why? workflow for geodesign synthesis

GEODESIGN SYNTHESIS
WHAT? WHERE? WHEN?
HOW SHOULD MULRANNY, IRELAND, (A VILLAGE OF 250 PEOPLE)
GROW AND CHANGE IN THE 20 YEAR FUTURE?
ARE THE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, (SEATTLE)
SUSTAINABILITY REGULATIONS SUSTAINABLE?
Carl Steinitz
GEODESIGN IS SYSTEMS THINKING.
GEODESIGN SYNTHESIS IS COMPLEX AND DYNAMIC: We are designing CHANGE in MANY SYSTEMS which are interacting in space and time
GEODESIGN IS SERIOUS
There are IMPORTANT PROBLEMS and—frequently—
LITTLE TIME FOR DECISION AND ACTION
PEOPLE/GROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS
AND MAY DISAGREE ON PRIORITIES
EACH seeks/NEEDS LEGITIMACY in/via design
? WHO “DESIGNS” AND HOW?
? WHO FINALLY DECIDES WHAT TO DO AND HOW?
GEODESIGN METHODS do not scale and do not exactly-repeat
THEY SHOULD FIT THE CONTEXT… the Redlands hypothesis
THEY ARE LIKELY TO BE COLLABORATIVE
GEODESIGN does NOT normally produce A FINAL PRODUCT
IT IS LIKELY TO MOST USEFUL AT THE BEGINNING
of thinking about and deciding on
THE STRATEGY of what to do….
And for this, GEODESIGN SUPPORT NEEDS
AN ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK AND A WORKFLOW
AND DIVERSE EXAMPLES….
GEODESIGN IS COMPLEX: THERE ARE UNCERTAINTIES:
Multiple GEOGRAPHIC SCOPES: political boundaries, watersheds, etc.
Complex CONTENT: SYSTEMS which vary by size, location, threat, etc.
CHANGE REQUIREMENTS are many
These are POLICIES AND PROJECTS….and responsibilities for them
SEQUENCING AND TIMING MATTER…(.the chicken-egg problem)
…leading to integrated and choreographed implementation
Therefore geodesign support must be
FLEXIBLE, ITERATIVE, ACCOUNTABLE AND FAST
GEODESIGN IS DYNAMIC
Change in a design is a relational synthesis in space and time
of SETS of system Changes.
THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO CHANGE A SYSTEM ….AND THE SEQUENCE MATTERS
DESIGN(S) SHOULD BE RAPIDLY ASSESSED AND ITERATIVELY IMPROVED
KNOWING THAT ANY CHANGE CHANGES ALL THE SYSTEMS
and their evaluation assessments
There are Change-VERSIONS based on design revisions and/or time-stages,
and Change-ALTERNATIVES based on diverse Decision models,
alternative scenarios, sensitivity assessments, etc.
There will be many in any geodesign study.
These must be compared, and (usually) one must be selected for action.
Therefore, a primary aim of geodesign is to RAPIDLY MOVE
from infinite possible combinations of policies and projects
TOWARDS TECHNICALLY, FINANCIALLY, AND POLITICALLY FEASIBLE DECISIONS
THE GEODESIGN ENDGAME MUST SUPPORT INFORMED NEGOTIATION
GEODESIGN IS COMMUNICATION
Therefore, ALL ASPECTS OF GEODESIGN SUPPORT
MUST BE EASILY LEARNED, EASILY USED, EASILY COMMUNICATED
--and most importantly--THE “LANGUAGE” of GEODESIGN
MUST BE EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY ALL INVOLVED
GEODESIGN IS A COLLABORATIVE, SOCIAL-POLITICAL PROCESS OF DESIGN
Carl Steinitz, Notes, Oct. 2015
GEODESIGN IS A COLLABORATION
A FRAMEWORK FOR GEODESIGN
A DIGITAL
WORKFLOW
FOR DYNAMIC
GEODESIGN
SYNTHESIS
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
The GEODESIGN SYNTHESIS
THE DECISION
MODEL “drives”
the methodology.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR
CHANGE
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE? WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
DECISION MODELS vary by interest group and therefore require parallel geodesign studies.
The DECISION
MODEL priorities
can be synchronized
the entire geodesign
workflow.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FORwithGEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
THE REPRESENTATION
which are needed
by the geodesign
studyWHEN?
are organized.
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?MODELS
WHAT?
WHERE?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
THE PROCESSWHY?
MODELS are
defined by the most
knowledgeable
persons. WHEN?
WORKFLOW
FOR
GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
THE EVALUATION
MODELS
are defined for each
system and
mapped, and linked
into the geodesign software.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR
GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
THE EVALUATION
MODELWORKFLOW
producers generate
orFOR
draw diagrams
of ways toWHEN?
improve
their system. These are rank ordered.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
DIAGRAMS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
DIAGRAMS are
added byWORKFLOW
any participant atWHAT?
any FOR
time, and
all are linked into
THE
CHANGE MODEL. All are shared.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
DIAGRAMS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
DIAGRAMS
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
Any of the several
CHANGE
MODELS or anyWHAT?
combination
can
be used to generate
the design.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
DIAGRAMS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
DIAGRAMS
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
CERTAINTY
UNCERTAINTY
KNOWING THE RULES…?
SERIAL “SKETCHING”
SYSTEM-BASED DIAGRAMS RULE AND MATHEMATICAL MODELS
AN HYPOTHESIS derived from the Redlands Experiment (C.S.)
RULE AND MATHEMATICAL MODELS
SYSTEM-BASED DIAGRAMS
SERIAL “SKETCHING”
GEODESIGN
COLLABORATION
Any of the several
CHANGE
MODELS or anyWHAT?
combination
can
be used to generate
the design.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CONSTRAINING
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
Any of the several
CHANGE
MODELS or anyWHAT?
combination
can
be used to generate
the design.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CONSTRAINING
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
Any of the several
CHANGE
MODELS or anyWHAT?
combination
can
be used to generate
the design.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
MIXED, TIME SERIES
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
Any DIAGRAM
in the design
can be assessed
forFOR
its IMPACTS
and can dynamically
update the EVALUATION MODELS.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
UPDATED
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
DIAGRAM
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
Any STAGE inWHY?
the design WORKFLOW
can be assessed forWHAT?
its IMPACTS
and
can dynamically
update
the EVALUATION MODELS.
WORKFLOW
FOR GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
UPDATED
F
F
E
E
E
E
D
D
B
B
A
A
C
C
K
K
CHANGE MODEL
STAGE
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
C
H S
H S
A C
A C
N A
N A
G L
G L
E E
E E
A completedWHY?
design can be
labeled as a VERSION
and beGEODESIGN
assessed
for its IMPACTS
and update the EVALUATION MODELS.
WORKFLOW
FOR
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODELS
VERSION
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
A CHANGE VERSION
at any
stage can be exported
to larger
IMPACT MODELS
asSYNTHESIS
needed.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR
GEODESIGN
CHANGE
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODELS
Ways of Designing
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
A completedWHY?
design (or any
partial design) can
considered
for FEEDBACK or
SCALE
CHANGE, or labeled as a VERSION and saved.
WORKFLOW
FOR GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
A completedWHY?
CHANGE design
(or any partialWHAT?
design)
can GEODESIGN
considered
for FEEDBACK.
WORKFLOW
FOR
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
A completedWHY?
CHANGE design
(or any partialWHAT?
design)
can GEODESIGN
considered
for SCALE
CHANGE.
WORKFLOW
FOR
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW
HY?
HOW?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
CHANGE MODEL
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
All ALTERNATIVES can be COMPARED in several ways.
All ALTERNATIVES
can beWORKFLOW
subject to COMPARISON
for DECISION
in severalWHEN?
ways.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR
GEODESIGN
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
DECISION
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
COMPARISON
of VARIATIONS
and ALTERNATIVE
CHANGE MODELS
COMPETITION
CONGRUENCE
FREQUENCY
RECOMMENDATION
NEGOTIATION
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
All ALTERNATIVES
can beWORKFLOW
subject to negotiation
towardsGEODESIGN
aWHERE?
single CHANGEWHEN?
design.
WHY?
WORKFLOW
FOR
CHANGE
SYNTHESIS
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
DECISION
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
COMPARISON
of VARIATIONS
and ALTERNATIVE
CHANGE MODELS
COMPETITION
CONGRUENCE
FREQUENCY
RECOMMENDATION
NEGOTIATION
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
A DIGITAL
WORKFLOW
GEODESIGN
SYNTHESIS
WORKFLOW FOR
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
DECISION
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
COMPARISON
of VARIATIONS
and ALTERNATIVE
CHANGE MODELS
COMPETITION
CONGRUENCE
FREQUENCY
RECOMMENDATION
NEGOTIATION
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
……………PAST………………………………………....PRESENT………………....……………….FUTURE…………………………
A DIGITAL
WORKFLOW
GEODESIGN
SYNTHESIS
geodesignhub.com
WORKFLOW FOR
HY?
HOW?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
SYNCHRONIZE WITH
DECISION MODEL
REPRESENTATION MODELS
PROCESS MODELS
EVALUATION MODELS
DECISION
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
COMPARISON
of VARIATIONS
and ALTERNATIVE
CHANGE MODELS
COMPETITION
CONGRUENCE
FREQUENCY
RECOMMENDATION
NEGOTIATION
IMPACT MODELS
DECISION MODEL
VERSIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
C
A
L
E
A DIGITAL WORKFLOW FOR DYNAMIC GEODESIGN SYNTHESIS
Hrishi Ballal with Carl Steinitz
OPEN COLLABORATION MODE
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
“ADMINISTRATOR(S)”
REPRESENTATION
ALTERNATIVES
PROCESS
COMPARED
FOR
DECISION
DECISION
GEODESIGN PROJECT
“CONDUCTOR(S)”
EVALUATION
VERSIONS
DECISION
GEODESIGN TEAM
“COORDINATORS”
IMPACT
CHANGE
ONE
DESIGNER
TEAM IN
ONE
LOCATION
TEAM IN
MANY
LOCATIONS
TEAM IN
DIVERSE
SETTINGS
GEODESIGN TEAM
“PARTICIPANTS”
OPEN COMMUNICATION
HOW SHOULD MULRANNY IRELAND GROW AND CHANGE IN THE 20 YEAR FUTURE?
A FRAMEWORK FOR GEODESIGN
WHY
WHY?
ASSESSMENT
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
INTERVENTION
DATA
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
HOW?
A FRAMEWORK FOR GEODESIGN
WHY
WHY?
ASSESSMENT
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
INTERVENTION
DATA
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
HOW?
THE STUDY AREA
MULRANNY –
11 Townlands
Dubhbeg,
Cushlecka,
Cuillaloughaun,
Mulranny,
Doughill,
Claggan Mountain,
Murrevagh,
Bunahowna,
Rosturk,
Rosgaliv and
Glenamadoo
Develop a Promenade ‘a unique feature in Mayo’
€3million investment followed
LOCAL CRAFTS AND A NEW TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE Crafts
A FRAMEWORK FOR GEODESIGN
WHY
WHY?
ASSESSMENT
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
INTERVENTION
DATA
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
HOW?
PRE-WORKSHOP SET-UP
BY ORGANIZERS FROM
MULRANNEY AND
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
EVALUATION MODELS
CRITERIA
IMPACT MODELS
CROSS-SYSTEMS
IMPACTS MODEL
Design Mulranny village &
landscape under 10 themes
Themes
1. Renewable Energy
2. Water Management
3. Housing
4. Habitat Biodiversity
Interest Group Change Teams
Team 1: Environmentalists who can omit or alter any of the assumed requirements if
they are at significant risk to the environment
Team 2: Current and potential older residents:
Assume population growth is made up of 2/3 older: 1/3 younger
Team 3: Current and potential younger residents:
Assume population growth is made up of 1/3 older: 2/3 younger
5. Enterprise (Tourism)
6. Enterprise (Farming)
Team 4: Tourism Interest-led:
Assume new housing is for 2/3 seasonal dwellings: 1/3 all year dwellings
7. Cultural Landscape
8. Environmental Protection
Team 5: Agriculture Interest-led
9. Transport
10. Community Facilities
Team 6: Other Enterprise Interest-led
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES: EVALUATION MODELS
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES: CROSS-SYSTEMS IMPACTS
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES: CROSS-SYSTEMS IMPACTS
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES: IMPACT MODELS
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES: IMPACT MODELS
GEODESIGNHUB SET-UP TEMPLATES: COSTS
THE STUDY AREA
PRE-WORKSHOP
RECORDING OF
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE BY
MULRANNEY RESIDENTS
THE WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
A FRAMEWORK FOR GEODESIGN
WHY
WHY?
ASSESSMENT
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
INTERVENTION
DATA
DATA
KNOWLEDGE
VALUES
HOW?
INTRODUCTION
AND OVERVIEW
TEN SYSTEM-BASED TEAMS
PREPARE EVALUATION MAPS
TEN SYSTEM-BASED TEAMS
PROPOSE POLICIES AND PROJECTS
AS COLOR-CODED DIAGRAMS
PROPOSING AND
ADDING POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
PROPOSING AND
ADDING POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
PROPOSING AND
ADDING POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
RAPIDLY ASSESSING
PROPOSED POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
PROPOSING AND
ADDING POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
RAPIDLY ASSESSING
PROPOSED POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
PROPOSING AND
ADDING POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
PROPOSING AND
ADDING POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
THE IMPACTS
OF A SINGLE
DIAGRAM
OR ANY SET
CAN UPDATE
ALL SYSTEMS’
EVALUATION
MODELS
ADDING NEW
DIAGRAMS
OF POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
FOR A DESIGN
THE DIAGRAMS ARE
RANK ORDERED
AND NUMBERED
IN PRIORITY
FROM 1 TO n
Day 2
09:00 – 09:30
Organize six Change Teams
09:30 – 12:00
Prepare Change Version 1
(including tea/coffee with team)
12:30 – 13:00
12:30 – 13:00
Assess impacts of Change Version 1
Lunch
13:00 – 14:00
Revise to create Change Version 2
14:00 – 14:30
Assess impacts of Change Version 2
14:30 – 14.45
Tea/Coffee
14:45 – 15:15
Concise Presentation of the six designs
15:15 – 17:30
Comparative Decision Assessments and discussion
Workshop Ends
FORMING SIX
CHANGE-DESIGN
TEAMS
Mulranny Geodesign Workshop: Six Change teams
Requirements for ALL TEAMS unless stated otherwise:

Protect ‘Constraint’ areas – SACs, DHA, SPAs,

Assume year round population of 650-700 people;

Include for a new housing stock of 50 dwellings – maximum land area of 1.6ha

Develop high quality year-round tourism

Develop community and creative enterprise facilities to generate local employment

Maintain high environmental quality

Include for Environmental Research Centre

Include for new football ground

Include for larger numbers in Primary School
Interest Group Change Teams
Team 1: Environmentalists who can omit or alter any of the assumed requirements if
they are at significant risk to the environment
Team 2: Current and potential older residents:
Assume population growth is made up of 2/3 older: 1/3 younger
Team 3: Current and potential younger residents:
Assume population growth is made up of 1/3 older: 2/3 younger
Team 4: Tourism Interest-led:
Assume new housing is for 2/3 seasonal dwellings: 1/3 all year dwellings
Team 5: Agriculture Interest-led
Team 6: Other Enterprise Interest-led
SIX TEAMS MAKING CHANGE-DESIGNS
THE IMPLIED
PRIORITIES
OF THE INITIAL
WORKSHOP SET-UP
WHEN THE DECISION
MODEL IS ALTERED BY
A TEAM TO REFLECT
ITS OWN INTERESTS,
ALL MAPS AND
DIAGRAMS ARE
SYNCHRONIZED
IN PRIORITY FROM
LEFT TO RIGHT
EXPLORING AND
SELECTING DIAGRAMS
OF POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
SELECTING
DIAGRAMS
FOR A
DESIGN
MAKING A DESIGN
BY SELECTING
DIAGRAMS OF
POLICIES AND
PROJECTS
ASSESSING THE
IMPACTS OF THE
DESIGN
MAKING ADDITIONAL
CHANGE-DESIGN
VERSIONS WITH
SHARING AND
NEGOTIATION
COMPARING
TWO VERSIONS
OF THE TEAM’S
DESIGN
COMPARING
TWO VERSIONS
OF THE TEAM’S
DESIGN
COMPARING
TWO VERSIONS
OF THE TEAM’S
DESIGN,
FILTERING
BY SYSTEM
SELECTING
THE BEST VERSION
OF THE TEAM’S
DESIGN
PROPOSING
A TIME-LINE
FOR THE DESIGN’S
PROJECTS AND
POLICIES
PROPOSING
A TIME-LINE
FOR THE DESIGN’S
PROJECTS AND
POLICIES
COMMITTED
BUDGET AND
ANNUUAL COSTS
PRESENTING SIX CHANGE DESIGNS
COMPARING SIX CHANGE-DESIGNS
COMPARING
SIX TEAMS’ DESIGNS IN
THEIR BEST VERSIONS
BY
DECISION MODEL,
CHANGE MODEL
(DESIGN),
IMPACT SUMMARY,
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE
COMPARING
SIX TEAMS’ DESIGNS IN
THEIR BEST VERSIONS
BY AN IMPACTS INDEX
(EQUALLY WEIGHTED)
OR OTHER
COMPARING
SIX TEAMS’ DESIGNS
FOR POTENTIAL
AGREEMENT
BY COUNTING THE
FREQUENCY BY WHICH
EVERY CHOSEN DIAGRAM
WAS SELECTED FOR
A DESIGN
COMPARING
SIX TEAMS’ DESIGNS
FOR POTENTIAL
AGREEMENT
BY COMBINING
THE MOST FREQUENTLY
CHOSEN DIAGRAMS
INTO A NEW DESIGN
COMPARING
SIX TEAMS’ DESIGNS
FOR POTENTIAL
AGREEMENT
BY COMBINING
THE MOST FREQUENTLY
CHOSEN DIAGRAMS
INTO A NEW DESIGN
COMPARING
SIX TEAMS’ DESIGNS
FOR POTENTIAL
AGREEMENT
BY COMBINING
THE MOST FREQUENTLY
CHOSEN DIAGRAMS
INTO A NEW DESIGN
COMPARING
SIX TEAMS’ DESIGNS
FOR POTENTIAL
AGREEMENT
BY COMBINING
THE MOST FREQUENTLY
CHOSEN DIAGRAMS
INTO A NEW DESIGN
ASSESSING THE
IMPACTS OF THE
DESIGN BASED
ON FREQUENCY
OVERLAYING ALL
CHOSEN DIAGRAMS
AS A GRAPHIC MEASURE
OF UNCERTAINTY
IF LEGEND COLORS
ARE “MUDDIED”
OVERLAYING ALL
CHOSEN DIAGRAMS
AS A GRAPHIC MEASURE
OF UNCERTAINTY
IF LEGEND COLORS
ARE “MUDDIED”
NEGOTIATION
TOWARDS ONE
AGREED CHANGE-DESIGN
BY APPLYING A
SOCIOGRAM
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
AGRICULTURE PLAN
AND TOURISM
AND ENVIRONMENT
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
IMPACTS
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
TIME-LINE
WHICH INTERACTS
“LIVE” WITH COSTS
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
COSTS
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
COMMITTED BUDGET
YEAR 1
2015
GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON
VILLAGE CHANGE
PROJECTS
ANNUAL EXPECTED
EXPENDITURE
YEAR 10
2025
GENERAL
UNCERTAINTY
REGARDING NEW
VILLAGE HOUSING
ALL PROPOSED
POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
GENERAL
UNCERTAINTY
REGARDING NEW
VILLAGE HOUSING
ALL PROPOSED
POLICIES
AND PROJECTS
Sector
I
PC
n
Facilitator
Facilitator
Facilitator
Facilitator
Futures
Technical Expert
Futures
Futures
Futures
Technical Expert
Local Stakeholder
Technical Expert
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Futures
Local Stakeholder
Futures
1
1
1
1
1
Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Local Stakeholder
Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Futures
Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Futures
Futures
Technical Expert
Futures
Technical Expert
Futures
Futures
Technical Expert
Technical Expert
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
9
Yes
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mulrann
MCC
y
Name
Description
Organisation
Orla Murphy
Carl Steinitz
Hrishi Billal
Tess Canfield
Mathew Carolan
Robert Coyne
Saskia Eland
Nuala Ginnelly
Cheryl Browne
Noelle Angley
Sean Carolan
Mary Turbidy
Architect
Landscape Planner
Engineer
Landscape Architect
Guide
Civil Engineer
Guide / Artist
Bank Clerk
Artist
Architect
Farmer
Ecologist
UCD
Harvard GSD
UCL
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
MCC
Futures
Mulranny Tourism
Gift of Hands
MCC
Environmental Group
Turbidy Associates
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Carmel Austin
Pat McHale
Martin Hanley
Mary O Boyle
Mary Callaghan
Bernadette Cunningham
Mary Laheen
Padraig Doherty
Alison Harvey
Karen Foley
Helen Walker
Sophia Meeres
Deirdre Cunnningham
Gerry Walsh
Maureen Mulloy
Linda Maher
Michael Hughes
Miki ?
Mary Joyce
Carol Loftus
Alan Dilucia
Neil Mc Cabe
GIS Technician
Engineer
Farmer
Social Worker
Retired Chef
MCC
MCC
[email protected]
[email protected]
Futures
Mulranny Tidy Towns
[email protected]
[email protected]
Senior Planner
Architect/Lecturer
Builder
Planner/Heritage Council
Head School of Landscape Architecture
Retired Social Worker
UCD Landscape Lecturer
Heritage Officer
Archaeologist
Retired Civil Servant
PhD candidate BE policy
Fisheries Officer
Post Grad Student
Retired Social Worker
School Secretary
Planner
Green Plan©
MCC
UCD
Docon
Heritage Couuncil
UCD
Gift of Hands
UCD
MCC
Mayo Co Co
Tidy Towns
UCD
Futures Chair
UCD
Futures
Green Plan
MCC
Green Plan
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
UCD
Other
Enterpri
Transp Enterpris
se
Commu
ort/Ser e
(Agricult nity /
vice/Pa (Tourism
Housi
ure & Care
rking/T &
ng
HNV
Facilitie
rails/Pa Creativit
Farming s
ths
y)
)
Environ
mental Water
Cultural
Protect manag
Habitat
Renew
Landsca
ion
ement
Biodive
able
pe and
(incl (incl
rsity
Energy
“Image”
Coastal Sewag
)/Safet e)
y
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
7
6
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ARE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON’S SUSTAINABILITY REGULATIONS SUSTAINABLE?
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Tim Nyerges, Hrishi Ballal, Carl Steinitz et al
May 6 - 7, 2015
Systems which drive change
Demographic/social change
Climate change/rainfall
Energy use
Systems Vulnerable to change
King County WA Critical Areas
Surface Water
Groundwater
Forestry
Agriculture
Systems Attractive for change
Urban low density development
Urban high density development
Commercial/Industrial development
Infrastructure development
Transportation development
A GEODESIGN WORKSHOP ON DYNAMIC DIGITAL SYNTHESIS
Seattle
THE SCOPE OF THE WORKSHOP STUDY
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Tim Nyerges, Hrishi Ballal, Carl Steinitz et al
April 6 - 7, 2015
Systems which drive change
Demographic/social change
Climate change/rainfall
Energy use
Systems Vulnerable to change
King County WA Critical Areas
Surface Water
Groundwater
Forestry
Agriculture
Systems Attractive for change
Urban low density development
Urban high density development
Commercial/Industrial development
Infrastructure development
Transportation development
A GEODESIGN WORKSHOP ON DYNAMIC DIGITAL SYNTHESIS
Conservation and Development for +20 and +40 years
Study area assumed POPULATION INCREASE
By +20 years = +200,000 people
By +40 years = +420,000 people
Team 1
Team 2
Team 3
DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES
a) relaxed growth management statutes/policies
b) maintaining the current growth management statutes/policies
c) enhancing the growth management statutes/policies
Team 4
Team 5
Team 6
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
a) relaxed growth management statutes/policies
b) maintaining the current growth management statutes/policies
c) enhancing the growth management statutes/policies
All saved VERSIONS and ALTERNATIVES can be rapidly COMPARED.
All saved VERSIONS and ALTERNATIVES can be rapidly COMPARED for their IMPACTS.
All saved VERSIONS and final ALTERNATIVES can be COMPARED by their component DIAGRAMS
1 DEV-RELAX
+40
+40 years DIAGRAMS
2 DEV-MAINTAIN
3 DEV-ENHANCE
4 ENV-RELAX
5 ENV-MAINTAIN
6 ENV-ENHANCE
Negotiation towards AGREEMENT
O
A SOCIOGRAM FOR ASSESSMENT OF NEGOTIATION PROSPECTS
Negotiation towards AGREEMENT
TEAMS 2 AND 6
+20 years
TEAMS 1, 3, 4, AND 5
+ 40 years
+20 years
+ 40 years
The existing land use in 2015 and final agreed CHANGE design for +40 years
Impacts of the final agreed CHANGE design for +40 years
The final agreed CHANGE design updates the EVALUATION MODELS
The evolution of the CHANGE design of TEAM 1
+20
+20
+40
+20
NEGOTIATION OF TEAMS 1, 3, 4, AND 5
+20
+40
AGREEMENT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6
+40
+40
+20
LAND USE +40 YEARS
GEODESIGN SYNTHESIS IS COMPLEX AND DYNAMIC: We are designing CHANGE in MANY SYSTEMS which are interacting in space and time
GEODESIGN IS SERIOUS
There are IMPORTANT PROBLEMS and—frequently—
LITTLE TIME FOR DECISION AND ACTION
PEOPLE/GROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS
AND MAY DISAGREE ON PRIORITIES
EACH seeks/NEEDS LEGITIMACY in/via design
? WHO “DESIGNS” AND HOW?
? WHO FINALLY DECIDES WHAT TO DO AND HOW?
GEODESIGN METHODS do not scale and do not exactly-repeat
THEY SHOULD FIT THE CONTEXT… the Redlands hypothesis
THEY ARE LIKELY TO BE COLLABORATIVE
GEODESIGN does NOT normally produce A FINAL PRODUCT
IT IS LIKELY TO MOST USEFUL AT THE BEGINNING
of thinking about and deciding on
THE STRATEGY of what to do….
And for this, GEODESIGN SUPPORT NEEDS
AN ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK AND A WORKFLOW
AND DIVERSE EXAMPLES….
GEODESIGN IS COMPLEX: THERE ARE UNCERTAINTIES:
Multiple GEOGRAPHIC SCOPES: political boundaries, watersheds, etc.
Complex CONTENT: SYSTEMS which vary by size, location, threat, etc.
CHANGE REQUIREMENTS are many
These are POLICIES AND PROJECTS….and responsibilities for them
SEQUENCING AND TIMING MATTER…(.the chicken-egg problem)
…leading to integrated and choreographed implementation
Therefore geodesign support must be
FLEXIBLE, ITERATIVE, ACCOUNTABLE AND FAST
GEODESIGN IS DYNAMIC
Change in a design is a relational synthesis in space and time
of SETS of system Changes.
THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO CHANGE A SYSTEM ….AND THE SEQUENCE MATTERS
DESIGN(S) SHOULD BE RAPIDLY ASSESSED AND ITERATIVELY IMPROVED
KNOWING THAT ANY CHANGE CHANGES ALL THE SYSTEMS
and their evaluation assessments
There are Change-VERSIONS based on design revisions and/or time-stages,
and Change-ALTERNATIVES based on diverse Decision models,
alternative scenarios, sensitivity assessments, etc.
There will be many in any geodesign study.
These must be compared, and (usually) one must be selected for action.
Therefore, a primary aim of geodesign is to RAPIDLY MOVE
from infinite possible combinations of policies and projects
TOWARDS TECHNICALLY, FINANCIALLY, AND POLITICALLY FEASIBLE DECISIONS
THE GEODESIGN ENDGAME MUST SUPPORT INFORMED NEGOTIATION
GEODESIGN IS COMMUNICATION
Therefore, ALL ASPECTS OF GEODESIGN SUPPORT
MUST BE EASILY LEARNED, EASILY USED, EASILY COMMUNICATED
--and most importantly--THE “LANGUAGE” of GEODESIGN
MUST BE EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY ALL INVOLVED
GEODESIGN IS A COLLABORATIVE, SOCIAL-POLITICAL PROCESS OF DESIGN
Carl Steinitz, Notes for Salzburg, Oct. 2015
A FRAMEWORK FOR GEODESIGN
GEODESIGN IS A COLLABORATION
A FRAMEWORK IS NEVER LINEAR IN APPLICATION
DOUBLING SAVANNAH, GEORGIA, 2015 – 2050, AND CLIMATE CHANGE
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA Workshop Chatham County, Georgia, USA
January 26 – 28, 2015
Subsystems which drive change
Industry and Tourism
Demographic/social change
Climate change, hurricanes
Vulnerable to change
Climate
Ecology/Nature
Surface Water
Groundwater
Historic/Cultural
Visual
Attractive for change
Agriculture/Forestry
Housing Development
Commercial/Industrial development
Transportation development
The Five Interest Groups
2015 – 2030 - 2050
Wormsloe State Park and Historic Site
D – Developers
C – Climate Change
E – Environmentalists
P – Planners
W - Wormsloe State Park
The Challenge: Can we come to one agreed design?
The Changes
Working assumptions
Expanding the port doubles industry
The resident population doubles
Tourism-related commerce quadruples
Climate change:
sea level rise + repeat of record hurricane
The Changes
Working assumptions
Savannah: 900mm sea level rise projection
Participants
Sarah Ross, Director Center for
Research & Education Wormsloe
Paul Pressly, Director of Ossabaw
Foundation
Lupita McClenning Director of
Planning, Coastal Regional
Commission of GA
Jesse Wuest, Assistant Manager,
Wormsloe
Brian Orland, Professor, Landscape
Architecture, Penn State University, Institute of
Energy and Environment
Andrew Bailey, student, College
of Environment and Design, UGA
Matt Hauer, Faculty,
Demographer, Carl Vinson
Institute of Government, UGA
Jamie Mitchem, Faculty, Climate
University of North Georgia)
Mariana Alfonso, Student,
Integrative Conservation Ph.D.
Program, UGA
Doug Pardue, Professor,
Landscape Architect, UGA
Alfie Vick, Faculty, Landscape
Architect, College of Environment
and Design, UGA
Marguerite Madden, Professor,
Director of the Center for
Geospatial Research, Geography,
UGA
Sudanshu Panda, Faculty,
Environmental Science and GIS,
University of North Georgia
J.P Smith, Faculty, Ecologist, UGA
Lana Call, Corporate System
Analyst
Dean Hardy, Faculty, Ecologist,
Center for Integrative
Conservation Research, UGA
Hunter Key, GIS Manager, Coastal
Regional Commission of GA
Brian Meyer, Faculty, Geologist,
Georgia State University
Emily Hunt, student, College of
Environment and Design, UGA
Tommy Jordan, Faculty,
Geographer, UGA
James Nolan, Faculty and Local
Government Project Manager,
Eduardo Rendon, student,
College of Environment and
Design, UGA
Jon Calabria, Faculty, Landscape
Architect, College of Environment
and Design, UGA
Information Technology Outreach Services, Carl
Vinson Institute of Government, UGA
Greg Muse, student, College of
Environment and Design, UGA
Compare: Design, Decision Model, Impacts Summary, Cost
Negotiation
MAJOR AGREED
PROJECTS
2015 - 2030
MAJOR AGREED
PROJECTS
2015 – 2030
REQUIRED
COMMITTED
BUDGET
AND EXPECTED
ANNUAL
EXPENDITURES
Existing Conditions 2015
Recommended Plan 2050
Extras for expansion
A BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION
HOW?
THE CHANGE MODELS TEMPLATE
…………..1:100……………….………..…1:5,000………...1:25,000………1:250,000………...….…,.……..1:1,000,000………..
ASSESSMENT INTERVENTION
CONSTANTS
REQUIREMENTS and their options
R1………….R2……..….R3…………R4….………Rn………….
HISTORY
PAST
EVALUATIONS
PROCESSES
REPRESENTATIONS
PRESENT
FUTURE
A BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION
SHARED KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT
SHARED ASSUMPTIONS
SHARED LANGUAGE
ASSESSMENT INTERVENTION
CONSTANTS
SHARED ASSUMPTIONS
REQUIREMENTS and their options
R1………….R2……..….R3…………R4….………Rn………….
HISTORY
EVALUATIONS
PROCESSES
REPRESENTATIONS
SHARED LANGUAGE
PAST
PRESENT
SHARED KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT
FUTURE
CERTAINTY
UNCERTAINTY
KNOWING THE RULES…?
SERIAL “SKETCHING”
SYSTEM-BASED DIAGRAMS RULE AND MATHEMATICAL MODELS
AN HYPOTHESIS derived from the Redlands Experiment (C.S.)
RULE AND MATHEMATICAL MODELS
SYSTEM-BASED DIAGRAMS
SERIAL “SKETCHING”
GEODESIGN
COLLABORATION
Fast and flexible….negotiation….U WA
COLLABORATION REQUIRES:
A FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATION
A BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION
SHARED KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT
SHARED ASSUMPTIONS
SHARED LANGUAGE
based on Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, 1948
A Geodesign Workflow for Change Models
Hrishikesh Ballal
OPEN COLLABORATION MODE
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
“ADMINISTRATOR(S)”
GEODESIGN PROJECT
“CONDUCTOR”
GEODESIGN TEAM
ONE
DESIGNER
TEAM IN
ONE
LOCATION
TEAM IN
MANY
LOCATIONS
TEAM IN
DIVERSE
SETTINGS
OPEN COMMUNICATION
A Geodesign Workflow for Change Models
Hrishikesh Ballal
COMPETITION MODE
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
“ADMINISTRATOR(S)”
GEODESIGN PROJECT
“CONDUCTOR(S)”
GEODESIGN TEAM
“COORDINATORS”
GEODESIGN TEAM
“PARTICIPANTS”
ONE
DESIGNER
TEAM IN
ONE
LOCATION
TEAM IN
MANY
LOCATIONS
TEAM IN
DIVERSE
SETTINGS
CLOSED COMMUNICATION
OPEN COMMUNICATION
A Geodesign Workflow for Change Models
Hrishikesh Ballal
OPEN COLLABORATION MODE
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
“ADMINISTRATOR(S)”
GEODESIGN PROJECT
“CONDUCTOR(S)”
GEODESIGN TEAM
“COORDINATORS”
GEODESIGN TEAM
“PARTICIPANTS”
ONE
DESIGNER
TEAM IN
ONE
LOCATION
TEAM IN
MANY
LOCATIONS
TEAM IN
DIVERSE
SETTINGS
OPEN COMMUNICATION
A Geodesign Workflow for Change Models
Hrishikesh Ballal
OPEN COLLABORATION MODE
PROJECT
PROJECT
PROJECT
REPRESENTATION
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
“ADMINISTRATOR(S)”
GEODESIGN PROJECT
“CONDUCTOR(S)”
PROCESS
EVALUATION
GEODESIGN TEAM
“COORDINATORS”
GEODESIGN TEAM
“PARTICIPANTS”
ONE
DESIGNER
TEAM IN
ONE
LOCATION
TEAM IN
MANY
LOCATIONS
TEAM IN
DIVERSE
SETTINGS
OPEN COMMUNICATION
A Geodesign Workflow for Change Models
Hrishikesh Ballal
OPEN COLLABORATION MODE
PROJECT
PROJECT
REPRESENTATION
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
“ADMINISTRATOR(S)”
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES
DECISION
GEODESIGN PROJECT
“CONDUCTOR(S)”
PROCESS
EVALUATION
VERSIONS
DECISION
GEODESIGN TEAM
“COORDINATORS”
IMPACT
CHANGE
GEODESIGN TEAM
“PARTICIPANTS”
ONE
DESIGNER
TEAM IN
ONE
LOCATION
TEAM IN
MANY
LOCATIONS
TEAM IN
DIVERSE
SETTINGS
OPEN COMMUNICATION
A Geodesign Workflow for Change Models
Hrishikesh Ballal
OPEN COLLABORATION MODE
PROJECT
PROJECT
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
“ADMINISTRATOR(S)”
PROJECT
REPRESENTATION
ALTERNATIVES
PROCESS
COMPARED
FOR
DECISION
DECISION
GEODESIGN PROJECT
“CONDUCTOR(S)”
EVALUATION
VERSIONS
DECISION
GEODESIGN TEAM
“COORDINATORS”
IMPACT
CHANGE
GEODESIGN TEAM
“PARTICIPANTS”
ONE
DESIGNER
TEAM IN
ONE
LOCATION
TEAM IN
MANY
LOCATIONS
TEAM IN
DIVERSE
SETTINGS
OPEN COMMUNICATION