The Isolation of Design Thinking in Firms[and Management Education] :

Definitions, Impediments, and Ways Forward

orMaking Design Thinking Work in your Firm

Bruce Heiman, PhDSan Francisco State University

(presenter)

[Paper by Heiman & Burnett (Stanford)]

Agenda Exec. Summary Motivation Definitions of important terms Problems implementing Design Thinking Solving the problems Wrap-up Exercise

Executive Summary We provide a useful set of original definitions that break down

design thinking into seven dimensions, two of which areorganizational context-related and five of which comprisedesign thinking processes.

Using the definitions, a simple model is proposed which, ifproperly implemented, allows design thinking to function andthe firm to prosper.

We identify classes of problems with implementing designthinking in firms.

We examine solutions and their comparative usefulness forvarious problems.

Motivation

Design thinking and methodology is currentlyviewed as an important element in a firm’s strategicinnovation arsenal.

However, we find much of the discussion misplaced No concrete definition of terms Strategy discussions do not teach “design

thinking” Recent Harvard Business Review issue on “Design Your

Strategy” had no information about design methodology

Motivation(Misplaced discussion aspect)

Often focused on product design (typically tactical--marketing) rather than innovation (strategic)throughout the firm.

No discussion (even) of how hard DT is to embed inbusinesses. This would be a good minimum (awarenessof the issue).We discuss more: precisely how DT is hard to

embed.More: We offer ideas, which we compare, for

solving Design Thinking problems in firms.

Concept DefinitionsThere are seven elements to design thinking: two contextual and

five process Context:

Multi-disciplinary teams Fluency

Process: User-centered research Prototypes Critique Iteration Form-giving

Multi-disciplinary teams(context factor)

…teams composed of diverse personnel from various functionalareas, including: design, engineering, marketing, finance,manufacturing, technical support, suppliers, and customers.

A necessary precursor to design thinking Part of the organizational context Q: How are multidisciplinary teams different from a

“multi-functional” or matrix approach? Team membership based on passions/capabilities/what

team members do best, NOT their professional label orrank (though this is often used as an indicator).

Characterized by two features radical collaboration frequent leadership “passes”

Should be composed of the best and brightest, not “who’savailable”

Fluency(second context factor)

… the capability of moving with ease and grace betweendisciplines… capable of using and translating technicallanguage easily and accurately

Effective translation between various rarefiedtechnical vocabularies

Ability to move effortlessly between problemsolving methodologies - synthesis and analysis(thick skin)

Ability to value others’ outcomes andexpectations (open mind) Designers have different outcome expectations than financial

people

Group & individual level action

User-centered research… focused observation, using ethnographic researchtools, studying users in their home or workingenvironments with the goal of discovering latent needs

Not traditional market research nor concernedwith defining average users

Defines a nuanced data set which is used to judgesubsequent prototypes

An important component of form-giving Frequently uses lead edge users as subjects

Prototyping…reduced complexity models or mock-ups, used to evoke theconditions of use, explore a problem solution, and create buy-in forteams and firms.

Crude, no more than paper models, simple spreadsheetsimulations, or hand drawn storyboards of a potential newexperience.

Used by target users, refined, and built again and again. “Prototyping is thinking.” Typically partial solutions focused on one aspect of the

problem. It is critical that prototypes are experienced by users and the

multidisciplinary team. Used to solicit comments form users and buy-in from the

organization. Caveat: Frequently misunderstood by non-designers.

Critique…the ancient art of dialectic: you ask a question, youthink about the reply, you ask again, you rephrase thequestion, you go on pushing and inquiring, without changingthe subject.

Helps shape the prototyping and iteration process.

Not a design review, which is usually a binary decisionpoint.

Critique is primarily an opportunity to vet a concept;to examine, through questioning, paths not taken,alternatives unexplored, and the quality of the designsynthesis

Caveat: Offering Critique is a skill, not easily learned.Important: Offer constructive, actionable critique, anddrive the user-centered perspective (what does yourresearch tell you?)

Form-giving…the goal of form-giving is to evoke delight and satisfaction in users,and to legitimize the underlying innovations discovered in the course ofuser-centered research.

“God is in the details.” –Mies van der Rohe

Not another prototype, the final result of form-giving isnecessarily complete and detailed.

Organization opportunity to embed the underlying findings ofthe original user research (the nuanced dataset), prototypingand iteration into the object or service

Often overlooked, yielding results that “miss the mark.”

Often misunderstood by managers as an opportunity to makemajor (e.g., cost-saving) changes to a design spec.

Embedding design thinking in firms:Impediments

Three fundamental issues:

Semantic Gaps (Hayakawa, 1964)

Conceptual Blocks (Adams, 1974)

Social Barriers (DiMaggio & Powell, 1990),

Impediments to design thinking:

Semantic Gaps

Perspective:

General Semantics--understanding somethingmore about the nature of meaning.

Different words have different meanings fordifferent people.

Ex.: What is Finance? The HR Function?Productivity?

Differences across people regardingcommonly understood meanings or definitionsof important (frequently common) terms.

Basic meaning: divergent definitions (solution:Extensional definitions--point w/hand over mouth)

Meaning of meaning:The word is not the thing--The verb is not the action--The map is not the territory--the symbol is not the thingsymbolized

Culture often plays a role: Simple ex.: I say “Howare you?...” ...but I do not mean it sincerely (?)--many Europeans perceive Americans as hypocriticalowing to this--very few Americans know this.

Impediments to design thinking:

Semantic gaps defined

Impediments to design thinking:

Semantic gaps–small differences

Small differences matter--harder to detect (costlier--time diseconomies apply--ironically across firms, this is asource of competitive advantage).

Design Thinking: The small differences in shared meaningare the most crucial (form-giving).

Buttons versus Click-wheel--iPod

Trackpad versus trackball/button solutions @ Apple

People actually thought there was no differencebetween these interface technologies

“But the differences between a Mac and Windows boxare so small.” My Point Exactly.

Pernicious Effects:Destructive critical flawed assumptions. Most common:

You/Group/Client/User possess (internalize) the same, correctshared meanings.

You think you know what Brainstorming is? What are the rules?

Knowing about or having tried a design thinking technique a fewtimes makes you an expert (even Wynton Marsalis practices).Practice in Design Thinking is HUGELY important (take away--even for designers).

You think you are an expert in brainstorming after having done it3-4 times in a class. Q: Do you want a dentist that has filled 3 or4 cavities?

Caveat: Multidisciplinary Teams are highly subject to semanticgaps, by their very definition.

Impediments to design thinking:

Semantic gaps–Effects

Impediments to design thinking:

Conceptual BlocksPerspective:

Semantic gaps are group-impairing, and represent low-levelnetworks of shared meaning (think: the pipes layer/protocol).Connections are typically not explicit and are not consciouslymade or broken unless semantic gaps are being attacked.

Conceptual Blocks mostly reside in individuals, not networks.Understanding (semantic) vs. Acting (conceptual block).

Conceptual blocks are belief systems: they affect how individualsdo things, how we behave, how we act in certain situations. Theyimpact the universe of perceived possible actions, as opposed tothe universe of possible meanings (for semantic gaps).

Pernicious Effects:

Emphasis is on “socially acceptable” solutions--Ex.: pleasethe group, not solve the problem.

Oddball solutions are filtered out.

Impair fluency.

Exert a negative influence on prototyping—when thinking aboutand discussing design revisions and refinements, problem-solvingbecomes colored by the biases of people’s conceptual blocks, andsuboptimal outcomes ensue.

Some problems are assumed solved or not seen.

One person with conceptual blocks can impede an entiremulti-disciplinary team.

Simple (but widely prevalent) example: “That’s not my job.”

Impediments to design thinking:

Conceptual Blocks

Impediments to design thinking:Conceptual Blocks–Caveats

OTOH--We admit that progress in innovation sometimes occurs whenpeople commit to be able to execute tasks/processes that they reallyhave only a little experience doing.

Partially the basis of entrepreneurial spirit--don’t squash!

Problem goes unrecognized--basis of first mover advantage isoften doing something you are not supposed to do or notsupposed to be ABLE to do).

Determinants of high performance under these conditions:Pressure, Rising To The Challenge, Meeting Nascent UserNeeds (no one else has a mental infrastructure for thinkingabout the problem!), Charisma/drive.

Impediments to design thinking:Social Barriers

Perspective:Like semantic gaps, social barriers are a networkphenomenon, but unlike semantic gaps, social barriersare the high level manifestation of social networkswithin and between groups.

Connections are consciously made or broken--pipesare visible (unlike for semantic networks).

Fault of both designers/design thinkers and non-designers.Designers may, in fact, revel in their differentness and use itas an excuse for self-isolation (relatively commonphenomenon). Advice: Manage informal networks from thestart, difficult and overly calculating though that may seem.Hiding/hidden in the Marketing department--a few inEngineering

 Pernicious effects: Design thinking is trumped by socio-economic

managerial thinking (esp. with respect to costeconomizing: 2 colors are “better” that 3, even whenthey aren’t).

 Also typical: Convenient “de-validation” of absolutelylegitimate design research findings in the name ofmanagers trying to save on costs.

 Engendering delight and satisfaction in users is a delicate thing--thefruits of design thinking are easy to destroy (take-away).

Impediments to design thinking:Social Barriers

Impediments to design thinking:Social Barriers(pernicious effects II)

 Lack of appreciation of process outcomes in favor of finaloutcomes foments further isolation.

 Deny the value of iteration. Deny value of “roughness.”

 Deny value of learning for the future (a long-run view helpsspread design thinking).

 Social barriers between design thinkers and others inhibit form-giving.

 No agreement about the value-added of focus on details or thevalue of particular details.

Solving the problem:Embedding design thinking in firms

In the classroomTeaching design thinking

Executive Education (MBA, certificate programs)Diversity in the classroom is helpful w/MDTs.Great for conceptual blocks.Useless for in-firm social barriers.No inherent help in spreading design thinking precepts throughout the firm.

Firm-specific ProgramsCohort all from one firm.Legacy possibilities (follow-on years of cohorts).Expensive, but Effective for social barriers.

Problem-based Design ThinkingCan direct towards concrete real problems (great with firm-specific pgms).

Keeps methodology explicitly focused on solving the problem, not sub-goal pursuits likekeeping the whole group happy, or pleasing the Prof. -- desirability bias.

When things get messy, refocus on understanding and characterizing the problem.“A Problem well put is half-solved” --Dewey

Solving the problem:Embedding design thinking in firms

In the firmDeploy ad hoc approaches

Most common (unsystematic, but non-intrusive on employees work focus)Events

Message can be powerful, but little lasting impact.Better for “kickoff,” but runs risk of appearing cliché

Seminar SeriesBetter. If top mgt. attends, sends a strong signal that you are serious about design thinkingHas increasing impact over timeHelps address semantic gaps by building shared meaning during multiple “defining” moments.

Leverage in-house design resourcesDesigner acts as facilitator for brainstorming

Serves as a meeting’s visual thinker (e.g., sketching on the whiteboard)Help mitigate semantic gaps (a little) and conceptual blocks( more)Limited diffusion potential for a firm.

Designer as Top-Manager“Chief Aesthetic Officer?”“Bet the company” or “Best bet for the company?”

Designers ≠ Great managers (automatically)“Good design is consequent to the last detail” (Rams)Caveat: Finding the right person is tough.

Wrap-up, 1Conceptual blocks are cost-effectively addressed within aclassroom setting.

For example, by an Executive MBA program.

Development of a problem-based learning orientation todesign thinking also effectively addresses conceptual blocks

The structure of the PBL inquiry process explicitly seeksto break through conceptual blocks.

For semantic gaps, the best solutions are an ad hoc approach

(e.g., a seminar series in a firm) or having a designer as topmanager (we prefer both initiatives).

Wrap-up, 2Social barriers (toughest impediments) are best addressed byfirm-specific management education

Ideally creates a spirited cadre of managers/design thinkersin one firm to spread the techniques throughout anorganization.

The drawback to firm-specific executive education initiativesis that they are expensive both monetarily and redirectcostly, finite managerial attention from other problems.

A less costly (correspondingly less effective) solution tosocial barrier issues is to use in-house design thinkingresources (designers) as facilitators and team members inproblem-solving tasks that fall outside the realm oftraditional design.

Wrap-Up, 3Wild speculation about the future of innovation inorganizations:

Globally: Even mildly repressive regimes (China, Turkey,much of Africa) will continue to struggle with achievinggenuine “economic power” status.

Free speech, and freedom of thought and expression arecentral to supporting a highly innovative, productive economy.Transparent, free markets, too.

Being a great outsourcing power is not the same asinnovating.

Indians and Russians (and former Soviet Satellites) havethe best educational systems among transition/emergingmarkets. Bet on them to innovate in the long-run.

Outsourcing Design Thinking: Do you really want to?

Great core competence if you can really develop it.

Wrap-Up, 4Take-aways:

“Organic” development of a firm suffused throughout withinnovative spirit (that we label “design Thinking”) occurs onlyrarely.

VISIBLE Top manager buy-in is essential. Or (better) Designer asTop Manager is a great way to go if you are willing to go “all-in”on design thinking. May be the most economical in the long-run.

Be careful when choosing a person--not all designers knoweverything about management (ex.: Noel Lee--brilliantdesigner/marketer, terrible administrator, manager).

Design thinking is tough to implement.

But long-term rewards are great.

It is easy to “break” or impair design thinking in a firm.

There exist ways forward, with varying levels of efficacy-->

Wrap-Up, 5

Table 1: Efficacy of Solutions for Various Design Thinking Problems

-->Increasing importance of group-level interaction issues---->

Solution Type Conceptual Blocks Semantic Gaps Social Barriers

Pedagogy-based

solutions:

Classes/MBA

programs+++ ++ +

Management

development

initiatives

Firm-specific

management

education

++ + +++

Problem-based

design thinking

orientation

+++ + ++

In-firm-based

solutions:Ad hoc + +++ ++

Human relations

initiatives

In-house design

thinkers+ ++ +++

Designer as top

manager++ +++ +

+ = Low efficacy

++ = Medium efficacy

+++ = High efficacy

Wrap-Up 5, continued

Table 1: Efficacy of Solutions for Various Design Thinking Problems

-->Increasing importance of group-level interaction issues---->

Solution Type Conceptual Blocks Semantic Gaps Social Barriers

Pedagogy-based

solutions:

Classes/MBA

programs+++ ++ +

Management

development

initiatives

Firm-specific

management

education

++ + +++

Problem-based

design thinking

orientation

+++ + ++

In-firm-based

solutions:Ad hoc + +++ ++

Human relations

initiatives

In-house design

thinkers+ ++ +++

Designer as top

manager++ +++ +

+ = Low efficacy

++ = Medium efficacy

+++ = High efficacy

Wrap-Up 5, continued

Table 1: Efficacy of Solutions for Various Design Thinking Problems

-->Increasing importance of group-level interaction issues---->

Solution Type Conceptual Blocks Semantic Gaps Social Barriers

Pedagogy-based

solutions:

Classes/MBA

programs+++ ++ +

Management

development

initiatives

Firm-specific

management

education

++ + +++

Problem-based

design thinking

orientation

+++ + ++

In-firm-based

solutions:Ad hoc + +++ ++

Human relations

initiatives

In-house design

thinkers+ ++ +++

Designer as top

manager++ +++ +

+ = Low efficacy

++ = Medium efficacy

+++ = High efficacy

Thanks for listening.More info:

heiman at sfsu.edu

 wburnett at stanford.edu

Questions?Download Presentation:http://online.sfsu.edu./~bheiman/SCPDsum07SGBEDfv4.pdf

On to the Exercise/Activity...

Exercise–Design Thinking

We simulate managerial decision making fora problem to be solved using the designthinking model.

Use of the Design Thinking Process isrequired to solve the problem.

The User-centric research (though anamazingly valuable part of the experience)has been largely provided for you.

Feel free top extrapolate creatively!

Reminder of the model