Open + Care with Ezio Manzini and online conversation
Personally, but also from the point of view of the institution which I represent in the Opencare consortium (City of Milano), I feel I have not yet found the right “levers” to push people on the platform. I’m also aware that for this reason we (City of Milan) risk to lose the opportunity to be effective in enriching the online conversation.
We tried to do that, through reporting on offline activities, but maybe this is not the best way (too indirect and “scholastic”).
The fellowships could work well, but maybe we need also different tools, which are capable to affect the quantity and quality of the interactions.
As we said this morning, one possibility could be to formulate more precise questions, focusing on different “axes”/actions of OpenCare project. This could maybe help us to “attract” people interested/competent in some specific area of our research/action and catalyse interactions and mutual learning. Does it make sense? Did you take any decision at the end of the workshop?
Each partner has its own perspective and one of the challenging aspects of the project is “multiplicity in unit”, as Alberto wrote some days ago. For this I am trying to imagine how we could better position the perspective of each of us within the common frame of OpenCare.
If I look at the “local activities” we have developed in Milan during the previous month I would start from these points:
What could be the added value of adopting a “maker/fablab” approach to “reframe” care systems pushing this kind of tools/skills/places into “community-driven” care systems?
Which role can play the public actor?
Which are the favorable conditions (context, type of communities, types of problem/demand of care…) in which this approach can be helpful and generative of innovation?
In my opinion, and adopting the perspective of Ezio Manzini (networks of care), the “fablab concept/approach” that we are following in the “milanese pilot” (which intersects care; skills/education (learning by doing); sustainable development, and surely other things…) could be one of the strategic assets within a broader ecosystem where more actors are included and play different roles (citizens as care recipients and care-givers, administrations, public health institutions and professionals, no profit organization and so on…).
Following this argument, the “artefacts/services/devices” that WeMake will prototype at the end of the co-design sessions are not the final result of the process. In my mind final results (to be evaluated) are related to the questions listed above.
“Communities” (and here I have in mind: something that is not “families”, not individuals, but people linked by a common interest/purpose; so I would say “elective comunities”) are the propulsive force and nodes of the ecosystem. People act together as they are moved by a common challenge (not “need” if you don’t like the term) which is not answered by traditional/closed systems.
Platforms (not only digital, but maybe also physical) could help to organize and improve the ecosystem (I’ll come back to this point using the example of “Welfare di tutti” in Milan).
Thanks to Ezio and to all of you for the challenging discussion!
…and sorry for the amount of errors that you will find in this text.
I’m going from one plane to another and I have no time for check