Currently viewing the tag: "Designthinking"

The relief

According to Roger Martin, “the skills of design and business skills tend to converge.” To be successful in the future, business people must be more like designers, must improve its ability of vision of the whole.”

As people of decisions, managers and business leaders should leave its focus on efficiency and focus on the consumer that is the people.

Design thinking is a way to think about doing something in a dimension that represents a new learning experience for everyone, not only to schools but especially for business people.

Many of these business people fear failure, have aversion to unpredictability and have a great concern for the status.

The difference between these two ways of doing things is significant.

The way to decide assumes that alternatives already exist (case study), but decide it will be difficult. Design view assumes that new options have to be devised (using the process design), but once imagined, decide it will be easy. The truth is success in the 21st century. XXI will depend on finding the right mix of these two modes.

Design thinking will then look for its integration into business and these in design thinking modes.

The new products, services, processes, technologies, business models, etc., do not happen by chance, they must be thought and designed!

The business failure to obtain returns on innovation efforts and their investments remains a concern. In its origin may be a bad idea, a few good ideas, support the misconceptions, incorrect marketing model, lack of capacity for the implementation or preparation for the market.

Often, indeed almost always, this failure is linked to missing white spaces view, where the insertion of each stroke or logo provides a relief in the battle against adversity.

A white space is a place where we or a company may have room for maneuver.

Using effectively the white space we can create an invisible order that will improve the readability of any intention or action proposed.

To use the white space means that we are not dependent on a multitude of data for analysis that always leads us to what should be done and not to what can be done.

When we respond to a white space seizes us a drama, which takes away from the routine and prejudice, but that turns into passion as we envision the path of success.

This space challenges us to become aware of our environments, our spaces, both internal and external and challenges us to relax the control and to assume an attitude of openness and collaboration.

Do you want to comment?


Desirable, technically possible and economically viable

I frequently find myself in a state of simultaneous dismay and delightful admiration about the end product of designers.”

I joined this assertion of Don Norman to one of the major problems related to the ideas, innovation and entrepreneurs, and that is – To be able to create a balance between the desirable, feasible and economically viable. And this is often a mix of emotions that accompany people on the path that an idea has to go through until it is actually a case of work done.

What causes this mix of dismay and delight?

Designers are trained as craftspeople, without any substantive knowledge of the content areas in which they do their work. My dismay comes from their lack of understanding and by the confidence with which they proclaim masterful solutions to the world’s problems. They often produce innovative, clever solutions, but with no evidence that they have actually addressed the most critical parts of the problem or that their solutions actually work. They are often unaware that others have toiled with those issues for decades, that the problems are deep and profound, and that no single approach, no matter how brilliant, will suddenly solve all the issues.

On the other hand, this very lack of knowledge can produce profound insights that lead to advances in understanding, hence my delight. Having too much knowledge can lead to following the failed footsteps of those who preceded you.”

On the other hand, this lack of knowledge can produce profound reflections that lead to advances in understanding, hence my joy. Have a lot of knowledge can lead to failed follow in the footsteps of those who have preceded you.”

“Why not start off with a wide range of unconstrained ideas, then together with the sound specialists, refine the result to be both graceful and effective?”

Many of the people who want to transform their idea into a business on its own initiative seek to do soon the assumption that they dominate all the aspects of the process beyond and are convinced they have the skills needed for it.

The truth however is tougher than the dream and requires a lot of work and a lot of collaboration in an environment of diversity and adversity.

The approach of the most critical parts of a problem and verification of functionality of things are two important aspects referred by Don Norman as lacking in the innovative production of designers.

However when we talk about business it fundamental that we are were that “Innovation needs to happen at the intersection of desirability, viability, and feasibility.  These three elements make up the legs of a proverbial stool called “it’ll work in the world.”  Too many innovation initiatives focus on only one or two, much to their detriment.  For example, creating something without regard for its feasibility out in the world is not unlike designing a bridge without regard to the existence of gravity: it might work, but the likelihood of it being a reliable, safe, means of transport will be greatly diminished.  And while it might be tempting to “really be creative” by ignoring constraints, a wiser approach is to view constraints as liberating.”- Diego Rodriguez

This concern of crossing the desirable with what is technically feasible and economically viable reminds me of an initiative that I have taken a few years ago, with a family legacy in the cosmetics industry.

I had desired products and the technical capacity to produce and new ideas as well as some capital and enthusiasm. Everything ran serenely (perhaps too much) until arise constraints and adversities arise my domain.

Then I checked how much interdisciplinarity and collaboration are so important when we talk about in the implementation of our projects.

Now looking back I think it is easy to identify what was missing and that Graham Hill in a very clear and surgical way calls to attention in a comment on “Starting up a Start-up. How to start a service design business? “:

“Starting a business brings with it many challenges. Jess lays out some of the many human challenges involved in his excellent response. He also mentioned – but didn’t elaborate on – perhaps the most important thing of all, namely, do you have a viable BUSINESS MODEL. Unless you have a viable business model, no amount of marketing, salesmanship or consulting skills will get your business off the ground.”

The lack of knowledge can produce profound reflections, as Don Norman said, but can also bring failure, I say.

It is true that no single approach can suddenly solve all the problems and that’s why it is good to remember:

Creativity and design thinking is nothing without a business model to take the ideas generated to market. And a willingness to get out of the building as soon as possible to test the ideas.Graham Hill

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:

Interdisciplinarity touched upon!


@umairh: Mediocrity asks “Is it profitable?”. First, try asking: “Is it worthwhile? Will it matter? Is it meaningfully better?”

Yesterday we conducted the first Service Design Drinks at Porto and I feel fortunate to have been part of this event!

Porto, the city where I was born and lived for many years, is so close, and never ceases to amaze me. Porto is color, are people, streets, the river and sea, and anything else that tells us that we are at home.

Yesterday a group of people, distinguished representatives of diversity, entrepreneurs, designers, students, economists, psychologist, from Porto among other cities but also different on age, talk about “service design” while enjoyed themselves with a specialty of the house or appreciated their drinks of choice for the moment.

We wanted people to talk about the theme, service design, without having necessarily to obtain a prescription for a special sauce.

The dynamics implemented was simple. We developed a set of questions based on the theme “Service Design”, which were written on post-it (large) and to the extent that our guests were entering they chose one of four available colors.

At one stage we ask each select one of the guests present so he or she answer the question that he or she had chosen. We repeat this operation several times causing people contact the largest possible number of guests.

This activity has nothing extraordinary, however what was surprised to note that at some point the enthusiasm with conversations was so great that we chose to leave freely run it.

It was installed curiosity! We win the bet!

People, who mostly do not know each other, were able to independently create various discussion panels which continued for four hours ale after they entered.

The interdisciplinarity, that we lived in that room, made possible the approach to the topic under various angles and the experiences of each were shared enthusiastically.

And now a curious note, maybe somehow expected and which could be summarized to widespread interest in knowing how to converge the language of “service design” and business!

There was one hand who defend that businesses did not open enough to develop work and who (entrepreneurs) seek to understand the potential of the “service design” and how to deal with it in the perspective of the company.

This attempt at mutual understanding took the first steps and is promising. So I leave here some of my reflections.

I think behind “service design” is there a service dominant logic and mindset called “design thinking”.

Design thinking makes sense when we talk about adding value to a product or service and this value is perceived by the user or consumer.

In organizations whether for-profit or not there is a balanced combination of powers which when implemented will cause a flow of value creation that will benefit everyone – Upstream the Organization, within the Organization and down-stream the organization.

When we talk about design thinking in businesses we see that there is a need for learning from both sides’ designers and business. Hence the concern existing schools, to the development of competencies, detected as weak or very weak.

These competencies refer to skills of interaction in interdisciplinary teams and with consumers or business people. 

According to Roger Martin, “the design competences and skills of business tend to converge.” To be successful in the future, business people must be more like designers, need to improve their ability to vision of the whole.

Or as Neumeier said  “we can’t decide between one and another, we have to draw the path forward.

The difference between these two ways of doing things is significant. The way to decide assumes that the alternatives already exist (case studies), but decide it will be difficult. Design view assumes new choices must be imagined (using the process design), but once imagined, decide it will be easy.

The truth is that success in the 21st century. XXI depends on finding the right mix of these two modes, but many of these business people fear failure, averse to unpredictability, and have a great concern for the status.

This was an experiment which I wanted to share!

Thanks to all who were present in “Service Design Drinks Porto”!

Tagged with:

Two worlds in convergence

In our world, there are sets of “two worlds” which should differentiate once in a while, but the purpose must always be the convergence, which basically means a new model created with the relevant points of each one.

One of these cases is the confrontation or coexistence of the world of Business with the world of Design Thinking.

Design Thinking is a mindset that allows for forms of collaboration in interdisciplinary teams with amazing results. It is movement and suppleness.

In the business world, organizations with and non-profit tend to have different perspectives about the role of design thinking at least react differently to their presence.

Design thinking is a way to think about doing something in a dimension that represents a new learning experience for everyone, especially for business people and they have much to reciprocate with his experience, which cannot be ignored or minimized.

However many of these business people fear failure, are averse to unpredictability, and have a great concern for the status.

There are two worlds where what is most important, is people.

“The two worlds of design and business still need to learn to meet half way. Think of an organization in which design plays a central, driving role, and there’s really only one major cliché of an example to use: Apple. But what Apple has in Steve Jobs is what every organization looking to embrace design as a genuine differentiating factor needs: a business expert who is able to act as a whole hearted champion of the value of design.”- Helen Walters

Design Thinking requires a different attitude that is, go beyond case studies or exchanges of good practice. Businesses cannot simply download a solution from one company to another.

Design thinking allows us to collaborate and encompass the complexity that growing businesses face because the work is characterized by interdisciplinarity and where not to be afraid of being wrong is a common feeling.

Interdisciplinary teams have the potential for greater creativity in organizations.

When featuring critical thinking, interdisciplinary teams produce creative work, and its members can actively express their ideas without fear of interfering with interpersonal relations, even if it means having to be aggressive and stubborn in defending dissidents perspective change and improvement.

Conflicts in design thinking are seen as opportunities for creative activities.

In fact, our negative feelings can provide a sign that all is not well and thus provide a persistent persecution of creative responses to the existing discontent.

These negative feelings seem to be the privileged coverage of actors in cases where you do converge design thinking and business.

When we seek convergence in interdisciplinary teams know that these are the result of a variety of divergent perspectives and functional specializations which at first sight is not going to facilitate the production of creative ideas.

If the members of these teams have not a Design Thinking mindset they don’t necessarily produce creative work because its members are reluctant to share their perspectives “exclusive” (unique ideas) and because doing so can damage their image, may appear incompetent or create conflicts.

What we need is an approach to innovation that is powerful, effective, and broadly accessible, that can be integrated into all aspects of business and society, and that individuals and teams can use to generate breakthrough ideas that are implemented and therefore have an impact.” – Tim Brown (Change By Design)

What do you think about this?

Why connections through several options care?


In our life we face problems of multiple dimensions that require differentiated levels solutions. Not everything around us requires interdisciplinary methodologies or very elaborate solutions.

But human experience cannot be conceived and understood exclusively through one discipline or reduced to a perspective.

It turns out that we have not learned anything with someone who sees problems in exactly the same way that we see and often at home or in organizations we are faced with problems whose solution requires the participation of various disciplines.

Our behavior is subject to multiple levels of influence and consequently to a variety of perspectives and the way how we build our cognitive map will influence our ability to solve problems, create value and build a vision.

Our world of solutions and value creation is not restricted to verifiable metrics; on the contrary it extends to infinity, up to a world of possibilities where you must include the solutions resulting from combinations, connections and contributions.

It is a world where there is place to the different feelings about things, and that gives rise to passions.

I am the reference framework for everything that happens in my life and so I construct my future through options that I create in an environment of complexity.

But if my action is generally boils down to choose what is proposed to me i I’m not building my future, I’m accepting exclusively the choices of others.

It is important that I identify the context in which I inserted, make connections and develop collaboration to create sustainable value.

The world we live in is a complex world where many of the solutions that are presented are not built based on our needs and therefore we need to create powers of adaptation.

“As individuals we relate to our complex, uncertain and foggy world not only through our senses, but also through ways of making sense of what our senses sense. These ‘ways of seeing’ can be thought of as ‘mental models’, and our minds are filled with them, whether we are aware of it or not. In today’s complex environment, the most successful thinkers can quickly and effectively abstract the best qualities of radically different ways of seeing from others and apply them to the situation at hand. In doing so, these thinkers develop an ‘adaptive lens’ on the bewildering phenomenon we call the world. – Mihnea Moldoveanu and Roger Martin

The numerous possibilities for solutions are developed in an environment of interdisciplinarity.

Explore the art of the possibilities is to achieve maximum breadth and depth of knowledge and skills.

The more diverse are our connections most comprehensive is our field of operation that makes our ability to explain very well little with as our ability to see and observe increase significantly.

When we highlight the connections between various disciplines we can explore creative forms of value and meaning, and to share our vision of the world.

A vision is a powerful framework for pursuing, our operations in any ecosystem, to the universe of possibilities.

Si Alhir (@SAlhir) on hisr blog fits very well the concept and vision of Umair Haque :

“A capitalism where companies, countries, and economies reach a higher apex of advantage — one where bigger purpose rouses untapped human potential of every employee, customer, and future customer, instead of deadening it.

One where fiercer passion makes innovation as natural as drawing breath, spontaneously combusting the spark of creativity instead of dousing its flame with lowest common denominators.

One where deeper meaning replaces the drab grind of repetition with challenging and compelling work that elevates the soul.

Where more authentic power flows from shared principles instead of (yawn) sweeter carrots and heftier sticks.

Where greater resourcefulness means being not the natural world’s conqueror, but its champion.

Where higher-quality value is created by doing stuff of greater worth. And ultimately where companies compete not just to change the rules, but to change the world.”

Create things of most value by establishing connections, understanding deeply the needs of people involve also a new way of thinking. Involves thinking about what we believe to be able to create a set of skills that will enable us to embrace the complexity without being dependent on the “wild” exploitation from who provides.

 “What is needed is a new set of skills, and a new development program for nurturing them. Specifically, we need to develop ways of building better ‘on-one’s-feet thinkers’, which we can only do by precisely articulating the kinds of thinking needed for business problems. These skills are varied, but they rest on an ability to think about thinking while thinking. That is, to think about what you are thinking about – about the complexity of the problem you are trying to solve, while at the same time, thinking through various solutions to the problem. Diaminds do this naturally, and because the skill is precisely articulable, it can be transferred.” – MM e RM

From the observation of connections in a given context we can see what information is relevant, deciding where it is important to reduce or cut, understand the causal relations of connections, and make the final selections.

The world is not only complex things, but they exist!


What do you think of this?

Open service design and Innovation

Almost all we experience products whose main accessory was an instruction manual and in some cases these fostered business training to be able to use these products fully.

Deliver products without a friendly service seems to be no more betting preferred companies. More than deliver products now we must think to deliver services well designed.

In my opinion, this means that there we begin to have a great concern addressed the needs of users or consumers, which is to be welcomed.

Today it is possible to combine the organizational skills with the real needs of clients to develop new solutions to their problems. However this raises challenges to organizational change for which it is important to be attentive to abandon the dominant thought in the twentieth century and make use of a process more open, interactive and collaborative.

There are four fundamental concepts suggested by Henry Chesbrough that will accelerate the movement of more open service innovation:

  1. “Think of your business as an open services business in order to create and sustain differentiation in a commodity trap world.
  2. Invite customers to co-create innovation to generate (new) experiences they will value and reward.
  3. Use Open Service Innovation to help you turn your business into a platform for others to build on.
  4. Transform your business model with Open Services Innovation to profit from building a platform business model so you can gain from others’ innovation activities as well.”


It seems to be true that many concepts of open innovation are easily applicable to the services and in my opinion many of the concepts of Design services can also be combined with open innovation.

Service Design is a useful structure to maintain the perspective of the world outside of the users or consumers as the main element in selecting and developing ideas for innovation.

The potential for innovation is not exclusively on internal focus on available technologies or capabilities of a company.

When we look at the services through the consumer or user journey we find significant interactions among themselves, as the service provider and its employees, its customers and other stakeholders, and we can see how they are involved in a process or a series of processes, or the value chain. These interactions can be imagined, built and implemented adding value to all parties involved.

“The practice of Service Design focuses on integrating the dynamic collection of service elements within a customer journey around a qualitative and integrated user experience. In order to be able to deliver this, distributed organizational resources need to be combined to create an optimal service offering. Similar to Open Innovation, the Service Design approach aligns the strategic decisions within a project with the broader business goals of the organization. “-Elsevier

Whether open innovation or service design is an interdisciplinary process that require specialists from various disciplines to work together throughout the project.

But it is important to note that it is not always easy or possible to do so, given the particular characteristics of some interventions.

“Open Innovation and Service Design as specialized fields of work do cross over, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Innovation is not always about service delivery to consumers. It can, for instance, also be about improving manufacturing processes or internal organizational models. In that case open Innovation would imply involving for instance professionals as lead users, rather than consumers. Service Design on the other hand is not always about innovation. It can, for instance, also be about incremental improvements to existing services. In that case the customer research would be focusing on current average usage of these services”. – Elsevier

I think there is however a very wide field of innovation to explore, whether it is in the processes in services or services derived products.


Give your contribution. Share your ideas or your readings!


Thank you!

Different foci on fear

It can not only will resistance to change but it can also be the fear of the unknown which blocks organizations to look to the future thinking on innovation.

Idris Mootee advises the mapping of whitespace in innovation as a tool to overcome the fears.

“White space is a process and tool that allows us to look at the landscape up and down the value chain with a new lens. It can help uncover opportunities that are not obvious ; it can identify new openings untouched by competitors, or it can be considered part of what was traditionally deemed a remote, different industry or outside the boundaries of the firm”.

We do not discover surprising opportunities only by serendipity. This discovery of unique opportunities can be the result of a creative work and research-oriented and consistent.

The process can be used to identify entirely new markets, or can be used to map an incremental innovation in products or services.

To fill this white space is important to know the interests and needs of customers, which are to understand how individuals think and discover their “cognitive maps”, that is, their hidden needs.

The analysis that is behind hidden needs is not simple. Asking questions can be ineffective and therefore we need new approaches designed in large part by anthropology and psychology, to find out opinions and beliefs of people.

When an organization perceives the need to find new paths of development and seek new spaces of action, look for a blank space without prejudices or prisons of schemas, the best way is to depart from a blank space and color it.

Idris Mottee points three foci for the mapping of a whitespace:

The externally-focused perspective “begins with mapping the market, products, or services in your markets and determining whether these are served, under-served or un-served. The goal is to find gaps in existing markets, products, or service lines that represent opportunities for your business”.

We do not look for just knowing the market positioning of the Organization but especially finding an approximation to unknown or hidden through a process centered on people. Non-articulated needs can represent a gap to fill.

Internally-focused perspective enables us to map the Organization’s capacity to deal with new opportunities or face threats from competitors. “This process is used to determine how efficiently and effectively you can react to opportunities and threats from  process, systems and structural perspectives”.

At this time some of the deepest fears possibly begin to emerge and walk towards sublimation. People tend to show competent even recognizing skill shortages in some areas.

The future focused “white space mapping process will put an emphasis on applied strategic foresights.  Usually there is a time horizon no less than 5 years and involving input from strategic foresight exercises”.

When talking about future or forward our point of departure can vary greatly, from an analytical profile to one of the dreamer and visionary.

For many analytical this mapping process can become difficult and even painful. Fears of embark on a journey not determined by past or exclusively by trend can (I imagine) to block the view of the future.

Basically the basis for this process is people, the knowledge we have and the ability to draw prospective conclusions of needs and desires of others. White space can provide fear for fill something without having certainty and can provide a block to intuition, but when well worked can result in expression of potential and a great business opportunity.

A white space can allow the passing of a mystery (for example, how people want to eat in the world today) – to heuristic (a restaurant in an environment of high traffic) for the algorithm (a process that can be replicated and deployed with speed).

Can fears be strong enough to prevent the discovery of new spaces?

Tagged with:


I don’t know if they agree with me or not! Only after they read this article I will know.

They are the five people (myself included) who entered in GSJ11 Lisbon as an “expert” and all left it as “T” shaped persons.

The “T” represents a person with skills developed in a given (specific) area (vertical part) to what they add acquired skills in the development of work (horizontal part).

The big difference between an expert and a person shaped “T” is the ability to touch the fringes of the knowledge of another interlocutor. A specialist usually only develops cooperation with someone who speaks his language while a particular “T” has easily contact points in other areas than their specialty.

If we, in our work during the 48 hours that we were together, did not look, in a empathetic way, for understanding the intentions and desires of each one we would come to an end with a summation of opinions. Instead we contact all horizontal competencies and develop when necessary our vertical profile.

This way we conclude that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts!

If I want to deliver a service with meaning for the user I have to set very well the theme that’ll work and opportunities to do so.

That, I can make defining the journey which he will have to do and what need will satisfy and the emotional experiences that I try to print without ever losing sight of the whole experience, this is the service.

I’ll deliver the tangible and the intangible results of concepts that I created jointly with other people from other disciplines.

And for all this happened, it was necessary to create engagement with the co-creators, create prototypes and storytelling to finally be able to validate.

The importance of storytelling and the prototype as part of our work was manifest in the presentation of the service, which took place yesterday in SDD Lisbon.

And why I think behind all this was Design Thinking?

–      Because we were able to embrace constraints.

Designers work with constraints (time, budget, location, materials). Identify their limitations and do not create the perfect solution, but the best solution, given the constraints.

–      Because we take a risk.

Designers are comfortable with the notion that could be wrong, but experience and try new approaches.


–      Because we do not care to ask questions.

Designers make numerous questions that can lead to the question of law – which will lead to the correct answer.


–      Because we believe that it is not a question of tools, it is about ideas.

Designers from diverse areas spend much time away from tools like “new technology”, using paper and pencil to sketch their ideas.


And therefore we were able, and I believe, to do something that not only has meaning as it is desirable, feasible and economically viable!


Do you want to comment?


Tagged with:

Or transform information into knowledge

I think things, products or services, should always walk hand in hand with information or may be almost exclusively information. But will this happen?

As a user or consumer I like and I need things useful, usable, efficient, and effective and above all things that I want too.

Good things for me are those that serve to satisfy my needs since the most basic to those who make me feel free and passionate.

To do this, these things besides being useful, they should be simple and intuitive when we handle or use them and should be available where ever it’s necessary producing systematically expected results.

Those, should be things that I want because transmit me happiness, well-being and breaking the shackles of my dreams.

But now to the real world!

The creation and implementation of products and services, satisfying my or our demands require an interdisciplinary approach that is based mainly on the observation of (involvement) interactions between people and the goods or services.

This is important to assess meaning that things have to users or consumers and in my opinion the design thinking is the path indicated to achieve it, because it allows through interdisciplinary teams see the problems or identify needs through various lenses.

But things to arrive at our destination need execution and this implies a convergence between business and design thinking.

Design thinking is not a unique of the designers, it is global. It is when the designers assume that form and when trying to converge to the people. There is a need for learning on both sides, designers and businesses. Hence the concern existing in schools, to develop skills identified as weak or very weak. These skills refer to abilities to interact in interdisciplinary teams and with consumers or business people.

Design thinking is a way to think about doing something in a dimension that represents a new learning experience for everyone, not just for design thinkers and for users, but especially for business people.

As Neumeier said, “we cannot decide between one and another, we have to draw the way forward.

The difference between these two modes, business and design thinking, is significant. The way to decide assumes that alternatives already exist (case studies), but it will be difficult to decide. The designing mode assumes that new options must be imagined (using the design process) but once imagined, deciding will be easy.

For Garr Reynolds there are four ways in which managers can learn from designers:


Embrace constraints. The designers work with constraints (time, budget, location, materials). Identify your limitations and do not create the perfect solution, but the best solution given the constraints.

Take a risk. Designers are comfortable with the notion that it may be wrong, but experience and try new approaches.

Ask all. Designers do numerous questions that can lead to the question of law – which will lead to the correct answer.

It’s not a question of tools, is about ideas. The designers from different areas spend much time away from tools such as “new technology” using paper and pencil to sketch out their ideas.

Yet in the real world, if we focus our attention on services, expanding activities, we can see how easy it can be convergence between design thinking and business.

It is possible that service design could ignore traditional businesses?

How can service design to incorporate existing enterprise dynamics?

“If you would ask ten people what service design is, you would end up with eleven different answers – at least.

Service design is an interdisciplinary approach that combines different methods and tools from various disciplines. It is a new way of thinking as opposed to a new stand-alone academic discipline. Service design is an evolving approach, this is particularly apparent in the fact that, as yet, there is no common definition or clearly articulated language of service design.  [Stickdorn, 2010, 29]”

What paths we should follow to maximize experiences?

Experience has something to say! Dou you want to tell us?

Tagged with:

Design Thinking and Business.


To visualize a meeting between design thinkers and business people is not an easy task especially when we want the image conveys collaboration and good results.

When design thinkers are in their work, have an attitude of openness and seek empathy to feel their interlocutor but often we see interdisciplinary meetings or with people in the business area, they assume already know each other and what they think differently.

So what to do if you work within the same company and have different approaches to the same subjects?

According to Roger Martin in “The Design of Business” to become design thinkers we must develop the posture, the tools and experiences.

Posture is our perspective of the world and our role in it.

Tools are the models we use to organize our world and our thoughts.

Experiences are what built and developed our skills and sensibilities.

But why is it important to develop these three elements?

We know that in any workplace at any meeting, or anywhere where people exchange ideas and seek to evolve in one direction, they need a common language and a favorable environment for collaboration.

So to facilitate this communication process implies that I observe!

Design thinkers, when they are seeking to contemplate the effect on their relationships with the same eyes that use when they are in projects and seeking to understand them, i.e. having empathy with the interlocutors, and talking with them in a way that make echo within them, avoid unnecessary confrontation, differences with origin in the background of each one.

Design teams and business teams often come into conflict over change. Designers are seen as change agents seeking to push existing boundaries and develop new alternatives to the status quo. Businesspeople, on the other hand, are often deeply invested in the status quo and uncomfortable with shifting away from it without careful consideration and a high threshold of proof. Given this tension, one can choose to write the other party off or to turn the tools of the trade to figuring out what is behind their view.”

If we seek to understand the opinions that differ from our own opinion, instead of outright we reject it because we put a label (“He is an engineer …Is new…Isn’t here, etc.), we can understand the thinking of others and what they most valued or argue with more enthusiasm.

Now imagine, i.e. try to apply the abductive reasoning when you are in a process of work and ask yourself about how is the best to implement it.

Imagine the possible and desirable interactions!

If I need to create a new work process with other people, a group from the same company, what would be the best way to get energy or motivation and knowledge to reach a happy ending?

What would be the ideal process?

Without having to choose between A or B, what would be the best approach to co-create?

What would be the best way to create the appointment of other persons in the process?

What would be my difficulty in showing respect for the ideas of others and be trusted with my?

In design we use prototypes and test solutions for products, services and experiences.

How would be the design of a process?

How would be our prototype?

How would be the test?

It’s time to move from the possible to the verifiable and therefore it is important to get feedback from all stakeholders in the process to refine not neglecting the discipline of discussion that should be clear.

To search options is walking towards the best solution so it is important to listen to all team members.

With the prototype in hand what would be the best story to tell our work so that you had a happy ending?

What would be the next step for the story were a reality?

How do we test?

What we can explore more? That truth is that we lack? What you need to refine?

What do you think to test interactions in our workplace?

This text has sources in “Articles I’ve Written on Design Thinking” – Roger martin