Category: Design Thinking

The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking

Design Thinking, Featured, ThinkingPublished onUpdated on63 Comments on The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking

I thought I would take the opportunity to return to an article I wrote a few days ago. My blog post outlined a few of the key issues for developing creative teams. The article that inspired it from HBR[1] gave a broad definition of innovation and creativity which resonated strongly with my own experience in schools.

According to the author, Roger Schwarz[2], researchers commonly make a distinction between the definition of creativity and innovation.

Innovation involves two stages—the generation of new ideas and the implementation of the ideas. Creativity is considered to be the first stage of innovation.

I would call implementing ideas Prototyping and this typically comes after a range of ideas have been sorted, filtered and judged in different ways during Ideation. I always see a change in the energy levels during Ideation as people begin to flex their creative muscles more intensely.

Later in the article Schwarz outlines a conflict in factors that affect innovation, explaining that a different type of thinking is needed.

Creativity and the second stage of innovation require different individual skills and team structures and processes. The idea generation stage is often referred to as divergent thinking or exploration. The implementation stage is often referred to as convergent thinking or exploitation. Unless you plan to have your team hand off its creative ideas, you will need to create a team that can operate in both modes, switching among them as appropriate.

This whole area is invariably complex and more research is needed. However even from my own experience the requirements on an individual are much more intricate. I agree that we need to be in a divergent thinking state when we generate ideas, but this changes when we have to decide on which ideas are worth investing further in. It changes to a convergent thinking state. In order to identify our choices we have to narrow our field, we have to purge the ideas that don’t make the cut. For us to successfully judge a set of ideas we have to be able to converge and begin to make choices. Thinking big (divergently) and generating ideas at this stage would certainly be counterintuitive.

The ebb and flow between divergent and convergent thinking at the ideation stage is quite important and much more frequent than is suggested in the article. Idea generation is but one part of Ideation. Of course we may identify Emergent thinking as well at this stage which is exploratory and helps when we want to develop our ideas further. I see Ideation being made up of the sequence below:

  1. Generate Ideas (Divergent or Open Thinking)
  2. Explore and develop ideas (Emergent or Exploratory Thinking)
  3. Judge and shortlist (Convergent or Closed Thinking)

It is extremely useful to have a language for the thinking state or mindset needed. I would highly recommend sharing the definitions and helping others understand them. Talking explicitly about the thinking that is needed to be most successful helps signpost people to such expectations, and has helped countless teams of adults and students I have worked with. Don’t let this be a wishy washy stage, identify a process, like the sequence above and stick to it. Trust in the process.[3]

Once ideas have been explored and narrowed down then a team would move on to implementation. Taking a concept into a working or minimal viable prototype phase. Again the type of thinking here is not simply convergent as Schwarz outlines, in my opinion it is equally fluid and perhaps also made up of the combination of divergent, emergent and convergent thinking states.

  1. Harvard Business Review  ↩
  2. Roger Schwarz is an organisational psychologist, find him on Twitter @LeadSmarter  ↩
  3. And the force.  ↩

How to Keep People at the Heart of Your Next Problem Solving Process

Design ThinkingPublished onUpdated on25 Comments on How to Keep People at the Heart of Your Next Problem Solving Process

 

Problem solving is a skill we want all of our students to be honing whilst at school. However one of the issues I stumble upon during my work is the weaker focus on problem finding.

In many ways problem finding can be more accurately and more broadly defined as the time when we check that a problem is worth solving in the first place. This is something students don’t experience enough.[1] All too often they are presented with a problem and get busy generating ideas, or as adults we assume that the problem is clear when it is not and start from a much weaker position.

I enjoyed this recent article from Emily Heyward[2] that focused attention on ensuring a problem is worth solving in the first place. Instead of immediately jumping ahead there are significant gains to be had by staying in the problem for much longer.

Staying focused on the problem also prevents you from falling into the fatal trap of assuming the world is waiting with bated breath for your product to launch. When I used to work in advertising, we would joke that the “insight” in the creative brief was often something along the lines of, “I wish there were a crunchy cereal with raisins that was healthy and also delicious.” But people do not wish this. They might have a hard time finding a quick breakfast that doesn’t make them feel fat or sluggish. And maybe your crunchy raisin cereal is the perfect response to this issue. But they are not waking up in the morning wishing for raisiny, crunchy goodness. Similarly, people are not wishing for your idea to exist, because they don’t even know it’s an option. So when you sit down to clarify what problem you’re solving, a great initial test is to imagine someone’s inner monologue. Is the problem you’ve identified something that a real human might actually be thinking?

The last line emphasises the importance of empathy in any problem solving/finding process. We have to be able to put ourselves in other people’s shoes to fully appreciate what the need is. I suppose that is the difference between something we might want and something that is a true need.

So spend longer in the problem state. Encourage your students and colleagues to remain in that state, often characterised by asking questions, for as long as you can. Technology and habits cause us to jump out of this inquiry/problem finding state all too quickly. That in itself is a habit or mindset we need to wean our students off.

John Dewey talked about inquiry in a similar way, inquiry in my opinion being synonymous with any creative process, saying that we need to protract the state of uncertainty for much longer.

To be genuinely thoughtful, we must be willing to sustain and protract that state of doubt which is the stimulus to thorough inquiry.[3]

That has always resonated strongly with me. Whether in a design agency as Heyward refers to or as a curriculum based inquiry, it is the deliberate and sustained period of doubt that most characterises an inquiry. When we experience this with an open mindset to learn and empathise with those involved we are more likely to identify a problem worth our time to try and fix.

Further into her piece Emily Heyward also refers to the 5 Whys[4] technique which we commonly use with teams we are working with. I suspect you have probably come across this too. However I like the slight change in the wording of the question, not just “Why?” but “Why does that matter?”. I think this small change resets the question back into one of relevance to the human being at the heart of the issue. It will be a small change I make when I use the 5 Whys technique in the future.

By focusing on the problem you’re solving, you move beyond a functional description of what your product is, to an emotional solution that connects with people at their core. It also keeps us honest that what we’re doing really matters…

In the start-up and design world it is critical to remain focused on the people at the heart of new ideas, but this is just as relevant for the creative inquiry we help our students experience. In many ways the core experience of “school” should be about creating something that matters. I imagine a time when that becomes a new education standard.

  1. The design thinking process emphasises this precursive step. Participants immerse themselves in an issue or topic and then synthesise the insights they gain. It is through these two significant stages that a problem is identified and ratified. You don’t start with a problem, and even if you did you still orientate yourself to ensure it is worthy of our time.  ↩
  2. Emily Heyward is s a founding partner at Red Antler, a branding consultancy specialising in start-ups and new ventures.  ↩
  3. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. New York: D.C. Heath and Company. (p. 16)  ↩
  4. The 5 Whys technique is used to dig deeper into the causes of an issue. You start with a simple identified problem and then ask why is that an issue and then repeat again with the answer. It deliberately opens the issue up and ensures a team identifies the root causes. The technique is commonly attributed to the Toyota Motor Corporation during the evolution of its manufacturing methodologies.  ↩

Toolset, Skillset, Mindset

Design Thinking, FeaturedPublished onUpdated on8 Comments on Toolset, Skillset, Mindset

Over the last few years I have developed three different lenses through which to see any creative inquiry process. When we are facilitating or planning with clients, schools and teachers we explicitly talk about our Toolset, Skillset and our Mindset.

The design thinking process has distinct phases and although we may well be seeking to developing an overarching capacity it has always been helpful to be a little more specific about what this actually means. Sometimes it can seem a little fluffy around the edges. When we link Toolset, Skillset and Mindset to a particular phase of design thinking inquiry it becomes much clearer what is expected. This intentionality is wired into each of the different lenses helping to clarify to those involved what tools are involved, what skills are likely to be required and what mindset is needed.

Below is a good set of definitions which helped me better understand their relevance to my work with design thinking and creative inquiry:

Toolset (How you Get, Have, Use) – Means a set of widely accepted methods, techniques, models, approaches and frameworks that can create value in the chosen field.

Skillset (How you Do, Act, Behave) – Means a number of things like a person’s capabilities and abilities, knowledge and understanding, and motivation and ability to use these capabilities and knowledge. The level of expertise in a particular task determines the efficiency and effectiveness to perform that task.

Mindset (How you See, Perceive, View) – Means a set of beliefs, a way of thinking, a habitual mental attitude that determines somebody’s behaviour and outlook and how s/he will interpret and respond to situations. Without a change in mindset, the world cannot be viewed differently.

[In addition to these you may well consider a Knowledge set, something to activate and use or to continue to add to.]

For example during the Synthesis phase you might see the following explicitly shared with participants or students and dialogue to make the expectations clear:

Toolset: Patterns and grouping of physical artefacts, Hexagonal Thinking, P.O.I.N.T (Problems, Obstacles, Insights, Needs and Themes)

Skillset: Pattern recognition, categorisation, organisation, problem finding, prioritisation

Mindset: Convergent, combinatorial, relational

What we have found is that most people want to have a conversation about the Toolset. It is the most enduring memory of a workshop: the physical, tactile experience of the tools we used. All too often creative processes focus too heavily on simply the tools, moving from one thinking activity to another, from one framework or post-it note task to the next. Ideally we escalate the dialogue to the Skills we need to operate those creative thinking tools. The last step is to engage colleagues in a dialogue about what Mindset is needed or expected in order to be most successful.

You might consider having a conversation about these three elements before a lesson or period of learning with students: what are the tools we are going to use, the skills we will develop or need and the mindset we should take. This offers a much clearer way to talk about learning intentions or success criteria.

The Mindset at each stage of the design thinking process is much more constant and more persistent, whereas the Skillset and the Toolset can always change. We should be drawing from a range of tools to suit the part of the inquiry process – but regardless of the tools we use the Mindset remains relatively constant.

It would also be true to say that out of the three different lenses the Mindset is harder to observe, whereas the tactile Toolset is much more explicit. From Change to Constant, from Extrinsic to Intrinsic, from Toolset to Mindset.

Whereas it is easy to switch out and change a tool during a phase of the process, it is much harder to change a Mindset if it does not currently exist. An example we see most often is a convergent mindset – “I know what the problem is and I know what we should do” – when we are immersing ourselves in the area of development. This Immersion phase requires an open and divergent Mindset. You can change the activity to explore the topic but it is much harder to change the disposition.

Stick around for future posts exploring some of the design thinking inquiry Toolset and the activities we all enjoy. In addition we will explore the Skillset and the Mindset needed to make the most of them.

My EDtalk Interview from ULearn14

28 Days of Writing, Conference, Curiosity, Design ThinkingPublished onUpdated onLeave a Comment on My EDtalk Interview from ULearn14

During my trip to New Zealand last October I was contributing some sessions on design thinking for learning to the impressive ULearn conference in Rotorua. Strangely it was the first time I had spent any time in New Zealand running workshops or working with teachers.

It was a memorable week for lots of reasons and the following film was crafted for Core Education‘s Edtalks, in which I outline some ideas around design thinking for learning in our schools.

Tom Barrett from EDtalks on Vimeo.

Tom Barrett of NoTosh in Australia believes there is a place in schools for rigorous creative processes that are built on a similar set of values in the pedagogy we use. He explains Design Thinking, which allows learners to engage with an approach based on curiosity and creativity, and to have an impact on the world around them.
Tom talks about the way technology can speed up “the finding out” – the move from unknown to known, and he challenges teachers to find ways to protract the uncertainty. If children can “stay in the question” for longer, we will allow the inquiry and creative process to begin.

—

I hope you enjoy the little snippet of my actual voice and not just my writing voice – feel free to drop a comment below if you have any questions about what I share. If you are interested in learning more about my work with schools on design thinking for learning you can also check out NoTosh.

Learning Provocations (ideas, how they affect us and why we should use them)

28 Days of Writing, Design Thinking, LearningPublished onUpdated on8 Comments on Learning Provocations (ideas, how they affect us and why we should use them)

Provocation robot.001

During a design thinking inquiry process we use provocation as an engaging starting point or an opportunity to inject momentum in thinking and student engagement. They can come in many different forms:

Questions, Images (and text), Statements, Film, Data visualisations, Change a setting, Artefacts, Quotes, Maps, Proverbs, Role Play, Stories, Music and audio, Animation

I remember discovering this wonderful post from Cristina Milos a few years ago that captured so many wonderful ideas about how to plan for provocation. I highly recommend taking a look and digging deeper into the examples she shares.

For a long time now I have considered how learning provocations have an impact after all we have to plan for this reaction if we include provocation in our learning sessions. I think that provocation produces different reactions in us all, challenging is in different ways:

  • Emotionally (This is challenging how I feel or what I have previously felt)
  • Understanding (This is challenging what I think I know and my assumptions)
  • Perception (This is challenging my point of view)
  • Ethically (This is challenging our shared beliefs)
  • Morally (This is challenging my own principles)
  • Action (This is challenging me to take action, to change or make a difference)

We have to give adequate thought and preparation to the follow up activities – not just planning for provocation, but planning for the reaction to it as well.  If we have carefully crafted a provocation we should expect a reaction, considering the impact it is having on those we are working with and how to structure the learning that flow from it.

I believe that used in the correct way, at the the correct moment, the right type of provocation creates momentum in our thinking or those around us. When we are looking at the impact on Understanding for example, provocation can often create a new boundary or edge of what is known. What follows is an attempt to plot a course into that new territory – our curiosity as our guide.

—

How does the question in the image above challenge you? In which domains (outlined above) does it have the strongest impact on you? What learning structure would be most effective to follow it up?