Blog post 7

Mapping leads to a better Service Design Methodology

Issue mapping in week 5 was a continuation of a collaborative task from week 3 and week 4. Visiting and revisiting our old maps has helped all of us in understanding the actors involved in the issue more prominently. With every brainstorming mapping exercise we learn more about the peer researches, which in a way progresses the focus of the issue.

Initial stakeholder map worked in week 3 by Megan Wong, Vicky Lam and Krupali Vaidya.

The first mapping exercise gave us an overview on the stakeholders in human / non-human / living categories. I was not sure which way I was leading to with these mapping exercise but as we started mapping in number of different ways, which in a way helped me understand the relations between the stakeholders in better prospects.

Initial stakeholder map worked in week 3 by Megan Wong, Vicky Lam and Krupali Vaidya.

In week 4, the collaborative exercise here allowed us individually to write 20 different actors involved in issue and then discuss the same with the group. There was a lot of overlapping of words but together we came up with more than 100 different words that can be connected with one common issue of climate change. For the next couple of hours we laid out all the words and wrote the opposite of each term on the reverse side of the paper, arranged them in alphabetical order to gain a better relationship in terms of actors who are affected with the issue and actors who are on effective side of climate change.

Word mapping exercise created in the group.

Lot of terms that came into focus were unexpected like death, denial etc. And lots of these words were negative so while picking up an individual actor the summary would usually be negative but this also resonated with the research that ‘affected’ are more in proportion compared to the effectors.

Issue summary mapping in the group.

In week 5, in pair we revisited our initial maps from week 3 and re-organized them with a better understanding on human / non-human / living actors. The maps now had more of stakeholders under each category compared to week 3.

Polemic map created by Vicky Lam and Krupali Vaidya.

A new mapping style called ‘Polemic’ made us understand how any sub-issues related to climate change associates with different values and emotions. These cluster of emotions then made us understand how each emotion connects with different stakeholder in many different ways. For Example, Government associates with ‘power’ in a positive way, which in a way allows them to put environmental policies in place. But ‘power’ contrary for a common people gets associated in a negative way, by not allowing any control on the decision or policies government pass for industry sectors. A unique co-relation existed in these maps, which in a way can allow me to explore numerous design approaches for the task 3.

It was post week 5, where I went back looking at my initial notes from the lecture and tutorial which made me explore a small mapping exercise on sub-issue of ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘tourists’ as one of the main stakeholder based on the initial research and probe experimentation.

Mapping on keywords.

Reflection: From the learning and experimentation on different mapping exercise, I can relate myself with the peer researches but more importantly I can associate my sub issue of carbon footprint in a much better understanding of different actors associated with different emotions and values. Based on my learning from last semester’s service design methodology from ‘interdisciplinary lab B’subject, these clustered values and attributes generate the base of the approachable solutions.

The issue of climate change is a vast and a global issue, which can involve multiple actors and a longer period of time to reach any desired results. But through this mapping exercise, I have realized that targeting a single zone of stakeholder and using a persuasive methodology might generate an approach that aims towards a better ecosystem.

%d bloggers like this: