08-12-2020 // SECOND CHALLENGE THE CHALLENGE

The last few days we have been working on our second challenge the challenge. This piece can also be found under the label 'proposal & challenge'. Now we spoke with stakeholders from the Emmasingelkwadrant, we looked again at the challenge from different perspectives and searched for the question behind the question. We will answer the questions below, the same questions we answered in the first challenge the challenge. We will answer these questions based on the knowledge we have gained in the last month. The answers to the questions below will therefore be mostly based on the information we have gathered so far through the conversations we had with the stakeholders from the Emmasingelkwadrant. We want to clearly map where we are at this point in the process.

In the first month, we completed our first diverging phase, the discovery phase, by means of the conversations we had with the ones involved from the municipality in the Emmasingelkwadrant. We defined the knowledge we gathered and converged the information by means of the challenge and our reflection. We completed again the first diverging phase, the discovery phase. This time we focussed on the stakeholders from the Emmasingelkwadrant. We will use the challenge the challenge again in a converging way. So we will now dive deeper into the second phase of the Double Diamond Model again, the definition phase. We will define the information we have gained this month, so the information we have gained in the discovery phase. The definition stage in the Double Diamond model consists of filtering through all the information you got from stage one and elaborating on it. The definition stage aims to elaborate on the different components of the project, making sure everyone understands the context of the project. As mentioned earlier: we will not run through the Double Diamond model linearly; we enter the discovery phase for the second time and will define this phase for the second time, this time with different gained knowledge. In December, so this month, we will focus on the develop phase (Costa, 2018).

In which systems is the challenge embedded?

As we wrote in our earlier take on the ‘challenge the challenge’, our challenge is embedded in the active playing field in between different levels of state, market, and community. There is no point in re-explaining what this challenge means per level and how the situation has come about. Nevertheless, it is interesting to compare our approach to these different levels while in addition, we will elaborate on newly gained information.

In the conclusion of the part of the systems the first time around, we came up with the following list of possible topics of investigation.

-    Unclarity from the municipality about their development plans due too long taking negotiations.

-    Raised expectations by the municipality that influenced mental models of the community.

-    Bureaucracy within the organization of the municipality discourages quick and concrete notable action within the community.

-    Mutual trust between the community and the municipality.

-    Willingness to invest in indirect/non-financial revenue by market actors.

-    Organizational competence at the community level.

We have covered multiple of these topics earlier and gained at least some insights on each of the questions. However, we have aimed our energy at one level specifically. We are commissioned to get the best out of the community regarding the use of the public space, nevertheless, we have found out that the community is not quite ready to take on that challenge. The members are too poorly informed, there are no visual signs of (hard work put into) improvements in the area, and have therefore low confidence in a positive outcome of investing their own efforts. A passive attitude towards social initiative so to say. As they are poorly informed, they hold the municipality (state level) accountable for all their frustrations while in many ways, the municipality has the best intentions but has been sidelined in their actions by multiple actors on the market level.

The Community holds the State level accountable for the misery while in their turn, their hands are tied by the Market level. The Community level is not informed well enough on the situation to understand how it came about. In order for us to achieve something with the community, we needed to make the municipality (State level) aware of the image that most people have of the situation. In that way, we could make them feel the urgency to show how they actively engage with the challenge and listen to the community. We have been focusing our energy on this and now we have the municipality on board we can aim our energy back at engaging with the community. We even have convinced the municipality to let us jointly engage with the market level in order to work on the frustrations of the community. In the end, both the state- and the market level need the community level to comply with their plans for the developments. The sooner both levels will gain the trust of the community, the sooner they are able to develop, and the sooner the community will gain the trust needed to actively get involved in the area.

1. For the state level, we try to get the community level involved in the area by investigating their needs and how they could get involved.

2. For the community level, we try to improve the informational supply and have both the state and market-level invest in their ideas around improvements for the area.

3. For the market level, we gain insights into the needs of the community level in order for them to get support for their development plans.

What are the core elements/themes?

Based on the knowledge we have gained last month, we will identify the elements and themes that stood out to us most and which have been named more often. These are mainly the elements that we also highlighted during the presentation we gave to the ones involved from the municipality. So we have already identified most of the core themes of last month. We will shortly elaborate on these elements and themes. These are elements that could definitely be important to keep in mind during the process. Again: this does not mean that everything we mention is the truth. This is what we have found out over the past few weeks, but these are just the elements and themes that come back more often, so are in our opinion important to elaborate on. We continue saying that we will be critical of the knowledge we acquire.

The Victoria Park has already been promised to the stakeholders of the Emmasingelkwadrant a number of years ago. However, a number of years have passed and the park is still not there. The park now looks like an unmaintained lawn, something that residents experience as an ‘eyesore’. However, a number of residents also see the potential of the unmaintained lawn; not much needs to be done to make this "park" lively again. Yet this is easier said than done. Partly due to the contrasting needs of the stakeholders: Some of the residents of the Regentenkwartier indicate that when, for example, benches will be placed on the lawn, the nuisance will increase. This stakeholder group is currently the only one who considers the nuisance as a disturbing factor. On the other hand, the young and international stakeholders think that benches can make the park lively again and will reduce the nuisance.

However, the contrasting needs are not the only pain points: the municipality has little or no property in this area. Who is going to do something about the unmaintained lawn and pile of sand, which is also seen as an ‘eyesore’? The project developers are responsible for this area but do little to maintain the area. So the question is, who is taking action to maintain the area?

According to the stakeholders in the area, little or no action is taken; the stakeholders feel that little is happening in the area, that expectations are being created that are not being met and that the input from stakeholders is not being heard. When the stakeholders are asked to give input, they feel that nothing is being done with their input or that little feedback is being given. In addition, a large part of the stakeholders do not know who they should go to for complaints, ideas or if they want to participate in discussions about the livability in the neighborhood. These are mainly young people and internationals. In addition, many people do not know what is going on; the provision of information is lacking and there is a lot of misunderstanding & incomprehension among the stakeholders of the Emmasingelkwadrant. Stakeholders wonder why something like the Sunseeker can be installed next to the lawn, but the problems with the trash containers and street lighting are still not solved? Stakeholders feel that nobody sees the urgency of doing something about these ‘problems’; one of the reasons they have little trust that it will be better in the coming period.

The municipality is passive in the eyes of the stakeholders, which means that the stakeholders in the Emmasingelkwadrant therefore also become more and more passive towards the developments and interim initiative. Trust in the municipality is lacking, so many stakeholders are now just waiting in the hope that developments will start soon. The ignorance and misunderstanding among the stakeholders make it difficult; the municipality is actually not responsible for the area, but the stakeholders see the municipality as responsible. To what extent could the municipality contribute to improving the livability in this neighborhood, TOGETHER with the stakeholders in this area?

At the moment, mainly many frustrations, pain points, and negative points have been identified and raised by the stakeholders. In the next project phase, we will focus more on the positive: what can and want the stakeholders in the area to contribute to the neighborhood? Because let's be honest, even though many stakeholders have mentioned negative points, they all indicated that they do not want to leave the area mainly because of the ideal location.

Who are the stakeholders and how are they related to the area?

We did not encounter any new groups of stakeholders since our first take on the ‘challenge the challenge’. Nevertheless, we did meet a lot of new people and have gained a broader understanding of the situation. This has all been described in earlier blogs.

From within the municipality and government-funded social enterprises, we spoke with everyone that is involved in the challenge of the area. Most of which on quite a regular basis as we discuss our findings and progress. We have managed to get on the same page regarding the direction of the project and we feel appreciated. We do sometimes struggle with their way of work as we are not used to playing their game however, we enjoy this learning process and seem to get our work done.

Furthermore, we spoke to many of the smaller entrepreneurs that work with/for people out of the area, most of which are interested in the conversation as long as we do not expect too much effort from them in the improvement of the community. As they mostly will not receive direct revenue from engaging with the challenge.

The only group of stakeholders we have not spoken to, are the project developers. Luckily, during our progress presentation in which we tried to stimulate a sense of urgency within the municipality, we have convinced the project managers to let us engage with the project developers (probably the most powerful yet least interested stakeholders when it comes to the social interests) from January on as their negotiations will probably be in a less critical state by then.

This leaves the most important stakeholder group, the local residents. We were lucky to find contact with many inhabitants already. However, they mostly live in the two buildings right next to the central field (Victoriapark). Inhabitants of these buildings have been easiest to get involved due to the first four stakeholders we reached out to. As we have consensus with the municipality now to focus on long term connections instead of specific social actions, we are now ready to engage with a larger volume of inhabitants with more specific questions and direction. We have created a flyer as research has shown that this is the best way to get in contact with people from other buildings in the area.

What do you need to know?

At this point, we have a new consensus about the direction of the project aiming it more at long term social revenue, rather than ‘quick wins’ by creating certain events. Exactly what we were hoping for. We were able to convince the municipality by finding out what image it has created for itself amongst inhabitants regarding the challenge. We have first investigated the municipality perspective, then looked at the perspective of the inhabitants and entrepreneurs based in the Emmasingelkwadrant, and now we need to find out how to bring those two together. The municipality wants to invest in gaining trust from residents and is willing to listen to their needs. We suspect the residents to be willing to invest in the livability of this area if they are informed, listened to, and gain trust by experiencing improvements by the municipality.

Our next objective is to find out how we could organize long term social initiative in the livability of the area. We need to not only know what frustrates these local stakeholders and what they dream of. We need to look more practically at how these stakeholders could get involved and to what extent they are prepared to invest their time/resources. How would they like to organize themselves in order to be heard by the municipality and what could they accomplish by themselves? In other words; Who will take responsibility for what? Or even further, which roles does a residential organization play in the neighborhood, which roles need to be filled internally and how can we fill those vacancies?

We will aim our energy at getting in contact with more of these inhabitants in order to collect more visions on the challenges within the area and more specifically to find out how they could be involved in the improvements. The municipality will back us with the resources we need to facilitate connection and get in contact with people. Furthermore, we will try to find out what the municipality in collaboration with the project developers can do in order to restore the faith of the public in their intentions.

Are there examples which we can learn from?

The first challenge the challenge, we looked at (social) enterprises that are or have been involved in the Emmasingelkwadrant. What is already going on in this area and from which organizations or initiatives can we learn? We have already spoken extensively with VANTOT and Vital Zone several times. These are the organizations that are open to collaborate with us and we may strengthen each other where possible. We also spoke briefly with Nul Zes, but mainly reviewed their research carefully. This time we will look at examples who are not active in the Emmasingelkwadrant, but who have an interesting approach from which we can learn as Community Designers. We both decided that we will continue this project after we finish our project for Community Design; Amber will connect it to her graduation assignment and Jesse will connect it to a still to be determined Design. So we will not approach these examples immediately, but we will keep them in mind for (future) possibilities.

Tante Netty: One of the stakeholders mentioned Tante Netty as an interesting organization for us to approach. Tante Netty links young artists and designers to social challenges in order to come up with new insights, solutions, and connections. To make that impact as reliable and large as possible, they keep a close eye on quality. The artistic quality, the quality of the material, the production and the process, the quality of internal and external communication and the way in which they make contact are the common thread through their projects. They are working on a different way of urban development: not along the top, via roadmaps and drawing boards, but from below, at the level of neighbors and districts. Although their projects are not described in detail on their website, we did see some overlaps with our project. For example, various projects have been carried out in and around waste containers and they have built a bench that stimulates conversations and provokes people to take time for each other. Tante Netty is a good example we could learn from the moment we actually start organizing/creating something physically (Tante Netty, 2020).

Tom Loois: Tom Loois is an Eindhoven-based concept developer and curator aiming to rethink conventions and make room for a more intimate, sustainable, and playful society. There was one particular project in his portfolio that caught our attention: The Dude in the Dommel.

‘’With the arrival of digital desks, web forms and self-scan cash registers, human interaction and therefore direct communication is becoming less and less obvious. How well is a message received by the greater public when there is no human interface to correspond with? The Dude in the Dommel is a brand activation and communication strategy for Waterboard the Dommel that aims to connect with the target audience by means of a real-life conversation. By stationing an employee of the Waterboard literally in the Dommel River, passers-by are able to react upon the absurd situation of a man sitting at his desk in a river. What exactly are the activities of Waterboard the Dommel and what would happen when it ceases to exist? The audience is confronted with the possible outcome: water up to our waists. The Dude in the Dommel is able to initiate conversation and shows that a slightly theatrical situation evokes a much more powerful response than a rigid information board on the riverbank’’ (Tom Loois, 2011).

What we can learn from his project is the playful way in which he comes into contact with his target group and at the same time introduce his target group to his client: Waterboard the Dommel. In this way, people get to know in a fun way what Waterboard the Dommel does. We could also do something like that for the municipality of Eindhoven: inform the stakeholders in the Emmasingelkwadrant in a playful way about what the municipality of Eindhoven is doing in this area. Tom Loois is also an interesting party to consider to approach.

What are useful models/theories?

In the first challenge the challenge, we described and elaborated on the theories and models that we thought would be interesting to use in our project. We have now applied a number of models and theories. We would elaborate on these models and theories and discuss the ones we are planning to use.

Design Research Method(s):

Mobile Interviewing: Last month we spoke with several stakeholders. We did not try to ask the smartest questions, but we tried to listen carefully to what the stakeholders had to say. We strived for open conversations with the stakeholders, without having a clear-cut division of roles between us (the interviewers) and the stakeholders (interviewees). We tried to avoid the somewhat artificial setting by planning the conversations in the Emmasingelkwadrant. In our opinion, this spatial context has a lot of relevant stimuli to discuss during the conversations. In this way, we could take the stakeholders along and have a natural interaction between us and the stakeholders. Of course, this type of interviewing produces different data than the most common type of interviewing. However, in this phase, we wanted to experience this neighborhood, know what is going on, and measure the guest experiences that are related to the Emmasingelkwadrant. That is why we chose for the design research method mobile interviewing in this phase of the process. 

Stakeholder mapping: As mentioned before, we use the tool KUMU to map out the stakeholders involved in the Emmasingelkwadrant. We use this tool to get a clear, visual oversight of the different stakeholders. Later on, we will use stakeholder mapping to define the power and interest of every stakeholder. At this point, we have mapped out the stakeholders we talked to and their connection to the Emmasingelkwadrant. The link to the stakeholder map on KUMU: https://kumu.io/jesseulrich/placemaking-emmasingelkwadrant

Appreciative Inquiry: Human systems move in the directions of the questions that are asked. We have had quite a few conversations with stakeholders already. In general, most stakeholders were skeptical at the start of the conversation. There were already some other people or organizations that wanted to improve the livability in the Emmasingelkwadrant. However, stakeholders feel that little is actively being done and/or improved. Although many stakeholders started the conversation quite skeptically and sometimes even pessimistic, a number of stakeholders were more enthusiastic at the end of the conversation. During the conversation, we explained the essence of creating a more connected and representative neighborhood and started asking questions such as: How you like living or working in this neighborhood? What would you like to contribute when something is organized? As a result, the stakeholders began to better understand the essence of our approach, they began to see the possibilities in this area, they began to think about what they themselves could contribute, and started thinking about improving the livability. The whole process of asking positive questions will make people engaged and stimulate thinking about those questions. This will create energy and shift in that certain direction. Talking about the questions could be an Appreciative Inquiry process and change in itself. That is what happened during most of our conversations and we will focus even more on that during the next conversations. In the initial discussions with stakeholders, the emphasis was often on the negative. In the upcoming conversations, we want to put even more emphasis on the positive.

Asset Based Community Development: We started our project by mapping the municipal perspective, after that, we had the first conversations with the stakeholders in the Emmasingelkwadrant, and now it is time for the next step. During these initial conversations with the stakeholders from the Emmasingelkwadrant, we mainly focused on the "guest experience". We wanted to find out what is going on in the neighborhood, what is already actively going on, what are the needs of the stakeholders, what do the stakeholders encounter, and what are the possibilities? We opted for open conversations in which stakeholders could share what they wanted to share. We did not only want to talk about the negative, but we also tried to focus on the positive (Appreciative Inquiry). Now it is time to focus on a different direction.

Many attempts to initiate neighborhood renewal are often based on the shortcomings and needs of the neighborhood. The information used to legitimize neighborhood renewal is based on statistical data about what is wrong in the neighborhood. However, strong neighborhoods do not primarily focus on shortcomings, needs, or problems; they focus on all the resources they do have at their disposal, in particular the capacities and skills of the neighborhood residents. The reason for this is the impossibility to realize changes based on needs. You cannot make improvements with problems and needs. In vital neighborhoods it is understood that the assets - human capital and resources - are the building blocks for a strong neighborhood and a better future. And that is what we want to focus on in the coming period: how can we use the assets in the Emmasingelkwadrant to improve the quality of life? We will dive deeper into the Asset Based Community Development approach (Landelijk Samenwerkingsverband Aandachtswijken & Fontys Hogeschool Sociaal Werk Eindhoven, n.d.)

Double Diamond: We use the Double Diamond to structure our process. Since we have already discussed this model several times, so we will not discuss this model in detail again. At this moment we have gone through the discovery phase twice, the define phase twice and we will now focus on the develop phase.

Four Levels of Thinking: in our first elaboration of the challenge the challenge, we explained how the Four Levels of Thinking (the Ice Berg model) works. In the past month, we came into contact with various stakeholders. We placed the most interesting and more frequently named findings in the Ice Berg model. The event level of thinking is only the tip. This is because events are the most visible part and often require immediate action and attention. That is why we have placed the 'quick wins' there; the things that bother stakeholders, but which in theory could be easy to solve. However, we also wanted to look at the underlying three levels, the levels that are not immediately noticeable. We tried to discover what the underlying principles are in the Emmasingelkwadrant. We have filled in the underlying three levels with findings that we have gathered through the conversations with the stakeholders. By focussing on the underlying levels, we can discover the general themes and systems and see how we can connect them and use them in the best possible way. Below the filled-in model.

Since we have used the model for the presentation to the municipality, the model has been filled in in Dutch. We have completed this model to create a clear overview of the findings and to substantiate our thoughts. In fact, some of the underlying principles arise from what can be seen above the surface of the water. These underlying principles could also be "resolved" by investing in what can be seen above the surface of the water. We have contrasted two major phenomena: what can be seen above the water surface is what the municipality (and/or the project developers) should solve in the broadest sense of the word. The underlying principle is the response of the stakeholders because there is no visible investment in what is above the water surface.

Take "misunderstanding" (onbegrip) under mental models, for example. stakeholders find it incomprehensible that the Sunseeker, an expensive lighting installation, can be placed in the park, but that the unmaintained park, the sand pile, the garbage, and the street lighting do not get the priority. Partly because of this, stakeholders have the idea that they "feel not heard", another underlying principle under patterns. We believe that the underlying principles are all related in one way or another. The moment investment will be made in the things above the water surface, we have the idea that some of the underlying principles below the water surface will be improved. We have therefore created this model to indicate how important it is to invest in the 'quick wins', in order to ultimately improve the underlying principles of the stakeholders.

Fusion of Interests: During the Eindhoven Session, professor Anke van Hal talked about the fusion of interests (2020). Anke explained in this session that she often sees opportunities between the policy goals and the more specific or personal goals of local residents. If we are able to create links in the middle ground between the different goal frames, we might work towards a mutual goal. Which different motives do inhabitants have to work towards reaching a certain goal?

We used this theory in our presentation to the municipality. Many stakeholders in the area indicate that they see the non-maintenance lawn (the future park) as an eyesore. They would like to see it maintained, a place that stimulates gatherings and encounters. Stichting Jongerenhuiskamer indicates that visitors to the Huiskamer like to get in touch with the neighborhood and meet new people. What if we combine these two needs? The visitors of the Huiskamer, mostly refugees, could maintain the park together with residents who are interested in this. The park is located in the center of the area. People will probably start wondering when seeing people working on the lawn: ‘What is happening there?’. A way to stimulate conversations between neighborhood residents. In addition, once the park is maintained, several stakeholders indicated that it could be a place where residents of the area want to come together.

The only problem is the money; there must be a budget to maintain the park. The park belongs to a project developer. It looks like this project developer did not want to spend money on maintaining the neighborhood; in a while, there will be built anyway. Yet it also benefits him when he does invest in maintaining the neighborhood; the project developer must submit his building plans in a while. Residents can object to these building plans. The moment they object, the construction will only be further postponed. That is why we believe that it can also be beneficial for the project developer when he invests money in maintaining the neighborhood and indirectly in satisfying the residents and entrepreneurs in the neighborhood.

The neighborhood is happy because they can enjoy a maintained park again. The Huiskamer is happy because visitors to the Huiskamer can come into contact with (new) people and residents from the neighborhood. The project developer is happy because in the end there is less or no objection to his building plans due to his investment in maintaining the neighborhood. This is what we call the fusion of interest: working towards a mutual goal by creating links in the middle ground. We will hopefully be able to express this theory and our thoughts to the project developer; the municipality thinks it is a good idea if we also talk to the project developers to indicate what is going on in the neighborhood.

The challenge

Our current challenge is: How can we improve the overall living experience in the public space of the Emmasingelkwadrant in the run-up to the development projects? We created a sub-challenge, or actually a redefinition of the main challenge, for the development phase we are entering: How to create a sustainable connection between the different stakeholder perspectives? As the main goal a more representative and connected neighborhood where the shared ambition of the neighborhood will be central. We noticed that there are many different perspectives, needs, and ideas in this neighborhood. How can we bring all these perspectives, needs, and ideas together? Rather: how can we combine and strengthen them, so that the neighborhood can eventually build TOGETHER a more livable environment? How can the stakeholders unite and co-create best? That is why we want to focus from now on the assets in the neighborhood: what can the neighborhood contribute, instead of just mentioning what needs to be changed? We want to look for the positive and the possibilities, and not for the negative and impossibilities.

References

Costa, R. (2018, November 6). The Double Diamond model: what is it and should you use it? Retrieved from https://www.justinmind.com/blog/double-diamond-model-what-is-should-you-use/

Landelijk Samenwerkingsverband Aandachtswijken & Fontys Hogeschool Sociaal Werk Eindhoven. (n.d.). Wijkontwikkeling op eigen kracht. Budel, NB: Drukkerij Vos. Retrieved 8 November, 2020, from file:///E:/NHTV/Fourth%20year/Community%20Design/Gemeente%20Eindhoven/Theories/ABCD_2009.pdf

Loois, T. (2011). The Dude in the Dommel. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from http://www.tomloois.nl/portfolio/de-dude-in-de-dommel/

Tante Netty. (2020). Retrieved December 8, 2020, from https://tantenetty.nl/

Van Hal, A. (2020). De Eindhoven Sessies (nr. 3) Meedoen. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJtq9bvZL28