Design as an Enabler of Change
By Kathryn Best, Author, Educator and Consultant, London
 |
|
 |
| |
Kathryn Best |
| |
|
|
In 2011 Bruce Nussbaum, a passionate advocate of creativity, design, and innovation in business, moved on from the concept of "design thinking" to a new conceptual framework called "creative intelligence/creative quotient" (CI/CQ), the ability to frame problems in new ways to make original solutions. Design thinking, according to Nussbaum, was limited by being "turned into a linear, gated, by-the-book methodology that delivered, at best, incremental change and innovation" (though he does acknowledge the leaps made by design thinking in relation to design per se, and to systems and society—humanistic design and social innovation, for example). As a "process trick," design thinking may have "under-delivered in efficiency-led business agendas" for innovation and change.1
A more recent post in Forbes Online by Adam Swan bids us "welcome to the era of design," and invites chief marketing officers to see design not just as a "marketing thing," but as a "genuine source of competitive advantage, customer and employee satisfaction, and a route to higher profits."2
This poses a question: Are we perhaps leaving the era of design thinking and (re)entering the era of design? Can we (re)assimilate the social and economic power of design—in effect, go back to where it all started—or can we take design in a new direction? Here are some thoughts on the changing world we live in and the opportunities for design therein.
The Changing World: "May You Live in Interesting Times"
Innovation is incredibly important to all organizations today—not only as a source of revenue and growth, but also as a source of reinvention and as a way to survive and thrive amid challenging economic times. These interesting times in which we live have been triggered by significant changes in societal, technological, economic, environmental, and political conditions that are forcing "business as usual" to change. The institutions and infrastructures that are built on old-world industrial economic models and structures are adapting, evolving, or not surviving.
The alternative organizational systems and processes emerging give us some clues as to where we are going and what things will look like in the future. They tend to be based around ideas of an increased sense of community and responsibility towards the environment and society; an increased demand for more transparency and active participation in politics and the economy; and an increased familiarity with the use of the technological tools that enable people to connect, share, collaborate, and communicate in new ways—and to have their voices heard. Governmental initiatives around these changes include ways to stimulate a more decentralized and proactive form of citizenship (for example, the Big Society, in the UK); to grow a culture of business and social enterprise (for example, SMEs and "social" businesses); and to embed an entrepreneurial "start-up" mindset that encourages initiative, risk-taking, and responsibility (for example, new ventures and enterprises).
The current growth areas in our rapidly changing economy are described in a range of different ways. The "creative economy" described by media entrepreneur and analyst John Howkins as being based on the growing power of ideas—and how people make money from ideas—is driven by the view that "twenty-first-century industries will depend increasingly on the generation of knowledge through creativity and innovation."3 The activities concerned with the generation or exploitation of creative ideas are seen by global companies (through investment in creativity and innovation, for example) and global economies (through national design policies, for example) as becoming increasingly important to well-being—economic and social. Consider the idea of the "green economy," described by UNEP (United Nations Environmental Protection) as "one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities." The World Resource Institute describes it as "an alternative vision for growth and development—one that can generate growth and improvements in people's lives in ways consistent with sustainable development."
 |
|
|
|
|
 Some are calling this shift in what we discern to be of value "the wisdom economy."  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The creative economy (based on human creativity and ideas) and the green economy (based on social equity and the environment) share goals for improving economic and societal well-being: one through valuing the benefits of creativity, and the other through valuing the benefits of environmental awareness. What we are seeing here is a growing shift in the balance of power in what we value (for example, societal well-being versus financial well-being) and how we demonstrate our power by investing in what we value (for example, social currency versus financial currency). If we create a currency around something we deem to be of value, and let that currency trade and flow, then we enhance the value in that "something." Some are calling this shift in what we discern to be of value "the wisdom economy." Evidence of it can be seen, for example, in conceptual models and value propositions that place societal measures of well-being (Gross Domestic Happiness) on a par with economic measures of well-being (Gross Domestic Product), and consider sustainable development and growth metrics (people, planet, profits) to be as important as return on investment.
In terms of the scale of the shift in the balance of power, what we each value as individuals is not something that can be easily agreed on globally or even nationally—it really is unique to each individual. But we can agree on a set of shared values, based on a shared vision of the future we want. Hence the current rise in movements (at least in the UK) based on cooperatives and communities. We are seeing the rise in the concept of "communities of practice"—groups of people mobilized around common goals and visions (for example, revolutionary change, healthy living, shared values or resources) and empowering themselves to create the lifestyles they want.
The World of Change: Danger and Opportunity
In China, the notion of "crisis" is written as a combination of two characters—danger and opportunity. The challenges we face, which are bringing about shifts in power, are starting to bring out the entrepreneur (i.e., someone who shows initiative and takes a risk) in many. For others, change is difficult. People's response to change depends on their levels of comfort with risk and their levels of motivation toward improving their quality of life. Peter Drucker's "paradigm of change" model is a very useful way to think through the challenges of change, the dangers of doing nothing. and the opportunities in taking, if necessary, a courageous leap into a completely new way of doing things. Drucker's model (reframed by John Flaherty4)
-
The past: What is the business? This is its "traditional" state of existence.
-
The present: What will the business be? This is its "transitional" state of existence.
-
The future: What should the business be? This is its "transformational" state of existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
…it is possible that we are entering a completely new paradigm of change in how we do things, in how we conduct business, and in how we live our lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the current changes in the world, it is possible that we are entering a completely new paradigm of change in how we do things, in how we conduct business, and in how we live our lives. Whether in the face of systemic, organizational, or lifestyle changes, framing our decision-making processes around the idea of past, present, and future states of existence provides a new way to think about things. It also allows us to identify opportunities for design and explore how design could respond to these different dimensions.
Design: Back to the Future
As one of the creative industries, design is one of the disciplines that recognize the growing power of ideas. In 1950, Thomas Watson, CEO of IBM, recognized that "good design is good business." Good design generates social and economic value, makes the world a better, more interesting place, and enhances the quality of our lives. A design (noun) has form and function; it is the outcome of the process of designing. To design (verb) is to plan, to create, or to devise. It is a process, a practice, and a way of thinking. Increased debates around the role of design moved the position of design beyond questions of style and aesthetics to the design of the process, the design of the experience, design as a catalyst for innovation, and design as an enabler of cultural change.
As a people-centered, problem-solving process, design became fashionable as a way to address challenges facing both public and private organizations. By putting people at the core of how products, services, and systems are designed, design as a methodology was positioned as a way to bring fresh thinking to current debates about whether to restore, redefine, or redesign existing systems—systems that ultimately define people's daily interactions and influence the quality of their life experience.
"Design is one approach of inquiry and action among many used by humans to engage with the world," says Erik Stolterman (quoted by Ball5). But it is an incredibly familiar, and therefore very useful, approach. We are literally surrounded by design in the culture of everyday life and in the communities, objects, spaces, and systems we come into contact with every day. Amid the current times of change, and because of this level of day-to-day familiarity, design as an approach can help identify a different, or better, way of doing things, of reconnecting everyday life back to what people really value and, ultimately, back to our own core human values. In this way, design is a people-centered transformational process, one that can move mindsets from a traditional, to a transitional, to a transformational way of seeing things. This can be done through envisioning and communicating in a very human way how our needs, aspirations, decisions, and behaviors will affect the look and feel of "the future" (through "day-in-the-life-of" scenario planning, for example), and by engaging and empowering stakeholders in the process of change via the very tools and processes used to design and visualize alternative futures (design charettes and collaborative workshops, for example).
The links among design, creativity, and innovation were framed in the Cox Review,6 which envisions securing the place of design in future debates on creativity and innovation:
-
Creativity is the generation of new ideas—either a new way of looking at existing problems or the discovery of new opportunities.
-
Innovation is the exploitation of new ideas.
-
Design is what links creativity and innovation—it shapes the ideas so they become practical and attractive propositions for users and customers.
|
|
|
|
|
What matters is that we are reframing things. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
It is design's ability to present attractive, practical, and aspirational propositions that can help change people's decision-making processes, behaviours, and mindsets. The application of a "designerly" way of thinking and communicating could be very timely now in stimulating both new value propositions and more human-centered strategies for growth and development—all within our rapidly changing, increasingly sustainable, post-consumerist society. What will these new propositions (practical, attractive, and aspirational) that can step-change people's behavior and mindsets about success and "what matters" and move us into alternative lifestyles (based on well-being), actually look and feel like? This to me is an opportunity for design —to reframe and shift things "by design." Nussbaum rightly points to the importance of the ability to reframe problems in new ways to make original solutions. But what we use to reframe things (CI/CQ, creativity, design, or design management) is not what really matters. What matters is that we are reframing things. It is the very act of reframing itself that is important.
1Bruce Nussbaum,"Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment. So What’s Next?" Fast Company/Co.Design, April 6, 2011.
2 Adam Swan, "Welcome to the Era of Design," Forbes online, May 3, 2012.
3 John Howkins, The Creative Economy (London: Penguin, 2002).
4 J. Flaherty, Peter Drucker: Shaping the Managerial Mind (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1999).
5R. Ball, Design Direct: How to Start Your Own Micro Brand (Hong Kong: PTeC, 2012).
6Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’s Strengths (UK: HM Treasury, 2005).
Kathryn Best
Kathryn Best is the author of several books, including the best-sellers The Fundamentals of Design Management (AVA 2010), now in five languages, and Design Management; Managing Design Strategy, Process and Implementation (AVA 2006), now in 12 languages. Her new book is due for release later in 2012. You can email Kathryn at Kathryn.best@btopenworld.com.
Join the Discussion
Please add your thoughts and comments about this article. Constructive debate is welcome, however, personal attacks will be deleted. |
