Do you live in NYC and like art exibitions?
I think you should consider to visit “Design and the Elastic Mind”.
“The exhibition highlights designers’ ability to grasp momentous changes in technology, science, and history—changes that demand or reflect major adjustments in human behaviour—and translate them into objects that people can actually understand and use.
Doesn’t that sound interesting? One of the important roles of the designer reveals it self: The role as an Sensemaking Catalyst.
…or what do you say?
Two years ago I had the pleasure to have a conversation with Russ Ackoff, aka Russel L. Ackoff. I meet him during a course at Wharton where I together with aprox. 30 other Danes joined a course on Complexity, Leadership & Innovation.
The program was well arranged but I lacked enough time for reflection. I do in a stressed up working life. I don’t with you but sometimes the “the moment of truth”, the crucial learning point’s come to me quite a while after the actual conversation/learning situation.
I just came by his blog again and had the possibility to read up some of his work:
Transformations not only require recognition of the difference between what is practiced and what is preached - a transformation called for years ago by Donald Schon (1971) - it also requires a transformation in the way we think (…) I believe the pattern of thought that is required is systemic (…) Systemic thinking is holistic versus reductionist thinking, synthetic versus analytic. Reductionist and analytic thinking derive properties of wholes from the sum of their parts. Holistic and synthetic thinking derive properties of parts from properties of the whole that contains them (…) In general, those who make public policy and engage in public decision-making do not understand that improvement in the performance of parts of a system taken separately may not, and usually does not, improve the performance of the system as a whole. In fact, it may make system performance worse, or even destroy it.
This is key. Indeed, from my experience, I can testify that the obstacles to introducing knowledge sharing and collaboration have little to do with the lack of management support, lack of time, or lack of ROI metrics that knowledge managers tend to complain about. They also have little to do with so-called “mental models” of hierarchies vs. social networks and the like. In the end, what makes it difficult is exactly what Ackoff discusses in his paper: the inability of some key managers to move away from analytical thinking.
What do you think?
Over and over again I’m asked to define “design”, and in my daily practice I’m challenged on how we apply design in our processes at Wemind.
Recently I re-discovered a conversation on the topic over at Greg’s which reminded on earlier discussion I’ve had with several colleague where we in a kind of “battle” presented different perspectives. I Denmark, at the least, there is still a lot of designers who see them self as artists. And the common understanding is still that design is more about form than process.
If you’re interested in design-related discussions I strongly can recommend the Google Group “transforning transformation, please take a look here.
But before leaving - how to you explain design?
| DesignLondon will develop, research and deliver radically new practices, tools and processes to transform the way businesses innovate, and translate their creativity into commercial success. |
- Simulator
- Teach
- Incubator
- Research |
This new venture combines creativity and expertise in design from the Royal College of Art, engineering from Imperial College’s Faculty of Engineering and the business of innovation from Imperial College’s Tanaka Business School. It was established following the Cox Review: Creativity in Business that highlighted the need to stir together the scientific, engineering, business and creative design communities to enhance business and public sector innovation. Design London has four main pillars: creating new teaching programmes, conducting top-level research, incubating new business ideas and pioneering the next generation of innovation technology. It will deliver integrated design and business programmes for MBA and Masters of Engineering students at Imperial College, as well as for the MA students at the Royal College of Art.The innovation triangle blends design (represented by the Royal College of Art), engineering and technology (represented by Imperial College Faculty of Engineering) and the business of innovation (represented by Imperial’s Tanaka Business School). It has initial funding of £5.8 million from HEFCE and NESTA.
Read more at DesignLondon. Via. Royal College of Art News
Larry Lessig tells here three stories about how the web has primed the return to a participative culture as opposed to a broadcast-passive consumption culture; and how the culture of control still holds on to control, contrary to common sense. Lessig argues that ownership and use of content on the web, and intellectual property is directly relevant to the adoption of participative knowledge use in organisations – and the resistance to that adoption on the basis of a need for control. Well, he discuss it 
What do you think, is it?
Recently GK VanPatter was asked about how to define Design Thinking which I and other has been written about here a few times before - but a lot has happened in the field since then. Design Thinking is one of these topics which is difficult to handle, put into boxes, define in a discrete way. As GK say’s - the definition of design is in motion. He claim the following “revolution”:
Design is moving from:
1. Tactical to Strategic
2. Defined Briefs to Fuzzy Situations
3. Aesthetic-Centered to Human-Centered
4. Trends Tracking to Complexity Navigation
5. Strange-Making to Sense-Making & Strange-Making
6. Vertical Content Expertise to Adaptable Process Expertise
7. Intertribal Communication to Cross-Disciplinary Communication
8. Creating Ideas & Products to Co-Creating Strategies & Organizations
9. Thinking & Doing to Thinking, Doing & Enabling
10. Deliberate Exclusion to Deliberate Inclusion
11. Object Creating to Culture Building
12. Design as Subservience to Design as Leadership
I agree, a paradigm-shift is on its way - do you?
I recently bought Gary Hamel’s New Book - The Future of Management. VERY interesting and if I may say “spot on” when it comes to a description of what is necessary for companies to understand. Companies should organize them selfs as social systems, not as mashines.
When reading through the book I experience page by page that I’ve got my self a new friend. I knew that already when reading Gary Hamel’s comment on my post about “beta mindset“.
His book is interesting because it links Enterprise2.0 to Enterprise survival.
“Look around you; what things have demonstrated their adaptability across decades, centuries and eons? What sets the benchmark for adaptability? From my vantage point, life, markets, democracies, faith and cities all seem surprisingly adaptable. Each of these biological and human systems has proven itself to be far more resilient than any large corporation. They must become the role models for 21st century companies.”
and
“Many companies devote 5, 10 or even 20 percent of their revenue to R&D. Why not set aside a small share of discretionary funding for ideas that don’t pop up at the right time, or in the right place, to make it into the formal budgeting process? My guess is that a community of hundreds of mid-level managers spread out across a large company would, in the aggregate, make better investment decisions than a few folks in a corporate new ventures unit.”
I do of course agree, but many managers doesen’t understand the dynamics that web2.0 unfold internally in organisations…..I’ll come to that in another post
Do you have any takes on how the organization of a company would look like in the future? Which leadership competencies are in play? And what role does design play in the development?
We’ve been writing a lot about the impact of thinking the design methodology into business process. Now Businessweek has an article, which at it’s best could be called a recap on the importance of diversity in innovation.
The point is of course still valid - important. And of course it’s interesting to look ont how different knowledge domains get’s in play, but the hole discussion lack’s a discussion about the management/leadership implications.
Perspectives?
