Tag: GK VanPatter

07
Nov

Methodology Ethics

4x4goodg

Embracing a New Era

Humantific CoFounder GK VanPatter posts to his LinkedIn blog:

Hello again Humantific readers. This weeks tricky topic: Ethics in the context of design thinking. While reading a recent thread posted by someone in one of the LinkedIn Design Thinking groups on the topic of industry ethics I started to write a few comments on this always difficult subject. The tiny “comments” box was too small for my text so I will make this into a brief blog post here. Yes, somewhat by this accident I started writing about a subject that has been percolating in the back of my mind for some time. It is something that occurred to us when we were working on our recently published book: Innovation Methods Mapping: Demystifying 80+ Years of Innovation Process Design.

The topic of community ethics is a rather dry but important one and I was somewhat surprised by the focus of that Design Thinking group thread in which these questions were initially asked: What is the ethical grounding of design and design thinking? This includes what work one chooses to do as well as how one approaches the actual design. Are designers responsible for the ethics of their [output] designs?”

See the entire post here:

Methodology Ethics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26
Oct

SenseMaking Rising

4x4goodg

Beyond Data Visualization

Humantific CoFounder GK VanPatter posts to his LinkedIn blog:

Visual SenseMaking continues to rise and for us that’s all good news. Some of our Humantific readers will know that long before the “Big Data” wave arrived, Elizabeth Pastor and I first presented on the subject of how information informs innovation at a Cooper Hewitt Design Museum conference, here in New York City in 2001.

Since that time, we have learned more and more by working with organizational leaders using visualized information as fuel to help tackle complex challenges and drive change. By 2001 we already knew that SenseMaking in an innovation context involves more then just making sense of data. :-)

The secret sauce of Humantific has always been the combination of SenseMaking and ChangeMaking, how to integrate various forms of insight directly into the cocreation or innovation process.

Being engaged in this work for a prolonged period of time certainly accelerated our understanding early on, regarding how methods need to change in order to be reflective of this information-based fuel. Writing an R&D type book on the history of innovation methods helped to drive home this realization. :-)

For us the vast overblown overemphasis on “Big Data” has been a bit of a side show distraction but realization is finally emerging in the marketplace that data itself is not a magic bullet. Unless you widen the inputs beyond just data and integrate those insights into to a learnable changemaking process, nothing much is going to occur with just the data visualized.

In our Humantific work, data is not the king of the castle but rather is recognized as one form or one dimension of insight that we want to weave into the SenseMaking puzzle. In our Humantific practice we created the 5 Dimension model of SenseMaking that includes the integration of upstream framing, ie; making sense of the challenge or opportunity space……

What we are teaching is how to operate and move forward constructively in contexts where the challenges and opportunities are uncertain.

What we are not teaching is downstream assumption-based Design Thinking methods. By 2001 we had already figured out that in the context of complex organizational and societal contexts, assuming up front that you know what the challenges are does not make much sense.

Participants in our Complexity Navigation skill-building program receive this workbook. We are trying to decide whether we should publish a public version of this book this year so if you would like to send us your vote feel free!

See the entire post here:

SEnse1

01
Oct

DesignThinking Arguments Roundup

4x4goodg

Making Sense of  “Design Thinking is Bullshit”

Humantific CoFounder GK VanPatter posts to his LinkedIn blog:

Hello Humantific readers. Summer is winding down here in New York City and a new season peaks around the corner. This week we are sharing some reflection that we undertook during the summer regarding the near and dear slippery topic of Design Thinking. Between client projects we were reflecting on the nature of various arguments seen over the last few years. As a company we don’t actually sell Design Thinking but the founders of Humantific come from design backgrounds and the changing nature of design remains central to our practice.

Those of us who have, in addition to presenting at conferences, also been participating in community discussions here on the global LinkedIn platform, seen a lot of proverbial water pass under the Design / Design Thinking bridge since the fire-hose of discussions began numerous years ago, particularly online. As a steady stream of new people have entered the subject terrain and old-hands decide, for one reason or another, to weigh in from various directions, arguments tend to appear, reappear and rereappear. At this point, a vast avalanche of arguments pro, con, and somewhere in between are well known to many of us.

In our reflection we were thinking that a little roundup of arguments and some analysis might be useful to share at summers end when several readers directed our attention to a presentation made recently by Pentagram’s Natasha Jen provocatively entitled “DesignThinking is Bullshit”.

Forceful, critique oriented and dramatically delivered, we noticed that inside the Pentagram presentation were numerous argument streams that have appeared at various moments in the online discussion groups over the past few years along with a few not seen before. Not sure exactly what the intention was meant to be but Pentagram was now in 2017 tabling one specific set of neighborhood assumptions and the interconnected arguments in high-profile conference presentation form.

I was reminded of how diverse the design community of communities is in all its richness, certainy and uncertainty, understandings and misunderstandings, perfections and imperfections. Clearly the certainties of one design neighborhood can become very uncertain when transferred to another.

Without the understanding that different design neighborhoods, tackling different scales of challenges with different methods do now exist the picture around Design Thinking commentaries could look very confusing.

Digesting all of that we decided it might be most useful to our readers at this point in time if we published our Design Thinking Arguments Roundup as an alternate perspective on the subject. Not meant to be Pentagram vs Humantific this is more like Many Others + Pentagram + Humantific…:-)

Indeed we discovered that there was a certain cathartic relief in divergently assembling the roundup, instead of focusing on agreeing with or debating one or two arguments. We were guessing that gathering and setting multiple arguments in context might in itself bring some new perspective. We wondered what that writing on the wall might look like.

During the roundup assembly we noted that some arguments have been around for a long time while others are recently arriving. Some arguments are well known to be deeply embedded in the design community. Others are being imported from outside by various parties entering the now extremely activated subject terrain.

Some are strategic arguments while others are focused on tactics. Some suggest challenges, some deny or deflect them. Some offer critism while others suggest solutions. Many are neighborhood specific while others are universal. Some are funny, odd, or nonsensical, while others are seriously serious. Some arguments make no sense at all.

Many have significant implications for both practice and education that are not always widely understood by everyone in the moment. Some arguments have caught fire and gained traction while others were completely ignored by various constituents. Many arguments appearing here we do not subscribe to at Humantific but we are certainly aware of their presence in marketplace conversations.

What became clear in creating this Design Thinking Arguments Roundup is that the subject of Design Thinking remains quite a mess and will likely stay that way for some time as many different parties, with often-conflicting business interests are now, for better or for worse, involved in impacting the conversation.

Right now in 2017 the topic of Design Thinking seems to have evolved from the initial idealized uptake years and is now in the more difficult, more critical; lets see how the rubber hits the road phase..:-) In this phase too, the various arguments keep piling up.

It seems probable that our readers will recognize many, perhaps not all, of these arguments. Suffice it to say that if you want to be involved in a simple, tidy, straight-forward subject, Design Thinking isn’t it!

At the end of this post, as part of this sensemaking exercise we take a shot at mapping the 50 arguments along with 10 Humantific arguments in hope that the story of the arguments in total is perhaps more important then any one argument. It seems likely that many additional arguments do exist.

PS: It’s good and indeed useful to take a deep breath and have a robust sense of humor before reading these 60 argument summaries. Some are rather bumpy. Hope this is useful. Enjoy! :-)

Design Thinking Arguments Roundup 2017:

ARGUMENTSROUNDUP

30
Aug

Ambidexterity Continuum

4x4goodg

Getting the Conversation Started

Humantific CoFounder GK VanPatter posts to his LinkedIn blog:

Hello again Humantific readers. This week we are returning to our Secrets of Innovation Series by sharing an overview of the Ambidexterity Continuum and how we use it conversationally. It’s a simple device that can be powerful in initial conversations.

As many of our readers will know: we often work with organizational leaders who are encountering complex marketplace dynamics that lead them in one way or another to find their way into the subject of what today is often called Operational Dexterity, Ambidexterity or Dual Engine strategy. We find that most often leaders arrive into the subject through the complex challenges they are encountering rather then via academic literature or theories.

Some of our readers will know that Harvard Business Review and The IBM Institute for Business Value, among others have, in recent years, published articles on the subject of ambidexterity in organizations attempting to make some of the more academically inclined research/literature a little more user friendly to business audiences.

“In uncertain environments, organizational ambidexterity appears to be positively associated with increased firm innovation, better financial performance and higher survival rates.” Charles O’Reilly & Michael Tushman. Organizational Ambidexterity; Past, Present and Future.

One of the most important lessons is that ambidextrous organizations need ambidextrous senior teams and managers—executives who have the ability to understand and be sensitive to the needs of very different kinds of businesses.” Charles O’Reilly & Michael Tushman, The Ambidextrous Organization.

More recently it has been interesting to see several global management consultancies including Accenture, Deloitte and Bain & Company also arrive into the subject publishing point-of-view papers suggesting firms of the future will have underlying ambidextrous operating strategies.

“We’re beginning to see what the next generation of successful companies will look like….The firm of the future will manage two types of businesses—“Engine 1” of its core and “Engine 2” of its more innovative businesses.” Bain & Company 2017.

…..As a next generation of leaders arrive we are seeing significant interest in ambidexterity as it relates to inclusive culture building.

Ultimately leaders come to the realization that ambidexterity is not an abstraction but rather is representational cognitively of collective and inclusive us. For diverse organizations ambidexterity is home.

See the entire post here:

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAviAAAAJDMyODdmOWNiLWU5MjEtNGE2My1iMTgyLWFiYTExNzhmYTJmYg

 

09
Aug

Virtual Visual SenseMaking

IMG_8405

In the Recording Studio

Humantific’s E. Pastor and GK. VanPatter having a few laughs working in the studio recording the new Visual SenseMaking virtual course as part of the new Future Work Skills Academy in collaboration with our friends at 4th Industrial Revolution.

Big thanks to Donna Eiby for all her amazing guidance and support in this new adventure. Designing and delivering virtual learning programs is hard work!

Virtual Visual SenseMaking Coming Soon!

Send us an email if you would like to be advised when this program launches. kickitup (at) humantific (dot) com

 

04
Aug

Design Thinking Futures [Part 2]

4x4goodg

PART 2 of 2:

GK VanPatter in conversation with Rafiq Elmansy

Rafiq Elmansy: What is your advice to design students in order to help to prepare themselves for the future business challenges?

GK VanPatter: In speaking at various graduate schools what we suggest in general is to look forward not backward. It is great and useful to understand design history and appreciate various design heroes but understand that the marketplace is in forward motion. The arenas of design are changing. First and foremost think carefully about what scale of challenges you are most interested in. There are serious methodology and skill building implications because there is not just one design thinking.

If you want to work on logo and poster size challenges then a 100% invisible, intuitive process might be perfect for you and that arena. If you want to work in the context of organizational change-making or societal change-making where there is high complexity and many disciplines typically involved then more process skill is going to be required. Understand that the diverse worlds of design focused at different scales of challenges, with their various neighborhood heroes, all have their strongly held opinions regarding the process or lack thereof. That will never change. You have to decide which neighborhood, which arena makes the most sense for you to belong to.

nextD-design-thinking-workshop

To new generation folks, we also suggest thinking practically, realistically about which scale arena is growing and which is shrinking. Not often discussed in the graduate design schools is that some arenas are growing and some have already rapidly shrunk due to globalization. Some of your old design heroes might have practiced in a now greatly reduced in size arena.

Globalization has ravaged the fee structure of Design 1 and is on its way to doing the same with Design 2, product, service and experience creation. Thus Design 1 is a shrinking commoditized arena while Design 3 and 4 are growing arenas with vastly different fee structures. In part, this explains the movement in that direction by all the major design consultancies as well as the graduate business schools and their graduates.

The tricky part is those arenas also involve different skills and methods.

See the entire Part 2 of the interview here:

01
Aug

Double Diamond Method

4x4goodg

Understanding What was Missed

Humantific CoFounder GK VanPatter posts to his LinkedIn blog:

Hello again Humantific readers. This week we are taking a short look at one of the most blogged about historical design community process models and that is the infamous Double Diamond circa 2005.

Recently I saw someone on LinkedIn offering up a critique of Double Diamond pointing out deficiencies and suggesting that Triple Diamond is really the solution today. :-) Others in the design community have offered a zillion redrawn versions of Double Diamond sometimes oddly grafting up to 14 steps within two diamond shapes. There seems to be an endless supply of blog posts on this subject, many coming from within the design community.

Of course method design experimentation can be wonderful AND what we find often missing from this particular exploration is any kind of meaningful historical context. To coin a popular knowledge management community phrase; it seems that often the Double Diamond experimenters do not know what they don’t know in terms of methods history. Never a great idea is designing innovation methods in a historical vacuum. :-)

See the entire post here on LinkedIn.

DDX

27
Jul

Design Thinking Futures [Part 1]

4x4goodg

PART 1 of 2:

GK VanPatter in conversation with Rafiq Elmansy

Rafiq Elmansy: In one of your articles, MAKING SENSE OF: “Why Design Thinking Will Fail,” you classified design thinking into upstream and downstream design thinking. Can you clarify this taxonomy for our readers?

GK VanPatter: Yes certainly. We see a lot of articles online like the now infamous “Why Design Thinking Will Fail” post that you referred to. Our response, posted to LinkedIn contains a reference to the situation that I just referred to above. The impact of the methodology mess that now exists becomes clear in that article. (See link below.)

Regarding upstream and downstream, we created this distinction as one part of a larger taxonomy while researching and writing our recently published book Innovation Methods Mapping to convey important differences in methodologies. In the book, readers can see and make use of the entire taxonomy as a reusable analysis framework. Our goal in creating the analysis lens is not jargon-making but rather to introduce considerations and meaning not previously present.

The terms upstream and downstream relate to the assumed starting points of the methodology. Upstream means upstream from the “brief”, which is a framed or semi-framed challenge. In upstream contexts, one cannot and does not assume to know what the challenges actually might be. Part of the work is to create the interconnected constellation of challenges, often seen for the first time. The everyday context for upstream is complex organizations and societies where many types of challenges tend to exist. Why would anyone assume all challenges on the planet are product or service related? From our open innovation perspective that makes no sense at all.

Downstream is the brief business where much of the traditional design industries (and graduate design schools) have been focused for decades. Most often in downstream methods, the assumption is that the challenge to be addressed is pre-assumed to be related to product, service or experience design regardless of what the challenges actually might be.

NextD1b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both upstream and downstream methods are useful. The problems arise when downstream methods are force-fitted into upstream contexts. Today in a competitive marketplace, whether we all like it or not, many graduate design schools are, due to their slow adaptation over a decade, out pitching the quick-fix notion that down is up, that downstream methods are universal, that downstream methods are meta design. That is more about marketing than methodologies. This spin pitching has contributed, not to the making sense of the subject, but rather to the mountain of confusion that now exists and continues to grow. Ultimately that spin will likely undermine the credibility of those advocates, but hopefully not the subject and the interest in adaptive skills.

What we find is that the methodology related sensemaking that we do is welcomed by many and not appreciated by some who would prefer that these differences not be pointed out. Not everyone is going to be a fan of more clarity around the subject of design/design thinking. So be it.

See the entire Part 1 of the interview here:

13
Jul

Crediting “How Might We?”

4x4goodg

Sidney Parnes Not IDEO

Humantific CoFounder GK VanPatter posts to his LinkedIn blog: “Hello again Humantific readers. In the spirit of proper crediting and on behalf of Dr. Sid Parnes [1922-2013] we are returning again to this slippery subject. It keeps popping up and up! An often seen crediting error that seems to keep repeating itself over and over again in the business community media, now in the government community media is in reference to where the now widely used invitation stem How Might We? came from.

Humantific readers will already know it came from Dr. Sid Parnes not IDEO.

Sid is no longer around to speak up for himself and IDEO never seems to step forward to correct the often appearing misdirected crediting. We have ourselves written extensively on this subject crediting Sid.

The most recent appearance of this misdirected crediting can be seen here in this article entitled “The Three Words That Make Brainstorming Sessions at Google, Facebook and IDEO More Productive” appearing on July 10, 2017 in the publication “Government Executive” written by Leah Fessler.

To be fair to Dr. Parnes we have repeatedly pointed out that How Might We? actually has its roots in the CPS (Creative Problem Solving) community, not the design community. Sid is internationally recognized as a pioneering figure in that community of practice. His contributions are many.

“How Might We?” “How Might I” and “In What Ways Might We?” were all first introduced publically some fifty years ago by Sid Parnes in his groundbreaking book Creative Behavior Guidebook published in 1967.”

See the entire post here on GK’s Linkedin Blog!

Crediting

 

 

28
Jun

Clarifying “Design Thinking”

4x4goodg

Forbes vs Humantific

Humantific CoFounder, GK VanPatter offers Humantific readers a deeper level of leadership understanding on the murky subject of “Design Thinking”:

“A recent article appearing in Forbes entitled “Design Thinking: Your Next Competitive Advantage” reminded us that the mountain of confusion around the subject continues to grow. Most articles on the subject of Design Thinking appearing in the business media are well intentioned but many miss the mark, adding to the public confusion on this subject. This seems to be occurring for several different, often overlapping reasons:

A: Many authors assume their specific neighborhood perspectives apply to all aspects of the Design / Design Thinking community, when they don’t. There is no one Design Thinking. Different parts of the design community are engaged in vastly different types and scales of challenges. Working on posters, toothbrushes or applications is vastly different from transforming organizations or problem solving in communities.

B: There is a constant self-reinforcing stream of overly simplistic depictions of Design Thinking in the media which parrot the promotional literature of the graduate design schools whether it makes any sense in the real world or not.

C: Often historical figures are quoted from eras when the operational arenas of design were much less strategic and considerably narrower then they are today. Some historical quotes no longer apply. Others are flat-out incorrect. As design knowledge expands some of these popular old quotes remain relevant while others fall away.

On the one hand it would be easy for us to jump on and go along with the promotional parroting train around Design Thinking but none of that is really advancing leadership level understanding of the subject.

For our Humantific readers we want to offer more. In the interest of clarity for our readers we offer here a different perspective on several dimensions of Design Thinking that were referenced recently in the Forbes article.”

Read the complete post on GK’s LinkedIn Blog.

LinkedinCover_OrganizationalAmbidexterity