innovation playground Idris Mootee

The Harvard Graduate School of Design "Design Thinking for Creativity and Business Innovation" Seminar Is Officially Open For Registration. Spaces Are Limited.

I finally have started on designing for the new executive program for the Harvard Graduate School of Design - Design Thinking for Creativity and Business Innovation. I have been getting a lot of request to speak on this topic and beyond curiosity, many are interested to see how they can apply these concepts not in product development or design but in complex problem solving. After three years of practive devopment and finally put them all together in one seminar. Plan to take this to Europe and Asia later in the year. This is what powers a Senior Designer/Desigh Thinker/Creative Professional to gain a seat in board level stragetic discussions.

The seminar allows participants to learn how to apply the framework and cognitive processes of Design Thinking to connect with your own creativity, frame specific problems, generate innovative ideas, and convert those ideas into tangible business opportunities. In terms of pedagogy, Design Thinking is a lot more than just a human-centered, rapid prototyping design methods, in fact Design Thinking should be less about design, more about thinking.

The program is designed to show how Design Thinking are used by a remarkably diverse range of global organizations across all industry sectors in creating tangibility in insights, foresights, meanings and strategies. Design Thinking is gaining popularity for many reasons. Mainly corporations are facing crises on several fronts and not only from the obvious such as low cost competition, disruptive technologies, economic sustainability, and social development.

Business executives,non-profit and government leaders are also experiencing a profound crisis of trust and legitimacy and all these factors have triggered a loss of confidence in traditional ways of planning and doing things. The very core of many management theories are being questioned and “management” is close to a point of failure. These leaders are looking to find something new to grasp onto in order to make sense of what’s going on and are looking to organize for a future of unprecedented uncertainties. Large established institutions have been battered by system level economic failure, extreme uncertainties, and the failure of traditional forms of leadership and management. These wounds have left businesses gazing hopefully towards design thinking as a new management wonder drug that will help them make sense of what is going on and secure their next big bonus or promotion.

Design Thinking comes just-in-time. Design thinking is bringing a refreshed, revitalized, and rejuvenated approach to management and strategic thinking- however, design thinking is far from a cure-all. You can register here for The Design Thinking for Creativity and Business Innovation Program, please make sure you check if you qualify for affiliate discount. It will held at the Harvard Club in Newe York City third week of May.

This is for executives (both creative and management professionals) who wish to learn how to apply Design Thinking methods beyond the noise and cliché and many of which are myths that are simply not true. It is my pleasure to have Dr. Scott Robiner (Assistant Professor at the School of Design Strategies at Parsons and holds a Doctorate and Master Degree in Design from Harvard Graduate School of Design) as a guest speaker. He brings his perspectives of Design Thinking from a cross-discipline designer perspective and will faciliate an interesting dialogue among participants.

More next few days. Need to board a plane to Frankfurt.

Seven Steps To Better Brainstorming. Or May Be There Are More. Is Brainstorming The Right Word?

Let’s start with this…this is not the best title. I really don’t like the word "brainstorming." It means a group of people getting together to generate a lot of deas for the solution of a problem. In 1953 Alex Faickney Osborn popularized the method in his book called Applied Imagination, he proposed that groups could double their creative output with brainstorming. Fully the book title is called Applied Imagination, which is very appropriate, and the trick is on the “Applied” part.

The authors of BRAINSTEERING by Kevin P. Coyne and Shawn T. Coyne pointed out the problem with brainstorming today is a bunch of people selected (for technical or political reasons) and put together in a room and an external moderator asking people to think outside the box. Traditional brainstorming is fast, furious, and ultimately shallow which I am in full agreement. By taking a more well planned approach can get better outcome from their ideas/solutions generating workshops investments.

I’ve seen how many moderators have no ideas of how large organization functions or any training on advanced group problem solving techniques, design thinking concepts and tools or system thinking or sense-making, and that’s usually a recipe for failure.

The McKinsey Quarterly article “Seven steps to better brainstorming,” taken from the author’s new book BRAINSTEERING, attempts to address some of these issues. They called it “Brainsteering,” it may be another buzzword but anything is better than brainstorming.  Here are their key recommendations from the authors and I’ve added my comments for readers’ considerations:

• Know Your Organization’s Decision-Making Criteria - Managers hoping to spark creative thinking in their teams should therefore start by understanding (and in some cases shaping) the real criteria the company will use to make decisions about the resulting ideas. Are there any absolute restrictions or limitations, for example?

My advice is this may be appropriate in some instances, generally speaking it puts way too much constrains on the creative process. For those of who have worked in large organizations, we know how difficult and almost impossible to know the criteria for decisions making. It is a political process as well as a realization process and it is not what is written down in any company’s operating manual. I think this is unrealistic.  Plus the fact that the change in external environment can quickly change the risks appetite of senior executives and any criteria we impose may be not valid at all. I would say ignore this one.

• Ask The Right Questions - Decades of academic research shows that traditional, loosely structured brainstorming techniques (“Go for quantity—the greater the number of ideas, the greater the likelihood of winners!”) are inferior to approaches that provide more structure. Build your workshop around a series of “right questions” that your team will explore in small groups during a series of idea generation sessions. The trick is to identify questions with two characteristics. First, they should force your participants to take a new and unfamiliar perspective.

I would say this is the number one most important part in any creative exercise.  How we practice this at Idea Couture is we apply Design Thinking techniques in helping them to frame and identify the issues, better framing means new perspectives and better solutions. There is a lot of science and art in doing this. We use visual sense making, customer journey mapping, strategic foresight scenarios and other 5 or 6 techniques to get the job done.

Strategic framing can involve using many different lenses, and one example would be time. Time could be a frame of reference. Whether we are talking about past, present, and future. Younger people frames the world in optimistic terms where mature people are realistic as they come to terms with many things in life. An organization’s past history carry forward certain orthodoxies that also limit how they see things. 

• Choose The Right People - They suggest only picking people who can answer the questions you’re asking. As obvious as these sounds, it’s not what happens in many traditional brainstorming sessions, where participants are often chosen with less regard for their specific knowledge than for their prominence on the org chart.

I understand the authors’ point, but it is about balance. I don’t think we can ignore the fact that decision-making in large organizational setting is always a political process. We need a balance of domain knowledge, outsider perspectives, and project stakeholders in order to get momentum. This is a necessary evil. You cannot ignore people who have a prominent voice in an organization and part of the power circle. That’s life.

• Divide and conquer - When assign people to subgroups, it’s important to isolate “idea crushers” in their own subgroup. These people are otherwise suitable for the workshop but, intentionally or not; prevent others from suggesting good ideas. They come in three varieties: bosses, “big mouths,” and subject matter experts. The boss’s presence, which often makes people hesitant to express unproven ideas, is particularly damaging if participants span multiple organizational levels. Big mouths take up air time, intimidate the less confident, and give everyone else an excuse to be lazy. Subject matter experts can squelch new ideas because everyone defers to their presumed superior wisdom, even if they are biased or have incomplete knowledge of the issue at hand.

The authors have a lot of good suggestions here about carefully picking the people and assign them to the group and managing "big mouths" is a very good one. This requires a little bit of advance planning but our experiences says it is an important step that we should not ignore.  Yes, brainstorming needs strategic planning.

One big big one the authors have missed is the role of social technologies play in the idea generation and management value chain. This has a big implications on how ideas are collected, socialized and activated. Ideas are far better when they are built on top of one another, at that point, you can't even chase it back to where the idea was originated from. That’s another post, next week perhaps.

 

Cisco Did The Right Thing Resetting Their Focus. Also The Right Time To Rethink Their White Space.

The news today about Cisco decided to get rid of the Flip video business came as no surprise to me. When I first heard that Cisco was purchasing Pure Digital (maker of the flash-based camera Flip) I was wondering what was the strategic logic behind it. 

Not sure how much $590 million paid could be recovered. Looking back, it was not difficult to play out thescenario that HD video feature would eventually be equipped in every smart phone, point and shoot camera and even watch and even keychain. Why Cisco wanted that company? What were they planning to do with it? John Chamber’s decision to get rid of that business was a very smart one. There is nothing worth keeping and it brings up the question of whether it was a white space move or unrelated and unstrategic move?

This is where the art and science of white space mapping and analysis that can be applied to help making these decisions. People are concerned about the unknowns of white space because they lack the tools to help them to seewhat conclusions can be drawn. The two extremes are:

1. No one wants to take any risks and naturally retreate to their core and reject anything that does not belong to the core. Deciding what's the core is an art and then deciding what's considered adjacencies is another art. Do we look at the core from competencies, access, brand or assets?
2. They simply look at pockets of high growth markets and quickly point to it and say we need to move into that business. It is never that simple and people are not looking at strategically enough and these acquisitions are often based on false logic and most of all missing foresights. This is what strategic foresights is key when making acquisitions to compete for the future.

Case in point, was Intel’s acquisition of the Infineon Technologies AG Wireless Solutions business strategic? What foresight was the decision based upon? WLS is a leading provider of cellular platforms to top-tier makers, and forms part of Intel’s strategy to accelerate the always-connected computing platforms that span a variety of device and market segments, including laptops, cars, smart phones, tablets and smart TVs. It is move for Intel to secure their competitive position in the continuously proliferation of connected devices including device category that has yet to be invented. Complimentary assets, distinct capabilities and growth potential are all part of the logic. That makes perfect sense.

Back to Cisco, I am guessing the logic for them was to expand into media-enabled consumer lifestyle and to capture the consumer market transition from photo to video sharing and social networking. But why do we think that the video camera needs to be standing alone device?  The low end of video is the most vulnerable and before we know the Flip camera is a $30 promotion gift. And the Wi-Fi enabled memory card, still not hitting critical mass, can network enabled any camera. Why a Flip?

It is easy to say Cisco can develop a next generation of consumer video gadgets?  You need to first answer the question of what and why? Even combined with Linksys and other consumer products, it still lacks a strong customer value proposition for Cisco consumer business.  Cisco made the right move cutting their losses.  I think they should continue to focus on enterprise and there are plenty of attractive white spaces around it. It is time to redefine the core and reexamine the white space.

 

There's Gotta Be Easier And Cooler Ways To Transfer Files Between Devices. A Lot Of People Are Working On It.

When people talk about innovation generally people are quick to refer to something completely new. The question is how many new ideas are really new? Or recanation of old ideas or new applications of old ideas? Or just new ways to package old ideas? It is not uncommon that multiple companies or people are working on the same new idea but no one knows each other are working on the same thing?

So many people are working on innovative ways to send and receive files over a wireless network which is done through Bluetooth or infrared or whatever. Some engineers are playing with the idea of using the optical spectrum that offers better security and higher transfer rates. Engineers from Pennsylvania State University have now succeeded in moving data outside the usual line of sight restrictions at speeds of over one gigabit per second, more than double the max speed available today.

The engineers have developed a system where a high-powered laser diode transmits data by converting electricity into infrared light, which then bounces off any walls and surfaces before being received by an avalanche photo diode, where it's converted back into electricity and translated into usable data. Using it in a room with no windows will ensure that any transmitted signals do not escape and cannot be intercepted or less interferences. Not sure how many rooms are completely closed with no windows.

One creative application could be the "wireless projection of HD television. Currently, two high definition broadcasts exceed the bandwidth of any radio system, but with a 1.6 gigabit per second gigabit system, two HD channels could be broadcast," according to Professor of Electrical Engineering Mohshen Kavehrad.

At Idea Couture we’ve been playing with the idea for more than 18 months exploring new ways to transfer files between devices using simple touch gestures. We called it “Touch-and-Send”. Obviously there must have been dozens of start-ups or labs working on solving file transfer problems or creative ways to do that using similar approach. Currently there is no simple way to move things, plugging into the USB is still the simplest way and requires no set up. 

But a new research project at MIT called Sparsh is also working to fix the file transfer problem. Sparsh (Hindi word for "touch") is a virtual cloud-based clipboard where any data, like a phone number or photograph, can temporarily live until it's "pasted" to another device. It is kind of like the mailroom.

To make it work, both devices need to be Sparsh-enabled and the person touches data on a device, such as a picture or a music file can be sent through the cloud and receive by another device. Right now, Sparsh is at a concept satge at MIT's Media Research Lab. Very exciting idea indeed.

Expect to see many more innovations enabled by the cloud. The sky is the limit.

Design Thinking Is Failed Experiment? How Can That Be Because The Experiments Have Barely Started? Bruce, Not Too Fast!

This is my response to Bruce Nussbaum’s lastest Fast Company’s blog declaring “Design Thinking” is over and that he is moving on to something new. He is calling it "Creative Quotient" which is really his new book, I was wondering why he would make that statement. People hardly fully understand what Design Thinking is, now he wants to introduce another idea. Not too fast! I was writing this while waiting for the airport to clear as President Obama Air Force One was there and they closed down the runway.

Bruce writes “The decade of Design Thinking is ending and I, for one, am moving on to another conceptual framework: Creative Intelligence, or CQ. I am writing a book about Creative Intelligence, due out from Harper Collins in fall 2012…...”

He can move on but for sure but not me (Sorry Bruce, I really can't agree with you on this one.)  Although there is some truth there about consultants quick to turn any ideas or practices into ‘processes’ that companies can buy out of a box and consultants can help them implement in 60 days. Most of the time they don’t even know what they are doing. Even if they do, they often ignore the soft side with an over emphasis on the hard side. On that note, the comment is equally true if apply to any practices. Processes are important and that’s how large organizations function, it is easy to say let’s improve our creative quotient throughout the organizations and we will be fine. For me, Design Thinking is much getting more solid that ever as we develop them further into business practices and if fully integrated in the organization culture decision-making and support toolkit, it can be very powerful.

On the other hand, “Creative Quotient” is like saying let’s is more creative. Sometimes I wish I could detach the word ‘creative’ from ‘design thinking.’ I know I cannot, but design thinking is not all above creativity. There is a lot more than being creative. When Bruce suggested that the success rate for design thinking processes was very low. I am not sure he can make that statement. It is like saying the success rate for strategic thinking processes was very low. We need to look at the maturity lifecycle of how it is implemented and to what extend it is embraced my organizations and well as aligned with the company’s business strategies. It is large small change effort, not a quick process redesign. Let’s wait for at least five to eight years to make that conclusion. A case in point, it took the academics and the business community more than 25 years before someone publicly declared the “Death of Strategic Planning”.

The increased adoption of multidisciplinary approaches to business problem solving and including the application of “Design Thinking” (but not exclusively) helps organizations fill a critical and often over looked knowledge gaps and solve some of information deficiencies. Problem. By combining the two organizations establish more comprehensive and ultimately competitive bodies of actionable knowledge and insights that reflect and avoid from pitfalls of linear strategic planning. This approach does not discount or diminish the value of traditional business methods in problem solving– rather – by leveraging the best qualities of both business and design thinking- it establishes a more sensitive, powerful and potent analytical tool and resulting in a more holistic perspective and learning experience that is meaningful, valid and agile.

"Design Thinking" is here to stay. “Design Thinking” allows us to provide a systemic response to the challenges that we all face. Not designing bandages or tactics that ultimately create more problems than they are designed to solve. “Design Thinking” brings empathy into the core of strategy making and allows rapid decision-makings with insufficient data, which is where most people structure with in innovation.

“Design Thinking” also has a positive effect on changing organizational culture – reveals and introduces new behaviors and challenges people to communicate and learn in new ways – while empowering them (through the adoption of tools, techniques, and culture) to think differently. But this is NOT the “Design Thinking” they teach in design schools. So don’t be confused.

The world of MBAs likes the quantitative assurance even though they know it is just a false sense of confidence. Microsoft Excel is only marginally more accurate than a crystal ball or tarot cards. I’ve seen many smart MBAs struggle with innovation be in the process or the problem identification and solving approach and most of all they don’t understand very core values of design thinking. This is why innovation is so hard for management consultants. Equally it is hard for the designers waving their banners saying ‘design thiking here’ and what they are selling is raw creativity or cute ideas or prety designs. Not solutions to wicked problems in an increasing complex world. We have enough buzzwords, there’s no need to introduce a new one. Let’s stick with “Design Thinking” for now.

Idea Couture's Planned IPO Is Now Official.

Newswire - Idea Couture's planned $150 million initial public offering is being greeted favorably on Wall Street and could help buoy the stocks of other innovation consulting and services firms, according to industry watchers.

"Stock prices in this sector were up fairly dramatically today, and I think it's primarily related to the news of the Idea Couture filing," says an analyst with S.S.D.D., an investment advisory firm in San Francisco.

“As Idea Couture goes public, it will remind investors that this is still an early stage in the development of this type of firms within the consulting service industry and the firm has created a lot of value over the last four years,” he adds. "What this has done is reinvigorate interest in the sector."

The announcement had been widely anticipated, and there were rumours that Idea Couture will merge with Fahrenheit 212 before filing an IPO. Both firms were considered top players in the space and together becomes the market leader. An attempt to contact the CEO of Fahrenheit 212 but they did not return calls.

Insiders says the IPO will give Idea Couture stock currency with which to do deals and build up its innovation organization design business, making the innovation consulting firm more of a competitor to more traditional consulting firms such as Monitor or IBM (NYSE:IBM) Global Services.

The timing of Idea Couture's offering remains uncertain. The innovation firm could wait later in the year in hopes of riding an upturn in the market. The market is anticipating a successful offering that pave the way for further acquisition as the company continues its international expansion.

Happy April 1st. Now let’s get back to work. Stop dreaming.