Design, Governance, and Urban Futures: Proposition

Design, Governance and Urban Futures
The Watson Institute for International and Public Aairs, Brown University
Spring 2016
Design, Governance, and Urban Futures

Instructor:
Enrique Martnez | enrique_martinez@brown.edu
Class hours:
Tuesdays + Thursdays, 9am - 12pm
Location:
59 Charleseld Street, Room 301
Oce hours:
Tuesdays, 12pm - 2pm, by appointment | Room TBD
PROPOSITION
City governments all over the world are facing
global challenges of extraordinary magnitude in a
number of areas including climate change and
renewable energy production; education;
healthcare; the sense of the commons and
individual identity; immigration and population
ows; economic development, etc.
Cities take the lead and do the things that nations
cant do. The city is the context where the
symptoms of these large-scale challenges rst
The City is dened by two realities: Urbs and Civitas. Urbs (the
urban) denes the built city; Civitas (the civic) denes the inhabited
city. (Urban Landscape, drawing by Enrique Martnez)
emerge, even if their root causes may not be as

easily or clearly identiable. The standard
channels for policy development and delivery at
the local government level have often gravitated
toward resolving the immediate rather than
exploring new opportunities for a meaningful
future.
Cities, big and small, struggle to do more with less,
as dwindling resources have to meet ever more
complex challenges. This situation has
precipitated the rise of innovation units within
local City Governments all over the world. In the
United States, this trend has slowly gained traction
in recent years. The word innovation is becoming
The sticky-note conceptual landscape has become the symbol of the

increasing interest in the design process by non-designers. (Photo
by Justine Chang)
mainstream in the context of local government, as

policy makers realize the value of creative thinking
and design as footholds toward an urban future
that is impossible to predict.
Enrique Martnez
Page 1 of 10

Spring 2016
In the last decade, the model of Social Innovation Labs -independent organizations committed to a
participatory, multi-layered, approach to addressing city problems heavily based on human-centered design
and the adaptation of the design process to decision-making and shared leadership- has taken momentum
in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States. This is a symptom of how 21st century citizens
understand their role as urban change makers.
Design, Governance and Urban Futures examines ways of thinking dierently about our urban future from the
public policy perspective. By integrating some of the basic elements of the design process and systems
thinking into the policy making process, this course focuses is about becoming familiar with new tools that
will change decision-making and leadership in government.
With a focus on the City of Providence and a larger look into other urban environments, Design, Governance
and Urban Futures oers a hands-on approach to how thinking in design is slowly becoming a must-have skill
for civil servants and policy makers at a time when large scale problems have never been more complex,
elusive, and disorienting.
Simple versus complex problem-solving. Simple problem-solving (left) is based on concrete, well-dened problems with single
solutions. The main characteristic of complex problem-solving (right) is that the denition of the problem itself is unclear, and the
solutions, once that denition has been framed, are multiple. (Diagrams by Enrique Martnez)
COURSE STRUCTURE
This course is structured into three 2-week modules (see Course Outline, pages 7-10, for details).
Module 1 is about dening a context for design in relation to policy making. This module is divided into
four week-long topics: Creativity, Social Complexity, Uncertainty, and Outcomes. These topics will help
students gain an understanding of how thinking in design is becoming an eective tool to bring value to
manage complexity and uncertainty in todays world. Discussion of these main topics will be supported by
two video conference sessions, and a panel discussion (see Course Schedule for details).
Enrique Martnez
Page 2 of 10

Spring 2016
Module 2 introduces specic tools to address large-scale, complex, challenges that aect cities
worldwide. The tools reviewed in Module 1 are the basis for structuring this module into four areas:
Processes, Tools, People, and Outcomes. Understanding how to dene, frame, and unpack problems at the
scale of cities, at this time we shall look into how larger conditions such as technology, cultural shifts, social
landscapes, or urban density, aect our ability to design, dene, frame, and unpack problems. We will pay
close attention to Human-Centered Design (HCD) as a preamble to Module 3.
Module 3 is a hands-on, collaborative, workshop designed to address some of the questions developed
in Modules 1 and 2. As a group, the class will identify a challenge (large-scale, complex, problem) to be
addressed in the workshop. We will experience how can the design process add value to the development of
innovation-driven strategies and shared leadership mindsets for radical change. Experiencing the dynamics
of the participatory design process in the application of design principles to the challenge at hand, and its
translation into potential legislative agendas, will take center stage. At the end of Module 3, we will arrive at
innovative solutions and bring them to discussion with visiting experts in the last day of class.
COURSE POLICIES
This course demands a high degree of engagement from all participants. Every member of the cohort is
expected to be actively committed to the content of the class and maintain the highest standards of
academic integrity throughout the semester. Due to the nature of the content it presents, this class
demands a high degree of exibility and prociency in both individual and team work. The workshop
component is designed to balance individual contributions and group work toward maximizing the design
experience for all. In addition, all students are expected to fulll the basic course requirements in a timely
manner.
Regular class participation and attendance is mandatory throughout the semester: it is a necessary but not
sucient condition to meet the course requirements. The instructor is aware of the demands of Browns
academic life. However, in the interest of fairness and equal opportunity for all students, unexcused
absences and tardiness events will only be allowed on a case by case basis, understanding that the burden
of justication falls entirely on the students side.
Attendance and Punctuality. Students are allowed up to two unexcused absences without prejudice
to the nal grade. If a student must miss a class, he or she is responsible to inform the instructor
beforehand. Travel plans that interfere with the regular schedule of the course are discouraged and
subjected to the instructors approval on a case by case basis.
Enrique Martnez
Page 3 of 10

Spring 2016
Academic Responsibilities. Due dates for all the course requirements are specied in the Course
Outline (pages 7-10). Throughout the semester, students are expected to honor the established
deadlines for mandatory readings and additional work requirements. This syllabus is an open
document subject to modications by the instructor. It is the responsibility of the student to be alert
and aware of any changes in the submission deadlines for the course assignments.
Academic Honesty. Every student is expected to conduct her/himself with academic and personal
integrity. Academic misconduct, including but not limited to plagiarism, cheating, and dishonesty, will
not be tolerated. All work produced in this seminar is expected to be original and of the highest
academic and intellectual standards.
For more information, please visit Brown Universitys Academic & Student Conduct Codes:
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Dean_of_the_College/curriculum/documents/principles.pdf
COURSE ASSIGNMENTS AND EVALUATION

The pedagogical road map for this class is based on a heavy load of weekly readings (full list on page 5) as
well as group and individual exercises, participatory discussions with visiting critics and guests, and the
design workshop taking part in the last two weeks of the class.
Student evaluation is ongoing, based on individual and group performance in the context of the goals set on
this syllabus. Meaningful engagement, participation, and original contribution to the class activities
throughout the semester are assessment parameters highly regarded by the instructor.
The structure of this class provides the opportunity for two evaluation elements:
At the end of the rst two Modules (Week of April 14 and Week of April 28), students are required
to submit a report reecting on how the tools discussed in class could/should aect policy making.
The specic requirements of that report, due on May 3, will be given in advance.
At the end of Module 3 (May 12), students will be presenting their team projects to a panel of guest
critics. The nal presentation will signal the formal conclusion of the course.
GRADING AND GRADING STANDARDS

The nal individual grade for this class is the sum of three partial grades adding up to 10 points:
The grade for the Written Reports (2), accounts for 40% of the nal grade, or 4 points.
The grade for the Final Presentation (team project), accounts for 40% of the nal grade, or 4 points.
Enrique Martnez
Page 4 of 10

Spring 2016
The Individual Participation Grade, accounting for 20% of the nal grade, or 2 points.
The individual Participation Grade reects the level of individual engagement in the class throughout the
semester, as well as the individual contribution to the collaborative work that denes the spirit of this
course and an impeccable attendance and punctuality record.
Students will be given a letter grade (A, B or C), according to the following standards:
A Grade: 8.5 points and up, any combination. The A grade represents academic achievement of the
highest possible standard that has been consistent throughout the semester, in addition to
impeccable punctuality and attendance records.
B Grade: between 6 and 8.5 points, any combination. The B grade represents adequate academic
performance in relation to the pedagogical goals of the class, in addition to adequate punctuality and
an impeccable attendance record.
C Grade: less than 6 points, any combination. The C grade represents average or below average
performance in relation to the pedagogical goals of the class, in addition to adequate punctuality and
a good attendance record.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
The instructor will provide all required reading and audio visual materials for this class in the form of
downloadable pdf les and/or publicly downloadable videos:
Readings:
1. Berkhout, R. and Tiesinga, H., (eds.) (2014). Labcraft. How innovation labs cultivate change through
experimentation and collaboration. London: Labcraft Publishing. Downloadable pdf here.
2. Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A. and Potts, J. (2011). State of Uncertainty. Innovation policy through
experimentation. London: NESTA. Downloadable pdf here.
3. Doz, Y. and Kosonen, M. (2014). Governments for the Future: Building the Strategic and Agile State.
Helsinki: SITRA. Downloadable pdf here.
4. Rode, P., Floater, G. (2012). Going Green. How cities are leading the next economy. London: LSE Cities,
33-46. Downloadable pdf here.
5. Harshen, L., Jones, M., Levin, D., McCarthy, K., Morano, B., Simon, S. and Rainwater, B. (2015). Cities, the
Sharing Economy and Whats Next. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities. Downloadable pdf here.
Enrique Martnez
Page 5 of 10

Spring 2016
6. Leadbeater, C. and Mulgan, G. (2013). Systems Innovation. Discussion Paper. London: NESTA.
Downloadable pdf here.
Videos:
1. Design for Government, by Marco Steinberg (2014). Available in Vimeo here.
2. Urbanized, by Gary Hustwit (2011).
3. Bogot: building a sustainable city, PBS Video (2008). Available in YouTube here.
4. London: the price of trac, PBS Video (2008). Available in YouTube here.
5. Design & Thinking, by Mu-Ming Tsai (2011). Available in YouTube here.
Additional bibliography:
Asheim, B. and Gertler, M. (2004). Understanding regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery
and R. Nelson (eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, R. (2001). The emerging urban agenda and the European spatial development perspective;
Towards an EU urban policy? European Planning Studies 9(3)
Bason, C. ed. (2014). Design for Policy. Farnham: Gower
Bracyzk, H., Cooke, P. and Heidenreich, M. (2004). Regional innovation systems: The role of governances in a
globalised world. New York: Routledge.
Castells, M. (1989). The information city. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Burdett, R., Colantonio, A., and Rode, P. (2014). Transforming Urban Economies. Policy lessons from
European and Asian Cities. New York: Routledge.
Hall, P. (1988). Cities of tomorrow. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vanolo, A. (2008). The image of the creative city: Some reections on urban branding in Turin. Cities 25(6).
Enrique Martnez
Page 6 of 10

Spring 2016
COURSE OUTLINE
Module 1. Design and Policy Making
April 5 to April 14
Creativity
Tuesday, April 5
Introduction to the seminar. Presentation by Enrique Martnez

Video conference: Sarah Brooks (see full list of visiting guests on page 10)
Group Discussion
Viewing Assignment:
Design for government, by Marco Steinberg (2014)
Reading Assignment 1, due on Tuesday, April 12:
Berkhout, R. and Tiesinga, H. (eds.) (2014). Labcraft. How innovation labs cultivate change through
experimentation and collaboration. London: Labcraft Publishing
Reading 2 (Optional):
Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A. and Potts, J. (2011) State of Uncertainty. Innovation policy through
experimentation. London: NESTA
Social Complexity
Thursday, April 7
Panel discussion 1: Government, Design, and Social Complexity

Work Session with Jane Wiseman
Uncertainty
Tuesday, April 12
Presentation by Enrique Martnez

Video conference: Hannah Koenig and Paul Kruchoski
Group Discussion
Viewing Assignment:
Urbanized, by Gary Hustwit (2011)
Doz, Y. and Kosonen, M. (2014) Governments for the Future: Building the Strategic and Agile State.
Helsinki: SITRA
Rode, P., Floater, G. (2012). Going Green. How cities are leading the next economy. London: LSE Cities,
33-46
Outcomes
Thursday, April 14
Group Discussion, Work Session

Assignment: Report, Module 1
Enrique Martnez
Page 7 of 10

Spring 2016
Module 2. Toolkit
April 19 to April 28
Processes
Tuesday, April 19

Video conference: Krista Canellakis, City of San Francisco
Group Discussion
Report Module 1 DUE
Viewing Assignment:
Bogot: building a sustainable city, PBS Video (2008)
London: the price of trac, PBS Video (2008)
Harshen, L, Jones, M., Levin, D., McCarthy, K., Morano, B., Simon, S. and Rainwater, B. (2015) Cities,
the Sharing Economy and Whats Next. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities
Leadbeater, C. and Mulgan, G. (2013). Systems Innovation. Discussion Paper. London: NESTA
Tools
Thursday, April 21
Panel discussion 2: Is Innovation in Government Possible?
Work Session
People
Tuesday, April 26

Video conference: Zvika Krieger, U.S. Department of State
Group Discussion
Viewing Assignment:
Design & Thinking, by Mu-Ming Tsai (2011)
Outcomes
Thursday, April 28
Discussion, Work Session

Assignment: Report, Module 2
Enrique Martnez
Page 8 of 10

Spring 2016
Module 3. Workshop: Urban Challenges

May 3 to May 12
Workshop, Day 1
Tuesday, May 3
Report Module 2 DUE

Group Work Session 1: Framing
Workshop, Day 2
Thursday, May 5
Group Work Session 2: Mapping
Workshop, Day 3
Tuesday, May 10
Group Work Session 3: Testing
Workshop, Day 4
Thursday, May 12
Final Presentation
Assignment: Report, Workshop (DUE May 19)
This Course Outline and the specic requirements and due dates in it are subject to change by the instructor at any
time during the semester. The instructor will do his best to notify students, in a timely manner, of any variations
that may be incorporated to this Outline. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the students to be aware of lastminute changes.
Enrique Martnez
Page 9 of 10
Spring 2016

COURSE GUESTS
Video Conference Guests:
Sarah Brooks
Tuesday, April 5
Hannah Koenig and Paul Kruchoski
Tuesday April 12
Krista Canellakis
Tuesday April 19
Zvika Krieger
Tuesday April 26
Panel Discussion 1: Government, Design, and Social Complexity
Tuesday, April 7
Jane Wiseman, Lili Herman, and Evan Lehrer

Panel Discussion 2: Is Innovation in Government Possible?
Tuesday, April 21
Ken Payne, Brian Goldberg, and Allison Rogers
Sarah Brooks is Director, Insights & Design at Veterans Aairs.

Krista Canellakis is Deputy City Innovation Ocer at the City of San Francisco.
Brian Goldberg is Special Strategic Advisor to the President at RISD.
Elizabeth Hermann is Professor of Landscape Architecture at RISD.
Hannah Koenig is Designer in Residence at The Collaboratory, U.S. Department of State.
Zvika Krieger is Senior Advisor for Technology and Innovation, U.S. Department of State.
Paul Kruchoski is Deputy Director at The Collaboratory, U.S. Department of State.
Evan Lehrer is Principal Planner, City of Central Falls, RI.
Ken Payne is Chair at the Rhode Island Food Policy Council.
Allison Rogers is Director of Policy at the Rhode Island Department of Administration.
Jane Wiseman is Founder of the Institute for Excellence in Government.
Enrique Martnez
Page 10 of 10

Design, Governance, and Urban Futures: Proposition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design, Governance, and Urban Futures: Proposition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design, Governance and Urban Futures