DESIGN THINKING AUTHOR: NIGEL CROSS POINTS: 2 I was willing to read this book both becouse it has been the first one I’ve read about Design Thinking and because it has been the first book in my life I bought trough the Internet. It has been interesting to see how the author talks about different Designing examples, interviewing most of them. It also made a 2-‐hour experiment with similar products, differentiating designers on one side and designer teams from the other. I have to say that reading this book has been great and fascinating, the English hasn’t been a problem; the only bad thing from my point of view is that I was expecting more theories to apply, or more dynamics, something more. First of all, I’ve liked to read Schön’s theory about education: “Competent practitioners usually know more than they can say, they have more tacit Knowledge. They have intuitive behavior in practical contexts of thinking and acting” This embodies the “learning by doing” spirit of Team Academy. You have to be in a situation of complexity to develop yourself to the limit. That is something similar to what we call “the panic zone”, were more learning is created. He also mentions the question “What If?”, which always carries moves if you act, as I have said before. This is the base of Design. Anyone could be a designer by asking oneself this question more often. I think people just make the question for themselves, but they don’t act. I would like to highlight the importance of drawing in a Design process. The art of drawing everything seems to clarify the thoughts; the brain is not able to work with all information it gets. These drawings are interactions between internal mental processes an external representation. Here I have read a dynamic that we will use in Futurama, drawing your own design and passing the draw to other people. What can we get from there? Who knows. I think I have to return to an habit that I took in Ghana, where I drew everything. It will be more useful for my own learning diary. Nigel also shares with us how a Designing process is, where in the way will the problems appear and is necessary to solve them and find new solutions constantly (I have just read Who move my cheese? and it is about this idea). From the other side, it divides the Design Process in four principal phases: 1. Analyze fully the problem, 2. Divide it in sub problems, 3. Find sub solutions and 4. Combine them to get the global solution. It has been funny to read this because one or two weeks ago we asked Garazi for a dynamic about how to improve relationship in Chinese and Indian companies and she share this one with us . Serendipity. From other side, I have to say that I don’t like this process too much, because as I’ve shared before, new questions and moves can appear in the way. In the U.S.A there is another movement, “Creative conscience”, growing really fast defending that Design Thinking process is almost outdated.
Other positive learning I get from the book is the need of having a Global view with one simple objective, the final win. The best example of this is the car designer Gordon Murray. He detected the possibility of doing a pit stop. He was the first person seeing the real value of this new strategy and now is usual in all the races. He also invented a concept of carrying 3 people in a small city car. He was a genius. In this case, I think that in taZEBAez people don’t have this common view, I don’t think in third year all of us know how to describe taZEBAez with a global view. It also defends the team designing. He did the experiment of putting together 3 designers some conclusions where taken. The first one was that the innovative designer needs to work in a small team of committed people with same passions and dedication, where planned and unplanned actions take place. Yes, same commitments, same passions, same dedication, same global view, … It sounds really nice, like a dream. I would like to work in one of these teams, maybe taZEBAez will soon be something similar. I hope. It is also really important to share and gather information; if not, there could be too much misinterpretation and misunderstanding. This is a normal mistake of taZEBAez. This year there are many cases where the communications has not been very good. The clearest examples are Finland, Brasil and Madrid projects. For the ones in the office, I think Monday morning meeting should be more important. Finally I will like to share some other sentences I have taken from the book and made me think about them: -‐ -‐
The best way to know what a designer is thinking is to ask him “what are you thinking?”. I will like to put this in practice in Shanghai. It is a cognitive social process Design is not hidden, it is constructed in in public, so other people can read it, and accepting commentary on it from somebody else is part of a tradition they embody. This Idea is not jet in every bodies mind, people don’t believe in open innovation and we have to try to change that.
The solution is not always based on the problem, may be something that not only the client, but also the designer "never dreamed he wanted". NO COMMENT ON THIS ONE.
Keep looping back at fundamental physical principles. How many times has JM told us “back to the basics”? Is important to have in mind the functional viewpoint of the designed product ( service in our case) it has to be a pleasure to operate with it. You always have to have in mind the users experience
Risk taking is the difference between innovative and no innovative Designers. We can find the same difference between an entrepreneur and an innovative entrepreneur, and between a normal person and an innovative person. Indirect….
Sudden illumination is a frequent element in creative design thinking. When you get the idea you have to work on it when the idea is hot. People who prefer the certainly of structured, well-defined problems will never appreciate the delight of being a designer.