Forbes vs Humantific

Forbes vs Humantific

Hello Humantific readers. A recent article appearing in Forbes entitled “Design Thinking: Your Next Competitive Advantage” reminded us that the mountain of confusion around the subject continues to grow. Most articles on the subject of Design Thinking appearing in the business media are well intentioned but many miss the mark, adding to the public confusion on this subject. This seems to be occurring for several different, often overlapping reasons:

A: Many authors assume their specific neighborhood perspectives apply to all aspects of the Design / Design Thinking community, when they don’t. There is no one Design Thinking. Different parts of the design community are engaged in very different types and scales of challenges. Working on posters, toothbrushes or applications is vastly different from transforming organizations or problem solving in communities. 

B: There is a constant self-reinforcing stream of overly simplistic depictions of Design Thinking in the media which parrot the promotional literature of the graduate design schools whether it makes any sense in the real world or not.

C: Often historical figures are quoted from eras when the operational arenas of design were much less strategic and considerably narrower then they are today. Some historical quotes no longer apply. Others are flat-out incorrect. As design knowledge expands some of these popular old quotes remain relevant while others fall away.

On the one hand it would be easy for us to jump on and go along with the promotional parroting train around Design Thinking but none of that is really advancing leadership level understanding of the subject.

For our Humantific readers we want to offer more. In the interest of clarity for our readers we table here a different perspective on several dimensions of Design Thinking that were referenced recently in the Forbes article.

1. Forbes says: “It [Design Thinking] is (no judgments) Collaborative”

“Design thinking calls for collaboration, creating a positive environment that’s great for growth and experimenting. Herbert Simon, Professor of Psychology at Carnegie-Mellon University even said “There are no judgments in design thinking. This eliminates the fear of failure and encourages maximum input and participation. Wild ideas are welcome since these often lead to the most creative solutions.”

HUMANTIFIC says: Not exactly. Sorry Herbert Simon: Not only is there judgment in design thinking but it plays a key role. The goal is indeed to create a positive environment for all but we don’t toss judgment overboard to get there. To keep it simple think of it this way: Approximately 50% of design is generative divergent oriented and 50% is convergent, judgment oriented. What is different about design is that unlike what the business schools have been teaching for decades, judgment, convergent thinking, decision making does not and is not going to rule supreme. A typical design process contains 6-10 cycles of widening divergence and narrowing convergence (judgment). A key basic learning for participants on-boarding this process skill is that today both are equally valued. In terms of “creating a positive environment” this is how it is deliberatly constructed, by recognizing, respecting, enabling, orchestrating and rewarding both equally. Mastering this orientation alone represents a gigantic shift in thinking for many business leaders who have been taught old era dynamics that judgment, deciding is the highest form of value. In the age of innovation it no longer is. If you have no ideas in your pipeline, or on the table there is nothing to judge, nothing to decide. How we get to inclusive culture is by understanding and enabling this balance. In many organizations it is time for a shift in value appreciation to better align with the demands of this innovation era. Get ready for some organizational rebalancing brain surgery. The good news is its inclusive in nature and designed to maximize brainpower. Show us an organization that does not want to maximize diverse brainpower.

2. Forbes says: “It [Design Thinking] Redefines The Problem

“IBM was able to come up with an innovative solution because the designers involved questioned what the real problem was. Sometimes the real issue at hand isn’t immediately obvious...or worse, the problem we try to address is really the symptom of a larger problem. Design thinkers always question the brief, because sometimes the real issue isn’t seen at face value.”

HUMANTIFIC says: Not exactly. Key to more then superficial understanding of this subject is to separate philosophical statements from methodology realities. Philosophy is not methodology. While many ambitious philosophical design statements are extremely broad, at the world peace kind of level, most forms of Design Thinking methodology are in reality much narrower and assumption-based. There is often a not well recognized or acknowledged disconnect there between philosophy and methodology. Presently what most forms of Design Thinking will do is reframe the problem within the boundaries of the discipline/methodology assumptions present. This is what we call Discipline Challenge Framing in contrast to Open Challenge Framing. What that means is that from the outset regardless of what the challenges might actually be, Service Design Thinking contains service problem and service outcome assumptions. Product Design Thinking contains product problem and product outcome assumptions. Experience Design Thinking contains experience problem and experience outcome assumptions. If you don’t know what your challenges actually are these downstream assumption-based methods are less then ideal. There are Open Design Thinking methods around in the community, which contain no such assumptions, but due to legacy orientation this is not what 99% of the graduate design schools are teaching as Design Thinking. The difficult confusing part is that in the competitive marketplace today downstream methods are being routinely, some might say creativity redepicted as upstream universal methods. Due to slow adaptation and evolution of methods by the graduate design schools spanning a decade many have been keen on this quick-fix creative marketing redepiction. It’s a mess out there. If you are engaging in conversation with design schools or firms always ask: Which Design Thinking methodology are you referring you? Apart from the philosophy what is the actual method? Is it open or assumption-based, upstream or downstream? The referenced IBM above has received enormous press coverage for onboarding what is essentially an assemblage of downstream techniques being reframed and promoted as “Design Thinking”. Wooooooo Hooooo!

3. Forbes says: “It [Design Thinking] Puts The User First”

"Design thinking helps shift focus away from a ‘features-first’ approach to a ‘user-first’ mentality. By observing and speaking directly to users, you can solve the problems that real people face. That’s the difference between adding value versus blindly adding features based upon assumptions. Great problem-solving taps into a customer’s feelings and experiences to provide purposeful and informed changes."

HUMANTIFIC says: Yes and not exactly: It is true that much of the design industries are focused in Design 2 which encompasses product, service and experience design where users are central to considerations. The entire design community is not focused there. As challenges scale in size and complexity beyond product and service many constituents or stakeholders are often involved and not all of them are “users”. At the scale of Design 3 (organizations) and Design 4 (societies) users, constituents, stakeholders and others are all often present in the mix. Strategic Design Thinking is already operating in these arenas thus many prefer human-centered as a better way to express this important empathetic orientation with the caveat that some in the community have already pointed out that we should be taking into consideration all of our partners on planet earth and designing for life as in life-centered not just for users, not just for humans. This becomes important as design is more routinely applied to large-scale challenges in the context of complex organizations and societies. Suffice it to say that some neighborhoods of Design Thinking have already moved on from the “user” orientation.

4. Forbes says: "It [Design Thinking] Leads To Simpler Solutions"

“Design perspectives don’t just address challenges, they rethink them entirely. This tendency to reshape problems leads to innovations that seem deceptively simple. With the user constantly in mind, design thinking ensures that solutions are intuitive, and even humanizing.”

HUMANTIFIC says: Not exactly. Regarding rethinking challenges “entirely” see #2 above. Regarding “humanizing”…hopefully yes. Engaging in figuring out what exactly does “humanizing” mean at the scale of organizations and societies is where much of the new action is today in this crazy industry. PS: Making something more clear does not always involve making it more simple.

5. Forbes says: “Better Business By Design”

“Design is a process; and when you think of it that way, it becomes less about appearances and more about discovering new opportunities to meet and exceed a user’s expectations. It’s both a mindset focused on solutions and managing philosophy of great businesses.”

HUMANTIFIC says: Yes and more. As stated above, Design Thinking is not one process. It is rather a variety of different processes, some assumption-based and others not. In addition the application of Design Thinking is being applied to every aspect of our societies today and not just to business. Leading Strategic Design oriented firms are already involved in diverse private and public sector arenas. Common to all is need for human-centered adaptive capacity. Assumption-based methods tend to work less well at the scale of complex organizations and societies where many types of unframed truely wicked challenges typically exist.

Hope this is helpful Humantific readers.

Good luck to all including our friends over at Forbes.

Related:

HUMANTIFIC: Making Sense of "Why Design Thinking Will Fail"

HUMANTIFIC: Building Adaptive Capacity

HUMANTIFIC: Making Sense of Design Thinking & Agile Method

HUMANTIFIC: Service Design Thinking: Confusion or Clarity?

HUMANTIFIC: SenseMaking: The Karl Weick Question

HUMANTIFIC: Case Studies Free!

Matt Stuckey

Client-focused Org Designer Sportin' HCD Skills | Innovator | Unicorn

6y
Matt Stuckey

Client-focused Org Designer Sportin' HCD Skills | Innovator | Unicorn

6y

Susan Michael Sørensen Byron Kelly Chris Ferguson Eduardo Matamoros good read here, but you may want to put aside 20-30 mins to read it and all the comments AND give all of that proper consideration/reflection.

Venice Blue

Envision the future, enable what's possible...

6y

Great as always- thank you Gk!

I'm unaware of discussion surrounding the skill sets essential for the effective designer (happy to be corrected if there is an abundance). Your article highlights just some of the problems which arise from democratizing aspects of designing. Design just like any tool can do more harm than good in the wrong hands. Personally I don't believe you can be a proficient design thinker without being a proficient design executioner.

Like
Reply
GK VanPatter

SenseMaker, Author, KeyNote Speaker, Advisor, CoFounder, HUMANTIFIC, CoFounder: NextDesign Leadership Network

6y

Gary Haywood: Just catching up to this one. Not sure I know what you are asking. You said: "Has the Design fraternity succeeded in attracting the attention of sufficient numbers/levels of non-design decision-makers to command it being professionally managed?" Can you say more about what it is that you are trying to figure out?

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics