Currently viewing the tag: "Motivation and collaboration"

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

 

To what extent there is collaboration?

When we are working in a group and there is a common purpose our activity in that group has many relevant aspects. Beyond what we give, we get a set of stimuli and information that are precious to the final result.

Observing what people do and what not do, listening to what they not say and what they say we build an environment that motivates us or not for the process of collaboration.

In fact, there’s nothing simple about the determination of who observes or how to do useful inferences that suggest a direction when our purpose is to create a solution or find a business model.

Divergent thinking or generating many ideas that are new compared to previous solutions and the depth and richness with which each idea is explored are critical in the face of possible diversity of participants 

In my last experience in #UnBar it was interesting to observe the behavior of the group in front of a work proposal identified with the construction of a business model in a context of “society 2.0″.

In the group, later a team, was composed of elements from various geographical origins (Colombia, Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands) and with different professional backgrounds, overcome some barriers (linguistic constraint) and achieved amazing results with divergent thinking.

When the convergent thinking came on the scene to find a single high-quality output, was curious to note that the experiences of participants act as barriers to their implementation, not because the path pointed to by other was unacceptable, but because it lacked docking in the frame that the occupation of each one produced.

On the other hand, how these views were defended represents well the motivation present on all members.

And how team members found energy to developing the project?

I think what was manifest, and it is interesting to note that, was an individual growth over work that boosted the result of the team.

There was recognition and reward, without use of constraints and even when the disagreement arose also emerges humility and sense making. There was not of course a linear process but how spaces were worked allowed a interactive learning that allowed telling a story end with details of lots of reality.

The motivation to collaborate was a positive function of perceived value for each member in the draft who embraced. Each one of the key factors highlighted at the beginning for the approach to “Society 2.0″ has acted as a lever for collaboration and as glue for cohesion pointing to background deeper differences compared to other aspects such as” paths to profit in business “

What other factors have contributed to a good result in those nearly five hours?

This was one thing I realized while working as a group member! You might want to ask more questions, so feel free!