Pages

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Saturday Morning Breakfast Club - POP - Ottawa Towers Open House Development for September 19th, 2015

Saturday Morning Breakfast Club topic on Ottawa Towers Open House for September 19, 2015 - Phyllis Carroll invited her fellow graduates of the Detroit Microloan Collaborative
who will be participating in the Open House & Co-Locating.  



Todd Gulich speaking on Tech Shop as part of the unfolding PLAN (he visited and toured on the way to MOPOP Festival and picked up materials for distribution on behalf of our CROSS-POLLINATION efforts in developing the Entertainment/Entrepreneurial District) 



Hubert Price, on advocacy towards a Library Annex at Ottawa Towers as part of the unfolding PLAN



Phyllis Carrol introducing fellow Entrepreneurs, recently graduated from Lifeline Solutions, New Economy Initiative, Women's Foundation collaborative Entrepreneurship program at Tech Town - supported by Michigan Economic Development Corporation and Huntington Bank -





Tae Wallace on Community Center development in 8 School Properties purchased by Ottawa Towers


Bethany on her evolving fashion line in partnership with Phyllis Carroll


Harrell's Italian Ice, Christine Myers


Kevin's Cheescakes - moving into 2nd Stage




Daniel Johnson - Dignity Memorial Providers of Detroit 





For context, viewed Bruce Katz on the future of Innovation Districts and Placemaking - to understand the assets of Ottawa Towers and Phoenix Center as aids to catalytic economic and community development efforts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g58dujNkN2U




Must See - The Innovation District TRIFECTA - Interdisciplinary Cross-Pollination, Placemaking and Inclusive Growth

Link to Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g58dujNkN2U

Sunday, August 16, 2015

5 Big Ideas that Don't Work in Education (Submitted by Hubert Price)

5 Big Ideas That Don't Work In Education

Better measurements help make learning visible, says John Hattie. i

There are few household names in education research. Maybe that in itself constitutes a problem. But if there was an Education Researcher Hall Of Fame, one member would be a silver-haired, plainspoken Kiwi named John Hattie.
Hattie directs the Melbourne Education Research Institute at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He also directs something called the Science of Learning Research Centre, which works with over 7,000 schools worldwide.

Over the past 28 years he has published a dozen books, mostly on a theory he calls Visible Learning. His life's work boils down to one proposition: To improve schools, draw on the best evidence available.
Obvious? Maybe, but it's rarely honored in reality, Hattie claims. "Senior politicians and government officials clearly want to make a difference," he says. "But they want to do this, that and the other silly thing which has failed everywhere else, and I want to know why." In a new paper, "What Doesn't Work In Education: The Politics Of Distraction," published by Pearson Education, Hattie takes on some of the most popular approaches to reform.

Small classes. High standards. More money. These popular and oft-prescribed remedies from both the right and the left, he argues, haven't been shown to work as well as alternatives.
Hattie doesn't run his own studies. Nor does he analyze groups of studies on a single variable, a technique called meta-analysis. He goes one step further and synthesizes the findings of many meta-analyses, a kind of meta-meta-analysis.

Over the years, he has scrutinized — and ranked — 1,200 different meta-analyses looking at all types of interventions, ranging from increased parental involvement to ADHD medications to longer school days to performance pay for teachers, as well as other factors affecting education, like socioeconomic status. He has examined studies covering a combined 250 million students around the world.
The good news, he says, is that most education reforms tested in published studies show at least some positive effect (this should not be surprising, because studies that show no effect or negative effects are less likely to be published).

If you are the kind of person who finds certain graphs sexy, beholding Hattie's ranking of educational effect sizes will be exhilarating.

The average effect, across all the studies he's analyzed, is 0.4. standard deviations. This average also happens to translate — roughly — to the amount of progress a student can be expected to make in one year of school. Hattie believes that all educational reforms should concentrate on interventions with proven effects that fall above that line.

In his ranking, socioeconomic status has an effect size of 0.57, meaning that a student growing up in poverty may be expected to perform roughly a year and a half behind an otherwise similar student growing up more wealthy.

Putting televisions in the classroom, on the other hand, has an average negative impact of -0.18. Holding students back a grade really does hold students back, with an effect of -0.16.
"The problem is there are a lot of effects that are very small," he says, while others are huge. And yet, he says, "We never have a debate of relativity — why are we spending billions on things that have small effects?"

Technical Challenges

Hattie's grand unified theory is simple — maybe too simple. Critics have taken issue with his approach to research, the precision of some of his calculations, even his grasp of concepts as basic as probability.

"Meta-analyis is relatively new in education, and ... particularly problematic," says Dylan Wiliam, professor emeritus of educational assessment at the Institute of Education, University of London, and an expert on assessment.

He argues, for example, that averaging together studies done on students of different ages, in different settings, with different kinds of interventions and different measures of outcomes may produce entirely misleading results.

There's a danger, Wiliam says, of mushing good studies together with bad ones, or comparing apples and oranges.

"In education, meta-analysis presents a number of significant technical difficulties," he explains. "Some of these are unavoidable but Hattie does not mention these."

Others, Wiliam adds, "are avoidable, but Hattie does not avoid them."

"The synthesis approach is not an established method," agrees John O'Neill, director of the Institute of Education at Massey University in New Zealand. O'Neill is a coauthor of a 2009 paper critical of Hattie's work, titled "Invisible Learnings?"


At the same time, he acknowledges, Hattie's work "has had a profound effect on education policy and practice globally."

Many of Hattie's basic observations have been upheld by other researchers. And he and his organization continue to advise and influence governments and school leaders all over the world.
Here are five of the most common policy ideas that, he argues in his new paper, are wrongheaded — and the alternatives Hattie suggests.

1. Achievement standards. "It seems very sensible. You set up minimum standards you want students to reach; you judge schools by how many reach them. But it has a very nasty effect," Hattie tells me. "All those schools who take kids in difficult circumstances are seen as failures, while those who take privileged students and do nothing are seen as successful."
By the same token, it seems to make sense to set achievement standards by grade level, but the further along students get in school, Hattie points out, the more of them are performing either behind or ahead of the schedule that's been set.

The alternative: a focus on growth and progress for each student, no matter where he or she starts
.
2. Achievement tests. High-performing schools, and countries, don't necessarily give more standardized tests than low performers. They often give fewer.

The alternative: testing that emphasizes giving teachers immediate, actionable feedback to improve teaching.

3. School choice. Many education reformers tout school choice as a tool for parent empowerment and school improvement through competitive pressure. But Hattie says his research shows that once you account for the economic background of students, private schools offer no significant advantages on average. As for charter schools? "The effect of charter schools, for example, across three meta-analyses based on 246 studies is a minuscule .07," he writes.

The alternative: teacher choice. In the United States, variation within schools accounts for 70 percent of the differences in scores on the international PISA exam, while variation between schools makes up the rest. Hattie argues that if parents had the right to select the best teacher in a given school, that could truly be empowering. It would also be challenging to implement.

4. Class size. This has been one of Hattie's more controversial claims. In the U.S., groups such as Class Size Matters are dedicated to the proposition that fewer students per teacher is a recipe for success. This, Hattie argues, would come as a surprise to Japan and Korea, two of the highest-performing education systems in the world, with average class sizes of 33. Russia is the outlier in the other direction, a below-average performer with average classes around 18.

The alternative: Hattie says reducing class size can have a positive impact. That's if teachers are coached and supported to take advantage of it by actually changing the way they teach — to collaborate, offer personalized feedback and continuously measure their impact for improvement, for example.

5. More money. $40,000 per child, from age 6 through high school graduation. That's the rough threshold for reasonable school performance, according to Hattie: Countries that spend less than $40,000, which are all poor, tend to have much lower reading scores on the international PISA exam, and their performance correlates strongly with the money they spend. But for countries above that threshold, there is almost no relationship between money spent and results earned. For example, Korea and Finland far outscore the U.S. on PISA, while spending $60,000 and $75,000 compared with $105,000.

The alternative: Money's a necessity, but more money is not a panacea, says Hattie. "We spend millions on things that don't matter, and then we get jaundiced."

Hattie's forthcoming book, in September, will present case studies of 15 schools that are implementing some of the ideas that have the strongest evidence behind them. He says many of these boil down to empowering teachers to work collaboratively and continuously improve.

"Around the world there is so much excellence," he says. "Have we got the spine to identify and grow that?"

Incubators, Innovation, Ideas, Smart Cities

India’s Kumbh Mela Is Used as an Incubator for Smart City Startup Ideas


Can India’s Kumbh Mela–a religious pilgrimage that at its peak is expected to attract around 30 million people to the western city of Nashik this year–provide ideas for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who plans to build 100 smart cities in the country?

Technology experts from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and their associates think it can.
The months long Kumbh Mela is a Hindu festival that takes place once every three years rotating around four cities—Haridwar, Allahabad, Nashik and Ujjain. In July, the western Indian city of Nashik, usually known for its vineyards and little else, took its turn, transforming itself into a metropolis with increased temporary housing, healthcare and policing as its population surges during the pilgrimage.

The peak of the current festival, scheduled to last just over a year, is expected to be in August and September, when devotees will take a dip in the Godavari River on four different auspicious days. About eight million pilgrims are expected to participate in each of those days. Hindus believe doing so will wash away their sins and rid them of the cycle of death and rebirth.

MIT researchers for their part believe the festival presents an opportunity for entrepreneurs to devise technological solutions to the challenge of building large cities in a short time that can be tested, firmed up and then replicated across India.

To provide those solutions, they are holding ‘Kumbhathons’—weeklong innovation camps attended by citizens, governments and corporates.

Sandip Shinde, co-founder of the Kumbha Foundation, a non-profit that has organized five Kumbhathon events in the past 18 months in association with MIT, says the project aims to develop solutions that can be rolled out to other Indian cities.

“The main objective and goal for everybody including MIT Media Lab and people working around is actually creating impact on the citizens and bring innovation culture in city like Nashik so that it can be replicated in any other city in India,” said Mr. Shinde, who is on a sabbatical for a year from his job at Tata Consultancy Services 532540.BY +2.02%, one of India’s biggest outsourcers, in Pune to volunteer at Kumbh Mela.



An MIT Kumbhathon innovation, pop-up housing, was erected for Kumbh Mela visitors in Nashik.
John Werner

“It’s about helping the smart citizens make their cities smart,” said John Werner, head of innovations and new ventures for Camera Culture Group at MIT Media Lab that has been spearheading the Kumbhathon. “The fact that people have these mobile devices and these tools that they can use; we can change the future of cities.”

The idea for the innovation camps emerged about two years back when two Nashik natives, Sunil Khandbahale, developer of Khandbahale, a multilingual online dictionary, and Ramesh Raskar, associate professor at MIT Media Lab, met. “We were looking for right opportunity to sensitize [a] community for innovation and Kumbh Mela event was just the perfect match to experiment looking at its scale and diversified challenges like housing, transportation, sanitation, health, policing, security, communication, food, safety, crowd steering etc.,” Mr. Khandbahale said in an emailed response to questions.

“Indians have a familiar ability to adapt to varying circumstances in seeming chaos but we know that there is a method to their madness,” Mr. Raskar at MIT said. “Kumbhathon aims to concentrate this spirit of innovation.”

The first Kumbhathon event was held in January 2014 in Nashik. Students from engineering and medical colleges in the city were invited to join in and more than 1,050 potential problems that arise at the Kumbh Mela were crowd sourced from students and citizens. Eventually, the innovators chose 12 problems to focus on, including housing, transportation and sanitation, and developed prototypes of their solutions.

Some of those ideas have already emerged as mobile apps and projects.

An official Kumbh Mela smartphone app gives pilgrims information about the routes they should take for bathing in the holy Godavari River, the center of Kumbh Mela, as well as live traffic information, availability of hotel rooms and hospital beds and the location of stores and banks.
An epidemic tracker app gives doctors and authorities information for tracing any likely spread of disease during the pilgrimage by capturing location, gender, age group, symptoms about the patients. The MediTracker app gives information about ambulances and hospitals in the vicinity.

Meanwhile, the Kumbhathon’s crowd-steering project helps authorities determine how many people have congregated at a particular location using signals collected from mobile phone towers. “It is of immense help in crowd management,” said Praveen Gedam, commissioner of Nashik Municipal Corporation. “Based on the analytics of data we are receiving from nearest mobile towers we can predict the movement of crowd—how it is moving from one part of city to other part of city.”
The pop-up housing project helps conveniently house thousands of sadhus, or Hindu holy men, who congregate during the festival.

The next Kumbhathon event is scheduled for January and the Kumbha Foundation and MIT Media Lab are in the process of registering the Nashik Innovation Center, a non-profit company, to provide common space to the innovators and experts “to help progress innovations and build entrepreneurial skills,” according to Mr. Werner at MIT Media Lab.

“Originally, it was like how we scale up to pop-up cities like Kumbh Mela,” said Mr. Werner. “Now we are thinking this not just of Kumbh Mela and pop-up cities but help non-metro cities reach their potential.”

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Design Thinking - or GOBBLEDYGOOK - is Here to Stay

 
 
Design Thinking Comes of Age
From the September 2015 Issue
 

 

Organizational culture

Idea in Brief

The Change
Increasingly, corporations and professional services firms are working to create design-centric cultures.
The Reason
Many products, services, and processes are now technologically complex. People are not hardwired to deal well with high levels of complexity. They need help.
The Idea
People need their interactions with technologies and other complex systems to be intuitive and pleasurable. Empathy, experimentation, design smarts, and other qualities help create those kinds of interactions. Those qualities need to spread from the product design function to the whole organization.
 
There’s a shift under way in large organizations, one that puts design much closer to the center of the enterprise. But the shift isn’t about aesthetics. It’s about applying the principles of design to the way people work.


This new approach is in large part a response to the increasing complexity of modern technology and modern business. That complexity takes many forms. Sometimes software is at the center of a product and needs to be integrated with hardware (itself a complex task) and made intuitive and simple from the user’s point of view (another difficult challenge). Sometimes the problem being tackled is itself multi-faceted: Think about how much tougher it is to reinvent a health care delivery system than to design a shoe. And sometimes the business environment is so volatile that a company must experiment with multiple paths in order to survive.


I could list a dozen other types of complexity that businesses grapple with every day. But here’s what they all have in common: People need help making sense of them. Specifically, people need their interactions with technologies and other complex systems to be simple, intuitive, and pleasurable.


A set of principles collectively known as design thinking—empathy with users, a discipline of prototyping, and tolerance for failure chief among them—is the best tool we have for creating those kinds of interactions and developing a responsive, flexible organizational culture.


What Is a Design-Centric Culture?


If you were around during the late-1990s dot-com craze, you may think of designers as 20-somethings shooting Nerf darts across an office that looks more like a bar. Because design has historically been equated with aesthetics and craft, designers have been celebrated as artistic savants. But a design-centric culture transcends design as a role, imparting a set of principles to all people who help bring ideas to life. Let’s consider those principles.

Focus on users’ experiences, especially their emotional ones.


To build empathy with users, a design-centric organization empowers employees to observe behavior and draw conclusions about what people want and need. Those conclusions are tremendously hard to express in quantitative language. Instead, organizations that “get” design use emotional language (words that concern desires, aspirations, engagement, and experience) to describe products and users. Team members discuss the emotional resonance of a value proposition as much as they discuss utility and product requirements.


A traditional value proposition is a promise of utility: If you buy a Lexus, the automaker promises that you will receive safe and comfortable transportation in a well-designed high-performance vehicle. An emotional value proposition is a promise of feeling: If you buy a Lexus, the automaker promises that you will feel pampered, luxurious, and affluent. In design-centric organizations, emotionally charged language isn’t denigrated as thin, silly, or biased. Strategic conversations in those companies frequently address how a business decision or a market trajectory will positively influence users’ experiences and often acknowledge only implicitly that well-designed offerings contribute to financial success.

The focus on great experiences isn’t limited to product designers, marketers, and strategists—it infuses every customer-facing function. Take finance. Typically, its only contact with users is through invoices and payment systems, which are designed for internal business optimization or predetermined “customer requirements.” But those systems are touch points that shape a customer’s impression of the company. In a culture focused on customer experience, financial touch points are designed around users’ needs rather than internal operational efficiencies.

Create models to examine complex problems.


Design thinking, first used to make physical objects, is increasingly being applied to complex, intangible issues, such as how a customer experiences a service. Regardless of the context, design thinkers tend to use physical models, also known as design artifacts, to explore, define, and communicate. Those models—primarily diagrams and sketches—supplement and in some cases replace the spreadsheets, specifications, and other documents that have come to define the traditional organizational environment. They add a fluid dimension to the exploration of complexity, allowing for nonlinear thought when tackling nonlinear problems.

For example, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Center for Innovation has used a design artifact called a customer journey map to understand veterans’ emotional highs and lows in their interactions with the VA. “This form of artifact helped us better tell a story to various stakeholders,” says Melissa Chapman, a designer who worked at the Center for Innovation. Even more important, she adds, it “helped us develop a strategic way to think about changing the entire organization and to communicate that emergent strategy.” The customer journey map and other design models are tools for understanding. They present alternative ways of looking at a problem.

Use prototypes to explore potential solutions.


In design-centric organizations, you’ll typically see prototypes of new ideas, new products, and new services scattered throughout offices and meeting rooms. Whereas diagrams such as customer journey maps explore the problem space, prototypes explore the solution space. They may be digital, physical, or diagrammatic, but in all cases they are a way to communicate ideas. The habit of publicly displaying rough prototypes hints at an open-minded culture, one that values exploration and experimentation over rule following. The MIT Media Lab formalizes this in its motto, “Demo or die,” which recognizes that only the act of prototyping can transform an idea into something truly valuable—on their own, ideas are a dime a dozen. Design-centric companies aren’t shy about tinkering with ideas in a public forum and tend to iterate quickly on prototypes—an activity that the innovation expert Michael Schrage refers to as “serious play.” In his book of that title, he writes that innovation is “more social than personal.” He adds, “Prototyping is probably the single most pragmatic behavior the innovative firm can practice.”

Tolerate failure.


A design culture is nurturing. It doesn’t encourage failure, but the iterative nature of the design process recognizes that it’s rare to get things right the first time. Apple is celebrated for its successes, but a little digging uncovers the Newton tablet, the Pippin gaming system, and the Copland operating system—products that didn’t fare so well. (Pippin and Copland were discontinued after only two years.) The company leverages failure as learning, viewing it as part of the cost of innovation.


Greg Petroff, the chief experience officer at GE Software, explains how the iterative process works at GE: “GE is moving away from a model of exhaustive product requirements. Teams learn what to do in the process of doing it, iterating, and pivoting.” Employees in every aspect of the business must realize that they can take social risks—putting forth half-baked ideas, for instance—without losing face or experiencing punitive repercussions.

Exhibit thoughtful restraint.


Many products built on an emotional value proposition are simpler than competitors’ offerings. This restraint grows out of deliberate decisions about what the product should do and, just as important, what it should not do. By removing features, a company offers customers a clear, simple experience. The thermostat Nest—inside, a complex piece of technology—provides fewer outward-facing functions than other thermostats, thus delivering an emotional experience that reflects the design culture of the company. As CEO Tony Fadell said in an interview published in Inc., “At the end of the day you have to espouse a feeling—in your advertisements, in your products. And that feeling comes from your gut.”


Square’s mobile app Cash lets you do one thing: send money to a friend. “I think I’m just an editor, and I think every CEO is an editor,” wrote Jack Dorsey, Square’s CEO. “We have all these inputs, we have all these places that we could go…but we need to present one cohesive story to the world.” In organizations like Square, you’ll find product leaders saying no much more than they say yes. Rather than chase the market with follow-on features, they lead the market with a constrained focus.

What Types of Companies Are Making This Change?


As industry giants such as IBM and GE realize that software is a fundamental part of their businesses, they are also recognizing the extraordinary levels of complexity they must manage. Design thinking is an essential tool for simplifying and humanizing. It can’t be extra; it needs to be a core competence.

“There’s no longer any real distinction between business strategy and the design of the user experience,” said Bridget van Kralingen, the senior vice president of IBM Global Business Services, in a statement to the press. In November 2013 IBM opened a design studio in Austin, Texas—part of the company’s $100 million investment in building a massive design organization. As Phil Gilbert, the general manager of the effort, explained in a press release, “Quite simply, our goal—on a scale unmatched in the industry—is to modernize enterprise software for today’s user, who demands great design everywhere, at home and at work.” The company intends to hire 1,000 designers.

When I was at the company frog design, GE hired us to help formalize and disseminate language, tools, and success metrics to support its emergent design practice. Dave Cronin, GE’s executive design director for industrial internet applications, describes how the company came to realize that it was not just in the business of making physical products but had become one of the largest software providers in the world. The complexity of this software was overwhelming, so his team turned to design. “Our mandate was to create products, but also to enable nimble innovation,” Cronin says. “That’s a pretty tall order—we were asked to perform design at scale and along the way create cultural change.”

Design thinking is an essential tool for simplifying and humanizing.
IBM and GE are hardly alone. Every established company that has moved from products to services, from hardware to software, or from physical to digital products needs to focus anew on user experience. Every established company that intends to globalize its business must invent processes that can adjust to different cultural contexts. And every established company that chooses to compete on innovation rather than efficiency must be able to define problems artfully and experiment its way to solutions. (For more on the last shift, see “How Samsung Became a Design Powerhouse” in this issue.)

The pursuit of design isn’t limited to large brand-name corporations; the big strategy-consulting firms are also gearing up for this new world, often by acquiring leading providers of design services. In the past few years, Deloitte acquired Doblin, Accenture acquired Fjord, and McKinsey acquired Lunar. Olof Schybergson, the founder of Fjord, views design thinking’s empathetic stance as fundamental to business success. As he told an interviewer, “Going direct to consumers is a big disruptor….There are new opportunities to gather data and insights about consumer behavior, likes, dislikes….Those who have data and an appetite for innovation will prevail.” These acquisitions suggest that design is becoming table stakes for high-value corporate consulting—an expected part of a portfolio of business services.

What Are the Challenges?


Several years ago, I consulted for a large entertainment company that had tucked design away in a select group of “creatives.” The company was excited about introducing technology into its theme parks and recognized that a successful visitor experience would hinge on good design. And so it became apparent that the entire organization needed to embrace design as a core competence. This shift is never an easy one. Like many organizations with entrenched cultures that have been successful for many years, the company faced several hurdles.

Accepting more ambiguity.


The entertainment company operates globally, so it values repeatable, predictable operational efficiency in support of quarterly profit reporting. Because the introduction of technology into the parks represented a massive capital expenditure, there was pressure for a guarantee of a healthy return. Design, however, doesn’t conform easily to estimates. It’s difficult if not impossible to understand how much value will be delivered through a better experience or to calculate the return on an investment in creativity.

Embracing risk.


Transformative innovation is inherently risky. It involves inferences and leaps of faith; if something hasn’t been done before, there’s no way to guarantee its outcome. The philosopher Charles Peirce said that insights come to us “like a flash”—in an epiphany—making them difficult to rationalize or defend. Leaders need to create a culture that allows people to take chances and move forward without a complete, logical understanding of a problem. Our partners at the entertainment company were empowered to hire a design consultancy, and the organization recognized that the undertaking was no sure thing.

Resetting expectations.


As corporate leaders become aware of the power of design, many view design thinking as a solution to all their woes. Designers, enjoying their new level of strategic influence, often reinforce that impression. When I worked with the entertainment company, I was part of that problem, primarily because my livelihood depended on selling design consulting. But design doesn’t solve all problems. It helps people and organizations cut through complexity. It’s great for innovation. It works extremely well for imagining the future. But it’s not the right set of tools for optimizing, streamlining, or otherwise operating a stable business. Additionally, even if expectations are set appropriately, they must be aligned around a realistic timeline—culture changes slowly in large organizations.

An organizational focus on design offers unique opportunities for humanizing technology and for developing emotionally resonant products and services. Adopting this perspective isn’t easy. But doing so helps create a workplace where people want to be, one that responds quickly to changing business dynamics and empowers individual contributors. And because design is empathetic, it implicitly drives a more thoughtful, human approach to business.
 
A version of this article appeared in the September 2015 issue (pp.66–71) of Harvard Business Review.

 
Jon Kolko is the vice president of design at Blackboard, an education software company; the founder and director of Austin Center for Design; and the author of Well-Designed: How to Use Empathy to Create Products People Love (HBR Press, 2014).

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Asking is SMART (And Saves a Lot of Development Money)



CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER

What Do the Poor Need? Try Asking Them



David L. Kirp
FOR decades, policy makers have treated poverty as a sign of helplessness and ineptitude. The worse off the neighborhood — the higher the rate of poverty, crime, and juvenile delinquency — the less influence it would have over its future. Social service agencies conducted “needs assessments” rather than asking residents what would strengthen their community. Government agencies or private entrepreneurs then delivered brick-and-mortar solutions — a new school, medical clinic or housing.

It seldom worked. Take Baltimore, which has been “renewed” again and again. Two decades ago, more than $130 million was poured into the neighborhood where the arrest of Freddie Gray sparked riots last spring. The vision was grand — more than a thousand homes were built or renovated; education and health services were introduced — but the jobs disappeared and the drug trade continued to flourish.

To improve poor neighborhoods, the people who live there must have a hand in deciding their own fate. That approach works well in Houston, where one program has enabled hundreds of thousands of poor residents, many of them immigrants, to move up the ladder of economic and educational opportunity each year. It’s a strategy that can — and should — be implemented nationwide.

Neighborhood Centers, a Houston nonprofit that grew out of the settlement house movement, has been around since 1907. Although it has grown exponentially, in large part because of the leadership of Angela Blanchard, the organization’s president and chief executive officer for the past two decades, its philosophy remains unchanged. “The people are the asset, the source of potential solutions, not the problem,” Ms. Blanchard says. Instead of telling poor neighborhoods what’s wrong with them, the organization takes a bottom-up approach. “We go where we’re invited and do what we’re asked to do.”

Skeptics were plentiful when Ms. Blanchard laid out her agenda more than a quarter-century ago. “The naysayers in Houston and Washington, D.C., the government agencies and big banks, told us we had a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding,” Ms. Blanchard told me. “ ‘You can’t do this with private dollars’ or ‘you can’t do it with public dollars’ or ‘you shouldn’t aim so high.’ ” But the strategy — spending hundreds of hours conducting one-on-one interviews and community meetings, inviting residents to specify their priorities, identifying the community’s natural leaders and then going after the needed funds — paid off handsomely.

It takes ingenuity to do this work at a time when government resources are thin. The nonprofit cobbles together funds from 37 federal, state and local programs, with grants or contracts from the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury. “We milk every cow,” says Ms. Blanchard. “We’re not a three- or four-legged stool, we’re a millipede.”

In 2014, Neighborhood Centers’ career offices secured jobs for 110,000 people. Collaborating with local community colleges, the nonprofit trained 5,600 for careers in welding and pipe-fitting, skills needed to work at the Port of Houston, in classes that run past midnight to meet the demand. Classes teach Latina stay-at-home moms how to turn their talents as cake makers into small businesses by advertising on Facebook and securing bulk purchases from grocery stores. Other women learn how to run a thrift store, giving them an entree into retailing.

Tax preparation turns out to be a pressing need in these communities because local tax preparers used to gouge residents, taking a 50 percent cut of refunds for filing a simple return. Now volunteers at several sites handle the paperwork for 177,000 residents, which saved them $234 million in the past five years. The organization also operates 14 high-caliber pre-kindergartens and charter schools. In every grade, charter students’ test scores were higher than in the neighborhood public schools.

Neighborhood Centers has another mission — preparing local leaders to make the political system work for them. Some of the nonprofit’s English classes incorporate lessons in civics to give immigrants, who typically avoid politics, an understanding of what they can do to improve their own communities.

To get a feel for the residents’ concerns, I sat in on one session. “Voting isn’t the only thing you can do to be involved,” Graci Garces tells a class of about a dozen adults at the Neighborhood Center in Pasadena, a low-income, predominantly Latino Houston suburb. “Do you know who to go to with a problem about a pothole in your street — about your school?”

“What do you wish could be improved?” she asks. Public transportation, neighborhood services and security are among the first responses. “During a campaign,” she explains, “you don’t have to be a citizen to raise these concerns. You can go to candidates’ forums, be a voice in the community.”

The 94 students in last year’s Pasadena “community engineers” class learned how to make an effective political case for themselves. Decent transportation was the community’s priority, since many of them had to walk a long way to the nearest grocery store or health clinic, and residents persuaded the City Council to operate a new bus line. Two graduates of the class have gone further — they’re running for Council seats.

At the Baker-Ripley Neighborhood Center — a 75,000-square-foot campus in Gulfton, the port of entry for many immigrants, which used to have one of the highest juvenile crime ZIP codes in the state — I met with a group of 10th-grade boys. These teenagers spent several years designing a skateboard park for their neighborhood. With coaching from the staff, they won over a skeptical city parks and recreation director, gained the support of a City Council member and persuaded the Houston City Council, not known for profligacy, to spend $400,000 on the project. “It was cool,” said one of the boys, “that someone important cared.”

“Neighborhood Centers illustrates what it means to embrace democratic change and build a new work force — a new America — at metropolitan scale,” says Bruce Katz, a vice president at the Brookings Institution and founding director of its Metropolitan Policy Program.

Nonprofits elsewhere have devised similarly bold initiatives. Purpose Built Communities, a 12-city network introduced in 2009, combines mixed-income housing with a cradle-to-college education pipeline, job opportunities and an array of services. “We’re focusing on the human side of the equation,” says its president, Carol Naughton. “Our ambition is to help neighborhoods and people reach their full potential.” The success of the flagship Atlanta initiative, begun in 1995, which has reduced crime and improved school achievement in what used to be one of the city’s most troubled neighborhoods, shows the potential of this approach.

Community development isn’t a quick fix. It’s hard work and it takes time. But what’s happening in Houston, Atlanta and elsewhere shows that it’s worth doing.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

White House Demo Day - #WHDemoDay

White House Demo Day 

Opening the doors to entrepreneurs from across the country.

                                              TUNE IN
Come back to this page on August 4 between 1:30 and 4PM

      Participate online using the hashtag #WHDemoDay
Tomorrow, Tuesday, August 4, the White House is hosting a Demo Day where we will showcase the wide-ranging talents of innovators from across the country. Unlike a private-sector Demo Day, where entrepreneurs “pitch” their ideas to funders, innovators from around the country will join President Obama to “demo” their individual success stories and show why we need to give every American the opportunity to pursue their bold, game-changing ideas.
But we don’t want the day’s activity to be limited to events in Washington, DC. That’s why we’re encouraging entrepreneurs, innovation spaces, universities, and more to host their own Demo Day events and follow along live as we engage in a conversation about how we can ensure that everyone has access to the tools and resources they need to make their ideas a reality.

How Can You Join In On August 4

Host a Watch Party:
Whether in your garage, dorm room, or Maker space, gather members of your community to tune in to the White House’s Demo Day activities and have a discussion about the challenges and opportunities facing entrepreneurs. Demo Day is a great opportunity to connect with other people and organizations in your community.

Here are some ways to organize events on Demo Day:

Individual
Individuals
Individuals can volunteer to mentor and share their skills by hosting workshops or classes in areas of their community that have fewer opportunities for designing and developing businesses.
 
Colleges and Universities
Colleges and Universities
Colleges and universities can host events at on-campus spaces or programs that are accessible to students, faculty and the broader local community to dream, design, and build their own businesses or products. They can also share best practices with other educational institutions through networks and communities of practice.
Companies
Companies
Companies can highlight entrepreneurship in their community by helping designers, inventors, and other aspiring entrepreneurs create American jobs by navigating the startup transition from ideation to realization, or in creating sustainable business plans that help nascent companies to develop.
 
Entrepreneurial financing establishments
Entrepreneurial financing establishments
Entrepreneurial financing establishments like venture capital firms, the angel investment community, and crowdfunding entities—can showcase their efforts to expand access to capital and educate and inspire more entrepreneurs to seek funding for their business in creative ways, like hosting an educational workshop or panel or by volunteering their time in local innovation spaces to help entrepreneurs prepare effective pitches or presentations for funding.

Monday, August 3, 2015

Open Office Design/Future of Work (Free Press, Read All About It!) + Deep Dive - Design Matters with Ben Watson (Herman Miller)

Office design today embraces flexible workspaces


Everywhere, the presence of laptops, tablets, and smart phones means more work is getting done far from a cubicle.


The millennial generation, those young folks mostly in their 20s, get the credit or blame for a lot of changes in our workplaces today just as the baby boomers did in their day.
But the experts at Herman Miller, the legendary maker of office furniture based in western Michigan, offer a counter view: They say it's the nature of our daily tasks that has changed our office designs, not the age of the people sitting at the desk.
Ryan Anderson, the leader of Herman Miller's technology insight and exploration team, said sweeping changes in office design today reflect a more collaborative team approach to achieving work goals. No longer does a worker labor more or less in isolation at his or her high-walled cubicle. Rather, that same worker may be roaming about the office from small-group meeting to small-group meeting carrying a laptop or tablet as they go. Age doesn't really matter.
"For me, it’s really about changes in work versus changes in generations," Anderson said last week.
Gretta Peterson, a workplace consultant for Herman Miller, echoed that.
"I think a lot of the differences between generations has been somewhat exaggerated," she said. "Most work has changed and most offices haven’t, so it’s become harder for people of all ages to thrive in the workplace."
Herman Miller, like Steelcase and other Michigan furniture makers, has been at the forefront of understanding changes in how we work and what it means for office design. One obvious point: Office design today calls for less space dedicated to an individual worker and more space dedicated to collaborative tasks.
Gone are the high-walled cubicles of the past. Today we see more flexible meeting spaces with easily adjustable furniture. White boards to scribble on during meetings are common throughout a workspace.
A case in point here at the Free Press: Last fall, the newspaper moved its offices from its traditional newspaper building at 615 W. Lafayette to the renovated Federal Reserve Building at 160 W. Fort owned by businessman Dan Gilbert. At the new location, there are fewer private offices than in the older building, and individual desk spaces are somewhat smaller. But there are many more meeting or "huddle" rooms of various sizes, equipped with power outlets and white boards to draw on.
Everywhere, the presence of laptops, tablets, and smartphones — and the wide availability of reliable Wi-Fi connections in so many places — means more work is getting done far from a cubicle.
"Companies should no longer assume that they’re employees do most of their work in one spot," Anderson said. "The fundamental premises for the way most offices were laid out 15 years ago are miles away from these kinds of realities."
In one way, millennials are promoting these changes because they expect the same sort flexible work arrangements they enjoyed on college campuses. There, they had the choice of working at the student union, the library, their dorm room, and several other places. "And they get in the office and they’re like, 'You want me to sit there? Where are the other five places I can choose from?' " Anderson said.
But boomers and generation X'ers are using flexible workspaces just as much as millennials, he added.
For furniture makers like Herman Miller, staying on top of the trend means designing products that fit this new flexible, collaborative model. Even 10 years ago, adjusting office cubicles meant calling in work crews on the weekend to rebuild the workspace.
More often now, Anderson said, office furniture is smaller, lighter, and flexible enough to adjust by hand.
It's all part of inventing the workplaces of today and tomorrow. And Michigan firms like Herman Miller, now as in past decades, are at the forefront of understanding and responding to those changes.
Contact John Gallagher: 313-222-5173 or gallagher@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @jgallagherfreep.



Deep Dive: