Gigamapping

We were introduced to Gigamapping, a method for designers to collaborate and map across multiple layers in order to investigate relations between different topics and look for overlaps.

I was in the same group with Nikhil and Phat. We started out quite differently from the rest of the teams. The other groups started by mapping their own individual projects then started to link to look for similar themes and keywords.

Nikhil research looks at Human VS AI while Phat focuses on Mindfulness and Mental health, mine is somewhere in between as I was looking at both Mental Health and the tensions between Human and Technology. We started with common keywords and it was really easy to map all the linkages as we all had similar pain points and objectives.

Shirley joined us later with her research on Future Workplace and we remapped all our projects into one beautiful chaos (lol)

We started the new map by identifying the values of each of our projects.
Shirley: Balance
Nikhil: Progress
Phat: Awareness
Me: Well-being

After which, we wrote down the most important keywords from the previous map that connected all of our projects. From each keyword, we went deeper and started digging into the details by asking each of us what does the word mean in their project and new keywords began to arise. Afterwards we started the linkages again, hoping to find intersections where interventions could take place.

For my linkages, I was looking at a present to speculating future framework. I started from Well-being to Health to Experience to Space / Place > What are the future interactions like? > What if I combine online experiences with offline sensorial experiences? > Does it change perception? > How to change perception? > What kind of stimulus? > Is it through play?

After the exercise, Harah divided the class into 2 groups
1. Tech and Futures: Nikill, Shirley, Phat, Sze Yunn, Me
2. Culture and Community: Abi, Shiu Heng, Javier, Dana, Preseetha

(Harah Chon, 2019)

Sze Yunn joined our group and we used the zip analysis, which is a more speculative approach. The Culture and Community group used the timeline method which is more ground up, from past to future. We decided to choose a word that we didn't really relate our project to before: Time. We proceeded to identify keywords that we thought best related to Time and developed from there. With Harah's help, we picked a final keyword (Compromise) that is more middle ground so we could speculate further in relation to our individual projects through a discussion.

Map from Culture and Community group:

We worked together with Harah to combine both maps and synthesise all our projects into 1 large design system. We identified what we wanted to achieve in the future - the necessary pre conditions and then we listed down the keywords in the known domain that can help us attain our goals, lastly we established the gaps that could link from known domain to necessary pre-conditions.

This is the final design system conceptualised and digitised by Harah, she also shared the entire gigamapping process with the MA Arts and Cultural Leadership students during our combined class.

Gigamapping was a good way to look at our projects in different perspectives. There were interesting conversations and new keywords that came up along the way when we started to ask each other which probed us to think deeper and on a larger scale that we hadn't before.