The role of mindset in design thinking: Implications for capability developme...Zaana Jaclyn
Presentation for Design for Business: Research conference, 12-13 May 2015, Melbourne, Victoria. Part of Melbourne International Design Week 2015.
Paper abstract:
Design thinking continues to be an emergent field as it pertains to business. In building design thinking capability in organizations the current focus is on design skills and tools, rather than mindset. This imbalance toward design process, methods and tools is also present within design thinking and design research literature. Mindset is little acknowledged.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate and articulate the role of mindset within design thinking capability and practice. Mindset is the perspective that informs how a person approaches and interacts in the world (Nelson & Stolterman 2013). Where mindset is acknowledged as a critical underpinning for design thinking in the literature, it is usually presented as guiding principles for design doing. There is little insight into what the different mindsets are, how to develop or enact them, or how mindset impacts on practice. Mindset remains underexplored in discussions of design competency and maturity.
By analysing qualitative data collected across three studies of a doctoral research project exploring the composition of design thinking in practice, two mindsets emerged. These were: design thinking as a way of work and design thinking as a way of life. Design thinking as a way of work is focused on the process of design thinking with the primary purpose of designing for outputs and innovation. Design thinking as a way of life is a holistic view of design thinking where the focus is on designing for transformation and creating positive change. These mindsets are scalable, applicable to an individual or organization.
The two mindsets, when mapped against competencies in design knowledge, skills and tools, contribute a framework to explore maturity in design thinking. Understanding the maturity framework, and the role of mindset within it, has implications for how an individual and organization can build capability in design thinking and maximise outcomes in the environment in which they are designing.
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a psychiatric diagnosis where a person displays multiple distinct identities or personalities, each with their own memories and patterns of behavior. DID is caused by severe childhood trauma like abuse and neglect. The child dissociates or splits their identity as a coping mechanism. Symptoms include memory loss, depression, hallucinations, and an inability to account for certain events. Treatment focuses on psychotherapy to help integrate the different personalities. DID is difficult to treat and prognosis depends on comorbid conditions and ability to remove oneself from abusive situations.
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder, is characterized by two or more distinct personalities that take control of a person. Psychotherapy is the primary treatment, involving establishing trust and safety, mapping alters and trauma history, processing trauma memories, and integrating alters. Integration aims to unite alters into a single identity, while resolution stabilizes alter cooperation. Relapse is common, requiring ongoing treatment to solidify gains and prevent dissociative coping.
Understanding design thinking in practice: a qualitative study of design led ...Zaana Jaclyn
PhD dissertation.
Abstract
Design thinking is a collaborative and human centred approach to solving problems. Over the past decade design thinking has evolved considerably, particularly with regard to innovation within the sectors of design and business. Despite this sharp rise to popularity there remains limited understanding of how design thinking is applied in practice and little empirical investigation into this subject. Without this understanding further informed application and development of the approach will be hampered.
The ‘design led professional’ is an individual who uses design approaches in their work practices whose education and experience however may not necessarily be in design. The central aim of this thesis is to understand how the ‘design led professional’ applies design thinking in practice with large organisations where the focus is on designing intangible products such as systems, services and experiences. The thesis addresses the research problem through the exploration of the question: How does the design led professional understand and enact design thinking in practice? This question is explored within the context of the design led professional working with large organisations.
A qualitative research approach was adopted, which involved ethnographic methods of semi structured interviews, artefact analysis and participant observation. Data was collected across three studies: an expert interview study, a retrospective case study and a participatory case study. The constant comparative grounded theory method was used to analyse and synthesise data.
Research findings, contextualised within relevant literature, reveal the composition of design thinking in practice: as constrained by the approach taken in applying design thinking; the maturity of the design led professional and the environment in which design thinking is conducted.
On this basis two models are proposed in the conclusion as a foundation for further application and development. The first presents a scale of design thinking maturity based upon two perspectives of design thinking as a way of work and a way of life. The second model maps the interdependent relationship between the three components of design thinking in practice of the approach, the design led professional and the environment in which it is conducted.
The evidence generated through this research provides a framework to assist the public and those who practice design thinking to better understand and articulate design thinking. In addition it provides a foundation for further empirical research that explores the realistic application of design thinking in practice and the critical role of the design led professional.
17. デザインって何?
“Everyone designs who
devises courses of action
aimed at changing
existing situations into
preferred ones”
Herbert A. Simon(1996)
The sciences of the artificial
「システムの科学」
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
18. デザイン=
変化
参照:M. Neumeier (2012) The designful company
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
19. デザイン=
問題解決
参照:M. Neumeier (2012) The designful company
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
30. 共感とは?
“By the imagination we
place ourselves
in his situation,
we conceive
ourselves enduring all the
same torments”
Adam Smith
(Theory of Moral Sentiments, I.i.1.2)
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
31. 2つの共感
sympathize
• シンクロ
• 実体験から
参照:Vittorio Caggiano, Leonardo Fogassi, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Peter Thier, Antonino Casile. Mirror Neurons Differentially Encode the
Peripersonal and Extrapersonal Space of Monkeys, Science, Vol. 324, No. 5925. (DOI: 10.1126/science.1166818)
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
32. 2つの共感
empathiz
sympathize
e
• シンクロ • 中に入り込む
• 実体験から • 想像から
参照:Vittorio Caggiano, Leonardo Fogassi, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Peter Thier, Antonino Casile. Mirror Neurons Differentially Encode the
Peripersonal and Extrapersonal Space of Monkeys, Science, Vol. 324, No. 5925. (DOI: 10.1126/science.1166818)
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
33. 2つの共感
empathiz
sympathize
e
• シンクロ • 中に入り込む
• 実体験から • 想像から
受動的 能動的
参照:Vittorio Caggiano, Leonardo Fogassi, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Peter Thier, Antonino Casile. Mirror Neurons Differentially Encode the
Peripersonal and Extrapersonal Space of Monkeys, Science, Vol. 324, No. 5925. (DOI: 10.1126/science.1166818)
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
85. 参考文献・参考資料
1. Beckman, S.L. and Barry, M. (2007) Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design
Thinking. California Management Review, 50, 25–56.
2. Fleming, Lee, Perfecting Cross-Pollination. Harvard Business Review, 00178012, Sep2004, Vol.
82, issue 9.
3. Gray,D., Brown, S. & Macanufo, J. (2010) Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators,
Rulebreakers, and Changemakers.
4. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (d.school). The bootcamp bootleg.
5. Kotler, Philip; Kartajaya, Hermawan; Setiawan, Iwan (2010) Marketing 3.0: From Products to
Costumers to the Human Spirit, Wiley.
6. Martin, R.(2009) The design of business, Harvard business press.
7. Neumeier, M. (2012) The designful company.
8. Patnaik, Dev. (2009) Wired to Care, FT Press.
9. Pink, D.(2006) A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, Riverhead Trade.
10. Simon, Herbert A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, The MIT press.
11. Smith, Adam. (1875) Theory of Moral Sentiments.
12. http://www.flickr.com/photos/winning-information/2325865367/
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
86. 参考文献・参考資料
12. Vittorio Caggiano, Leonardo Fogassi, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Peter Thier, Antonino Casile. Mirror
Neurons Differentially Encode the Peripersonal and Extrapersonal Space of Monkeys, Science,
Vol. 324, No. 5925. (DOI: 10.1126/science.1166818)
13. F・ドゥ・ヴァール(2010)『共感の時代へ』 柴田裕之訳、紀伊國屋書店
14. L. マッガウ(2006)『記憶と情動の脳科学』久保田競&大石高生監訳、講談社
15. P. F. ドラッカー(1989)『新しい現実』上田惇生訳、ダイヤモンド社
16. P. F. ドラッカー(1999)『断絶の時代』上田惇生訳、ダイヤモンド社
17. P. F. ドラッカー(1993)『ポスト資本主義社会』上田惇生訳、ダイヤモンド社
18. P. F. ドラッカー(2005)『テクノロジストの条件』上田惇生訳、ダイヤモンド社
19. T. ケリー&J. リットマン(2002)『発想する会社!』鈴木主税&秀岡 尚子訳、早川書房
20. T. ブラウン(2010)『デザイン思考が世界を変える』千葉敏生訳、早川書房
21. 奥出直人(2007)『デザイン思考の道具箱』早川書房
22. 奥出直人(2012)『デザイン思考と経営』NTT出版
23. 慶應義塾大学SDM研究科主催「慶應イノベーティブデザインスクール」
http://lab.sdm.keio.ac.jp/idc/
24. 紺野登(2010)『ビジネスのためのデザイン思考』東洋経済新報社
25. 堀公俊&加留部貴行(2010)『教育研修ファシリテーター』日本経済新聞出版社
26. 堀公俊&加藤彰(2008)『ワークショップデザイン』日本経済新聞社
https://www.facebook.com/keio.design 慶應義塾大学SFCデザイン思考研究会
“ . . . This is one of the few times in a design process when we have rules laid out. It may seem counter-intuitive to have rules for a mind-blowing-free-for-all-idea-fest. But these rules are actually to help be your best as a brainstorming team.”
“ . . . This is one of the few times in a design process when we have rules laid out. It may seem counter-intuitive to have rules for a mind-blowing-free-for-all-idea-fest. But these rules are actually to help be your best as a brainstorming team.”
“ . . . This is one of the few times in a design process when we have rules laid out. It may seem counter-intuitive to have rules for a mind-blowing-free-for-all-idea-fest. But these rules are actually to help be your best as a brainstorming team.”