What does it mean to provide service through Design Thinking?

1. Service
In Design Thinking
“You can’t just push the button”

2. Great design solutions occur when the root
needs of the client align with feasibility, and
intuitive inspiration.
Design Thinking exists within the convergence
of these three things

3. This idea has been similarly adopted by the US
Army in the development of their Operational
Field Manual, in how they “design” battlefield
solutions.

4. Great designers don’t lock themselves in a
closet and single mindedly solve the world’s
problems with little outside influence.
Neither does great design occur as a
prescription with little internal inspiration:
Designers don’t go around looking to invent
problems that don’t need solving.
We solve specific problems with specific
solutions
We are at our best when we solve these
problems not by asking surface questions and
providing surface solutions,
but by gaining deep understanding and
providing intuitive solutions.

5. While the Segway was in many ways a fairly
successful innovation,
Ultimately it was a failure in that it solved the
wrong problem, focusing on low speed - short
distance vs. high speed – medium & long
distance travel.
The biggest problem the Segway solved was
Dean Kamen’s own curiosity.

6. Now, to contrast this idea…
some of you may have heard this quote
attributed by Steve Jobs which seems to
contradict this idea.

7. Steve is often “misquoted” as saying:
“people don't know what they want until you
show it to them”.
Not very service friendly is it.

8. Well what he really said was…
“"It's really hard to design products by focus
groups.
A lot of times, people don't know what they
want until you show it to them.“
-- BusinessWeek, May 25 1998
Steve isn’t saying that people are unimportant,
that they are dumb, or that you can simply
design anything and they will flock to it.
He’s simply saying that people are very bad at
telling you what it is that they need solved.
Especially if they are herded into groups and
even more so if you are asking bad questions
and forcing them to do the solving themselves,
(isn’t that what designers are for anyway?).

9. So just as great design does not occur in a
vacuum, neither is it delivered by those who
simply do exactly as they are told
and fail to interpret their clients’ needs or the
needs of the users of their
space, product, process, or customer
experience.
Great design both requires the genius of
inspiration and the ability to discern the root
needs of people.
(a deeper discernment than simply asking
what they need and providing exactly that
which was described)
This is how design can change the world.
When the climate is right…..

10. Designers with grand plans and burgeoning
ideas are often left wondering how to find a
balance between two distinct design cultures.
That of “High Design” and that of “High
Delivery”.

11. High Delivery is the idea that a design provides
solutions that do little more than meet the
basic stated needs of their client. Failing to dig
deeper for a more inspirational solution. (think
the design of most strip malls).
High Design is the idea that a designer
consider themselves an artist above the needs
of the client. They deliver high brow solutions
as art in and of itself, and are not concerned
with the desires and needs of the client.

12. Ever heard the term “Starchitect”?

13. As an example… consider the two “Franks”.
Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Gehry…and those
other guys (Starck, Eisenman, etc…)
There is this often debated idea that designers
can be broken down into categories
(and that there is a distinct divide) between
whether they provide “High Design” like our
starchitect friends
or whether they provide “High delivery”.
Or probably like most firms, whether the do
something in between.

14. Many of those fabled starchitects managed to
give birth to wondrous creations in-spite of
their disregard for the delivery of their projects
But at what cost?
FLW’s Johnson wax building leaked like a
sieve, & Falling water is the modern
architecture equivalent of a mold petri dish.
So much so that the owners (the Kauffman
family) nicknamed it “Rising Mildew”.

15. Gehry’s disregard for everything and anything that may stand in the way of his vision for
his art is evidenced in his being sued by MIT for the design of this beautify flawed
structure.
It leaked, was impossible to maintain, it’s masonry components cracked and failed, the
skin created blinding glare and heat gain for neighboring structures, ice & snow formed
and fell off the protruding windows to block emergency exits & damaged other building
components.
It’s not so much that he made errors, it is the nonchalance with which he regards those
errors.
Not to totally bash Gehry, this structure is iconic, beautiful, and truly inspired.
But Frank takes liberties here with something I argue that we simply can’t afford to do.
Not because he is Frank Gehry and we are not,
But because in some ways I think frank is wrong.
Solving problems in a way that creates more problems or which is in total disregard to
the client and end user can be irresponsible and dangerous.

16. Here are some other classic examples of design
leaders from our recent past proclaiming their
distain for providing solutions for their clients.
Architect Philip Johnson was noted for his
distinction that architecture bore no social
responsibility and that it was a sheer art form
independent of those it served.

17. A striking failure of design to balance the “Art” of our product and the link to those we
“Serve” can be found in the story of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project designed by world
trade center architect Minoru Yamasaki.
This complex was the first example of Modern architecture to face the wrecking ball, and
ushered in the end of the modern architectural era.
The failures here do not fall solely on the shoulders of the architects and designers of Pruitt
Igoe. Much of this tragedy is rooted in politics, poverty, bigotry, and cultural upheaval.
However, as much as the architectural movement of the time believed (correctly) that
architecture could be a tool to solve societies biggest challenges, it also arrogantly failed to
view these challenges from the eyes and hearts of Pruitt Igoe’s residents.
The disconnect between the “Art” of architecture and design, and those that it serves could
not have been more clear. – and sadly began the postmodern decline of architecture as
social change agent.

18. A Design Thinking approach is human centered
and is neither “High Design” nor “High
Delivery”.
It is both.
It rejects “Either Or” in favor of “Both And”.

19. True “High Design”
can only be derived out of the hard
work, observation, understanding, and
engagement necessary in providing “High
delivery”
There is very little value to providing awe
inspiring solutions that fail to solve your
client’s problems.

20. KSA developed an internal methodology called
“Best in the World” as a guide to finding the
balance between High Design and High
Delivery.
It is all about a human centered – client centric
– design thinking approach where
understanding the unique “best in the world”
conditions for each and every individual client
is the key.

21. We deliver this through a process called the 5
E’s
Elicit – the deep root needs of your client
Empathize – and truly understand their
problem as deeply as they understand it
Empower - your design team to accept
nothing less than reaching this level of
understanding
Enthuse - the client about how and why we
are achieving this solution. It must be “their”
solution not ours.
Eject – any form of agenda that may get in the
way of delivering the clients best possible
solutions.
Read the e-book here and learn more about
this approach
http://www.slideshare.net/cgooddesign/best-
in-the-world-e-book