Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation - Literature review Example

Design Thinking Organizations cannot have smooth ride all the time, as they could face minor as well as major issues or problems. Apart from those problems, organizations may feel that although they are functioning in a stable manner, they may need to take the organization to the next level, by optimizing its existing processes. Thus, it is clear that organization need to come up with newer strategies not only to solve its problems but also to improve its functioning and position, so the organization can elevate from its current state to a future desirable state. For that organizations may adopt many organizational improvement models or paradigms, and one among them is design thinking. Design thinking can be defined as focusing on the empathy aspect for the context of a problem, then using creative ways to come up with number of solutions or alternative solutions, and finally cornering on the apt solution by analyzing the various solutions using rationality. Tjendra (2013) defines on those lines by stating, “Design Thinking attempts to use creative process to bring innovation in the areas of product, service, process and organization structure.” On the other hand, Mootee (2013, p.60) provides an encompassing definition by stating that, “Applied design thinking in business problem solving incorporates mental models, tools, processes, and techniques such as design, engineering, economics the humanities, and the social sciences to identify, define and address business challenges in strategic planning, product development, innovation, corporate social responsibility and beyond.” Brown (2008) sums by not only providing a definition, but also by pointing out the positive effects design thinking could have on the organization. “Put simply, it is a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.” (Brown 2008) The concept of using design as a “way of thinking” particularly in science was first put forward by Herbert A. Simon in his 1969 book titled, The Sciences of the Artificial. Robert McKim followed him by stating how that concept can be applied in engineering. Rolf Faste expanded on the work of McKim by defining as well as popularizing the concept of design thinking mainly as a technique of creative action. Then it was left to David M. Kelly, Faste’s colleague at Stanford to adapt design thinking for business applications inside organizations. (Brown 2008). Although, Kelly found business application for design thinking, in the initial stages, there was a lot of scepticism regarding its utility in organization, with many sceptics viewing it mainly from the aesthetic angle instead of looking its functional purpose. That is, the term design thinking had this perception as an aesthetic process used by the organization towards the end of the product manufacturing cycle merely to beautify the manufactured products. This is a natural perception considering the fact that “historically, design has been treated as a downstream step in the development process—the point where designers, who have played no earlier role in the substantive work of innovation, come along and put a beautiful wrapper around the idea.” (Brown 2008). However, during the second part of the 20th century, the process of design or designing was started to be viewed as an important competitive asset for organizations, particularly the organizations that operated in the business sectors of consumer electronics, automobiles as well as packaged consumer goods industries. As designing, both at the initial or blueprint stage as well as the final packaging stage, was understood to be an crucial process, organizations started involving the designers in all the key process of product development. “Now, however, rather than asking designers to make an already developed idea more attractive to consumers, companies are asking them to create ideas that better meet consumers’ needs and desires.” (Brown 2008). Thus, the role of designers and thereby designing and design thinking in business organization became more of strategic utility, instead of being limited to value creation. Thus, when the organizations understood the fullest potential of design thinking in organizational process, particularly in the management of problems and taking the organization to a favourable state, its image had a positive change over from the earlier times. Tjendra (2013) had this to say regarding how design thinking transformed from being an aesthetic process into a functional process, which can be used by all organizations. “It has come to the point where business owners and executives flee when they hear Design Thinking, but when framed as being creative, they return with a smile with a typical question – how can I be more creative in solving my needs and meeting my desires.” (Tjendra 2013). Design thinking appears to be one of the optimal methods for business applications because it mainly focuses on finding optimal solutions, by minimally focusing on the problem or problems, so the organization can have a clear vision of its’ desired future state. In this regard, it is can be said that design thinking is primarily solution-based as well as solution-focused thinking approach, which first starts with a goal or a vision of the desired future state, instead of wanting to focus on a specific problem or set of problems and wishing to solve it. Thus, in a way, organizations can focus on and explore both its present as well as future conditions, the parameters of its organizational issue, and importantly the probable solutions, all in a simultaneous manner. These key aspects of Design thinking make it an effective method for organizational application. In addition, when one analysis and also compares design thinking with other management improvement methods like scientific method, analytical thinking and also critical thinking, it appears that design thinking have an edge over those methods. Firstly, when one compares with the scientific method, it clear that scientific method is problem-centric, while design thinking is solution centric. That is, when organizations use the scientific method, it will normally begin by thoroughly finding out as well as defining all the parameters of the problems, it is facing, with the intention to create an apt solution for that problem or problems. On the other hand, “Design thinking starts without preconceived problem definitions and solutions, in order to discover hidden parameters and alternate optimized paths to the goal.” (SG Corporate Training 2014). In a way, design thinking can also be viewed as an iterative process because all the probable solutions could be considered for future applications, while in the scientific method main and only solution is considered. When design thinking is compared with analytical thinking also, it has advantages. That is, unlike analytical thinking, the process of design thinking involves coming up with number of ideas during the brainstorming process, without any limits. The idea behind this feature of design thinking is, it will decrease the fear of rejection among the employees, who are participating in the brainstorming session and contributing to the ideas, and instead encourages them to come up with more ideas so the ‘cream’ of the best ones can be considered immediately, with the other ones for future consideration. Importantly, design thinking is also considered to be a better method than critical thinking, because instead of breaking the process, it builds on the process. That is, as Simon (1969) stated, “unlike critical thinking, which is a process of analysis and is associated with the breaking down of ideas, design thinking is a creative process based around the building up of ideas.” (Verity 2012). Due to this perspective, there are minimal judgments regarding the ideas that are generated, and so as mentioned above, there is no fear of failure or rejection in organizations that uses design thinking. This process can lead to wild ideas, since these often lead to the most creative solutions. (Fast Company 2006). At the same time, design thinking has some shortfalls or deficiencies during certain organizational scenarios. That is, while adopting design thinking, organization can face tricky problems to solve, and they are termed as wicked problems. They are termed so because those problems and also the solutions will be unknown to the organization and its employees at the outset of the problem solving process. This is in contrast to the "well-defined" problems, where the problems could be clear with the solutions being found through analysis and discussion. Although, design thinking being a solution-based approach can solve those tricky wicked Problems, it will take time considering the fact that both problems and solution could be ill-defined. Considering this fact, it is important not to over-hype the utility of design thinking in solving all problems. “Extolling the virtues of design thinking are at best misguided, at worst likely to inflict dangerous harm on the company at large, over-promising and under-delivering and in the process screwing up the delicate business of design itself.” (Waiters 2011). Design thinking is normally applied in the business world through two modes. First one is, the traditional mode of incorporating design thinking concept and process in the organizational functioning to solve the organizations problems, and the second is how external design thinking organizations could train the organization and its employees regarding the best practices. Speaking of external design thinking companies, players like IDEO and Sense Worldwide are doing an effective job in implementing design thinking in various organizations throughout the world. Importantly, many well-known organizations are incorporating design thinking independently and by utilizing external design thinking companies, and are achieving good results. “This is where design thinking comes into play. Companies such as Apple, Amazon.com, Netflix, Samsung, Burberry and BMW are winning by design and thinking behind that design.” (Mootee 2013, p.59). Among these companies, Apple is the one which has adopted design thinking in an extensive way from the initial stages, both for the company as well as the concept of design thinking. That is, in the early 1980s, when design thinking was in the ‘incubation’ period, Apple’s Mike Markkula, one of the first investors in Apple and another father figure to Jobs, understood its importance and incorporated into Apple’s functioning. This is what Kuang (2011) had to say, “although, design was a niche profession, and "design thinking" is a process that emphasized empathy with user needs, it hadn’t been fully articulated yet, until Mike Markkula managed to anticipate lessons that were decades away from being in common circulation.” (Kuang 2011). He particularly pointed out the design thinking concept of empathy has to be aptly included in Apple’s functioning in relation to its customer service. He stressed on empathy because through that only Apple can make an intimate connection with the feelings of the customer. (Kuang 2011). From those initiation, Apple have been incorporating design thinking aspects optimally in its operations, and that got outputted during the launch of all its successful products. In a way the popularity of design thinking can be attributed to Apple. From the above analysis, it is clear that design thinking is a key management improvement method, which is making effective impacts in various organizations. Although, it provides maximal advantages to the organization, there are still loose ends, which need to be tied. Thus, when one looks at the future of design thinking, it is sure that it will evolve as its influence spreads throughout industries and around the world. (Waiters 2011). However, the key perspective that needs to be taken note by organizations, which could adopt design thinking for their improvement, is this method cannot be a one-stop solution. Design thinking can improve the organization’s functioning by coming up with effective solutions, but at the same time all the ills of the organization cannot be solved through it. Taking this perspective into consideration, organization should optimally use it to solve most or maximum of its problems. “By taking the pressure off design thinking and not expecting it to be the bright and shiny savior of the world, those trying out its techniques will be empowered to use it to its greatest advantage, to help introduce new techniques, to give new perspectives, to outline new ways of thinking or develop new entries to markets.” (Waiters 2011). References Brown, T., 2008. Design Thinking. Available from http://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking/(accessed on May 9, 2014) Fast Company., 2006. DESIGN THINKING... WHAT IS THAT? Available from http://www.fastcompany.com/919258/design-thinking-what(accessed on May 9, 2014) Kuang, C., 2011. The 6 Pillars Of Steve Jobss Design Philosophy. Available from http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665375/the-6-pillars-of-steve-jobss-design-philosophy(accessed on May 9, 2014) Mootee, I., 2013. Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation: What They Cant Teach You at Business or Design School. John Wiley & Sons SG Corporate Training., 2014. Design Thinking Workshop - Innovate or Die! . Available from http://sg-corporatetraining.blogspot.in/2014/04/sg-corporate-training-design-thinking.html(accessed on May 9, 2014) Tjendra, J., 2013. Why Design Thinking Will Fail. Available from http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2013/02/25/why-design-thinking-will- fail/(accessed on May 9, 2014) Verity, J., 2012. The New Strategic Landscape: Innovative Perspectives on Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan Waiters, H., 2011. "Design Thinking" Isnt a Miracle Cure, but Heres How It Helps. Available from http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663480/design-thinking-isnt-a-miracle-cure-but-heres-how-it-helps(accessed on May 9, 2014) Read More