SHOCK (not) horror

项目小组提出，系统冲击构成了通过重新评估基础设施需求和供应之间关系而从根本上“转变观念”的机会。随着我们进入一个资源稀缺的时代，冲击提供了重新想象资源使用规模的驱动力，特别是在提供核心公用事业方面。SHOCK（not）HORROR项目通过医疗创伤的寓言来挑战基础设施利益相关者走出他们的舒适区，挑战目前的基础设施组织，重新思考冲击的性质，并设计新的变革性思维方式来思考基础设施。具体而言，它将开发一个新的基础设施弹性概念，既通过使用冲击来强调现有基础设施系统的相互依赖性（识别弱点），又通过在冲击后恢复到更好的状态（而不是恢复冲击前的状态）来改善基础设施。项目团队相信，对基础设施冲击的研究可以帮助开发新的基础设施整体模型。我们从非常不同的学科角度处理基础设施问题（土木工程，可持续性设计和社会技术系统研究）但旨在建立在这种多样性的基础上，以产生新的和有见地的产出，这些产出将综合这些不同研究领域的知识。我们的方法是基于使用创伤的叙述作为一种手段，以释放对基础设施“创伤”及其提供的机会的思考对基础设施进行彻底改造。这些将被用来，连同一个组合的案例研究，在创伤已经发生，探索在何种程度上的“机会之窗”的变化是公认的和/或利用，以及我们是否可以设想的方法，以最大限度地利用类似的情况下，在未来。该方法将使用系统的社会技术基础设施系统的地图，并制定干预点的说明。它将有五个阶段：1）医疗创伤作为基础设施系统冲击的寓言：我们将使用一系列的定性方法来发展医疗寓言，包括文献分析和对来自不同文化途径的医疗专业人员的采访（例如西医及中医）及不同形式的医疗执业（例如全科医生咨询与紧急情况），编辑创伤故事情节，导致对医疗实践和/或个人生活方式的彻底重新评估2）构建社会地图，基础设施系统的技术配置：我们将参考系统创新和可持续性转型的文献，绘制基础设施系统的社会技术配置和变化动态。我们将通过系统冲击的故事情节进一步研究该框架，从而扩展该框架。3）在真实的基础设施系统中测试寓言并定义系统干预点：我们要组织两天-长期的利益相关者活动，其中利益相关者将被邀请评估我们的基础设施系统地图的准确性，并讨论根据分层定义的系统干预点进行干预的可行性4）制定一个框架，最大限度地从基础设施系统冲击中学习：我们将设计一系列实验，以了解最大限度地利用冲击提供的机会窗口所需的决策，以了解基础设施系统的整合。5）将综合产出综合成一个长期的转型议程：我们将利用研究的综合成果，为综合基础设施的变革性研究、教育和实践制定议程。我们将重点发展一个“突击战术实验室”。

The project team propose that system shocks constitute opportunities to radically 'shift minds' by reevaluating the relationship between demand and provision of infrastructure. Shocks provide drivers to re-imagining the scale of resource use, particularly in terms of delivering core utilities, as we move into an era of resource scarcity. The SHOCK (not) HORROR project uniquely unpicks the potential for radical change through the allegory of medical trauma to challenge infrastructure stakeholders to move out of their comfort zone, challenge the current organization of infrastructure in silos, rethink the nature of shocks and devise new and transformative ways of thinking about infrastructure. Specifically it will develop a new concept of infrastructure resilience, both by using shocks as a way of both highlighting the interdependencies of existing infrastructure systems (identifying the weak points), and improving infrastructure by restoring it to a better state after the shock (rather than re-instating what was there before the shock). The project team is connected by the belief that the study of infrastructure shocks can help develop new holistic models of infrastructure. We approach infrastructure problems from very different discipline perspectives (civil engineering, design for sustainability and socio-technical systems research) but aim to build on this diversity to generate new and insightful outputs which will synthesise knowledge across these different fields of study.Our methodology is based on the use of narratives of trauma as a means to free up thinking about infrastructure 'traumas' and the opportunities they provide for radical re-shaping of the infrastructure. These will be used, together with a portfolio of case studies where trauma has occurred, to explore to what extent the 'window of opportunity' for change was recognised and/or utilised, and whether we can envisage methods to take the maximum advantage of similar situations in the future. The methodology is will use maps of socio-technical infrastructure systems of systems and develop of narratives of intervention points. It will have 5 stages: 1) Medical trauma as an allegory of infrastructure system shocks: We are going to develop the medical allegory using a range of qualitative methods, including document analysis and interviews with medical professionals from different cultural approaches (e.g. Western and Chinese medicine) and different forms of medical practice (e.g. GP consulting vs emergencies), to compile trauma storylines that have led to radical re-evaluations of either medical practice and/or personal ways of living2) Construction of maps of the socio-technological configuration of infrastructure systems: We are going to map the socio-technical configurations of infrastructure systems and the dynamics of change with reference to the literature of systems innovations and sustainability transitions. We will extend this framework by investigating it further through our storylines of systems shocks.3) Testing the allegory in real infrastructure systems and defining system intervention points: We are going to organize two day-long stakeholder events in which stakeholders will be invited to evaluate the accuracy of our infrastructure systems maps and debate the feasibility of intervention in the system intervention points defined according to a hierarchical scale.4) Development of a Framework to Maximise Learning from Infrastructure Systems Shocks: We are going to devise a series of experiments to understand the decisions required to maximize the window of opportunity provided by shocks to learn about the integration of infrastructure systems.5) Synthesis of the combined outputs into a long-term transformative agenda: We will use the combined outputs of the research to develop an agenda for transformative research, education and practice on integrated infrastructure. We will focus on developing a "shock tactics laboratory".