Design Thinking

332 views

Published on

Design Thinking

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Design Thinking

  1. 1. * “Running an Agile Fortune 500 Company” Aditya Yadav, aditya.yadav@gmail.com in.linkedin.com/in/adityayadav76
  2. 2. * A Typical Global Company * Fortune 500/1000 * 200 Divisions * 40 Countries * 25000 Employees *
  3. 3. * @ Acme Inc.
  4. 4. * Original Question “Steve Jobs is a legend and everyone is talking about Design being of utmost importance. How do we approach this?” * The Correct Question - “People confuse Design with Innovation. People confuse Design Thinking with Innovators Mindset and conclude they are the same. Lets study these afresh and exploit the benefits of each.” *
  5. 5. * And The Philosophy Behind The Answer
  6. 6. * * * * * * * * Design is usually very short in terms of Time… Innovation is usually more long drawn 215 years is easily possible… but they are essentially so intertwined that its easy to confuse between the two Design normally has a Top-Down Authorization… Innovation is mostly Bottom-Up unless Invented in an R&D Lab Design is normally very narrowly focused on one or two specific Product‟s/Service‟s etc. while Innovation has a much broader scope and impact. One might consider Design Thinking to be Innovation but Design is much more tactical and Innovation is much more strategic Design has a much more predictable and better guarantee of outcome when compared to Innovation… [When seen in comparison] Its far easier to put some sort of Process around Design that works most of the time than to put one around Innovation and succeed also. A Design has to absolutely work Today, Innovation can be much more forward looking… Design is focused while Innovation has a high probability of going haywire without any bounds and needs to be bounded with a direction *
  7. 7. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * People- Desirable, Experience Business - Economics, Costs, Viable Technology - Feasible Define - Bound, Unbound Expectations Explore Converge/Diverge Multiplicity Speculate Project Prototype Measure Evaluate Validate - & Verify Create Implement * * * * * * * * * * * * Learn, Unlearn, Relearn * * * * * Timebox - Decide under uncertainity Iterative & Incremental Ideate - Generate lots and lots of ideas Choice - Decide/Choose Question the Status Quo - Improve the Status Quo Effectiveness Challenges & Blockers Reinvent Tradeoffs Detail - Get details right No Heavy Upfront Effort on One Idea - Until Final Convergence Parallelize Test Prioritize Critical Reasoning
  8. 8. * So What‟s the Design Process? * Ref: Golden Rule: We use Heavy Processes or even not so Heavy Follow The Process Processes ONLY WHEN the source of production is external. * When the source of production is in the Human Head we either don‟t use Processes at all or we just use extremely light Rough Outline Processes * Doesn‟t that make this non-Systematic Design Method unreliable? Absolutely not! If the values, principles and practices are followed then it is perhaps one of the most Stable Designing methods possible. * So there‟s no Process? Almost no. Unless you want to create a wireframe lightweight process just to streamline things in your organization and reduce chaos. *
  9. 9. * * * * Question: This is a bit difficult to grasp. Can you help us with an Analogy? * Question: Isn‟t that statement Derogative to Designers? No it shouldn‟t be taken that way. The statement covers 90+% of categories of Design though it does say that the backbone of Benefit Creation are already in place. * No Doubt! The Design Activity is very Valuable Activity but in the journey of creating and delivering value to the customer. Design by itself is not the root source of creation or invention of Benefits. It is a process of Quality->Benefits Orchestration and Optimization * * Question: So should it be done along with Research or Engineering or after it? * The Rule is if (i) creates a broad base with divergent multiple options later then it works very well with (ii) Design (with Final Stage Convergence) Later. * If Engineering converges restrictively a lot then (ii) Design should be done along with (i) Engineering, such that the Design Optimization is done before the Final Stage Convergence. * The exact methodology of (i) Engineering, and (ii) Design interplay doesn‟t worry me as a strategist that much, as long as the Design values, principles and practices are not compromised. Without uncompromised Design we will end up with an unoptimized set of Benefits projected from Quality(s) Yes. Lets say Innovation is about The Entire Journey of Creating and Delivering Value to The Customer. Design is about taking a multitude of Quality(s) and creating the most optimum Set Of Benefits. You are not creating the Core Value per se w/ Design you are basically doing Operations Research Multidimensional Quality->To->Benefits Optimization with a projected Value in the ValueNet in mind There is no one absolute answer. But the analogy there is whether we should do the Activities of Quality->Benefits (i) Creation/Invention/Research together at the same time with (ii) Multi-Dimensional Quality->Benefits Optimization *
  10. 10. * * * * So What is Product Management? * If the Optimization function overwhelms engineering the latter falls back to just implementation of the optimizations rather than the dual function of that and Innovating also. * * * Ask the Product Manager – Where is your innovation coming from? * Question: Doesn‟t all this conflict with Agile? Which says KISS – Keep it simple silly, YAGNI – You ain‟t gonna need it, and to build just what‟s required today and not build ivory towers? * Colloquially! Yes! on the first look it seems to conflict but in reality it doesn‟t. Agile simple says that Once Identified just “implement” exactly what's needed today. It doesn‟t say anything about how to decide whats needed today, and it implies if you need something tomorrow the security net would allow you to make changes and quickly implement that. * Agile isn‟t against innovation or creation of alternate Q-B‟s at all. Actually the broader the base of Q-B‟s you have to choose from the better it is. That‟s the Idea Engineering creates a broad base of Q-B‟s to choose from, once the Product Design chooses the optimum one‟s Engineering implements Just That. There could be other Proof of Concepts or Spikes or Experimentation, but that‟s exactly the interplay between Product Management and Engineering. Lets see!!! There is some element of managing something or the illusion thereof –J But its nothing more than Product Design and all assertions of Design apply to it. While Product Management is Multi-Dimensional Optimization in the context of Customer Segment(s) Engineering is the function that creates and implements Quality(s) and Benefit(s) Product Management is Top Down while Engineering Innovation is Bottom Up or maybe R&D is Top Down Innovation The biggest problem is when Product Management Controls Engineering… that works very well perhaps to streamline Delivery of Q-B but kills the Q-B creation/innovation *
  11. 11. * E.g. Service Management, Operations Management… * Yes! Those are Design too Service Design and Operations Design coupled with Service Engineering and Operations Engineering respectively… * And all that we have discussed about Product Management and Engineering in the previous slide and all the Assentation's about Design apply to them too. * And it all starts from understanding the interplay between Design and Innovation. *
  12. 12. * OK! You Don‟t Prescribe a Process, but how does designing feel? * It is not an art or creative expression but rather a general approach * * * * * * * * to solving challenges Everything is directed to achieve a purpose or goal It is a very human centered process. Its about the experience, of the user not the designer It‟s a balance of analytical and creative Abductive reasoning – inference from the best available experience, heuristics Design can‟t be reduced to a formula or algorithm There is some data, some guess but not wild speculation rather based on a foundation Iterative creation and play testing Nobody should expect to be right the first time *
  13. 13. * * * * * * * Rule: Don‟t put in heavy upfront effort on One Choice or else it will become difficult to Change and consider other choices Rule: Nothing is absolutely ruled out until the final stage convergence. Question: You have always stressed on the need for a Coach? Does Design Thinking need a coach? Yes! Since there is little or no process, it is necessary that a Coach reinforces the Design Thinking - Values, Principles and Practices… but the Coach doesn‟t interfere with the actual Work of Designing itself. Hint: some sort of stage pipelining or a process outline might help streamlining things, but the moment you overdo it you will destroy Designing. The Firm will probably create many tools and techniques for each of the Values, Principles, Practices of Design aka Toolkits. R‟ber you are only as good as your tools and sooner or later they will „bound‟ what you can achieve. Question: Is this on par with the Systematic Design from MIT, Stanford or Design Thinking Toolkit from IDEO? Well! This is not a ready to use toolkit but it definitely can form the foundational basis of Design Thinking and Design on par or better than those mentioned above. And provide a very strong foundation for implementing the interplay between Design and other functions. Conclusion: The Values, Principles and Practices are more important than some fixed method of Design… *
  14. 14. * This Deck is complicated… and the subject is inherently complex…here is a summary to wrapup the deck * People confuse Design with Innovation. People confuse Design Thinking with Innovators Mindset and conclude they are the same. Also organizations try systematic design using heavy processes especially MIT and Stanford. The former is known for engineering management and is process inclined. While Stanford is known for entrepreneurship which also in a way converts engineers into Designers and Entrepreneurs. * * In slide #6 we compare Innovation with Design. And say they are not the same. * * In slide #8 we address the Systematization of Design and processes * In slide #10 we take the case of Product Management and its interplay with engineering. And state that Product Management is nothing but Product Design and Engineering is responsible for Creating & Delivering Value i.e. Innovation * In Slide #11 we extend the last argument about Product Management to managing other services... all this while using the analogy from slide #9 * In slide #13 we conclude by saying that most Design companies have some sort of processes or toolkits for design. While we state that the Design Thinking outlined in slide #7 together with the Analogy and Interplay outlined in slides #10 & 11 form a stronger foundation of Design than the methods taught by Stanford, MIT, or even IDEO. In slide #7 we outline the dimensions of Design Thinking without specifying a Design "process" just the attributes In slide #9 we create an Analogy. We say Innovation is about Creation and Delivery of Value. While somewhere in between that journey Design is the multidimensional optimization of Value considering that Innovation deals with a huge number of dimensions that need to be dealt with. *
  15. 15. Aditya!!! *

×