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, […]
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
Confirmation bias Twyla Tharp says, in “The Creative Habit”, that “before you can think outside the box you have to start with the box”. And it is by the box that we must begin when we think how innovation is conducted. In many companies, innovation is a Department with a hierarchy that makes decisions about the […]
Twyla Tharp says, in “The Creative Habit”, that “before you can think outside the box you have to start with the box”.
And it is by the box that we must begin when we think how innovation is conducted.
In many companies, innovation is a Department with a hierarchy that makes decisions about the value of ideas, often placed in the boxes of suggestions.
However the direction that these ideas are not always the most appropriate. Frequently we heard talk that once approved an initiative for innovation, the plan that should match was thrown through the window.
Innovation brings uncertainty and brings risk that often is associated with the fear and outline a plan may seem somewhat similar to a contest of diviners.
There are no certainties and so becomes convenient to downplay the importance of planning for awhile or otherwise establish projections based on super optimism.
Today, the world is global. WE no longer exports only the novelty and the contexts are of vital importance, so that planning must be done taking into account the new variables.
“There is no way to design a product for the American mass market and then simply adapt it for the Chinese or Indian mass market. Buyers in poor countries demand solutions on an entirely different price-performance curve. They demand new, high-tech solutions that deliver ultra-low costs and “good enough” quality…
They must innovate to solve the problems of the developing world — and then bring the innovations home.” –Vijay Govindarajan
Govindarajan and Chris Trimble go further when pointed out the three steps to planning an initiative for innovation and evaluation of its progress on “The Other Side of Innovation”:
-Formalize experimentation. The basic principles for learning experiences are familiar, but difficult to follow.
-Break chances. Everyone, even the simplest innovation initiatives are really experimental compounds. There are two or more uncertain conjectures.
-Look for the truth. Innumerable pressures on organizations pushing people to interpretations of the results that is comfortable and convenient rather than dispassionate and analytical. These pressures must be understood and overcome.
Learning through experimentation always brings us new knowledge and new ideas. To have experimentation as a habit, accelerates the choices and founded the hypotheses.
And because to put hypotheses is the best way to not get arrested the assumptions, the approach to different contexts, not only widens the spectrum of our possible actions as possible eliminates wrong incursions in the future.
All what is truth comes to the top and the comfortable interpretations can push to catastrophic results.
A good balance between analysis and intuition can bring the return hotter.
What do you think about this?
TagsAnalyses and intuition Art and innovation Ask questions Assumptions and innovation Behavior and innovation Behavior change Business model Business models Collaboration and innovation Connections and creativity Create value Creativity and diversity Creativity and empathy Creativity and sustainability Critical thinking Designthinking Design thinking and business Diversity and creativity Diversity and Innovation Emotional experiences Empathy and innovation Evaluation of ideas Innovation and Human Resources Innovation and Management Innovation and networks Innovation and observation Innovation and possibilities Innovation and trust Innovation Culture Inovattion Institute for the Future Interception of ideas Intuitive thinking Making decisions Marty Neumeir Motivation and collaboration Open Innovation Services Passion and creativity Protoypes Resistance to change Rethinking options Simplicity and innovation Time and creativity values and innovation White space
- February 2018
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- February 2016
- March 2014
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011