Design Research for Innovators

When you have an existing product or service then research techniques and methodologies already exist to gather and analyze information about it, to start planning the next version and future improvements. Building up a data collection and then analyzing existing users and systems through market research tools and surveys, as well as focus groups will yield a lot of great data to wade through to help incrementally improve existing designs.

However, if you are starting a new product or service that no one has ever seen before or had the opportunity to use, what methods can you use in this situation? There is not always something to test against and people cannot have accurate opinions about something they have never seen or used. Jane Fulton Suri chief creative officer at IDEO, suggests in her article about design research, that innovation requires a new approach to tackle the unknowns. Design research techniques can help in future thinking of new products and service insights. She explains that innovation is mostly open ended in its requirements and can be very subjective in nature. She suggest that what is required is what she calls "design research" opposed to more traditional research techniques, that still uses the analysis of objective evidence as before, but the research is enhanced with extra exploration due to the lack of applicable data. These include:

Synthesizing of evidence,

Exploration of analogies and extreme cases,

Recognition of emergent patterns,

Empathetic connection to people's motivations and behavior,

Intuitive interpretation of information with impressions from multiple sources.

These considerations are used to expose patterns with peoples behaviors and experiences, as well as, explore reactions and responses. The purpose of this research is to extend our knowledge and understanding. These allow the researcher direct efforts to probe and prototype against, which will more likely give key insight on unknowns through hypothesis and experimentation.

Design research's value is in inspiring our imaginations and inform our intuitions. Successful design research as Jane suggests requires both a cultural transformation in organizations and perpetuation of those transformations to allow innovation to survive and grow. Design research requires the individual to get out of the office and be where the customer is and see what they see. It is important to get first hand experience out in the field. Design research can be rich and delivers not only facts, but insights into those facts and reasons behind them. She goes onto emphaize that people have needs, motivations, habits and perceptions that all need to be taken into account in new product and service design thinking. Good research should uncover these nuances and allow the experimenter to gauge their ideas against this knowledge.

She summarizes with three different approaches to design research that can address open questions with regards to innovation and how they can be performed and implemented.

Generative Design Research

This is an empathetic exercise, it is descriptive and factual but also speculative and interpretive. We are looking for emergent patterns, challenges and opportunities that can be address with innovation and design thinking. It can be performed by shadowing specific people and observing their behaviors. Having people keep diaries of moods and significant events. It is interactive and contextual and not based on self report or opinions. There is also room for more traditional market research, and trend information searching. The aim is to create a framework for thinking about the domain for innovation.

Evaluative/Formative

Learning feedback loops are useful here, with user input and consumer insight gained from using sketches, telling stories. Producing videos and prototypes can be very valuable here to help demonstrate the issues and try potential solutions. The aim is to tangibly represent an idea, probing and asking questions. It gives a chance to address questions and uncertainty as it occurs. It allows you to check peoples reactions and refine assumptions. Collaborative discovery and creation works well in this research method. Using prototyping techniques such as theater(bodystorming) and paper prototyping.

Predictive

How confidently can we predict success? Looking ahead to estimate the potential of an idea and the future opportunities that maybe be available. This requires more of a business mindset, and is a good skill to acquire, especially for designers. Looking for potential markets and determining viability of ideas. Running live experiments and having labs that run experiments online is good practice.

Brainstorming 2.0

Fast Company and Jonah Lehrer, have recently written some interesting ideas around the value of brainstorming, and whether it even works. Is brainstorming really a waste of time?

Brainstorming as a tool for creative people has been used since the 1940's when Alex Osborn (BBDO) came up with this process for idea generation for his teams of advertising gurus. This was part of 6 phases he proposed for creative problem solving.

  1. Mess-finding (Objective Finding) 
  2. Fact-finding 
  3. Problem-Finding 
  4. Idea-finding 
  5. Solution finding (Idea evaluation) 
  6. Acceptance-finding (Idea implementation)Idea generation is a vital part of each phase, as is deciding which ideas are most relevant to carry forward to the subsequent phase.

He sheltered the ideas and creativity from criticism in the early stages so that the individuals were more free to imagine and not face criticism when ideating, which he believed would stifle input from people. Alex promoted this concept as part of BBDO's secret sauce to creativity. Now any company worth their salt in the innovation space uses brainstorming as part of the creative process. So have we be fooled?

So what is wrong with brainstorming? Is it broken, or does it just not work?

Well one argument that Lehrer puts forward is that some research suggests that people can be more creative working alone. It seems putting people into large groups doesn't increase creativity and idea generation. Instead group dynamics affect each person's contribution. This makes a lot of sense and groupthink is something that has been researched and written about by Susan Cain. I have also come across this idea in "The Innovation Killer" by Cynthia Rabe. Groupthink was an observation put forward by Irving Janus, that groups can make faulty decisions and behave irrationally even when presented with facts. 


Janus outlines some of the symptoms of group think as:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

People in groups have dynamics they bring to the group such as hierarchy in the team and social interactions. We like to be agreeable to fit in better with peers rather than upset the status quo. This doesn't really suggest brainstorming doesn't work, but is definitely something that can be fixed with better organisation and realization that this groupthink problem can arise. The real point is not just bringing groups of people together, but bringing the right people to the group and sessions. Outside thinkers, or zero gravity thinkers as Rabe suggest can help in this, by not having the same associations with the group performing the brainstorming these personality types might be more open to making comments and not falling prey to group thinking. Also, just being aware of the problem can help the group realize that it might be occurring and find ways to stop groupthink occuring


The next argument brings up that criticism actually improves the brainstorming process, which I think is maybe missing the point of brainstorming. Brainstorming is about idea generation not the next pahse which would be evaluation. The argument goes that in an experiment where two groups brainstormed with one allowing criticism and the other didn't that the critical group actually performed better with the number of ideas. Now of course not knowing exactly the process they used, I would assume that maybe what happened is that the criticism actually generated new ideas. This would fall inline with one of the brainstorming rules or build on the ideas of others. I don't think criticism actually was the catalyst for new ideas, but probably got people focusing on one idea at a time, as they would have discussed one idea a little further, then generated ideas from that original, just as brainstorming is meant to. 


I think adding a new rule that allows criticism is not the answer, it is going to quickly lead to resentment, of the idea generator, who will feel personally criticized and more importantly bring back the problem of quiet people not speaking up for fear of "stupid ideas". I do however think that building on peoples ideas gives this concept a positive spin, focusing people on ideas one at a time. Interestingly the Fast Company article does go on to say that criticism allows refining and redefining the problem, which increases creativity. I agree that problem definition is one of the hardest and most important steps, I am not sure you need criticism to do this but I do agree that it is an important part of brainstorming, to know what exactly you are trying to solve.


Lehrer goes on the describe that creativity is about happenstance not planning. This I agree with having a team of diverse experts working together is indeed more important for innovation to happen than having teams spread out across buildings or countries. This makes a lot of sense, there are more chance interactions and shared knowledge moments when people are closer together. I also agree that fresh approaches from new team members and outsiders can be invigorating for a stale team that is churning over the same ideas and problems for a long time. I would even consider idea pollination through collaborative workspaces. Environments are known to have a huge affect on what happens in them, create a creative space and people will feel more creative.

So the final question is do we need to drop brainstorming or can it be reworked. I believe that brainstorming is a valuable tool in idea generation and some of the rules outlined here are incredibly useful for making it work.  Yes there are good sessions and bad sessions, the real problem exists when people become complacent and think that it is some magical process to have the next big idea. Brainstorming is really a catalyst of idea creation, it can help teams bond across departments, it can fuel lateral thinking and also generate amazing ideas outside of the problem space. Brainstorming, needs to be part of your culture, the more you do it the better it gets. With the right facilitator, I believe that brainstorming can address all the problem Lehrer puts forward, all that needs to be remembered is that you are dealing with people and as such they have feelings(and don't like to be criticized) and need motivations(positive feedback) to work together problem solving. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all the work that companies like IDEO and Stanford's d.school have put forward to make successful brainstorming sessions, these companies and teams have proven the power of brainstorming and show that great ideas can be found in these sessions. It takes work and effort but the results can be very rewarding and the process a great deal of fun.

Seems I am not the only one whom sees a flaw in the article about brainstorming, Bob Sutton with way more clout and experience than me, has a similar feeling that brainstorming when done correctly can be a very effective way to produce ideas. He suggests that giving people the problem in advance of a brainstorm can let individuals come prepared to contribute having already immersed themselves in the problem space. He makes some excellent points and more importantly knows the pros and cons of brainstorming first hand. He sees brainstorming as a combination of individual and group thinking all happening in parallel when facilitated correctly with good techniques. The switch from individual to social modes can be done easily by expert brainstorming facilitators. One important insight is that the work of Robert Zajonc, that suggests that people are unable to withhold judgement on anything they encounter.

I put together the rules of what leads to a great brainstorming session here.

Here is a summary of what Jonah Lehrer proposes would help fix some of the issues with brainstorming.

• Rather than brainstorm with the traditional “no criticism, every idea is worthy” rule, encourage debate. It isn’t pretty or polite, but team members engage more with their colleagues’ ideas. They often come up with more thoughts–many of them unpredictable and original–after facing conflicts (the conclusions of a study by U.C. Berkeley psychology professor Charlan Nemeth).

• Take a cue from the most successful Broadway musicals (Lehrer points to empirical evidence conducted by Brian Uzzi, a sociologist at Northwestern University), which tend to have a mix of repeat collaborators and new talent on their creative teams, rather than closed circles of long-time co-workers, or all-new groups who aren’t familiar with each other.

• Collaborate physically near others to promote better group ideas. The ideal distance? Thirty-two feet. This is based on research by Harvard Medical School researcher Isaac Kohane, who used the numbers of citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers as a metric. Those groups with the most citations for their collaborative papers were working within 32 feet of one another. Those with the least were at least a half a mile apart.

• Force teams into chance encounters in the workplace, via architecture. Lehrer cites Walter Isaacson’s recent biography of Steve Jobs: Jobs guided the design of Pixar’s headquarters to offer an atrium that housed the only bathrooms in the building (later, more were added)–thus increasing the odds that writers and programmers would discuss cross-disciplinary ideas, even during their breaks.

• Consider abandoning beautiful design when attempting to create an effective creative space. Lehrer cites Building 20 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (which has been demolished), originally a temporary building nicknamed the “plywood palace.” Bose Corporation used it as an incubator. The first video game was created there. And linguistic study was revolutionized within Building 20, too. It was so ugly and underdesigned, researchers who worked there were forced to customize their work spaces. The room numbering made no sense, and people got lost. So they wandered into each other’s genuinely creative, personalized labs and offices. And exchanged ideas.

• Think about it: brainstorming, for all its ostensible freedom of thought, actually asks teams to follow a script of non-criticism and free-flowing associations. Consider re-writing it.

7 Sins of Innovation

Ryan Jacoby, head of IDEO NY is quoted in an article found here on 7 deadly sins he sees that affect innovation.

They are summarized as:

1: Thinking the answer is in here, rather than out there.

2: Talking about it rather than building it.

3: Executing when we should be exploring.

4: Being smart, afraid to be wrong.

5: Being impatient for the wrong things.

6: Confusing cross-functionality with diverse viewpoints.

7: Believing process will save you.

This list is definitely very pertinent to the creative design thinking process, it promotes prototyping, and building as well as risk and taking, without fear of failure. It also raises the issues with unrealistic expectations from management on innovative new products and encourages diversity in teams that are there to innovate. I like this list and it touches nicely on the major aspects of good design thinking methodologies and implementations.

Also in his talk at NYU Poly Ryan refers to a prototype as being a single question embodied. He then goes on to describes a pilot (study) as a collection of many prototypes embodied all at once, like asking many questions at the same time. What is important to innovation is to ask questions constantly in production, then trying and tweaking those results. Ryan thinks it is important to always be in Beta, constantly exploring new ideas and keeping what works. Of course this is hard to adopt because people are afraid to fail, and can be difficult to prove somethings effectiveness, does the idea scale and how much does it cost. These concerns make innovating difficult in a corporate setting. Ryan quotes that Innovation is fundamentally a human endeavor. Avoid the sins and innovation should get easier and more productive.

Design Thinking

Design thinking is an alternative way of thinking about problem solving and idea generation. It could well be one of the most important new ways of structuring new business teams and creating environments for future workers that has been put forward in recent years. The concept is not really anything new, and certainly many historical figures like Edison, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Tesla, would be in my mind classed as design thinkers. Really the newest step forward is the more formal acceptance of the process of design thinking as promoted by companies such as IDEO that produces reproducible successful results. Most people in the realm of invention and idea creation really have been practicing design thinking for centuries.

Design thinking is a really a process in approaching a problem. The basic four steps of design thinking are: 

Define the problem

Create and consider possibilities

Refine and dissect results

Repeat(optional)

Execute most successful outcome

Within each of these steps are tools and methods that help get the most out of the process. 

Defining the problem, involves a discovery phase with analysis of the problem space. At this point in the process it is critical to immerse oneself in the problem, existing solutions (if any), and the all the available resources and literature. It may also require observation of people and processes already in place. Only after a full discovery would it be worth moving onto a creation phase. At this point in the process it is worth considering tools like brainstorming on smaller parts of the problem, grouping and ideating ideas together to be evaluated as worth pursuing. Which leads nicely into to a complimentary part of the phase of creating prototypes of various levels of fidelity. To test out concepts and encourage team engagement at the early production stage. This is when things begin to really stand out as feasible and worthwhile solutions or not. Then, comes the refine and dissection of those ideas that seem most worthy. Further prototyping, and maybe some usability tests can help refine the results. repeating earlier stages may also prove advantageous. After things seem to funneling into a particular result it then becomes time to execute the most successful outcome into the final product or service.

That in a nutshell is design thinking. Again nothing completely new but really people's acceptance and corporate push for innovation has brought these now more well defined steps into new consideration. They are effective and powerful ways to generate ideas and produce prototypes that lead to more successful end products and services, when done correctly.

Other breakdowns of the steps include.

Discover, Analysis, Ideation, Prototype and Evaluate.

Define, Research, Ideate, Prototype, Choose, Implement, Learn.

In each instance you can see the common form of four basic steps.

I have some further reading here for design thinking.

You can read some more of my thoughts on prototyping here.

And some ideas on idea generation here.

Zero Gravity Thinking

In my quest to just keep filling mind with great thinking and approaches to design and innovation techniques, I came across an intriguing book that caught my eye in the local Goodwill book section. Titled "The innovation killer" by Cynthia Rabe it raised my curiosity enough to buy it. In this book, which should really be titled "Zero Gravity Thinking", she describes the need for teams, that are working on new and creative projects, that require innovative thinking to introduce certain personality types she refers to as zero gravity thinkers.

A zero gravity thinker is someone whom Edward De Bono would call a lateral thinker, or IDEO would refer to as a T-shaped person that has a deep expertise in one area of knowledge, but also is following a broad interest in different fields of study or knowledge these personality types when mixed with established teams can often reinvigorate the stagnation of ideas with new perspectives and considerations. Rabe, goes on to describe the importance of someone whom would be called an outsider, that can be more open to new ideas, has self confidence to know what they are talking about and a willingness to introduce an existing team to new approaches and consideration, most likely from another field of knowledge. The zero gravity thinker is someone whom the team can collaborate with, that most likely is not an expert in their field, but probably has a basic understanding of their knowledge space, but does have an expertise in a similar or different field that has similarities to the problem space. A good example might be a team of biologists introducing a zero gravity thinker that is a chemist.

The value she describes is very compelling, and considering that companies like P&G and Microsoft hire external agencies like IDEO and Ziba to brainstorm new ideas and improvements to existing products reinforces the idea that external thinkers can work out well in innovating with existing teams. IDEO of course is the most recognized company in the World for innovative team thinking, and the products and services they design are proof it works. Their teams are often described as a mix of great thinkers from different fields of knowledge.

The concepts she introduces are not new, but the book is a great summary of the concepts and definitely describes the zero gravity thinker concisely. It is a good read and nice introduction to the concepts of this new style of problem solving.