The acceptance of what is possible How many times, I wonder if an expression as “Design Thinking” can represent fear in the minds of people responsible by the companies. The general trend in managers to only follow the analytical precepts transmitted in schools and learning held inside of organizations, is one of the largest forms […]
The acceptance of what is possible
How many times, I wonder if an expression as “Design Thinking” can represent fear in the minds of people responsible by the companies.
The general trend in managers to only follow the analytical precepts transmitted in schools and learning held inside of organizations, is one of the largest forms of blocking the creativity that we face.
To ensure that the managers of companies give the step towards accepting the abductive reasoning, this is what “is possible”, as an integral part of how they make decisions, is a difficult achievement.
Overcome the fear of risk, without having to resort to the databases of results of the past or the fear of losing the “status quo” is an act of courage that makes the exception.
So, I think we need a new mindset, representative of openness to different disciplines and above all, and we need a strong will to embrace creativity to see the convergence of business and design thinking.
Design thinking is the common expression to designate an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving, which transports us to the true innovation.
It’s about practice, i.e. on how to approach the problems and about the use of tools and strategies that allow us to see the problem as a whole.
Design thinking as interdisciplinary approach is especially important to decide what to do in the first place and so that the power of intuitive creative processes can be leveraged to stimulate innovation, resolve any type of problem and develop new opportunities.
When confusing and challenging problems arise by complexity of contexts in the world of digital technology and global connectivity, that embraces diverse cultures and systems, that interdisciplinary approach facilitates the definition and understanding of the problems allowing an easy way to find solutions.
The problems of complex projects, such as systems or services, will be best addressed by a team of people from varied sources that in an attitude of collaboration leverages several intuitive processes more productively.
– Then how can we face up to the business?
Unlike analytical thinking, design thinking is a creative process based on building ideas from nothing. There are no trials or afraid to fail.
But in the business world, there are less correct notions such as that a rigorous quantitative analysis is the right path for a creative business strategy.
For example in a particular organization a tool like (Porter’s forces) considers five factors, the “forces” competitive need to be studied in order to develop an effective business strategy, but this will not inspire people with new ideas.
If we believe that creativity and innovation are indeed a competitive advantage we have to start doing a lot of questions that even seeming (only for others) “stupid” make hope visible.
There are so many people waiting outside and within organizations, of our ideas!
When a design thinker uses divergence to dig deep in the assumptions of a company or, when jumps the fence of the silos in the enterprise, he is promoting the field of possibilities. He does it with the help of metaphors and analogies or facilitating their visualization.
If there are things where design thinkers can be good is at work with constraints and emergency situations, very common in the business world.
But above all they know to use empathy with dedication, to observe and really pay attention to people, because this is usually the best way to check the depth of non-articulated needs and is the factor of differentiation that comes to create value in this convergence of business and design thinking.
According to Warren Berger (Glimmer: How Design Can Transform Your Life and Maybe Even the World) there are three ways to apply the Design thinking to our lives.
-The designers are good doing stupid questions – take a step back and re-evaluate everything.
The design thinker can begin to restructure the challenge in question, which can lead to think in new directions.
The basics of business, today as transformational, require a capacity to question and rethink what business we face and what are in fact the needs of consumers. What they expect?
-The designers put the problems on visual form – the designers know that when we see everything in front of us, the connections and patterns become more comprehensible.
The design thinkers create templates that constantly quickly and without polishing are a critical component of innovation. When we give shape to an idea, we make it real.
-The designers think laterally – force brains to go to the sides and examine the solutions that are out of the way. The trick is to avoid problems in a simple way to be open to the left. It is being away from rules based on experience.
It is not easy to achieve great successes, and to get there we must “think laterally”, looking for something very large, accepting ideas and influences and, above all, we must also be willing to try to connect ideas that may not appear to be linked. This is a way of thinking that can also be embraced by non designers.
Design thinkers know that innovation often involves an interactive process with indentations along the path, but knowing that small failures are actually useful because they show what works and what needs to be fixed.
The ability of design thinker to “don’t follow” is a quality indispensable in times of dynamic change and that is part of a new mindset, as is the case of design thinking.
According to Roger Martin 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 thinking.
Experiences are what built and developed our skills and sensitivities.
The design thinking can inspire and inform business strategy, can help exploit growth opportunities, solve complex problems and achieve significant differentiation but it is not the cure for all the diseases.
His main instruments are the prototyping which facilitates the production of ideas quickly, and the storytelling that makes it easier to implement through compelling narratives and not merely the verbalization of concepts.
When we explore the main methods, successful strategies and techniques to incorporate design thinking into corporate culture, we can be changing behaviors and helping organizations to achieve new growth.
We must ask questions because even the flawed questions have an answer!
What do you think?
What should we buy? – Features or possibilities? When we talk about innovation sometimes I think in simple things that solve some problems. The “term” simplicity may refer to a product in which the user model is very similar to the model of a product and that’s why the product is easy to use. We […]
What should we buy? – Features or possibilities?
When we talk about innovation sometimes I think in simple things that solve some problems.
The “term” simplicity may refer to a product in which the user model is very similar to the model of a product and that’s why the product is easy to use.
We may also use the “term” simplicity to refer to a product with nice visual aspect and that is a very aesthetic description.
Or we use the term simply because a product has a large number of features that allow us to use them when necessary, and without having to search for another product. It is simple because we use only one thing to realize a series of tasks, such as a “Swiss knife”.
There are those who advocate that complexity is beautiful and there are those who prefer the simplicity without being minimalistic. I personally admire complexity as figure exploring and enabling the curious observation of many details and even use varied features.
In my last post I was questioning our ability to handle multi-tasking that is suggested by products filled with features which we only use about 20% and eventually some of them are not advisable.
Are features! There are not possibilities!
I think that when we suggest possibilities we suggest not only a choice of usage or decision-making, but above all an opportunity to co-create.
“What happens if we stop trying to understand consumer needs, and we cultivate empty spaces where people can innovate for them?”
The ability of people to innovate for them answers many questions about the “term” simplicity since the co-responsibility is introduced in the creation of products or services, and exists:
-A decrease of risk of poor usability.
-An increase of the significance of things and interactions.
-A predisposition for learning and for maintenance.
The issue of lifelong learning is crucial to find meaning in innovation.
Otherwise when being confronted with innovation, even though it comes under the banner of simplicity, instead of having an instrument or how to solve problems we will have problems to resolve.
Tom Cummings (@ tomcummings) wrote an article “The Pigeon Thirsty” in which he says: ” A friend recently informed me that her small non-profit organization had purchased several iPads as part of a new technology initiative. Three weeks later, after several internal meetings and lots of research into the ‘best’ apps, she said they hadn’t figure out exactly how to use them. She asked me what I thought they should be doing with shiny new toys.
I asked a simple question: Why did you buy them?”
This can be a good time to think, before buying, before producing and even before you create. Why buy?
The product concerned in spite of being a vehicle of possibilities shows that there is no doubt that the whole marketing campaign was well prepared to lead to consumption of these products, but certainly that was not expected that people are purchasing problems. Learning is a factor that is concerned.
Stay with some possibilities for reflection:
-The easiest way to simplify a system is to remove a feature. We must however be careful what we remove because the reduction has meaning if you keep the balance between simple and complex.
-An effective system of organization of things lets you pack up everything we need and dominates the complexity.
-Avoid waiting do not creates despair and everything gets simpler.
-Knowledge frees unneeded attempt tasks to use equipment or tools.
-Simplicity and complexity need each other! As the complexity increases, as is the case of technology, the more urgent is the simplicity offered to the user.
-The context is what makes the real simplicity.
-“It is simple, I like it!” and more than that, “It is simple, I trust”.
Despite this my dedication to things simple I know that there are things that can never be simple.
Simplicity consists of subtracting the obvious and adding the meaningful.
(Source: The Laws of Simplicity)
Don’t confuse complex with complication and embrace learning innovation.
Do you want to comment?
- Innovation and the re-learning of Small and Medium Enterprises
- If you don’t want to innovate … buy a startup!
- His Excellency the Continuous Improvement …
- Organizational innovation – Those who wait for problems do not always achieve a solution
- When we are building a team, attitudes are a unique value
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
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- 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