CPH127

….. and how they develop is critical for organizational change and innovation

Most developmental psychologists agree that what differentiates one leader from another is not so much philosophy of leadership, personality, or style of management. Rather, it’s internal "action logic"-how a leader interprets the surroundings and reacts when his or her power or safety is challenged.

Harvard Business Review had an article in the April 2005 issue about different styles of leadership:

1. Opportunist – Wins any way possible, Self-oriented; manipulative; ”might makes right”. Good in emergence and in sales opportunities
2. Diplomat – Avoids overt conflict, Wants to belong; obey group norms; rarely rocks the boat. Good as supportive glue within the office; helps bring people together.
3. Expert – Rules by logic and expertise. Seeks rational effiency. Well suited to managerial roles; action and goal oriented.
4. Achiever – Meet strategic goals. Effectively achieves goals through teams, juggles managerial duties and market demands. Well suited to managerial roles; action and goal oriented.
5. Individualist – Interweaves competing personal and company action logics. Create unique structures to resolve gaps between strategy and performance- Effective in venture and consulting roles.
6. Strategist – Generates organizational and personal transformations. Exercises the power of mutual inquiry, vigilance, and vulnerability for both short and long term. Effective as a transformative leader.
7. Alchemist – Generates social transformation. Integrates material, spiritual and societal transformation. Good at leading society-wide transformation    

Why is this important in a design and innovation context?

Several times I’ve experienced that teams lead by to much control, to heavy linear thinking, tends to be less innovative and with heavy slow-down in speed. And while managers seeks for the holy grail trying to find out how to manage chaos, a discussion is going on either the leader of tomorrow is an MBA-kind-of-guy or a more like a green-haired-art-educated-philanthropy-kind-of-type.

In “ancient” times where changes happened with slower speed the world was less complex, and Managers ability to manage a company or a process was more dependent on knowing the system, act in the system. Linear thinking.

Nowadays speed and radical change is two very important factors when leaders try to find ways to lead – dynamic complexity and the ability to cope with exactly “Chaos” is what I see is the difference between yesterday and today.

What kind of management/leadership do you think is needed – any of the above, other?

• Social Machines
  Social software is a VERY powerful movement - ever considered the impact on innovation?
  (tags: socialinnovation socialsoftware blogs linkedin wiki podcast hanshenrik innovation)
• Better by Design: Have your say
  Share your thoughts with the Better by Design community
  (tags: jacob conference design business innovation comment)

I feel there is a lot of agreement around the notion of working in multi-disciplinary teams when working with some sort of development.

The thought that a team consisting of different disciplines, perspectives even origin, sex, cultur and beliefs has a higher possibility of success than a team of same-ol, same ol disciplines, perspectives, sex and beliefs has almost become a given when you enter a discussion about design, innovation or  problem-solving in general.

However, although we might believe in it (and acctually work this way ourselves) the corporations dont yet seem to get it. Or do they? Maybe their problem is not that they dont get it, but that they dont know how to do it. How to staff up a multi-disciplinary team?

A team is put together on the basis of the problem they shall solve, so ofcourse there some expertise related to the topic needed. Still I wonder if its possible to create a list of different archetypes that are relevant in such a team. I know that IDEO and de Bono etc. has some opinions on this but what are your views? Does your experiences in this field give you a feeling that some roles needs to be filled in order to create success? If so, which are these roles/archetypes?

• WorldChanging: Another World Is Here
  (tags: blog change collaboration sustainability science society hanshenrik)
• Thinking About Design Thinking
  Odannyboy
  (tags: design hanshenrik blog ideo process)

Graphic design unquestionably exists as an industrial process in contemporary society and business. However the activities and functions of the “designer” in this field today are unrecognisable from the perspective of a professional who started their career some 25 years ago. This has been a given since the introduction of the desktop computer system in the mid - eighties.

Since that time we have seen a constant evolution in software development, arguably to a point where the design industry is the testing ground [guinea pig?] for the software industry, at least in terms of image creation, manipulation and reproduction [both print and screen based]. We have weathered the much documented splitting or tiering of the industry, the so-called “democratisation” of the design process through DTP and other forms of desktop media. This has in turn resulted in much carping and negativity from those who see a dimishing of the value of the traditional graphic designer.

It can seem like the whole visual communications industry is software driven, such is the ubiquity of the Adobe suite of programs [I won’t include Macromedia here because of the recent acquision by Adobe]. I and others have pointed out the apparent diminishing creative returns from uniform acceptance of a limited range of design and production tools, so there is little point labouring the point here.

There are certain issues arising from this situation as a designer/educator that I am prompted to explore - even if only to “get it off my chest”, and perhaps clarify things for myself as much as anyone else…

Each passing year, I notice increasingly, a great preoccupation and concern amongst students of design regarding software. They seem to feel that it is imperative to acquire a “complete” knowledge of every program in order to be able to function in the workplace. There is some justification for this view given the emphasis placed on this in the design job advertising I observe. It would be easy to get the impression that all studios and agencies require is someone to run the computer systems - oh, and if you’re “creative”, so much the better.

I always ask my students when they express their concerns to me about any apparent lack of software training in software, “Do you wish to be a designer - or a computer operator?” Sure, the software is a tool that you undoubtedly need to come to grips with, but I argue the ideation skills, conceptual development skills, presentation ability, communication and teamwork competencies are of at least equal, or greater importance. In addition to this, I know from personal experience [some 20 years of it], that the need to learn software has become a constant - it never goes away. Sometimes it can feel like you are on a treadmill. The best students get this, and respond accordingly by looking past the computer toward the overriding need for designers to understand the bigger picture. Coming to grips with software is for me the most boring part of the job. I love what computers do - I just don’t want to sit in front of one all my life
As the multidisciplinary focus of industry gathers momentum it will be even more important for “graphic” designers to develop an more sophisticated view of their role. My observation about my own experience and practice is that the boundaries are less defined. As such, the term “graphic designer” doesn’t fit so well any more. This may have more to do with my own circumstances than real trends, but I doubt it. I see others adopting titles such as “information architect” to describe their work role.

So, that’s my rant…I’ll conclude with a quote from KesselsKramer [Netherlands], when asked ‘What is graphic gesign?’

“Graphic design is dead. It has been killed by computers with super-high speed chps, gigabyte overload and things called firewires. Don’t worry. What matters today not to execute, to kern, or to crop. the idea is the high-chieftain, the lord of the manor. A “graphic designer” might want to make a film. Send a letter. Or even make a laser sculpture in the shape of a handbag. So be it! Now the real fun begins…”

Fiell C, Fiell P, 2005, Graphic Design for the 21st Century, Tashen, Koln
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/design/new/facts/02979.htm

Well said.

I’ve been interested in service design for a long time now and have been writing about it before, but the notion of designing services has been put into a much broader and more relevant context lately.

The other day Hans Henrik posted about the new report from RED about Eco-Design and Sustainability and a few days later I found Change Design which stresses the need for immaterialisation and sustainable consumption. Yesterday I had a really interesting talk with Mads Hagstrøm from FLOWinstitute about holistic design and business practise. All this plus the fact that I have worked along side and together with Index - design to improve life - for some months now gave me the feeling that the global macro/mega-trend of the political/conscious consumer and the need for thoughful and ethical businesses are ganging up on me. And that I like it! It makes sense to have a broader perspective on what you do because it makes what you do matter more.

The immaterialisation idea refers to the substitution of activities that do not require materials, for the consumption of products or resources. One way of doing this is to work with Product-Service Systems (PSS) and by replacing products with services.

But if services and the design of these are the way of the future how do you design them efficiently? There are some clear differences between the design process of a product and a service but the one that nags me the most is the validation of a fresh service concept? How do you test it to get customer feedback? How do you prototype a service?

I have some ideas on this along the way of role-playing etc. and LiveWork have some interesting views as well. Do you have any experiences with or thoughts on prototyping services and how this can be done in a viable manner?

• BRAND EXPERIENCE LAB — CULTURE. CREATIVITY. TECHNOLOGY
  What will be the future design dicipline?
  (tags: branding experience company hanshenrik)
• Strategic Horizons LLP | Home
  The experience economy - highly interesting as an add-on to traditional design
  (tags: design experience book hanshenrik)
• Prototyping Social Capital
  (tags: blog socialinnovation socialtool hanshenrik)
• Getting Schooled in Innovation
  Bruce Nussbaum on how management education needs to change
  (tags: education business innovation magnus)
• Online Extra: Q&A With Samsung Design Boss Chung Kook Hyun
  What design means to Samsung
  (tags: designmanagement innovation strategy magnus)
• Fuzzy Cognitive Maps
  fuzzy cognitive maps and how they can be used to analyse systems
  (tags: analysis frontend magnus)
• Philips Research Password Magazine - Archive
  Infinite resource of information
  (tags: philips password innovation design hanshenrik)

While surfing I just stumbled by Philips Research department online. They have – as I see it – a infinite resource of information in the field of Design and Innovation

I found issue 19 very interesting – it reminds of why I blog:

The concept of Open Innovation is a radical departure from the traditional model ofclosed, in-house innovation. Open Innovation embraces the idea that there are a lot ofclever people doing clever stuff outside your own company.

It’s not easy to define "experience design" and other, related, terms and these definitions are definitely in flux, but Nathan Shedroff has done a very good job trying to do so….

His definitions forced me to reflect on what comes first when looking at good design.
One thing is of course form and function which compared to the word “Experience” in my world would be placed in the lower part of the pyramid. But is there something exceeding “Experience”?

What about “Emotion”, “Value” and “Meaning”?

If you are a designer for what reason do you design? If you are a company for what exact purpose do you produce?

• cph127 - conversation about innovation and motivation
  Few weeks ago I asked the cph127 community about how to improve the cph127-weblog. One of the ideas mentioned was to makes extracts from the posting and by the give new life to old postings. We haven’t implemented that yet. Despite that I want to give t
  (tags: innovation hanshenrik individual blog Ian change culture)
• Design Council | Our Publications
  Co-created services - very interesting in terms of how tom make/create social innovations
  (tags: socialinnovation innovation hanshenrik designcouncil co-creation future healthcare)