designthinkinginstitute.com

Regular visitors of my blog might have noticed that I’ve participated in a conference about organizational democracy two weeks ago. Beside the fact that I still owe you some impressions from the forum itself (Yes, I’ve met (and talked to) Dan Pink, author of ‘A Whole New Mind’ in person as well as David Weinberger! ;-) since my return I’m still reasoning why I’ve enjoyed the forum so much?!

Well, I’ve realized (beside the fact the Traci Fenton set up a terrific team of volunteers) that it has been one of the rare events where I’ve spoken to a non design-related audience about design and design thinking. As a matter of fact the discussions about the purpose and power of design have been refreshingly positive in contrast to the very often self centric discussions about the ‘so misunderstood discipline’ of design which I’ve experienced in the past.

Simply spoken what I’ve tried was to make my point on why a design thinking perspective to problem solving might be relevant for their organization as well. Interestingly many listeners approached me after the talk and concluded: ‘Wow, this means I’m also a designer (link via Core77 via Steve)!’ Yes, but  …

By the same token Joseph Beuys once said: ‘Every human being is an artist, but not everything made by human beings is necessarily art’ this logic applies to the filed of design as well. However driven by our goal to spread the idea virus of ‘design thinking’ to the business side and by demonstrating the impact design can have on products, services and communication we have to embrace non designers and more precisely the management side rather than emphasizing the differences.

Call it serendipity, but interestingly two (traditionally) non-design organizations approached me via my blog within the last few days who are highly interested in the intersection of design thinking and management. The first organization invited me to Paris next week to join them in their kick-off phase of their ‘self-designing organization’ programme (more to be revealed soon). Highly interesting and relevant and I’m looking forward to learning more on how design thinking might connect with organizational change.

The second organization is ‘Business Model Design’ run by Alexander Osterwalder who running a blog on the topic as well. Alex and I had a very informative chat about his area of expertise ‘Business Model Design’ and he’s actually seeking for inspiration how to extend his thinking and benefit from the idea of ‘Design thinking’ in order to create a more holistic way of approaching business.

Alex actually assembled 9 building blocks (see the illustration here) from the literature which describe a business model (taken from his informative recent posting):

1. The value proposition of what is offered to the market;
2. The target customer segments addressed by the value proposition;
3. The communication and distribution channels to reach customers and offer the value proposition;
4. The relationships established with customers;
5. The core capacities needed to make the business model possible;
6. The configuration of activities to implement the business model;
7. The partners and their motivations of coming together to make a business model happen;
8. The revenue streams generated by the business model constituting the revenue model;
9. The cost structure resulting of the business model.

While reasoning about these blocks I find that many variables are so relevant for both areas business as well as design. Just try to benchmark your organization, your products and services, your communication with these blocks and you will learn why so many products/services/processes fail. I will definitively integrate these issues in my design management classes in the future; thanks Alex!

Fortunately Alex promised to write some deeper stuff on the relation between business model design and his understanding of design thinking in the near future and I’m looking forward to reading his ideas! In the meantime: What’s your idea on this? [Non-Designers are welcome as well ;-)]

As written in an earlier posting I’m currently in Washington, DC. I feel very honoured to be one of the speakers being offered the opportunity to share some basic ideas on Design Thinking and how organizations might benefit from this perspective.

I’m happy that I’ve received so many positive replies and people around express their appreciation for the notion that management should definitively accept problem solving more as a task of solving “Paradoxes” rather than “Puzzles”. The open question I’ve posed on how to address the problem in Iraq rather from a paradox perspective than seeing it as a puzzle (rush in -> get rid off Saddam -> install democracy) has stimulated a lively discussion as well.

Since a reasonable number of participants asked for my slides, well you can download them here (in order to achieve an acceptable filesize the logo looks a little bit pixeled ;-( In the PDF you will find many references to the material I’ve used as well as the URL to the fantastic Flash-Video. If you should have any questions or remarks regarding my presentation/PDF feel free to contact me.

Finally you might note that WorldBlu has understood the lesson very well to share content and resources. Accordingly they’ve set up a section on their website with live-blogs from the conference as well as podcasts and photographs. All areas will be filled up with content in the next few days. It’s worth a visit.

And thanks to the team of WorldBlu!

Two weeks ago I’ve conducted a strategy workshop for the post-graduate EURIB Master of Design Management programme in Rotterdam. Frans Joziasse (director at PARK and module co-ordinator at EURIB) is in charge for the module and I think he has assembled a well balanced set of lecturers and practitioners from the design and strategy domain. My role in this context is to introduce students to the basic issues of strategic thinking in order to enable them to frame their current thinking into a more focused perspective on how to integrate strategy more closely into their design thinking.

I usually provide students with a basic set of strategy ‘tools’ (aka ‘models’) with no more than 10 slides (past experiences proved: less is more! ;-). Then I confront them with a non-business case study which you merely would consider as “strategy loaded”. Interestingly I’ve run this workshop with many different groups of students (from graduate to post-graduate and from B-School to D-School) for a couple of years now, but it is always surprising how different the outcomes are. One key insight from this workshop is that by the same token everything which is made by human beings is ‘designed’ (regardless if ‘bad’ or ‘well’) every decision we make is ‘strategic’ (which means that it has an impact on actions and attitudes which refer to others and oneself), but in order to be successful both require a deep understanding of the context they are embedded in.

Anyway, interestingly the ‘design classes’ usually develop far more ‘creative’ solutions than the typical ‘business/MBA’ student. While very often business students are better in addressing framed (numbers & facts) and well formulated problems in contrast design students are better in addressing unframed and open questions by developing a broad set of findings and options. While the latter approach appears to be more attractive to us (the design-management-thinking-… community) each approach has its pros and cons depending on … you bet: context!

Therefore (and I’m returning now to the afternoon session of the workshop from above) I was happy to meet the afternoon lecturer Leonard Zijlstra, Manager at the “Strategy Academy” in Rotterdam as well. Zijlstra is one of the co-authors of the highly acclaimed textbook:Strategy: Process, Context, Content by Bob de Wit & Ron Meyer. While I’ve used their book in strategy courses some years ago I must admit that I highly appreciate being re-loaded by Zijlstra since his/their insights provided me with many new ideas about the concept of ‘Design Thinking’ and how to load it with viewpoints from both the design and the business world.

Anyway I think their book is different from other textbooks, because their offer is not about a set of guidelines and tools which guarantee success, but rather about enabling the reader to deal with what they call ‘Strategy Tension’. ‘Strategy Tension’ occurs when apparent opposites can be identified and the best example for this in the context of Design Management is the tension between ‘Logic versus Creativity’. Without going into further details I assume we all agree that creativity sometimes demands/requires non-logic approaches in order to discover new ideas while logic is very often achieved by eliminating issues of ambiguity and bias. I will explain later on how to deal with this ‘Paradox’.

You will (certainly) agree that context (now I’m back on track ;-) in terms of the world we’re living in today is highly characterised by the above mentioned ‘Tensions’. These tensions occur on various levels of our lives e.g. personal (stay home or go out), business (make or buy) or political (freedom vs. control). Even though we would like to reject it very often we are still tempted by the tension of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but we are learning more and more that there are is no clear ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ any longer. In contrast the only successful approach to address fast changing contexts is to develop context driven ‘adaptive’ solutions and as a consequence this requires a different mindset and accordingly problem solving tools.

And this is what I really like about the de Wit & Meyer reader. They’ve identified 4 general perspectives on how to address “Strategy Tensions”. Interestingly these perspectives are not limited to strategy, but can be applied to ‘problem solving’ in general as well. According to the authors you should approach problems by:

a) Seeing them as a puzzle: Once you have understood the complexity of a problem by identifying the edges and borders you discover how pieces go together.

b) Considering them as a dilemma: You have two possible solutions where neither of which is logically the best. Each solution has its advantages and disadvantages, but you have to accept the incompatibility of the opposites. However by making yourself aware of a dilemma situation/problem makes it easier for you to accept either of your choices since you’ve analysed the opposite as well.

c) Seeing them as a trade-off: In contrast to the dilemma above in this case you have many possible and acceptable solutions between two opposites. By accepting a problem as a trade-off you are seeking to find the best of the possible solutions. By doing so you make yourself aware that with a different emphasis you might have achieved a different but equally acceptable solution.

d) Accepting them as a paradox: “A paradox is a situation in which two seeming contradictory, or even mutually exclusive, factors appear to be true at the same time” (citation from de Wit & Meyer). While the latter three approaches have one or more definitive solutions a paradox (at least at first sight) prevents you from gaining an acceptable answer from two logically inconsistent opposites. A paradox has no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer; you have to strive for the best as possible.

While de Wit & Meyer have chosen to see ‘strategy tensions’ as ‘strategy paradoxes’ (and they explain it very well why) I see all four approaches being valid for design processes and ‘Design Thinking’. Having stated this I clearly owe you some examples on these approaches. As my blog friend Michael Wagner always writes ‘my mind is racing’ I have to admit: Mine as well while writing these lines!!!

For the moment let my just brainstorm what kind of further ‘research’ these ideas might stimulate:

– How are design problems best characterised? Are there any specific agglomerations in either of these four approaches regarding design problems?

– How do these insights apply to product, graphic, new media design? Does each discipline have to tackle with a different set of issues/problems?

– Are there any specific methodologies the design discipline has developed in order to deal particularly with paradoxical problems?

– Is there a correlation between successful product or service solutions in the market and being considered as a ‘paradoxical problem’ prior to market launch?

Beside all this good stuff being written currently about ‘Design Thinking’ I dare to state that this perspective might add some value to the discussion. What do you think?

What is this blog and the “Design Thinking Institute” (DTI) about?

Well, this new blog has been on my agenda for a while now. I’ve been reflecting on the name, content and format ever since I’ve read about the term ‘Design Thinking’. I’ve somehow felt attracted to the topic by the believe (of myself and others out there) that the impact of Design can go beyond ‘simply’ creating a visual design for products or services. There must something more in the application of ‘Design’ for organisations who recognise that ‘Design’ starts far earlier in the value chain of organisational activities. My perspective on ‘Design Thinking’ is to uncover this ‘value chain’ in a generic way by collecting as much data, insights and cases as possible in order to create a bigger picture rather than a precise definition.

Consequently the organisational structures, systems and culture which enable companies to deliver great designed products and services (or as Steve Jobs calls them ‘insanely great products’) are equally important. However from the classical MBA perspective Design is only one issue among many others like Marketing, Finance, Controlling, Strategy, HR, etc. Fortunately in the meantime some of these disciplines consider Design as a variable for achieving competitive advantage more than others and I’m happy that my professional field “Strategic Management” does consider Design as a valuable resource and capability for a while now.

As said above a first step in the creation of the ‘Design Thinking Institute’ is to collect as many ‘data’ as possible on this platform. Thanks to a conversation I’ve had with Niti Bhan a while ago she framed this approach by suggesting the following steps: Collect, Consolidate, Collaborate. While this approach is not revolutionary and might occur in many contexts beside ‘design processes’ I still believe that in this case the element of ‘creative identification’ dominates over the ‘deductive method’ you see in classical scientific research. Consequently I see the process of formation of the ‘Institute’ as a way of ‘Design Thinking’.

Why an ‘Institute’ and why on a separate site?

I’ve chosen the metaphor of an ‘Institute’ because I’ve felt inspired by classical research institutes. According to my understanding an ‘Institute’ is a place where many people work on shared field of interest from a multitude of perspectives. ‘Researchers’ might join the ‘Institute’ for a specific time in order to work intensively on their specific topic and they leave the ‘Institute’ and share their results with the community. An ‘Institute’ is a place where a topic or field of research can be explored beside the various daily constraints people are confronted with. While the value of an ‘Institute’ is created by the members (let them be temporary or permanent) and their contributions an ‘Institute’ is not necessarily owned by a ‘principal’. Formal leadership is executed by individuals who temporarily take a formal position. This position might the result of a democratic election process or other means. However currently I see no need for such a formal representation rather than a need for as many ‘researchers’ as possible contributing to develop the field.

One reason to move this thinking to the platform “designthinkinginstitute.com” is that there are so many places on the web where you will find great sketches and ideas on ‘Design Thinking’. Therefore this forum and blog shall bring together all these various place by collecting links and create a hub from where you can start and end your discovery journey. Finally the ‘Institute’ enables me to separate my personal thoughts on Vol. 2: design-management.de from the more collaborative process on this site.

So what is ‘Design Thinking’?

Well, to be honest: I don’t know yet! I have an idea or a glimpse from all my reading on the web (please see my thoughts in the first paragraph above), but I did not discover a clear pattern yet. Furthermore as an individual it’s not my goal to become the authority in this field. I feel more like becoming a facilitator and as said above I see this forum as a platform which I want to offer and share with those interested in the field. One of the responsibilities I’ve identified for myself is to deliver a series of postings with links which ‘Collect’ the multitude of smart thinking out there. You can support the ‘Institute’ by sending links to resources I didn’t list yet or should definitively list. Furthermore you might want to become a ‘researcher’ with guest blogger rights on this site. Feel free to drop me a note by Email to: ralf@designthinkinginstitute.com.

What’s next?

While this platform and the Institute are representations of a virtual space & organisation so far the creators of CPH127 with Hans Henrik at the lead initiated to hold a summit on design + Innovation in spring 2006 in Copenhagen. While content, format, location and date are still issues in progress this event might be a good opportunity to a) work on formulating some kind of manifesto about the DTI and its mission, vision and future development and b) get names to faces since I hope that many of people from the community will join the summit either virtually or physically.