DESIGN THINKING - andyeklund.com · in 1969 by Herbert Simon (1978 Nobel Prize for Economics) – which discussed for the first time the distinct pattern which designers used to

Licensed to and produced for:

DESIGN THINKING

Design Thinking

Copyright © 2018 by AQUS Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. 2

DESIGN THINKING

COPYRIGHT © 2018 by AQUS Pty Ltd, version 4.3

www.AndyEklund.com

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or media, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of AQUS Pty Ltd. Printed in Australia.

Australian Institute of Management

www.aim.com.au

AIM does not invite reliance upon, nor accept responsibility for, the information provided. AIM makes every effort to provide a high quality service. However, neither AIM, nor the providers of this data, give any guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up-to-date nature of the information provided. Users should confirm information from another source if it is of sufficient importance for them to do so.

http://www.andyeklund.com/

http://www.aim.com.au/

Design Thinking


Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Learning Outcomes ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Design Thinking .......................................................................................................................... 6

2. Defining Design Thinking ........................................................................................................ 8

Definitions of Design Thinking ................................................................................................................................ 8

3. Key Attributes of Design Thinking ...................................................................................... 10

Visual Thinking ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Designer’s Sensibilities and Methods .............................................................................................................. 11 Understand the End User (aka, empathy)................................................................................................... 12 Redefine the Problem ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Iterative Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Solutions Finding .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Create Many Alternative Ideas .......................................................................................................................... 15

And, Defining What Design Thinking Isn’t......................................................................................................... 16

4. Old Business Model vs. New Business Model ................................................................... 18

The ‘Old Business’ Model Defined......................................................................................................................... 18 Analytical Thinking (Deductive and Inductive Thinking) ....................................................................... 19

The ‘New Business’ Model Defined .................................................................................................................... 20 Intuitive Thinking .................................................................................................................................................. 20

The Rise of New Technologies Also Create a New Design Philosophy ................................................ 22 A Change in Understanding Consumers ...................................................................................................... 22

5. The Emergence of Design Thinking ................................................................................... 24

A Mixture of Both Old and New....................................................................................................................... 24 Inside-Out vs. Outside-In .................................................................................................................................... 25

6. Abductive Thinking ................................................................................................................ 27

Reasoning: Dealing with Information and Knowledge ........................................................................... 27 Abductive Thinking: Moving from Observations to Explanations ..................................................... 27 Comparison of Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Thinking........................................................... 30

7. The Knowledge Funnel ........................................................................................................... 31

Mystery ........................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Heuristics ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Algorithms and Code ................................................................................................................................................ 33

Design Thinking


8. The Stages of Design Thinking ............................................................................................ 34

The Process is Iterative ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Think About Your Creative Space .................................................................................................................. 35

9. Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 36

Getting Started ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 The Trigger ............................................................................................................................................................... 36 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................................................. 36 The Design Team ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Business Planning and Measurement ............................................................................................................ 37

A. Discover .................................................................................................................................................................... 39 A1. Immerse, observe and experience ........................................................................................................... 39 Empathy Mapping, Sample Chart .................................................................................................................... 41 A2. Move to understand the problem ........................................................................................................... 42 Suggestions to Understand the Problem or Situation ............................................................................ 42

B. Define ........................................................................................................................................................................ 44 B1. Bring order and structure ........................................................................................................................... 44 Ways to Bring Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 45 B2. Articulate the point of view ....................................................................................................................... 45

C. Develop .................................................................................................................................................................... 49 C1. Begin ideation in earnest ............................................................................................................................ 49 Brainstorm Suggestions .................................................................................................................................... 50 Brainstorm Rules .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Brainstorm Techniques ....................................................................................................................................... 52

D. Deliver ....................................................................................................................................................................... 53 D1. Generate a prototype ................................................................................................................................... 53 Prototype Principles ............................................................................................................................................. 53 How to Prototype .................................................................................................................................................. 54 D2. Test the prototype with users .................................................................................................................. 55

Learning Journal .......................................................................................................................... 56

Bibliography and References ................................................................................................... 57

Design Thinking


Introduction

The Design Thinking short course provides you with the skills, knowledge and insight to effectively install, practice and implement its iterative innovation process – particularly in reflection to other traditional and non-traditional business models – to improve business outcomes.

It’s important to say from the start that the purpose of this workshop is not to turn its participants into ‘designers.’ Instead, our hope is that by understanding Design Thinking from a business model perspective, anyone can learn and apply the methodologies, sensibilities and tools which designers use to create long-term value for their organisations or clients.

Learning Outcomes · Recognise the historical, societal and technological shifts leading to Design Thinking

· Empathise with the end user and their needs to extract consumer insights and articulate actionable point-of-view statements

· Brainstorm, select and refine potential solutions by tapping into the diversity of expertise, imaginations, personalities, opinions and experiences of the core team and beyond

· Build prototypes to engage potential audiences through observation, testing, questioning and listening

· Engage and collaborate with others to change the culture and speed up innovation

Question: What are your first impressions of Design Thinking?

Design Thinking


1. Design Thinking

Nothing New, and Yet It Is Entirely

‘Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But, since no one was listening, everything must be said again.’

André Gide, Nobel Prize for Literature, 1947

Is it possible for a business practice to be ‘the next new thing’ (FastCompany magazine) and, at the same time, be ‘nothing new’ (HuffingtonPost.com)?

If the practice is Design Thinking, the answer is yes.

No less than Harvard Business Review called ‘Design Thinking has come of age,’ devoting an entire issue to the subject in September 2015. Its new-found relevance is built upon its unique mindset helping a wide range of companies and non-profits deal with increasingly complex problems – ranging from societal to customer-centric – while simultaneously creating a more flexible and adaptive organisational culture to drive faster and more effective innovation.

The phrase itself is fairly recent. In 1987, Peter G. Rowe (Dean of Harvard Graduate School of Design) wrote about the concept of thinking like a designer in his book Design Thinking. Rowe described how designers approached problems with a ‘design sensibility,’ using architects and urban planners as examples. His thesis was based on an earlier book – The Sciences of the Artificial in 1969 by Herbert Simon (1978 Nobel Prize for Economics) – which discussed for the first time the distinct pattern which designers used to understand and solve business problems.

At the same time, like many ‘new’ phenomena, the historical application of Design Thinking runs far deeper.

In 1879, Thomas Edison perfected the electric lightbulb after more than 1,000 variations. That alone would make a person famous, but his real legacy – and his connection to Design Thinking – is that he didn’t just commercialise one of the most profound inventions of the past 200 years. His genius imagined an entire industry to support his new patent.

Although he built an electric grid in London the year prior, Edison invented or refined virtually every component to move electricity from the Pearl Street Station in Manhattan to the 52 light bulbs at The New York Times offices. (He received 106 patents in 1882 alone.) While others improved upon or built competing systems (AC vs DC for example), Edison’s vision to create an end-to-end industry was formalised in his establishment of the Edison General Electric Company, more commonly known today as General Electric, or simply GE.

He did all of this predominantly by starting with the most unlikely of sources: he focused on the end user. Nearly 100 years before Jobs envisioned the Apple universe of devices, Edison gave protracted consideration to the needs and preferences of his customers. In fact, giving the public a lightbulb was of little interest to him. Just as designers are taught today, Edison put the bulb into a larger context. He realised that for the product itself to be successful, he needed it to be part of an overall experience.

Design Thinking


By blending science, craft, collaboration, business savvy and marketing, Edison developed a style of innovation powered by:

· A thorough understanding of customers through direct observation of what they needed

· A dynamic collaboration with customers about what they liked or disliked about the product, how it was made, packaged, merchandised, marketed and supported

· A mindset of iterative brainstorming and rapid prototyping to produce the most possible alternatives to the problem or issue to be solved or addressed

· A willingness to fail fast, extract insights, and create again … and again and again, until the solution was honed, improved and embraced by the end user

All of these tenets remain hallmarks of Design Thinking in the 21st Century.

Real World Results

That said, no philosophy remains long in the business world if it doesn’t produce real, sustainable results.

From the UK …

In 2005, the Design Council chose 250 companies (out of an original list of 1,500) where the use of design made a direct impact on such measures as competitiveness, market share, turnover and employment. In The Value of Design Factfinder Report (2007), the Design Council highlighted these statistics:

· Shares in design-led businesses outperformed key stock market indices by 200%

· Design-led businesses increased their market share by 6.3% through use of design

· Businesses where design was integral to operations were twice as likely to have developed new products and services; in the three years prior to the report, 80% did so, compared to the UK average of 40%

From the US …

The Design Management Institute (DMI) created a similar report to see if design-focused companies in the US performed differently to others in the S&P500 over time. Choosing 15 companies based on a variety of qualities which fit Design Thinking principles, DMI found that over a ten-year period these specific companies out-performed the S&P500 by an extraordinary 219%.

Design Thinking


2. Defining Design Thinking

Definitions of Design Thinking To be fair, the word design in the title of Design Thinking tends to confuse people.

John Heskett, an early historian of industrial design (as well as former Chair Professor of Design at Hong Kong Polytechnic University), used design in the broadest sense of the definition. He believed that ‘everything around us is designed’ – from car ignition switches to queues for riding roller coasters to hotel customer service.

To show how the word is often the problem with understanding Design Thinking, he frequently used this definition in his presentations.

Design is when designers design a design to produce a design.

Source: Why Defining Design Is Important

The notion that design (and design thinking) remained a visual or artistic endeavour caused Steve Jobs to famously address its perception in a 2003 article in The New York Times Magazine.

‘Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it’s this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, “Make

it look good!” That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.’

Steve Jobs, November 2003

The Interaction Design Foundation (IDF), a non-profit organisation dedicated to improving global design education, created a more detailed definition. In her post Design Thinking and Why Is It So Popular?, IDF co-found Rikke Dam defines Design Thinking as:

‘… an iterative process of solution finding in which designers seek to understand the end user, challenge assumptions, and redefine the problems in an attempt to create many

alternative ideas which may not immediately be clear through the usual pattern of understanding.’

Another widely accepted definitions of Design Thinking comes from IDEO, a for-profit design consultancy behind Apple’s first mouse and other innovative products. From his 2009 book Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, IDEO CEO Tim Brown writes that design thinking is:

‘… a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibilities and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can

convert into customer value and market opportunity.’

http://defining-design.net/learn/why-defining-design-is-important/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-new-machine.html

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking


Design Thinking


Many articles about Design Thinking include a Venn diagram showing how it’s at the centre of problem solving involving three important business functions.

· Technology – is the idea feasible?

· Business – is the idea viable?

· Human Values– is the idea usable and desirable?

Or, as Jim Wicks, formerly Vice President and Director of Motorola's Consumer Experience Design group explains, "Design is always about synthesis – synthesis of market needs, technology trends, and business needs."

Design Thinking


3. Key Attributes of Design Thinking

Using these definitions together, let’s break down the key words and phrases in the definitions to better understand how the skills, mindset and perspectives of a designer make Design Thinking a unique and effective business problem solving concept.

Visual Thinking

It’s common and understandable that many people confuse Design Thinking with artistic talent.

While artistic merit has very little to do with Design Thinking, visual thinking plays a crucial role, to the point it could be argued that Design Thinking is thinking made visual.

At every step of the Design Thinking process, the designer does something visually, such as spending time observing the targeted audience. From this first step, they move on to collecting photographs, artefacts and other imagery of the end user; brainstorming potential solutions with visual techniques, customer journeys and personas; to eventually building 3-D prototypes to share, learn and collaborate with others, including the end user.

Compared to word-based thinking, visual thinking has many advantages. By representing a situation, experience or challenge in images, designers help themselves and others see and deconstruct the entire concept at once, which in turn helps them to better understand its individual parts and elements. This leads to:

·

·

·

·

·

Question: How Do You Think Now?

Do you consider yourself a visual thinker? How do you generally absorb new information?

Go here to take an online questionnaire about VARK (www.vark-learn).

Design Thinking


Designer’s Sensibilities and Methods

First and foremost, designers look for solutions to problems. They’re taught to look at a complex situation, identify aspects of it that offer insights into potential solutions, then create well-rounded alternatives to address or improve the situation. To do this, designers are taught to think in multiple languages – emotional, visual, tactile, multi-sensorial, even storytelling – to understand the environment, to create a more useful outcome, and most of all, to evoke a response from the end user by tapping into the intuitive qualities of the product or service.

Intuitive qualities can be defined as:

· Delight

· Beauty

· Emotional meaning

· Personal relevance

· Cultural resonance

Question: What are the benefits of intuitive products?

What products or services are emotionally relevant to you currently?

What benefit does an organisation receive from creating emotionally resonant products or services?

Intuitive qualities are extremely important because people tend to use something that they love. Emotions guide and shape our behaviour, and can’t be separated from cognition. Designers understand that this type of passionate engagement and endorsement of a product by its user can have a profound, residual effect on the organisation.

Design Thinking


Understand the End User (aka, empathy)

‘Directly witnessing and experiencing aspects of behaviour in the real world is a proven way of inspiring and informing (new) ideas. The insights that emerge from careful observation of people’s behaviour (…) uncover all kinds of opportunities that were not previously evident.”

Jane Fulton Suri

Source: Thoughtless Acts?: Observations on Intuitive Design (2005)

Empathy is the ability to identify and understand the feelings and perspective of another, and to respond appropriately.

The ability to empathise with the end user is one of the most important skills a designer learns. It allows them to put aside their own preconceived assumptions and focus on truly understanding other’s feelings and emotions. Of course, no two people can fully experience life in the same way. But in their attempt to get as close as possible to the audience, a designer can learn about the challenges and difficulties the user faces; the motivations, routines and habits of their day-to-day life; and the environment and culture in which they live and interact with others. This is distinctly different from traditional quantitative research which relies heavily on facts and statistics, often from a third party.

Designers study people in three basic ways, by:

· Observation: What do people do?

· Engaging: What people say they do?

· Immersion: What do people experience?

By observing people unobtrusively and non-judgmentally, a designer can draw conclusions to tailor the end product to the audience’s explicit, implicit or latent needs. Other benefits of empathy include:

· Ensure the design is in alignment with the audience’s preferences

· Understand the impact and experience of potential solutions in their lives

· Create more tailored, customised ideas which not only match realistic solutions to addressing problems, but more importantly, minimise failure

Without empathy, no other aspect of Design Thinking can work effectively. See pages 40-42 for more details of this process, as well as the tool Empathy Mapping.

Mini Case Study in Empathy

After many years of diminishing market share for some of its most popular products, PepsiCo turned to Design Thinking to change how it creates and markets current and new products. In an interview with the Australian Financial Review in September 2013, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi commented how the company was working on new products for women.

“Our old approach was ‘shrink it or pink it,’” she explained. “We’d put Doritos in a pink Susan G Komen bag and say it’s for women. That’s fine but there’s more to how women like to snack.

http://www.afr.com/leadership/how-pepsico-ceo-indra-nooyi-turned-design-thinking-into-strategy-20150828-gja1sg#ixzz4nnxsYAXi

http://www.afr.com/leadership/how-pepsico-ceo-indra-nooyi-turned-design-thinking-into-strategy-20150828-gja1sg#ixzz4nnxsYAXi

Design Thinking


“She went on to say that first-hand interviewing with its target audience found some significant differences between how men and women snack. “When men finish a snack bag, they pour what’s left into their mouths. Women don’t do that. And, they worry about how much the product may stain. They won’t rub it on a chair, which a lot of guys do.

“In China, we introduced a stacked chip that comes in a plastic try inside a canister. When a women wants to snack, she can open her drawer and eat from the tray. When she’s done, she can push it back in. The chip is also less noisy to eat. Women don’t want people to hear them crunching away.”

Redefine the Problem

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Traditional Proverb

It’s a common reaction in business to precisely define a problem before a team of people are assigned to tackle it. However, this approach limits the unique or unexpected solutions which might be invented to solve it, or more important, prevents the team from understanding whether the problem is a symptom or its root cause.

Ongoing or repeating problems can’t be solved using the same thinking over and over. More so, old solutions are not likely to continue to be effective in a rapidly changing world. One of the ways Design Thinking helps address this issue is to reframe the problem.

Framing gives us context to understand something, just as a wood or plastic frame surrounds a photograph or a piece of art. A window frame does the same thing. So does a time frame. By framing (or re-framing) the perspective of what they see, a designer can learn a new context to understand something the rest of us may take for granted. Re-framing may also include rewording or repositioning the issue. In this way, a designer can get a new perspective, and through this changed context, he or she may find new ways to address, eliminate or minimise the problem.

For example, consider a shaving company which produces razors. Using a traditional business model, the problem might be defined by managers as “How do we sell more razors?”

By reframing the problem from an internal issue to an external perspective, a designer might change the question from “How do we sell more?” to “Why do men shave in the first place?”

If you could compare the ideas generated to solve either the internal or external problem statement, you’d find the solutions would generate radically different results: the former being short-term goals, and the latter being long-term outcomes.

Follow-up with pages 37-39 for more information on redefining problems.

Design Thinking


Iterative Process

To understand an iterative (thought) process, it helps to compare it to a linear one.

· A linear thought process has phases or steps which are logical, sequential and put in the order as they are experienced or expressed. It can be an extremely efficient way to think, much in the same way that the fastest way between two points is a straight line. However, in a linear system, one does not move to the next step until the current step is completed. No step can be completed in parallel, and no step can be repeated.

· An iterative thought process also has phases or steps – but that’s where the similarity ends. While the Design Thinking steps are introduced or shown in a specific order, a designer wouldn’t necessarily complete the stages sequentially. More often than not, the steps are worked in parallel – or in competition – by an individual team, or among multiple teams. Steps are likely to repeated, either to re-check understanding, look for new or missed information, or create new or different ideas or prototypes. In fact, repeating is actively encouraged, not discouraged.

More to the point, a designer designs and literally builds their ideas as they go along. Purists believe that until a designer has actually built what they are making, they aren’t going to be able to fully understand it. By working iteratively – before, during and after the designing of the prototype, and repeating any step necessary – the designer can more successfully develop a more accurate product – which means they’re also less likely to fail.

Solutions Finding

The differences between Solutions Finding and Problem Solving may appear to be small, but they involve a radical mindset change.

· Problem Solving is looking backward, to determine what went wrong in the past, and often involves blame. It’s specific to solving the immediate problem, not necessarily the root cause. Because people are looking for a quick answer, they choose the expedient solution vs. the right answer.

· Solutions Finding is looking forward, to find and create a solution that not only makes the product or service better than before, but also to create a better future. Its goal is to look for possibilities, often in collaboration with key audiences to find the ideal solution.

The issue of looking forward will come up again when we discuss the differences between Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Thinking. (See Abductive Thinking on page 29.)

Design Thinking


Create Many Alternative Ideas

Ideation is the process of idea generating. Successful ideation comprises two aspects:

· Fluency (or frequency) – creating as many ideas as possible

· Flexibility – creating as many different ideas as possible

Building upon the insights gathered through empathetic research, the designer uses a wide variety of games, techniques, exercises, sparks and stimuli to generate mass and variety of ideas. All ideas are treated equally too, because intensive brainstorming involves refining average and mediocre ideas into better ideas, merging and combining smaller ideas into bigger solutions, even splitting big, hairy, audacious goals into smaller, manageable ideas.

Flexibility may also be reflected in two others ways, by:

· Diversity of People A typical person tends to think the same way from topic to topic because of their background, culture, education and experiences. This generally means their mindset limits the number of solutions they’ll create. (It’s also important to remember that working alone means working in a vacuum.) Obviously, a group of people will create not only a greater number of ideas, but also ideas which have more depth and breadth.

· Diversity of Thought Depending upon the organisation, a group of people could very likely all think the same way, because of executive, organisational or departmental cultures (the notorious ‘group think’). This is why a designer not only wants a large group of people to tap into, but also a group of people with the broadest range of opinions, interests and attitudes. More so, the team with a high level of emotional intelligence will also allow for more constructive challenges and debate, to improve ideas without becoming personally attached to a distinct solution.

Or, as the adage goes, Two heads are better than one.

Design Thinking


And, Defining What Design Thinking Isn’t Sometimes it’s easier to define what something is by what it’s not.

Since time began, people have developed patterns of thinking based on repetitive activities and commonly understood knowledge. These patterns help to identify and recognise both the problems and potential answers. However, these routine patterns can also prevent us from developing new ways to see, experience, grasp and solve problems.

Activity: Car Won’t Start

You go out to the garage to drive to work, but find the car doesn’t start. What do you do?

The patterns of thinking you used to solve the problem of a non-starting car are called schemas, which are ‘organised sets of informational and knowledge between things, actions and thoughts.’ (Rikke Dam, IDF)

When the environmental stimuli (what you sense) matches your schema (what you know from past situations), a certain pattern of thinking comes to mind. Without too much thought, you make a decision about the situation and do what’s needed.

The problem is that the reflex is automatic, which creates other problems.

Question: Reinforced patterns can cause problems such as …?

Design Thinking


Here’s a well-known story that demonstrates the difficulty us people have in challenging our knowledge and assumptions.

A truck driver tried to pass under a low bridge but failed – spectacularly so, as the truck became so thoroughly lodged that he couldn’t forward or in reverse. A battery of emergency personnel were called in to help: police, firefighters, engineers. The group brainstormed ideas from their narrow areas of knowledge, such as dismantling the truck or breaking away part of the bridge. Then, a boy standing on the sidelines offered his suggestion. ‘Why not just let the air out of the tires?’

So, on one hand, we need schemas because they help us move quickly and efficiently throughout our day. But, they can easily stand in the way of improving the status quo, or more so, preventing us from solving a problem when the same-old answer no longer works.

If nothing else, the principles of Design Thinking asks us to ‘think outside the box,’ by encouraging us to:

· Think about the true problem, not a by-product of the problem

· Take a different point-of-view

· Seek and recognise other solutions

· Involve and collaborate with others

Activity: Out of the Box Thinking

Curious about where the phrase out of the box comes from?

As part of his work in the 1930s on problem solving, American industrial psychologist Norman Maier coined the phrase after his 9-dot puzzle. Maier asked his students to draw four continuous, unbroken lines through nine dots without lifting pencil.

The clue to the puzzle’s solution demonstrates Meier’s hypothesis. People often use assumptions, preconceived limitations and self-restrictions to prevent their natural problem-solving abilities.

So, to think in the box means going by the rules, using existing or standard policies, or following common methodologies – but by doing so, you’ll always get the same answer. Maier believed that only after you know and understand the rules can you break them – or, in other words, to think out of the box.

More important, if you’re going to ask someone else to think out of the box – then you too must think beyond your own assumptions, restrictions and limitations as well. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Design Thinking


4. Old Business Model vs. New Business Model

Or, Why Design Thinking Became Necessary

Just as the history of Design Thinking goes back far longer than the name itself, the seeds of its relevance were planted in the emerging business and management philosophies that grew from the Industrial Revolution in Europe during the late 1800s and the American Gilded Age of the early 20th century.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the basic products of life (and their raw materials) were made by hand or with simple tools, usually in people’s homes, before being shipped and distributed during daylight hours using animals as transport power. The time to make a basic coat could take as long as 3-6 months from start to finish.

Within a 30-year span during the mid-1800s, arguably the most important inventions of the modern era were created, changing everything. The spinning jenny, automatic loom and sewing machine simplified and improved the volume and quality of the products. By the turn of the century, the locomotive, light bulb, telephone and assembly line formalised the production cycle. As business continued to evolve and improve, not to mention hired and managed workers who faced uphill battles to learn and perform their job, management also began to standardise every step of logistics, operations and manufacturing to ensure the employees increased quality and eliminated waste. By the 1950s, the production of a coat could take anywhere from 20-30 hours.

Industrialisation took another dramatic leap forward with Japan’s economic recovery after its loss in World War II. Beginning in 1948, engineer Taiichi Ohno at Toyota began development on the Toyota Way, a business philosophy guided by four principles, the most well-known being Continuous Improvement (also known as Kaizen). The company honed the principles and its 14 guidelines throughout the next three decades, from generating higher productivity, assigning a monetary value to every aspect of business (including ‘intangibles’ like customer satisfaction), and focusing on ROIs and KPIs with laser-like intensity. By the latter part of last century, labels like agile and lean furthered cemented the era of data-driven business thinking as the only way to create true value creation.

The ‘Old Business’ Model Defined Ironically, the business model that grew over the 100 years from the 19th to 20th Centuries became as standardised as the assembly line, one its most famous inventions.

The Old Business model is defined by exploitation; that it, refining existing procedures, doing the same things (only better), and reaping value from what’s already known. Exploitation is short-term with immediate, relatively certain benefits. Its benefit is continuous improvement, the process of improving products, services or processes through incremental steps, usually through cost efficiency and waste reduction.

The goal of the Old Model is 100% reliability: the ability of a machine or system to consistently create the same product each and every time without waste.

Its mindset is characterised by analytical thinking, which is a mixture of science and logic defined by deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning to understand the truths of the world. (See Comparison Chart here.) Analytical Thinking demanded daily rigor, discipline to follow inflexible standards, and quantitative analysis performed by computer software.

Its enemy is anything intangible, notably gut feelings, emotions, instincts and unfettered creativity.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Toyota-Way

http://searchmanufacturingerp.techtarget.com/definition/kaizen

Design Thinking


Analytical Thinking (Deductive and Inductive Thinking)

Deductive and Inductive Thinking are the two logics most commonly used by traditional businesses to create its future and develop new ideas, analytical thinkers try to make a strong inference from existing data.

Exercise: Deductive Thinking

Exercises: Inductive Thinking

Design Thinking


The ‘New Business’ Model Defined An opposing mindset to the Old Model began to emerge in the mid-1960s, likely a reaction to the rise of the ‘bean counters’ who increasingly found their tried-and-true formulas were no longer producing increased (much less new) revenue growth. This quote – attributed to Albert Einstein but never proven – began to circulate, defining both the frustration and dilemma of the Old School modelling.

‘Insanity (is) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’

The New School argued that the relentless focus on data, research and analysis to make decisions and develop products may have increased reliability, but it also drove out courage and creativity from anyone in a role of responsibility. By the late 1970s, the concepts of exploitation and analytical thinking were being replaced with opposite points of view.

This New Business model is defined by its exploration; that it, pursing what might come to be known through observation, experimentation and radical ideation. In contrast to Exploitation, Exploration is a decidedly long-term process with a risky, uncertain outcome. The benefit however was discontinuous improvement, the creation of wholly new markets, products or services through radical innovation.

The goal of the New Model is 100% validity: the ability to produce outcomes that meet or exceed the desired objectives of the end user.

Instead of analytical thinking with its focus on facts and statistics, the New Model is characterised by accepting and attempting to understand things which are hard to define. This ‘opposite’ way uses intuitive thinking: the art of knowing something without reasoning.

Intuitive Thinking

Exercise: Intuitive Thinking

Are you reading this paragraph, or is your brain deciding what you should see?

“Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabridge Uinvervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a ttoal mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is besauae ocne we laren how to raed we bgien to aargnre the lteerts in our mnid to see waht we epxcet to see. The huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but preecsievs the wrod as a wlohe. We do tihs ucnsoniuscoly wuithot tuhoght.“

According to Roger Martin, author of The Design of Thinking: ‘Proponents (of the new school) believed great products can only spring from the heart and soul of the great inventor, unencumbered by committees, processes or analysis.’

Over time, the New School gained considerable attention and traction with its photogenic stable of books, sound-bites and methodologies. Not surprisingly, this new wave of business philosophy ran directly against the old guard of traditionalists, namely:

· The stubborn mindset of business educators who lived and breathed the tried-and-true methods of the past, especially MBA schools (at least at the start)

· The ongoing preference of organisations to reward those who look to the past for proof

· The simple act of protecting the enterprise from the frightening qualities of wildly creative ideas

Design Thinking


Similar to Analytical Thinking has a linear style of thinking that doesn’t easily create or sustain creativity, Intuitive Thinking has its own flaws.

Exercise: The Flaws in Intuitive Thinking

The facilitator will show you a piece of art on the screen. You will have 60 seconds to decide what you’re looking at. Do not say anything aloud until asked.

Design Thinking


The Rise of New Technologies Also Create a New Design Philosophy By the late 1950s, two new parallel tracks of revolution were taking place which would influence both Old and New School Thinking:

· The rise of new technologies, which in turn rapidly changed …

· The growing influence of the end user, which may or may not have coincided with the Rise of the Baby Boomers.

Many of the new technologies that began to revolutionise the last half of the 20th Century emerged directly from World War II, such as radio, radar and computers to name a few. Companies scrambled quickly to take advantage of these new improvements, integrating them into consumer products and commercial machines.

As consumer demand sped up, companies found it necessary to shape their products to the tastes of the new and growing middle class. In many cases, this was caused because consumers simply didn’t know how to use the products. So, corporate designers created out of necessity a new philosophy of consumer testing – called participatory design – which brought together many internal voices to discuss how the machine or device would be used, how it should look, or work in ideal situations.

According to Dr Stephanie Di Rossi in her blog I Think, I Design, the initial problem with Participatory Design was that the end user was usually the last group of people to be engaged – if at all.

To paraphrase Di Rossi, it’s as if the philosophy of consumer testing at the time was “Shut up and tell us the machines work.” Not surprisingly, user testing didn’t go so well, as designers and other internal stakeholders didn’t like what they heard from consumers. The mood was often one of disbelief, and many companies simply stopped testing products altogether.

A Change in Understanding Consumers

In a parallel world – Scandinavia, to be exact – a group of businesses began to experiment with a different philosophy for engaging consumers, one based on the inherent principles of design. With its long and successful history of design excellence, it was a natural step for Scandinavian executives to ask its designers to test ways to (re-) engage the customer (validity) without compromising on a quality product (reliability).

This new approach was defined by three qualities which began to crystallise into Design Thinking:

· Deep commitments to democracy and democratisation This meant all parties had a voice, including the consumer who ultimately was the one who decides the true value of a product.

· Discussions of values in design and imagined futures The singular goal of good design is to evoke an emotional response, by tapping into intuitive qualities. This emotional connection was as important, if not more so, than the product features and benefits.

· How conflict and contradictions are regarded as resources in design Designers have long known that the best ideas aren’t in plain sight or obvious. Oftentimes, the best elements of design come from the problems and confusion the user has with the product, not from its benefits or opportunities.

https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/

Design Thinking


Pushing aside Participatory Design*, the new approach – called User-Centred Design – put the end user directly at the core of all design and engineering. Researched and tested at universities and honed in Scandinavian companies, this human-centred approach eventually came to the attention of Donald Norman, who happened to be both an electrical engineer and a psychologist.

Norman was already a well-known consultant on advisory boards for governments (USA), universities (University of California at San Diego) and corporations (Apple and Motorola) when he saw the potential for something more compelling. Fusing his background and experience with the new philosophy, Norman refined his thinking into The Design of Everyday Things, published in 1988.

At its core, Norman made a case for the importance of usability to be eclipsed by something far more important: the user’s interests and their needs. This change of focus laid the groundwork for Design Thinking to become a multi-stage problem-solving process that:

· Required designers to analyse and envision the way users are likely to use a product in advance

· Demanded designers to understand what the users’ learning curve might be like, particularly of first-time experiences

· Validated consumers’ assumptions with regard to user behaviour in real-world tests, through simple prototyping or pre-production models

· Completed a circle of proof to ensure that every step of development proceeded with the user as the centre of focus

If the mindset change from Participatory to User-Centred Design needed a sign-post, it might look something like this:

* Over time, Participatory Design has incorporated user-centred thinking into its philosophy.

However, it’s also important to point out that Bain & Co reported that 80% of companies believed they delivered a ‘superior experience’ to their customers, but only 8% of their customers agreed. Source: “Focus on the Customer.” Bain & Co, 2014.

Design Thinking


5. The Emergence of Design Thinking

With all of these converging influences bouncing off each other, you might now understand the confusion, tension and head-scratching about how businesses should move forward in the 21st Century.

In fairness, both Old and New Schools have significant advantages and drawbacks. However, neither school of thought offers the sustainable advantage needed to compete in an increasingly complex and faster world, differentiate from more and newer competition eating away at the bottom line and attracting customers, or address how to listen and adapt to the wants and needs of louder, more demanding customers.

In addition to neither Old or New School seeming to be the right answer, the natural tension between their styles of thinking – analytical thinking vs. intuitive thinking – only widened the gap further. But from this gap emerges Design Thinking.

A Mixture of Both Old and New

If the Old School is defined using science, logic and efficiency, and the New School is defined using radical creativity, insights and lateral thinking, Design Thinking sits firmly between the two models. It combines the best elements from both sides, by:

· Mixing the need for an exploitative mentality with a receptiveness for explorative creativity

· Balancing analytical acumen with abductive originality

· Blending the need for a judicious look at the past with its ability to imagine the potential of the future

To paragraph Roger Martin, Design Thinking is a way to bring creativity and informed intuition (back) to a deliberate business management practice.

Design Thinking


Inside-Out vs. Outside-In

Opposite traits aside, both Old and New Models are ‘inside out.’ Design Thinking is radically different in that it’s ‘outside in.’

In their 2010 book Strategy from the Outside-In, George Day and Christine Moorman outline these two contradictory business paradigms.

Seen below, the Inside-Out ideology is guided by senior management’s belief that its inner strengths and capabilities will make the organisation successful. It uses its core competencies and resources to drive shareholder value. In turn, this helps the company achieve greater efficiencies and adapt more quickly to a changing business environment. But, while this approach will create short-term gains, this myopic focus limits the company’s ability to identify, jump on and adapt to market changes.

In reverse, the Outside-In ideology believes shareholder value starts from an external market orientation. The source for stimulus, inspiration and development comes directly from the targeted consumers. By studying market trends, engaging with customers, and shaping product features and benefits to their wants and needs, the company not only creates a far-more attractive product, but also a seamless user experience. Shown below, the Outside-In approach aligns with Design Thinking. The direction also demonstrates why it’s frequently seen both as a complementary and opposite mindset to the Old Business School.

Inside-Out and Outisde-In Value Chains, adapted from ‘Seizing the White Space: Innovative Service Concepts in the United States,’ Technology Review Study, 2007

Design Thinking


Traditional Thinking Design Thinking

Rational and objective – reality is fixed and quantifiable

Subjective and personal – reality is socially constructed

Logic, facts, numbers: in pursuit of control and stability

Emotional insight, experimental models: in pursuit of the new, breakthrough

Incremental/continuous improvement Discontinuous improvement

‘What Is’ Determined by research analysis (market,

customers, competition), business priorities

‘What Might be’ Determined by associations, intuition, stories,

abductive reasoning, immersion

Breaks things down by analysis to determine the one single answer

Builds things up by experimenting to create more answers

Rigorous analysis Rigorous testing

Customer validated (what customers say in focus groups, surveys, etc.)

User inspired (what customers do via direct observation, usability testing, etc.)

Linear, defined approach – one stage is completed before the next

Iterative, frequent adaptions – stages can be completed at the same time

Prioritises to close Keeps options ‘alive’

Circumvents constraints Integrates constraints

Minimises risks through thorough analysis

Embraces risks, and fails early through prototypes and tests

Mistakes are wrong Mistakes are learning experiences

Relies upon proof Relies on trial and error

Tools: software, spreadsheets, PowerPoint, words

Tools: prototypes, customer journeys, scenarios, stories, pictures

Teams are vertical in skills and knowledge (deep but singular) with some horizontal thinkers

Teams are horizontal in skills and knowledge (shallow but varied) with some vertical thinkers

Design Thinking


6. Abductive Thinking

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.

Marcel Proust

Reasoning: Dealing with Information and Knowledge

Reasoning is the cognitive process that uses existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, provide explanations, and most of all, solve problems.

Just as Old Model thinking uses Analytical Thinking (a combination of Deductive Thinking and Inductive Thinking), and New Model thinking uses Intuitive Thinking, Design Thinking uses a third type of thinking called Abductive Thinking.

Even though these names sound formal, everyone uses all ways of thinking – some more than others, depending upon a variety of factors, such as their education, skills, occupation, job responsibilities, personality. Like anything in life, it’s preferable to know the different styles and their differences, and use the right method for the right task.

Abductive Thinking: Moving from Observations to Explanations

The foundation of Design Thinking, Abductive Thinking begins with an incomplete set of observations and searches for the likeliest, simplest and most logical explanation. It answers the question, Why is this true?

Activity: Abductive Thinking

A common example of Abductive Thinking is:

· M Premise: Chris is wet.

· m Premise: The pavement is wet.

· Conclusion: It must have rained.

Is the conclusion accurate? Why or why not?

Design Thinking


Charles Sanders Peirce first identified Abductive Thinking in 1865, and initially termed it as ‘guessing,’ adding later that it was a way of thinking ‘very little hampered’ by the rules of logic.

That’s why Abductive Thinking is so powerful. It opens up the realm of what is possible.

It begins by observing details, information and clues, empathising with people to find answers. Its pathway is both linear and lateral to determine the most believable answers, which is why it’s often referred to as the thinking of the future.

There is no guaranteed conclusion or explanation to the premise because there is a lack of completeness, either of evidence or explanation, or both. That’s OK because the answers aren’t meant to be deductively valid. They’re only meant to be an explanation.

More so, the only way to decide if one explanation is better than another is to …

· Create a better explanation of the information than what the situation suggests, or you

· Challenge the existing explanation by looking for more evidence to improve a newer explanation.

Most people have no idea it’s called Abductive Thinking. As a subject, it’s rarely taught in school. Yet, it’s surprisingly common in life.

· Medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning. Doctors ask about symptoms to try and determine what’s the problem.

· Detectives use abductive reasoning to look for clues and their meaning.

· Jurors use it to determine whether the prosecution or defence has the best explanation of the gathered evidence.

And of course, you use it every day, but may not realise it.

Design Thinking


Activity: Check Out the Check-Out

You are at a large supermarket, and you are anxious to get home to start the weekend. You stroll up with your cart and find all six check-out lines (including the self-checkout lane) are filled with customers.

How do you decide which line is fastest?

Design Thinking


Comparison of Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Thinking

Analytical Thinking Abductive Thinking Intuitive Thinking

Strategic Its Personas: Engineers

Strategic & Creative Its Persona: Designers

Creative Its Persona: Inventors

EXPLOITATION: MEASURED

Uses algorithms.

Focuses on efficiency. Short-term. Minimal risk.

Analyses the past.

Both EXPLOITATION and EXPLORATION

Uses aspects of both.

Imagines the future.

EXPLORATION: MADNESS

Largely unconscious

or sensory perception.

Lives in the future.

Deductive Thinking starts with a general

assumption and moves to a specific

conclusion

Its conclusion is always true and

accurate.

It narrows down all information to ONE

CHOICE.

Inductive Thinking starts with a specific

observation and moves to a general

conclusion.

Its conclusion predicts the future

based on past history.

Abductive Thinking starts with observing

a specific incident, and asks:

Why is that?

Intuitive Thinking begins with

emotions, intuition and unconscious

perceptions.

Examples: Math

Examples: Scientific Research

Examples: Medical Diagnosis

Examples: Daydreaming

All men are mortal. Matt is a man. Matt is mortal.

Kate is Australian. Kate is blonde.

All Australian women must be blonde.

Chris is wet. The pavement is wet. It must have rained.

What if? Why not?

How about … ?

Design Thinking


7. The Knowledge Funnel

In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.

Albert Einstein

Knowledge in organisations is a tricky thing because it’s not what most people think it is. In the majority of businesses, ‘knowledge’ is a huge mass, but in reality, it’s three separate things which are not necessarily interchangeable. There is:

· Data – which is basic, raw static facts

· Information - which is data that has meaning, in that something is learnt about a thing, a system or a person

· Knowledge – which is information and skills acquired together or independently through experience and education. It’s only at this stage that it has value

The question is how to organise this mass of different qualities. The further one digs into Design Thinking, the more they’ll hear about a concept called the Knowledge Funnel, introduced by Roger Martin in The Design of Business.

While some people think of it as a step-by-step process, it’s probably more useful as a way to think about how they use knowledge, what stage it (and they) are in, so they can extract its potential. Martin says it’s a way to ‘become comfortable with’ the mass of knowledge, because by understanding it, people can use it to establish goals, solve problems and become successful.

There are three phases: Mystery, Heuristics, and Algorithms.

Design Thinking


Mystery Mysteries are areas of unknown. They may be:

· Problems to be solved, or opportunities to be created

· Observations of phenomena (things we see, but don’t yet understand)

· Any attempt to answer an outside-in question (“Why do men shave in the first place?”) – but not an inside-out question (“How can we sell more razors?”)

From the perspective of a business, the mystery is worth solving when it may be something people care enough about to pay for. (Martin, 2009)

From the perspective of a social or cultural cause, the mystery may be something extremely difficult or impossible to solve because of the sheer number of people involved, the economic burden, incomplete or contradictory information, and the interconnectedness of these problems with other problems. Because of their complexity, these types of mysteries are called wicked problems, although many businesses hijack the phrase for themselves. (Rittel and Webber, Policy Sciences 4, 1973.)

In this first stage, the designers research, explore, analyse and visualise the mystery using Abductive Thinking to:

· Create a premise

· Identify a true problem statement to start the Design Thinking process

· Think about what may be right from a customer’s standpoint (aka validity) versus what may be a consistent, quality product for the business (aka reliable)

The goal of wrestling with and understanding the mystery is to separate the important information from the unimportant information. By doing so, he or she can begin making assumptions about it and decide what can be used to help the business.

Finally, by reaching a problem statement, the designer can move the critical information about the mystery to the next phase: Heuristics.

Heuristics A heuristic is any practical method used to solve a mystery, or the problem of the mystery. It’s often called a ‘rule of thumb.’

As general examples, a heuristic might be something you used from a previous experience or similar problem. One of the most common heuristics is trial and error (‘any repeated, varied attempt which is continued until successful’). Other ways to solve a problem might be to:

· Rely upon a ‘hunch’

· Draw a picture of the problem to understand it better

· Work backwards from a potential solution to see if it works or fits

· If the mystery is too abstract, create a concrete example to see if any learnings can be extracted

· Set up an organised system within a business to explore possibilities and refine them, such as using research and development

Design Thinking


The goal of the Heuristic phase is to search for the best approaches to solve the mystery. The initial approaches don’t have to be the right heuristic, but good enough for the moment to test and refine it as the business gains experience and learns from experiments. In doing so, the heuristic eventually becomes the best solution to the problem statement which, in the real world, is the product, service or offering.

Ultimately, this best solution will become fully an understandable – and repeatable – way to solve the mystery over the long-term.

Algorithms and Code When the heuristic has got to the point that it’s so well-defined, predictable and effective, the heuristic becomes an algorithm. An algorithm produces the same outcome with the same input, each time, every time. It is very precise, usually defined to the point there are step-by-step procedures or systemisation, if not assigned a certified production processes or turned into computer code.

At this stage, armed with a highly focused Algorithm, the business can dramatically ramp-up its scale. Or, as one part of the business proceeds with the expansion, another element of the business might decide to return to the beginning of the Knowledge Funnel to start again with a ne

Design Thinking


8. The Stages of Design Thinking

Given that Design Thinking is still relatively new, there is not one defined process.

There are several general models created by universities and academics, as well many more invented by businesses (IBM, Motorola) and consultancies (IDEO, Continuum). The good news is virtually every model follows the same basic thought process. The chart below maps out the common stages based on the creative principles of divergent and convergent thinking, forming what’s called the Double Diamond Design Model.

Adapted from the UK Design Council: the Double Diamond Design Process (2005)

Discover The Design Thinking process typically begins with a trigger, whether it be a problem, an opportunity, an observation, or a change in the market place. A designer in the first stage takes a step back to look holistically and with a fresh eye at the mystery to determine where the business is now and to understand the current situation. At the same time, the designer begins to talk with key audiences. Using Empathy and Observation, the designer seeks to gain information and knowledge about this group by visiting them in their environment to interpret behaviour and values without bias. The mindset should be divergent and focused on analysis.

Define The second stage of the process comes from a place of some understanding, where the design team – flush with information – attempts to extract insights. What does all this mean? What matters most? What should be our priority? What may be feasible? The goal is to formalise the creative brief (the design challenge, its point of view, the audience, the strategy) so a business plan can be created soon. (“Soon” is the operative word as all these elements will continue to change as the team synthesises the information.) The mindset should be convergent and focused on synthesis.

Design Thinking


Develop The third stage begins with a burst of creativity and imagination. Because the design brief outlines the clear opportunity, the team begins creating solutions and concepts. Inside the creative space, the goal is to generated as many ideas as possible. The details and specifications are irrelevant at this stage. Instead, the team sorts through the ideas and begins to create low-fidelity prototypes and seeking feedback on initial models to refine it even further.

Delivery The fourth stage moves from exploration to engineering. In this phase, it’s important to keep a mindset of “fail early, fix quickly.” Prototypes are rapidly improved upon. Some are moved to test phase, some may even be launched as a pilot or a limited offering to test their impact in the marketplace so feedback can be sought and the business’ understanding deepens. In turn, this realisation influences the business plan and strategy.

The Process is Iterative

Regardless whether the methods are in a line, circular or another shape, the phases are iterative. They are not completed in true linear form: one phase is done before the next can be started. Instead, the phases can be implemented at any time (within reason) rather than be done sequentially. Some phases are be completed at the same time in parallel.

Think About Your Creative Space

One of the first physical needs will be a creative space to put your Design Thinking into practice.

· The Wall Arguably the most important element you’ll need is as big a white space as possible to hang images, notes, observations, data, artefacts, experiences, interviews, insights, stories where you’ll quickly want to connect the dot literally and figuratively.

· Lots of Tools The basics of technology (such as computers, printers, cameras, etc.) and the basics of art supplies (such as markers, paper and any number of materials to make prototypes).

· Space For brainstorms, meetings and impromptu discussions, preferably standing up but sitting down when needed.

Design Thinking


9. Implementation

Getting Started

If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.

Adapted from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

The Trigger

Design Thinking begins because something happened. It might be a drop in sales, an observation from the target audience of something unusual occurring, a specific incident reported in customer feedback, a trend or opportunity that neither you nor your competition has jumped on.

Regardless of what it may be, it’s often useful to phrase the trigger into a statement or an objective. Later, at the end of the Define stage, you’ll articulate a problem statement or the design challenge. But for now, this simple statement gives the team its initial scope and purpose. Know – and make sure everyone on the team – understands that this statement is likely to change as your progress through the phases.

Problem Statement

Initial statements are usually internally focused, meaning their relevance is to the business, not to the consumer. Typical statements might be:

· How do we sell more widgets?

· How do we get more customers?

· How do we revive lagging sales of our widget?

Once you have an initial statement, re-write or re-frame the statement/question to make it externally focused. In other words, write it from the point-of-view of the consumers. For example, here’s an internally directed statement:

· Kids aren’t watching our television show at home on the television

Some options to make it more user-centred:

· How might we make TV more social, so youths feel more engaged?

· How might we enable TV programs to be watched anywhere, at any time?

· How might we encourage families to watch TV at home together?

· How might we make watching TV at home more participatory?

· How might we turn TV shows into a group activity, whether it’s watching at home with family and friends, or with a group in public places, like a favourite pub?

Adapted from Define the Problem and Interpret the Results, from IDF Blog

Design Thinking


After you’ve more thoroughly spoken to and empathised with your end user in the (1) Discover phase, you will improve this problem statement in the (2) Define stage into an actionable point-of-view.

The Design Team

For some businesses, it may be helpful to start to think about potential team members. This list may be of two types:

· Those people who are useful and necessary now, such as those involved in research, marketing, product development – as well as those who can help navigate internal politics, such senior leaders, department heads and key influencers.

· Those people who may be useful and necessary later on, either critical departments inside the organisation (technology, logistics, outsourcing, operations, manufacturing, accounting or finance, etc.) and key stakeholders outside the company (distributors, suppliers, vendors, etc.)

Business Planning and Measurement

Finally, consider how to involve those who will help develop the business plan, specifically to understand what business metrics, KPIs or ROI might be used to determine the success of the overall project. You may not want to make this a public conversation so that Analytical Thinking kills the process before it begins. But at the same time, you will need to engage important departments who will focus on Reliability (as opposed to Validity) at some point – so thinking about these measures at the beginning may help later on.

Design Thinking


Exercise: Your Problem Statement

1. In the space below, write your organisations’ ‘inside out’ problem.

2. As a test for yourself, re-write your ‘inside out’ problem two or more different ways.

3. Choose a provocative ‘inside out’ problem, and reframe it five different ways. Each of your ‘outside in’ problems should:

· Define the audience as specifically as possible (e.g., kids, teens, teenagers, families)

· Be written as a question from the audience’s point of view (using empathy)

· Some general ways to get started:

o “How might (the audience) …”

o “What is (the audience) …”

o “What if (the audience) …”

This is only a guide. Feel free to be creative.

4. Pick one question which makes you see the problem in a different perspective.

Design Thinking


A. Discover

Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they’re open.

Thomas R. Dewar

Objective Learn everything you can about the audience for whom you are designing.

Tools ‘Rapid ethnography,’ such as surveys, analytics, videos, digital or visual diaries, direct observation, shadowing, intercepts, sketches, day-in-the-life timelines, or mood-o-gams.

Outcomes As much knowledge as possible about the targeted consumers and their situation, preferably a detailed persona with sketches, diaries and timelines of the complete customer journey and experience. Also, pain points (how far will the audience go) … and ditto with the organisation (so you know what politics to deal with in the near future)

A1. Immerse, observe and experience

The word empathy is frequently used in Design Thinking as the key to understanding the target audience. Above all else, you must learn to understand the other person without judgement or bias. More so, remember that What they believe and feel is true to them.

Empathy involves deep listening, letting the audience frame the perspective, and recognising emotions that consumers bring to the product or situation. It should involve their culture, language, emotions and usage in their natural environment (not an artificial environment, such as a focus group).

The ideal mixture is a balance of …

· Asking (engagement) – What people say they do

· Trying (immersion) – What people experience

· Looking (observation) – What people actually do, how do they use the product or service (particularly in ways that you wouldn’t consider)

In the end, this is more than simply putting yourself in the shoes of the other person. It’s about living in the other person’s shoes.

Empathy Mapping

An Empathy Map is one of the most common tools in Design Thinking to help designers compile and analyse their learnings while engaging with key audiences.

Empathy Maps also work well with Personas, which are realistic representations of prioritised audiences for a variety of Design Thinking components, such as brainstorming.

Design Thinking


The Map itself can be divided into a number of categories which reflect key traits, actions, statements, artefacts or emotions which the person demonstrated or possessed or that – by extraction – was felt or believed.

The common quadrants:

· What they Said?

· What they Did?

· What they Thought?

· What they Felt?

Oftentimes, it’s helpful to add the other senses if appropriate: What did they Hear, Smell or Taste?

The compiled senses then lead to:

· Pain Points, which are the person’s fears, frustrations and anxieties? Also, what do they dislike or hate about your product or service?

· Gain Points, which are the person’s wants, needs, desires and hopes? If relevant, what do they like or love about your product or service?

Other common areas may include:

· Who’s the person? (Who are we empathising with?)

· What do they need to do? (What decision do they need to make? What task or job do they want to need to get done or made easier?

· What’s our goal? (What’s the business objective?)

All traits added to the Empathy Map must be based on careful and accurate observations and analysis which mirror the person’s experience exactly or as closely as possible.

Design Thinking


Empathy Mapping, Sample Chart

The description is on the previous page.

Design Thinking


A2. Move to understand the problem

It’s paramount to understand the person to whom you hope to deliver an experience beyond the product or service. As the same time, you also need to understand the problem from other points of view.

· Think of the context What other products, services or offerings are competing in this mindset? Move beyond the obvious.

· Think of the macro-environment How does the product, service or offering relate in the lens of mass culture, politics, health, the environment, society or economics?

· Think of influencers Who does your audience look to, aspire to, or emulate – in the past, now, in the future?

· Think globally As it relates to wishes and dreams, the world is no longer bound by borders. What happens on the other side of the world can be as real to the audience as what happens next door.

· Think of experts Who knows this group? Who’s already studied them? Do any media (traditional or social) cover them relentlessly?

· Think in metaphors and analogies What is this problem like or similar to? How might it parallel other situations completely unrelated to your market or category?

Suggestions to Understand the Problem or Situation

· Above all else, the one thing you need to bring to the party is your sense of curiosity. If you aren’t curious, you will not be successful. Full stop.

· Assume a beginner’s mindset, or a Martian’s. Pretend you know nothing about the background and try to look at it with fresh eyes.

· Go beyond behaviour to values. Think of it in this order: What is this? How is this used? Why is important to them?

· As much as possible, think visually. You want crude over artistic.

· Break the problem down into components.

· Diagnose every observation. What may have caused that behaviour, reaction or emotion? What’s the on-going or residual effect?

· Move beyond product or service features, and focus on the benefits. What does the target audience get out of using it? What’s their experience? You won’t get this level of understanding from reading a report.

· Focus on the super-heavy users (SHU). They both love and hate your product in very defined, articulate ways. Their emotions are magnified, and can be useful in helping to articulate the needs of the mainstream. However, remember you’re not targeting the SHU.

· Photos are great; videos are better (not just for brainstorming, but for recording/remembering too). Think too about photo journeys or photo diaries, either with you doing the recording or giving the end user a camera to do the work for you.

· Look for pain points. Where does the consumer not like something, or use it differently that you expect, or has a related need or want.

Design Thinking


· Always think of your questions in advance of interviews. You don’t want to be thinking of the next question and not listen to the current question’s answer.

· Listen intently to their stories. They are always rich with emotions. They can give you detail you’d wouldn’t get otherwise. And, when sharing with team members, try to use your own stories. This brings the person alive.

· Everything gets captured. Nothing is thrown away.

· As observations and artefacts are collected, look for repetition of actions (nodes) and connectors (links). This helps you create, follow and map the customer journey, as well as identify both pain or happiness points.

Remember: if you can understand the experience, you can own the experience.

Design Thinking


B. Define If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking

about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about the solution.

Albert Einstein

Objective Create a point-of-view based on user needs and insights that will give direction to idea generation.

Tools Empathy Map, Point-of-View template … plus all of the Discover Tools as well. Remember too to make ample use of the Creative Wall to map out visually the individual insights. To bring synthesis and draw out insights, this space will help illuminate themes, reoccurring events, repetitions (of words, actions, emotions), and nodes and links.

Outcomes A strong, action-oriented Point-of-View statement to begin the next phase of Develop.

B1. Bring order and structure

The challenge of the second stage is to synthesise what’s been gathered into some understanding of the problem or situation. In other words: What’s all this information mean?

As discussed in the Knowledge Funnel, there’s a considerable amount of information floating around in the mystery section. This goal of the Define stage isn’t to make sense of all of it, only to understand the part that relates to the business. Of what’s found, what issues are the highest priorities? What areas of the problem are being ignored or have no solution (yet)? What pain points are most annoying or frustrating to the audience? What are the most compelling opportunities to pursue? And most of all, what space can the business occupy as quickly as possible with the most compelling response?

It’s very likely from the previous stage of Discover that the team has already begun to think about connections, themes or repetitions. While this sounds easier than it is, Define takes that initial thinking and starts to give it structure, usually in three phases:

· Sorting (Important vs. not important) – What stands out?

· Clustering (Putting like items together) – What elements are repeating?

· Prioritising (First things first) – What order defined by the user makes most logical sense?

Activity: How To Make Toast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vS_b7cJn2A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vS_b7cJn2A

Design Thinking


Ways to Bring Structure

· Patterns Look for repeating events or occurrences in the audience’s lives. For example, when using an app, is it used at the same time of day (morning), or when something else happens (I’m hungry), or at the same decision time (I just finished a task).

· Themes Look for data or descriptions of phenomena that connect actions to behaviours to values. Some examples might be the use of specific words or phrases, slang, jargon or code. Others might be triggers that create a response, such as certain times of the day (5 o’clock = quitting time), a text from a child (‘what’s for dinner?’), an invitation to an event (‘what am I going to wear?’).

· Diagrams of the system Look for the ways a person repeats actions. Watch how they do or use something, including habits, routines, steps or instructions. Pay particular attention to how something may be used that’s in conflict with – or improves! – the suggested instructions. Have they simplified it? Changed it to suit the real world?

· Experience journeys Map out the experience an individual person might go through as they use your product or deal with life. For example, map out a day-in-the-life (how many times do they use a particular item, when and how), or category touch-points (all the times there’s a reminder to purchase toothpaste), or decision trees (how to decide where to go on holidays).

· Work backwards Piece together observations in reverse order to see how various elements influence and impact how a task is completed, a decision reached or an opinion created.

· Stop thinking in your head Perhaps the best suggestion of all is to get the information out of your head and put it on your creative wall where you and the team can visually see how it may connect to other elements. Use colour as much as possible: in markers, post-it notes, photos or images, even string or yarn connecting disparate pieces.

B2. Articulate the point of view

Once you begin processing what you’ve learnt, it’s time to redefine and focus your trigger (or objective, challenge, problem) into an explicit statement to help with idea generation.

To solve any problem (Design Thinking or not), you have to make sure you’re solving the right problem. Even though you wrote an eloquent problem statement at the beginning of this process, it wouldn’t be accurate now because it was written before you learnt anything specific and demonstrable from your end user. Sometimes, it’s also a matter of framing (or reframing) your statement.

A point-of-view is a meaningful and actionable problem statement. It should be:

· Written from the perspective of the target audience,

· Be broad enough for creative freedom, but

· Be narrow enough to be manageable.

The point-of-view is very often tied to your problem statement. (Your personal example from the previous example is on page 40.)

Design Thinking


Here’s the basic template. Feel free to adapt and add to make an insightful, provocative statement.

(User Name, or Description of User) needs a …

(‘Way’ or a Thing or Service) to …

(Active Verb) because …

(Insight, either surprising or compelling) …

Some examples are:

· Semi-pro drummer needs a portable silent drum kit so he can practice while travelling on business to keep up his spirits and skills.

· Seldom-rewarded lone-fighter mom needs a little magic in her cleaning routine to help in the battle against chaos.

· At-her-wit’s-end mother needs a fast fix to keep her precious baby from screaming bloody murder at the local playground while incurring withering glances from other mums.

· Penny-pinching adult in Sydney needs to borrow easy wheels (perhaps 2-3 times a week) so he can keep his life legit while protecting the planet.

· Do-it-my-own way tradie wants an interior designer sitting on his shoulder as he answers yet another question about which colour to paint the walls as he makes sure the sink doesn’t leak.

· Teenage girl with a bleak outlook needs to feel more socially accepted when eating healthy food, because in her ‘hood, social risks are more dangerous than a health risk.

Additional Suggestions

· Be creative! Make the statement sound relevant by using their words (from testimonials) to describe experiences from their perspective.

· Don’t get pedantic with the template. Use it as a suggestion, but make the statement ring true.

· Focus on benefits, not on the features. Benefits tie directly to emotions and values.

Empathy Map

An Empathy Map is an ideal tool to use prior to or during this stage. Click here to return to page 41.

Design Thinking


Exercise: Nodes & Links (from ‘How To Make Toast’)

Instructions

In the space below:

1. Choose one of your ‘outside in’ questions the Problem Statement exercise on page 40.

2. From this question, write the specific end user pathway (see example below)

3. From this pathway, write a prompt to direct your illustration of links and nodes

4. Illustrate as many of the important physical actions your audience takes along their journey to make a decision to engage with your service, product or project

For example:

· Outside In Question: How could families use our TV shows to strengthen their relationship?

· Pathway: What decisions does a family make to watch a certain TV shows?

· Prompt: (Draw a picture of how) families decide what TV show to watch

Design Thinking


Exercise: A Point-of-View Statement

Instructions

Using the template below (also on page 45 with examples), write a provocative and imaginative point-of-view statement which reflects one of your organisations’ key audiences.

(User Name, or Description of User) needs a …

(‘Way’ or a Thing or Service) to …

(Active Verb) because …

(Insight, either surprising or compelling) …

Design Thinking


C. Develop

If you don’t ask ‘Why this?’ often enough, somebody will eventually ask “Why you?”

Tom Hirshfield, from Tom’s Rules of Thumb

Objective To create as many potential ideas as possible that might address today’s problem statement and, at the same time, create an ideal future.

Tools Ideation techniques to stimulate your team’s imagination.

Outcomes A strong handful of provocative and differentiating ideas to move quickly toward prototyping, if not sharing with various influential audiences to improve and strength the ideas.

C1. Begin ideation in earnest

After all the thinking, observing and analysing, it’s finally time to generate ideas. As mentioned, potential solutions may have already started to bubble up from discussions with your key audiences or among team members. The Develop stage is time to unleash your creativity and imagination.

The goal is to generate as many ideas as possible. More often than not, finding the very best idea(s) will not happen in one scheduled meeting because people – especially a diverse group of people – think creatively in different ways at different times. Rather than focus on one meeting and hope for the best, a better strategy uses a variety of brainstorm styles to tap into everyone’s ability to think imaginatively in their own style. Here’s some suggestions for all the different creative thinking styles.

Brainstorms can be …

· Meetings both large and small Large meetings can be effective if you’ve thought through the logistics and you have an experienced facilitator to conduct the meeting. An hour is usually the best length, and should never be ‘tacked on’ to the end of another meeting. If your team is small, one large meeting means they’re tapped out for the short term. Instead, try small groups meeting around a table or flipchart for 20-30 minutes.

· In groups or in solo thinking, or both Extroverts are great at group meetings because they like to share and bounce ideas off others. Introverts however will avoid them (or, won’t participate if they’re forced to go). A better variation is to give everyone the brief, key points and time to think on their own. This might precede a large brainstorm to give everyone a change to think privately or unconsciously, or be a good tactic for those who prefer true solo brainstorming.

· Conscious and unconscious By and large, the brain does not do its best work on command. Unconscious thinking can be a more productive way to whet people’s creativity. Plant the seed of the problem (or a provocative insight) in your team’s imaginations, then let it mull as the person goes on to do other things, perhaps sleeping on the idea overnight.

· In your creative space, or anywhere else The creative space is ideal to brainstorm because it has all of the background, inspiration and tools necessary. However, getting outside of the office has its benefits as well – truly, out of the (office) box. Local cafes or similar are good to tap into different inspiration, or think about how your team might brainstorm in the environment of the target audience. Frankly, you can have brainstorms anywhere, as long as there’s at least a clipboard and a pencil.

Design Thinking


· With the team or with outside experts Avoid insular thinking by asking others to step in for short periods of time to stretch the imagination of the group. This can include internal experts or influencers, the end user or consumer, external voices such as suppliers, or social influencers.

Brainstorm Suggestions

· Start with an icebreaker No matter what type of brainstorm you use, it’s always important to get the brain ready to think. Play a quick, fun game to set the right mindset, and it’ll pay dividends as the team (or you individually) start to brainstorm.

Click here for icebreaker ideas.

· Think visually, and think with your hands The brain works more efficiently when more lobes are involved. Have as many visual stimuli as possible to spark the imagination. Prototypes are particularly effective in getting the hands involved, but even before the Prototype section (coming up), have building blocks, LEGOs and other toys to engage the creative mind.

· Schedule brainstorms throughout the day Some people think better in the morning, and others in the afternoon or evening. Schedule two brainstorms and allow people to come when their imagination is most active.

· Chart the key details and post them publicly Consider high-traffic hallways, kitchens, commissaries, meeting rooms. Encourage everyone and anyone to participate and give input.

· Brainstorm standing up The human body is more stimulated from brain to foot when it’s standing. Brainstorms aren’t meant for people to be comfortable enough to nap.

· Always have brainstorm supplies available You don’t want to lose a good idea because you’ve run out of markers. What tools are best?

Click here for an external list of brainstorm supplies.

· Encourage people to use their smartphones Ideas can occur at any time. No matter day or night, tell people to capture their ideas on their phones and send them to a central email box or intranet.

· Enforce the brainstorm rules

Brainstorm Rules

It seems counter-intuitive that a lateral thinking style needs rules, but sometimes bad behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud. Having clear expectations from the start of any brainstorm – even if you’re working on your own – is never a bad idea.

· Start with the point-of-view This statement will focus the team toward the direction and goal. Post it clearly and prominently. Use it wisely, but at the same time don’t limit yourself if you feel like a tangent may be going in an interesting direction.

· All ideas are drawn out or written down Flipcharts are the least objectionable place to put ideas. Because you’ll be moving ideas into groups or themes, it’s preferable to write them on index cards, large post-it notes, even used pages from the printer ripped in half. Regardless of where or how ideas are expressed, encourage people to re-read ideas. And write clearly!

http://www.andyeklund.com/brainstorm-icebreakers-1/

http://www.andyeklund.com/brainstorm-supplies/

Design Thinking


· Saturate yourself with imagery and stimuli The brain needs the widest possible sparks to get the imagination started.

· No negativity allowed Suspend and defer judgment. The process will eventually get rid of ideas. Until then, rather than destroy a potential idea …

· Build on ideas Make every idea better. If you dislike an idea, how would you improve it? If you can’t fix it, ignore it and focus your attention on another more constructive aspect.

· Encourage cross-pollination Harness diversity – in personality, styles, thinking, cultures, perspectives, expertise – to get the most robust ideas. At the same timed, encourage like-minded people to split up and mix with others.

· Have fun Continually find ways to lighten the mood, if not find humorous ways to stimulate imagination. Being silly isn’t wasting time. Research proves that when people are relaxed and comfortable, their thinking opens up to ideas which are unusual, different, odd or provocative.

PROTECT YOUR IDEAS!

Big ideas are never born perfectly. They need patience, time and input to grow. Corporate demands and its rituals (time, money, interest) will do everything possible to bring the idea to fruition before it’s ready. If it’s not ready, negativity and cynicism will kill the idea for good.

Design Thinking


Brainstorm Techniques

There are hundreds of techniques to stimulate thinking in brainstorms. Here are some common technique

· Analogies and Metaphors

· Bodystorming

· Brainwriting

· Charettes

· Fishbone Diagrams

· Gamestorming

· Lotus Blossom

· Mindmapping

· New Point of View

· Provocations

· SCAMPER

· Stop It, Mop It

Also, Visualisations, Excursions, Flash Cards, Wordplay and Force Fitting

http://www.andyeklund.com/metaphors-and-creative-thinking/

https://dschool-old.stanford.edu/groups/k12/wiki/48c54/Bodystorming.html

http://www.andyeklund.com/brainstorm-technique-brainwriting/

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newCT_90.htm

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_03.htm

http://gamestorming.com/

http://www.andyeklund.com/brainstorm-technique-lotus-blossom/

http://www.mindmapping.com/

http://www.andyeklund.com/creative-brainstorm-technique-new-point-of-view/

http://thoughtegg.com/provocations-creative-technique/

http://www.andyeklund.com/brainstorm-technique-scamper-1/

http://www.andyeklund.com/brainstorm-technique-stop-it-mop-it/

Design Thinking


D. Deliver

‘(Prototypes) slow us down to speed us up. By taking the time to make our ideas, we avoid costly mistakes such as becoming too complex too

early and sticking with a weak idea for too long.’ – Tim Brown, IDEO

Objective To create prototypes, often with the consumers being part of the process, that can be tested, piloted or launch in the market place. And, at the same time, the enterprise overall can create its business plan to formalise the roll-out.

Tools Prototyping, testing, co-creation with consumers.

Outcomes An actual working model of the product, service or offering.

D1. Generate a prototype

Prototyping is moving from a brilliant abstract idea on a flipchart, to a physical product that you can touch and see. More than any other stage, prototyping is an iterative activity. You’ll start with a simple construct. With feedback and testing, you’ll create several variations of the product or service, adapting and improving as you go, until the team finally has a full-scale working model.

At the beginning, the key is cheap and quick, probably two-dimensional, such as a crude drawing. (The first prototypes are ‘low fidelity’ or ‘low-res.’) With each turn, the concept is given more detail, life-like form and physical features. The model can be picked up, walked around and glanced at from every angle.

Literally a ‘work in progress,’ each improved prototype can be discussed with various audiences, from senior management to key departments, to external customers and key influencers. Each step is more than ‘testing.’ It is about learning, so that the final prototype (the ‘high fidelity’ version) is free of all problems. Every aspect has been considered and endorsed. This means a successful test, pilot or launch.

Prototype Principles

Here are the basic principles of proper prototyping:

· Figure out the story you want the prototype to tell Start simply and add complexity as you go.

· Visualise multiple options Create choices so that partners can engage and be part of the solution.

· Use affordable loss calculation What amount can you afford to lose, to learn something your competitors don’t know (even if you don’t move ahead with the idea)? In other words, how much is your learning worth?

· Show, don’t tell Work on bringing the concept to life for the observer or user. Use imagery and artefacts so people can experience it physically and emotionally.

Design Thinking


· Keep in mind the questions and assumptions you are testing Don’t get so overly excited about the prototype that its purpose gets lost.

· Don’t defend the prototype Let others validate it, not the people who created it. You must retain an open mind and not emotionally attach yourself to the prototype.

Adapted from Ten Tools for Design Thinking, Darden School of Business, University of Virginia

How to Prototype

· Do it yourself first You must have a direct hand in creating the first prototypes. There’s huge value in this. You’ll understand it from every angle. It encourages others to take you seriously. It’ll improve how you describe your product to customers and business partners.

· Start with paper and pen If you can’t draw it, you aren’t ready to build it. Start simply. Details are not important at the beginning.

· Don’t strive for a perfect prototype You will slow down the process.

· Always build with the user in mind Keep returning to your insights.

· Start handmade, using easy, cheap materials CAD (computer aided design) is not for the beginning. Many successful prototypes started with LEGOs, construction paper, cardboard and glue.

· Take apart a ‘competing’ product to understand it You probably haven’t built something since you were 10, and you need to regain those simple skills.

· You may need to protect your design Keep in mind that every time you show your idea to someone else, they could take it and run.

· Get feedback at every step - but you are only allowed to ask questions! Depending upon their feedback, it can sting. But this is also your chance to get valuable input to what works, or doesn’t (and why). Use them to brainstorm adaptations or improvements.

· Write down what you learn at each step It’s easy to get lost in the speed of prototyping, so keep notes so you remain focused.

· As you get more complex, get expert advice Low-fidelity prototyping is cheap, but it also gives you a false sense of realism. As you move toward a high-fidelity model, research options so you are building something you can test as soon as possible, but not also spending all of your money.

· Balance learning with speed Remember: the faster that you create and move your prototype to an actual model to test with consumers, the more you will learn about its strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats.

Design Thinking


D2. Test the prototype with users

Bringing customers into the Design Thinking cycle can be an effective way to ensure the final product or service meets and exceeds their expectations. However, it’s not done without consideration. Here’s some suggestions to manage the process.

· Give some thought to who you select How will they be involved? Are they diverse enough? Are they articulate? How will you capture their feedback and input? Also, be careful of those who are doing it for compensation, or reasons other than helping you.

· Group or one-on-one? Groups can influence each other in ways that don’t provide you honest feedback, but they are cheaper and faster. One-on-one conversations allows you time to delve deep into their feelings, but it’s also more time-consuming.

· Remember the difference between co-creation and customisation You aren’t making the product for one person.

· Keep to your objective Don’t like consumers put you on a valueless tangent.

· You may need alternatives Choices helps people make decisions, or give them context to be articulate.

· Be open and transparent Cover yourself with NDA if necessary.

· Think beyond consumers Consider vendors, distributors, suppliers as well.

Design Thinking


Learning Journal

Take this opportunity to reflect on what you’ve learnt in today’s workshop, and consider how you may be able to apply the lessons to your role. Use the discussion amongst the team to help articulate potential next steps.

Design Thinking


Bibliography and References

Books, Publications, Reports and Theses

Andruchow, Robert. “Defining Design as a Discipline: A Framework to Help Designers Conceive and Evaluate Definitions.” Department of Art & Design, University of Alberta, 2ADAD.

Brown, Tim, and Barry Katz. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Harper Business, 2011.

Day, George S., and Christine Moorman. Strategy from the Outside in: Profiting from Customer Value. McGraw-Hill, 2010.

Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink: the Power of Thinking without Thinking. Back Bay Books, 2013.

Heskett, John. Industrial Design (The World of Art). Oxford University Press. 1980.

Kumar, Vijay. 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation In Your Organisation. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

Liedtka, Jeanne and Timothy Ogilvie. Ten Tools for Design Thinking. University of Virginia Darden School Foundation. 2010.

Liedtka, Jeanne and Timothy Ogilvie. The Designing for Growth Field Book: a Step-by-Step Project Guide. Columbia University Press, 2014.

Martin, Roger L. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Press, 2009.

Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, a Member of the Perseus Books Group, 2013.

Rae, Jeneanne. The dmi:Design Value Index 2017. The Design Management Institute, 2017. Rowe, Peter G. Design Thinking. MIT Press, 1998.

Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, 2008.

Suri, Jane Fulton. Thoughtless Acts? Observations on Intuitive Design. Chronicle Books, 2005.

The Value of Design Factfinder. UK Design Council , 2007.

The Wallet Project: An Introduction to Design Thinking. Stanford University School of Design (d.school). 2013.

Articles, Presentations and Specific Blog Posts

“Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning.” Tip Sheets, Butte College, www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html.

Dam, Rikke. “What is Design Thinking?” The Interaction Design Foundation, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking

Davis, Matt. “Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy.” MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Department, University of Cambridge. 30 October 2003, https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/

Erickson, Carl. “A simple model of business value creation.” Personal Blog, May 22, 2014, https://greatnotbig.com/2014/05/value-creation-model/

http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html


https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/

https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/

https://greatnotbig.com/2014/05/value-creation-model/

Design Thinking


Falkenburg, Loren E, et al. “Knowledge Sourcing: Internal or External?” Lancaster University with the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2003.

Gottfredson, Mark and Rob Markey. “Focus on the Consumer.” Bain & Company, Insights Division, August 13, 2014. http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/focus-on-the-customer.aspx

Ignatius, Adi. “How PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking into Strategy.” Australian Financial Review, 1 Sept. 2015.

Jawharkar, Harsh. “Design Thinking for Business Strategy.” University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business. 25 January 2007.

Kolko, Jon. “Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: the Drivers of Design Synthesis.” MIT Design Issues, vol. 26, no. 1, 2010.

Kumar, Vijay. “A Process for Practicing Design Innovation.” Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. 30, No 2/3 2009, pp. 91-100.

Nieves L. Díaz-Díaz and Petra de Saá Pérez. "The Interaction Between External and Internal Knowledge Sources: an Open Innovation View." Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 Issue: 2, pp. 430-446.

Rittel, Horst W.J., and Melvin W. Webber. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences, 1973, pp. 155–169.

Rouse, Margaret. “Kaizen (or Continuous Improvement).” Search Manufacturing ERP. September 2009.

Tripp, Cindy. “Energizing Innovation Through Design Thinking.” Rotman Management. Fall 2013.

Walker, Rob. “The Guts of a New Machine.” The New York Times Magazine, 30 Nov. 2003.

Washor, Elliot and Charles Mojkowski. “The Knowledge Funnel: A New Model for Learning.” Edutopia.com, https://www.edutopia.org/blog/knowledge-funnel-learning-elliot-washor-charles-mojkowski

Wellman, Jerry L. “Organizational Learning: How Companies and Institutes Manage and Apply Knowledge.” Palgrave Macmillan 2009.

Videos

Brown, Tim, presenter. Designers: Think Big! TedGlobal , July 2009, www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big/up-next

Martin, Roger, presenter. Prove It! Teknion Consulting. November 10, 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ySKaZJ_dU

Norman, Don, presenter. 3 Ways Design Makes You Happy. February 2003, https://www.ted.com/talks/don_norman_on_design_and_emotion/up-next

Pynn, Geoff, presenter. “Fundamentals: Abductive Arguments.” Updated April 2017, https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fundamentals/v/abductive-arguments

General Websites

Dr Stephanie Di Rossi, I Think, I Design – https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/

Interaction Design Federation, Literature Archive – https://www.interaction-design.org/literature

http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/focus-on-the-customer.aspx

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/knowledge-funnel-learning-elliot-washor-charles-mojkowski

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/knowledge-funnel-learning-elliot-washor-charles-mojkowski

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big/up-next

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ySKaZJ_dU

https://www.ted.com/talks/don_norman_on_design_and_emotion/up-next

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fundamentals/v/abductive-arguments

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-critical-thinking/wiphi-fundamentals/v/abductive-arguments

https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature

Design Thinking


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Restrictions 1969

WARNING

This materials has been reproduced and communicated to you by, or on behalf of, AQUS Pty Ltd, pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act), under license from Copyright Agency Limited.

The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material to you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act.

Do not remove this notice.

Documents

DESIGN THINKING - andyeklund.com · in 1969 by Herbert Simon (1978 Nobel Prize for Economics) – which discussed for the first time the distinct pattern which designers used to