Design Thinking and its relationship with Social Innovation

Science Without Boarders / Research Project Carolina Pizatto Girardi SID 1331244 Design Thinking and its relationship with Social Innovation This essay aims to investigate Design Thinking and Social Innovation and find a relationship between them - correlating their importance to one another. The study will detail the concepts and theories behind both fields and prove the importance of Design Thinking to Social Innovation.

Defining Design was never an easy task. Even though it is commonly seen as a discipline that deals with objects and its beauty, theorists have been trying to shift this perception over the last years. They aim for people to identify and believe in Design as the reasoning or thinking behind a process; not necessarily related to shapes, colours or textures.

Nowadays, Design’s definition and its application have become broader to a point that there is no unique description of the field. However, it is certain that Design is not seen anymore just from an aesthetic perspective. According to Anel Palafox (2010), the change from an intuitive and artistic designer to a rationalist and logical designer occurred from the 1960s and led to certain Design methods where problems were investigated through a participative and argumentative design process. Design Thinking has its roots in this context. It does not focus only on an object or product, but also and mainly in the activity of thinking about the design process. The nature of the problems that Design Thinking deals with, differentiates from the conventional Design approach as it usually seeks solutions for ‘wicked problems’. Wicked Problems is a Social Planning term, use to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve due to four main reasons: “incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems” (AC4D, 2012). As stated by Rittel and Weber (1973), “those [wicked] problems present such a level of complexity that traditional problem-solving techniques are insufficient to approach them.”

Wicked problems are also commonly referred in social, demographic and environment issues. The increase complexity of social organizations – especially due to cultural differences and globalization - is proportional to the growing on social challenges. Relating to The Young Foundation (2012) work, “these challenges are numerous but include, the ‘failure’ of the modern welfare state, the failure of conventional market capitalism, resource scarcity and climate change, and ageing population and the associated care and health costs, the impact of globalization, the impact of mass urbanisation and so on.” Therefore, by following

Rittel and Weber’s (1973) statement, these challenges require a different approach. This is where Social Innovation comes in – it can be seen as a response to overcoming and resolving these kinds of problems.

Social Innovation refers to new ideas addressed to meet social needs. Which means that whatever is created under this approach, a product, a service or an experience, aims to achieve new answers for the existing social challenges. The outcome has to improve both the social and the economic performance of the society and therefore develop the quality and quantity of life. Social Innovation can be developed from different sectors of the community (individuals, movements or organisations) yet they all share the same notion that solutions are provided from the community to the community.

When defining Social Innovation and Design Thinking, it is clear how both areas are considered emerging fields and have broad definitions that can be misleading or overlapped by other theories. Therefore, there is little consensus as well as lot of debate whenever talking about them, even if individually.

The polemic behind Design Thinking can be explained due to dynamism and multidisciplinary features that the approach involves. The fact that Design Thinking can deal with any kind of problem, either tangible or intangible objects, as well as be suitable for different contexts, social or business, also increases the lack of a strict definition.

Most importantly, Design Thinking is more a way of practicing Design rather than just being a part of the Design field. Nigel Cross (1992) defined Design Thinking as “the study of the cognitive processes that are manifested in Design action”; supporting the statement that Design Thinking is an activity of the problem-solving process. Similarly Tim Brown (2008) states that the difference between Design and Design Thinking as ‘the way designers approach problem solving’. For Brown (2008), “Design Thinking can be described as a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity. Design Thinking converts needs into demands.” However, his definition does not focus on the approach itself and presents a lack of focus regarding Design Thinking. Brown’s definition is generalised since it can be suitable for any Design activity that involves marketing demands. Furthermore, Design Thinking is scalable and can be applied to implement existing ideas or mostly to create completely new solutions and set new perspectives.

Design Thinking is rooted on the abductive logic theory, proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce during the nineteenth century. Roger Martin (2009) claims, “Unlike inductive and deductive logic, abductive logic is neither the truth of a conclusion nor its probability, but to legitimise the process as the best explanation.” According to this logic, a conclusion is inferred by reliable observation data, providing the best possible explanation relating to what was understood. Therefore, there are no assumptions; all evidence is collected by an interactive and collaborative process.

Likewise Design Thinking, Edward de Bono’s theory of Lateral Thinking from 1967, also seeks a change from the traditional thinking to new ways of developing the problem-solving process. However, whereas Design Thinking achieves it through the generation of new ideas, Lateral Thinking theory associates existing solutions and creates another that is not immediately obvious. Indeed, this approach is less risky yet the results might not be legitimately new.

As an approach, Design Thinking focuses on creating human-centered solutions. According to Tim Brown (2008), the process is also deeply human and could be divided into three areas: inspiration, ideation and implementation. The first area regards the problem that motivates the search for solutions; the second area relates to the actual process of developing, prototyping, testing ideas, and the last area represents the path that leads from the project stage into people’s lives. In a basic Design point of view, the research and brainstorm steps would be included into inspiration, whereas development within the beginning of ideation and delivery at implementation. Although the two processes might look alike, the difference between them goes further than nominations. Basic creative processes follow a sequence of orderly steps while Design Thinking understands the process as a system of overlapping spaces. Consequently, Design Thinking process is considered iterative and experimental.

Tim Brown established a set of guidelines that should be considered throughout the process.

The following principles aim to achieve the user desire yet they do not obey any sequence.

The most important prerequisite to a good idea is a good question. The greatest creative problem solvers have an impressive ability to ask surprisingly and insightful questions. Fully understanding the context for where you are designing is also worth talking. For Brown, Design Thinking starts with desirability and this will just truly be known once stepping into the shoes of the users. Mainly, this principle aims to unload any previous baggage and bring insight based on real needs. Similarly, prototyping allows tests on the viability of the idea.

Build to think and then launch simple ideas that will provide teachings that should be considered later on. An open-mind perspective is necessary whenever practicing either the activity or the thinking behind Design. Therefore, it is important to see the entire business

system as a design opportunity. The brief might be related with a specific product or service yet to guarantee a fully human approach, the surrounding channels and structures, such as distribution, communication or marketing, also have to be considered. This is where the potential for innovation can be founded. Controversial, the last principle assumes that independence should be given to those that will use the design. Based on the ‘teach a person how to fish’, for Brown the end solution is not the only benefit that Design Thinking delivers.

The similarities with Lateral Thinking and the focus on Human Centred Design backed up Design Thinking with a multidisciplinary variety of methods and techniques. However, as established by Palafox (2010) “while useful to identity creative approaches and commonly associated to the implementation of design thinking, these techniques are not necessary exclusive to this approach.” Therefore, Design Thinking cannot be wholly linked neither defined with the methods it utilises.

The focus on ‘wicked problems’ and the search for innovation is what links Design Thinking with Social Innovation. While Wicked Problems was already defined previously in the essay, Innovation was not. Peter Drucker defines innovation by “the act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth.” There are two main different kinds of innovation: social and business. When applied to the private sector, innovation generates value that is equal to money, whereas when applied to the public sector, the outcome value means social impact.

This is the base for Social Innovation. In a study developed by The Young Foundation (2012) it was identified that throughout the literature, Social Innovation has been used to describe five different contexts: as societal transformation; a model of organisational management; a social entrepreneurship; the development of new products, services and programmes; and finally a model of governance, empowerment and capacity building. However, this essay only utilises the concepts of social entrepreneurship and the development of new products, services and programmes. This decision is based on the fact that the other contexts do not have a relationship with Design Thinking theory and therefore are not worth deeper study.

Even after narrowing Social Innovation concepts, the field is still a broad discipline as well as the search for a common definition is still blurry. Whereas most of theories present Social Innovation as new ideas that meet social needs, there are various attempts to use terms such as ‘public good’ or ‘for the benefit of people and planet’. However, those terms do not help defining Social Innovation once they are general assumptions. These concepts are nonspecific terms, which can lead into personal interpretation.

Therefore, excluding broad assumptions and seeking for a more detailed explanation, this essay will follow The Young Foundation’s definition of Social Innovation as the practical

development and implementation of new products, services and programmes that meet social needs of all kinds. In this case, new products, services and programmes are all included in a pack of ‘new ideas’. Moreover, according to The Young Foundation, Social Innovation has to achieve its goal through employment, consumption, participation, ownership or production. Social Innovation works within 6 actions. Those steps, likewise Design Thinking, are not always sequential as well as feedback loops or overlapping may occur. It is important the emphasis that the concept of each space is also very similar to what was established for Design Thinking. Prompt - the first space - is consisted by diagnosing the problem, framing the question and seeking inspirations. The next space is called Proposal and Idea, and involves brainstorming and any other method applicable for idea generation.

Following, Prototyping suggests the test ideas in practice. A quick and experimental work should be run in trial versions, instead of formal evaluations or detailed tests. Sustaining is determined as the forth space, in where the idea has to be developed for everyday practice.

This means identifying necessary resources and insuring long-term budget. Next comes Scaling and Diffusion. For this, strategies for growing and spreading need to be sorted out.

The last space assures a successful outcome. Systemic Change is the ultimate goal of Social Innovation, which involves the interaction between systems and guarantees an effective change.

Geoff Mulgan (2007), pointed out that a “content and stable world might have little need for innovation.” Additionally, he describes how innovation can fill the gap that exists between what is been offered by governments, private firms and NGOs and what should be offered in order to fulfil people’s needs. It is certain that social discontents are various as well as their origins – inequality of income within societies classes, empowerment of certain governments, cultural and religious differences etc. In this panorama, Social Innovation is a tentative to solve these challenges. However, as established in The Young Foundation (2012), Social Innovation is able to change a system, alter perceptions, behaviours and structures that previously gave rise to the challenges. This introduces two important features of Social Innovation: first, the idea of impact in order to make a change; second, the dedication of reshaping.

Social Innovation can take place either inside or outside of public services. The tendency to assume that Social Innovation has to come from the third sector is wrong. Social Innovation can be practiced from individuals, communities or organizations, either on public, private or third sectors. However, it is important to consider the difference between Business and Social Innovation, especially if considering the private sector. While Social Innovation address major social challenges, Business Innovation has its roots and is motivated by profit

maximization. Unless the outcome purely seek to achieve one or more social goals and do not seek for any profit out of it, then it can be considered Social Innovation.

Following this logic, Social Innovation is intertwined with local development. However, while Social Innovation focuses on developing and implementing an idea genuinely new, local development focuses on improving the economy of a community and therefore its quality of life. Social Innovation can overlap a local development work yet they must be understood separately. This discussion brings up another point worth talking: the differences between innovation and improvement. An innovation creates a significant impact in the marginal delivery of value for a social issue whereas an improvement just provides slight increase.

Mulgan (2007) complements by saying that “this [new ideas that work] differentiates innovation from improvement, which implies only incremental change; and from creativity and invention, which are vital to innovation but miss out the hard work of implementation and diffusion that makes promising ideas useful.”

Within Social Innovation, there is also a lot of discussion suggesting that the solution or idea does not necessarily need to be new unless it is perceived by new to the end user. In this case, the solution will be considered as innovative once the user has never approached it before. The impact of ‘newness’ - which supports the argument of the opposition - will still be there. According to The Young Foundation (2012), the absolute novelty is a crucial feature once Social Innovations are not just new solutions, they are “new solutions that work better than existing practices and therefore bring about measure improvements for the population they serve.” This argument is related with Design Thinking, once Design Thinking suggests unloading of previous baggage in order to generate new ideas. However, a difference between new solutions and new ideas should be established. While the idea is how the problem will be solved, the solution is how an idea is approached within a system. Therefore, the idea does not need to be necessarily new unless the solution is. A case was picked up to illustrate this difference. Dr. V, founder of Aravind Eye Care System that makes high-quality eye care accessible to low income customers applied McDonald’s principles into eye care. The idea (McDonald’s principles) already existed yet the approach of using it into eye care generated a new solution. Same logic can be applied within Design Thinking, as long as the solution is focused and considered new through the eyes of the user.

According to The Young Foundation (2012), Social Innovation has more to do with action and diffusion than with ideas. This is an important emphasis as it reveals a gap in which Design Thinking approach can be helpful.

As a condition and consequence of local development, social challenges require a very tailored and comprehensive approach. This means that solutions must be designed as suitable as possible. Taking into consideration Tim Brown’s (2008) principles of Design Thinking, it is possible to assure the importance that Design Thinking has over Social Innovation. Nowadays, Social Innovation does not benefit fully from Design Thinking.

Design Thinking is important to Social Innovation once it can do more than just improve existing communications, products or services. It can create a marginal impact in their performance; on the way they achieve users and how they are related within a whole system.

Mainly, it can create entirely new systems. Design Thinking is also interesting for Social Innovation as it suggests a fresh look into a context, shedding any previous baggage and opening space for innovation to flow. The human centred approach as well as the search for new solutions fit perfectly with the requirements established in Social Innovation definition meeting individuals, communities or societies unmet needs. The similarities and associations go further. Both fields are focused on ‘wicked problems’ and have a process that presents a lack of sequence yet a search for quick and experimental approach.

This relationship that is not yet very explored can cause great improvements for individuals, communities and broadly speaking, societies. Once Social Innovation empowers Design Thinking, the outcomes will be uniquely created and system changing. Design, in its core, is a discipline that thinks differently. Design Thinking has the potential to increase the quantity and quality of the solutions proposed for Social Innovation yet it still needs to be trusted as a Design approach. By focusing on the end-user and trying to understand the issue through their eyes, Design Thinking develops empathy with the final consumer and therefore is more successful in achieving user needs and creating tailored solutions.

References AC4D, 2012. Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving. [online] Available at: https://www.wickedproblems.com/1_wicked_problems.php [Accessed 17 August 2014] Nigel Cross, 1992. In: Palafox, A., 2010. Think Design Change – How can Design Thinking be

applied to the achievement of positive social change?. MA Design Management. University of the Arts London. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/anelpalafox/h-3720632 [Accessed 06 August 2014] Martin, R., (2009) “The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage”. In: Palafox, A., 2010. Think Design Change – How can Design Thinking be applied

to the achievement of positive social change?. MA Design Management. University of the Arts London. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/anelpalafox/h-3720632 [Accessed 06 August 2014] Mulgan, G., 2007. Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated.

Available at: http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Social-Innovationwhat-it-is-why-it-matters-how-it-can-be-accelerated-March-2007.pdf [Accessed 06 August 2014] Palafox, A., 2010. Think Design Change – How can Design Thinking be applied to the

achievement of positive social change?. MA Design Management. University of the Arts London. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/anelpalafox/h-3720632 [Accessed 06 August 2014] Pol, E. and Ville, S., 2009. Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term?. The Journal of Socio-Economics 38(2009), pp. 878-885.

Rittel, H., Weber, M., 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. In: Palafox, A., 2010.

Think Design Change – How can Design Thinking be applied to the achievement of positive social change?. MA Design Management. University of the Arts London. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/anelpalafox/h-3720632 [Accessed 06 August 2014] Social Innovator, N/A. The process of Social Innovation. [online] Available at: http://www.socialinnovator.info/process-social-innovation [Accessed 19 August 2014]

Suzi Sosa, 2012. Design Thinking for Social Innovation. [online] Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/annstarr/design-thinking-for-social-innovation-14345794 [Accessed 06 August 2014] The World Bank, 2011. What is Local Economic Development (LED)?. [online] Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/EXTLED/0 ,,contentMDK:20185186~menuPK:399161~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:341139,00 .html [Accessed 17 August 2014]

The Young Foundation, 2012. Social Innovation Overview: A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE). European Commission – 7th Framework Programme. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.

Tim Brown, 2011. Why Social Innovations Need Design Thinking. [online] Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/why_social_innovators_need_design_thinking [Accessed 06 August 2014] Tim Brown, 2010. Design Thinking for Social Innovation. [online] Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation [Accessed 06 August 2014] Tim Brown, 2008. Definitions of Design Thinking. [online] Available at: http://designthinking.ideo.com/?p=49 [Accessed 06 August 2014] Wikipedia, 2014. Abductive Reasoning. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [Accessed 17 August 2014] Wikipedia, 2014. Lateral Thinking. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking [Accessed 17 August 2014] Wikipedia, 2014. Social Innovation. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_innovation [Accessed 17 August 2014] Wikipedia, 2014. Wicked Problems. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem [Accessed 16 August 2014]