Architecture + Decision Design + Learning Spaces + Strategy with Adam Griff - DT101 E142

Speaker A: Welcome to the Design Thinking 101 podcast. We help people think and solve like a designer. Our guests share stories, lessons, ideas, experience and insights developed while practicing, leading and teaching design thinking. They come to design thinking 101 from business, social innovation, education, design, government, healthcare and other fields to offer you what they've discovered about thinking and solving like a designer. I'm, um, Dejuan, Stanford, your Design Thinking 101 host. With a background in architecture, urban design and business strategy and operations, Adam Griff has spent two decades working in both a consulting role and executive role, developing and implementing strategies for complex organizations. Adam has led a diverse range of projects, including the adaptive reuse of downtown Los angeles into a 24. 7 neighborhood commercial real estate for a national franchise, and long term planning and real estate strategy for colleges and universities, including the SUNY system, MIT, UIUC and NYU. Today on the Design Thinking 101 podcast,

Speaker B: my guest is Adam Griff. Adam, welcome to the show.

Speaker C: It's great to be here. Thank you so much for inviting me to it.

Speaker B: Now, Adam, we talked about a bunch of things for the show and previous conversations, and I would like to, uh, have everyone understand how you arrived where you are as an architect and working with strategy and um, leading teams and getting pulled into design ops and doing all sorts of wonderful stuff that we're going to talk about in greater detail.

Speaker C: Sure. I'd be happy to share that. So, as you mentioned, I started off in architecture. And what I kind of really came to realize in my work in architecture was two things. One, what appealed to me about it was the way architecture taught you to think about systems and different systems and how they all come together to create an experience or develop like a clear concept. And I really like that process of taking that complexity and trying to find something simple and with clarity that solved these kind of thorny issues. Right. Uh, and I think that's something that I really loved about the field. And from that it led to working on startups and working on businesses. You know, it requires in many ways like the same kind of thinking and then I think ultimately into strategy. So not just doing it for the businesses that I'm involved in, but for other organizations and other clients and other people as well.

Speaker B: And when you think about your training and experience as an architect and uh, what you are called to, uh, do and wrestle with in strategy, how is your background both serving and informing how you approach strategy?

Speaker C: I think the interesting thing about architecture, right, is in a building you're dealing with a lot of constraints and a lot of different systems. There's structural, there's mechanical mmp, there's life safety, there's regulatory systems around zoning. So you have these kind of complex set of technical issues and you have to solve all those and you have to solve them well. But ultimately it's in the service, hopefully, if you do architecture. Right. Of the person who inhabits and lives in your building. And I think about strategy the same way is you're working through a lot of complexities and constraints, whether it's inside the organization itself or in the market or technical challenges, whatever it is. But you're doing all that in the service of delivering a specific experience for a very specific person.

Speaker B: And uh, what have you discovered about the sort, uh, of interaction between the architect's way of solving and designing and uh, applying that to strategy in environments like higher ed?

Speaker C: I think the key thing that's important when thinking about in terms of higher ed is, you know, I just mentioned a specific experience for a specific user. But architecture is ultimately about a really diverse community of people with very different needs that are using the building. And there's a lot of different stakeholders and groups that have a say and are involved in how a building is designed and what's happening with the building. Right. From a public, uh, government standpoint, from a community standpoint, from different tenants that may be in the building, from the institutions that are involved in the financing, investment. And so I think one thing that's really been applicable is just recognizing how to approach and bring together a diverse set of stakeholders and work with all of them and collaborate with all of them in the kind of creation of something.

Speaker B: And in that collaboration, how are you approaching the various people have different abilities in terms of being able to express their, express their ideas in relation to what is proposed or what is possible. How do you uh, do that? Listing that research that. Involving people in, in the creation in meaningful ways?

Speaker C: Yeah. So I think the first step in terms of kind of understanding their needs and their wants and motivations is you want to understand a person's kind of life and how they want to work and what their motivations are, but you don't want to ask them what they need directly. Right. So like what you want to do, you want to take that deep empathetic understanding and help translate that into specific kind of architectural needs or if it's higher education around like programs or buildings or so on. For a while I worked in Boston and whenever you talk to a group about, I did some urban design, like what you wanted this particular street to be or what was the kind of future of this street or this neighborhood. They would always say like oh, I want it to be like Newberry street. Because people always grasp for the things that they know and the things that they like. So I think an important part of it is just you never want to ask people for solutions. What you want to do is understand their life and then from that work with them to create solutions. I think it's a really important part of, in terms of like how we kind of conduct user research and how we kind of work with different groups. I think another part of it is just um, from a decision making part and like a kind of co creation perspective. You want to set goals and objectives so that there's a clear charter about what you're trying to accomplish. And so there's always a uh, neutral, agreed upon third party standard for the decisions in a certain way that comes from them. The decisions that you're going to make, that can still very messy but like always going back and like referring to that, when people will respond to that. That may take some negotiation and discussion to begin with. But to have that always in mind for each moment and recognize that everyone needs to advocate or agree to decisions or make decisions like through that lens I think is really important.

Speaker B: And um, how do you think about orchestrating those decision points or those periods of decision making?

Speaker C: That's a really good question. So I'm going to take a moment

Speaker B: to kind of tell you where I was coming from on that. We talked about uh, kind of the flavor of strategy in higher ed and uh, with a focus on organizational structure, goals and programs and the things related to student experience, student success, faculty experience and that's one way or uh, like sort of certain elements of strategy. And you'd mentioned seeing like people really leaning into, wait, how are we pulling uh, into our strategic work, all of the ways we can design the moments of decision and how can we craft those, those moments or those periods in time so that we're really using all of our excellence, we're really using all of our experience and using the uh, experience of third parties they're working with like yourself. And so I was just wondering how your thinking is in that space because you really sparked a lot of things for me in terms of thinking about. Oh yeah, the quality of your decisions. That's something I think about through the design process because there are all these decisions that have to be made along the way.

Speaker C: No, I uh, no that makes sense and I understand a little bit better now where you're coming from and I think where we started with this is we m were talking a little bit about issues of flexibility in colleges, universities and all the changes. And there's a lot of focus on staff and processes. But there wasn't as much focus on how what is like the decision making culture, right? And how people decide on things and how they come together to decide on things in a way that best like benefits, like the organization. How is the world's changing and particularly in higher education, it's like under a lot of stress at the moment and trying to adapt to demographic changes, to technology changes, to coming out of COVID and hybrid learning. There's a lot of focus on how staff is organized, the amount of staff, the use of technology, like the processes that are in place, designing experiences like service blueprints. But what there isn't a lot of focus on the organization is around like how decisions are made. Right. And the uh, kind of decision making culture. For a lot of private companies, especially like in kind of the technology world, all of the focus in this digital age has been conversations around how decisions are made, who needs to be involved, how they're involved, how often they discuss things like getting the most kind of productivity and meaning and quality out of each of those kind of conversations or like decisions that are made. When I'm designing a process and working with an organization, particularly higher education, like how do I think about designing that decision making process? There's a couple of different components of that are things that I really keep in mind important one is when you bring people into those moments, especially if they haven't been involved in the process all the way is that that context and that history is really important to understanding the decisions that need to make and the quality of those decisions. So I think finding ways to people into that context and that history and really orient them is really important. I think that also, and this isn't talked about as much but trust not every person will be able to be involved in every conversation and kind of every decision. When I worked with one university, one of the people that were part of the working group, she basically spent all her time going from meeting to meeting to meeting all these different topics because she felt like she was always in fear that if she wasn't in a specific meeting that a decision would be made that would affect and impact what she did and if she wasn't there she wouldn't have any influence of it and what her concerns are would not be taken account of. I think you have to think carefully about trust, about who's in the room and who's involved, but making sure that, uh, trusting those people, but making sure that they understand their kind of, let's call it, constituents, or the people on which they're making decision for well enough that they can really represent their concerns and represent their voice. And I think the third component of it, when I think about decision making, is everyone not only learns in a different way, but they process information and make judgments in a different way. And so being cognizant of the makeup of who's involved and how they like to receive information and what they need to make a good decision in terms of time and preparation and in terms of, like, discussion, I think also physical components are really important. You do not make good decisions when you're tired and you're hungry. Right. Like, I, that's. I, you know, I think that's often underestimated. So I think designing the experience of the decision in that sense can be, like, really important. I think also balancing. When you have multiple people that need to have a voice in it, you want to build consensus, and you want people to be able to respond to what other people are saying. But also individuals, there's kind of bias. Individuals move with the group in the direction of a group and so finding ways to get the input individually so they can have their unique perspective, but kind of bring it together in a way, uh, that's kind of helpful and kind of synergetic to, like, the overall decision that needs to be made. So, like, in brainstorming, you often bring it together in a way that's helpful and synergetic to the overall decision that needs to be made. So break out, and everyone does their individual brainstorming for a while, and then they come back and share and they riff off each other. If you brainstorm in a room together, the first two or three ideas that get shared, they're like anchors, and it's hard to move off of them. I think those are all things I think about in terms of quality decision making. And I guess the summary would be if you're thinking about those and you're designing those moments and you're designing those experiences, you shouldn't have to have a ton of them. And that slows everything down. And you should have trust from that larger community about the decisions that are made in it, which also can result in just like, continuing revisiting the same issues and having more and more conversations on it.

Speaker B: Yeah, when I'm. When I'm thinking about setting up people to, uh, decide, I'm looking at the Evidence in terms of, okay, like, what is the evidence that we can pull from the research that we can pull from? Like, do we have good evidence and do we have a shared understanding of what constitutes good evidence in this context? And uh, having people uh, come to that point and see that that's one of the building blocks of trust. Like first, like, okay, do we trust the evidence that we've gathered? And to the extent that there are holes in that evidentiary basis, because there always will be, are any of them uh, going to cause material failure in our decision making process or the things that we have? And then from there I'm looking at having everyone understand, okay, well, what does it mean to make a good decision in this context? What, uh, are the criteria for making a good uh, decision? And that sometimes can be established fairly quickly in terms of, hey, yeah, we're like, everyone's individually, uh, thinking about how you would decide on these three issues and then say, hey, like you have one space for talking about, here's what you would do. The other space for talking about why, and then another space for talking about hey, what in the. That evidentiary basis that we talked about supports your why. And I think the thing that I often wrestle with in uh, leading people, like leading the cre. Orchestrating the creation space, like leading that side, is helping people connect the decision and rationale to the evidentiary base. So yes, you're filtering it through your experience and this and that. Because there's that uh, sometimes that urge to just go with your gut.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: And it's like that will serve you well when you're trying to cross the street.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: Um, but it's dangerous in environments where the decisions build. There's a history to the development of evidence and uh, the wrestling you have to do around trust over time. Because depending on where you're involved, when you're involved, if you're not seeing that and not be able to like seeing those conversations, and you're also not privy to perhaps how the issue that is extremely important to you has been factored in in different ways that can result in some very emotional m moments when people feel that their identity is threatened or that their, the work they care about is threatened, or the way they understand their relation to uh, the institution or the world is threatened.

Speaker C: No, I think that's all really good points. And I focus a little bit more, let's say the organizational conditions. Right. But there's all this. Most of our decisions, as you point out, we like select the evidence that supports the decision that we already had in mind. And so it really takes a lot of work to break that down and get through that. I think what I would add to is you said, talked about what it is to make a decision and what's to make the decision we're making. I think an important part of that too is thinking about how are we going to use that decision. Right? And this comes up often a lot. And I think higher education, because when they think about making a decision, they think about it often through the lens of how they would think about research. And in research, the bar of support and evidence that is required to make a decision or, uh, to say, reach a decision or a conclusion is very, very high. And in some cases that may be appropriate for the decision that you're trying to make at the moment, and in other moments it may not be required. And oftentimes you lack the data and you lack the evidence to really make a decision of that quality. And oftentimes we talk about this as, you don't have to know if you're right, but you just have to know enough to feel like it's safe to try. And not every decision is permanent and is high risk and can't be reversed. So I think that's when you talk about the quality, the kind of decisions you're making. I think getting that on the table and uh, understanding how the decision is going to be made, how permanent, or like what are the consequences, really the consequences of the decision in that sense. And then what do you really need to know and understand not to make the perfect decision, but make a good decision to at least move forward, which you can always change. Direction is basically how life happens all the time, right? You never get it right the first time. I think that's all really good points about this process. And um, the last one of just the threat of decisions and change is the only thing I would add to that is there's like a bias of people overestimate the value of what they have and they underestimate the value of what the future is or what that. What they could have or what it would be like. Right? And so a lot of the decision equalize between what's real and what's tangible versus what's a kind of projection. You have to find ways in design to make that future as real and as tangible and as testable as possible. Right? Whether it's piloting or prototyping or whatever you do. So you can compare those two experiences in a certain way at kind of like an equal level and make judgments about it. Then.

Speaker B: And my brain, I'm not sure if you're a hugger, but in my brain I was hugging you because that concept of the way we make decisions around scholarship being very uh, different from the kind of decision making that is required of the administrative leaders. And some people do that, separate those very well. And a lot of people struggle. And ah, when you're, when you bring the uh, when you bring the scholarly rigor to uh, the sort of, that day to day administrative context and making decisions, it means that your tolerance for ambiguity has gone way down.

Speaker C: Mhm.

Speaker B: And there are ways in which you cannot lead. If you don't have enough tolerance for making decisions with incomplete information.

Speaker C: Right. Or the fact that you want to wait until, and sometimes that day never arrives. Until you have that level of complete information is not, is a decision in of itself. You have effectively made a decision by extending and waiting until you have more of that information. You haven't delayed the decision that as the kind of world continues, the move forward is a decision in itself. Right.

Speaker B: It's just a billboard.

Speaker C: You're like students. Your students are there for four years. So if you wait long enough, you're basically making a decision for an entirely new, different group of students than the ones that you talk to. Right. I think that's just uh, it's hard because the, the kind of standards of scholarship are very hard and people have worked really hard and like truly have dedicated themselves and deeply ethically believe in those standards. And that's like incredibly like admirable. And it's. So it's hard, it's difficult and for all of us to take away your working in a way that you're thinking and saying maybe this is not the best way to go about it in like this context. And that doesn't mean compromising on your values. Right?

Speaker B: Yeah, Yeah. I was thinking that there you arrive at a position of leadership in higher ed by getting right answers all through school and um, then dissertations and papers. And then you're in a discipline, you defend the walls of the discipline. This is, this is in, this is out. Then you argue about it at conferences, playfully I hope. But it's, there's a lot of getting right uh, answers and when you get into territory where that doesn't get you the outcome you want, being able to uh, experiment, being able to decide with incomplete information, saying, oh well, let's try something and yeah, we'll be wrong, but we'll learn and then we'll try something else. That way of thinking and doing doesn't do much. And you talked about the increasing need for flexibility when people are thinking about capital improvements in the future. And I'm wondering how you're factoring that into your design practice when we have the decision quality and approach and culture of where it is. But at the same time, you're seeing this need for greater flexibility in the built environment in general, perhaps, but especially on college campuses. So what's. What are you thinking there?

Speaker C: Before I answer that, I just want to go back to one thing you said, which is in academia, kind of careers are made on getting the right answers. I think that's not just the problem, limited necessarily to academia. Right. Because I find oftentimes the top students who, in this incredibly competitive academic environment, the valid Victorians of the world that get all the answers right, everything right. Often struggle when they come into the workplace for, like, exactly those same reasons.

Speaker B: Oh, m. Yeah.

Speaker C: Yeah. So I just wanted to, like, point that out. But let's keep moving and talk about, uh, flexibility. Yeah.

Speaker B: Because you don't want to get me started talking about grades.

Speaker C: Yeah, let's not go down that road. You know, there be dragons. Right. Let's just. Let's try another topic. Let's move on. Okay. Yeah. So you were saying flexibility. And I think we talked a lot about. I think a lot of this discussion was around some, like, organizational flexibility and something from. That's different about my practice and my work at Gensler and everything I'm doing at strategy and Gensler is it's both thinking about the physical space, but it's also thinking about kind of the strategy around, like, services and organizational strategy and looking at all those and how they come together. And so the one thing when I think about, I'll put on my architect cap. And then one thing when I think about flexibility around the physical campus and the physical assets is one way to begin is when, you know, space. Physical space can be like a huge capital investment, and it can be a, uh. It can take a long time realize and come to fruition and get built and opened. And you should think about space as no different than you would think about online and digital, no different than you would think about the other way, like, other services are delivered. Right. Like, space is another way to deliver services or deliver programs in addition to, like, an experience of itself. So one way to think about flexibility is to think about is space the right medium always for whatever it is we're trying to do? And I think that we learned a lot about that in Covid and, like, hybrid environments. Right. And so I Think, making, making sure you're committed to that. I think the other part about flexibility for space is think about buildings not as purpose built around. I guess we talk a lot about like multifunctional space. Right. And there's a lot of problems with the experience of multifunctional space. But besides the kind of what happens in a specific room and whether that room can serve other purposes, think about the kind of bones of a building and how easy it is to take the infrastructure and the structure of that building and convert it to other uses. The kind of physical. What's the word? I want to use the physical anatomy for lack of the word, like a good platform for being converted to all different kinds of uses. And I think there's a lot of that recognition and understanding going on right now with how buildings seem to be repositioning. And in downtowns it's from commercial to residential. And certain buildings can flex between those very well. And uh, in universities it could be, it's like office space. And can it be classrooms? Can it be labs? Sorry, can it convert to student housing? So I think thinking about your architecture at that level can also. And not just a multifunction room can also enable a lot more flexibility. Like in New York City. Think about the perennial loft building. It's used for a lot of different things, but there's certain kind of characteristics of that building that really, and an experience of it that really make it work for a lot of different functions over time.

Speaker B: I'm parsing lots of the things that you said, like that, that, that statement about is space the correct medium for the goals you're trying, trying to deal with and the, the challenges you're facing. The future you want to build, that, that's one piece. But also building buildings as platforms for human experience. And uh, I'm just getting my head around that because that, that shifts how I would think about them as a designer. And beyond the just the physical, just the intended use, being able to look into the, look into that future and will this capital investment give us the flexibility to handle the inevitable deviations from, um, the future we expect? And like currently, like the future we can conceive of like people who, that made capital investments in 2015, uh, and are looking like, oh yeah, we designed this for a world that in so many ways no longer exists. And the degree to which they had flexibility in mind will have a lot to do with how that investment turns out for them.

Speaker C: Right. And by the way, I think this is something that people don't think about and they don't recognize, but there's been a couple studies about this. But M. Over the lifetime of an investment, you will spend far much more money renovating that building and changing it for different uses than you actually will originally constructing it. Oftentimes, you know, when you think about your investment, don't just think about your investment in what you need to invest today to create that building, but think about what is the kind of lifetime investment that you're making to this as those inevitable changes happen. And it doesn't even have to be a change in use. Right. You could be talking about labs and changing lab sizes. It's like different research. Changes in the size of teams change and money flows into one area and out of other areas. And labs scale and size and shrink in size. Stuart Brand has. He's written a lot about how buildings change and how different systems within buildings change. So this is not necessarily kind of new thinking, but I think it's maybe something that's not thought enough about. Especially now in this kind of age of sustainability, when you're looking at overall life cycle costs and not just operational carbon, but embodied carbon. Right. There's an ethical mandate to look at it in this way as well.

Speaker B: And with that sustainability, many S's in sustainability, the sustainability life cycle view, there's also that placemaking component. The things we build exist in communities, they exist in places.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: And how are you thinking about place making and community as part of a. Part of strategy and part of the design projects that you're involved in?

Speaker C: I think that's important and I think the key consideration and um, colleges and universities are, I think I'm recognizing this more and more, is that they have to think about their future as no longer necessarily separate from the future of the place that they find themselves in. And those need to be thought about together. There's a recognition from both, kind of like the town and the gown to potentially not in all cases, unfortunately, but oftentimes partner on that because the relationships are in some respects symbiotic. I think that, uh, in a previous podcast one of your guests talked about, colleges and universities are really great at attracting talent, but they have to work with the cities and the towns that they find themselves in to retain that talent and help that place grow. From the cities or town standpoint, like that's really important. They want those businesses to stay, they want those students to stay and grow the economy. The kind of startups that get spun out of the colleges and universities. But from another standpoint, the colleges and universities, they're like universities, partnerships are really important. And so they want places that are appealing to the types of partners that they want to have in those areas as well. And so I think more and more those two are important, and they need to be thought of together and how they develop together, especially for those areas that are not those global or powerhouses or those university powerhouses and those, like, more regional areas that are trying to compete and find their place in kind of a global economy, as opposed to a regional or a national economy.

Speaker B: And one of the things that a lot of people forget is I think there are still somewhere around 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States. Yeah. And there's a huge sort of range of profiles and places, and a, uh, lot of provosts and vice provosts and university presidents are thinking about the, uh, next 10 to 20 years, especially in light of the first round of the. I think some people call the demographic cliff. But it was like, hey, remember back 2008, when people slowed down on all of those babies?

Speaker C: Right, right.

Speaker B: There's a little bit of. A little bit of a dip there. Well, that's the, uh, class that is much smaller. And so just the applicant pool being smaller and things that happened through Covid. So I'm thinking about just the. The degree to which that forces new thinking about place, about what the physical components of the university mean.

Speaker C: It's definitely an easy require to be more inventive and creative and at the same time, much more real about what the possibilities are. There's within kind of architecture and urban design right there. There is a lot of kind of discussion around this idea of stranded assets, like, huge investments and pieces of infrastructure that have, like, real value. But how can we revive them and make them useful and meaningful and relevant and economically productive? I'm, um, in New York City, so forgive my biases, but think about the High Line that was essentially a set of train tracks for the longest time, became like a stranded asset. It was abandoned. And how was that converted into this really meaningful and vibrant public park? That's one version of a stranded asset. And to Your point, there's 4,000 colleges and universities, but there's huge knowledge and human capital in each of those. And they, because of changes in the global economy and, like, demographics, I feel like in some ways they've been potentially cut off from the impact that they can have. And so those colleges and universities in some ways can be viewed and looked at as stranded assets. Right. And how can you reconnect them, um, to this larger set of culture and, like, the economy what are some inventive and creative ways that you can do that, but also a way that's real and defensible and like a position that place can own. Not every place is going to be the next Silicon Valley. Not every place is going to be like the next Research triangle. Right. When the colleges and universities look at the relationships with the place they are, you have to think about inventively and creatively about what that place can be. But you also have to be very, at the same time honest about who you are and what you can own in a globally competitive world.

Speaker B: And I've, when I've had conversations with university leaders and we're creating new things and redesigning things, I have often phrased it this way. What is uniquely possible here?

Speaker C: Exactly. That was much more succinctly said than my like 5 minute meandering explanation of it. You just, you said it in about three words.

Speaker B: I've said it thousands of times and there uh, are lots of amazing people who probably don't ever want to hear me say it again. Yeah, but it's pushing. It's like having a voice organizationally that can continue to push for what is uniquely possible here.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: Because like, you, like, just like them, and you're bringing people from the community together and they say, oh, well, we want our street to be like that, like this street.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: Well that's great. But let's get into what's uniquely possible here. Tell me a story about a really good date, like, oh, when you've had a good commute. What's like, tell me about a time that, that was fantastic when you've been like doing this or that. So it's getting those stories in this in the same way pulling people from the program, replication the uh, we aspire to be like University X. I should probably call it University H since that's usually where people's minds go. But it's pulling people back from that and saying, wait a minute, what is uniquely possible? With our history, with our talented faculty and staff, with the uh, students who are attracted to this kind of experience, with the alumni who ah, support and love what we are capable of, with the uh, business community and natural environment and other things where we are located. And there's also that ability to uh, both connect that to other spaces via uh, online learning. And some people think, oh, well, online is a separate thing, but it's in many ways a window into the physical space and can be strategically integrated into the learning environment. All of that are things to pull from in what is uniquely Possible at this institution, uh, at this time?

Speaker C: No, I think that's exactly right. And that can often be a challenge. Right. I think everyone, particularly for just the college and universities, because I think they really pride themselves on being able to serve a, uh, very wide population and all of their needs. And it's. Some colleges and universities are very good at it, but it's I think particularly for like regional colleges and universities who always understood their roles generally serving a region, now they have to think beyond that. And just like not how I generally serve a region with all these demographic changes and these kind of pressures and challenges, but how can I uniquely position myself what's uniquely possible in this place as well?

Speaker B: I'm glad you are out, uh, there helping people wrestle with these challenges, these ideas. Do you have any, uh, advice for the people, uh, in higher ed who are listening in terms of how to think about the next challenges with space and flexibility and that uh, sense of what's uniquely possible?

Speaker C: Yes, I would say one thing. When you think about space and the future of your space, don't think about besides what we just shared and add. Another thought is if you think about a kind of traditional master planning process, right? Master planning process is really based on these ideas of a known and certain future. These are exactly what our needs are going to be in the future. And these are exactly the steps we're going to take. Building here, converting here, moving people here, phasing it step by step to get to this like final state that's going to 20 years or 15 years or 10 years, whatever it is, serve perfectly what we understand with a relative level of certainty what our needs are going to be in the future. And we really moved away from that. And I would start saying, start thinking in terms of a set of possible futures, a set of possible scenarios, one of which could become true and uh, what I would call like a playbook, right. A set of options that can get you there that you're not locked into, but you are reasonably certain ultimately you can adjust and choose and will ultimately get you to where you need to be in the future. I would say more than thinking around a specific space, I would say that mindset change in terms of how you plan for the future is like, really important. I think colleges and universities recognize that, but they don't have a kind of process or a method to get them through the adaptations that they need to make. And that kind of like playbook thinking about in terms of scenarios in a playbook is what I would recommend as an important mind shift in how you think about planning for your future college and university.

Speaker B: Fantastic. Adam, where can people find out more about your work? If someone just heard that, it's like, oh, yeah, we need that and I need to find this guy so that. So, like. And you can help us do that. Where should they go looking?

Speaker C: I think the easiest place to find me is through Gensler. If you come to Gensler Strategy in New York, there's lots of ways to reach out to the studio in New York that I lead. I think I'm more than welcome to help anyone that they can. They're welcome to reach out directly to me, like through my email, which is Adam underscore.

Speaker B: No, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't do it. Don't, don't do it. Okay, what we'll put, we'll uh, put links in the show notes.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: For that. So that like, people can get you that way.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: Oh, so much can happen when, like you, you have your email address embedded in the podcast.

Speaker C: Yeah. So they could feel free to reach out to me directly. And I would also say the best way to learn more about the kind of thinking that's going on and a lot of what I shared is I'm deeply involved in working with Gensler and I think a lot of that thinking is you can find on our, uh, writing on the website and sign up for what we share there and you can reach out directly to the strategy group as well there.

Speaker B: Fantastic. We'll get all kinds of links into the show notes and so that hopefully there's some articles or case studies that you think are useful. And uh, Adam, I just want to say, once again, thank you. Thank you so much for joining me and dancing with me as we talk about architecture and design and higher ed and space and place. One of the reasons I was excited to have this conversation with you is we haven't talked a lot about space and experience and the design choices that flow into the built environment, the design choices around space, uh, or that are space connected, that are part of strategy and uh, having that be an explicit conversation about how design flows into uh, and improves the quality of what's happening there, both creation front on, um, the decisions front and on the outcomes front. So I'm, I really appreciate everything we've talked about and looking forward to seeing what you'll do next.

Speaker C: That's great and I'm glad to be able to share. I can talk about space endlessly and I think this is a great moment to have this conversation because I think we began with this idea of you do everything in space as space is taken in grant for granted. Moving in a world where space isn't really important to kind of like now through Covid, in the moment of rediscovering the value of space. Right. But requiring like a new kind of being more intentional about how that space is used and how that design and space, because it's not the kind of only option anymore for how you can accomplish what you want to accomplish or have the relationships you want to. So I think at once it's like a very interesting moment to be in because everyone's returning to it more deeply understanding the value of it, but they're also asking more of it at the same time.

Speaker B: And it's good to be you sitting where you are with more attention. Adam, um, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Speaker C: Great. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure.

Speaker A: Thank you for listening to this episode of the Design Thinking 101 podcast. I'd like to encourage you to sign up for FluidHive's Ask Like a Designer at, ah, fluidhive.com studio. I'll send you ideas like the ones

Speaker B: you hear on the show.

Speaker A: I'll let you know when there's going to be a new Design Thinking 101 podcast episode. You'll also receive invitations to free workshops. I'll send out discounts on FluidHive's Design Skills courses and training. And I'll regularly send you new resources, tools and ways to explore design. So I hope you'll join me in Ask Like a Designer. You can sign up@fluidhive.com studio. That's fluidhive.com studio. Until next time. Take care and stay lucky out there.