Friedrichshafen, November 14, 2009 Jan Schmiedgen (1st Semester / M.A.-CME)
Handout Design Thinking – A »new« (Innovation) Management Approach? Course: Critical Reflection of Management Theories ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________
The Process The typical design thinking process does not exist. Moreover different process models of the same basic approach are to be found, which are more or less varied in their granulation. Basically all of them consist of at least four steps: develop Expertise plus Empathy and then proceed to the Exploration and Execution of the solutions you came up with. In this paper the »d.school« standard process from »Hasso-Plattner-Institut, Potsdam« (Plattner, Meinel, & Weinberg, 2009) exemplifies in short, how a typical design process normally is executed. I have chosen this book and process, as you probably will come across it in the near future (in Germany). However I do not recommend the book. The (mostly) English literature mentioned in the course and during the presentation is more solid and well founded.
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Figure 1: A typical »Design Thinking« Process (Plattner et al., 2009)
The maybe most typical characteristic of all design processes is its non-linear and iterative character. In the following I'll give just a very brief description of the process without details. Therefore it does not lay claim to completeness. Understand
The first step serves to carve out the problem, make sure that everybody (especially in a diverse team) understood it »right« and then goes further in trying to formulate a useful and »right« research question, that enables the team to select the appropriate methods for the next step. This step already is important because usually the first differences between the team members emerge (different mindsets etc.), which can be a good starting point for later insight generation, problem reframing and the therewith connected learning processes (Beckman & Barry, 2007). Further on in this step measurements for success should be developed (if possible) and priorities regarding the project goals must be set. In addition the team should become aware of available project-time. Observe
To develop a truly deep understanding of the formulated problem good designers embrace the use of methods that overcome the limitations of traditional market research (e.g. contextual inquiry focuses on the ‚what’, ethnographical methods focus on the ‚why’ → richer and »valid« data), by getting into all stakeholders natural life world. This often yields insights that focus groups, interviews and the like cannot. Insights that uncover meaning, culture, context and practices. Mostly these methods are »borrowed« from ethnography, anthropology and sociology and then adapted to the particular problem. Very often the initial problem formulation is reframed in several iterations during this process. OBSERVE – RESULTS
Methods used Rapid Ethnography; Visual anthropology; Video ethnography; Non-participant & direct observation; Participant observation; Formal ethnographic interviews; Intercepts; Informant diaries; Virtual ethnography (netnography); Story listening and many more …
-2-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Exemplary outcomes Video- and Photo material; Sketches; Diaries; Day in life Timelines; Era analyses etc. → either made by the researchers or the users themselves
Point of View
Having collected all knowledge gained so far, the innovation (or strategy, or whatever ) team has to develop a common position. This is the point where the problem reframing concerning the initial question usually ends and where results are prepared in a way that everyone – even persons outside of the team – can develop a shared understanding. POINT OF VIEW – RESULTS
Exemplary outcomes Persona descriptions; mood-o-grams; customer journey analysis;...
Ideate
The ideation starts, when everyone agrees on the common point of view, has reconsidered its own basic assumptions and in a way has become free of his predetermined predispositions towards the problem and the therefore deducted questions. In short, when every team member is able to see the problem through users/customers eyes. The ideation phase maybe nearly as free-form as the observation stage, but it finally adds the critical element of synthesis to the process. It starts with the generation of countless ideas. Here apriori the rule of »quantity prior to quality« applies but in the latter process the ideas are whittled down to a few core [ones]. Those then start to take form in a process known as »low-res prototyping« (the transition to the »regular« prototyping is fluid). Often this part of the process is distinguished from traditional marketing-department brainstorming and R&D prototyping by requiring consumers to be part of the process. IDEATION – RESULTS
Methods used All kinds of creative techniques → usually brainstorming / heavy visualization Exemplary outcomes Large amount of (temporary imperfect) ideas and artefacts → first low-res-prototypes
-3-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Prototype
The goal of prototyping isn’t to finish. (Brown, 2008, S. 87) Also in this phase imperfection should be embraced. The most important function of prototypes is to make the strengths and weaknesses of the solution tangible and drive the process further on: "When you rapidly prototype, you're actually beginning to build the strategy itself. And you're doing so very early in the innovation cycle. This enables you to unlock one of your organization's most valuable assets: people's intuitions. When you sit down with your senior team and show them prototypes of the products and services you want to put out in two years' time, you get their intuitive feel for whether you're headed in the right direction. It's a process of enlightened trial and error: Observe the world, identify patterns of behaviour, generate ideas, get feedback, repeat the process, and keep refining until you're ready to bring the thing to market. [It] rapidly accelerated the development of a potential [...] strategy, because the company could instantly give us even sharper feedback and help us refine it. Rapid prototyping helps you test your progress in a very tangible way and ultimately makes your strategic thinking more powerful." (Brown, 2009) PROTOTYPING – RESULTS
Methods used Charettes, Role play, Lego, Computer simulation and the like → again, without any limitations Exemplary outcomes Customer video journey, Product prototype, Business Model Prototypes → no limitations
Test
The last step includes the customers again. Here iterative improvements of the prototypes are performed. Therefore the process jumps back to the observation step to fathom out how the developed solution will be embedded in the practical use and daily life routines of its users. If necessary, the whole process could iterate again. If the solution was successful and user acceptance is guaranteed, the solution/strategy is ready for the market. IDEATION – RESULTS
Methods used Besides qualitative methods here quantitative measurements as well come into play Exemplary outcomes See »Observation«
-4-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Designers Attitude – Points of Difference to Traditional Management Practice Why is this process and its way of problem solving different from traditional business? Mode of Thinking
Figure 2: Reliability vs. Validity (R. L. Martin, 2009)
THERE SEEMS TO BE A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN RELIABILTY AND VALIDITY IN TODAYS BUSINESS CONTEXT.
Reliability → Result of a process, that produces a consistent and predictable result over and over. In order to enhance reliability you have to reduce the number of variables considered and you should use bias-free measurements. Validity → The extent to which a measure accurately reflects the concept that it is intended to measure. In order to increase the validity of any process you must consider a wide array of relevant variables (as done in the observation phase of the design thinking process) → they seem to conflict.
"The marketplace tends to discipline corporations so biased toward reliability that they produce mediocre products or services [because] buyers choose not to buy [their products]. This keeps reliability and validity at least reasonably in balance. (R. L. Martin, 2009)" ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________
-5-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Logical Reasoning
Because of its hypothesis driven character (cf. the iterative loops in the process), design thinking heavily uses a method of reasoning, that often seems »unaccepted«: abductive thinking (a logical operation first coined by Charles Sanders Peirce). According to Pierce abduction is the only logical operation, that introduces something new. DIFFERENT TYPES OF REASONING
Induction Inductive logic — the logic of what is operative — reasons from the specific to the general . 1
→ prove through observation, that something actually works... Deduction Deductive logic — the logic of what must be — reasons from the general to the specific . 2
→ prove – trough reasoning from principles – that something must be... Abduction → Abductive logic – the logic of "what might be" → Kind of inference characterized by probability. → A conclusion reached by abduction is conjectural, and therefore only probable → but to the researcher or designer the conclusion seems totally plausible (knowledgeable intuition → Higgs Boson → LHC-CERN, Geneva).
Without the logic of "what might be" a corporation can only refine its current heuristics or algorithms → leaves it at the mercy of competitors → Embracing abduction as the coequal of deduction and induction!
Figure 3: The Cycle of Design thinking (Dunne & R. Martin, 2006, p. 518)
1
If I study sales per square foot across a thousand stores and find a pattern that suggests stores in small towns generate significantly higher sales per square foot than stores in cities, I can inductively declare that small towns are my more valuable market.
2
If the general rule is that all crows are black, and I see a brown bird, I can declare deductively that this bird is not a crow.
-6-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Handling of Constraints
A non-integrative thinker/manager (R. L. Martin, 2009) readily accepts unpleasant trade-offs (seems we select between predetermined alternatives), while the integrative thinker/designer seeks creative resolution of the tension (think outside the existing alternatives and create new by the use of all modes of reasoning).
“Business schools tend to focus on inductive thinking (based on directly observable facts) and deductive thinking (logic and analysis, typically based on past evidence). Design schools emphasize abductive thinking – imagining what could be possible. This new thinking approach helps us challenge assumed constraints and add to ideas, versus discouraging them.” A.G.Lafley, CEO of Procter&Gamble
Summarization and further Differences Feature
From Traditional Firm . . .
To “Design Shop”
Mode of Thinking
Deductive
Deductive
Inductive
Inductive Abductive
Dominant Attitude
Flow of Work Life
Style of Work
Source of Status
We can only do what we have budget to do
Nothing can’t be done
Constraints are the enemy
Constraints increase the challenge
→ Decision Attitude
and excitement → Design Attitude
Ongoing tasks
Projects
Permanent assignments
Defined terms
Defined roles
Collaborative
Wait until it is „right“
Iterative
Managing big budgets and large staffs
Solving “wicked problems”
Table 1: Points of Difference to »Traditional Management Practice« (Dunne & R. Martin, 2006) in Brief
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
-7-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Notes Your notes here ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
-8-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
References Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25-56. Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Havard Business Review, (June 2008), 84-92. Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation: How Design thinking Can Transform Organizations and Inspire Innovation. New York: Harper Business. Dirk, K. (2008, April 12). Defining Experience: Clarity Amidst the Jargon. UXmatters. User Experience Community, . Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2008/04/defining-experience-clarity-amidst-the-jargon.php Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Eduction, 5(4), 512-523. Hasso-Plattner-Institut Potsdam. (n.d.). HPI School of Design Thinking. HPI School of Design Thinking. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/d-school Herrmann, C. (2004, October 20). Strategic Design: Warum die Designtheorie und die Designausbildung in Deutschland eine strategische Neuausrichtung brauchen. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, Vortrag an der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal. Kimbell, L. (2009, September). Beyond Design Thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. Presentation Paper presented at the CRESC - European Academy of Management Conference 2009 Manchester, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford. Liebl, F. (2003). Do Placebo Products Dream of Electric Sheep? Approaching “Strategic Design.” Do Placebo Products Dream of Electric Sheep? Approaching “Strategic Design.” Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://paradox.verhaag.net/fartikel.php?ID=13&lang=e&version=lang Liedtka, J. (2004). Design thinking - The Role of Hypotheses Generation and Testing. In R. Boland Jr. & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as Designing (1st ed., pp. 193-197). Stanford: Stanford Business Books. Martin, R. L. (2009). Design of Business: Why Design thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage. McgrawHill Professional. Martin, R. L. (2009). The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking. Mcgraw-Hill Professional. Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171-195. doi:10.1002/smj.4250110302 Oster, G. W. (2008). Derailing Design Thinking. International Journal of Leadership Studies, Regent University, 4(1), 107-115. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Weinberg, U. (2009). Design-Thinking. mi-Wirtschaftsbuch. Saffer, D. (2007). Design Schools: Please Start Teaching Design Again. Blog, . Retrieved November 6, 2009, from http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/03/06/design-schools-please-start-teachingdesign-again/
-9-
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Shove, E., Watons, M., Ingram, J., & Hand, M. (2007). Design of Everyday Life (illustrated edition.). Berg Publishers. Simon, H. A. (1996). Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). The Mit Press. Squires, S., Byrne, B., & Sherry, J., Jr. (2002). Creating Breakthrough Ideas: The Collaboration of Anthropologists and Designers in the Product Development Industry. J F Bergin & Garvey. Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M., & Tidd, J. (2008). Visualizing Knowledge in Project-Based Work. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 74-92. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2007.10.006 van Zyl, R. (2008). Buchanan’s Design thinking Matrix: Implications for SMMEs. Design Thinking: New Challenges for Designers, Managers and Organizations. Presented at the International DMI Education Conference, ESSEC Business School, Paris.
Appendix Points of Difference
General Management
Design Thinking
Dominant Attitude
Decision Attitude
Design Attitude
Assumes it is easy to come up with
Assumes that it is difficult to design a good
alternatives to consider, but difficult to
alternative, but once you’ve developed a truly
choose among them →
great one the decision about which
Solve, existing stable problems with clearly
alternative to select becomes trivial. →
specified alternatives (usually through the use
Problem as opportunity for invention that
of analytical decision tools).
includes questioning basic assumptions. → Strive after improving the state of the world because: The cost of not conceiving of a better course of action than those that are already being considered is often much higher than making the “wrong” choice among them. (Liedtka, 2004, p. 50)
Interpersonal Aspects
Often uncomfortable with interferences from
Emphasis of empathy
outside. Also with working styles, that could
1) understand users perspectives/needs,
question your own world view. Typical
2) collaborate with peers and expand
»Schmidt sucht Schmidtchen«-Problems.
perspectives by collaborating with individuals unlike oneself.
Flow of work life
Traditional Firms (Oster, 2008)
Design firms (Oster, 2008)
Ongoing tasks and permanent
Work flows around (temporary) projects
assignments. → Daily routines focus upon
with defined terms. → „People are judged
regularly planned tasks
by their ability to add value to it.“ (Roger Martin in Oster, 2008, p. 109)
- 10 -
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Source of Status
Style of work
Managing big budgets and large staff. →
Status derives from building a track record of
Size = Status = High reward
finding solutions to wicked problems.
Clear defined roles and responsibilities →
Projects are assigned to teams rather to
„Individuals are typically much more adept at
individuals. → Charettes1 and constant
describing ‘my responsibilities’ than they are at
dialogue with clients
describing ‘our responsibilities’.“ (Oster, 2008, p. 110) → Economic incentives are often linked tightly to these responsibilities. Mode of Thinking
Two most common kinds of logic are
Use inductive and deductive logic
(cognitive aspects)
rigorous inductive and deductive thinking.
complemented by abductive thinking.
→ Reasoning or arguing outside of these two
Inductive → Induce patterns through the
usually is discouraged by: „Can you prove
close study of users.
that?“
Deductive → Deduce answers through the application of design theories. Abductive → Logic of ‚what might be’ → ‚Designers may not be able to prove that something „is“ or „must be“, but they nevertheless reason that it „may be“’ (Oster, 2008, p. 110)
Dominant Attitude
Constraints are the enemy, budgets are
Constraints are typical prerequisites of the
drivers of decisions. → We can only do what
work process. → „[...] the dominant mindset
we have budget to do. → „So much more
is, “there is nothing that can’t be done. ”If
would be possible if we had no budget
something can’t be done, it is only because the
constraints.“ →
thinking around it hasn’t yet been creative and
Constraints therefore are an undesirable
inspired enough.“ (Oster, 2008, p. 110) →
barrier to the generation and implementation
Constraints therefore are embraced as the
of ideas.
impetus to creative solutions. They increase the challenge and excitement level of the task at hand. (Dunne & R. Martin, 2006, p. 519)
My own findings
Shareholder first
End-user first
Take the first-best solution, that meets all the
Generate new alternatives, even when an
requirements.
apparently viable one has been found. → ‚make world better-attitude’
Table 2: Points of Difference to »Traditional Management Practice« (Dunne & R. Martin, 2006) in Detail
1
The French word "Charrette" means "cart" and is used to describe the final intense work effort expended by art and architecture students to meet a project deadline. At the École des Beaux Arts in Paris during the 19th century, proctors circulated with carts to collect final drawings while the students frantically put finishing touches on their work.
- 11 -
Handout »Design Thinking« | Course: Management Theories
Glossary Abduction → the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis → only logical operation, that introduces any new idea Rule: All the beans from this bag are white; Result: These beans are white; Case: These beans are from this bag Deduction → from the general to the specific Rule: All the beans in the bag were white; Case: These beans were in the bag; Result: These beans are white Induction → from the specific to the general Case: These beans were in this bag; Result: These beans are white; Rule: All the beans in the bag were white Reliability → see above Validity → see above Wicked problems → characterized by their level of interconnectedness, by the presence of amplifying loops that produce unintended consequences when interfered with, by the presence of trade-offs and conflict among stakeholders, and by the nature of their constraints. (Liedtka, 2004) → each problem formulation corresponds to a different solution (context) → none is »optimal« (potential solutions are neither true/false or good/bad) → strategy is a matter of choice rather than »truth« → all solutions are contestable
- 12 -