From the monthly archives: April 2012

Teams and problems

Our success in the world of organizations depends a lot on the level of cooperation that exists between the people who work there. Whether it’s a hierarchy or a network, to have the right kind of interaction with persons belonging to these groups is to have a quick and effective way of working, as for example in the context of innovation.

For many reasons, the generation of ideas and its selection is the most exciting part of innovation. But to do this we would need to find out how the project should work, what means to dedicate time and resources (interact) to ensure its success.

An interaction is a kind of action that occurs when two or more things or people produce an effect, one over the other.

Different disciplines pointed out as being interactions that are related and interdependent systems and where are verifiably that every action has a consequence.

For most of us, achieving good results in solving problems or satisfaction of needs means that we need to increase the number of positive interactions that we have on our environment and reduce our negative interactions.

But who are the other actors in solving problems?

When we interact, in working groups to define problems or find solutions we should devote some time to think about the other actors about their views and needs, as well as the best way to achieve good results in interaction.

To achieve this we need to listen more than we are accustomed, especially if we eventually have some hierarchical ancestry. We need to have an attitude of openness and seek to understand in depth the other people.

To work in a team is a process of building interactions that requires a constant search for understanding.

Develop an empathic understanding means observe and question!

We need to think of the happy ending that this story is going to have and with that end in mind let us build the path already with the aid of some answers to questions that we are asking.

Who is the interlocutor, and what does he need?

Are there ways of being and tools different from ours? How can we approach them?

When we try to interact we are often placed in interdisciplinary environments providing distinct approaches to the same problem and to achieve good results we need to imagine a process that incorporates the best of the various approaches.

Ask not what is true, but what could be true, is the path of healthy interactions.

I think many of us are aware that we have been trained to prefer evidence generated by means of inductive and deductive reasoning and distrust anything that has non-quantifiable data. This can be a barrier to building a collaborative work and learning fruit of the diversity of interactions.

An important aspect of collaborative learning is the movement from the assimilation and goes to the construction, i.e. create new understandings based on discussions that people had.

But, discussions can bring tempers more exalted or less calm and in those times it is prudent to ask a few questions:

What can be done in the absence of evidence, to appease the tempers?

How to develop a new process for working with this group and in this environment?

How can we enhance the strengths of various disciplines represented there to achieve a better final outcome?

Do the answers to these questions will be fundamental to the construction of our prototype of interactions?

“We prototype and test solutions for products, services and experiences; why not for interactions?

Design a process and try it. Test it. Get feedback and refine it. Bring the discipline of prototyping itself into the discussion explicitly. Together with your colleagues, seek to imagine an option – an answer to the dilemma that you face. The prototype of that option takes the form of a happy story of what could be. Lay out the story of that option together and then ask:

What would have to be true for us to make that story a reality?

How could we test to see what really is true?

What, if it were not true, would prevent us from choosing this option?

Explore and test these options to refine your prototype.“ – Roger Martin and Jennifer Riel

The working groups to become agile and dynamic teams, as easily we can see, have to go through moments of convergence and divergence. The moments clearly differ when it comes to a team within an organization or to a construction of a team from its roots as frequently it is the work on projects.

Empathy and acceptance of “what it can be” are two fundamental postures for the functional viability of teams that we have integrated.

 

Do you want to comment?

 

The fear of risking

When we want to learn something, exploratory behavior and intellectual activity are two manifestations of our interest.

Exploratory curiosity, as a result of the attraction of new stimuli that encounter a lack of fear is quite different from intellectual curiosity that translates into our need to think.

For example, if we look at the exploratory behavior of the babies, we find that this behavior will not imply that these babies when they are high school students have a natural curiosity for the intellectual learning.

“Arthur Schawlow, winner of the Nobel prize in physics in 1981, was once asked what, in his opinion, made the difference between highly creative and less creative scientists. He replied, “The labor of love aspect is important. The most successful scientists often are not the most talented. But they are the ones who are impelled by curiosity. They’ve got to know what the answer is.” – Teresa Amabile

Curiosity can be seen as a need or desire for knowledge and is essential for the exploratory behavior’s motivation (the pleasure of seeing and searching), i.e. all activities related to the collection of information on the environment.

Curiosity is our main ally in the understanding of complexity that involves many challenges we face today, however, a clear distinction between exploratory and intellectual curiosity can often not be possible.

We can verify that we know people who are regularly exploitative but are not intellectually curious. I.e. is there a holding and contemplative observation without the intention of aggregating and integrating knowledge.

On the other hand we can observe people who seek incessantly the meaning of things, but with fear risk exploration of the unknown.

The risk factor may have an important weight in doing some exploratory activities demonstrating the ability that the environment have in shaping our attitudes and is often responsible for the direction and focus of our curiosity.

But it’s not just the environment that can shape our curiosity and naturally with this it decrease our ability to build the future. The trust we have in ourselves is also a factor to consider when we want to take chances and to be curious.

The more we develop our curiosity the more we are closer to understanding our surroundings and more easily participate in problem-solving. Curiosity allows us to see things with other eyes and see new truths which in turn make us evolve as individuals, as a community or as organizations.

Our future is closely tied to our curiosity because this keeps our mind active, rather than passive, and therefore more directed to ask questions rather than answered yes to almost everything. Keep an open mind and don’t take things as granted is an important step for the future.

Curiosity makes us observers of new ideas and opens the way to new worlds and opportunities quickly translate into new and emotional experiences. Without the company of curiosity we tend to find things boring and rather than do questions, we have complaints and feelings of displeasure.

We are all lifelong learners, from day one to twenty-thousand-and-one, and that’s why we keep exploring, wondering and discovering, yearning and learning, reaching with more than just our hands… The future belongs to the curious.”

Learning is fun!

 

Want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Reporting experiences and  knowledge transfer

Many times, to explain or clarify the meaning of our message, we feel difficulty in doing so, but that difficulty can be mitigated if we use the narrative, that is, if we tell a good story.

For example, an idea that we think innovative has to be transmitted with passion and is the heat of that passion that makes vibrate our listeners, readers or viewers.

But we also need to learn to tell stories, because today a story told badly can be worse that justify an analysis supported on data bit not relevant.

For some time now that organizations have expressed a renewed interest in the ancient forms of communication, perhaps the result of their awareness of the importance of knowledge, and even more so, because this cannot be exclusively sourced from cold, categorical and categorized analysis.

We easily see that our experiences accumulate over time and sharing these moments and experiences are extremely important for the cohesion of the teams and organizations.

Storytelling is therefore a powerful glue of knowledge and emotions of an organization. Storytelling is a communicative way to synthesize diverse and lasting learning results.

Sharing experiences through stories is emerging in various professions as a powerful way to exchange and consolidate knowledge. Research suggests that sharing experiences through narrative builds trust, cultivates norms, transfers tacit knowledge, facilitates unlearning, and generates emotional connections.”

This message is clearly an indication of a promising path that does not point to the independent use of knowledge as a means for creating a happy end in organizations, but rather provides, an important role to connections, relationships and emotions in the organizational environment.

To build a future, by sharing experiences, we must not protect ourselves exclusively on the analysis of strengths and weaknesses and suffered threats or opportunities won and lost.

-So what’s the solution?

“My solution? Think about a strategic options as being just a happy story about the futureIt doesn’t have to be right and it doesn’t even have to be sensible. It just has to result in your organization being in a happy place in the future. In fact, if it were absolutely right and utterly sensible, your company would probably already be doing it.

It doesn’t have to be constructed analytically. It is a holistic story — here is where we would find ourselves playing and how we would see ourselves winning. The only real requirement is that it be a happy, aspirational story. If it isn’t happy, it isn’t worth being an option in the first place.

If every participant tells one another a happy story, the group will have a wonderful list of options — and quite quickly, because participants won’t feel that they have to work super hard and be terribly careful and be highly logical. The standard on all of those dimensions is brought way down. Meanwhile, the creativity is elevated way up — because these are just stories; happy stories.” – Roger Martin

Despite all the positive forces that storytelling transports, we should not forget that one of our major goals is to share knowledge or behaviors change in organizations and preferably provide happiness to all its employees.

Change behavior may have to do with how we handle the information or how we deal with our interlocutors and this sometimes covers up traps. For example:

-The stories may be too alluring and divert the listeners or readers of the true purpose of the story.

-The stories almost always represent a single point of view and therefore need to incorporate in their construction diversified viewpoints.

-The stories depend on who tell the story and in which moments they tell the story. In a changing environment, the stories can eventually become far from realities and concerns of the people present there.

Storytelling can be a good strategy to share experiences and knowledge providing the audience with strong emotional links on the construction of the future.

 

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

Manage and create knowledge

It is quite known that organizations see knowledge as one of its competitive advantages in the form of strategic resource for resolving problems.

Just as a good farmer treats his fruit trees so companies should deal with knowledge.

And as an orchard trees should be treated without the misuse of chemicals also information in organizations should not be subject to the effects of artificial and manipulative treatment.

If companies want good fruit, which with its aroma delight their customers by providing great content, they must treat its knowledge tree from the root to the crown, without forgetting the maintenance of a healthy trunk.

Many companies have started a series of projects in information processing that include the use of new technologies and media capable of storing data in a much significant way.

So, the question that arises is:

How to care for a structure that supports any information resulting from the processing of such data?

If a tree does not have its roots in the ground where is well developed, it will probably deployed with the strength of a storm. The way how the knowledge was being built in the Organization will identify its roots and the dynamics of its structure and therefore the closer this construction is the company’s values, the stronger the structure and less prone to errors.

We know that a tree may have a fixed or indefinite growth and in accordance with that growth so should be more or less pruned to meet the needs of the farmer. Selective cuts in companies eliminate redundant information allowing a solid growth of knowledge.

In an orchard, there are moments before flowering, in which a farmer needs to prevent infestations, and for that he uses regularly his tacit knowledge, i.e. to your experience. If an organization wants to see the product of its work flowering, it will have to collect the knowledge resulting from its activity and spray their employees with the tacit fluid that it holds. This provides new ideas that give rise to products and services of high quality and usefulness.

When a tree begins to blossom is beginning the process of pollination.

It should not be avoided the cross-pollination, if it is minimally controlled. Being controlled we can have more flavorful and aromatic fruits. In the crossroads of information or the intersection of ideas, we can give rise to a new knowledge.

We must open the borders and explore new horizons and fresh wind.

However it is useful to know that if a tree is laden with fruit and is not secured with stakes, a small gust can topple some of its branches. The information in large quantities may not benefit, on the contrary, can make the decision hard in what concerns the relevance and application of the information.

The farmer is happy when see the color of its fruits and feel rewarded for having used the correct methodology in this lifecycle of his trees. He just thinks in the distribution channels until it reaches the final consumer.

Companies that have built their products and services, with the help of a good management of knowledge, know that each moment is vital and that every component in his system is essential to the final result.

But it is not enough knowledge management and organizations can and must have creation spaces, such as a farmer makes grafts trees.

“Why? Because these creation spaces, heavily relying on shared network platforms, provide tools and forums for knowledge creation while at the same time capturing the discussion, analysis, and actions in ways that make it easier to share across a broader range of participants… Creation spaces have the potential to generate increasing returns — the more participants that join, the faster new knowledge gets created and the more rapidly performance improves. They bring into play network effects in the generation of new knowledge. In contrast, traditional knowledge management systems are inherently diminishing returns propositions.” – John Hagel III, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison

A culture of learning, explicit and tacit knowledge requires care over the life of the company.

Now, for the farmer is the time to do the composting of waste. For businesses, it is time to recycle all information combining it in order to create value in every moment that follows in pursuit of satisfaction of customers ‘ needs.

Do you want to comment?

This text is an adaptation of Knowledge is like a tree! Take care of it!

 

Team culture and innovation

The culture of an organization represents a very well combined set of goals, functions, processes, practices, values, attitudes, assumptions, etc.

The organizations culture takes time to build and consolidate itself, and perhaps for this reason when we want its change we face a range of obstacles despite the time of acculturation of a company does not have of course the same meaning that would have a few years ago.

Because we see change with a high speed we easily perceive that the culture of a generation evolves rapidly in their contours, while the nuclear aspects can remain stable.

The median longevity of companies also changed, giving rise to many episodes of short duration. For example, only about ten percent of entrepreneurs who engage in arena, survive.

This way we can watch the many attacks on culture and organizations that cause significant changes in the boundaries of employment relationships, particularly in building teams.

Within a generation of job is easy to recognize the effects of social changes in the forms of production and on the needs of the employees of an organization.

What would be a good leader yesterday, only will be today, if himself has accompanied the transformation of culture.

However, despite all this processing in the characterization of companies, there are some “heads” and intermediate hierarchies that seem to want to remain insensitive to change and it is at these levels that a leader or a Manager will spend much of their energies.

A leader to conquer people with whom he works needs lots of cunning and persuasion.

One of the big problems that organizations have in a change process of the company’s culture is the difficulty experienced in building teams, i.e., when the change of culture implies more collaborative work as a team, the resistance may increase.

So how can we facilitate the development of a team’s culture?

In an environment of teamwork, people understand and believe that the thinking, planning, decisions and actions are best when made collaboratively. However, in order for members of the teams can achieve a true level of cooperation and because it means almost always change, we need:

-That people understand “why the change” in strategy or culture.

-Be aware that changing an organization requires the transfer of some resources to other areas.

-Want to make the change.

-Change the internal politics of the organization.

Building a team culture implies therefore also an assessment of the potential of all elements of the organization in order to facilitate the best possible combination of existing resources and/or to integrate new.

An evaluation process allows understanding some behavioral trends, needs and motivational factors, as well as abilities or competences. When evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the team members, the organizations are capable of managing  talents and easily they can manage energy, to develop the team projects with speed and efficiency they want.

The culture is seen as a whole, which is different from the sum of the parts. It is not the sum, but the combination of vision and values, which enables the creation of a culture.

The culture of a team is made by collaborators who share common practices, but where each one influences the whole through their perceptions of the environment in which he is involved.

The culture of a team goes through the real knowledge of energy that this team is capable of producing. The notion of team’s culture is especially more relevant at a time when three generations are living together in teams and organizations. Among different generations there are significant differences in values and trends.

While the older generation, or much of it, refuses to accept the change, generation X, is completely squashed between it and the later generation, which presents itself in teams with an unwavering trust, and complaining about the attention to itself.

Organizations must find a balance, not a balance of “good manners”, but balance that is the result of knowledge, talent and experience of all generations.

Organizations should encourage innovation through a culture of interdisciplinary teams of project where employees can feel with trust.

The ideal culture profile created by the organization indicates that the requirement is for a team style that involves Motivator, Innovator and Networker type roles. Such a team will:

· Inspire others with its enthusiasm.

· Promote the organization.

· Seek challenging assignments.

· Boost the morale of the team.

· Motivate and encourage others to achieve results.

· Want variety and change.

· Question the status quo.

Do you want to comment?

 

 

Business Renaissance

Because we live so long within the same box, when we want to solve a problem or provide something new and amazing, we can see that we used to think without having confidence in divergent opinions, especially those that arise out of the box.

But we can combine the two forms, both inside and outside the box and build a new without box or with a system of communicating vessels to ensure the flow of ideas and provide the collisions of internal and external points of view.

This new way of thinking, makes shine communication, increases confidence and highlights common attributes and points of interest, such as comprehension, allowing an overall view of the problem.

Organizations that believe in innovation and verify that within its walls there is no capacity to respond to the challenges posed to them do not have another exit, to survive, but to seek abroad the inspiration for their new business model.

This demand however will require an extra effort of understanding the problem and its resolution forms and will require the construction of a new mental model, which often requires the abandonment of some old beliefs, certain assumptions or implies even unlearn.

A mental model is a representation of a situation that involves our vision of that situation and frames our thinking, perception and action. It is a set of beliefs about a given situation.

For example, the expression “business is an art” represents a mental model that implies that the activities of the business move as an inspiration for creative work and not as a preparation for a competition many times without rules or ethics.

Companies today are called to a new challenge which translates into thinking innovation every day and to turn this thought into a new business model.

Gary Hamel argues that, to achieve this level of continuous innovation “it will need, new values, new processes for innovation, a greater adaptability, the infusion of passion in the workplace and a new belief system or ideology”.

We need to travel from times where questioning hierarchies was bad and the costs were the dominant emphasis (traditional business model), for the times when questioning is a fundamental need to develop critical thinking in order to impregnate significance when creating value through a collaborative work.

This way people reach simplicity, durability and sustainability of a spirit of innovation, and reinforce themselves continuously!

Despite all appeals in the world of management, a new mindset and find what really matters can take time because managers have accommodated themselves to the old “principles” and analytical assumptions and think that creativity is just to decorate the offices.

So what matters now?

Values:

As trust has waned, the regulatory burden on business has grown. Reversing these trends will require nothing less than a moral renaissance in business.

Innovation:

Successful products and strategies are quickly copied. Without relentless innovation, success is fleeting. …there’s not one company in a hundred that has made innovation everyone’s job, every day. In most organizations, innovation still happens “despite the system” rather than because of it. …innovation is the only sustainable strategy for creating long-term value.

Adaptability:

Problem is, deep change is almost always crisis-driven; it’s tardy, traumatic and expensive. In most organizations, there are too many things that perpetuate the past and too few that encourage proactive change. The “party of the past” is usually more powerful than the “party of the future.” In a world where industry leaders can become laggards overnight, the only way to sustain success is to reinvent it.

Passion:

The average workplace is a buzz killer. Petty rules, pedestrian goals, and pyramidal structures drain the emotional vitality out of work. Maybe that didn’t matter in the knowledge economy, but it matters enormously in the creative economy. The problem is not a lack of competence, but a lack of ardor.

Ideology:

Whatever the rhetoric to the contrary, control is the principal preoccupation of most managers and management

What creates value today is the unexpectedly brilliant product, the wonderfully weird media campaign, and the entirely novel customer experience.”

This true reinvention of our way of being when we are facing business models has already some places for reflection.

There seems to be no doubt that some companies (Ex: Apple-one in a hundred) realized that innovation in products, services and business models is the only strategy to create long-term value.

Some companies have also found that there are little things that conspire together to truly make a product exceptional, i.e. products that work intuitively, reliable and without secrets.

 

What do you think of this?

 

Tagged with:
 

The diversity in identifying problems

To find problems means to identify the characteristics of the problem, including its contextualization and the consequences of its existence.

To see the problems by many different perspectives and dominate what is the most important step in problem-solving, i.e. clearly define the problem help us find solutions faster and with less cost.

If we think a little, maybe we check that people tend to expect that the others find the problems so they can solve it, instead of taking the initiative to look for or anticipate the problems.

One of the possible reasons why people avoid finding problems is the ease way with which they can drop them. They can always say that the problem is not them because it is too complex or because it goes beyond the limits of his or her duties or responsibilities.

However from the perspective of a customer’s problem, and while companies, there is a need to take a different approach.

The non-presence of proactive behaviors in many people means that, many times, the approach to the problem and their identification is late.

Fortunately, for many other people, what matters is thinking they are able to find the problem and identify this problem.

These people prefer to start new things, discover problems where apparently it seems all is well, and this is the result of a level of dissatisfaction which is sometimes misunderstood because organizations reward generally good implementation of a replication and not learning from mistakes.

People who expect that problems arise and those who seek are two types of people who are part of a wider and possible group in working teams. This diversity of people’s preferences in work teams, often translated in interdisciplinary, can be viewed as a potential conflict, but it can also have many advantages.

In a team is nice to be able to create problems, have proactive attitudes and learn to appreciate different cognitive preferences between people.

When an organization is able to create synergies between the creators and explorers, and individuals with other job preferences all phases of creative process are benefited.

The definition of the problem requires a vision of the problem resulting from the combination of multiple perspectives, as well as a long succession of questions about the “why” of the problem, but to seek the answers to our questions we should avoid all sorts of trials in the definition of the problem.

The purpose of the definition phase is to find a direction for the problem to be solved and then to wrap it so creative solutions arise.

However it is good to remember that the problems:

-Are active. The problems do not lie idly waiting for solutions.

-The problems have an impact. How can something be considered a problem if we can’t identify what is wrong, or at least not as well as it should?

-The problems do not have suitable solutions available. The unfavorable situations are not necessarily problems to identify.

When defining the problem, ask the following questions:

The problem is defined objectively using just the facts?

The scale of the problem is limited enough for the team to handle?

All team members will understand the significance of the problem?

The statements that are used to define the problem are really all explicit?

What you want to achieve is actually measurable?

There is a date identified for problem resolution?

To identify the deeper cause of a problem from the result identified by the analysis of quantitative and qualitative information is key to ensuring that the real cause of the problem is understood.

It is important that the team can determine whether a result is actually a cause or an effect to ensure the sustainability of solutions.

 

Do you want to comment?

 

Tagged with:
 

What competences?

A team is a given number of individuals, who work together to perform a task that is placed in their hands. But the concept of hot team, goes a bit further, and is one that has been used for small groups of people who make a quick evaluation of an emerging technology, trend or approach.

The concept is based around the notion that Tom Kelley team hot and that the design firm  Ideo uses to do projects very fast for products or services.

In a normal situation, in the implementation of the hot team is given an amount of time for team members collaboratively, investigate, discuss, model and create a set of results based on a number of established questions.

So the aim is to encourage people to come together around a task and creating a set of results that can be shared. This teamwork facilitates the continued development of competencies of each one of the team members, providing a sense of responsibility and commitment to the job.

When we think about small and medium-sized businesses build a team becomes a critical process.

We usually refers to the formation of teams passing through several stages, from the development process of the team, to implementation and through confrontation and the application of standards, but the “true teams” consist of a set of people with diverse backgrounds and its construction can become more dynamic and evolutionary.

Having multiple perspectives always produces better results.

Here, the common concern is in the integration, or the ability of each team to integrate their skills overall, richer and more appropriate, common purpose. This is to integrate and communicate practical ideas and techniques consistently because we are in the presence of individuals carrying different professional profiles.

So how to aggregate combined parts and transforms them into a “whole”, more valuable than their sum?

The success of interdisciplinary teams rests in the interactions between team members, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but that doesn’t mean there are no problems.

While the lone work can provide a path with fewer errors, though narrower in scope, the interdisciplinary work is more failure-prone but are compensated by the innovative nature of the results in addition to provide openness to new search fields arising from the combination of several types of approach.

The development of an interdisciplinary team requires mastery of a common language and the ability in each one to understand the values underlying the statements of others.

There are the different timbres of perception and the different emotional tones which will confront when creating interdisciplinary teams. These are extraordinary added value, when resolved all cognitive conflicts.

We can say that combine the various possible approaches is better than accumulate different opinions.

We know that SMEs have some structural disadvantages when it comes to open the door to innovation. Often they do not have many of the skills needed to identify, transfer and absorb ideas effectively or use new technologies that emerge.

However, this may have a satisfactory output if the leadership of those companies understand the teams always surrounded by the world of possibilities.

Put a CEO and an orchestra conductor into a room together, and the two will have more in common than they might imagine. The CEO faces management challenges, sure. But the average conductor presides over a notoriously unhappy, professionally frustrated group of people every day — orchestra musicians, who in a landmark 1996 Harvard study were found to be less satisfied with their jobs than were federal prison guards. Contrast this with the group of workers at the top of the study’s job-satisfaction scale: string quartet musicians. The players in this smaller performing group ranked the highest in job contentedness and professional growth. “

It is often in small groups and small businesses that the most powerful teams emerges, fruit of a passion and of the art of possibilities.

Do you want to comment?

 

We do not have to choose always between …We can create new!

We live in a transitional phase between an old “business world”, traditional and corporate, and a “new world” with a people-centric approach to create new things and with value through interdisciplinary teams and collaborative processes.

There is, on the part of some people, a purpose of convergence of these two worlds, which basically can mean a new model created with the relevant points of each one of them and where empathy takes on a key role.

Design Thinking is a mindset that allows forms of collaboration in interdisciplinary teams with amazing results and can be translated as movement, suppleness and evolution.

Design thinking is a way to do something, in a dimension that represents a new learning experience for everyone, especially for business people and a fact that cannot be ignored or minimized is that they have a lot to give back with his experience,.

However many of these business people fear failure, have aversion to unpredictability or uncertainty and have a major concern with the status.

Design thinking requires a different attitude that is, go beyond the case studies or exchanges of good practices. Business cannot be happy with the transfer of a solution of a company to another.

Roger Martin on “The Design of Business,” says that in order to become design thinkers we must develop a posture (our perspective of the world and our role in it), the tools (the models we use to organize our world and our thoughts) and experiences (what has built and developed our skills and sensibilities).

Then, the fundamental question that a design thinker asks is:

“Does this helps me to get where I need to go”?

To answer this question it is important do not forget that design thinking places three fundamental issues that are raised for the development of our projects:

Is it this desirable?

Is it technically feasible?

Is it economically viable?

DT goes further challenging the status quo because the design thinkers can resolve finer problems through integrative thinking in collaboration, using the logic of abduction, that is, the logic of what can be and not what should be or what it is.

We can see that on DT, after inspiration and ideation comes a third space of design thinking process that is implementation. At the heart of the implementation process is prototyping, transforming ideas into products and services that will then be tested, placed in interaction and refined.

Through prototypes, design thinking process seeks to discover unforeseen implementation challenges and unintended consequences, in order to obtain more reliable results of long-term success.

Prototyping can validate a component of an electronic device or a detail in the interaction between a transmitter and a receptor.

After the completion of the process of prototyping or the final product or service be created, design thinkers team helps to create a communication strategy.

Storytelling helps communicate the solution to a diverse set of entities related to the process, both inside and outside the Organization, especially when there is language or cultural barriers.

Design thinking can be applied to all aspects of a business system is it the cost of structure, the selection of partners or the competitive strategy, etc. but perhaps lacks, for its greater visibility, to establish a common language and understandable between business and DT.

Design thinking requires empathy with users. Does it commit the competitiveness of businesses?

Is it wrong to try to strike a balance between analysis and intuition?

Design thinking seeks the meaning of things! Does this affect business?

Is it wrong to think also on customer needs rather than exclusively on the interests of shareholders?

Why companies usually reject learning from failure?

Do you want to comment?

This article was originally published at Kaizen Biz

 

Paths to a different thinking

Innovation is a concept that occupies a singular space in the creation and development of business. It is without a doubt the most important competitive factor today and will be over the next few years.

Many companies and even people who want to build a company, rather than develop an identity of its own and therefore “unique”, follow the trend of “copy” and “paste” on the place they are. We need to start thinking differently, i.e. we need to think innovatively.

In a tradition that has persisted for some years, organizations are seen as systemic entities, and to understand them we have levels of analysis ranging from the individual to the organization, through groups, but where there is always an entry point and one exit point.

Although these levels can and should exist as a benchmark, an innovative approach will have a greater focus on interaction and multiple entry and exit points of information that internal and external networks of a company provide.

If we think in an innovative way we need to map this interactivity in order to make the knowledge and behavior of elements of a company liable to “corporate governance”.

Today, we no longer treat the information as a collection of opinions from various authorities, each in their respective disciplines, to take a decision because not being allowed the cognitive conflict between those entities the result we can wait won’t be as desired. The decision should not be the result of a sum but the combination of various opinions.

The combination of several opinions makes a difference and leads to innovative thinking.

“Innovation is only possible when challenging the norm and questioning a brief one has been given, becomes inherent to working when trying to find the best possible answer to a problem. More precisely when opportunity finding becomes more important than problem solving, which leads to answers that were not apparent or existing before – where designing is related very closely to inventing.

Nurturing the right breeding ground for design thinking, will make it necessary to overcome hierarchies between disciplines and to fully embrace the symbiosis of engineering, finance, operation and design; all disciplines needed during a project to guarantee a successful outcome. The recognition of the need for joint efforts on an equal level is important not only for product but also for service and business design.” – Christiane Drews

“The recognition of the need for joint efforts to an equal level” brings us to the distinction between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary that not being consensual has its most visible dimension in healthcare.

What is at stake, it is a question of territory of knowledge and its justification.

Interdisciplinary teams have a high production level and usually in developing projects, are numerous teams, in the phase of implementation of ideas, but during inspiration phase the teams are reduced in number.

There is an advantage in interdisciplinary teams that results from generalist training of team members, when they have the possibility to discuss third-party interventions in its areas of expertise.

Interdisciplinary teams can be seen as structures that provide environments that:

–      Allow the opening to new challenges.

–      Allow us to think about the unthinkable.

–      Promote the perspective of contrarian.

–      Encourage the creative doubts.

–      Open the way to daring.

–      Promote the way for confidence.

–      Encourage dialogue.

These can be the paths that when guaranteed make our innovative thinking.

Do you want to comment?

 

 

Tagged with: