Innovation within design thinking is not exclusive to the designer as it is an innate creative process that can

be developed through learning

HI DESIGN THINKING IRA RIZAL YATIMSaturday, 25 October, 14

INTRODUCTION HI DESIGN THINKING IRA

Innovation have been a buzzword within design thinking as it is often proclaimed as the best way to be creative and to innovate. Design thinking often is associated exclusively to the designer as a design specific cognitive process that designers apply when designing. The notion of design as “a way of thinking” have

been viewed also as a designer’s way of thinking which Lucy Kimbell identified in three ways:

All 3 ways places the designer as the main agent of change and is derived from key design concepts to approach each problem. What started out as a an activity within a discipline has gain merit to a process with

the power to simulate, drive innovation and transform organizations.

Does this mean the term design thinking is exclusive only to the designer’s way on making sense of things with the designers own terms? A better understanding is necessary into the basis of design thinking before

adopting the process for the achievement of innovation.

A cognitive style A general theory of design

An organizational resource

Saturday, 25 October, 14

Most often, we adopt design daily in our lives from how we organize our workstation, laying out our furniture at home to choosing our wardrobe for the day. Everyone is a designer and it has become something we can all practice as part of our consumption activities.

At the same time, design disciplines have been trying to describe the specific things that design professionals do and how they are distinctive. Design methods have been discussed since the 1960s and has found a key role in innovation urging everyone to be a design thinker instead, especially in management. To understand this better, lets look at an elemental understanding of what innovation is to establish a basis for our inquiry into design thinking.

THE DESIGNER IN ALL OF US HI DESIGN THINKING IRASaturday, 25 October, 14

“the act of introducing something new”- IP Nelson

“the implementation of a new significantly improved product (good or service) or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practice, workplace organization, or external relations.” - Oslo Manual

a new “thought, behavior, or thing” is conceived of and brought into existence - H.G Barnett

Each of this definition suggests that innovation as a creation of something new which requires an action or process of some type that introduces something new. However, we may note that there can be some ambiguity in what exactly constitute to be new and its introduction. New things can take a variety of forms such as a product behavior, system, process or organizations but at the heart of all these “new things” is an idea when acted upon ultimately affects innovation.

By introducing some action inspired by the idea starts the process with which the eventual “introduction” can occur thus initiating the innovation. Relevant to design thinking as a creative approach to innovation, we explore the genesis of the idea for an understanding of the design thinking method on ideation. (Wylantt, 2008)

A LOOK INTO INNOVATION HI DESIGN THINKING IRASaturday, 25 October, 14

Barry Wylantt proposed key elements in the idea mechanism that provides us some insights into how ideas are generated. He introduced the element of a considered stimuli that has to exist in a setting or context within one’s imaginative perception. One can cognitively nest perception within a body of experience and learning that can inform the comprehension of a particular stimulus and make sense of it in an imaginative way.

Within this cognitive contextualization, the key interplay of its elements is the capacity of the stimulus to hold one’s attention and the malleability of the imaginative perception itself.

It is important to note that the quality of the innovation requires the need to move beyond imitative and continuos innovations with the consideration of the stimuli in increasingly disparate context. This ultimately can improve one’s creative output into the ideation process for innovation. (Wylantt, 2008)

THE GENESIS OF AN IDEA SUGGESTED EVIDENCE

A considered stimuli

imaginative perception

A considered stimuli

imaginative perception

cogn

itive

con

text

ualiz

atio

n

Saturday, 25 October, 14

Wylantt then further explored this process with psychologist, Teresa Amabile’s componential theory of creativity where she proposes a comprehensive model of the social and psychological components

necessary for an individual to produce creative work hence stimulating innovation.

Amabile’s theory was then drawn parallel to a basic design process and distinct similarities was discovered which is useful in understanding how smaller aspects of the design process might be completed. Within any creative endeavor, the final creative outcome is based on a single idea and this end state is achieved

through the genesis of many smaller ideas. (Wylantt, 2008)

Problem/ Task Presentation Preparation Response

GenerationResponse Validation

Creative Outcome

Problem Definition/Design brief

Background Research

Sketch Generation CAD Work

Prototype & User Testing

DesignSpecification

Wylantt’s process of design

Amabile’s creative process

THE GENESIS OF AN IDEA SUGGESTED EVIDENCESaturday, 25 October, 14

With this, I would suggest to look deeper into the components that is necessary in any creative response, mainly in design thinking, which can now be thought of more as a professionalized version of the creative process.

As Amabile identified within the theory, there are four components necessary in any creative response; three components within the individual and one outside the individual.

This provides us some insights in which innovation can be achieved with better confluence of all the components. More research can be done to consider this components within design thinking to achieve innovation instead of approaching it from only a designer’s perspective.

TOWARDS THE IDEA OF INNOVATION RECOMMENDATION

1) domain relevant skillsThis refers to the knowledge, technical skill or expertise from an individual that can be acquired through experience or learning.

2) creativity relevant processesThis include cognitive styles and personality characteristics to synthesize information which can be develop through experience and training.

3) intrinsic task motivationUnderlying the components before, motivation forms an individual and in effect improve the achievement of creativity. More significantly, intrinsic motivation sets as the central tenet in Amabile’s theory such as passion, interests or the challenge of the work itself.

4) the social environment in which the individual is workingThe social environment in which creativity is practiced can influence the achievement of innovation. Hence, building a creative culture within the environment can affect better creative response. (Amabile, 2012)

Saturday, 25 October, 14

COGNITIVE CONTEXTUALIZATION

Within Wylantt’s idea mechanism, he proposed that in order to ideate, the stimuli need to placed in increasingly disparate context to achieve the highest level of innovation. He gave the “idea” in innovation with the need to breathe within a context or setting

given. The need for a constant reframing of the idea within a given context improves the quality in the innovation. He continues to give the analogy of the expression “thinking outside the box” as a cognitive contextualization to give meaning to an idea and

suggest that it would be more appropriate to express it as “thinking in a different box”. This is significantly similar towards Buchanan’s thoughts on design thinking specifically on his discussion with placements as the boundary of context or orientation

to thinking. He proposes seeing the possibilities of innovation through conceptual placements.

Placements are ‘tools’ for intuitively or deliberately shaping a design situation, identifying the views of all participants, the issues of concern, and the intervention that becomes a working hypothesis for exploration and development, thereby letting the problem

formulation and solution go hand in hand rather than as sequential steps. (Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013)

It is evident then that both processes feature some concepts of contextualization for the achievement of innovation. Both concepts agree on the importance of contextualization that can ultimately simulate creation of something new.

CONCEPTUALPLACEMENTS=

THE CONTEXT IN INNOVATION SUGGESTED EVIDENCESaturday, 25 October, 14

With this similar approach in achieving innovation, we suggest that the approach towards design thinking be more of a learning process instead of a model towards innovation. Cultivating creativity can improve innovation within design thinking as it is an innate cognitive process especially when a deeper understanding is established through learning.

This process can be viewed as proposed by Beckman and Barry’s paper to look into the innovation process as a learning model where they adopted from Kolb’s “experiential learning model” in 1985.

TOWARDS THE CONTEXT IN INNOVATION RECOMMENDATION

In essence, it requires the individual to engage in

a) concrete experience b) abstract conceptualizationc) reflective observationd) active experimentation

as an ongoing reconstruction of whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Each of the phase can be approached with a learning style and by adaptability within the innovation process can cultivate cross disciplinary innovation teams.

There is then evidence that role assignments on team are best based on learning styles not exclusive to only the designer as the main agent of change.

Where individuals in a team are assigned based on their strengths and not their seniority. (Beckman, Barry, 2007)

The integration of the innovation process model and the learning process model provides an opportunity to construct cross disciplinary innovation with better understanding of different cognitive styles hence simulating better innovation.

Saturday, 25 October, 14

Design thinking offers a a huge possibility with a better understanding on its attitude towards innovation. This suggests that an innate creative process evidently deep within all individuals that can be developed when approaching design thinking. Moving away from the designer as the exclusive agent of change, everyone has the competency to lead innovation with having a sense of appreciation for the design process.

However, being creative is only part of the competence and practice of a designer’s work and it is impossible to take the designer out of design thinking but to provide better clarity in the term itself as part of a thought process rather than just a model for adoption, more meaningful participation towards design thinking can encourage innovation.

Looking at the whole design process as a matter of meaning creation, we do not believe that there is a unique meaning of “design thinking”. Instead we look for where and how the concept is used in different situations and what meaning is given to the concept. (Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013)

CONCLUSION HI DESIGN THINKING IRASaturday, 25 October, 14

Wylant, Barry (2008), Design Thinking and the experience of innovation, Design Issues Vol 24 No 2

Kimbell, Lucy (2011), Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1 Vol 3 Issue 3

Amabile, Teresa M. (2012), Componential Theory of Creativity

Buchanan, Richard (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design Issues Vol VIII No 2

Backman, Sara L & Barry, Michael (2007) Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking Vol 50 No 1

Sköldberg, Ula Johansson, Woodilla, Jill & Çetinkaya, Mehvis (2013) Design Thinking: Past, Present And Possible Future

BIBLIOGRAPHY HI DESIGN THINKING IRASaturday, 25 October, 14