Observation 014 - Why Design Thinking Can Save Large Companies

Photo Copyright - https://www.internetreputation.com/

The Background:

Design Thinking is important to large scale companies because most have lost their roots in user centered problem solving.

Almost every company begins with the understanding that there is a user problem and find a solution to that problem. Examples of large companies that were started based on a user need are Gerber Products Company and Ford Motor Company. Dorothy Gerber, having to deal with the difficulties of creating strained foods for her baby, realized others may have the same problem and using her husband’s canning company created a multi-billion dollar market. Henry Ford, realizing that the middle class would want automobile transportation, developed a streamlined manufacturing system that brought the car to the masses.

So why do large companies have such a hard time with Design Thinking? Let us go through the process of company development. As stated above, when a company starts it is usually based around a user problem. At this point the company is run by a individual or small group that understands the user problem and have made it their goal to solve it.

As a company grows the people hired by the company are usually brought in for their specific business skills and become centered on the needs of the company and not the focus of solving user problems. Often MBA’s are brought in to be the highest level leaders and their focus, from training is to be focused on the well being of the company, as a financial entity and user needs fall completely off the radar. Valuation of the company, being stock price, capital structure, the prospect of future earnings, and the market value of its assets, takes center stage and at this point corporate problems take center stage over user problems. Another problem is that companies focus on what they can produce, based on past history, versus being able to pivot to a new set of solutions based on user needs. There is one example where this has not happened and that is IBM. IBM moved from analytical to digital computing, not a huge pivot but still a pivot. Then in this century the longtime hardware focused company pivoted to artificial intelligence and information services.

How Design Thinking can help:

If understood as a method of transforming a company, instead of just a way to create new services, Design Thinking can help companies return to their roots by transforming the inward looking business problems to the outward looking user problems. Now I am going to say something that will sound like an oxymoron in light of the previous sentence. Large companies need to use Design Thinking to change their internal processes from compliance and company value based to employee value based initiatives. I am sure all employees would like to see the company doing things to solve their problems rather than making them spend time on things that they feel add no value. Imagine using Design Thinking in Human Resources to find employee based solutions. Wow would not that be a change! During this process Design Thinking could also be used to become more user centered around user needs, but the company culture must change if the solutions can be based on what is needed and not “what we do well now”. It also requires leadership to see that value, more easily comes from solving user needs rather that worrying about what Wall Street thinks of you.

I am not saying this is not a seismic shift and would not be easy, but it is much easier, in the long term for the business’s health. And there are a few examples out there of large companies running in this manner. The obvious one is Apple, under Steve Jobs. That said, of course he was the founder who always kept user problems as his compass, so maybe there are not so many examples.

One can only hope Design Thinking will truly embed into large companies. It will take brave people at all levels of the organization as well as Design Thinking experts who can facilitate and create the tools needed for these brave individuals. Let us go forward by bringing these companies back to their roots.

Three great external articles as follow up:

Harvard Business Review - It’s Time to Replace the Public Corporation - https://hbr.org/2021/01/its-time-to-replace-the-public-corporation

Harvard Business Review - The Scary Truth About Corporate Survival – https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-scary-truth-about-corporate-survival

Harvard Business Review - The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership - https://hbr.org/2017/05/the-error-at-the-heart-of-corporate-leadership

Observation 010 - Project Managers Should Love Design Thinking

Last year I overheard a Project Management Institute webinar on the problems that project managers encounter. Not that this is usually on my playlist, it is because my domestic partner,  was listening to a string of these types webinars to keep her certification up to date. At the time I thought about some of the Design Thinking (DT) workshops I was holding and how they solved some of the problems I heard mentioned in the webinar.

First I did some searches into top problems project managers have. I also recently saw a great article, fusing DT tools into project management - 8 Ways a Mind Map Can Declutter Your Project Management http://uk.pcmag.com/word-2007-map-editor-for-mindjet-mindmanager/71616/feature/8-ways-a-mind-map-can-declutter-your-project-management . Hurrah for tools but let us dig into the strategy behind bringing these two worlds together.

Project management is typically a convergent process to move from a set of specifications to a final “product” on time and on budget. DT starts with divergence and while it should have a convergent aspect it normally shines a light on the unknowns that need further study. In my past I have found the “list of unknowns” to not be a great place for project managers to begin their process.  So while DT tools may be used in the act of this convergence I really feel that DT should be a Phase 0 activity, before the traditional forms of project management begin. This Phase 0 can be managed for time and budget but the goal is to decide whether the “project” has a) has properly framed the problem, b) developed valuable potential solutions to the problem, c) have received a multi-disciplinary review and d) has a well-founded list of knowns and unknowns in order to gauge whether the project should begin or not.

There is nothing unusual about a Phase 0. It is prescribed by the FDA in the development of medical devices, as a point where feasibility, viability, usability and protectability are all reviewed to make sure the device has a reason for being. This phase is called Predevelopment. Would this not make sense with any business or policy endeavor?

Next, I looked at many articles about top problems for project managers and settled on this one - Top 10 Project Management Challenges from http://www.villanovau.com/resources/project-management/top-10-challenges/#.VaKffPnxXlM . In this article the following list of top problems are discussed:

1.       Undefined Goals

2.       Scope Changes

3.       Inadequate Skills for the Project

4.       Lack of Accountability

5.       Improper Risk Management

6.       Ambiguous Contingency Plans

7.       Poor Communication

8.       Impossible Deadlines

9.       Resource Deprivation

10.   Lack of Stakeholder Engagement

While I would love to tell project managers that DT could solve all of their problems, I know this is not true. So I will concentrate as to how a Phase 0 DT component would help with the following bold problems:

1.       Undefined Goals

2.       Scope Changes

3.       Inadequate Skills for the Project

4.       Lack of Accountability

5.       Improper Risk Management

6.       Ambiguous Contingency Plans

7.       Poor Communication

8.       Impossible Deadlines

9.       Resource Deprivation

10.   Lack of Stakeholder Engagement

The problem starts on Day One.

Let us start with the problem. Usually a kick off meeting is set up by a specific group within an organization who has done some research and comes to the group with a problem, or need, immediately followed by a solution. Usually the rest of the participants are coming to the meeting “cold” and after the presentation are asked “Any questions?” The participants are usually not given a chance to process the complexities nor requirements for producing the solution.

Their thoughts are usually:

a)      We will figure this out by the time it gets to us.

b)      It will probably change or go away before it comes to us.

In the above scenario, the requester of the project is getting neither the benefit of a collaborative consideration of the problem and its solution nor serious thoughts as to potential issues that might derail the project as it moves forward.

How can Phase 0 help using Design Thinking methods?

First I propose we call Phase 0, Rapid Collaborative Project Simulation, or RCPS for short. The purpose is to take a problem/need and quickly run through a simulation of the project with all parties that will be involved. Instead of listening to what the project will be, participants will be actively involved in building the project. They will have a chance to think through potential stumbling blocks and search for solutions.

Rapid – Should be one half to one day maximum.

Collaborative – Representatives of all parties involved from start to finish.

Project – The project to be done after this meeting.

Simulation – Active participation in looking at the project from start to finish.

How does Design Thinking fit?

First, User Research augments the other research done before the meeting and is presented to the group to get them to center on who they are creating a solution for. Second, Idea Generation techniques are employed to get a well-rounded view of potential solutions based on the different backgrounds and thought patterns of the collaborative group. Visualization tools help the group modify and process the complexity of the entire project duration and see previously unknown issues with the project. The whole process is a Prototyping exercise, prototyping the project.

Observation 009 - Analysis and Design

My most recent attempt to articulate the differences between Analysis and Design.