Design thinking, design, Change by Design, other things

I finished Tim Brown’s Change by Design last night. I think I read it a little too late. If I’d read it several years ago I would have been inspired and excited. Because I read it last night, not two or three years ago, I felt a little more critical.

Thanks design-thinking, you helped me buy a house!

From what I understand Tim Brown, along with some other folk, characterised the term design-thinking, and it was design-thinking that resonated with the business-type folk as a way to tackle the need to innovate in order to stay profitable.

Thanks to Tim Brown, in part, design suddenly found itself enjoying a kind of halo, and designers were invited to the c-level table and it was all very good.

There are other dimensions to this, I know. Everything’s going digital, and design makes or breaks digital. The economy is shifting towards services, and away from products, and again design is a key aspect of success here.

But design-thinking, as an approach to innovation and problem-solving in the workplace, (I think) is one of the reasons why I’m seeing job ads on seek for UX designers and the salary is up around the $150,000 mark. (An aside, that ain’t going to last much longer. I’ll bet you $10. I’m good for it.)

The bits I noted from in Change by Design

Anyway, back to the book. Change by Design is, in part a set of stories about how IDEO tackled different challenges, and in part, a recounting of approaches and methods to take a design approach to a problem.

There are some nice insights in the book.

“For design thinkers, however, behaviours are never right or wrong, but they are always meaningful”.

A paragraph about “thoughtless acts”, as described by Jane Fulton Suri, psychologist and pioneer of human factors research. “Thoughtless acts” are the stuff we do everyday without thinking, like propping the door open with our shoe or sticky taping different power cords to the wall so they don’t get in our way.

I also liked the technique of sharing a meal with the people you are observing during the research phase. I can see how doing something like that would help build trust.

I also really liked this sentence about first time experiences in stressful situations, like first time in the emergency ward at hospital after an accident or the first time you check out an aged care facility for your elderly parents. “In these situations we look at everything with a much higher level of acuity because nothing is familiar and we have not fallen into the routines that make daily life manageable.”

I also liked the piece about convergent and divergent thinking. “Woven into the very fabric or culture is an emphasis on thinking based upon logic and deduction”. Psychologist Richard Nisbett coined the term “geography of thought”.

And the piece on the difference between analysis and synthesis. “Synthesis, the act of extracting meaninful patterns from masses of raw information, is a fundamentally creative act; the data are just that-data-and the facts never speak for themselves”.

Why I felt a bit critical of the whole thing

It was published in 2009, so reading it in 2014 may account for some of this. But the book is a very broad overview of what could be interpreted as a process. And I know of organisations where this has happened – treat design as a process with a bunch of stages and there you go. You’re innovating. It’s way too neat.

Here’s a bunch of diagrams on Google that map out exactly how you do design (or design-thinking). I dunno. I need to think about this some more, but I’m having contradictory thoughts about it all at the moment. It needed to be more specific. More case studies, more caution. Or it needed to go further with the abstraction. Hrm.

“You people have no process”

The other night at the Collective Impact talk I stood up and asked this question:

“How do you, as a business leader, sell design to your organisation? For example, if I go in and be humble and don’t have the answers and propose ideas that will fail, how do you, as a leader, convince others of design’s value?” 

There was general agreement that humility is a good thing to have when working with people.

So I rephrased the question. I’m pretty sure I heard someone behind me sigh.

Anyways, I think this is what I was trying to articulate (badly).

How do organisations deal with a bunch of designers coming in and working on big, hairy social problems (design = pretty thing/why exactly are the designers here, again? Must we humour them?) and then making what appears to be a bit of a mess with their prototypes and scenarios and what-have you. 

I think this article by Bruce Nussbaum gets to what I was trying to ask about.

Companies absorbed the process of Design Thinking all to well, turning it into a linear, gated, by-the-book methodology that delivered, at best, incremental change and innovation. Call it N+1 innovation.

CEOs in particular, took to the process side of Design Thinking, implementing it like Six Sigma and other efficiency-based processes.

Those quotes are from Bruce Nussbaum’s article – Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment

I do wonder if most organisations would really stand by and be ok with design thinking. Really. When timelines and budgets and pressure and there are the designers over there doing bodystorming and building cardboard prototypes and what-not. It does seem like a radical shift from the way things currently get done.

 

Possibly irony

Yesterday I read through some academic research on way-finding design in hospitals.

Today I got lost on the way to pathology and walked around and around in circles, feel overwhelmed.

I found it in the end, thanks to a nice volunteer.

Number 24 your chicken parma is ready!

Number 24 your chicken parma is ready!

Wicked problems – what do designers bring to the table?

Last night I went to listen to Dawn O’Neil, former CEO of beyondblue and Lifeline, deliver a talk – Collective Impact and Social Change – A challenge and an opportunity for the Service Design community. Ms O’Neill’s talk covered some interesting stuff, including:

  • an introduction to the Collective Impact Framework
  • the Cynefin Framework
  • a sense that design was valued for something beyond the aesthetic (hooray).

After the talk I walked away with this question:

At what point do designers actually provide value when organisations are working on complex (or wicked) problems? And how? 

I thought I’d take some time today to try and answer my own question.


Ms O’Neill’s talk showed an enthusiasm and understanding that design can be a valuable tool when tackling big, hairy social problems.

Her talk began with an overview of two frameworks that have helped inform her own approach to leading organisations involved in tackling this problems.

The Cynefin Framework

The Cynefin Framework is a sensemaking framework. It’s useful for identifying:

  • what type of problem you are working on
  • how you should approach this problem.

 The Collective Impact Framework

When you’re working on complex problems the Collective Impact Framework is a useful approach. The Collective Impact Framework sets out the following requirements for working on a complex problem:

  • Common Agenda
  • Shared measurement
  • mutually reinforcing activities
  • Continuous communication
  • A backbone organisation – an organisation dedicated to coordinating the effort.

There are also three prerequisites:

  • An influential champion
  • Financial resources
  • Urgency for change (the ‘burning platform’)

There’s a lot more about Collective Impact here at http://www.collaborationforimpact.com/
Collective Impact was first described by Stanford Social Innovation Review here http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact

Discussions and case study

After discussion about the frameworks we broke off into smaller groups to work through a case study about an indigenous community. I’ve paraphrased the case study below. This is the general gist. It’s definitely not the whole case study though.

Money has been poured into an indigenous community from different government oragencies for decades without any tangible change. The community elders have identified they want to improve the opportunities for younger community members. Violence, incarceration, lack of employment and homelessness have been identified by the elders as key issues for the community’s young people. How would you approach this task, as a group?

When the different groups shared their approaches at the end of the evening I realised that there were probably more community development workers, and other NFP types, in the room than design practitioners (I think).

 

Community development – what is it anyway?

My partner Eilis, is a community development practitioner, so I felt like I had a basic understanding of what community development is (mostly obtained via osmosis and nodding). I already knew that community development and human-centred design share some pretty fundamental similarities in philosophy.

But what are the differences? Why engage designers on a project if community development workers are already there, doing the same work?

(I’m think I’m also wary after a previous experience. “I’m a designer! I do human-centred design! I’m here to help you work on your complex systemic problem! Oh, you want me to build a website…”. I take full responsibility for that misunderstanding, but I don’t want to find myself in that position again.)

So, what do designers add?

Where community development and design overlaps

1. Both practices share similar philosophies and visions. People first, human-focused.

2. Community development workers and designers are not the subject-matter experts. We both work to uncover the problem and frame the problem.

3. We both focus on positive change for people.

4. We both use tools and frameworks to engage with, and understand, people.

How designers are different (what we bring that’s unique)

When we listened to other groups present their response to the case study last night, there were a couple of things I noticed. Here’s a few examples of how groups had responded to the case study.

“I already know that one problem facing indigenous people is availability of food, so we’d work on that by doing these things …”.

 “We’d bring in young mentors from other indigenous communities to mentor the young people.”

There were quite a few other responses like this.

These approaches may be very good approaches (they sound logical to me), but these approaches weren’t derived from a design process.

Designers work with assumptions

Designers validate their assumptions. They don’t start designing solutions until they have:

  • completed some form of research (usually ethnographic research)
  • identified themes and patterns that have presented during the research
  • understood the problem.

For a designer pre-existing knowledge about an issue is only an assumptions until this knowledge has been tested and validated by the people you are designing for.

Following these processes are important because they help us mediate our own biases.

Human-centred design process

Here’s how IDEO maps that human-centred design process.

IDEO's Human Centred Design Arc

IDEO’s Human Centred Design Arc

Here's what I heard

Here’s what I heard in response to the case study

 

So I think this is how designers (or design-thinking) may add value.

This quote from Wicked Problems also supports (I think) the approach for validating our pre-existing knowledge about an issue.

Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. The problem of poverty in Texas is grossly similar but discretely different from poverty in Nairobi, so no practical characteristics describe “poverty.”

Please keep in mind, my intention here isn’t to be critical of community development, but instead to identify what designers offer that make them valuable. I reckon designers have a lot to learn from community development. And if you agree, or disagree, I would love to hear your thoughts on this.