We started by looking at the neologism ‘watercasting’, coined for the purposing of re-imagining what it is that we would be doing in the class.  Casting for the purpose of making a mold, a cast that one would find in theatre or film, to broadcast, and even futurecasting were brought up by some of the participants.

We discussed difficult and wicked problems by comparing them to tame ones such as one would find in science and engineering.  We formed groups based on complementary zodiac signs (in part to introduce forms of classification and grouping).  Students were asked to develop symbols or logos for each of the characteristics of difficult problems as described in Horst and Rittel (1973).  This required them not only to have read but to work toward synthesizing that information in the form of a visual response.

We ended the morning session by brainstorming and expanding a list of difficult problems associated with water. Pairs of students articulated the problems and then as a class we grouped them according to the themes they seemed to be suggesting.

After lunch I introduced the students to twitter and kluster, software platforms for 1) assembling a symphony of interactions around water in the case of twitter, and 2) choosing among proposed solutions in the case of kluster.

I asked students to come to the class with examples of good and bad design from around Srishti.  They described many instances, and for a minute it seemed as if it would be a ‘crib’ session about the things the students didn’t like.  Instead, we found out that things we might perceive as being ‘designed’ were often vestigial or happenstance.  We also used examples of so-called bad design to recognize was it is that we value that seemed to be missing.  In this way we turned these examples into opportunities as we transitioned into finding a list of criteria that we could use to evaluate or responses to difficult problems over the course of the semester.

We ended the afternoon session by compiling a list of these criteria as a first step towards understanding what kinds of traits our designs should have if they were going to be progressive responses.