The Isolation of Design Thinking in Firms
[and Management Education] :
Definitions, Impediments, and Ways Forward
or
Making Design Thinking Work in your Firm
Bruce Heiman, PhD
San Francisco State University
(presenter)
[Paper by Heiman & Burnett (Stanford)]
Agenda
Exec. Summary
 Motivation
 Definitions of important terms
 Problems implementing Design Thinking
 Solving the problems
 Wrap-up
 Exercise

Executive Summary

We provide a useful set of original definitions that break down
design thinking into seven dimensions, two of which are
organizational context-related and five of which comprise
design thinking processes.

Using the definitions, a simple model is proposed which, if
properly implemented, allows design thinking to function and
the firm to prosper.

We identify classes of problems with implementing design
thinking in firms.

We examine solutions and their comparative usefulness for
various problems.
Motivation

Design thinking and methodology is currently
viewed as an important element in a firm’s strategic
innovation arsenal.

However, we find much of the discussion misplaced

No concrete definition of terms

Strategy discussions do not teach “design
thinking”
 Recent
Harvard Business Review issue on “Design Your
Strategy” had no information about design methodology
Motivation
(Misplaced discussion aspect)

Often focused on product design (typically tactical-marketing) rather than innovation (strategic)
throughout the firm.

No discussion (even) of how hard DT is to embed in
businesses. This would be a good minimum (awareness
of the issue).
 We discuss more: precisely how DT is hard to
embed.
 More: We offer ideas, which we compare, for
solving Design Thinking problems in firms.
Concept Definitions
There are seven elements to design thinking: two contextual and
five process

Context:
 Multi-disciplinary teams
 Fluency

Process:
 User-centered research
 Prototypes
 Critique
 Iteration
 Form-giving
Multi-disciplinary teams
(context factor)
…teams composed of diverse personnel from various functional
areas, including: design, engineering, marketing, finance,
manufacturing, technical support, suppliers, and customers.

A necessary precursor to design thinking

Part of the organizational context

Q: How are multidisciplinary teams different from a
“multi-functional” or matrix approach?


Characterized by two features



Team membership based on passions/capabilities/what
team members do best, NOT their professional label or
rank (though this is often used as an indicator).
radical collaboration
frequent leadership “passes”
Should be composed of the best and brightest, not “who’s
available”
Fluency
(second context factor)
… the capability of moving with ease and grace between
disciplines… capable of using and translating technical
language easily and accurately

Effective translation between various rarefied
technical vocabularies

Ability to move effortlessly between problem
solving methodologies - synthesis and analysis
(thick skin)

Ability to value others’ outcomes and
expectations (open mind)


Designers have different outcome expectations than financial
people
Group & individual level action
User-centered research
… focused observation, using ethnographic research
tools, studying users in their home or working
environments with the goal of discovering latent needs

Not traditional market research nor concerned
with defining average users

Defines a nuanced data set which is used to judge
subsequent prototypes

An important component of form-giving

Frequently uses lead edge users as subjects
Prototyping
…reduced complexity models or mock-ups, used to evoke the
conditions of use, explore a problem solution, and create buy-in for
teams and firms.

Crude, no more than paper models, simple spreadsheet
simulations, or hand drawn storyboards of a potential new
experience.

Used by target users, refined, and built again and again.

“Prototyping is thinking.”

Typically partial solutions focused on one aspect of the
problem.

It is critical that prototypes are experienced by users and the
multidisciplinary team.

Used to solicit comments form users and buy-in from the
organization.

Caveat: Frequently misunderstood by non-designers.
Critique
…the ancient art of dialectic: you ask a question, you
think about the reply, you ask again, you rephrase the
question, you go on pushing and inquiring, without changing
the subject.
Helps shape the prototyping and iteration process.
Not a design review, which is usually a binary decision
point.
Critique is primarily an opportunity to vet a concept;
to examine, through questioning, paths not taken,
alternatives unexplored, and the quality of the design
synthesis
Caveat: Offering Critique is a skill, not easily learned.
Important: Offer constructive, actionable critique, and
drive the user-centered perspective (what does your
research tell you?)
Form-giving
…the goal of form-giving is to evoke delight and satisfaction in users,
and to legitimize the underlying innovations discovered in the course of
user-centered research.
“God is in the details.” –Mies van der Rohe
Not another prototype, the final result of form-giving is
necessarily complete and detailed.
Organization opportunity to embed the underlying findings of
the original user research (the nuanced dataset), prototyping
and iteration into the object or service
Often overlooked, yielding results that “miss the mark.”
Often misunderstood by managers as an opportunity to make
major (e.g., cost-saving) changes to a design spec.
Embedding design thinking in firms:
Impediments
Three fundamental issues:
Semantic Gaps (Hayakawa, 1964)
Conceptual Blocks (Adams, 1974)
Social Barriers (DiMaggio & Powell, 1990),
Impediments to design thinking:
Semantic Gaps
Perspective:
General Semantics--understanding something
more about the nature of meaning.
Different words have different meanings for
different people.
Ex.: What is Finance? The HR Function?
Productivity?
Impediments to design thinking:
Semantic gaps defined
Differences across people regarding
commonly understood meanings or definitions
of important (frequently common) terms.
Basic meaning: divergent definitions (solution:
Extensional definitions--point w/hand over mouth)
Meaning of meaning:
The word is not the thing--The verb is not the action-The map is not the territory--the symbol is not the thing
symbolized
Culture often plays a role: Simple ex.: I say “How
are you?...” ...but I do not mean it sincerely (?)-many Europeans perceive Americans as hypocritical
owing to this--very few Americans know this.
Impediments to design thinking:
Semantic gaps–
small
differences
Small differences matter--harder to detect (costlier-time diseconomies apply--ironically across firms, this is a
source of competitive advantage).
Design Thinking: The small differences in shared meaning
are the most crucial (form-giving).
Buttons versus Click-wheel--iPod
Trackpad versus trackball/button solutions @ Apple
People actually thought there was no difference
between these interface technologies
“But the differences between a Mac and Windows box
are so small.” My Point Exactly.
Impediments to design thinking:
Semantic gaps–Effects
Pernicious Effects:
Destructive critical flawed assumptions. Most common:
You/Group/Client/User possess (internalize) the same, correct
shared meanings.
You think you know what Brainstorming is? What are the rules?
Knowing about or having tried a design thinking technique a few
times makes you an expert (even Wynton Marsalis practices).
Practice in Design Thinking is HUGELY important (take away-even for designers).
You think you are an expert in brainstorming after having done it
3-4 times in a class. Q: Do you want a dentist that has filled 3 or
4 cavities?
Caveat: Multidisciplinary Teams are highly subject to semantic
gaps, by their very definition.
Impediments to design thinking:
Conceptual Blocks
Perspective:
Semantic gaps are group-impairing, and represent low-level
networks of shared meaning (think: the pipes layer/protocol).
Connections are typically not explicit and are not consciously
made or broken unless semantic gaps are being attacked.
Conceptual Blocks mostly reside in individuals, not networks.
Understanding (semantic) vs. Acting (conceptual block).
Conceptual blocks are belief systems: they affect how individuals
do things, how we behave, how we act in certain situations. They
impact the universe of perceived possible actions, as opposed to
the universe of possible meanings (for semantic gaps).
Impediments to design thinking:
Conceptual Blocks
Pernicious Effects:
Emphasis is on “socially acceptable” solutions--Ex.: please
the group, not solve the problem.
Oddball solutions are filtered out.
Impair fluency.
Exert a negative influence on prototyping—when thinking about
and discussing design revisions and refinements, problem-solving
becomes colored by the biases of people’s conceptual blocks, and
suboptimal outcomes ensue.
Some problems are assumed solved or not seen.
One person with conceptual blocks can impede an entire
multi-disciplinary team.
Simple (but widely prevalent) example: “That’s not my job.”
Impediments to design thinking:
Conceptual Blocks–Caveats
OTOH--We admit that progress in innovation sometimes occurs when
people commit to be able to execute tasks/processes that they really
have only a little experience doing.
Partially the basis of entrepreneurial spirit--don’t squash!
Problem goes unrecognized--basis of first mover advantage is
often doing something you are not supposed to do or not
supposed to be ABLE to do).
Determinants of high performance under these conditions:
Pressure, Rising To The Challenge, Meeting Nascent User
Needs (no one else has a mental infrastructure for thinking
about the problem!), Charisma/drive.
Impediments to design thinking:
Social Barriers
Perspective:
Like semantic gaps, social barriers are a network
phenomenon, but unlike semantic gaps, social barriers
are the high level manifestation of social networks
within and between groups.
Connections are consciously made or broken--pipes
are visible (unlike for semantic networks).
Fault of both designers/design thinkers and non-designers.
Designers may, in fact, revel in their differentness and use it
as an excuse for self-isolation (relatively common
phenomenon). Advice: Manage informal networks from the
start, difficult and overly calculating though that may seem.
Hiding/hidden in the Marketing department--a few in
Engineering
Impediments to design thinking:
Social Barriers
Pernicious effects:
Design thinking is trumped by socio-economic
managerial thinking (esp. with respect to cost
economizing: 2 colors are “better” that 3, even when
they aren’t).
Also typical: Convenient “de-validation” of absolutely
legitimate design research findings in the name of
managers trying to save on costs.
Engendering delight and satisfaction in users is a delicate thing--the
fruits of design thinking are easy to destroy (take-away).
Impediments to design thinking:
Social Barriers
(pernicious effects II)
Lack of appreciation of process outcomes in favor of final
outcomes foments further isolation.
Deny the value of iteration. Deny value of “roughness.”
Deny value of learning for the future (a long-run view helps
spread design thinking).
Social barriers between design thinkers and others inhibit formgiving.
No agreement about the value-added of focus on details or the
value of particular details.
Solving the problem:
Embedding design thinking in firms
In the classroom
Teaching design thinking
Executive Education (MBA, certificate programs)
Diversity in the classroom is helpful w/MDTs.
Great for conceptual blocks.
Useless for in-firm social barriers.
No inherent help in spreading design thinking precepts throughout the firm.
Firm-specific Programs
Cohort all from one firm.
Legacy possibilities (follow-on years of cohorts).
Expensive, but Effective for social barriers.
Problem-based Design Thinking
Can direct towards concrete real problems (great with firm-specific pgms).
Keeps methodology explicitly focused on solving the problem, not sub-goal pursuits like
keeping the whole group happy, or pleasing the Prof. -- desirability bias.
When things get messy, refocus on understanding and characterizing the problem.
“A Problem well put is half-solved” --Dewey
Solving the problem:
Embedding design thinking in firms
In the firm
Deploy ad hoc approaches
Most common (unsystematic, but non-intrusive on employees work focus)
Events
Message can be powerful, but little lasting impact.
Better for “kickoff,” but runs risk of appearing cliché
Seminar Series
Better. If top mgt. attends, sends a strong signal that you are serious about design thinking
Has increasing impact over time
Helps address semantic gaps by building shared meaning during multiple “defining” moments.
Leverage in-house design resources
Designer acts as facilitator for brainstorming
Serves as a meeting’s visual thinker (e.g., sketching on the whiteboard)
Help mitigate semantic gaps (a little) and conceptual blocks( more)
Limited diffusion potential for a firm.
Designer as Top-Manager
“Chief Aesthetic Officer?”
“Bet the company” or “Best bet for the company?”
Designers
Great managers (automatically)
“Good design is consequent to the last detail” (Rams)
Caveat: Finding the right person is tough.
Wrap-up, 1
Conceptual blocks are cost-effectively addressed within a
classroom setting.
For example, by an Executive MBA program.
Development of a problem-based learning orientation to
design thinking also effectively addresses conceptual blocks
The structure of the PBL inquiry process explicitly seeks
to break through conceptual blocks.
For semantic gaps, the best solutions are an ad hoc approach
(e.g., a seminar series in a firm) or having a designer as top
manager (we prefer both initiatives).
Wrap-up, 2
Social barriers (toughest impediments) are best addressed by
firm-specific management education
Ideally creates a spirited cadre of managers/design thinkers
in one firm to spread the techniques throughout an
organization.
The drawback to firm-specific executive education initiatives
is that they are expensive both monetarily and redirect
costly, finite managerial attention from other problems.
A less costly (correspondingly less effective) solution to
social barrier issues is to use in-house design thinking
resources (designers) as facilitators and team members in
problem-solving tasks that fall outside the realm of
traditional design.
Wrap-Up, 3
Wild speculation about the future of innovation in
organizations:
Globally: Even mildly repressive regimes (China, Turkey,
much of Africa) will continue to struggle with achieving
genuine “economic power” status.
Free speech, and freedom of thought and expression are
central to supporting a highly innovative, productive economy.
Transparent, free markets, too.
Being a great outsourcing power is not the same as
innovating.
Indians and Russians (and former Soviet Satellites) have
the best educational systems among transition/emerging
markets. Bet on them to innovate in the long-run.
Outsourcing Design Thinking: Do you really want to?
Great core competence if you can really develop it.
Wrap-Up, 4
Take-aways:
“Organic” development of a firm suffused throughout with
innovative spirit (that we label “design Thinking”) occurs only
rarely.
VISIBLE Top manager buy-in is essential. Or (better) Designer as
Top Manager is a great way to go if you are willing to go “all-in”
on design thinking. May be the most economical in the long-run.
Be careful when choosing a person--not all designers know
everything about management (ex.: Noel Lee--brilliant
designer/marketer, terrible administrator, manager).
Design thinking is tough to implement.
But long-term rewards are great.
It is easy to “break” or impair design thinking in a firm.
There exist ways forward, with varying levels of efficacy-->
Wrap-Up, 5
Table 1: Efficacy of Solutions for Various Design Thinking Problems
-->Increasing importance of group-level interaction issues---->
Solution Type
Conceptual Blocks Semantic Gaps
Social Barriers
Pedagogy-based
solutions:
Classes/MBA
programs
+++
++
+
Management
development
initiatives
Firm-specific
management
education
++
+
+++
Problem-based
design thinking
orientation
+++
+
++
Ad hoc
+
+++
++
In-house design
thinkers
+
++
+++
Designer as top
manager
++
+++
+
In-firm-based
solutions:
Human relations
initiatives
+ = Low efficacy
++ = Medium efficacy
+++ = High efficacy
Wrap-Up 5, continued
Table 1: Efficacy of Solutions for Various Design Thinking Problems
-->Increasing importance of group-level interaction issues---->
Solution Type
Conceptual Blocks Semantic Gaps
Social Barriers
Pedagogy-based
solutions:
Classes/MBA
programs
+++
++
+
Management
development
initiatives
Firm-specific
management
education
++
+
+++
Problem-based
design thinking
orientation
+++
+
++
Ad hoc
+
+++
++
In-house design
thinkers
+
++
+++
Designer as top
manager
++
+++
+
In-firm-based
solutions:
Human relations
initiatives
+ = Low efficacy
++ = Medium efficacy
+++ = High efficacy
Wrap-Up 5, continued
Table 1: Efficacy of Solutions for Various Design Thinking Problems
-->Increasing importance of group-level interaction issues---->
Solution Type
Conceptual Blocks Semantic Gaps
Social Barriers
Pedagogy-based
solutions:
Classes/MBA
programs
+++
++
+
Management
development
initiatives
Firm-specific
management
education
++
+
+++
Problem-based
design thinking
orientation
+++
+
++
Ad hoc
+
+++
++
In-house design
thinkers
+
++
+++
Designer as top
manager
++
+++
+
In-firm-based
solutions:
Human relations
initiatives
+ = Low efficacy
++ = Medium efficacy
+++ = High efficacy
Thanks for listening.
More info:
heiman at sfsu.edu
wburnett at stanford.edu
Questions?
Download Presentation:
http://online.sfsu.edu./~bheiman/SCPDsum07SGBEDfv4.pdf
On to the Exercise/Activity...
Exercise–Design Thinking
We simulate managerial decision making for
a problem to be solved using the design
thinking model.
Use of the Design Thinking Process is
required to solve the problem.
The User-centric research (though an
amazingly valuable part of the experience)
has been largely provided for you.
Feel free top extrapolate creatively!
Reminder of the model