CPH127

Mark just linked me to a great site about experience economy and design processes. It’s a MUST resource for the many of us, really great and with some thoughtful links an resources too.

I just read an article there about experience economy and creating sense/meaning. It refers to the development of an innovation or an experience concept which involves a process of thinking, doing and reflecting. It states that both parties can certainly work together in this process, and they will book more success through their collaboration than either one could do individually.

Important in this regard are four building blocks that the article find in the work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). They speak of the DART principle:

1. Dialogue
Dialogue means interactivity, being engaged with each other and listening to eachother. Both parties (supplier and customer) intend to accomplish something. It also means that attention is given to the interests of both parties. This requires both a location in which the dialogue can take place and a number of rules with which both parties must comply in order to be able to hold a useful dialogue. The principle of ‘learning by sharing’ holds here: the company learns through the dialogue with the customer and vice versa.

2. Access
The traditional focus

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m a heavy Flickr user and have over a few iteration re-discovered the possibilities in sharing photos. It’s amazing how easy it is to use, connect and share networks of interest.

Since New Year I’ve been working on a major innovation project for one of the truly market leaders in the food ingredients industry. As part of the project I’m considering using Flickr as an Anthropological tool, but I’m nor aware of the constraints or great possibilities, but can see a huge potential in using it..

Do you have any experience in doing so? Wanna share? How should I design this? Is it valid?

By the way – I see that Cheskin claims they invented Digital ethnography as a methodology. Did they really?

Since I left my position at the Danish Design Centre I’ve been working with userdriven innovationprocesses at ReD Associates in Copenhagen.

As part of their process in using mapping latent user needs I’ve been studying several articles about context mapping as part of field research work.

I do of course know of the task, but I’m not an Anthropologist, neither have I studied ethnographic’s.

If you work with these processes please share what you do, how you do it.

During the weekend I’ve been reading several articles on the topic

, and as mentioned before F.Sleeswijk Visser et al. have done a really good job in explaining the different stages and phases.

I’ve done a drawing on how F.Sleeswijk sees the different phases where you can see the involvement from different stakeholders.

Does it cover what you experience in your daily work?

Read the rest of this entry »

In recent years, various methods and techniques have emerged for mapping the contexts of people’s interaction with products. Designers and researchers use these techniques to gain deeper insight into the needs and dreams of prospective users of new products. As most of these techniques are still under development, there is a lack of practical knowledge about how such studies can be conducted.

Putting these techniques in practice relies on experienced researchers and a good deal
of common sense. Most publications tell you the why behind the generative techniques,
but rarely report practical knowledge about actually conducting studies. Froukje Sleesswijk Visser, Pieter Jan Stappers, Remko Van Lugt and Elizabeth B.-N Sanders has done a great article where they summarize the different theories, despite the few cases I think we could use all the insights possible.

Sanders has put it this way:

So, how do you work with the mapping of experiences? How do you work with gathering an description of latent needs?

Democratizing Innovation – what’s all about? Vol 2.0

Eric von Hippel has done a presentation on his book with some nice examples.

He proffes multiple examples where an ordinary user, frustrated or even desperate, solves a problem through innovation. His research found innovative users playing with all manner of product: mountain bikes, library IT systems, agricultural irrigation, and scientific instruments.

Please see the presentation here

Thanks to Business Innovation

Understanding complexity, seeing patterns and knowing where you fit in – personal leadership - in the process, in the picture is what is needed when dealing with chaos – I think.

But do you understand complexity, do you know how to deal with chaos? And what about your personal leadership?

I just found a bibliography on complexity resources that I what to share with you.

The reason why I think complexity and personal leadership is important is of course because I think it matters in terms of your ability to innovate the right way.

What do you think?

Mr. VanPatter has a tremendous site on design and leadership – every time I visit the “Journal”-section I find new interesting angles on what design thinking is all about.

The newest edition is an interview with Malcom Gladwell on “Blink”.
Mr. Gladwell’s own explanation on what “thin-slicing” is well put:

The term thin-slicing was coined by psychologists (led by people like Robert Rosenthal and Nalina Ambady) who were interested in the human tendency to draw conclusions about situations and people based on very "thin slices" of experience. So how long do I have to know you before I decide what kind of person I think you are? How much "information" do I have to gather before I make a prediction about whether you are, say, straight or gay, or friendly or unfriendly, or honest or dishonest? The gist of much of the thin-slicing work is that we don’t take very long to jump to those conclusions and, surprisingly, we’re pretty good at those snap judgments. Much better than we would ever have imagined

Think about it – how many times do you in fact ”thin-slice”? How many times haven’t you judged your customer, a new colleague or even your new boss - or what-ever – after just a split-second?

On the other hand – when do you know enough to really know enough? How much research do you really need to conduct before you could say – “I know him, I know why”.

In addition to my to earlier posts regarding decentralization……I found this valuable resource about “Open Source Leadership”, and other interesting topics related to “design thinking”

I’m thrilled, though I know – of course – that not everything what’s open or decentralized is good

….but I think it’s a necessary path for most companies to follow , at least to try….

Again, it requires a different mindset.

Fortune.com has done a weblog. It’s a kind of commercial thing – promotion for the Fortune Innovation Forum – conference.

In fact it’s a nice blog – interesting posts, but it lack’s a conversation.

If you’re planning to go to the conference, please let me know. Maybe you’re equipped with a camcorder? If so we – here at CPH127 - would LOVE to share your recordings/interviews/what-ever with the rest of the world

Yes – this should be recognized as an official invitation to all of you attending different conferences/events/what-you think-would-be-of-interest-to-CPH127-community to share what you record – only string attached is that it should be in the area of Design, Innovation and Leadership

I have been done some thinking on how design, as it is discussed here and across the global business media today, fits into the corporate world of today. How the discussion on "new design" or "design thinking" sounds in the ears of a CEO who knows nothing of design - to whom design is something you see in some smart shops or at a museum. These are the guys I talk to and I try to convince that design can make a difference in their business. On the other hand, events like Index has opened up for a new definition of design which again opens up for new questions; does design have to look good? Does the design has to be designed in a traditional sense?

I need some way to structure the different business related views on design today. One thought I dwelled with lately is that design is like Abraham Maslow´s "the hierarchy of needs", often presented as a pyramid. Basically, a human has to fullfil his or hers needs from the bottom and up. If you want to build a pyramid you need to start with a base. You can´t jump into the middle of it. While Maslow´s pyramid has 5 levels the one I think of related to design has 3.

At the base you have "design practise". Related to the business use of design, "Design practise" represents the basic use of design: the definition of a design brief, the identification, selection and contractual engagement with a  designer (if the business does not have internal designers) etc. A company needs - at least - understand the most basic use of design, if even to start thinking about how design can apply to their corporation. The work is most likely not focused on user-centered design but rather on styling.

In the middle you have "design process". Related to the business use of design, "Design process", represent an organizational and structured use of design. Typically, it is focused on the use of an explicit process which can include cross-functional competencies. However, it is focused on the organization and leadership of design in the design and/or development department where other departments are looked upon as "clients" to the solution. The work is most likely focused on user-centered design.

At the top of the pyramid you have "design thinking". Related to the business use of design, "Design thinking", represent an top-level, cross-organizational use of design. Typically, it is also focused on the use of an explicit process which should include cross-functional competencies. It is focused on the use of the design process as an problem solving/opportunity realizing tool on a corporate strategy level where all departments are involved in the process. The work is most likely focused on user-centered design.

Again - from a design perspective - a company cannot start at the top. They need to establish and master the other levels before they can persue the level above.
The middle part, "design process" could have been called design management but I choose not to because of the need for management or leadership across all parts of the pyramid. Much the same could be said of "design process" since all design activities (like all other activities) follow a process. However, in the "design practise" level the process can be totally internal in the given designer and not involve the company (client) at all.

Hmm…what do you think? Does it make sense? These thoughts are by no means concluded - they are just thoughts - so I would love some comments on them!