Scarica Design Thinking: Creative Problem Solving and Double Diamond Framework e più Appunti in PDF di Economia E Innovazione solo su Docsity!
DT - Ripasso Evolution of the design management field. DT is becoming an innovative approach to manage organizational transformations → it is useful to change the cultural approach of the organization. It is necessary to balance desirability (what humans need) with technical feasibility and economic viability. At the core of DT there is the focus of “understanding the problem”. The main characteristics are: DT is human-centred (understand culture and context), intuition, role of emotions. What is fundamental now? Complex problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, people management, coordination with others, emotional intelligence, judgment and decision making. The main aspects are: empathy, abduction, reframing (don’t accept just what the market is saying) → the “abduction thinking” is the capability to understand what would be in the future instead of what could be according to the data we have: interpretative skills are crucial. Transformations of design thinking. DT is not about process: it is “a human attitude in surfacing needs not explicit in the market, in order to anticipate future trends”. The real essence of DT is the capability to merge analytical and intuitive thinking, so the capability to use creativity to frame the challenges and problems you are facing. There are 4 kinds of DT:
_- creative problem solving (people as users): adopt both analytical and intuitive thinking
- sprint execution (better solution: use of MVP): DT moved from a traditional outside-in process (users at the beginning), to an inside-out (users at the end). Digital agencies: all digital agencies that use design thinking use sprint execution → it is the dominant approach in the digital segment. The big differences between CPS and SE are: 1) the role of users (at the very beginning in CPS and a little bit later in SE) 2) between prototypes (adopted in CPS) and MVP (adopted in SE) and 3) finally the role of creativity (in CPS, creativity is seen as a capability that should rely on team-based activities, while in SE is mainly individual and the critiques that come after are managed at a team level)
- creative confidence (people as designers): it is aimed at innovating organizations internally → make people confident with change: DT used to change the organization
- innovation of meaning (meaningful direction): strategic DT interpretation → research of a new reason-why Important: progressively moving from CPS to SE, to CC, to IM, DT is changing its main features from ideating (solve problems: CPS), to executing (deliver products: SE is about implementation), to engaging (nurture mindsets: CC → capability to involve people in defining the new purpose of the organization), to envisioning (envision directions: IM → the capability to look forward in the far future identifying the life we would love to gift to people, how to allow them to live better in comparison with the present). Transformations of consulting paradigms based on DT. According to the consultants’ survey, DT is particularly effective in creating products that are radical innovative under a meaning perspective, while is less powerful in creative products and services that are a breakthrough under a technological perspective. DT and digital transformation. DT is spreading around projects that deal with digital transformation, and the reason behind is connected to the need of being human even if you deal with digital transformation. Important: sense making is inherently human and it is even more relevant than when you are not using digital technologies → there are some practices that are fundamentally human: framing the addressed problem, empathizing with users, sense making (making sense of the signals and of what we are creating), and these elements cannot be substituted by technologies → that’s why we talk about ambidextrous thinking: on one side, we have to empower ourselves in dealing with digital tools that can enhance our abilities to generate ideas and select the most promising ones, and on the other side we need to nurture our capability to critically reflect on the data we receive and in framing the problem._
Lecture 1 & 2 - MDIP
Design thinking is an innovative approach to manage organizational transformations. It is necessary to balance desirability (what humans need) with technical feasibility and economic viability. At the core of DT there is the focus of “ understanding the problem ”. The main characteristics are:
- human-centred (understand culture and context)
- intuition
- role of emotions DT then is not a process: it is a human attitude in surfacing needs not explicit in the market, in order to anticipate future trends merging analytical and intuitive thinking, so it is the capability to use creativity to frame the challenges and problems you are facing. There are 4 kinds of design thinking:
- Creative problem solving (CPS) → DT as ideating , solve problems
- Sprint execution (SE) → DT as executing , deliver/implement products
- Creative confidence (engaging people in being confident in expressing themselves and sharing information with others with the aim of innovating organizations internally) → DT as engaging , nurture mindsets
- Innovation of meaning (envisioning of new reason why / directions) → DT as envisioning , envision directions In MDIP, we will use an hybrid model that puts together strengths of the first 2:
- Creative problem solving → solving wicked problems by adopting both analytical and intuitive thinking. This means it is based on 2 features:
- Use of creativity to frame the problem, to understand the real problem that is creating a need in the eyes of users
- Capability to mix up analytical and intuitive thinking to generate an idea We will use CPS to get empathy with the users and for the reframing
- Sprint execution → transform the idea into an MVP to test. DT is moved from a traditional outside-in process (users at the beginning), to an inside-out (users at the end). The differences between CPS and SE are:
⇒ The idea is continuously moving from concrete to abstract,for example in the netnography activities we start surfing apps and websites but then we conceptualize the values and feelings you get from the activity. Design thinking is generally seen as a methodology to create original solutions, actually even before in the observation and reflection phases the creativity is crucial to interpreting phenomena, that means:
- Looking
- Understanding
- Framing in an original way The problem. The pillars of the CPS in the problem space of the double diamond are: empathy and reframing → the bigger the problem space, the bigger the solution, that's because in the problem space the framing or re-framing happens and this enables the creation of innovative solutions.
- Being human centered : It’s the capability to put yourself in the shoes of the user that you will serve, immersing in his context and wearing his glasses. This is crucial in the interviewing phase where we have to accept what the user will tell us and be able to move the discussion across the topics we want to explore.
- Re-framing : is the ability to put the problem in another perspective → Reframing is a search and recombination process that could be nurtured by creative logic. A Problem is the cognitive representation that you will give to a set of signals that exist and you can retrieve. Means to have a problem (the elevator is slow) and understand the real why of the problem and reframe it (Waiting the elevator is annoying).
- Abductive thinking : we’ll see
- Critical thinking , judgment and decision making : are crucial in DT because we are not only based on data but instead it’s crucial the interpretation of the input
Design Council
It is a sort of a revised version of the double conceived by the design Council in UK.
IDEO
It is a model that was purely conceived by IDEO. It collects information by the market in order to be inspired in ideating a potential solution. The implementation is similar to the prototyping approach. It doesn't underline the reframing phase that is at the core of the creative problem solving.
Stanford design school
- This is the framework we are going to use in this course.
- The conceptual steps are the same as before but shaped in different ways.
- The Divergent - Convergent dynamics of the double diamond is shown by the up and down moves
- Let's see their general characteristics and then we will analyze each step in detail:
- Empathize : it aims to collect signs, put you in the reality and frame it initially. It's mainly based on analytical thinking.
- Define : based on your own perspective, originally interpret the information you got (which are available to everybody) → reframe the problem. It's based on intuitive thinking.
- Ideate : ideate the embryonic solution based on the reframed problem, in this case the creativity is used in a traditional way, to ideate original solutions.
- Prototype : prototypes are tools to learn, the idea is to make Hp and validate them. So the goal is not to validate what you already know is ok, instead is related to the features you're not sure about.
- Test : test the prototype and refine it
Design thinking process
In the empathize phases we analyse the users to understand their needs and problems. We put ourselves in the shoes of the customer to understand what they really need. The key questions are:
- what: referred to when you feel the other person feelings
- why: referred to discover why people react in a certain way with the product/service provided
- how: without judgment, with curiosity and optimistically The empathize has 3 different activities:
- Exploring It aims to understand the context in which we are working. To do so we look for stories and weak signals to watch the problems under different viewpoints: ○ We perform a DESK RESEARCH about our focal company to interpret products and services. ○ We broaden our scope looking at the competitors, highlighting what are the differences and similarities ○ We look at brands that work in other fields but in some way related to ours ○ Finally we look at the cultural environment for example looking at the brands that our target loves or the lifestyle they appreciate ⇒ we want to: ○ Interpret product and services: to map the context ○ Understand dominant (As is) and emerging (to BE) values: to identify opportunities and threats ○ Decode the cultural artifacts: popular advertising such a movie TV, series
- Users in love with other brands are useful to identify the weaknesses of your company There are different types of needs : ○ Explicit → what people say, users are aware of them ⇒ interviews ○ Observable, hidden needs → people don't know to have them but they show them through their behaviours ⇒ ethnography ○ Tacit & Latent → give to the people the possibility to create their own products by co-creation Focusing on the phases: ○ Knowing : Aims at identifying explicit needs, by interviews or questionnaires. The interview is usually the first step, qualitative and has to be characterized by an emphatic design, that means create a path of questions starting from a warm up and ending with a relax. After an analysis of the data is possible to create a questionnaire to gain quantitative data. In this way it is possible to have on the one hand the richness coming from the qualitative interviews, and the robustness coming from the quantitative survey. Tips:
- Define the template of users.
- Think about demographics
- Develop an interview guide but still being flexible
- Rely on memorable experiences that they had
- Try to find peaks and not the average experience ○ Immersing: Aims at identifying observable needs of users. The most used is the ethnography, an observation of the user while he's interacting with the product in the place and context of usage ex recording the screen while using the app. The netnography adapts ethnography to internet, is the observations of behaviour through digital channels ex digital touchpoints of the brand, blogs, social, influencers
- Define While the empathize phase is based on information available to everybody, in the define the team viewpoint has to emerge to define the problem you want to tackle. The ability to define the problem will lead the team to build a valuable solution:
- What? → construct a viewpoint, reframing the problem based on the users needs
- How? → understand users, needs and experience articulating insights and finally reframe the problem into a new viewpoint It is composed by 3 moments: Classifying , Framing , Reframing
Classify:
We have a lot of qualitative and quantitative data on customer behaviour and we have to classify them. There are 3 ways: ● Needs area: cluster data, based on common attributes and patterns. Identify the common and inspiring needs to highlight needs and find the key ones.
● Kano model: in this way we classify needs according to the relevance they have to the users: baseline, must have, people expect them and if they're not in place they'll be upset. Linear, the more the better. Delighted, unexpected features that if are in place delight the customer ● Journey map: classify the needs along the customer journey that the user goes through when using the product. This step does not imply any interpretation yet, it is a description of what you got.
Framing:
Cutting the information focusing on the most relevant and recognizing the main relationships between them adding in the frame of the problem statement only the independent ones. So it's a matter of cutting out and recognizing the main relationship in the frame. Then 3 steps: 1 cut out 2 recognize relationships 3 frame
- More in deep Farming means interpret and consequently give a reason why to the needs.
- The problem statement is: a single sentence that defines the issue to be tackled and the perspective from which it is perceived (e.g. who is experiencing the problem) and it identifies the gap between the current state (i.e. the problem) and the desired state (i.e. the goal) of a process or product. In the definition of the problem is fundamental to recognize the motivation behind the issue → it is the step that makes you moving from the description of the data collected to the interpretation.
- Reframing: The reframing is a search and recombination process, it requires to interpret needs in order to derive insights attempting to identify what makes the problem so hard to solve. To do so the idea is to search for signals, recombine them in an original way to creatively frame the problem you are addressing. → reframing is not just the analysis of what you got, but it's the interpretation that you can give to the information that you collected For example the signals to search while reframing are the contrasting evidences between the interviews, they can allow you to creatively reframe the problem that you are addressing. What is the difference between Needs and Insights?
- Needs : are human physical and emotional necessities that you can grasp from reality, under our point of view opportunities to exploit.
- Insights : are your interpretations of data, observations and needs to frame the solution space → interpretation of the reasons why that lead to a need. The definition of the insights starts in the interviews asking “why?” after crucial statements. They are the first attempt to move from the problem space to the solution space: you can envision the kind of direction you should take in order to solve the problem that you are facing To better understand the difference here we can see the example of a doctor: The patient’ symptoms can be compared to the needs, the doctor’s diagnosis is the capability to
- Abduction: Is inference guessing the law according to which a particular surprising fact (clue) is a result. In the case of abduction, we are not talking about emerging trends (as in the case of induction), we are not talking about established phenomena (as in the case of deduction) but we are talking about the few interesting, strange, surprising clues, that stimulate us in guessing and formulating hypotheses that are not aligned with the reality we're used to and rely on what we would like the future will be. In abduction you cannot rely on past events, and it is the most used and powerful reasoning in reframing. Abduction is what it might be. They can rely on an interesting statement coming from the interviews. To better understand the difference between them, here some examples: Forrest gump: Deduction: the girl that suggests Forest to run is the theorist, run to avoid problems is a so strong theory that Forest applied it for his whole life. Induction: Forrest while running as always goes through a football chart and makes the team win, so empirically we can see that running can also be helpful in different fields. Even if the theory is not saying that we can observe this fact. Abduction: People start to be inspired thanks to Forrest's running, we do not have a trend yet, but we can predict what will be the future. Umberto Eco: Abduction is the capability to imagine what could happen in the future according to what we would like that happened. Sherlock Holmes’ reasoning → Abduction Dr. Watson’s reasoning → Induction
- Associative Thinking: Associative Thinking is the capability to originally frame the problem that you're addressing associating it with far examples that could allow you to differently look at the reality. The associative thinking can be performed in 3 different ways:
- Serendipity : discover something by chance while searching for something else.
- Similarity : combination of concepts which may appear remote but share some similarities.
- Mediation : process by which two completely remote elements are combined using a mediatory concept that has links to both the initial elements. The 2 most commonly applicable ones are the similarity and the mediation, because in these cases we have to look for something that is far from the context but in some way related to it and leverage on it to interpret and reframe the problem. An useful tool to perform these 2 types of thinking are metaphors: making reference to something by the meaning of something else
- Speculative Thinking: It is a form of imaginative construction, aimed at contemplating desirable futures. The “what if” questions allow us to spark creativity in looking at the problem, broadening the scope and trying to facing the biggest issues in the society. The speculative thinking is sometimes presented in contrast with design thinking, for two reasons:
- Time horizont: Design thinking is focused on solving a problem right now, while speculative thinking looks at the long term
- The focus: Design thinking is user centered while speculative thinking looks a the implication on the whole society and not only one the users Ex: “Bandersnatch” (black mirror) is a good example of speculative thinking, considering the fact that they create different story trajectories, according to a set of what if questions.
The “How Might We” questions
The “How Might We” questions are a tool that moves from the problem space to the solution one. They are not so broad to the point that they are not enlightening any kind of direction, but they are not so narrow, that they are already describing a single solution that you can deliver. There are 3 components in the question:
- The User profile , that is the persona you’re addressing
- The Need , identified in the emphasize phase
- The Insight , the reasoning why the need is important for the user There are 3 steps to develop the questions:
- Rephrase : look at your insights and try to transform into questions starting with 'how might we'
Empowering of Design Thinking through
Digital Technologies
When we talk about the combination of Design Thinking and Digital technologies we have the dichotomous view as a redundant concept iterepretated under different perspectives. The technologies can be categorized in:
- Technologies related to data: collection and analysis of big data
- Technologies related to the visualization: embodiment of the solution into objects, here we have 2 categories: - Extended reality: everything connected to the virtual/mixed reality - Additive manufacturing: 3D print solution enabling to visualize potential products The relation between Design Thinking and Digital technologies can be seen under 2 perspectives as well:
- Design Thinking Through Digital technologies : the tech together with the 4 kinds of design thinking can empower (improve) the process with better scope and innovative solution.
- Design technologies Through Digital Thinking : making the company more digital oriented thanks to a digital thinking process. The relation between Design Thinking and Digital technologies is called ambidextrous thinking :
- on one side, we have to empower ourselves in exploit digital tools that can enhance our abilities to generate ideas and select the most promising ones
- on the other side we need to nurture our capability to critically reflect on the data we receive and in framing the problem.
FOCUSING ON DATA & AI
The design thinking can be supported both in the interpretation of data through AI and providing unexpected associations giving you more solutions not imaginable before AI. You can adopt digital technologies and AI in a stronger or in a weak perspective: strong perspective is when you are able to leverage AI to do something more available; AI is adopted in a weak way, when in reality technology is just a substitute of the humans and it is not proposing any kind of value
FOCUSING ON IOT
The view is that sensors, technologies will lead us to new interpretations about the way we live in our world.
On the other hand, technology brings us a lot of opportunities and design thinking might help us in finding these kinds of opportunities and use these in order to extend the reality because technology is giving us more power. So summing up changing the point of view over technology puting at the center the people allows:
- To move from Profiling to emphasizing thanks to big data
- From analysing to interpreting thanks to AI
- From proofing (provare) to experimenting thank to IOT
5 Rules to envision the best application of digital
technologies
There are 5 rules to support in projects to envision the best application of digital technologies:
- Prepare for Evolving User Actions : try to envision many possibilities of interaction with the digital tech and let people express the way they prefer to use it - Leverage What You Already Know : when you are introducing new technologies in order to valorize them, don't reinvent the wheel. If you know that people interact with the ecommerce by putting objects in a shopping cart, don't think for a second to take out the shopping cart. - Create Contextual Experiences : let people be really immersed in an environment that allows them to really get in contact with the value of the digital technologies that they are proposing - Account for Premeditated Actions : you need already to know what are the kind of action in interaction that you are envisioning for that kind of technologies
- Connect People : try to really allow people to connect and not just to jeopardize the social dimension, try to really understand what is valuable for people in the current situation that you are designing for connecting them with the solution.
Exploring new new opportunities with tech
Lets now see a model related to the adoption of a technology and how you can explore new opportunities with that technology.
- Exploring the technology uniqueness You start from understanding what the technology is and what it does (technology is the union of a sensor and an actuator. The sensor takes input and actuator gives outputs) (for example the considered technology takes light in input and makes vibration in output)
- Understanding the customer experience Then you understand the customer experience with that technology, so what the customer does using that technology. (if for example is a technology that takes light in input and makes vibration in output, you have to understand which experience it can give to the customer)
- Picturing the application space Then you try to enlarge your vision and picture which can be different application field in that technology can work well. So leveraging on its features, in which field it can be
Lecture 4 - MDIP
Design Sprint
Solving Big Problems in Just Five Days
The design sprint aims to solve big problems in just 5 days and is a methodology that companies more and more are embracing to have different perspectives over design thinking and digital transformation. It’s linked with second model of DT SE that was born with the shift of DT towards a more agile approach from 2001. Design Sprint was created by Google venture (Knapp).The shift was stimulated by the fact that nowadays we live a continuous transformation and creation of new opportunities thanks to techs. In this context, CPS is not efficient in terms of time to generate solution. Now we need to be fast in adopting new solutions!
What is?
An innovation process that allow to:
create → test → understand something
→ Double perspective between timing (5 days) and the aim we want to
reach
Design Sprint brings you from an idea to a test in 5 days.
It’s similar to Agile approach but not so overlapping!
Premises
What is the evolution of the methodology that brought to Design Sprint?
90s:Stage Gate: innovation as a sequential process: you do a phase and
then it is freezed in a “gate” for the following steps
2001 : Agile Manifesto: iterative loop that allows you to move from an
initial idea to the final product flexibility and agile methodologies
introduced (opposite of before)
2016:Design Sprint: merge 2 previous steps (stages + iterations) to
support companies in being faster, agile in responding to uncertainty and
to the challenge that companies are facing!
what is the new perspective over innovation? → the user perspective
from CPS approach: understand and map needs → propose solution
to focus on the execution: understand what customers want to do with our
products
understand customers in terms of what they want to do with the kind of
product that you're proposing to them
job to be done paradigm = “identify poorly performed “jobs” in customers’ lives and
then design solutions around them” Ex. you buy a laptop, for doing something, that's the job to be done by that computer; you buy a driller to make holes in the wall, because that's the job that it needs to do.
The focus is EXECUTION and EXPERIMENTATIONS : EXECUTION= what
you have to deliver to users to allow them to accomplish their tasks (what
is valuable for them).
BUT executions per se is useless, it must be coupled with
experimentation. Indeed executions make sense only if :
-execution intended as ability to learn from experimentation (to test
hypothesis)
- you realize that what it's really valuable is the process: search/found
alternatives or opportunities + learning from experimentation→ to gain
know how , gain knowledge upon the problem space and upon the
product.
THAT’S WHY lean startup (learn-measure-learn) and Design Sprint share
the same mantra: EXECUTION “final goal is not the final product but the
learning experience”
What are the 2 different mindsets that come together in The Startup Way?
Continuous innovation: idea is the classical one of CPS → iterate
continuously to foster innovation
Continuous transformation: perspective is more related to the
entrepreneurial management: the mindset of the people, the culture, the
capability to catch opportunities have to evolve continuously in the
organization
They should be intertwined to approach innovation!
TO EMBRACE Design Sprint: Organisations need to be organize in a more flexible way:
business units have to be independent one each other: able to innovate so to experiment, fail and jump from one initiative to another and also the culture has to be oriented to experimentation.
Lean startup
The connection between Design Sprint and lean startup is in the concept of execution: in both of them, it is necessary to be able to learn from the experimentation , running experiments that allow to test in each moment the vision delivered. The difference instead is the aim: lean startup is focused on reducing the financial investments needed while Design Sprint on the value delivered to market and users.
Design Thinking (2.1) as Sprint Execution
The CPS has not a defined time horizon in terms of a final solution and this is something that cannot be acceptable in the fast environment we live in. Design Sprint introduced the capability to rapidly change the perspective and find a solution in an acceptable time. A concrete application of this shift is in the entrepreneurial world, where startups are moving from the Lean Startup to the Startup Way. In the Startup way environment there are two different mindsets that are coming together:
- Continuous innovation: where the idea is the classical one of CPS, that aims to iterate continuously over needs to bring up different initiatives.
- Continuous transformation: where the perspective is more related to the entrepreneurial management: the mindset of the people, the culture, the capability to catch opportunities have to evolve continuously
Accelerating the innovation process through experimentation
Going on with this dichotomous view between Design Sprint and Startup Way we have already stated above that the mantra is execution as ability to learn from experimentation. How to embrace this mantra? Organisations need to organize in a more flexible way: business units have to be independent one each other: able to innovate so to experiment, fail and jump from one initiative to another and also the culture has to be oriented to experimentation. Ex. Amazon: The success is measured in experiments/year, and the culture is changed because the importance given to the experiments is high, teams really need to learn from them. An example of product is Amazon Fire Phone, they run this experiment to learn things about the customers - environment and they leveraged this knowledge to launch Alexa 🡪there is a shift, they changed from one solution to another validating hypothesis
Design Sprint (by Google)
The Design Sprint is a methodology invented by Google. It has 3 main pillars:
- It is an experimental approach (aim) that lasts five days and aims to answer the sprint questions through design, MVP and testing.
- As seen the most important thing when doing execution is learning (goal), Design Sprint is a learning process through which to learn if there is a value behind an intuition.
- The orientation of the process is to validate the hypothesis (the sprint questions), save it if there is a value (economical or human) or reject if there is no value
Design Sprint: Set the stage
First of all you need to set the boundaries of action. Design Sprint provides a checklist of things that we should do:
- The challenge Something that you should do. What is your sprint question? Why is it important? What you want to go deeper in?
- Team How should you build up the team?
- Time and Space What are the activities that are dedicated?
- Supplies What are the supplies and the elements that you might consider?
The challenge
The design sprint methodology works at its best when the stake of the challenge is really high, so the team has to set a really challenging challenge. This is because in just 5 days it is possible to only grasp the surface and the most relevant aspects of the solution and then you cannot be too narrow. The challenge is the most crucial moment of the whole design sprint, picking the right challenge, understanding the right opportunity, being able to find the right elements are crucial activities considering also the fact the sprint requires investments.
Team
There are different roles in the team:
- Facilitator: Is positioned outside the team and support the good succeed of the project
- Decider: Is the ones who is in charge of support and envision the team coming up with the final solution
- Different backgrounds teammates
- Troublemaker: The teammate that keep asking why questions, he allows the team to not jump to conclusions and go more in the details To set the stage there are some norms to follow both co located and remote:
- being on-time (if someone is missing the others have to consider this and then are constrained)
