To the Core - Designing Design Ready Organisations - Swinburne MEI 2016
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
0 gefällt mir•512 views
(Prepared for the Swinburne University MEI) Many organisations are still set up and run in the way industrial era factories operated and interacted with their markets. Focusing in internal efficiency and promotion, these organisation are finding themselves competing in areas that offer diminishing returns and few options. Taking a designerly approach to problem solving has provided successful differentiation for many companies in recent years. However, very few companies are looking at how to remodel themselves to be more designerly. This talk will look at what design means beyond the design project, and how large organisations can apply design to look inwards on their own practices and ways of working.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie To the Core - Designing Design Ready Organisations - Swinburne MEI 2016
Ähnlich wie To the Core - Designing Design Ready Organisations - Swinburne MEI 2016 (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
To the Core - Designing Design Ready Organisations - Swinburne MEI 2016
- 2. Defines key groups that share common characteristics Identifies common needs, motivations, goals and frustrations Designing Design Ready Organisations To the Core
- 3. Then to now To the Core
- 4. Design is a doing activity To the Core
- 5. A new role for design Designing the businessDesign for the business To the Core
- 6. In a state of movement in response to your context.
- 7. Incorrect Use Rethinking the Pig Compasses, Not Maps To the Core
- 10. "....All of these measures demonstrate that producers were in charge of "correct" usage, and when designers talked about functional products, they had adopted producers' intentions as their design criteria” - K Krippendorff
- 12. Research Buy Service Use Customer Business Partners Incorrect Use
- 13. Research Buy Service Use Customer Business Partners Incorrect Use
- 17. "All design to some extent is future oriented" - A Dunne & F Raby
- 18. Models and Frameworks Re sea rch Concept /Prototy pe D es ig n Uncertainty/Patterns/Insights Clarity/Focus V V V V V V V Products Utility Functionality Universal aesthetics Goods Interfaces Natural interactivity Understandability Reconfigurability/a daptability Systems Informativeness Connectivity Accessibility Projects Discourses Generativity Rearticulability Solidarity Rethinking the Pig
- 19. Models and Frameworks Discover Define Develop Deliver Rethinking the Pig
- 20. Models and Frameworks Research Concept/Prototype Design Uncertainty/Patterns/Insights Clarity/Focus Rethinking the Pig
- 22. Models and Frameworks V V V V V V V Mystery Heuristic Algorithm Rethinking the Pig
- 24. Models and Frameworks Products Utility Functionality Universal aesthetics Goods, Services & Identities Marketability Symbolic Diversity Folk and local aesthetics Interfaces Natural interactivity Understandability Reconfigurability/adaptability Multiuser Systems/Networks Informativeness Connectivity Accessibility Projects Social viability Directionality Commitment Discourses Generativity Rearticulability Solidarity Rethinking the Pig
- 27. Models and Frameworks Discover Define Develop Deliver Uncertainty/Patterns/Insights Clarity/Focus Mystery Heuristic Algorithm ProductsGoods, Services & IdentitiesInterfacesMultiuser Systems/NetworksProjectsDiscourses ArtefactProduceDesignGap Discover Define Develop Deliver Rethinking the Pig
- 28. Discover Define Develop Deliver Uncertainty/Patterns/Insights Clarity/Focus Mystery Heuristic Algorithm ProductsGoods, Services & IdentitiesInterfacesMultiuser Systems/NetworksProjectsDiscourses ArtefactProduceDesignGap Discover Define Develop Deliver ConcreteAbstract Models and Frameworks Rethinking the Pig
- 31. Models and Frameworks Rethinking the Pig
- 32. Models and Frameworks Rethinking the Pig
- 33. In a state of movement… Rethinking the Pig
- 34. ConcreteAbstract The Design Paradox Rethinking the Pig
- 36. "I don’t think you can design anything just by absorbing information and then hoping to synthesise it into a solution. What you need to know about the problem only becomes apparent as you’re trying to solve it.’ - R MacCormack
- 38. Everything so far applies to the application
- 39. "Learning a craft is not only about learning the tools (this might be the least important part), but also orienting oneself toward the materials, becoming involved with them, and taking great care to use them in efficient, sustainable and creative ways" T. Wendt
- 40. “The telesic content of a design must reflect the times and conditions that have given rise to it, and must fit in with the general human socio- economic order in which it is to operate” V. Papanek
- 47. In a state of movement in response to your context. Compasses, Not Maps
- 48. In a state of movement in response to your context. from abstract to concrete understanding your telesis designing how you design, as you design Compasses, Not Maps
- 49. Some key notes to take away
- 50. Design your company to be different Find value in the abstract and make it concrete Respond to context Prototype to explore Iterative development - learn through doing To the Core
- 52. Semantic Turn: New Foundations for Design -Klaus Krippendorff Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming - Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage - Roger Martin Design: Creation of Artefacts in Society - Karl T. Ulrich Design for Casein: Understanding the Design of Experiences - Thomas Wendt Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change - Victor Papanek UK Design Council Double Diamond: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/doc ument/ElevenLessons_Design_Council%20(2).pdf IDEO Squiggle: http://cargocollective.com/central/The-Design-Squiggle Icons: https://icons8.com/web-app/for/color/people The Elements of User Experience: User Centred Design for the Web - Jesse James Garrett
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Today I want to talk about how we prepare organisations for the future. The companies of today are built much like factories. They are rigidly structured so as to avoid uncertainties and unknowns. Focusing instead on how they can make incremental improvements on what is already there For new businesses, setting up an operating structure that allows creativity and adjustment is not just a competitive advantage, but one that will sustain you over time. For established businesses, we need to take the time and focus on setting up the company to provide value beyond today. Rather than adding effort on top of our problem factories, we need to reframe our purpose and way of working. Innovation isn’t just for start ups, but it doesn’t just happen, you need to lay the groundwork. How this applies to you This is your chance to start your organisation right and retain a competitive edge. By focusing on building your company to remain flexible and creative, you are not just focused on your product ideas to remain competitive.
- Studied market research and product design. Right here. Learnt a lot of business “facts” and the way things are done. Moved into usability. focus on fixing. a belief that the key to a good product was to make it better, rather than to reassess whether it was the right product. Moved up the value chain to Deloitte Digital. Leading their research I explored new ways to understand what consumers wanted. but still very technology determinist. So moved into product at a bank. there I saw how the structure and legacy of an organisation can inhibit people’s abilities to produce real value, and and understood the importance of being very deliberate in how you operate as a business, not just in what you do. So now at Make. We’re a strategic design consultancy. We do a lot of research and product work, but we also spend a lot of time consulting on how people do their work. Reviewing their practice. And we’re a start up. Working for large orgs. This has been a real chance for us to experiment with new ways of doing business and really challenge how a business can operate. How we are working differently at Make (we’re a startup too) - how we put design at our core
- How this has shaped my view of design Design is a doing/learning activity Design is about creation The thread between a product and the organisations strategy is too important not to be designed with intent
- Results in an interest in the environmental aspect of what encourages us to design differently, and working on defining how things operate when done so with intent.
- So what happens to the design practice in this example? Do they reach an equilibrium? Not really. As things progress, new challenges can be moved from mystery to heuristic. The team moves on to new, more complex challenges as the business itself adopts the practice of the approach, the specialisations of the design team can be applied to newer, broader challenges. Bacause, as professional designers they are ALWAYS IN A STATE OF CONSTANT MOVEMENT
- I want to discuss three topics today. The titles of each of these sections either comes directly from the text or is influenced by a lot of the source material I am going to reference today. I’ll explain later. Incorrect Use: A short overview of why organisations need to think differently about design and about how they serve their customers, but also how the the people within the organisation work. We will look at why the deterministic model of command and control project management is not suited to today’s market and where it needs to start to shift to Rethinking The Pig: I will introduce the new role of design, and how it can be used to reframe problems rather than just improve solutions, as well as defining the actual benefit of design in large organisations (the model of being in a state of movement, in response to your context). Compasses, Not Maps: Finally, we will look at integrating this new role of design into organisations, exploring how design must change and how organisations must change. We will discuss comfort with ambiguity, what it’s like to not always now where you will end up, and how to lower risk and raise certainty through prototyping. I’ll wrap up with talking about the value of processes well as outcomes
- So, let’s start with how things haven’t always been that great in the way we have used design
- It used to be that designers were call in as engineers had finished the ‘product’ and were told to apply ‘finishing layer’ on things Production and engineering defined how a product would work, and then had design and marketing work to make it appealing. Challenges that users may have faced were resolved through manuals, training and certification.
- All of this led to a directive way of thinking about products and how they were developed. Designers came to see their role as “fixing” and “improving” after the fact, and guiding the behaviour of users towards “correct” usage. This is the very definition of technology centred design. WHY DESIGN AS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE? WHAT THE BIG GUYS ARE DOING, AND HOW YOU CAN USE THIS TO CRUSH THEM!
- Now, we have ‘designed’ products (not to be confused with “designer” products”) These products are built through a process of understating the goal that is being solved, and working collaboratively with the relevant parties to bring it to market
- Additionally, we are now seeing terms like Service Design & Design Thinking. These design practices offer to improve the experience, and therefore the desirability of an organisation’s products and services
- However, these approaches still usually end up just polishing touchpoint; fixing problems in existing products, services and solutions. They are just putting a nice wrapper over an engineered mess. The design process is being applied to the touchpoints, but not the organisation. Designers are still just putting a shiny wrapper over the engineered mess of duck feet madly flapping underneath.
- Real opportunity for innovation is to redesign the parts that you’re trying to cover. Otherwise you just competing on branding and easily copied differentiation
- I call this type of Service Design ‘Static Design’ (or more cynically “magical thinking”). It’s the belief that that we can somehow make everything magically better without also addressing the core & accepting that things will have to change in the future
- So then, for design to really provide any meaningful benefits to organisations beyond simply adding marking spin to touchpoint, we need to move from “adding” design at the end to embedding it as a way of working. Static design provides no real value to the user nor to the business when it is simply putting lipstick on the pig
- Hold on to this quote. It’s important. I’ll return to it. Bear this statement is mind as I talk through the next few models
- There is no shortage of design process models. Making design frameworks seems to be the favourite pastime of designers with nothing better to do. Let’s look at some…
- The UK Design Council’s ‘Double Diamond’
- The Ideo “Design Squiggle”
- Martin’s “Mystery>Heuristic>Algorythm” Provides a way to discuss reliability vs validity Now we start to see the tension between static refinement (reliable) and a future oriented mindset (valid)
- Krippendor provides us with 5 points on a trajectory of artificiality. The discourse is the “what if”conversation for the industry. A too common conversation for many, that usually is not properly articulate into service offerings because people choose instead to move up the trajectory, starting over much in the now and struggling to drive future oriented discourses.
- Ulrich moves from a problem (what could be) to a tangible artefact or product
- The commonalities of all of these models is the progress… the shifting of focus from ABSTRACT to CONCRETE
- The commonalities of all of these models is the progress… the shifting of focus from ABSTRACT to CONCRETE
- Better yet, this needn’t be a wholly linear process. This journey is definitely not waterfall, but nor is it simply broken down into small agile sprints & stages. this journey is not characterised by fit and starts and blind fumbling & failure, but instead by zoomin in and out of the possibilities and the fidelity teethe possible futures
- Instead, the design project straddles multiple levels of fidelity - moving from abstract to concrete at one level may still allow you to have an abstract view of the next layer. Additionally, to properly understand one layer, you may need to experiment in layers one or two step in the other directions. Product prototypes can explore a business strategy. Design fiction can take a peek at a new product might mean for strategy down the road.
- To give you an idea of what this looks like in production, JJG’s Elements of User Experience details the layers from abstract to concrete when developing a website. Picture equivalents of this model throughout your organisation’s path from mystery to heuristic.
- The other point JJG make is again that this is not waterfall, you need to exist in multiple states of development simultaneously, otherwise how will you know your strategy can actually be acted upon, or that your product aligns with your strategy?
- So, now we have a discussed what I mean by a state of constant movement. Wht we have mean by that is constantly moving up and down the fidelity stack (the trajectory of artificiality) in order to understand how to move things from abstract (what could be…) to concrete (this could be…)
- One final point on this. At multiple stages you will face a tension on how to start. Do you know enough to prototype. Do you need to speak to more customers? Do more research? This is the paradox of design. We cannot think about the solution until we understand the problem. We cannot understand the problem until we think about solutions. This can paralyse design team. To resolve this, you kind of have to be like Nike & just do it. Design, as we’ve talked about, is not like standard business practices. You do not have a separated “analysis” stage and a “delivery” stage, you are existing in possible futures at all times. You need to just do something and get started - talk to users, build a prototype, form an hypothesis. Anything to start your journey. [Design Sprints]
- {next stage}…so this is the bit where I’ve sold you on design…
- Now that we’ve framed the role of design in an organisation (to facilitate the business shift from the abstract to concrete) we now need to address the how. When organisations do no pay attention to this process they often find themselves back in the bog of waterfall, or doing hand wavy innovation. That is because adopting a design process is not a bolt on. It’s not like outsourcing your IT or your payroll. There is no roadmap, as your pathway is still too abstract.
- All of the stuff in the last section doesn’t just apply to designing products, it applies to how you integrate the design process.
- Succesfully integrating this so that you are truly creating a designerly movement within your organisation, rather than just adopting an off the shelf design process and bolting it into you marketing or digital team, requires deep understanding of the design process and of the fabric and make up of your organisation. When you drag and drop a design model, you will change either the model, the organisation, or both. Now we have our own paradox. An organisation that needs to change (but is likely structured against it), a design model that is predicated on a constant stage of movement (but existing in it, not designing it), but where is our change leading gus? we cannot simply define this designedly state and arrive there. No Forrester whitepapter or Medium article can tell us what the possible future of our organisation can be. This is something that can only be arrived at by starting. So we have to start. If we want to get to the designerly was of working, we need to do so in a way the encourages, forces, our designers to learn the materials of the business, to be embedded in the core so that they may understand the most effective ways of working that are suited to the environment they are operating in.
- Therefore, as we integrate design into organisations, we need to rethink and redesign how we frame design. We need to look at how both can respond together.
- As an example. We obviously aspect the organisation pre adopting a designedly approach and the design practice to be different. The practice might be a new team, a consultancy, an acquisition…whatever..
- What people want to happen: Taking a pre trodden path towards with worked for somebody else. This can never happen. The moment for innovation has passed by the time somebody has written a book about it. This path brought something from abstract and mystery to a concrete opportunity and capitalised on it. If we take a pre worn approach, we are merely role playing. We are the cargo cults waiting for planes to arrive.
- What normally happens: The host organisation’s obsession with operating on the reliable algorithms the know so well overrides the design teams ability to imagine any different futures. Focus is on immediate returns in efficiency, and the practice ends up relegated to fixing “top 10 pain points” and is shifted back to applying lipstick.
- What we are aiming for: The design practice brings change. As it applies this change process, it is also learning about its operating context and adjusting itself and its processes. It tests and learns. Each effort is a way to understand the fabric better, and to see which of its initiatives will have the right impact. As the context changes, the practice changes. Changes in the practice lead to new changes in the context. And so on. We have broken free of the design paradox, we have momentum, and we are now disengaging for the core rather than the wrapper.
- So what happens to the design practice in this example? Do they reach an equilibrium? Not really. As things progress, new challenges can be moved from mystery to heuristic. The team moves on to new, more complex challenges as the business itself adopts the practice of the approach, the specialisations of the design team can be applied to newer, broader challenges. Bacause, as professional designers they are ALWAYS IN A STATE OF CONSTANT MOVEMENT
- Abstract to concrete Design is a process Exist in many layers simultaneously Design operates across planes Use it as a way to explore possible futures To properly move from abstract to concrete in one plane, you need to know what impact that will have on adjacent places Respond to context Business design need to understand the fabric of the business, just as businesses need to understand and appreciate design Learn through doing Adopt prototyping as a way of working - both as a production method and as a reflective practice