I’ve been to Lucerne (BA Design Management International) for the whole of last week in order to deliver a class on ‘Design in the Context of Strategy and Brand Driven Innovation’. While I’ve covered the ’strategic’ part my friend and business partner Erik Roscam Abbing from ZilverInnovation.com has been the host of the ‘brand’ part.
While I don’t want to go too much into the details of our course in this post, I’d like to shortly discuss the topic of ‘Design Thinking‘ that framed the very first day of the course. The purpose of giving ‘Design Thinking’ a prominent place in the 5 day course has been to make students aware of two things:
a) Understand that human beings have different perceptions and understandings of the character of a ‘problem’ and b) That human beings (in this case managers and designers) are being educated with different approaches to solving problems.
While we’ve framed a) into the 4 categories developed by de Wit and Meyer part b) largely made references to Roger Martin’s reflections on ‘Abductive Reasoning‘. The purpose of this combination was aiming to achieve a better understanding that Managers tend to perceive problems far more often as a kind of puzzle, dilemma, or trade-off set-up while Designers accept their assignments more like ways to resolve ‘paradoxes’ (more on this at this link). Secondly the ‘mental tools’ (aka theories) Designers are applying embrace far more elements of ‘abductive reasoning‘ as opposed to ‘inductive/deductive’ thinking that managers are still being taught at universities these days.Accordingly our view on ‘Design Thinking’ is not so much related to a profession itself, but rather a question of mindset. In this sense ‘Design Thinking’ is rather an attitude than exclusive to a profession. Therefore I was happy to read Ellen di Resta’s blog post on exactly that distinction.
In line with this notion Erik and I wanted to make students aware of the fact that ‘D(d)esign’ both as a process (d) as well as an object (D) need to be seen in a context rather than as an isolated ‘function’ in an organisation. This chart might give you an idea what we’ve been heading for!?
As a matter of fact ‘Design Thinkers’ will develop similar frameworks that approach a problem or issue from different angles and free themselves to stick to traditional definitions and models. Again it’s not about ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but rather about yes/and!
Therefore I’ve had a blast learning in more detail on how Erik is currently helping ‘fatboy‘ the hip, loungy, urban, lifestyle, hangout bags (1.40×1.80 mtrs.) manufacturer on not only innovating from a ‘functional layer’, but far more holistically incorporating the other layers as well.
While Erik might decribe the process far better than I (sometimes having a memory like a sieve ;-) for me such an approach also gives the ‘Brand’ as a carrier of cultural values (and not only as a means for creating an ‘Image’) a quite different (yet 
‘abductive’) twist. In that sense I’ve been glad to discover Richard Anderson’s blog posting titled ‘Crummy Innovation’ just a couple of minutes ago where he nicely describes some of Roger Martin’s ideas that he’s grabbed at a recent forum in S.F.: “Hence, Roger argues that companies need to ban the use of two words when it comes to innovation: “prove it.” If you can prove something in advance, it is not an innovation.” Some equally smart observations can be found in a recent comment Chris Flanagan has left on my previous blog posting (Thanks Chris!).
So as I’m reviewing this posting I’m reasoning what the original idea of this blog post has been (well, I started writing it last night)? Well, originally I wanted to approach Design Thinking from a heuristic perspective commenting on the discussion Tim Brown started over at his much hyped IDEO Design Thinking blog. And in a sense I have to admit that I originally wanted to start moaning about bloggers who start a conversation, but then feel to busy to comment and engage accordingly (yes, Jens, I do owe you a reply ;-). Anyway I find this blog posting more constructive than my first approach … and maybe you’d like to share your comments on it as well? - Conversation guaranteed! ;-)
brand driven innovation » Blog Archive » an open letter to design management students across the world Says:
November 19th, 2008 at 23:33Visit brand driven innovation » Blog Archive » an open letter to design management students across the world
[…] Also see Ralf’s insightful posting on some of the stuff we did that week. […]
Ellen Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 0:56Visit Ellen
Ralf once again, I agree. I’ll be sending along a note soon.
Paula Thornton Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 3:26Visit Paula Thornton
Swore I commented on earlier post. Can’t find.
What we need is an open conversation to evolve the thought. For example, all fine for IDEO to support the concepts, but classic example in their earliest book is very ‘anti-design-thinking’. They did not reduce the problem before they attempted to solve it and missed the true innovation gap.
I’ve attempted in my own small way to start local conversations via Design Thinking 2007 conference (model/brand all open source). Good number of people attending didn’t understand the value or distinction of the conversation…they’re not strategic thinkers. They’re decorators, not designers.
Highest uptake on the concepts, business strategists/architects, physicists — I’d suggest those who understand also to be found in Intelligent Design (core principle, follow the truth wherever it leads) and Complexity. They’re both highly exploratory fields.
Natural overlap with Visual Thinking, especially of the variety engaged by Group Partners.
jkh Says:
November 20th, 2008 at 23:15Visit jkh
hey, mein lieber.
a slightly wild but enthusiastic compendium of valuable quotes, links and ideas which only prove: zollverein may be dead - but thinking and teaching design thinking is ferociously alive.
plus: chaotic it still may be … but the plot is slowly thickening all over the place. - and ralf is still standing strong right in the middle of it all.
well done.
Mike Wagner Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 5:42Visit Mike Wagner
Ralf, I’m with Jens, great to see you standing right in the the middle of it all…again!
Keep creating…classes worth taking,
Mike
Ralf Beuker Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 14:06Visit Ralf Beuker
@ Ellen: Thanks :-) You should have received my response in your mailbox by today.
@ Paula: Thanks for your contribution and challenging thoughts! I’ve checked some of your postings over at: http://www.fastforwardblog.com/ and found your elaborations on Visual Thinking highly interesting! We should definitively stay in touch on this and exchange ideas in the future!
@ Jens: Thanks for dropping bye after all this time. Seems ages since we’ve been in touch! Actually you’re right, the posting is sort of ‘wild’ touching various things and issues, but I wouldn’t be still blogging if I would stick to my otherwise ‘German’ attitude of making things 100% polished and ready to be delivered (but to whom am I talking to, you expatriate ;-)
@ Mike: Thanks for the mental support, as always, Mike! Hope you’re also doing well now that your country seems to wake up from 8 years of … well I lack the right words … numbness?! Greetings to Iowa (where it all started :-)
Patrick Says:
December 12th, 2008 at 0:13Visit Patrick
Ralf, Thank you for your post. I also hope to contribute/participate in your Strategy/Brand project.
Design Thinking is a concept that I stumbled upon recently and speaks to the way I’ve approached nearly everything — to the frustration of many around me.
I’m wondering though: Can Design Thinking be reduced to a heuristic? Or is it more dynamic, more fluid? Design thinking — while the business community demands a definition — is it more reasonable to see design thinking as a moving target?
From what I’ve learned, design thinking cannot be pinned down to a single methodology. Aye, but you’re the teacher and I’m the student. I would venture to say that DT is first and foremost personal and visceral. Do the ends provide the means? If the result is something that contains empathy…dare I say, shalom (not just peace, but also completeness)… then there’s something there to suggest that the means must provide the end?
That’s a ramble-full. Again, thanks for the post.
Ralf Beuker Says:
December 12th, 2008 at 11:56Visit Ralf Beuker
Hi Patrick,
and thanks for dropping bye! Actually I do fully agree with your thoughts and ideas :-) Similar to you I don’t see DT as something that can be nailed down to ‘one’ universal definition or to be discussed in terms of ‘wrong/right’ as I’ve said in my posting … and yes the journey is the reward! What I’m sharing (and not teaching or preaching ;-) is my journey and I’m curious to see other journeys like yours. Hope to get back in touch soon!
Patrick Says:
December 12th, 2008 at 16:45Visit Patrick
RB - Thanks for your reply. One thing Design Thinking — as a school of thought — has done for me is introduce me to people like you. There’s a lot of power and potential in our having connected around this topic. That’s a peripheral benefit of DT — that it brings people together to solve problems. Like you, I’m learning my way through this — and perhaps we’ve struck on something… One thing that Design Thinking is NOT is an isolated solo exercise in unilateral decision making. It requires collaboration.
Lastly, I’m just glad to have found people who think the way I do.
All my best. PM
Fred Collopy Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 3:04Visit Fred Collopy
I like the thoughts you’re exploring here quite a lot. in response to the query about definitions that Patrick raised, I have found it is useful to think of definitions of design, designing, design thinking as “stepping stones” that help us move the conversation along, rather than straight jackets defining what is in and what is out. In that sense, the are perhaps not really definitions at all. But then language is like that, always begging to be more than it is at the moment.
Fred