jim.shamlin.com

7 - Developing Yourself as a Design Thinker

The majority of this book has focused on promoting validity and innovation within an organization, and delivered examples of C-level executives who have done so. However, this should not be taken to mean that only senior management has the ability to leverage design thinking within an organization.

It is difficult, but still possible, for those lower in the ranks to develop innovation skills and seek to convince efficiency-oriented individuals at lower levels of the value of design thinking. As a matter of fact, it is an alternative and faster route to career progress, as those who toe the line and maintain tradition are only valued so long as business as usual is productive. When the tides change and crisis arises, the design-thinking individuals come to the fore and demonstrate the value of design thinking in highly visible ways.

(EN: My sense is the larger issue is not championing innovation, but in becoming the post-revolutionary despot who was once the champion of change, but becomes a force for inertia when that change has been effected and they seek to prevent further change. That very often happens.)

Personal Knowledge Systems

Martin suggests that each person has a personal knowledge system, a methodical process by which new information is acquired. This system defines how a person interprets the world around them, as well as defining their place in the world. For most people, this is largely unconscious, and the system develops in an unguided fashion, which results in sloppy and disorganized thinking. This need not be so, and should not be so: it is important to be conscious and explicit in managing this system.

The innovator's knowledge system is fundamentally different to that of the efficiency effort. He believes that there is a better way to do things than current practice. He believes that others will be eager to adopt a change that achieves better outcomes. He believes in the power of compelling ideas to effect positive changes. Were this not so, he would settle in with the analytics and adopt the business-as-usual mentality.

Martin's concept of the personal knowledge system consists of three key components:

  1. Stance - A "stance" is a belief about something, which results in an attitude when it is confronted, and which drives behavior in real time. It is the premise on which we take action - and while it is profoundly influential, few people pause to consider what stance they are taking, but merely go into action (which may later be found to be contradictory to the stance). A stance that is counterproductive can only be identified and altered if we recognize the motivation for our actions and the ideas we support.
  2. Tools - Tools include conceptual frameworks by which we evaluate what we experience. It may be a theory, a process, a decision flowchart, or a set of rules that enable us to assess a specific situation and apply general principles to determine what it is and what should be done. Again, people may blunder about and happen to act consistently without understanding the tools they are applying, but overt and explicit consideration is a more productive course.
  3. Experience - Experience includes the things we actually encounter from our actions in real life. We are drawn to what has succeeded for us in the past, and fearful for what has failed. And again, we may not contemplate our experiences and form conclusions based on poor observation and poor analysis of our own experiences, which tends to happen more often if we are not conscious and deliberate in considering our experience.

A word of caution: these capacities should not be taken as innate and immutable, though it is very often a tendency to assume that people "are what they are" and cannot change. That belief is merely a stance, and not a productive one. We can choose to adopt a stance or to change it. We can choose to rely on the tools we have or acquire new ones and discontinue ones that are not productive. We can in some instances choose the experiences to which we expose ourselves. The ability to do so gives us control over our knowledge system.

He then considers some capacities that derive from the key three:

These three things tend to develop in concert: our skills and distinction increase our sensitivity (we are attentive to things because we have a sense of what is good and the ability to achieve it), our sensitivity and distinction leads us to develop skills (we recognize something is important and needs to be changed and then learn the skills to effect our vision).

(EN: It seems to me that these three capacities are merely aspects of the three key components. Our stance results in sensitivity, our tools give us the ability to make distinction, and our experience leads to the development of skills. So this all seems a bit disjointed and recursive.)

The Innovative Knowledge System

An individual's "knowledge system" as just described influences the way in which he thinks and acts: it causes him to give attention to certain things, interpret them in a certain way, and feel motivated to take certain actions. Thus, a person who is innovative has certain distinctive qualities that can be considered according to his stance, tools, and experiences.

Stance

Innovators have a positive attitude toward change ad the sense that the world it is could stand improvement. By default, their stance is cynical and they believe that "business as usual" is usually bad business.

However, they have no illusion that this attitude is shared by others, and know only too well that they live in a world that favors stability and reviles change, and will defend the status quo against anything different without considering whether the difference has merit. (EN: I'd say this is often learned over time, and learned the hard way, as there are many naive innovators who seem to imagine others are as eager as they are to try new things.)

The innovator takes a modicum of personal pride in introducing an idea that has the potential to effect a positive change, which intensifies as his idea gains support and becomes accepted, executed upon, and adopted. He maintains a level of optimism that this is possible.

The innovator is attracted to the unknown and is inclined to be attentive to possibilities. However, he is aware of constraints and the need to be pragmatic, and recognizes the necessity of accepting incremental progress rather than demanding instant perfection. (EN: the "however" clause is another attitude that is optional, an which develops with experience.)

Tools

Martin describes the three "key" tools of innovators: observation, imagination, and configuration.

1) Observation pertains to a deep, attentive, and open-minded method of gathering information about the world such as it is. In particular, the innovator tends to notice things that others do not and think on a deeper level. For example, they notice a given behavior among users of a given product, but do not stop at the conclusion that "people behave this way" but seek to understand the reason for the behavior: what are they trying to accomplish that leads them to act in this manner?

In particular, the innovator focuses on the human being, not the task he is doing or the device he is using, to identify the goal. He investigates what makes people feel frustrated rather than satisfied with the way things are, and considers other factors to be relative to that central point.

2) Imagination is the capacity to envision something that does not presently exist, which is a departure from what has been observed that addresses the cause of a person's frustration or the barrier to their satisfaction. The critical act of innovation is in imagining a solution to a problem, but this cannot be successful until the task of observation has led to the identification of the source of the problem.

Creative imagination is a matter of envisioning a change of some aspect of reality, while leaving the rest of the "as is" picture intact. Typically, the innovator imagines a change to one thing, and a change that is feasible given the "laws" of reality, and then considering what the consequences might be: will making this change solve the problem?

Martin mentions an "inference-testing" loop in which a hypothesis is formed based on the imagined change, and its plausibility and feasibly are considered. Because the imagined change has not been done before, there is no data, only theory and logic to test it, though this theory must integrate with the facts of reality that are not part of the imagined change.

This loop is iterative: when the innovator's inference fails the test, the imagined idea is modified to address the reason for failure. This can be seen in the prototyping process, where a concept is modeled and tested to determine its effectiveness, and each test leads to modifications.

3) Configuration is a consideration of the system of activities that will produce an imagined solution. That is to say, once a problem is observed and a solution is imagined, the work of the innovator is not done (though some may imagine it to be). The innovator must now configure a method of producing and deploying the solution that is feasible given the constraints of reality.

These constraints usually pertain to the resources available to produce and deploy a solution. The solution must be feasible given the cost necessary to produce and distribute it. While there may be other constraints, such as having space in a manufacturing facility to add a step to a production line, this almost always comes down to costs: enlarging the facility or purchasing a new facility are financial decisions.

(EN: I am not entirely satisfied with these as tools as they are behaviors, and his previous description of tools suggested something more systematic. The method by which designers seek to solve problems would be a tool, and while these three behaviors are likely highly influential in the way designers solve problems, they are too rudimentary to be considered "tools" in their own right.)

Experiences

The innovator chooses to engage in experiences that will engage his knowledge and originality. Any situation in which these qualities are not required are not innovative, and do not require his participation.

The knowledge of an innovator tends to be domain-specific: to determine a solution to a problem pertaining to an automobile requires knowledge of automobiles and the physics and mechanics of their operation. A person who does not understand these things cannot contribute in a meaningful way to defining a solution.

(EN: First comment - there is some argument over whether knowledge is required beforehand. A designer may be called into a situation where he lacks knowledge, and then gain the knowledge he needs to derive a solution. In many instances, this is better because domain knowledge can be limiting, as knowing the rules means accepting the rules, even the unnecessary or bad ideas that are proclaimed to be rules.)

(EN: Second comment - the knowledge that all designers bring to any situation is knowledge of people, particularly of their abilities and inclinations. It seems likely that any situation in which a solution impacts a person would benefit from a designer to advocate for the person, though there are instances in which a change is made to something that has no impact on a person, in which instances the designer is uninterested and unneeded.)

Originality pertains to a situation in which defining a solution requires a new or nonstandard approach. Where there is no need to do something new to effectively solve the problem or mitigate side-effects, the innovator is not needed and should decline participating in the experience.

There is a cautionary note about "mastery without originality" in that it becomes rote: if we accept existing solutions and never pause to consider novel alternatives, we fall into a routine of using what is known rather than discovering a better approach.

(EN: My sense is that Martin's concepts here are ill-defined, as mastery pertains to existing knowledge and originality is the quest to find new knowledge. Likely some refinement of the terms is necessary, or more specificity on how they are applied. Knowledge of general theory and principles is necessary to competently approach an unknown aspect related to the solution. That still seems a bit off-target.)

Five Tips for Collaborating with Traditionalists

An established company is driven by continuity: it seeks to perpetuate them by doing the same thing tomorrow, next month, next year, and forever as it has done yesterday, last month, last year, and since its inception. It simply does not want to budge unless it perceives the future to be different to the past.

As such, an innovator in an established organization is surrounded by analytical thinkers who are devoted to the belief that past success is sufficient and sustainable based on perpetuating the status quo, perhaps with a few modifications for the sake of efficiency. The suggestion of a new approach is a deviation from the safety and comfort of tradition.

To make matters worse, the innovator isn't merely surrounded by them, but subordinated to them. The people who have risen to positions of power and authority are generally those who made things the way they are, and attribute their success to the established ways. There are rewards to be had by supporting the status quo, and punishments promised to anyone who threatens the stability that is presumed to be sustainable.

In such an environment, the innovator faces difficulty gathering support for a new idea, to which end Martin suggests five practices:

  1. Reframe obstacles as challenges
  2. Consider the motives of objectors
  3. Speak their language
  4. Start with the familiar
  5. When it comes to proof, use size to your advantage

Reframe Obstacles as Challenges

The defenders of the status quo as usual can be very inventive in proposing obstacles to change in order to keep things the way they are: there is a reason that something can't be changed, and if that obstacle is overcome they will scurry to find another, and another, and another, in order to wear down the morale of innovators to make them quit rocking the boat.

The easiest solution is to dismiss such people from a project, though this is not always possible. Even when it is, it would be a bad idea to exclude them because some of their obstacles are valid ones, and your plan will fail if you do not account for them. A better solution is to validate and reframe them.

Validation of an obstacle is simple a matter of seeking proof, from an objective perspective, that the obstacle really exists. The first few obstacle suggested by a detractor are generally very real, though their later ones may be entirely fabricated out of panic. So do the research to find out if there is any merit to their claims, and dismiss only those obstacles that are without merit.

Once an obstacle is substantiated, it should not be accepted as a reason to quit - merely a constrain on success. Designers are by their nature problem-solvers, and obstacles are part of the problem - and are quite capable of thinking of a way to adjust the solution so that it accounts for an obstacle and succeeds in spite of it.

When this is done, the obstacle is not ignored, but accounted for in the solution - as well it should be.

Consider the Motives of Objectors

Another knee-jerk reaction to objectors is to dismiss them without considering their motives, or charactering their motives as being simplistic ("he just doesn't like anything new") - which succeeds only in creating enmity and resentment, and becoming entangled in a struggle for personal power rather than a struggle to solve the problem.

The irony of this practice is that the designer is applying a different approach to his colleagues as he does to his users: the designer considers the motives of the user, seeks to accommodate them, and uses persuasion to get the user to interact with his design solution. But when faced with an objection, the designer shows little interest in his motives, seeks to dismiss them, and uses stubbornness to get the opponent to accept a new idea.

Most objections are based on a valid reason - and if the designer applies the same process to colleages as he does to users, the conversations will be much more productive and collaborative:

This approach does much to bridge the chasm between innovators and their detractors.

(EN: This dovetails with the previous point, in analyzing the nature of the objection.)

Speak Their Language

Optimizers and innovators speak two different languages. Optimizers speak the language of reliability, and use terms that emphasize the importance of consistency with past practices, whereas innovators speak the language of validity, and use terms that emphasize the potential of future practices. As a result, they fail to understand one anointer, and this misunderstanding leads to disagreements when, in reality, they may actually agree with one another.

Learning to speak another person's language means changing your behavior to accommodate them. Optimizers are inherently opposed to changing their behavior, and cannot be expected to learn the language of the innovator. And so, an innovator must learn to speak the language of the optimizer, and should be more open to doing so because he is characterized by a willingness to change and accommodate.

(EN: Martin's advice on this is rather dodgy, vague and generalized, and he provides no specific advice for doing this except to hang around the optimizers and learn their terminology. There are likely betters sources that provide specific techniques.)

Start with the Familiar

Optimizers innately fear anything that is unfamiliar, and will not put much effort into attempting to understand. And so, the proposal of any change must begin in the context that is familiar, before considering improvements or deviations from current practices.

One excellent tool for the designer is analogy: to describe an unknown concept in terms of something that is already known. The innovator will acknowledge that he understands what is presently being done and why things are thus before suggesting a change, and then emphasizing the way in which the new method will still do the things that the old one does. This helps the optimizer to overcome his resistance to the changes.

Martin speaks to a misstep he made in dealing with a client, a banking firm that was being forced to adopt new practices due to new legislation. He described the new way of things without paying homage to the old, not considering that the client considered the new laws to be a threat to their comfortable way of doing business and was really looking for a way to make minimal changes to accommodate legal requirements without significantly altering business practices.

A better approach, which he realized in arrears, would have been to describe current business practices, then indicate the way in which the legislation threatened them, then propose new practices that would accommodate the legislation while enabling the firm to accomplish its goals. There would still be radical changes to the company's operation, but they would have been easier to swallow had they been presented in this manner.

Martin also suggests the approach of presenting the evidence and reasoning first, rather than the conclusion. This is a slower and less efficient approach to communicating changes, but will be more amenable when dealing with a hostile audience because they will follow along with the rationale for making the change. The efficient approach, to indicate a change and explain it afterward, will only cause them to raise defenses and not listen to the reasoning - but the slower approach will give them the opportunity to think about the reasons before seeing the proposal, and if done well they will come to the conclusion while you are presenting your case, and be more inclined to agree when you unveil the change.

Express the Future the Same as the Past

Optimizers seek proof based on past observations, which is something that an innovator simply cannot provide: his proposal is something new, which has never been seen, so there is no observational data to substantiate his claims. In essence, the innovator is saying "Here is my prediction of what is going to happen."

One technique the author suggests is for the innovator to present more specific predictions that project the performance of a proposed change, which provides a roadmap with which optimizers will be comfortable. Present tables of figures that present monthly or quarterly achievements in quantitative terms - showing the next year in the same manner as an optimizer would show the past year.

(EN: A good tactic, but the drawback is that these predictions are interpreted as promises, and the optimizers will keep a print-out and check each month, eager to call attention to where the plan is not delivering precisely the results that were promised. This points to the need to avoid lofty goals and build some tolerance into the plan, and to make conditional statements clear.)

Getting Along

In many respects, making peace with the optimizers is subject to the same generic advice for working with difficult people:

The plain truth is that getting along with others in a negotiation has always been a challenge, and it takes a lot of work to get an obstinate person to give you fair hearing. But combatting obstinate people by becoming obstinate leads only to failure to arrive at a consensus.

To sell innovation, you will have to undertake the effort to bridge the gulf and build acceptance - because the easiest way, which happens by default, is for a company to stay the same merely by refusing to even consider changing. So the burden is on the innovator.

(EN: This describes a combative situation between innovator and obstructionist, which is not always the case. Sometimes, the battle is between an innovator and another innovator who has the same goals but different ways to get there. This requires a completely different approach that Martin does not explore at all.)

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT