Reflecting on my recent attendance at the WEF Global Agenda Council summit in Dubai, it is clear that the depth of the current crisis is unprecedented and that doing ‘more of the same’ will not be enough. The overall theme from the final plenary session was “Re-boot”. A call to re-visit and reinvent many of our current systems and approaches.
The term “sustainable and restorative” innovation emerged. I don’t know what this means but it sounds interesting to explore. What would restorative innovation be?
A few other ideas emerged that seemed to resonate with design thinking:
The need for the re-design of regulation. The current regulatory environment has not served us well but it is not clear that simply more regulation would help. Much of the discussion in the design council (see Bruce Nussbaum’s blog for more info on this) was about achieving transparency of information. Maybe this is a better form of regulation.
Exploring safe futures. Peter Schwartz, who invented scenario planning, criticized business and government for failing to explore potential futures in a safe way. He suggested that visualizing scenarios of potential futures would help us explore implications in a more productive way. There is an obvious role for designers here.
Tapping into the talent of all our people. The concensus was that the current problems, and more importantly achieving a sustainable future, cannot be solved without accessing the talent of all society. My view is that to do this we need new skills and the ability to be generative via design thinking is one of them.
Sector interdisciplinary collaboration. Bruce Nussbaum does a nice job of describing a frustrating session that he and I spent with the climate change council where it was clear that there are great risks associated with tackling these problems in silos. Design thinking forces interdisciplinarity.
Silver buckshot. While the metaphor is a little unfortunate, the idea was proposed that we need silver buckshot not silver bullets. This strikes me as a call for divergence as an alternative to convergent thinking.
While I can be legitimately criticized for seeing every conversation as an opportunity for design thinking, I came away from Dubai with a strong feeling that design can make a contribution to improving the way we tackle the deep systemic issues the world now faces. The other good news was that designers were invited to the table to participate in the discussion. Not something that would have happened in the past.
Restorative? Hmmmm. My first thought on restorative innovation leads to the re-introduction of traditional values that we will most certainly have to rely on to get through this period without destroying society and one another. Not just the golden rule, but also fundamental economic values and principles. We’re already in the midst of a massive project to restore hope (thank you for voting). Now, we must restore worth to values of thrift, saving vs acquiring, patience, tolerance, honesty, the lot.
Maybe the real innovation comes in how we can make such old, seemingly archaic truths fresh, relevant and appealing again. Of course, enough fear and suffering may well do the job on their own. But wouldn’t it be nice if a little focused design thinking could help the transition along and ease some of that pain? What’s old is new again. And again and again.
Tim – do you think designers are equipped to solve some of these problems (i.e. economic ones)? Or is it actually that we’re better equipped to facilitate the generation of new ideas using the design thinking process? Do you know designers with also have significant knowledge in economics or politics? I haven’t met any, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
As a young professional, I’m hopeful that we designers can make a difference at this level, but also concerned we may be promising too much of our methods.
Michael,
To facilitate new ideas through the design thinking process seems to be our best role as designers. A designer is not meant to substitute the economist or the politician, and I think that’s the whole point of design thinking – a multidisciplinary approach. Design thinking should be there to help other disciplines ‘think outside the box’ with more empathy, to break vicious cycles that are not being met by the lack of change in perspectives or methods.
I don’t think is promising too much, but actually enabling others to do much more.
i am here with indhi and with tim’s feeling that design thinking play a role in the overcoming the current economical crisis.
furthermore i think that we are experiencing an overall cultural transition away from the linear and modern logic of the 20th century to a more holistic (or systemic) approach in seeing the world and in consequence to a more integrative approach in dealing with problems and in looking for solutions.
i do not think that ‘design thinking’ is the solution to our problems – i think it is the natural way in which we will approach our problems and challenges in this new era of time that is about to start.
I think the crucial element design brings to politics, economics, and a host of other crucial discussions is that of the outsider’s eye. Every designer I’ve ever met asks the naive question, the “back to the beginning” question, to form the lump of clay that ultimately becomes the idea. If you’re a politician, an economist…it’s all inside baseball. Every conversation (and much of the thinking) is mere continuation of the previous one.
Starting fresh, the white sheet of paper, is exactly what the toughest problems often require. I’m glad Tim had a seat at the table in Dubai.
as a matter of fact ‘design’ on the one hand side and ‘taylorism’ and ‘scientific management’ on the other were founded/discovered in the same period of time and are now roughly 100 years old.
the latter capitalized on the inherent logic of the modern age that basically everything could be expressed in numbers and as a consequence that every sum could be split up into an almost infinite number of small parts – providing the possibility to control and manage all of those small elements individually (think mcdonalds for example).
historically speaking design almost simultaneously emerged as the counter movement – based on the instinct and assumption that the whole is much more than just the sum of its parts.
in his book “the philosophy of money” (1900) german sociologist georg simmel describes the transition into the modern world as a transformation from a ‘subjective’ into an ‘objective’ culture.
simmel’s book is a fascinating read as he tells you how he sees all ‘subjectivity’ (also as ‘meaning’, ‘essence’, ‘origin’ and ‘character’ etc.) being sucked out of the modern world and thus being replaced by the fluidity of the logic of money.
simmel does not criticize this development like marx and others did before him, but he mourns in a side note: ‘is it not that we as humans – maybe not with every right – demand everything to have a distinct character?’ – and he uses the example of a handcrafted chair vs. an industrially produced one, saying that the latter lacks all the identity and essence that the former so easily got through the hand of one conscious creator… – in our modern and ‘objective’ world, according to simmel, now nothing of that would evermore be found.
in many ways walter gropius and friends solved simmel’s dilemma by marrying art (the subjective) with technology (the objective). – bringing the ‘subjective’ back into an ‘objective’ world by developing a perspective and an approach that by its nature lies completely outside of the sober streams of modern logic.
…
if today designers like tim brown ‘have a seat at the table of the WEF’ i doubt that it is because anybody expects that they with all their personal genius and subjectivity can solve problems better or faster than others can.
but i do think that the original dream of design – making all ends (often also intuitively) meet rather than getting lost in the dead end and cynicism of optimizing ever smaller aspects and elements – can resonate strongly in our interconnected world of the 21st century. – and this even more so with the problems that we are facing.
can ‘design’ reconnect us with our world? can it replace linear logic with a more cyclical and more balance oriented one? can it transform the fragmentedness back into an overall holistic approach?
on the level of aesthetics, usability, sustainability design has proven to do so in many ways. – enough to rediscover and pursue the original dream of design today.
Designers are a logical choice to assist in global change efforts. While we may not posses all the knowledge to solve the World’s problems, we do know how to get people together on the same page while looking at things in new ways. It’s really not much different than the work we do uncovering a new design direction for a client or getting a manufacturing partner to try out a new process. We just didn’t know to call it “design thinking”.
Keep fighting the good fight, Tim. We’re all counting on you!
Restorative: go backwards, return. Restore to a past level.
Innovation: go forwards, achieve new levels. Create, achieve progress.
Does anyone else see a conflict at a very basic semantic level here?
Semantics are important but the question remains – what is restorative innovation? Here’s an attempt:
A restorative is something that an individual would take to make them stronger, to bring them back from ill-health, etc. Restorative thinking is about going back to some point of stability, balance or equilibrium and taking another look, another think. It is, in a manner of speaking, a mental regrouping, so as to allow for time to think anew. Restorative innovation is getting back to a known point and looking at the challenge(s) with a fresh eye, considering new facets, data, perspectives, etc. The known point is important as it has to be one at which one can breathe and reflect – a point of relative stability. I suppose that the analogy in today’s world would be a “getting back” to the basics, or fundamentals, those elements that most can agree upon. Specifically, and in terms of the ongoing financial crisis, it might be getting back to good conservative banking practices and refocusing the banking industry on being a cornerstone of community.
i like what patrick wrote. to go back to the very beginning. – or actually one step before that. – “to form the lump of clay that ultimately becomes the idea.” – poetic and precise.
Whatever the point of where rethinking takes place is important in starting the process but does it matter if nothing gets started. What I read here and in other such forums is a lot of talk that focus on the abstract and thus tends to leave out the collaborators in the process. I think Tim Brown would agree that design thinking cannot be in islolation. Idea generation is the first step but it is a step not an insolular function or single cell event or being. Too many ideas remain as ideas.
I had a very good discussion today with a colleague regarding frameworks. Often frameworks are the outcome of hindsight. We don’t recognize that we are a product of simply being in the right place at the right time. Our rules, organization, processes and resources can be next to irrelevant.
We could regard design’s responsibility at this time is to pare down the organically produced forms which are our systems until they are functionally pure. Then leave them to grow organically again.
For example, how much of the telecommunications land line system do we really need? How much can we disable? How much of the coaxial line system do we need? How much can we disable? Is it worthwhile to move to fibre lines to each household or should we make a major strategic revenue shift over to wireless?
It doesn’t matter with what system/network we are dealing with. The same holds true. I even suggest the abandonment of the term hierarchy and recognize that each level of the system is a different archetype. You might have to look into your Greek, but there are:
- Polyarchies
- Schesarchies
- Exschesarchies
- Isarchies
- Exthesarchies
- Thesarchies
- Monarchies
And many more. Design thinking has to cross boundaries. Very much has to cross moral, political, professional, educational, familial and individual boundaries. Very much has to cross goals, organizations, processes, resources, locations and events.