精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

1991年成立的全球性設計公司IDEO熱衷于打造重要又有用的產品，比如蘋果公司的鼠標，再比如禮來公司的胰島素注射筆。該公司或許也是最出名的“設計思維”踐行者，現在人們常利用“設計思維”合作解決商業難題，通過創新和創造性方式破除障礙，解決勞動者與技術，以及消費者和產品之間互動的問題。

IDEO的總裁兼首席執行官蒂姆·布朗與該組織的合伙人巴里·卡茨在2009年最暢銷書籍《用設計去改變》（Change by Design）中向商業界推薦了設計思維。在定于今年3月發行的該書新版中，他們表示這種做法可以升級，從而解決社會上最難纏的“棘手問題”。

Founded in 1991, the global design firm IDEO has created radical and useful products ranging from Apple’s computer mouse to insulin-delivery systems for Eli Lilly. The firm has also become perhaps the best-known practitioner of “design thinking,” a collaborative approach to solving business problems that delves into the interactions of worker and technology, customer and product, in innovative and creative-block-busting ways.

In his 2009 bestseller, Change by Design, IDEO president and CEO Tim Brown, with IDEO fellow Barry Katz, evangelized design thinking to the business world. In an updated edition, to be published in March, they make the case that the practice can scale up to tackle even society’s most intractable “wicked problems.”

When we published Change by Design a decade ago, we set out to make two points. First, design thinking expands the canvas for design to address the challenges facing business and society; it shows how a human-centered, creative problem-solving approach offers the promise of new, more effective solutions. Second, design thinking reaches beyond the hard-won skills of the professional trained designer and should be available to anyone who wishes to master its mindsets.

Since then, the cluster of approaches we call design thinking has been embraced by businesses, social organizations, and academic institutions in every part of the world. Some of the most influential technology companies—Apple, Alphabet, IBM, SAP—have moved design to the very heart of their operations. Designers are part of the founding teams of disruptive startups across Silicon Valley and around the world. Health care systems, financial services firms, and management consultancies now regularly employ designers, while teachers are bringing design thinking to kindergarten classes, senior high school courses, and everything in between.

Design thinking has truly come of age. And yet we should not rush to congratulate ourselves, for we are rightly asked what it takes for such thinking to truly have significant impact.

That question has particular resonance at the intersection of design and technology, as the business models of social media, artificial intelligence, and the Internet reveal their dark sides. Design thinking is not “the invisible hand”: Design thinkers have a responsibility to understand the outcomes they are designing for. This is a moment for “the visible hand” of design to make intentional choices about how we wish technology to serve humanity.

What are the problems to which designers, in partnership with the broader population of design thinkers, should be directing our energies? As we dive deeper into the 21st century, it becomes clearer that the majority of our societal systems are no longer fit for their purposes. They were designed to meet the requirements of the first machine age and have remained essentially unchanged since the 19th and early 20th centuries. What might be the impact if we can successfully apply our design-thinking skills to today’s truly “wicked problems”?

Through the lens of IDEO’s project work over the past decade, we can identify a cluster of dilemmas for which design has begun to chart promising solutions, even at this vast and open-ended scale.

重新設計制度

2011年，我們遇到了這樣的機會，具體來說是秘魯商人卡洛斯·羅德里格斯-帕斯托提出的一項要求。秘魯的科學、數學和民眾閱讀能力一直處于全球倒數位置；這個國家缺乏受過教育的勞動力，有可能浪費掉自身經濟快速增長帶來的機遇。羅德里格斯-帕斯托想設計出新的教育制度，進而提供給還不夠富足的新生中產階層，同時能在全國推廣。

對所有以人為中心的設計過程來說，第一階段都是弄清楚問題的大小。在秘魯，一支應要求進行實地研究的團隊融入了具有代表性的利益相關者的生活中，后者包括教師和管理者、企業負責人和教育部官員、家長，當然還有在校學生。通過上門觀察、集體采訪、搜集故事、實地考察和硬數據，該團隊圍繞著問題及其制約因素，還有它帶來的機遇完成了評估。然后他們開始著手工作。

在設計師的工具箱中深入搜索一番后，一個人員更多的團隊不光制定出了策略，還拿出了建立和管理幼兒園-小學體系的方法，其中包括課程、授課技術和資源、教師發展、場所、經營方案、數據指標、知識共享體系以及財務模型。建立該模型的目的是讓學校可以每個月只收130美元，這樣的費用并不高（無法通過正常市場機制支撐的想法可能永遠只會是個愿景）。2018年學年到來時，秘魯建起了49所Innova學校，招收了超過3.7萬名學生并聘請了約2000名教師；墨西哥也開始試行類似的模式。

我們在秘魯學到的是絕對勢在必行的一體化全系統設計的價值，從最基本層面了解問題的價值，按最廣泛內涵鎖定問題的價值以及動員所需專業領域來解決問題的價值。另一點關鍵體會是，學校是設計出來的，它并不亞于太陽鏡、街頭標識或電動車，而且和其他所有人類文明造物一樣，學校的設計也有好有壞，甚至有可能被設計為針對再也無關緊要的問題。

狄恩·羅根是洛杉磯縣的戶籍記錄員/縣書記官，這個頭銜絕對沒有任何設計色彩。在這個職位上，他管理著美國最大的投票區，其中的選民數量超過了美國50個州中的42個，而且必須用十幾種語言予以支持。羅根找到我們并直截了當地提出問題：“咱們能設計一個新的投票系統嗎？一個所有選民都能用的系統？”重新設計民主？沒問題！

以前，這可能意味著這個問題的范疇相當于重新設計用了50年的投票機。雖然設計師無不以這件“神器”為榮，但今天的設計師也學會了不光考慮單個產品，同時也要考慮體系，也就是包含產品的意義、行為和權力構成的復雜社會網絡。我們學會了不去想名詞（“我們怎么設計出更好的投票機？”），而是考慮動詞——“更好地強化民主體驗的方法是什么？”聚焦于名詞時，我們把自己困在了漸進式思維模式中：一把更好的牙刷、一張更舒服的辦公椅、一臺更安靜的空調。但如果考慮的是動詞，我們就可以揭開這個問題的蓋子，并且能夠處理其中所有錯綜復雜的難點，而這一直是真正創新的條件。

最終，在我們和洛杉磯縣以及Digital Foundry聯手拿出的參考性設計中，社會和行為科學研究的比重跟機械和軟件工程一樣多。我們的團隊花了數百小時來觀察、聆聽、采訪并進行用戶測試，目的是了解人們前往投票站的動機。他們接觸到的選民有坐輪椅的，有發育不全的，還有盲人（甚至連盲人歌手史提夫·汪達都參與驗證了其中一款機器）。他們觀察了將投票機裝上卡車的工人，這些卡車將把投票機運往4800個投票站，還采訪了投票機運抵后負責將其組裝起來的志愿者。他們發現了物理障礙，也看到了安全、隱私和信任方面的無形阻力，還學會了應付充斥著政治、立法和監管因素的環境。以此項廣泛研究為基礎，這個團隊明確了一系列設計原則，并在幾十臺原型機上進行了測試。最終他們拿出了行得通的型號，其指導原則只有一條，那就是面向所有人的機器。

這個叫做“Project Vox”的項目能治愈困擾美國民主的頑疾嗎？可能不行。但3.1萬臺新型投票機在2020年大選中上陣時，我們將會了解到很多東西。

Redesigning institutions

One such opportunity came to us in 2011, in the form of a request from a Peruvian businessman, Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor. Peru consistently ranks near the bottom on global measures of science, mathematics, and reading proficiency; lacking an educated workforce, the country was at risk of squandering the opportunities afforded by its rapid economic growth. Rodriguez-Pastor wanted nothing less than to design a new education system, accessible to an emerging, but not yet affluent, middle class and scalable across the country.

The first phase of any human-centered design process is to understand the scope of the problem. In Peru, this required fielding a research team whose members embedded themselves in the lives of representative stakeholders: teachers and administrators; business leaders and Ministry of Education officials; parents and, of course, the schoolchildren themselves. Using in-home observations, group interviews, stories from the field, site visits, and hard data, the team formed an assessment of the problem, the constraints surrounding it, and the opportunities it offered. Then they got to work.

Reaching deep into the designer’s toolkit, an expanded team created not only a strategy but the means of implementing and managing a scalable K–12 school system: the curriculum, instructional techniques and resources, teacher development, buildings, operational plans, data dashboards, and knowledge-?sharing systems, and a financial model designed to allow the schools to charge a modest $130 monthly fee. (A visionary idea that cannot be sustained through normal market mechanisms is likely to remain just that: a vision.) The 2018 school year opened with 49 Innova Schools across Peru, enrolling more than 37,000 students and employing some 2,000 teachers; an adaptation is being piloted in Mexico.

What we learned in Peru was the value—?indeed, the absolute imperative—of integrated whole-systems design, of understanding a problem at its most fundamental level, locating it within its broadest context, and mobilizing the fields of expertise necessary to tackle it. Another key insight: Schools, no less than sunglasses, street signs, or electric scooters, are designed—and like any other artifact of our civilization, they may be designed well or poorly, or may simply have been designed to meet challenges that are no longer relevant.

Dean Logan holds the supremely undesignerly title of Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk. In that capacity, he oversees the biggest voting jurisdiction in the U.S., with a voter population larger than that of 42 of the 50 American states and which must be supported in more than a dozen languages. Logan sought us out with a straightforward question: “Could we design a new voting system, one that works for all voters?” Redesign democracy? No problem!

In the past, that might have meant framing the problem as the redesign of a 50-year-old voting machine. While there is no designer who does not honor the artifact, designers today are learning to think not only in terms of stand-alone products but also of systems, the complex social networks of meaning, behavior, and power within which products are embedded. We are learning to think not about nouns (“How might we design a better voting machine?”) but of verbs: “What would be a better way to enhance the democratic experience?” When we focus on nouns, we lock ourselves into an incremental mindset: a better toothbrush, a more comfortable desk chair, a quieter air conditioner. But when we think about verbs, we blow the roof off the problem and are able to approach it in all of its wicked complexity, which has always been the condition of real innovation.

The reference design we ultimately created, in partnership with Los Angeles County and Digital Foundry, is as much a study in the social and behavioral sciences as mechanical and software engineering. The team spent hundreds of hours observing, listening, interviewing, and conducting user-testing sessions in order to understand the motivations people bring to the ballot box. They met with voters who are confined to wheelchairs, who are developmentally disabled, and who are blind (even Stevie Wonder weighed in to help validate one of the models). They observed the workers who load the machines onto the trucks that will deliver them to 4,800 polling locations, and interviewed the volunteers who will assemble them once they arrive. They identified physical obstacles as well as the intangibles of security, privacy, and trust, and learned to navigate the fraught political, legislative, and regulatory environment. On the basis of this far-flung research, the team articulated a set of design principles, tested them on dozens of prototypes, and ultimately created a working model guided by a single, overarching philosophy: one machine for all.

Will “Project Vox” solve the malaise afflicting American democracy? Probably not. But we’ll learn a lot when 31,000 new voting devices are rolled out in time for the 2020 elections.

重新設計設計本身

新技術的不斷爆發以及當今聯網世界的無休止整合正在推動我們把設計思維用于更為復雜的體系。IDEO的“未來汽車”團隊已經在設法捕捉自動駕駛汽車的基本技術，比如從現實角度出發預測其所能和所不能，同時考慮技術重塑人類城市的可能途徑。在我們去年收購的數據科學公司Datascope幫助下，我們啟動了一個名為D4AI（Design for Augmented Intelligence，增強智能設計）的項目，其目的是確保下一代智能產品，比如手機、汽車、服裝、藥物和服務能和我們建立動態而靈活的關系，并能對日常生活節奏做出反應。我們甚至開始把設計思維用在重新想象臨終體驗上。

但在設計師以及設計思維采用者的日程上，最讓人望而卻步的任務是實現“循環經濟”。現代社會建立的基礎是假設資源無窮無盡，取之不竭——以前誰能想到也許有一天石油會用完？森林或魚類會消失？或者沒有空地來放置人類物質文明的副產品？而現在，我們發現自己恰恰處于這樣的困境之中，我們的線性經濟始于礦山、采石場或石油鉆機，終止于垃圾填埋場，它把我們封鎖了起來。

與之相反，循環經濟旨在盡可能地保持產品、零部件和資源的價值并盡量予以回收。我們有能力把工業體系重新設計成可恢復和可再生的，有能力把廢品改造成下一代工業的營養，也有能力重新考慮產品生命周期一定有起點、過程和終點的假設，這樣的能力將成為后代評價我們這一代人的標準。

歐盟和中國都已經提出向可再生循環經濟轉型的目標。越來越多的全球性公司，比如蘋果、飛利浦、Steelcase和歐萊雅也投身其中。2017年，IDEO和艾倫麥克阿瑟基金會共同提出了為企業制定實際路線圖的目標。通過我們的循環經濟指南（Circular Economy Guide，免費在網上提供），我們開始和行業龍頭接觸，以找到能創造新價值、實現長期經濟繁榮和生態穩定并且盈利的業務模式。現在，我們就要提出具體可行的措施了，它們可以作為原型，可以試點，也可以擴展。

當第一批工業設計師掛出自己的招牌，當第一批圖形設計師拿出打印圖稿，當第一代數字設計師參悟到互聯網的奧秘時，誰能想到，憑借他們的非正統培訓和頻頻反主流的做法，這些設計師也會在某一天在應對如此緊急和復雜的挑戰時發揮主要作用？

但目前的情況就是如此，而且我們現在面對的正是其中最嚴峻的挑戰：為滿足上述需要而對設計進行重新設計。（財富中文網）

蒂姆·布朗是IDEO總裁兼CEO。巴里·卡茨是IDEO合伙人及加州藝術學院設計專業教授。

本文的另一版本刊登在2019年3月出版的《財富》雜志上，題目是《新藍圖》。

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

Redesigning design itself

The continuous eruptions of new technology and the relentless integration of today’s connected universe are driving us to apply design thinking to ever more complex systems. IDEO’s “Future of Automobility” team has set out to grasp the underlying technologies of the autonomous vehicle—what it realistically can and cannot be expected to do—and to consider the ways the technology could reshape our cities. With Datascope, a data-science company we acquired last year, we have launched a new practice we call D4AI, or “Design for Augmented Intelligence,” which aims to ensure that the next generation of smart products—our phones, our cars, our clothing, our medications, our services—will engage us in ways that are dynamic, flexible, and responsive to the rhythms of everyday life. We’ve even begun to apply design thinking to reimagine the end-of-life experience.

But perhaps the most daunting task on the agenda of designers—and design thinkers—is enabling the “circular economy.” The modern world was founded on the assumption that our resources are infinite and inexhaustible: Who could have imagined that we might one day run out of oil? Or forests? Or fish? Or empty places to dispose of the by-products of our material prosperity? But that is precisely the predicament in which we now find ourselves, locked as we are into a linear economy that begins in a mine, quarry, or oil rig and ends in a landfill.

A circular economy, in contrast, aims to retain and recover as much value as possible from products, parts, and resources. Our ability to redesign industrial systems to be restorative and regenerative, to transform waste into a nutrient for the next generation of industry, and to rethink the assumption that product life cycles must have a beginning, a middle, and an end, will be the measure against which our generation will be judged.

The transition to a regenerative circular economy is now a declared objective of the European Union and of China, and a growing list of companies with global reach, such as Apple, Philips, Steelcase, and L’Oréal, have committed themselves to its implementation. In 2017, IDEO partnered with the Ellen ?MacArthur Foundation with the goal of producing a practical road map for businesses. Through our Circular Economy Guide (freely available online), we have begun to engage industry leaders in the pursuit of a business model that creates new value, delivers long-term economic prosperity and ecological stability—and turns a profit. And we are now in a position to propose concrete, practical measures that can be prototyped, piloted, and scaled.

Who would have thought, when the first industrial designers hung out their shingles, when the first graphic designers laid out a printed page, when the first generation of digital designers grappled with the mysteries of the Internet, that by virtue of their unorthodox training and their frequently antiestablishment practices, they would also one day have a major role to play in addressing challenges so urgent and complex?

But that is exactly what has happened, and we are now face-to-face with the biggest challenge of them all: to redesign design to meet these needs.

Tim Brown is the president and CEO of IDEO. Barry Katz is an IDEO fellow and a professor of design at California College of the Arts.

A version of this article appears in the March 2019 issue of Fortune with the headline “The New Blueprint.”