producing a rich mindmap as I explore various concepts and topics for the later stages of the project. 

I didn’t just want to produce a mindmap about a topic - I wanted to share how I got to that topic, and why I made the decision I did for the topic I chose, as well as sharing a few thoughts on the topic itself.

After a bit of a battle to get here, I am finally able to safely say that I’ve been working on the next stages of Studio II. This block is all about reflecting and evaluation.

Our ultimate task is to reconsidering the methods through which we designed our futures for the year 2076. The lecturers wanted us to not only consider what we created, but also the why and how we got there. I do agree with this - I feel it’s very important (especially in our particular practice) to reflect our decision making processes. Albert Einstein explained this perfectly; 

“We cannot solve our problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.”

With this in mind, I dived into the readings that we were set and began to consider my frame of mind.

Places to Intervene in a System

This reading presented some really unique and exciting ideas that I’ve never considered. Author Donella Meadows reflected on the concept of a system - such as “a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem” (1997, .1) - and the various points within those systems that initiate change. 

There were a few ideas that really resonated with me from this piece of work, but I was particularly intrigued when Meadows discussed the relationship between positive feedback loops, and negative feedback loops. She shared the insight that, “Positive feedback loops drive growth, explosion, erosion, and collapse in systems” (p. 6), meaning that they’re designed to create a specific change. However, she also elaborated that, “A system with an unchecked positive loop ultimately will destroy itself” (p.6). The strength of change increases exponentially to the point where nothing more can be change with it ending in total chaos. She believes that negative feedback loops return balance and equality to the equation, counteracting each other to create just the right level of change needed. I’d never considered this before, but ultimately I see the power of balance. It’s just the same as having to take one medication for one symptom, but having to take other medications to handle the side effects. It’s about combining feedback loops, both positive and negative, to shape the precise change that individuals wish to achieve within their system. 

I felt that this reading was relevant because our society is a perfect example of one of these systems. In my opinion, systems can be defined as a scenario in which multiple actions or methods coexist to create an outcome. Consider Meadows’s examples - cities are comprised of transport, housing, and citizens, the living body is built up of organs, blood and skin. Systems involves ingredients to create a final, existing, and evolving outcome. Society is the same. It is comprised of culture, belief, industry, and trending ideas. Society is a system in which feedback loops exist and the future of that society in 2076 is dependant hugely on what those feedback loops balance out to achieve.

Framing Creative Problems

This reading was not only a bit exciting (given that one of our lecturers was one of the authors), but made me question the very foundations of problem-solving as I understood it.

The work, as the title suggests, discussed methods and concepts behind understand and forming problems in order to find creative solutions. However, one of the most unique and fascinating concepts suggested by the paper, is the very idea of problems themselves. After discussing how problems can be defined as “undesirable situations” and are, therefore, constructs of our society (Volkema, 1983), the piece of work continued to consider the importance of shaping the situation into a specific, understood issue;

“Defining a problem means defining what makes a situation undesirable and what are its causes and consequences as viewed by the problem-solver as an individual and as a member of her sociocultural context. Such definition shapes the problem and directs problem-solving to focus on factors deemed as relevant and to ignore those viewed as ancillary.” (Sosa et al, 2016).

Having the ability to shape, question, re-form, and evolve problems allows a creative practitioner to constantly strive for the ideal or “desirable” outcome. It’s important to not trap oneself into rigid ideals of issues, given how problems change with every second. In order to reach success in problem-solving, one must be flexible and willing to re-approach the core of each concept as needed. 

These thoughts stuck with me rather profoundly, and I felt a new perspective slowly starting to develop in my own mind.

The Art of Powerful Questions

As the title suggests, this reading considered the idea of question, and how to frame this for the most efficient outcome. 

The idea of the power of questions was quite profound to me. The authors defined a powerful question as one that;

“ - generates curiosity in the listener

- stimulates reflective conversation 

- is thought-provoking

- surfaces underlying assumptions

- invites creativity and new possibilities 

- generates energy and forward movement 

- channels attention and focuses inquiry 

- stays with participants 

- touches a deep meaning 

- evokes more questions” (Vogt et al., 2003)

I don’t feel it necessary to elaborate on explaining this - these ideas speak for themselves. I think it is important to ask powerful questions, in order to get a powerful answer. From here, we can find the problems in our systems and ultimately perceive an idea of where these problems may take our system in the future.

References

Meadows, D. H. (1997). Places to intervene in a system. Whole Earth - Winter.

Sosa, R., Connor, A.M. & Corson, B. (2016). Framing creative problems. In C. Zhou (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Creative Problem-Solving Skill Development in Higher Education, Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Just in case the submission link fails again here’s a google doc version of my three proposals.