The CEO of Ideo argues that innovation has been the large output of enterprises in crisis from the United States (in 1929, 1980, 2008) and that serves to counteract any recession
Few companies are ready to create a schema of collaboration in creation. Even those who manage to do it tend to be "haunted" by a culture that deals poorly with the results. So many ideas coming into the market simply because someone from the top the supports, not because they are the best.
And what's the alternative? The "design thinking" (design thinking): the incorporation of the troubleshooting methods and ideas from designers to the traditional organization, working with-and, occasionally, against – the area of research and development (P&D). The intention is to expand horizons and instill a more innovative direction, especially during economic crises, such as the Brazil lives.
Who says that's the English Tim Brown, CEO of the innovation and design company Ideo, Palo Alto, California, known for the expansion of the design in a variety of areas. Notes: "When we're scared, as in a crisis, our field of vision tends to narrow, isn't it? We need to enlarge it ". He elaborates the concepts and practices of design thinking in the book Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspire Innovation.
Mr. the design thinking as a way to turn everyone in designer? Or is it a way to put the designers in charge of business?
The first alternative is more like it. The last thing you want is to blame the designers for everything. For me, design thinking means the following: in a world where "commodification" is increasingly fast-paced, rapid knowledge transfer implies that new ideas and best practices are available to all. Our current style of management, which has to do with "how to make the best choice between the options available?", Yes, I'd say, tough nut to crack. It's hard to compete when trying to make choices from the same set of existing options for everyone.
So, the thought of design, one that uses the methods and approaches that employ workers, comes to generate new options to choose. Is to create a product, service or environment, is to address situations like never approached before. And I believe that all organizations – businesses, Governments or social entities to benefit with the generation of new options. I'm trying to encourage people to imagine not able to do that in their usual roles using some of these methods.
Was not to produce new options to choose what God invented the function of P&D? [risos]
We tend to think of P&D as the place where new options are made in organizations. But, in P&D, there is only a very specific group of people who can do that, that is, technically trained scientists and engineers. If I am a marketing professional, or HR nurse, it is highly unlikely that I will be able to invent any technology, but can I use the techniques designers to have new ideas.
For most people, the design still is not limited to fashion, furnishings and whatever come from Apple?
Yes. It's easier to see the aesthetic side of design and talk about it. But design is something much broader than the beautiful objects that you buy in shops of museums. If you take a step back and think about it, everything around us is designed, engineered, somehow. The design is in the software and in our environment – we worked out how things are built. We have designed the process that put up a building. All the elements around us, the man-made world, were object of design.
"Suppose there is a kind of clergy and that, unless you use black Turtleneck Sweater and a certain type of glasses, you can't create"
The design can actually find home in the corporate world, North American and world?
Well, the staff assumes – designers, including – that there is a kind of clergy and that, unless you use a black Turtleneck Sweater and a certain type of glasses, you can't create in fact. I'm trying to rid the world of this notion pie. I even wear black every once in a while, but also use other colors!
Some of my best friends are brilliant designers, which make beautiful objects and sell them to museums. I've done some of that, I have nothing against. But it's a small part of the potential of the area and, if we focus just this, we lose him.
Mr. assures readers that "no one wants to manage a company based on feeling, intuition and inspiration". So, Mr. is looking for a balance between the soft side and the "rational and analytical"?
We are used to living in a world in which we have great confidence in forms of analytical thinking, in order to make decisions, particularly in business and leadership, and argument that this is necessary, but not sufficient. We need to be not only converged too divergent. We need to think about a world full of things that we didn't have before, and so make them converge and determine which of them go to work. Most organizations don't feel comfortable in that time to diverge.
For that, we have to rely so much on our power of analysis as in synthesis. The analysis, which means to study and understand the complex, it is very useful to know how something will work and how you can improve it or make it more efficient. But the analysis is not very good for producing great new ideas.
So, we need to synthesize many ideas, or knowledge, competitors, even if it is in tension, to generate something that is somehow a whole. What the designers and thinkers of the area always seeking is an alternative that is better than the starting points.
For organizations to clear the obvious, Mr. also talks about "the challenge of migrating the hierarchy and efficiency culture for culture to take risks and do exploits". What keeps the old culture?
Some senior executives think they are the smartest in the world and we have the responsibility to decide which ideas are great and which ones aren't. Makes 50 years ago, there was a big difference between the experiences and skills of the leaders and the rest of the staff in an organization, but this is no longer true.
In most companies, there is an incredible amount of talent and, not infrequently, they are closer to the market and to the world. There is a clear and real paper for high leadership, but is not to have the ideas, and create the conditions for which they exist. An organization that is well integrated and uses technology effectively will be able to align themselves around the innovations that emerge from her.
In terms of business culture, Mr. writes that "curiosity never prosper in organizations that have become cynical." Why is there this cynicism?
Part of it has to do with putting his career in jeopardy by taking risks. If the error mean delay in career, people don't risk. I mean, you can't have an organization that says "we have to innovate", but to punish people when they fail. This is an obvious point, but it happens in all companies. And, when it happens, the skepticism about the innovation becomes larger, and no matter what the President say about taking risks. There is also an arrogance that comes from not being connected to the market that we are trying to serve.
If there is a silver lining in the current madness is less economic organizations to keep their head in the sand. There is not a single category or sector that is not seeing major disruptions and, sooner or later, everyone will have to start thinking about "How do I have to change?".
Mr. see the service sector executives, for example, change their attitudes towards innovation?
More and more companies are recognizing the importance of innovation. Health services are a great example. In terms of product, innovation has always been crucial, but, in service, there has been little. A lot of what you hear about resistance-the doctors, for example – is based on the assumption that the service they provide will not change. You sit down with your doctor and he talks to you and you with him, and he charges $ 300 for the privilege. But the technological disruptions are forcing changes to it.
I'm quite hopeful, in fact. There is evidence of innovations starting to emerge in the hotel sector, in transport and service industry that exists: the Government. As citizens or ordinary consumers, we obtain very bad services in various areas and I think we deserve more than that.
Mr. been able to apply design thinking to any type of business?
So far, at least, found no where could apply. For example, there is the "Keep the change" ca[trocadilho em inglês que remete a guardar o troco e a manter a mudança]mpaign, to Bank of America. If someone asked me years ago, "Which is the area where you think less likely to make a difference as a designer?", I'd say it was in the design of financial products, because it seemed the 1,000,000 kilometers away, made by mathematicians of Wall Street. But Bank of America asked us what we could do to better serve adults with young children (nor was specifically saving) and start asking. And found all sorts of insights into what people were already doing; things like rounding the amount of your utility bills and save the change in a jar. The jump was then convert this to a new service.
Mr. talk about how this thought "take the Studio design", but will the designers really want to get away from the Studio?
There is a community of designers who probably don't sit so well with it. I went to design school for many years before discovering that the place to have your mind wasn't in front of the drawing board, but out there in the world. Great designers are wonderful world watchers. They have the ability to observe and understand really the surroundings, and hence come these leaps of imagination.
But many of us don't do that intuitively and or natural, when we are thinking of dealing with more complex problems than the shape of the next Chair, we need to develop more formal processes. But a development that happened was the passage of the idea of ethnography as academic exercise for the ethnographic research as something you do within an organization. We have people in our design teams with training in Ethnography/anthropology and psychology, as well as people with training in engineering and design.
And we're dragging our customers to outside companies. A result of good design approach misunderstood, but still interesting, is that you approach the world you're trying to serve. You understand your customers or your potential customers better than do for brokering focus groups reports – which are still, unfortunately, the way many companies know their customers.
Companies need to even design thinking to go in that direction? They didn't see each other without it?
There's still a lot of resistance. The organizations say they want to be rational and analytical, but they cannot visit 1000 people, why bother with ten or twenty? How can this be scientific or statistically significant? It makes you lose sight of the central point: we went out to get ideas and we have one from an observation or of 100 observations. There are other ways to find out if you have a good idea, but we're talking about have an in principle.
And there's another point that organizations always lose: they assume that what you learn out there is what must be exactly in the center of the market, then talk with customers who are in the middle of the normal curve of the products that the company already manufactures. This is usually the form of observing less useful. The most helpful is to get out and visit people who are at the ends of the normal curve. "Extreme Users" are doing weird and wonderful things that you never imagined, and that's where it get interesting ideas. In addition, we should not only talk with people who consume your product or the competitors. Talk to people who are not doing it. If you ask someone who consumes, the best you will get is an incremental improvement of what already has.
"Big designers are wonderful world watchers. they have the ability to observe and understand really the surroundings, and hence come these leaps of imagination. But many of us don't do that naturally "
What's wrong with incremental improvements, if? In times of crisis, all concerned about the risks, they wouldn't be business leaders looking for small steps and quick and easy solutions?
We are going through a phase in which much of the optimism and the experimentation necessary to achieve innovative ideas was left aside, and attention was placed elsewhere. But we need to start thinking about the long term.
Some of the most interesting innovations and disruption have emerged from recessions, which isn't surprising: in a recession, the rules change; the number of competitors decreases and the way to be successful is really understanding what happens to the market, instead of going on the "will of the Waltz".
During the great depression, Fortune magazine emerged as innovative in business publications. Low-price airlines emerged from recession in the late 1980. The model based on Google ads out of the recession of 2008. So, there is a real opportunity to take advantage when others are not focusing on innovation. It depends, fundamentally, leadership quality, that is, the decision to focus on whether or not the innovation.
"Fortune magazine emerged as innovative in business publications during the American great depression. Low-price airlines emerged from recession in the late 1980. The model based on ads, Google, came out of the last recession "
But Mr. notes that the companies, in tough times, always reduce their "efforts to ideas that have potential for short term". It's reasonable to expect they look ahead, when they're barely surviving?
A company that has a good innovation process must be able to think both short-term as long. A few years ago, Procter Gamble – organization committed to & design and design thinking for some time – told us that wanted to reinvent the bathroom cleaning. It seemed something very prosaic, but it was a good question. The project lasted a few months and spawned six new ideas for products and services. Some of them were capable of deploying almost instantly; other required long P&D programs. So, when thinking about a problem in the right way, you capture both the short and the long term. There is nothing, in innovation and design thinking, to say I just have ideas for the long term.
With design thinking, you start looking at people and then integrates thoughts on technology and business to support the ideas. That way, you can find opportunities for innovation that have no new technology and, therefore, can be carried out relatively quickly. The "Keep the change" of Bank of America is a good example. It's about recognizing a behavior, not a new technology.
In the book, Mr. writes that "the thought of design needs to move upstream, closer to the executive offices, where strategic decisions are taken". That means that Mr. I would like to see the designers in these executive offices?
There is only one or two of these designers such as Mark Parker, CEO of Nike, but I don't mean necessarily the top of the hierarchy. I mean to the point where the design is in the process. The thought of the area has a role to play wherever the strategic thinking happens in the company. One of the roles of the strategy is to produce new choices for that organization, and design thinking should be in your Toolbox. Is a potentially very valuable tool.
So, the ideas should go upstream, no matter where they originated?
Until not long ago, I believed – we all believed – that, when we did the big "Aha!" and pulled the black cloth off of whatever it was, we would have completed the task. The problem is that there are 1000 people behind you that you've got to be excited about it. And while it's tempting to think new ideas speak for themselves, they don't talk. You have to tell a story about the new idea, not only have the idea. I remember, years ago, have visited the Nike and his then Chief designer, Tinker Hatfield, showed me how, every time he came up with a new concept, they created an ad-a simple ad, have you called an advertising agency. To present the idea to top executives, showed the ad, not the footwear.
Think of the number of ideas who die because they are presented at some awful PowerPoint file. That's why we pay much attention to the craft of storytelling. We have writers and filmmakers at Ideo, and the companies that become very good at innovation will have a lot of people like that too. Is an entirely new opportunity for writers.
The interview is Matthew Budman, Publisher of The Conference Board Review.
© The Conference Board Review