Why Your Users Are About to Build Workarounds Around You / Mai-Ling Garcia / Episode #260

Hi, this is my Ling Garcia and this is the service design [music] show episode 260. Co-creation. We use that word all the time. It sounds generally inclusive, right? But I've been wondering lately, what if using jargon like that actually positions us as some sort of design Illuminati? What if the language we use to sound empathetic is quietly building walls instead of bridges? Hi, my name is Mark Fontine and this is the service design show. Our goal here is to figure out together what it actually takes to design services that work for people, businesses, and for the planet. Our guest today is Miling Garcia. Now, before we started recording, Mileing joked that she's the kind of person who would bring index cards and postits to a campfire chat. She likes structure, but ironically, her day job is getting massive, rigid government institutions to let go of their structure and get comfortable with uncertainty. She's a strategic advisor who has worked with cities like Oakland and San Francisco and now she's actually deeply focused on how we actually hand power back to citizens. She even built something called Design League in Oakland to bring local talent into government roles without requiring traditional degrees. We get into some uncomfortable territory today. Mileing argues that our field's obsession with empathy has actually become somewhat of a trap. We spend so much time trying to understand people that we forget to actually share decision-making power with them. We also talk about a very near future where citizens get so fed up with broken public services that they use just AI to bypass them entirely. I have to say that hearing someone push back on empathy, which is basically the holy grail of service design is a powerful reality check. It could very well just change how you look at the tools we use every day. So, grab your notebook and let's jump into the conversation with Miling and I'll catch you at the end to wrap the things up. Welcome to the show, Miling. >> Hi. Hi, Mark. How are you doing? >> I'm doing well. Um, I was looking at your LinkedIn profile. I was reading through the notes that you shared with me and then I was sort of trying to paint a mental picture of your place in the public service ecosystem. >> I was struggling. [laughter] May maybe you can can help us out a little bit and sort of set the stage like um how do you see yourself? Where are you in this public services ecosystem? >> Oh, that's a great question. And I I mean I think I started out working in cities. That's really where I cut my teeth. Um you know I think you and I chatted a while back, but we you know I I started working at the city of Oakland, then the city of San Francisco. I worked in Johns Hopkins. I've had an opportunity to work with cities all over the world. So I think my heart is really really in cities. Um how to shift them, how to change them, how to make them more creative, wonderful places for people to live and also to support the people that live within them. Um and I think my role in that ecosystem is really to um be a strategist, be a change management agent. Um I started doing this work uh by leading and developing products in cities um namely the city of Oakland, California. So that's really my sort of like formative I think stages is really thinking through how we can better engage and offer services by leveraging technology. And I think that that's evolved um quite a bit to really thinking about how to like broaden and better serve communities. Um that can look like a lot of different things. So hopefully that gives you a little bit of of insight into where I am in terms of you know leading teams, giving good advice. Um I think [laughter] and and learning and learning the hard way by implementing products and projects. you know, I do I do actual like implementations from time to time. >> Yeah. So, I'm hearing cities, I'm hearing technology, I'm hearing strategy, I'm hearing creativity, uh I'm hearing um involving uh people. So, there are a lot of things we can unpack and we surely will, but I would like to start with something that sort of rattled my cage when I was reading through the notes. Um that's quite a provocative statement from you. >> Okay. Uh and um you mentioned to me that you feel that for the last years, who knows decades, we as a design profession um maybe have overindexed on empathy and sort of underindexed on a different axis. Um do you still feel that way and if so why? How? Tell us more. Empathy seems like the core of what we do. >> Yeah. I mean, and it's not that I don't I think I'm trying, first of all, I'm like trying to remember what I wrote, but the second thing is I'm also, you know, I think in the moment, and I think one of the things that I've I've talked to is not that empathy is a bad thing necessarily at all and not that it shouldn't be a value. Um, but I also think there's a lot of opportunity to empower the people that we're working with. And I think sometimes when you overindex an an empathy, you sort of take control a little bit too much of your own power without relinquishing it to others. In fact, there's a word that I actually do have a really strong allergy to. Like often I think in these spaces you hear hear the term co-create. It's like my least favorite word um ever. I I can't I can't stand it. Um, and I and I think I think one of the reasons why I have such an allergy is one there's many words that like already like speak to co-create like collaborate, create together that I think are much plainer spoken and I think feel less like jargony particularly to people that aren't in these spaces that are designing with designers. And I think often times like co-create can actually be really off-putting to the people we're trying to like impact the most. when they hear co-create, like I think what they hear is you the designer or you the person sort of in charge of the project, which often is me. Sometimes I'm referred to as a designer, sometimes as a strategist. Um, and other roles that I might play, director, whatever, whatever your title is, right? Like I I think that they hear somebody like me or somebody else say, "Oh, well, we're going to co-create today." Um, and it puts you in a position of authority to define a word that they don't understand, right? um that feels very insider baseball. So, I don't really like to use like terms like co-create um because I feel like sometimes it feels like uh a little bit like we're separating or dividing um you know the people that we're trying to benefit between the sort of Illuminati of designers and experts. That makes uh a lot of sense and I would say it's not um I think for most of us listening this will not be something that is intentional like the empathy aspect is something that we do uh with the intention to actually help people to better understand them to sort of >> help them uh move forward. But when I hear you share this example, um if you we are taking in too much empathy, we are actually removing power from the people who could be leading the process. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah, that's that's exactly right. I mean, I I I think, you know, we overindex on empathy and don't really recognize the power that we bring into a room when we're well paid, well-dressed, you know, whatever those those things are, those isms, those expectations are uh when coming into a room. Um, and I and I think that people really need to understand what that power dynamic sets up, particularly when you're doing um service design and design work in the public sector. I think it's a really important thing to be attuned to and understanding. >> Have you seen examples where this overindexing on empathy actually played out in practice and where it sort of backfired? >> Yeah, I mean I'll tell you even my my time in Oakland, I'm I'm thinking one of my uh favorite people that I've worked with was probably one of the people that called me out like the hardest in my work really early on. I uh had a chance to work with a community organizer um on some of Oakland's resiliency strategy. Um so some of that was like technology. She was a much older black woman from West Oakland. Um and I think you know I I used the word co-create and she told me I'm not co-creating anything with you. Like [laughter] she was really I think uh blunt and blatant. And the reason why she said that is she explained to me basically what I'm explaining to you. And again, this was a decade ago. Um, which is that, you know, she didn't really like understand or even like appreciate. And I don't think co-create, by the way, was the only word. There were like many words that were sort of like being inserted into the lexicon. And it's not because she couldn't actually understand or comprehend what they meant, right? But she didn't understand and comprehend what they meant to me. Um, and as the person that's coming in, you know, leading a project, designing like a public engagement sequence, right? Coming up with a strategy for the way that technology is going to be deployed in a place and getting a sense of place like I think that you need to really come to that with a lot of humility. Um, and I think people know, right? Um, and I I use that example to say like people will call you out and and only if you're fortunate enough for people to call you out actually. Um, and I was fortunate enough I have very like it's been many years. I think we've had a long-standing relationship. But I think you have to like accept those things with grace. Um, and understand when I think those power dynamics are at play. >> So, okay. What is I maybe alternative is not the right word and I I like the fact that you said uh humility. I was thinking about humbleness. Um >> yeah, >> how do how do we know how well somebody can call you out but how did we know how can we know that um women maybe overstepping or sort of should take a step back and be more humble? Like have you found that there are clear signals? Yeah, I mean obviously the call out is the biggest one, right? Like I said, if you're actually if you're if it's the easiest one if you're fortunate enough, somebody will just tell you, right? And I was for I was fortunate in that sense. Some people some people don't appreciate that. I do. I I want people to kind of like come and and talk to me about things. I I think you know some of the things that I've noticed are the amount of engagement that you're seeing um in a room in a conversation, how much buyin you're getting. I think like you know those things that we sort of like see as as subtleties um or like maybe even typical in a pro a design process or trying to like redesign a service, trying to reimagine a problem, etc. and you're not necessarily getting the fortitude, the buyin, the sort of investment I think from, you know, your stakeholders like even showing up. I I yeah, I I think that those are like the indicators, right? And sometimes I think we overindex on like, oh well, let me make a better deck. Let me make a better blueprint. Let me make a better journey map. Let me, you know, do like provide better artifacts, right? And so you invest lots of time in the artifacts. I think that sometimes the problem is maybe like far simpler than that. Um that it is perhaps that they're not connecting or resonating um with a problem that they probably know very well in actuality. >> Yeah, it sounds like uh the typical example of when we sort of take a step forward, it's very easy for the people around us to take a step back. Uh and when uh when we're sort of filling the space or filling the room >> intentionally or unintentionally with with empathy um >> like it's it's quite obvious that people can then take a step back and be less engaged and um and feel maybe less empowered from that perspective because you're the one stepping forward. >> Yeah. >> Can have a lot of empathy for somebody in that case. But if there's a power dynamic and they're really strug like wanting to like feel like they're trying to restore that balance, I think it's really hard to move around that even if you have a ton of empathy for somebody, you know. >> How um how are you okay? So you had this experience let's say a decade ago. How has this changed your approach? Um well, you know, I think especially since beyond that, I mean, those are the the sort of miscommunications and miscalculations you can have when you're speaking the same language. I think I've had an opportunity to work with lots of uh people in Latin America um and Europe and obviously not everybody is speaking English in those cases and maybe you know sometimes they are but perhaps it's not their first language. So I I think that one of the things uh that I have tried to do is be a little bit self-deprecating. I mean one of the things one of the phrases that I learned how to say in Spanish which by the way my Spanish is terrible is loento um which is my Spanish is I'm sorry my Spanish is very bad. [laughter] um and really make sure that I'm coming to a place in conversation uh with a lot of humility, a lot of air towards understanding and really coming from a place of listening. And so the question is like, oh, how do you listen if you can't understand? I mean, obviously there's interpretation, but that also means that you have to like actually take a little bit more time than maybe you had anticipated. And as somebody like myself, I I think that we talked about this for a few minutes offline that might bring Post-its to a fireside chat. um [laughter] who likes to be prepared, who likes to be scheduled, and is like um pretty regimented in that way. I think I've really had to learn to pace my opening conversations and also like I think really understand and value like the person and understand their values um in order to really bring some equilibrium to some of the power dynamics that maybe there are also just maybe perceived, right? um and to recalibrate that a little bit so that we can kind of like come to a better better resolution. I know that sounds like probably a lot of like soft skills and talk. So unpack that a little bit. So, uh, when you say, um, for example, take more time for the opening, uh, conversation or, uh, or better understand their values, it does sound like what you're describing is sort of showing empathy or sort of tapping into your empathy towards the other person. >> Well, maybe maybe empathy is sort of like step mini step before coming into power possibly, right? Or like understanding like power dynamics. I think we again You know, I would say it's not that I don't necessarily value empathy. I I just think that there are a lot of other things I think that come into play. Um, and again, you know, depending on what your role is, depending on how you're sort of positioned in in the ecosystem or the problem you're trying to solve. Um, you know, I think power is the thing that you sort of have to pay attention to like not just not just again if I have power or if somebody else has power, more like well, how can you like reccalibrate that particularly in a design situation when you're trying to flatten that a little bit in order to get to a shared outcome that you both want? >> When you speak about power, what kind of power? Power to do what? >> Um, you know, I think that's a great question. I think for me it's really about decision- making and execution. who can make decisions about money, time, and resources I think is always always the biggest ones, right? Um, and if you yourself have decision-making authority over time, money, and resources, agendas even, um, you know, that's something that I learned pretty acutely, I think, in in this process where, you know, learned a lot about is like people people want to be part of even like the agenda making process and understanding like, you know, determining what's important and what's a priority is such a big deal. Right. >> Yeah. It change well it changes the complete dynamic of whether you're a participant a bystander who sometimes can um say something interesting or smart or whether or not this is something >> you feel responsible for you take accountability for you are uh literally bought into I guess. >> Yeah. No, >> the the other thing that you mentioned was about traveling to other countries and for example not speaking the language. We've had that conversation in the past a few times on the show and I actually think that that is um sort of a big benefit because that requires you to sort of be humble and uh not make assumptions and um accept the fact that that you're a stranger in this new context and ask the questions that you maybe otherwise wouldn't ask. But it's so hard, of course, to do this in our familiar environment where you've grown up, where you've worked for I don't know how many years. Um, and think Yeah. like adopt a beginner's mindset. It's It's hard to be humble in those Well, yeah. Yeah. Humble or humility. Uh, yeah. >> Yeah. I I I I agree with you. So, I mean, I'm I I think that it does force that you don't necessarily I mean, you clearly don't know a lot, right? Like, and and also people by virtue of the fact that you just can't speak, which you would normally not have to think about in your day-to-day context, uh requires also you to sort of admit that first of all, you don't know how to talk, right, [laughter] or communicate like your needs. Um I have a I have a 2-year-old. I have a toddler. Um and he's learning, I think, to communicate his needs. And I think uh you know I mean everybody knows like at this age they there's a saying like the terrible twos I think is what it is. I don't know that it's that terrible um but what you know you're noticing there is that like they're desperate to communicate. Um but they also like listen to you sometimes. Maybe maybe maybe that's a hit and missing but they they do like they know that you're the parent, right? and they they recognize that whether or not maybe they listen as consistently as you would like. Um they do recognize that you're the parent. They seek comfort. They seek, you know, you out um for and and they're more vulnerable with you, I think, because they can't really say exactly what they mean. Um and I think that that vulnerability is actually really important um in these conversations. >> Important topic to to highlight. And um I want to see if I can make a a beautiful transition into an area that I'd like to explore next with you. And that is >> um the same um maybe feeling of powerlessness. Uh the same feeling of being a bystander that sometimes the people we work with and for have. Um I feel that that sense is now also sometimes u present in our community when we see how technology is starting to drive the conversation and start to drive the decision making. Um, and I'm curious how you see design and the role of design in this whole space of accelerating technology and the mix of public services. Um, I think you have some ideas around that, right? >> Yeah. I mean, I I I don't know. I'm probably going to sound very grandiose, but I think it's everything, right? like anybody, you know, now I I feel like you have the ability to vibe code and kind of dream and envision and bring to life things in a way um that you haven't before with the advent of AI and other things. That part I actually think in some ways, yes, is maybe very scary, but in other ways is is really liberating because I actually think that it empowers more people to be the designer, right? actually the people that make the important choices are the people not the you know necessarily like it it's not over um indexing or sort of thinking on the the builder or the constructor but it is the person who can ask the thoughtful questions who can really think about like strategic easy to use um processes that sort of like like win in this case like what what can make us fundamentally more human and I think even if you look at like anthropic for example like their whole brand is built around like human connection their fonts are sort of stylized in that way all of their you know sort of like supporting artwork is stylized that way their content when it's delivered to you even though it's like an AI you know generated response a lot of it is intended to be like slightly more personal than than robotic. And I think that to me those are all indicators that one I think the designers that did that are obviously like matter much. Um but also two like outside of the realm of the tech industry it is it is the era of the designer and the person that can be nimble the person that can reframe problems the person that can really like understand um patterns and and attune and sort of make corrections and think about them strategically. I think that that's what this is to me. Uh so I think there's a lot of profound opportunity in that. >> Yes, opportunity for sure. At the same time, I'm seeing uh a lot of folks um being [clears throat] hesitant or not not knowing where their place is and not not not >> experimenting or trying this >> stuff out. And then um maybe the word isn't complaining but uh so I'm looking for words like being the victim of everybody else who is taking charge and uh people who are comfortable more comfortable with technology sort of leading the way and creating products services that uh sometimes uh hurt our design mindset design hard like what are you seeing in the design field practice, public space. >> I mean, I think the people that are doing and fairing well right now are comfortable with discomfort. Um, you know, which sounds a little uh contradictory, but I think that they are um accepting and settled with the fact that things are never sort of fully resolved. like they not only speak the sort of like iteration framework but I think that they have to embody it like it is the time right like where you you mentioned the phrase technology expert I would really like push in terms of like what a technology expert even is in this day and age like I feel like you could be you could go on vacation and lose your rank as a technology expert you know in a in a you know island in an island stay like something huge could happened which actually you know I'll share happened to me I went on maternity leave I think about the time that chat GPT came out [snorts] um and I remember thinking like oh like I need to spend like my maternity leave like figuring you know figuring out like how this is going to like impact the world and and governments and cities and that kind of thing. Well, I mean, you know, I'm sure I hope there's somebody in your audience laughing about this because this was obviously like my first first time parent dreams. Like, I spent no time, you know, in the first, I don't know, 90 days of of life [laughter] that I could get like attending to basically like anything outside of my house. >> [snorts] >> Um, and what that meant though was is that, you know, I really had to be comfortable coming into a state of unknowing and really understanding like what I did know before I went in, which is this is not a new topic and not a new technology by any stretch of the imagination. Um but obviously the world was changing uh really really rapidly and so I think that that has to be we we have to sit wi with a lot of the values that have been spoken about in design and actually like live them in practicality not just with our problems but with our own lives. >> Well easier said than done. Uh >> oh totally. And uh if we look at the organizations that you have worked with and for I don't think they are known for their uh nimleness, their experimentation mindset. How do we bring this into those u context? >> Yeah, you know, I I think it's I think it's a great question. I think you're right. I think the organizations are not uh which is perpetual need and employment I think in some respect right um that there's always a job to do I think there uh but I think in terms of of bringing them into organizations I I think it is a lot of what we talked about at the top of the conversation right like we we really need to acknowledge who's who is making decisions and who carries authority and power um in certain context. I think that that's one big element of it. And I I think, you know, one of the things that uh I did in my career, uh you asked what I was most proud of. Uh I was also just thinking about we had a design league uh when I was at the city of Oakland and this is my way of recruiting people that were local um into these these roles and these jobs. Um so one is is bringing in talent who feel like so like as passionately about things as you do. Um I think like understanding their motivations and that's precisely what we did. Uh they you know were a range of experiences that came. So some were like very very expert and some were much more junior I think in their approach and sensibility. But I can't say that any one of them, you know, was like more starw worthy than the other. Like they were all really really amazing people who are really committed to making change um in their city. And I think when you find people that share those values like I think you can either bring them in or you can find them in the organization. Like I think there's this this assumption just because that the or the the institution of thousands of people is totally oified that there's like no that there's like no talent within them and I think that that's a misnomer >> circles back to uh what we discussed earlier around power. apparently you were in a position or felt empowered enough to I don't know participate uh co organize something like a design week that brings in this energy right >> uh well yeah I mean I there was a there's been a few different events there's some uh that we're thinking about or where we will be doing um so one is you know as a participant I think maybe when I mentioned that you're you're talking about this is city camp um which is an event all over the United States. It was an unconference. So you know the participants themselves sort of would come and aggregate together and they would sort of determine the agenda that that was like part of the process was to like unconference and do that. Um yeah so I I participated in that organization particularly from the perspective of cities. Um, you know, we're going to be u piloting a small event with a political at the creative bureaucracy festival in June. Um, so I'm not sure when this this this uh episode will go live. Uh, but uh we're thinking also about, you know, where the good gets done around the world. Um, and really not just how to, it's very easy in design, especially when you look at a design flow. every every design process starts with how to align around the problem or define it or to narrow it, right? [snorts] Um and I think that that is essential and uh I also think that there often isn't enough sort of replication around like what what's working already. Um it assumes right like there there's a problem to be fixed and there certainly probably is. There's no shortage of the world's problems, right? uh here to say that but I think that you know one of the things that we're talking about is where the good gets done um and talking to people like globally and internationally about you know what are some of these examples of like a function right um because you know I think you mentioned like some of these institutions they're very hard but they're obviously still there for a reason if they were totally not working right if they if they served no purpose uh they wouldn't be there but they're obviously doing some things right um in order to exist and to persist. >> So what's the what are you seeing right now? Like where is where is this all heading to? Everything is in chaos right now due to technology, AI, reshaping everything. Everybody uh is trying to figure out what their next job will be because their previous job just got eliminated. Um we're looking for talent. organizations have no idea what their org structure needs to look like. Uh like where where do you see this heading? How how how is this developing? >> I think that's a really great question. I I actually think that you know and I I might be I might be an optimist. I just heard a saying this morning. I'm going to see if I can repeat it. I think the saying was that pessimists sound smart, optimists get things done or something like that. Um, and so I'm often often said that I'm an optimist. Uh, which there are many many sayings also about optimists. But I I I think that what we're going to see is a more nimble approach to teams um, approaching problems and like actually solving things. I think that what AI is affording us to do is affording individuals some of these maybe like smaller tasks and projects and jobs to accomplish. And I think what that means is that we can sort of like build teams up really quickly and disassemble teams also just as quickly which for some people might be a little bit disconcerting but in other ways like keeps the field like really like active and thriving. like I think it provides like an opportunity to bring like a lifeblood into like this type of work. >> If we go back like a lot of threads are connecting while uh we're talking. If we go back to your first point of uh power and empowerment and involving community, >> do you see a future where the community is actually going to build the solutions that they need because that sort of cost and effort to put let's say products or services into the world is at least digital ones is going basically to zero. So we as mediators, as as design translators, >> yeah, I I don't know if I think that the cost will go to zero. I think what we're investing in may be different. And what I hope is that it'll be better, right? Like I hope that we're investing in the expertise of people. Some people call that like lived experience, but I actually think lived experience equates to like design knowledge at the end of the day. um like how do we like make these really really critical decisions as you said as like technology sort of gets cheaper and cheaper to use in in some respects right like in some respects technology is getting cheaper to use in other respects we're building data centers for billions and billions of dollars so I think it depends on like where that investment lies um you know all that said I I do think that we're coming to a place and an era where communities will build um and will be empowered to build more of their responses and structures and tools. Um, which also means I wrote this article uh the demand machine I co-auth co-authored it recently. I also think that that means that there's going to be a huge demand on institutions because like all these things that were like obstructionist before like if you think about like Turboax and how Turboax in the United States is this tool for us to like write our taxes in the United States u because our tax code is like so insanely complex. I've heard that it's much more uh sane outside of the US, but in the US it's not. It's crazy. Uh so you actually need to like purchase technology to navigate it or a really skilled accountant. And I think that that's probably what we're going to find for a lot of services. I think because that will be like much cheaper to do an application like building an application um you know finding somebody with experience for maybe like a very quick intercept for example. I I think we're going to find that communities are not just going to like build solutions to their problem. I think they're going to build workarounds to our bad systems. And I think that that's really going to put a lot of pressure on a lot of these institutions um if they choose to refuse to change. And I think we're in this moment where actually maybe they could maybe you know the sort of like light bulb moments will start to put enough pressure where we'll force some some systematic shifts >> if people start creating workarounds and putting that into place for the bad services that we are delivering. Um [clears throat] I don't know you mentioned that it's going to put pressure on the institutions. Um >> yeah, >> how do you see that? and and you mentioned it it need they need to change >> I can also see a future where people will be less dependent on these institutions maybe not like can you give us some examples like let's do some f future scenario sketching >> yes I I'll give you a couple I mean this is already happening I think in New York in New York you're seeing like you know AI enabled uh parking tickets for example right like and we all know this has already been happening with street lights and and other things. Uh well well they're automating ticket issuing right through through cameras through you know sensor detection etc. I think the one that I'm thinking about was like in bus lanes right in New York City. Um and and what you'll see is like a lot of the demand generated there um some of it was legitimate. Some people deserve tickets right in that situation. other people not so much like right like it gave lots of error tickets I imagine that that could be seeing somebody drive by maybe sort of being you know a little bit within the frame like adjustments that we need to make etc so I think we're going to see like a period where there's like lots of different types of demand like some of it is going to be natural error others of it is going to be um you know actual legitimate demand like we'll be catching more things that are happening. And then like to your point about like circumvention if we think about things like permitting which you know uh what to my surprise is a global problem [laughter] um uh permitting buildings remodeling construction like all those kinds of things um seems to be a universal problem across the board. I think what we're I don't know that there's necessarily a way around that per se, right? I mean, yes, could you certainly like build without permits? In some cases, you can. I'd be hardressed to see people building skyscrapers and really big buildings without getting permits. Like, there's not a lot of competition, you know what I mean, for that. Now, could I see people working around that? Sure. Uh, but going around the institution completely, I think that we'd be hardressed to see some of that. So what's the additional pressure that you're we're forecasting? Where do you see that? >> Well, I I think you know I think if you only have so many workers, I think if you're working in a process that is 10 or 15 years old that doesn't really consider the fact that people now have access to these tools and fill out these applications in the blink of an eye, right? You're going to see more people applying for to receive a service to apply for a permit to like navigate a thing that used to have criteria and you know requirements and other things that would you know pace at least pace a process if not totally eliminate or bar somebody from participating altogether and I think that that's probably going to be I don't know if it's totally eliminated But you're going to see it less and less as people kind of like figure out workarounds. I mean, you're hearing people right like try to adjudicate or fight parking tickets, insurance companies in the US, like all kinds of other things using generative tools that are at their disposal. And with that means that people will sort of be able to apply more pressure that they otherwise wouldn't have time to do. Right. >> Yeah. It's it's sort of a denial of service attack by just flooding the system with Yeah. Yeah. overwhelming it with volume and then the system breaks down. Yeah. And and the change that needs to be made on the receiving end of these >> well it's not even workarounds like the process has just been optimized on the person for example who's asking for the permit. uh the person who's receiving that application, if they don't if they don't optimize their processes or find ways to eliminate the process, that's going to cause issues. >> Yeah, 100%. >> And do you see do you see a role for design in this tension that is already being created? >> Oh, 100%. I mean, I think design, which now really focuses on the like specific process, is also going to have to really look at some forecasting and even like predictive behavior, right? Like where are some bottlenecks? And and the reason for that is because I think what AI is doing, which it has not done before, is the speed, right? The speed at which these things are happening requires us to be a little bit more premeditative than it has before. And I think there's absolutely a role in design. Uh the skills are already there, the artifacts, the tools are already there to do this kind of work. Some people, you know, call this futures work. There's obviously classically trained economists. Um but there's only so many of that like I don't know like type of thinkers in the world. And I think what we do have at our disposal is designers who already have the toolkits like the way to assemble things, you know, the thinking, the approach. >> I'm hearing you sort of speak about on the one hand a very human approach, a humbleness, uh, not being able to speak a local language. So, sort of the the the superhuman vulnerable perspective. And now we're talking about, okay, everything is going to automate. Everything is going to be driven by technology. We'll have our AI bots call the city center to file a complaint against the ticket that we we got. Um, how how do you balance these two things? >> I think it's such a great that's such a great question. I, you know, I'm not a believer in um trickle down empathy or trickle down uh service delivery if that makes sense. Like I think what you often hear in government, it's probably one of my also uh have an allergy to this argument which is like if we just provide automated technology services to people then we can spend more time giving human services, right? And >> that's what Sam Oldman wants us to believe, right? >> Yeah. I mean I perhaps I you know and I I think that like but I also think that like designers and leaders have used that case for technology for all of time and [snorts] I and again going back to the beginning when we talk about power dynamics I think that we have been we have had that approach for 10 or 20 years and particularly even in the industry of civic technology public interest technology people have been trying to and have successfully implemented technology in public services and yet and still there are still these huge inequalities um that have happened and I think that what that requires then again is less of an attention to um empathy more of an attention to power and I think the question your question was like how do we balance this introduction of like technology that will be interfacing with the fact you know that we have like lots of humans Now, I think really what it boils down to is our technologies managing processes or really critical decisions. Um, and I think that the idea for me is that we don't hopefully let technology make lots of final decisions. And I think that we have a lot of cases at this point uh parking tickets uh police reporting and others here in the US is another example that I'm thinking of uh where when that decisioning authority is relegated and relinquished completely um to our most human functions. I mean I always say like cities really control the most intimate parts of our lives. our toilets, our kids, our streets, our lights, you know, our trees, like everything that you see every day is like part of this like ecosystem. And governments help make that decision. If we were to sort of say, well, AI can be our government and maybe we just have like one person, you know, the magic os behind the wheel or behind the curtain, so to speak. I don't know that that would actually function well for for people at the end of the day. So for me it's about you know are they helping with processing or is technology helping with decisioning and I feel like for me that at the moment feels like the line >> in the conversations that you are having with the leaders around you um how do you convey this message that we need to have humans making final decisions because the argument the promise of technology and like you said it's been debunked so many times but it's still so alluring is that when we put technology in place, everything will get faster, cheaper, better, we'll have more time to actually do those human things. In the end, it never materializes, but the argument is is very appealing if I would be in a city council for instance, right? It's how do how do you what do you say? How do you how do you have a conversation around that? >> I think that you can have I think you can have both. not decision-m and not decision- making, but I think that you can still have technology easing your time providing you with information that you would otherwise not have um to make better informed decisions. And I think that that is one of the luxuries that uh data that technology the synthesis of those things of products and good data like bring at the end of the day. Um, and so I think that that's the thing that I really try to underscore. It's not about replacing your people. And in fact, uh, you know, what I, uh, like to remind folks is that two things like one, you could keep your people and double your productivity is like another another way of looking at it, right? There was a great economist outside of the city of San Francisco who said said the same thing, Ted Egan. you know, like not groundbreaking, but also like very true, right? Like a lot of these layoffs that you're talking about could be taken in that approach. The second thing is [snorts] that um you're ultimately going to as we mentioned that that you're not the only one becoming more efficient, right? As a the organization is hopefully becoming more efficient, but your constituents are also becoming more efficient. And that's what we talked about a few minutes ago is that yes like there will be efficiencies and expeditiousness you know on both sides which still requires right like that human tension uh or that human sort of negotiation that happens amid the tensions that occur when that's happening. I think a lot of us who are listening right now will agree with you. Uh though it often feels so hard to cut through the noise that is created by the technology and uh help people to not only focus on the benefits of optimizing like like >> it feels like we're in a and maybe that's always been the case but again right now it feels like it's accelerating um a strive to optimization of everything like and And again, I'm not saying that it's bad, but it's it's probably not good if we do it at the cost of what? Maybe that's the question, right? What are we which guard rails >> uh are we putting in place to make sure that we don't lose the things that we will regret uh two, three, four, five years down the line, right? >> Yeah. I mean, you know, I think it's interesting. We're having this this conversation also about power and authority and I think that some of those guard rails are that right like I mean sometimes you know AI people refer to it as humans are in the loop. I've also heard people say humans are the loop um between technical interventions and decision-m but I I I actually do think that that's where a lot of this lies is not giving away our human authority. um which doesn't just require us to acknowledge power when we see it, but also sort of like understand it within ourselves and really to like call those things to task um when they're happening in the moment because I I don't think that the sort of like technology revolution is happening for us. Um I still think that there are a lot of small decisions that we can make in our day-to-day. Everything from the technologies that we use, the way that we use them, and the way that they inform our decision-m um are all choices that I think that most of us are going to make um and many of us are going to make. Um I don't know that we can make the choice if AI is going to be here or if it's leaving. I think it's here. [laughter] But we do have a lot of opportunity within that reality to decide how we're going to like interact and engage with it. And that in order to make that decision, you have to be uh informed, aware, conscious, deliberate about what the world is that you want to live in like what you what you value. Uh because if you don't make that decision, somebody will and somebody will um >> decide in their best interest, which if you're lucky might overlap with your interest, but >> uh that's not guaranteed. And that is maybe the discussion and conversation that's not happening enough around me >> like what are the decisions? What is the direction that we feel you feel as a listener this needs to go into? >> I think I think we need to move away from conversations about expertise and readiness. So there's like individual expertise and organizational readiness. And I think that that presumes the thing that you just mentioned, Mark, which is it assumes that we're just adopting what's out there, right? Like how ready or how skillful are you at using the tools that are available? How ready are you as an organization to like deploy AI? But it doesn't actually like require us to actually take a step back and ask like how do we actually design the technology? Not that the technology will design us. Um which the reality is it probably will do some of both. You're not going to design all the technology that you use, right? Um but it also means that there will probably be some opportunities for you to think very thoughtfully about uh designing the technology that others use that communities use that cities use I think in in in my context. Um but also like what is the goal and purpose and also like what does success look like at the end of you know at the end of it >> the the narrative around us is very much or at least let let me stick with myself the the narrative around me is very much about um I think you use the word adoption and here's the technology how are you going to use it rather than what is it that you want to achieve why how is that important to you and that let's see >> how technology can support you in that way. It's it's it's being sort of spoonfed and it's being made very easy frictionless to adopt these new things in the way they are presented. Um and again that there there's an inherent risk there which I feel we haven't explored too much uh in our community yet. >> I mean it it feels a little bit like the precursor to the problem, right? like the problem statement, the problem definition is kind of like well you kind of have to like know what matters at all. Like before you can even determine what problems you focus in on like what are your values in order to kind of like determine those problems and that problem set um I think gets at the underpinning of of of your question. >> Yeah. And this I don't know how we got here but but I think we [laughter] are against uh adopting technology but uh if I look at the recent episodes also here on the show it's about mindfulness and knowing why how when you are actually making use of that and at again at which cost. >> Yes and I would say mindfulness and trust. I mean I I had a chance to work with a really great firm um in the UK actually and I think one of the things that they uh you know really uh spoke to me about was really earning trust. Technology can't earn trust right I mean this is the thing I could put I could put my phone in front of you my headset in front of you whatever my bank card but still even today there are people that don't trust those things enough to use them. We all know everybody's got at least one person, you know, in their lives where that's the case where they're like, "Ah, I don't turn my Alexa on, my voice activation, my face recognition." Right? Like people take these precautions and that's because the products themselves again don't convey trust. Humans have to earn trust. Um, and humans are the currency that sort of like or the people that have the currency of trust to give and to take. Um and I think without that you know we we sort of lose a lot of that autonomy and power that we you know discussed at at the beginning of of the conversation. We uh explored many avenues uh started uh with uh with power, with empathy, with humility, uh explored AI. Um >> what do you hope like if somebody has listened to our conversation up to this point? What's the one thing you hope they'll walk away with? >> I think hopefully a sense of optimism and opportunity for their place in the world. I I think people are struggling. There's been a lot of destabilizing like world events, things happening, everything from COVID to layoffs to, you know, etc. that I think have happened within a short span of time for humanity. And I I just see people um you know, looking for their place in the world. I don't know if they'll find it uh within the time span of our our podcast, but maybe there's like some nuggets of inspiration for that. I think number one. Uh number two, I think that maybe they'll think about doing their work differently. Um whether that's thinking about demand and adaptation and just thinking about this introduction of technology a little bit differently. Um and the third thing is is really about thinking through about how power um and their own power and the power of others really impacts the design process. Um, last but not least, uh, we always like to end on a question, something for us to think about after the episode has officially ended. What do you feel is worth of our time to think about? >> Um, I I hope we'll think about um how to earn trust and how to take back um some power, I think, from your technology and also how to give it to others. I I think that may may feel a bit a bit disenfranchised in the world. I think that that's those are the things I would ask folks to think about in the shower as they're mowing the lawn as they're pruning, >> taking back power, giving it back. Uh nice. Yeah, good questions to think about. Awesome. If people want to learn more about you and the things that you do, are there places you could direct them to? What's the what's the best place to find you? Yeah, I'm going to list uh two initiatives. Obviously, there's my site which is lingen company.com. Um so, you know, you can send sign up for a kind note occasionally for me. Um uh the other is uh bold public works is uh a collaborative that I'm working on that I'd invite people to kind of learn a little bit more about um to in include right to be more expansive to include more people into this space and to conver in in the conversation. So, um, those are my my two places that I would direct folks. >> Awesome. Great. >> I felt that this was a holistic, organic, uh, open conversation like we tried to do at the campfire. I didn't see any index cards, so [laughter] >> maybe not to bring them out. [clears throat] >> Maybe you had them somewhere. Uh, but uh, no, Meline, thanks. Uh, this was really inspiring, uh, thoughtprovoking. So, uh, yeah, thanks. Thanks for coming on. >> Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me. I don't know about you, but that conversation really has me questioning my defaults. The piece that stuck with me is Mileink's point about trust. Technology can process things. It can bypass broken systems, but it can never actually earn trust. As everyone rushes to automate their services, it's easy to feel like we're just along for the ride. But we're the ones who have to make sure that humans actually stay in the loop. We have to be the ones pushing our organizations to just stop empathizing with people and [music] start actually handing them some power. A big thanks to Mileing for coming on and challenging us. If you've enjoyed today's conversation, please do me one big favor. Click the like button on this video and most of all leave a short comment if you haven't done so already. not to feed the algorithms, but to let me know whether or not we are on the right track by addressing topics like this. Finally, before we part ways, please take a moment to reflect and celebrate that by joining us today, you've directed your attention towards learning and growing as a professional. So, from everyone who you are going to impact through your work, thank you for taking the time and making the commitment. My name is Mark Fontine and I look forward to having you with us again for a new conversation on the service design show. Take care and see you