Earlier this week some colleagues and I attended a fantastic gathering of business and political leaders called the Emerging Issues Forum. The theme of the forum—interestingly enough for a bunch of business folks—was creativity, and speakers included some of my favorite thinkers/authors who analyze the future of business:

Roger Martin, Dean of the Rottman School of Management at the University of Toronto, and author of The Responsibility Virus, The Opposable Mind, and a new book on design thinking called The Design of Business.

Tom Kelley, General Manager of legendary design firm IDEO, and author of The Art of Innovation and The Ten Faces of Innovation. IDEO’s CEO Tim Brown also has a book out on the subject on Design Thinking, called Change by Design, which my friend Jonathan Opp wrote a nice review of here.

Daniel Pink, bestselling author of A Whole New Mind, a book that has been extremely influential in my thinking about how the left brain and right brain can play nice in the business world. Pink also has a new book out, called Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.

During their talks, I couldn’t help but notice all three touched on a similar thematic: the crucial role that inspiring creativity plays in driving innovation.

[Read the rest of this post over at opensource.com]

Today I spent a great day at the Emerging Issues Forum, where I’m proud to say my home state of North Carolina attracted some of the top business minds in the world (the Twitter stream is going crazy here). This morning featured two Dark Matter Matters all stars, Roger Martin and Tom Kelley (who I have written about previously here and here), but there was also an incredible lunch session where Charlie Rose interviewed husband and wife creative geniuses Nnenna Freelon (the 5-time Grammy nominated jazz vocalist) and Philip Freelon (architect extraordinaire), and plenty of other enlightening stuff.

The theme of the conference is Creativity, Inc., and from what I can tell from many of the attendee and host comments, the theme of this year’s event is very different than years past. But the undercurrent of many of the comments from this morning seemed to take a clear point of view on this theme.

My interpretation? For years the business world has been waging a war against creativity… and creativity is beginning to fight back.

It’s about damn time.

Read the rest of this post at Dark Matter Matters.

Design Thinking proponents are often at odds with advocates of Six Sigma and other quality-driven, process programs. I have been no exception. It is not that I don’t recognize the powerful competitive advantage such programs have driven over the past three decades. But in an age where quality is often a commodity, it seems reasonable that other innovative models should be considered. And given the unquestionable success of design thinking strategies and open collaborative models in the marketplace, can anyone doubt there are powerful alternatives to consider?

However, perhaps the question doesn’t have to be either/or?

Recently, Sara Beckman wrote an interesting article in the NYTimes— Welcoming the New, Improving the Old. In it, Beckman argues that the different world views of design thinking and six sigma-type quality systems can and should co-exist. Both belief systems— from the designer perspective that pushes boundaries to surprise and delight to the incrementally measured process where workers meet deadlines and margins — are meaningful. “The most successful companies,” Beckman writes, “will learn to build bridges between them and leverage them both.”

Of course, Beckman is correct. Any holistic design thinking process has to incorporate analytical thinking and process, relevant measurement, and incremental improvement. “I’s” have to be dotted. “T”s must be crossed. Advocating for creative culture and process does not  mean advocating against meaningful measurement and accountability.

The key question to consider is which process/culture will drive the most competitive advantage given the current challenges an organization faces. If an organization has been making it’s people act like robots for a long time and needs to change, perhaps Six Sigma is not the choice to make. On the other hand…

Tim Brown of IDEO, who recently published his first book Change By Design, thinks “perhaps we should think of design thinking and Six Sigma being part of a cycle, each feeding the other to create new and improved products, services and experiences. Of course the biggest challenge will be to build business cultures that are agile enough to incorporate both.”

Brown positions the challenge elegantly enough. But the complexity behind his simple declaration is staggering. Where would we begin? As a proponent of open collaborative models, I believe firmly in the competitive power such community-driven innovation serves. It’s so messy though for someone who believes in the order and engineered process of Six Sigma.

If I take this as a design challenge, I need to know more. And I’m wondering, are there good case studies that show how large organizations are attempting to do this now— combine Six Sigma and Design Thinking into a thoughtful cycle of process and culture?

I’d love to hear about them. Or anything close.

In the software development industry the results are in and open source is the winner. As Matt Asay predicts in a recent blog, future dialogues about open source will be less about evangelism and there will be more focus on putting open source into practice.

Which forces us to look, fundamentally, at exactly what we’re putting into practice? Open source software? Or open source itself? What do we mean when we say open source?

At New Kind, we believe that open source is— simply stated—  a beautiful and effective way to scale creative thinking and culture. What is amazing is the rapid acceptance of “open source” beyond software development. Today businesses are looking at open source as a way to create new business models, new management strategies, new marketing, innovation and community-building paradigms.

As we’ve noted before (and will, no doubt continue to note) evangelists in this broader understanding of open source include many of the world’s most influential business thinkers including Gary Hamel, Roger Martin and Tom Peters. Two weeks ago I watched Coke’s VP of Global Branding— David Butler— introduce open source as a powerful branding/design concept to AIGA’s national conference for professional designers. These speakers are not referring to open source software.

But, through the proven success of the open source software development model, in part, they have discovered the competitive power of such creative collaborative, design thinking cultures. And they are advising today’s business leaders to rapidly adopt these new kinds of models across their organizations; internally and externally.

Acceptance will be slow among executives who are just now being introduced to open source creative models. Hamel says they are locked into “archaic beliefs” that must be changed if they are to remain competitive. It took nearly 15 years for the technology acceptance; how long will this take?

The time is now. For organizations where innovation is now a strategic necessity, open source creative cultures are a powerful if frightening alternative to the habitual thinking of analytical-driven, MBA-type cultures. As Martin’s book The Responsibility Virus makes clear, fear is a powerful force that shuts down innovation. Most executives and senior managers have little clue how strongly fear influences their thinking and actions, and the effect that has on the competitive positioning of the organizations they lead.

Open source and design thinking are anecdotes. But there are countless traditional players— individuals and corporations; large and powerful— who have no interest in seeing new competitive threats to their status quo arise. Open source is revolutionary change; landowners seldom start revolutions. These players will not welcome the change open source promises. And they will not play nicely.

Such opposition will look for evidence that open source doesn’t work. To borrow Roger Martin’s language, “reliable” actions will trump more “viable” solutions. When they find ‘reliable’ evidence, they can and will be ruthless adversaries. Open source practitioners must not be naive; evangelism can become a detriment in this environment. Even the Christian Bible (a fair prophet on evangelism) warns, “Faith without works is dead.”

In that context, Matt Asay is correct. Evangelist must begin to play a secondary role to the practitioner. And if Malcolm Gladwell is right, then it takes 10,000 hours for an individual to grasp the nuance and expertise necessary to play that role. That’s a small community of practitioners.

That’s the next challenge for open source.

……………………..

additional resources:

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/ghost.aspx?ID=/Strategy/Innovation/Innovative_management_A_conversation_between_Gary_Hamel_and_Lowell_Bryan_2065

http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/rogermartin/publications.htm

I was going to write a blog, but just watch this.

Summer 2009

In the current issue of MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2009) there is wealth of wonderful articles about collaboration, innovation, design process and design management. One written by the magazine’s editor-in-chief Michael Hopkins— Problem Solving by Design— reviews John Shook’s book Managing to Learn.

“In his book Managing to Learn, John Shook deconstructs the problem-solving journey of one manager and his mentor, and the management mechanism that guided them.”

Shook worked at Toyota for ten years and has become is a leader in the Lean movement. The principles of Lean Thinking were publishing in Lean Thinking (1996) by James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones. An updated edition was printed in 2003.

Principles of Lean Thinking:

1. Specify the value desired by the customer
2. Identify the value stream for each product providing that value and challenge all of the wasted steps (generally nine out of ten) currently necessary to provide it
3. Make the product flow continuously through the remaining value-added steps
4. Introduce pull between all steps where continuous flow is possible
5. Manage toward perfection so that the number of steps and the amount of time and information needed to serve the customer continually falls

I haven’t read Managing To Learn but I will. Shook’s findings alone are a satisfying salve for to any designer’s soul:

1. Almost always, the problem you face is different from the one you thought you were facing.
2. Most of us are so eager to find (and deliver) the solution to a problem that we jump to conclusions instead of truly investigating to the problem’s root.
3. The A3* process provides a framework for learning in the “place where the work occurs.”

Amen.

* Roughly speaking, A3 is name has given their internal design thinking program. —David

Change is scary. And so are new ideas. Today, our lives are filled with both.

The good news is that designers can make change less scary by making circumstances easier to understand. We also help manage the risk inherent in new ideas by making them real, tangible and concrete. Once real, ideas can be tested and evaluated, providing organizations with insight into potential success or failure.

Designers all over the nation create beautiful, functional and delightful things that improve lives. The U.S. National Design Policy Initiative exists to encourage the government’s use of design in order to improve U.S. democratic governance and economic competitiveness. Simply put, a national design policy offers a unified vision for how citizens and government can work together to design a better nation.

I’ve given much of my time and energy in service of the initiative, as a facilitator of the Design Policy Summit, researcher of the Federal Design Improvement of the 1970s, designer of the 10 policy proposals document and of the Summit Report.

This video reaffirms my support and briefly explains my thoughts on the importance of design and design policy for America’s future.

Check out other videos by design policy supporters on Facebook and YouTube.

Transcript:

Hi, my name is Matt Muñoz and I’m a designer and partner in New Kind, based in Raleigh, North Carolina.

As the makers of things, designers play a crucial role in the creation and communication of ideas and meaning. We form the products, messages and environments people experience every day.

Designers can make information accessible and relevant in ways that encourage trust and that manage the inherent risk of new ideas.

1) What role does design play in US economic competitiveness?

Designers help companies compete better.

We give form to the brands — the reputations — that people love and respect.

We collaborate on teams to make smart, relevant and delightful things that connect emotionally and perform brilliantly.

Companies that utilize the value of design can change the rules of business by building products and services that provide superior consumer experiences,which enable them to outpace competition.

Designers also encourage the American entrepreneurial spirit.

By makings new ideas real, entrepreneurs can better understand how their ideas compete in the market. Once these ideas become market-tested innovations, entrepreneurs can more efficiently grow their businesses and create jobs.

If more US companies utilized design to create superior experiences, they will gain more value in the global marketplace, and thus make the US more economically competitive.

2) What role does design play in US democratic governance?

Designers help the U.S. government engage citizens in democratic experiences.

We can clarify complex issues by visualizing them in concrete ways. We can build platforms for participation, so that citizens can play a larger role in the creation of public policy. We can improve democratic processes so that they become more efficient and accessible.

Through the things we create, we can make government more transparent and trustworthy.

3) In what specific ways, would a national design policy further enable design to play those roles?

To make certain that our best days are ahead of us, citizens must be able to see and believe in future opportunities, and understand one’s role in building them.

A national design policy is a unified vision illustrating how we, as a nation, can design our future to be socially, environmentally and financially sustainable.

This vision — comprised of many different activities and public policies — would enable citizens to understand and act towards a sustainable future. It could spread good ideas from where they are born, to the places they are needed.

4) What would you pledge to do to help design play that role?

Today, we need less fear and more determination.

As a designer, through the things that i create, I pledge to make change less scary by making it easier to understand. I pledge to encourage trust by making processes transparent. I pledge to make organizations more successful by making the design process more accessible.

In summary, I pledge my time and energy, in any capacity, in service of the US National Design Policy Initiative.