Vol. 2: design-management.de

Two weeks ago I’ve conducted a strategy workshop for the post-graduate EURIB Master of Design Management programme in Rotterdam. Frans Joziasse (director at PARK and module co-ordinator at EURIB) is in charge for the module and I think he has assembled a well balanced set of lecturers and practitioners from the design and strategy domain. My role in this context is to introduce students to the basic issues of strategic thinking in order to enable them to frame their current thinking into a more focused perspective on how to integrate strategy more closely into their design thinking.

I usually provide students with a basic set of strategy ‘tools’ (aka ‘models’) with no more than 10 slides (past experiences proved: less is more! ;-). Then I confront them with a non-business case study which you merely would consider as “strategy loaded”. Interestingly I’ve run this workshop with many different groups of students (from graduate to post-graduate and from B-School to D-School) for a couple of years now, but it is always surprising how different the outcomes are. One key insight from this workshop is that by the same token everything which is made by human beings is ‘designed’ (regardless if ‘bad’ or ‘well’) every decision we make is ‘strategic’ (which means that it has an impact on actions and attitudes which refer to others and oneself), but in order to be successful both require a deep understanding of the context they are embedded in.

Anyway, interestingly the ‘design classes’ usually develop far more ‘creative’ solutions than the typical ‘business/MBA’ student. While very often business students are better in addressing framed (numbers & facts) and well formulated problems in contrast design students are better in addressing unframed and open questions by developing a broad set of findings and options. While the latter approach appears to be more attractive to us (the design-management-thinking-… community) each approach has its pros and cons depending on … you bet: context!

Therefore (and I’m returning now to the afternoon session of the workshop from above) I was happy to meet the afternoon lecturer Leonard Zijlstra, Manager at the “Strategy Academy” in Rotterdam as well. Zijlstra is one of the co-authors of the highly acclaimed textbook:Strategy: Process, Context, Content by Bob de Wit & Ron Meyer. While I’ve used their book in strategy courses some years ago I must admit that I highly appreciate being re-loaded by Zijlstra since his/their insights provided me with many new ideas about the concept of ‘Design Thinking’ and how to load it with viewpoints from both the design and the business world.

Anyway I think their book is different from other textbooks, because their offer is not about a set of guidelines and tools which guarantee success, but rather about enabling the reader to deal with what they call ‘Strategy Tension’. ‘Strategy Tension’ occurs when apparent opposites can be identified and the best example for this in the context of Design Management is the tension between ‘Logic versus Creativity’. Without going into further details I assume we all agree that creativity sometimes demands/requires non-logic approaches in order to discover new ideas while logic is very often achieved by eliminating issues of ambiguity and bias. I will explain later on how to deal with this ‘Paradox’.

You will (certainly) agree that context (now I’m back on track ;-) in terms of the world we’re living in today is highly characterised by the above mentioned ‘Tensions’. These tensions occur on various levels of our lives e.g. personal (stay home or go out), business (make or buy) or political (freedom vs. control). Even though we would like to reject it very often we are still tempted by the tension of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but we are learning more and more that there are is no clear ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ any longer. In contrast the only successful approach to address fast changing contexts is to develop context driven ‘adaptive’ solutions and as a consequence this requires a different mindset and accordingly problem solving tools.

And this is what I really like about the de Wit & Meyer reader. They’ve identified 4 general perspectives on how to address “Strategy Tensions”. Interestingly these perspectives are not limited to strategy, but can be applied to ‘problem solving’ in general as well. According to the authors you should approach problems by:

a) Seeing them as a puzzle: Once you have understood the complexity of a problem by identifying the edges and borders you discover how pieces go together.

b) Considering them as a dilemma: You have two possible solutions where neither of which is logically the best. Each solution has its advantages and disadvantages, but you have to accept the incompatibility of the opposites. However by making yourself aware of a dilemma situation/problem makes it easier for you to accept either of your choices since you’ve analysed the opposite as well.

c) Seeing them as a trade-off: In contrast to the dilemma above in this case you have many possible and acceptable solutions between two opposites. By accepting a problem as a trade-off you are seeking to find the best of the possible solutions. By doing so you make yourself aware that with a different emphasis you might have achieved a different but equally acceptable solution.

d) Accepting them as a paradox: “A paradox is a situation in which two seeming contradictory, or even mutually exclusive, factors appear to be true at the same time” (citation from de Wit & Meyer). While the latter three approaches have one or more definitive solutions a paradox (at least at first sight) prevents you from gaining an acceptable answer from two logically inconsistent opposites. A paradox has no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer; you have to strive for the best as possible.

While de Wit & Meyer have chosen to see ‘strategy tensions’ as ‘strategy paradoxes’ (and they explain it very well why) I see all four approaches being valid for design processes and ‘Design Thinking’. Having stated this I clearly owe you some examples on these approaches. As my blog friend Michael Wagner always writes ‘my mind is racing’ I have to admit: Mine as well while writing these lines!!!

For the moment let my just brainstorm what kind of further ‘research’ these ideas might stimulate:

– How are design problems best characterised? Are there any specific agglomerations in either of these four approaches regarding design problems?

– How do these insights apply to product, graphic, new media design? Does each discipline have to tackle with a different set of issues/problems?

– Are there any specific methodologies the design discipline has developed in order to deal particularly with paradoxical problems?

– Is there a correlation between successful product or service solutions in the market and being considered as a ‘paradoxical problem’ prior to market launch?

Beside all this good stuff being written currently about ‘Design Thinking’ I dare to state that this perspective might add some value to the discussion. What do you think?