Thinking about design thinking

“Instead the British Design Council expressed it as an infamous double diamond diagram that happens to look fantastic on a slide.”

Designers

“Designers don’t search for a solution until they have determined the real problem.”

I recently wrote a piece on the differences between design thinking, lean and agile. Since then I have been wanting to explore each of the topics on their own. The reason for this is because each of the mindsets deserve their own unique place in the sun. They have their own origin story and shine in different ways and contexts. Of course they shine most when combined to complement one another.

So Design Thinking…

One of the biggest buzzwords around today. For many it brings up visions of creative types walking around with pretty presentations of honeycombs and Venn diagrams. Paired with elaborate flow charts describing how it all works lead many to believe that design thinking is about process.

“But like most well intended ideas in our industry it is not about process or procedure at all. Instead it is once again a mindset or culture.”

But like most well intended ideas in our industry it is not about process or procedure at all. Instead it is once again a mindset or culture. It just so happens that the mindset is paired with a set of techniques for applying a designer’s way of doing things.

But design techniques are just for design?

Not true! Design thinking can be applied to any context or domain with great effectiveness. It is a fantastic approach to explore and brainstorm new territories. As such it is less about the outcome and more about the approach and path to get there. Conventional thinking would have you think that this is not the case and that the “design” in “design thinking” implies outcome.

So if design is not about design what is it?

It is about lifting they way designers approach problems and using it elsewhere. As Donald Norman the father of UX said: “Designers don’t search for a solution until they have determined the real problem, and even then, instead of solving that problem, they stop to consider a wide range of potential solutions. Only then will they converge upon their proposal. This process is called Design Thinking.”

I still don’t get it spell it out for me

Ok, so its not about stickies, sketches, honeycombs or process. It’s not even about actual UX design. Design thinking is a set of approaches where almost all flavors aim to:

  • Figure out what the real problem is instead of settling on the first solution
  • Search for solutions expansively frequently leveraging the intelligence of the group
  • Critically considering the options, narrowing it down to the best
  • Collectively converging on a proposal that should in theory be far superior

The idea is that the more avenues and directions you explore the deeper and more thoroughly you think about your problem.

So why the honeycombs and diamonds?

Let’s formalize the above paragraph. Design thinking is the repeated divergence, emergence and convergence of solutions to problems. As such, it is nothing but deliberate practice for continually solving things from a different starting point and in a far better way.

“But that is way to fluffy to try and explain to business folk conditioned to think in PowerPoint and email. So instead the British Design Council expressed it as an infamous double diamond diagram that happens to look fantastic on a slide.”

But that is way to fluffy to try and explain to business folk conditioned to think in PowerPoint and email. So instead the British Design Council expressed it as an infamous double diamond diagram that happens to look fantastic on a slide. That diagram has now become the ubiquitous way of simply visualizing the model. Honeycomb diagrams aim to do the same with a little more detail.

Double diamond.PNG

“Behold the famous double diamond, or at least one version of it!”

Remind we what this all about again

As I said in my original blog. Design thinking is all about exploring the problem. Lean is all about building the right thing. And agile is all about building the thing right. Design thinking allows us to explore using intuition and deductive reasoning just like a designer. Or at least in theory 😉

The difference between design thinking, lean and agile

“Each mindset brings value to a different stage of the product life cycle and, when used together, can drive better decision-making and improved ways of working.”

Agile, Lean and Desing Thinking

“Instead of trying to prioritize one over the others, it is better to view them as a powerful trio”

In modern software development, you’ll often hear the terms design thinking, lean, and agile. While people may have different interpretations of what these concepts mean and how to apply them, they all share the common goal of helping organizations develop new skills and abilities to adapt to the modern world. Each mindset brings value to a different stage of the product life cycle and, when used together, can drive better decision-making and improved ways of working.

I can’t remember where I picked it up but my favourite way of summarizing the difference is with the following three sentences:

  • Design thinking is about exploring problems in a better way
  • Lean is about building the right thing
  • Agile is about building the thing right

If you take anything out of this article these three sentences would be it. But let’s scratch that surface just a little bit more.

Design thinking at a distance (Explore problems better)

Design thinking is a problem-solving approach that utilizes techniques and practices from the design field to overcome the limitations of traditional brainstorming. It focuses on empathy and the continual reframing of problems and potential solutions from the perspective of the people involved. Design thinking is not limited to design and can be applied to any domain that would benefit from a flexible and human-centred approach.

Lean thinking at a distance (Build the right thing)

Lean thinking is a management philosophy that originated with the Toyota Production System and its creator Taiichi Ohno. It involves applying scientific thinking to strategic decisions related to the execution of work in an organizational value stream. Lean recognizes the importance of addressing constraints and focuses improvement efforts on creating value. It also emphasizes the use of deliberate practice to develop habits that enable a highly responsive and outcomes-focused organization.

Agile thinking at a distance (Build the thing right)

Agile is an adjective that describes a way of working that is adaptable to changing needs. It involves deferring decision-making until the last responsible moment when you have the most information to make the right decision. Agile thinking focuses on constantly creating value through short, iterative cycles of focused work that can be applied to almost any domain. Quality is not a goal, but an integrated part of daily work.

So which one of the three is the most important?

It is difficult to compare the importance of the three concepts discussed in the previous paragraphs because their strengths are applicable in different situations. Instead of trying to prioritize one over the others, it is better to view them as a powerful trio that can achieve great things when used together. In programming terms, this is not a logical “or” (||) but a logical “and” (&&).

Developing a Culture of Meaning for Software Teams

“This means having a clear and compelling vision that speaks to the hearts and minds of potential team members. This vision needs to be real and have integrity.”

The lonely road of vision of leadership

“To truly land the best talent in the industry, you need to have a cause or idea that people can rally behind.”

Building a successful software development team is a challenging task. Not only do you need to find individuals who are skilled in their craft, but they also need to have a certain mindset and approach to their work. They need to be idealistic and creative, but also able to think critically and pragmatically. They need to see their careers as a calling, not just a job.

Finding these kinds of people is difficult, and they are often in high demand. They regularly receive offers from recruiters and have a wide range of opportunities to choose from. As a result, to attract the best talent, you need to offer something that they can truly believe in.

This means having a clear and compelling vision that speaks to the hearts and minds of potential team members. This vision needs to be real and have integrity, and should be backed by a leader who is not just a salesperson, but someone who genuinely cares about the people who choose to follow that vision.

Many organizations try to attract talent by talking a big game and manufacturing unauthentic ideals, values, and visions. They try to show how “cool” they are by engaging in imitation innovation. But this kind of behavior can only fool people for so long if it is not truly part of the organization’s DNA.

To truly land the best talent in the industry, you need to have a cause or idea that people can rally behind. And you need to create a culture that aligns with the way that technology professionals want to be treated. This means moving away from traditional command-and-control structures and towards a flatter, networked organization that is in line with the modern knowledge economy.

Software has and continues to drive the modern industrial revolution, and as a result, it is at the forefront of shaping modern organizational culture. Instead of trying to fit technology professionals into existing corporate structures, organizations should strive to create cultures that align with the values and goals of the people who work in technology.

To do this, organizations need to prioritize autonomy, mastery, and purpose in their culture. They need to trust and empower their team members to use their skills and experience to build great things. They need to provide opportunities for growth and development, and create an environment where people can learn from each other and push the boundaries of what is possible.

Of course, creating this kind of culture is not easy. It requires a commitment to change and a willingness to challenge the status quo. It requires leaders who are willing to listen and learn from their team members, and who are willing to adapt and evolve in response to feedback.

But the payoff is worth it. A culture that aligns with the values and goals of technology professionals will attract the best talent in the industry. It will foster innovation and collaboration, and it will enable your team to build great things together. And in the end, that is what truly makes a software development team successful.

The learned helplessness of corporate companies

“In a nutshell, the experiment involved exposing dogs to controlled electric shocks in a confined space.”

Learned helplessness in corporate companies

It is really hard not to become despondent in bureaucratic organizations

One of the most common and destructive phenomena in bureaucratic organizations is the concept of learned helplessness. This term was first coined by Martin Seligman and his colleagues in their research on classical conditioning in the 1960s. In a nutshell, the experiment involved exposing dogs to controlled electric shocks in a confined space. The negative conditioning of the shocks eventually led the dogs to avoid seeking potential escape, even when the chamber was altered and an obvious exit was presented. This phenomenon is known as learned helplessness, and it can have devastating effects on individuals and organizations.

In many corporate environments, the negative effects of learned helplessness can be seen all too clearly. There are often too many people working in heavily regulated industries, using outdated and ineffective methods, and organized into hierarchical teams that stifle creativity and innovation. In such environments, even small attempts to deviate from the norm can be met with resistance and obstacles from self-proclaimed guardians of the status quo. The go-to argument in these cases is often governance and regulation, which are used as excuses for inaction and a lack of accountability for real change.

This self-imposed learned helplessness is often passed on from one team to another, and from one culture to another, until the majority of the organization becomes trapped in a cycle of feeling powerless and unable to break free from the safety of their constant suffering. It is no wonder that many individuals in these environments lose hope and become despondent.

One of the biggest dangers of learned helplessness is the way it can be exploited by those who seek to gain political advantage. These individuals often exaggerate the implications of self-imposed governance policies, creating artificial urgency and forcing people to work beyond their limits for the benefit of a few. In the process, employee well-being is frequently sacrificed, and any hope of creating a psychologically safe and caring environment is destroyed.

In conclusion, all leaders face constraints, and it is not always possible to challenge them. However, true leaders are able to differentiate between the constraints that must be accepted and those that can be challenged. They also show their employees that it is okay to go against the grain and that they will be supported in doing so. By encouraging creativity and innovation, and by fostering a culture of accountability and empowerment, leaders can help their employees break free from the cycle of learned helplessness and create a more positive and productive environment.

Why corporate companies suck at agile

“Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.” – Tyler Durden

Why corporate companies suck at agileIt is amazing that 16 years after the agile manifesto came to life that many corporate software environments still talk about ‘Agile Transformation’. Agile has become like a religion where everyone in corporations feverishly beats their breasts and shouts at the top of their voices for all to hear about how great Agile is and how totally on board they are with it. For many business professionals, it has even become a career risk not to buy into the virtues of Agile.

For those paying close attention, you will notice that when corporate environments talk about agile development, (like the paragraph above) they tend to talk about it in capitalized noun form. Agile development has been reduced in substance and is simply seen as a process or framework that needs to be adopted. It is seen as a magic bullet that is finally going to solve the inefficiencies in those pesky technology departments that just don’t get the subtleties of high-brow business folk’s needs.

The problem is that this capitalized noun Agile mindsets miss the point completely. In the immortal words of Tyler Durden, ‘sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken’. Similarly taking an agile (read nimble) process/methodology and following its steps to the tee without really understanding its purpose does not make you an agile organization. It was never about process or framework.

Agile is an adjective, it describes a culture and mindset. A desire to be adaptable, collaborative, lean and evolutionary. Agile is about early feedback loops, about failing early and fast. It is about constantly reflecting on yourself and coming up with experiments to improve things. It is about partnering with your client and involving them in the development process.

It is about transparency and externalizing risk at all times. It’s about building products lean and incrementally. It is about accepting that you don’t have all the answers up front and using natural ways of working to figure them out just in time when they are needed.

If these words resonate with you I implore you to go read the agile manifesto again and to start focusing on the values and principles behind agile development instead of fixating on the process. Be mindful of how people become fundamentalists about something they do not even truly understand in the first place.

We need to stop the army of Scrum Alliance trained ‘Agilists’ that parrot fashion recites SCRUM methodology to you claiming to be the answer to your waterfall world.

But the real issue is that corporations are not set up to be agile. Corporations are built to optimize control and stability. They are built to make money by minimizing risks and maximizing profits. They are built to have long-term plans and to execute them. They are built to have policies and procedures in place to ensure consistency.

All of these things are anti-agile. Agile is about embracing change and uncertainty. It is about experimentation and learning. It is about short-term goals and flexibility. It is about trust and collaboration.

In order for corporations to truly embrace agile, they need to fundamentally change the way they operate. They need to start valuing adaptability and learning over control and stability. They need to start prioritizing experimentation and innovation over minimizing risks and maximizing profits. They need to start focusing on adaptable goals and flexibility over long-term plans and control. They need to start building trust and collaboration over policies and procedures.

This is no small task. It requires a complete shift in mindset and culture. It requires senior leaders to lead by example and to truly understand the nature of the beast.