David Adam Edelstein (davadam) Thu 24 Apr 08 15:07
Yep, the long posts are great. Related a bit to the question of which comes first, the consumer or the producer, I'm also interested in the problem of designers wanting to do green work but not having the opportunities. It seems like in a lot of cases the designers working on the project could simply design it as green as possible, no? Obviously it's not quite that simple, but maybe it's almost that simple. When I was still doing a lot of freelance print design I regularly specced soy inks and high recycled content paper and simply presented that to the client as the costs of doing the jobs. My experience was that most clients, if I asked them whether they were willing to spend an extra 10% on those things, would say no, but would never say anything if I simply included that in the overall bid for the job.
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Fri 25 Apr 08 13:06
OK thanks for feedback on length.. David, this is an interesting question -- why don't they just do it? I like the logic, it's sort of like the idea on fair trade--it should be the norm. But I think it may vary according to scale and complexity. For some aspects of buildings or products your approach might work, but if an architect comes up with a scheme for a naturally ventilated building that has no mechanical HVAC system, the client is going to notice and in many cases, be worried that it may not actually work (despite an increasing number of successful built examples). Similarly, there aren't enough designers who know how to make such a building work. I think the same would be true of a product designer proposing a relatively new and untried green material, or a product service system scheme. In those large scale and/or complex projects the costs tend to be higher and the risks to the designer and the client perceived as greater. Perhaps a more relevant comparison would be if you, as a print designer, were to say to your clients, "actually, you don't need to print anything to accomplish your objective, use digital media instead and here's how I think it could work." This throws the client (perhaps) into unknown or unexpected territory and even if it could save them money, the time it takes them to "get their heads round it" (as we say over here) is perceived as more costly. Having said that, I do sense that more designers are trying to adopt a "sustainable" status quo and the Designer's Accord (www.designersaccord.org, sorry if I mentioned it before) is a sign of that (whereby designers sign up and commit to always promoting the green option with clients).
Anne Boyd (nitpicker) Fri 25 Apr 08 13:48
david, that approach would be tough in my field, where every line item in the construction cost estimate gets rigorously scrutinized after (as seems inevitable these days) the cost estimate comes in over the budget. everyone on the design team gets called on the carpet and asked to justify every decision and come up with cheaper options wherever possible. The unpleasant term of art for this process is "value engineering," and it can have really unfortunate outcomes. way back up there somewhere, bumbaugh asked: >>But, whereas in building, "green" = "efficient" kinda sorta, for land use, the green benefits are more likely to be externalities. In which case, the "it's in your interests" persuasion won't fly. Is that right? If so, how does LEED for Landscape get traction? If not, wise me up. I'll tell you exactly where it gets traction: in the city council chamber, or, to put it another way, at the point where the stormwater runoff from your property encounters the public street and/or storm sewer. when we have those lovely "value engineering" sessions, you don't have to justify decisions that are required by code. similarly, a lot of people I talk to about the various LEEDs talk about how really the ultimate goal is to make sustainability part of the building code. as it stands now, I think a lot of the traction for LEED comes from the public sector and from institutional clients. here in the weird political geography of Los Angeles, some of the smaller cities with more progressive attitudes toward sustainability, like West Hollywood and Santa Monica, were the first to aggressively pursue green building requirements, and the lumbering megalopolis of Los Angeles is following along, having just voted on Earth Day to require LEED for projects above 50,000 sf. West Hollywood's green building standards, on the other hand, apply to *every* project in the city that isn't a single family home. one of my teachers said that "constraints and opportunities are two sides of the same coin." you can view sustainability, as Ann said previously that some high-design architecture schools seem to be teaching, as something that just serves to "inhibit design." similarly I think a lot of designers think of accessibility the same way, and we see the result in the built environment - accessibility can be handled beautifully and integrated into the overall design, or it can be done really half-assedly and reluctantly. I personally feel that the responsibility of designers is not just to dutifully meet the requirements that are imposed on us by a certain regulatory environment, but to embrace the "opportunity" side of those seeming constraints...even to actively advocate for their being imposed. "Green" measures can seem repressive and constrictive, or they can seem beautiful as well as beneficial. designers are the ones who need to show those images; the city council can't come up with them on their own. and we need to be *in* the city council chamber when those decisions are being made. I'm a little less sure of how all the above might apply to product design, but I think there is a connection. Do we just wait for the government to get around to outright banning something that seems to be toxic, (I'm thinking here of all the recent publicity around bisphenol A) or do we get busy presenting alternative material solutions that may have multiple benefits besides just being, you know, less toxic?
Anne Boyd (nitpicker) Fri 25 Apr 08 13:54
ann's reply slipped in while I was composing mine. the example of the alternative ventilation system is a good one, because I can immediately see, not just the obstacles to knowing how to design one that works, but the obstacles in getting it through the Building & Safety department for the building permit. Some of you may know that the whole "prefab revolution" in architecture has run into some serious snags with local building codes; you can say the same of a lot of sustainability measures. which, I guess, just further reinforces the argument for designers being involved in the political process.
I dare you to make less sense! (jet) Sat 26 Apr 08 09:18
I really like Ann's analogy of a print designer telling someone to not print stuff and to go online instead. I think it's that class of problem, you have to actually convince someone to significantly change how they do business. This morning I was thinking about what would happen if I were a product designer at a firm or in-house and I decided to address the issue of sustainability directly, not just as an "it would be nice" or "only if it's convenient". I'm not sure how I would go about doing it without quitting, to be honest, especially if I was at a firm with a lot of corporate clients or if I were at a style/brand concious firm like Nike or Harley Davidson. Let's say I'm at IDEO or Frog or Lunar, and a client comes in saying, "You know, we spent a lot of money developing this new disposable cleaning rag, but we're just not selling enough of them. Can you help us figure out a way to sell more disposable cleaning rags?" If I get assigned to this project, I have to figure out how to help someone sell more disposable things for which there might be a really good non-disposable solution. In fact, the better thing to do for the environment might be to stop selling disposable cleaning rags and start selling reusable cleaning rags that can be washed in the laundry. (I have in my mind Swiffits vs. micro-fiber cleaning rags, a change we're making in our household.) What do I do? Go to my boss and ask to be assigned to a different project? Come up with a pitch for them to stop selling disposable rags, and possibly license microfiber from a competitor?
Anne Boyd (nitpicker) Sat 26 Apr 08 12:24
<scribbled by nitpicker>
Anne Boyd (nitpicker) Sat 26 Apr 08 12:28
well, you could pitch them as compostable cleaning rags, which is in fact exactly what the Method people did with the Omop. The Omop is what I have. Now, if I as an urban apartment dweller only had facilities for composting, we might really be getting somewhere. Yes, there are such things as municipal composting programs - but not in my city. not yet. (In my former apartment, I actually maintained an indoor worm bin, and was quite happy to have someplace to put my vegetable scraps & coffee filters, even a certain amount of shredded junk mail, not to mention the inherent fun of raising worms. But then, what I didn't have was an actual productive use to which to put the finished compost. Upcycling doesn't count unless you have someplace to upcycle to...) We all face that "put ourselves out of a job" problem. Architects don't get hired to design a building and then tell the client they oughtn't put a building there in the first place. The only place I've seen statements like that being made is in the context of a design competition, where someone wants to use the competition to issue a manifesto of some kind rather than necessarily getting the job. But I don't think that's often the way design competitions are used in this country, at least not the architectural and landscape architectural ones. It's *expensive* to participate in competitions, and I know my own firm doesn't throw that kind of overhead around lightly. But design competitions do occupy kind of an interesting space in the public discourse about design, such as it is. Take for instance the competition to design the Vietnam Memorial, or the one to design the Fresh Kills landfill park in New York.
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Sat 26 Apr 08 15:06
Yes, Davids post, in addition to highlighting the issues of scale, has definitely brought up the issue of incremental versus radical. David is talking about the quick-gain-right-now incremental approach, whereas as Anne and Jet seem to be hoping for radical systemic rethink. This is the pace of change debate. My thought is that all the people who are in a position to get a quick gain right now should do it. At the same time all the people that have the means to explore/pioneer/push for more radical rethink should be doing that. These two approaches dont necessarily have to be at odds, and one could even argue that the quick gain serves as a warm up for radical action. Even though a lot of quick gains have the feeling of efficiency or being less bad, one typically has to slow down before changing directions. Annes comments on architecture are interesting and revealing, especially the notion that the idea behind LEED is to get building codes changed. This is a great example of using the economy for sustainable design. The US Green Bldg Council is a nonprofit organization and of course, this is typical in an area where the market isnt acting on a good cause (green building) and the public sector isnt acting on the cause. And LEED started out very market oriented it was all about market-based tools to drive sustainable building. But of course, it being a good cause, the biggest uptake has been the public and nonprofit sectors. And within the public sector, as Anne says, public agencies are requiring LEED standardstypically this starts with any new public buildings having to meet a certain LEED standard. So now, whether the USGBC originally planned it this way or not, LEED is changing building codes. Its an interesting model since LEED works by committee (volunteer, I believe) and they work out the rating systems and then take input, pilot, revise etc. So its not unlike what might have happened had public agencies been in the lead, except that I suspect the public process would have been more weakened than USGBC operations are by corporate campaign finance influences, political power plays etc. Could other nonprofit groups set similar standards and then offer them up for adoption by governments? We see hints of this on the product side, but so far it seems relegated to government purchasing policy (eg well only buy green/fair/clean product X California has done this with low VOC paint). It also shows up how building/architecture, rooted as it is in place differs fundamentally from products that are mobile and global, and much more difficult to influence other than through whether you buy them or not. For products there are a lot of rating systems out there--probably too many at the moment, so it's not clear that they'll be able to accomplish something parallel to what LEED is doing (Russell Fortmeyer looked at a range product certifications for Architectural Record here: http://www.construction.com/CE/articles/0711edit-1.asp).
I dare you to make less sense! (jet) Sat 26 Apr 08 16:20
I can think of a couple of LEED-like things in consumer electronics: RoHS (no-lead), Green certification, and the attempts to regulate "stand-by power consumption".
I dare you to make less sense! (jet) Sun 27 Apr 08 11:17
Oh, and speaking of "what would you do?" Howard Meehan gave a talk at the western IDSA conference yesterday, and discussed his move from product design to designing public art. It was based, in part, on his revelation that "four million units sold" had become "four million pieces of landfill".
Jamais Cascio (cascio) Sun 27 Apr 08 11:42
My experience from the non-design (but design-aware) green consulting side of things is that, increasingly, corporate actors clamor for regulation as a way of leveling the playing field. Most want to do the right thing -- build in the right way, make the sustainable product, etc. -- but believe that competitors with no such desire would beat them if they tried. Regulation making everyone do the right thing would allow them to win, conversely, because they often have already drawn up the designs for the sustainable version, just haven't brought it to market. While LEED and codes for buildings are fine, I'm more interested in seeing the proliferation of neighborhood and community-level sustainable design. LEED-ND is a first pass at a neighborhood design standard; ZEDStandards from the BedZED group brings a UK perspective. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148 http://www.zedstandards.com
I dare you to make less sense! (jet) Sun 27 Apr 08 14:02
Ann, in the sectuion on "culture", you spend a bit of time talking about contemporary, non-design movements like "open source" and "slow food". What's the response been like, especially given the corporate vs. individual issues they raise and the tendency for designers to be in the corporate business?
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Mon 28 Apr 08 14:09
In response to Jamais, I agree that many times companies want regulation to level the playing field, and in the US its sometimes been driven by inconsistencies at the state level (eg stricter standards, often in California, for energy efficiency of appliances or what have you, paved the way for stricter standards nation wide). Appliance manufacturers didnt want strict standards, but they wanted consistent standards and Californias won out. You suggest that companies feel their competitors will beat themtheyll lose out on profits-- if they go green. This contradicts a great deal of what one finds in the press, particularly the green building press (or books such as Natural Capitalism) about how profitable really smart green building can be. There are enough individual, successful examples out there, that saved money, improved productivity, boosted morale etc. but none has led to a rushing in of companies. Obviously there are many reasons for this, but it makes me less sanguine about the notion that most companies want to do the right thing. I think many individual people want to do the right thing, but it is at the company level that this good intention gets sidetracked. I guess, Jamais if you are a green consultant, then perhaps you deal largely with a self selecting group of companies who are more genuinely interested in doing the right thing? companies where the individual intention is either embodied at the top of the company (eg the Ray Anderson, Yvonne Chouinard model) or tolerated by those in power (probably how Nikes green work started out). What I hear from practicing architects and designers over here is that not only do designers/design companies not have a green version in the wings, they are scared of being asked to produce one because many wouldnt know how. They use consultants to meet the letter of the rating sysem (eg the UKs BREEAM counterpart to LEED) as cheaply as possible, thereby completely avoiding the spirit of the system. They comply with regulation but only after theyve lobbied against it and lost. Even sophisticated green designers I know struggle to find the best approaches, which suggest to me that if loss of profits is an issue to the companies you mention, the investment necessary for a valid green version is unlikely to have been made just for standby but am I wrong about this?? I can imagine companies doing some general R&D on possibilities, but to take a product prototype to manufacturing design and economic modeling just seems unlikely and the devil is in these details. I realize you're probably not at liberty to give examples here, but they sure would be interesting! The other issue that bugs me, I guess, is the question for these profit-loving companies of how much is enough. Lately weve had these huge profit reports, many in the energy industry over here. And I think, gee, if they had wanted to do the right thing and it had cost them even a billion more, they still would have had several billion in profits. This is where the systemic forces at work in corporations and the economy mess up individual good intentions. Similar complaints have been made of companies who "do the right thing" by sponsoring campaigns on AIDS, Environment or other good cause -- they spend several million marketing a campaign that raises several hundred thousand from the targets. Why not just donate several million directly to the cause? More on neighborhood/community level as this is also an area Im really interested in and sanguine about
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Mon 28 Apr 08 14:15
In response to Jets question whats been the response to notions of slow design or open source influenced designwhen I visited the US Northwest the notion of slow design was pretty unfamiliar, but people were very interested. They wondered whether it meant you would get more time to prepare a bid or complete construction drawings, which is, on the one hand a misunderstanding of the philosophy but on the other, also a possible outcome, I suppose. So I perceive that the slow design movement is a bit more evolved in Europe. Although slow design and open design on the face of it seem to be quite opposite, what they have in common is participation. To a certain extent I think we could also argue that they share the notion of information being a public good, rather than proprietary. I say this because the participatory element makes tight proprietary strictures pretty difficult. Putting these specific terms aside, Im seeing a general increase in the interest in participatory design, democratic design, co-design and other such efforts. Are others also seeing that? There are a few of my colleagues over here doing practice-based projects in slow design, but to my knowledge none of these had private sector clients. The clients were public agencies (ie schools) or nonprofit groups (the Design Councils work on co-design for Healthcare). But my look at the open design scene suggests that companies are jumping on some aspects of open philosophy to the extent they can capture a marketing/sales benefit out of it. A common form is the user-based community that companies set up for their product(s). The idea is that users will treat these communities as social networking sites, but the company will harvest useful data out of them. I guess many people worry that this is what will happen to all social networking sites, so maybe there is not as much distance between the company and sharing/open communities anyway. I think there is potential there for design to use these open models, but I haven't seen a particularly good model for how to do it. There was a good article on Core77 a while back (http://www.core77.com/reactor/08.07_alviani.asp) that highlighted some of the practical matters well, and Bruce Sterling presents an interesting picture in his book "Shaping Things" although its pretty abstract from a physical design perspective. What is your response to these ideas? You sound sort of skeptical.
I dare you to make less sense! (jet) Mon 28 Apr 08 15:22
I'm skeptical in that if there's not short-term profit in it, I don't see corporations taking it seriously. It could also be that I'm overly cynical, but my job experience in the software industry leads me to believe that corporations aren't in it for the common good. Also, what was said earlier about the need for regulation to create a level playing field certainly exists in other business domains. Here in Pittsburgh there's a battle to ban smoking in bars and restaurants -- I've talked to two owners who want to go smoke free but are afraid they'll lose all their business. I can imagine a similar case in something like the mobile phone market -- until they're all forced to make recyclable phones, recycle them for free, or support an open standard where users could make/customize their own phones, none of them will take the profit hit. Looking at it from your "fast vs. slow" perspective, there is a case to be made for simply buying locally/regionally whenever possible and cutting out the bigger corporations entirely. I'm needing a new courier bag (my current one is poorly dimensioned for my current laptop) and it turns out for only a little more than a made-in-China name brand courier bag I can get a bag designed and made in Philadelphia. So maybe corporations can't change, but consumers can change their decision making processes and at least create a new market for local/slow business? Does the question become how to get the designers out of the corporations and design firms and on the ground with the people they're actually designing for?
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Mon 28 Apr 08 15:43
Yes I think so!
Anne Boyd (nitpicker) Mon 28 Apr 08 17:56
I've recently become obsessed with 'windowshopping' on etsy.com, which seems to have grown into an online phenomenon fairly recently. there's nothing in itself radically new about using the internet to buy and sell handmade items, but etsy.com seems to have hit on a winning combination of a really clean interface (I'm one of those who quickly loses patience with ebay/myspace-style visual clutter) and a lot of flexible search tools. the site just gets the hell out of your way and lets you find stuff. it's really remarkable to me how diverse the offerings are and how much creativity is being showcased. there are a lot of ingenious alternatives for mainstream consumer goods that, i confess, never even *occurred* to me until I started browsing around the DIY/handcrafting online spaces. (jet, you could get a custom bag made to your exact specifications from any number of sources at a place like that...) people are buying and selling patterns and instructions as well as finished goods - or they sell the opportunity to have custom item made for you. someone there is selling "CSA" (community supported agriculture) shares in the harvest of merino wool from their sheep (the site is an active trading post for supplies as well as finished goods) and this was considered innovative enough to make the Wall Street Journal earlier this month: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120855353496127337.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
I dare you to make less sense! (jet) Mon 28 Apr 08 18:00
Wow, CSA over etsy. That's pretty cool. CSA is huge here in Pittsburgh, surprisingly enough. I got my bag from ReLoad because they are suppliers of bags to hardcore couriers. My bag-design skills aren't good enough to judge bags via photos, but if it's the company that makes bags for hardcore types, that's good enough for me.
Gail Williams (gail) Tue 29 Apr 08 11:14
etsy.com is a very intelligently conceived site... how interesting to combine with CSA!
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Tue 29 Apr 08 14:34
[As a coincidental side note, BBC Radio 4 reported this morning that BP has posted more than £3 Billion in profits in the latest QUARTER, and Shell has posted more than £4 Billionnot bad for 3 months] I also like the Etsy site and was glad to find out about it. It does point the way toward connecting designers directly with users. I like the idea that the user can commission their own design. If we bump this up to more of a community or neighborhood scale (eg we want to start a community garden and move our community off of supermarkets, or we want a car sharing scheme) and then add some of the thinking behind several other sites: - Prosper.com: a matching site for those with small amounts of money to lend (eg loan as little as $50) and those seeking to raise relatively small investment (eg $10,000-20,000)but imagine this method also used by grant-making nonprofits organizations and public agencies - Pledgebank.com: you promise to do something, if X number of people in your community will also sign up to do it by a certain date - Lvhrd.org: a group that organizes spontaneous duels of creative professionals in a sense they create "events" or "major incidents" by conscious choice to engage people and bring them together, ostensibly for witnessing the duel, but invariably the events are catalysts for other projects. Then I think we start to see some interesting pathways toward more sustainable neighborhoods and a connecting point for designers. Hmmm, this is giving me some interesting ideas! I had a look at the two sites Jamais mentioned to see what USGBC and Zed are up to. Ive read a fair amount about BedZed and Ive seen a lot of those BedZed-based reports, but I hadn't seen the Zedstandards. I think both LEED ND and zedstandards are useful and solidly address the built infrastructure. But in my mind the built infrastructure and its issues need to be connected to the social infrastructure to generate real neighborhood level sustainability. Social and constructed (including products) should in a sense harness each other. And I dont see that happening so much with these standards. Although it is possible these neighborhood building standards could somehow trigger changes in the social infrastructure, it doesnt seem built in to them and maybe is simple beyond their scope.
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Tue 29 Apr 08 15:14
Offline Jet and I talked about spending the last day or two of this discussion on strategy how designers can make use of different parts of the conceptual framework presented in the bookperhaps through thought experiments. Also how different design disciplines might find more or less resonance with the conceptual framework in the book. I think we have gotten some good perspectives on different design disciplines, and with this last bit of discussion we are moving into though experiment mode on how the various concepts can come together in specific applications. For example this neighborhood sustainability idea combines using the economy strategically, but also calling forth community-generated meaning through mechanisms such as pledgebank or lvhrd, and of course using digital connectedness (the open idea) to support it. The Etsy site begins to suggest a way in for designers who might then match themselves to communities initiatives, perhaps through ad hoc collaboratives for particular projects (anyone heard that term adhocracy?). There was a bit of discussion about slow design earlier, and combined with the notions of conservation that were bandied about earlierthe issue of ecosystem cycles being resilient, but not without destruction here and thereI wonder if this is grounds for another thought experiment. Do we need to slow down quickly? How does design facilitate flow or the reskilling of people (I talk about this around about page 145 in the book). One thing that springs to my mind in this area, partly prompted by the Etsy example where people are selling patterns and shares, is the idea of sharing our making skills. For example, Ive heard that there are all kinds of how to videos on Youtube that teach you how to knit and demonstrate simple as well as advanced stitches. Probably there are also how-tos on many other subjects. In a cross between selling a craft pattern (for a backyard shed), for example, and an investment club or book club, I can sort of imagine a reskill club that hooks into design practitionerseither locally or remotely. On the topic of resilience, Worldchanging ran a feature on a Swedish conference called Resilience, Adaptation, and Turbulent Times.Monfreda says, To a certain extent, this conference marks a new stage in resilience sciencethe study of dynamic social-ecological systemsas it expands from academics into policy. And I wonder, how will this area expand into design? Does it have to do with skills and flow, or with nature as culture (eg ecological literacy) http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007991.html (Some of the participants there (eg Buzz Hollings) were my sources for my book). We haven't touched upon professional design associations -- although Jet mentioned IDSA. What do people perceive as their role or potential in moving all this forward. Can you see them moving away from a business focus and advocating that designers use the economy strategically? Sorry, I know I'm not supposed to be asking the questions!!
I dare you to make less sense! (jet) Tue 29 Apr 08 15:36
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Tue 29 Apr 08 15:53
OK, thanks...forgot to mention that I talk about professional design associations in the book around page 186
Anne Boyd (nitpicker) Tue 29 Apr 08 16:59
since LEED-ND has been mentioned, I should say that I'm only passingly familiar with it, but it did get discussed on one project that I worked on, that didn't move past initial master planning phases. I don't think these guidelines ignore the need to create more sociable communities - far from it, a huge part of the reason you want to create walkable mixed use communities is to decrease the social isolation of the car-bound lifestyle. but it is also worth pointing out that we very rarely get the opportuntiy to master plan new communities in a fully built-out metropolis like the one where I live. We are working more with incrementalism/infill in our existing built environment - and when we ARE building new communities that aren't infill, they're way out on the edges somewhere, which is not exactly helping to combat sprawl. (not to mention the issues of urban/wildland interface, which in coastal Southern california brings with it the extra added drama of being extremely flammable.) some really thoughtful stuff about designing the built environment for sustainability, longevity, and conviviality can be found in the "Ten Shades of Green" by Peter Buchanan: <http://www.tenshadesofgreen.org/10shades.html> I particularly like the concepts of "Long Life, Loose Fit" and "Access and Urban Context" as being relevant to the current discussion.
Ann Thorpe (ann-thorpe) Wed 30 Apr 08 02:00
I was also struck by the fact that LEED ND related to relatively large scale new developments -- and had many of the same thoughts abouts its relevance to existing cities (no doubt it does have some, though). And yes, walkable communities do create the potential for the development of social capital, but I guess my point is from a design perspective we don't need to stop there. We can actually look beyond these traditional mechanisms (if you can now call a LEED rating system a "traditional" mechanism) and complement them with some new approaches. The new approaches, however, do take designers into new territory--not only in terms of the medium, who the clients are and how you work with them, but also how you use the economy as a tool toward sustainability. The "shades of green" piece is quite similar to the AIA's COTE measure for sustainable design (PDF here) http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/Description%20of%20Measures%20of%20Sustai nable%20Design.pdf which also includes, "Collective Wisdom and Feedback Loops."
Members: Enter the conference to participate