CPH127

Arthur Cropley has done a marvellous paper on divergence vs. convergence thinking– “In praise of convergent thinking", where he has some interesting observations.

Convergent thinking is oriented towards deriving the single best (or correct) answer to a clearly defined question. It emphasizes speed, accuracy, logic, and the like, and focuses on accumulating information, recognizing the familiar, reapplying set techniques, and preserving the already known. It is based on familiarity with what is already known (i.e., knowledge), and is most effective in situations where a ready-made answer exists and needs simply to be recalled from stored information, or worked out from what is already known by applying conventional and logical search, recognition and decision-making strategies.

One of the most important aspects of convergent thinking is that it leads to a single “best” answer, and thus leaves no room for ambiguity: Answers are either right or wrong. IQ tests are frequently regarded as epitomizing convergent thinking. Divergent thinking, by contrast, involves producing multiple or alternative answers from available information. It requires making unexpected combinations, recognizing links among remote associates, transforming information into unexpected forms, and the like. Answers to the same question arrived at via divergent thinking may vary substantially from person to person but be of equal value. They may never have existed before, and are often thus novel, unusual or “surprising”. Sometimes this is true merely in the experience of the person producing the variability in question, or for the particular setting, but it may also be true in an absolute sense.

Which kind of thinking do you practice, do you motivate in your organization? When do you see it is nessesary to be divergent/convergent?

However, contrary to what is sometimes assumed, both convergent and divergent thinking lead to production of ideas. None the less, there is a major qualitative difference: Convergent thinking usually generates orthodoxy, whereas divergent thinking always generates variability; otherwise it would not be divergent.

Read more……

Months back I had a post about Appreciate Inquiry where I also described the principles of Open Space Please take a look on the important principles of what leadership definitly also consists of…….

Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. valuing; the act of recognizing the best in people or the world
around us; affirming past and present strengths, successes, and potentials; to
perceive those things that give life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems 2.
to increase in value, e.g. the economy has appreciated in value. Synonyms:
VALUING, PRIZING, ESTEEMING, and HONORING.

In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. the act of exploration and discovery. 2. To ask questions;
to be open to seeing new potentials and possibilities. Synonyms: DISCOVERY,
SEARCH, and SYSTEMATIC EXPLORATION, STUDY.

Obvious that design apply as a groundbreakting principle as well…..

…..it gave me the idea to create a new "Runway" - Management vs. Leadership. Any resonans in doing so? Please let me know

Read the rest of this entry »

It was when I threw out a reference to the movie, Rashomon, by Kurosawa, while talking to a young designer at work, only to have him blink at me in response, that I was moved to write this ‘rant’ or ‘view’ or, in my case, ‘informed opinion’. ‘The Rashomon Effect‘, has become a reference for contextual truth or subjective reality, i.e. shared experiences may be interpreted uniquely by each member of the group or team, and for a practicing professional designer, one who deals in the world of interpretation, to be unaware of this seminal piece of creative work, appalled me.

When I asked him what his educational background was, he said it was a BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) in Visual Communications from a better known school in the USA. This is a four year degree on a university campus, where one assumes, one is exposed to the great works of film, literature and the arts in near human history. How then, can one be ignorant of the influence of Francois Truffaut, Peter Brooks’ 10 hour long epic, The Mahabharata or even Leonardo’s use of The Golden Ratio?

My intention here, today, is to begin a conversation on design education, and to ask all you, a global audience, to share your own experiences in education. Is this issue one that is only faced in the United States, where I’ve met and interviewed hundreds of designers seeking graduate design education, or is it prevalent in Europe, Asia and Oceania? Ian, as an educator based out of Australia with significant Chinese experience, what is your opinion?

In my own experience, I’ve been educated in the British system until the O levels, followed by a year in an american high school, then undergraduate degree in Bangalore and of course, a year at the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad. From an early age, my schooling was such that I was exposed to world literature and culture, culminating in an intense experience at NID. In the 10 months I was there, I was exposed to Bharata Natyam through the AISEC, French filmography, the Battleship Potemkin, The Caucasian Chalk Circle et al. Every weekend, there was a film festival or a dance recital or an art exhibition. All of these influences, states the philosophy of the design school, written by Charles and Ray Eames, converge to create design professionals who are able to manifest in tangible form, their enhanced aethestic sensibilities.

Year’s back I joined the Knowledgeboard – participated in the periphery of the community and learned a lot. From my early conversations there I remember Denham Grey - a truly expert in “Community of Practice’s”. I just came by his blog today and I think one of his latest posts about Knowledge Formation apply very much to our vibrant community as well – and of course it’s also relevant in general.

In his post he mention:

“Let’s start by looking at what we mean by ‘new knowledge’. For me this takes us beyond information sharing, (although this may result in new knowing for individuals) knowledge is produced when new worlds are brought forth, when we make sense of our environment, when claims are socially validated and meaning is negotiated & shared”

If ”new knowledge” is ”sense-making” I think he’s thought’s apply very much to the CPH127-community and should in every community of practice.

Some of the principles mentioned is:

• New knowledge
• Mining past experiences
• Making key distinctions
• Sharing ontologies

Is that what we do here at CPH127? Can we do it even better? How? Ideas?

Please read Denham’s full post – it’s worth a read. His blog is

A few days ago I facilitated a workshop about Social Software - especially the use of Weblogs, Technorati, Bloglines and Flickr. It was a part of a Master Programme at CBS.

One of the participants reminded me of a very interesting theory on Complex Responsive Processes that I read last year.

The reason why I think it’s interesting in a design, innovation and leadership perspective is because of trying to find the answers on the following questions:

1. Who am I and how have I come to be who I am?
2. Who are we and how have we come to be who we are?
3. How are we all changing, evolving and learning?

I have been engaged in these questions myself and been working with them through a process of developing an understanding of my embodied values and in what way I am able to live these values in my practice. My identity.

Stacey has
placed emphasis on the importance of relating in his second question “How have
we become to be who we are?” He addresses this question through his theory of Complex Responsive Processes

I think the third question is answered by the way we communicate. Does that make sense? Is it btw. applicable to the thoughts of design thinking? What do you think?

I just came by an interesting article that I want to share with you….

"Many managers disdain organizations that put a premium on the way things have always been done around here over those that champion bold and rapid decision making. Ironically, as this author states, making the right decision is less important than focusing on how the decision is made the process. In a compelling argument he makes the case that examining how decisions are made, rather than the decisions themselves, will lead to better decisions."

Read more here.

Any thoughts?

Weeks ago Johnni had a post about thriving the conversation - nice post by the way - and by the time I just read the article mentioned very briefly. Now I got the opportunity and I must say there are some very good insights hidden between the lines….

People come together to participate in a conversation with different aims, intentions and expectations in mind. What is the impact of these expectations on the quality and outcomes of the conversation?

Reflecting on our experiences in thriving (and not-so-thriving)conversations, we have concluded that the purposes and dispositions of the individual participants are important to the success of the community and their conversation. In other words, not everyone can make a thriving conversation happen.

So, make clear what the expectations are…..but is that always possible?

Take your time and read the piece.