On Tuesday I co-facilitated a design thinking education event with Google in Melbourne. We worked alongside 50 teachers from Catholic schools.
It got me wondering about what it takes to get the most from a design thinking (DT) process. Although my lense is for teachers and education teams, these ideas apply to anyone using the DT process.
For each idea, I have shared some links to further articles and readings to allow you to dig deeper.
Context
Design Thinking (DT) has to be meaningful for us to make the most from it. Connecting to a clear context is a vital commitment. We might do this by thinking clearly about the people at the heart of the problem. Unless we have a meaningful purpose we might easily check out.
Collaboration
Forming a team to work with is a basic tenet of quality design thinking. Every phase of DT benefits from sharing and critique from others. In fact when we say “How Might We” we are signalling our intent to share and create a solution with others.
Concept
Our willingness to explore ideas that are barely formed is a critical disposition. In fact, we might say this is a prototyping disposition. Ideas and solutions from DT are often first explored in conceptual ways. We need to know when to bridge from this to enacted or built forms.
Challenge
There has to be enough of this component to instil an urgent, edge of your seat, discomfort to do good. Our message to the teachers was to take the ideas and make them happen. Build-in milestones and opportunities for really early (painfully early) feedback with the people we are trying to help. Increasing the level of challenge often materialises from connecting our DT process to a real context or stakeholder group. Invite them in to see your results – keep the whole effort grounded in who we are trying to help.
Conditions
The teachers working with us were outside of their normal physical space. The renowned function and aesthetic of a Google workplace formed a provocative backdrop for our group. This was not just the living moss wall Google sign in the Melbourne office or perfectly formed booths, it is what these spaces represent. If we want more creative thinking in our schools, we need to consider how the physical environment can mediate that.
Another key reflection from one of the participants about the conditions was time. I know that allowing ourselves dedicated time to immerse in a topic or challenge is very powerful. It often feels like a luxury, but we will likely be more creative and productive if we can be present and focused.
Critique
One of the ways I describe the prototyping phase of DT is that it is about communicating your idea so that other people can share feedback. A prototype is not an end of itself. It is created to provoke critique from others so that we can refine our idea and make another version.
But the impact of critique cuts through the whole process. Early feedback helps us understand we are on track. Critique about our reframed problem always provides a new perspective or language we can use.
Culture
The big question for us all is how we shift the culture in our schools. The design thinking process challenges our capacities and dispositions – perhaps stretching them in new ways.
But really it is the persistent, ongoing, intentional use of the DT protocols and practices that reap the greatest reward. Not just once every term but an effort over many months and years.
When we utilise DT day in day out. When we normalise the language and the critical thinking expectations, that come with DT, it elevates the impact beyond just a process to a better collaborative culture.
An interesting mix of ideas there for you to ponder on. Certainly not an exhaustive list of the considerations, but a strong set of provocations nonetheless.
In order for us to make the most of the Design Thinking process we need the tools and activities, but perhaps, more importantly, we need to intentionally build the best possible conditions for the deeply creative and critical thinking that occurs.
Google for Education, Forward events are an opportunity for Educators, IT leaders, Googlers and Design Thinkers to tackle some of the big educational challenges we face. This is a chance to bring your creativity, collaboration skills and critical thinking to an authentic challenge.
Drop me a note if you are interested in learning more about these events.
Over the weekend I have been doing some maintenance on this blog. I looked back on the archive and dug around in the old posts. It reminded me of the commitment to change I had when I became a teacher.
I was quick to align myself with other people making a change in the profession. It seemed that technology was a wave we were riding, a wave that would take us to change. I still think that technology as a catalyst has a huge role to play in the renewal of education and schools, but I think a different frontier is going unnoticed.
Every time a school builds a new set of learning spaces or a school system decides to build a new school, there is the opportunity for “school” to be completely redefined.
I am fortunate to be involved with some of the newest schools in Australia, both in the current design phases and in post-occupancy. Each example is an opportunity to push the system of “school” and to wash away the vestiges of an educational model that does not serve the needs of our young learners.
My projects involve establishing the base principles of teaching and learning as early as possible in the design process. Even before an architect is involved. The groundwork of establishing the First Principles of the overall project is essential and vital work. All too often this is not invested in and poorly conceived.
“I really ask all the architects here,” I said in response to an architect who had asked educators to be better clients — with bigger dreams, “to help develop those better clients by asking, at the very start, “what do you want your children to be?” Don’t ask about spaces or number of students or timelines or budget, not yet. Make that first question, “what do you want your children to be?” and help us remake education.”
If that first question is about spaces and student population, as Socol points out, it short-circuits the dialogue. No longer is there a value base being established or a shared morality, it becomes a wish-list discussion.
His question “what do you want your children to be?” cuts to the heart of what should be driving any educational architectural process. But this is equally true of existing schools and their existing practices. It is often much more challenging to escape old ideas.
If you want your children to be creative, to be collaborators, to be great communicators, to know how to make choices, to know how to build their own work and/or learning environments, to be kind, to be curious, to learn throughout their lives from the great wide world, to engage with technology well, to build healthy relationships and lead healthy lives… well… can you really do that within the closed boundaries of traditional schools? Can you do that with age-separated learning? with closed classroom doors? with separated subject areas? without seating choices? without technology choices? without culturally engaged learning groups?
When you reflect on the questions Ira Socol shares, you rapidly realise the physical environment is dependent on many other forces. They are intertwined and connected. When we tug on one another is affected.
QUESTIONS
PRINCIPLES AND DEPENDENCIES
Can you really do that within the closed boundaries of traditional schools?
Privacy, safety, community, partnerships
Can you do that with age-separated learning?
Age Vs Stage, readiness, collaboration, community, personalised
Can you do that without culturally engaged learning groups?
Community, partnership, collaboration, curriculum and learning design
We need to take the re-invention of education seriously. We need to mean it when we say “we’re going to build a new school,” or, “we’re going to rebuild an old school,” so that we imagine into existence something completely new — and thus give our architects free range to develop true child-centric learning spaces.
Although I agree with refreshing our perspective on the importance of these projects, I do think the best architects understand how to create child-centric learning spaces. Decades of expertise, projects and practice mean that educational architecture is understood. It is often the lack of ambition of the client, (the school or school system) that foreshadows any real innovation.
Architects and design teams look for guidance as to how hard they can push. How far they can stretch the brief and express a truly imaginative response? They look for the educator’s guidance on the extent to which they can “imagine into existence something completely new”.
This is where the precedent and the past catch up with educators. Facing real opportunities for innovation, we limit projects to incremental versions of what we already have. Worse yet, we continue old practices in new buildings.
Aesthetically beautiful with contemporary function, but pedagogically nostalgic.
An idea that Ira Socol explains more clearly than I did, in my recent post about the morality of educational architecture, is the inter-generational tension of school design. Schools are places for children built by adults.
Our education system was built from the very beginning on adult needs and adult priorities.
When adults do not design with empathy, we are designing an adult biased experience. Or at least for the school, we wish we had. Not the school for children we are yet to meet.
I will finish by sharing this final paragraph from Ira’s great blog post. There is so much truth here that we all should grapple with.
When we build a school, or rebuild a school, we need to insist on doing the right thing, and doing it completely. We must create a learning space that is physically safe, psychologically safe, emotionally safe for every child. And that learning space needs to be surrounded by a community, a nation, and a state with that same abundance. Only then can our kids truly be kids, and truly be kids on their way to being healthy adults. Adults who will be way better than we adults have been.
In my previous post about the Spaces You Need to Innovate I explored a range of specific domains of thinking and practice that impact on your ability to innovate.
Each space contributes to the culture and in particular the conditions for innovation. Some spaces are more prominent and noticeable than others, whereas some have a more significant influence than others but cannot be seen.
In this follow up post, I share a few further examples of ‘spaces‘ that seem to influence our ability to bring ideas to fruition.
Digital Space
Technology has always been part of my work as a teacher and as a consultant. I have seen how students can work together on ideas from the the very earliest days of collaborative docs to blogging.
More recently there are a whole plethora of tools that allow remote teams to operate and innovate together. Without such a Digital Space remote teams would not exist.
I wonder if a complimentary Digital Space has become a default arena which helps innovation projects. When digital spaces operate effectively, they improve communication (outside of email), facilitate collaboration and allow for improved project management.
I am still not completely convinced you need a Digital Space for creative, innovative work. Although it has become a standard space for us to operate it in, a Digital Space seems a “nice to have” not a “must have”.
That said, asynchronous work needs to occur somewhere and digital spaces offer us great opportunities for staying connected and organised. What do you think?
Relational Space
“I prefer to bounce ideas of other people.” How regularly have you heard colleagues, friends and peers say something similar?
A strong contender for a fundamental space for innovation is the opportunity to share the innovative work with others. Encased within this effort is, of course, the process of collaboration which defines many projects. It is rare for us to have to implement creative projects alone.
The Relational Space for Innovation not only refers to the level of collaboration that fundamental but also to the quality of the relationships that exist.
We might consider these relationships as being central to the work taking place: colleagues you are working with, teams and others you consult directly regarding the project.
Relationships exist obliquely too. These might be the fundamental relationships between the industry and stakeholders, or even those indirectly impacted by your work.
Whichever type the Relational Space for Innovation is a key component; the quality of the relationships at the heart of the innovation process is directly proportional to the likelihood of success.
Developmental Space
My final contender, in this blog post, is the Developmental Space to Innovate. I define this space as the room you have developmentally to explore new projects, programmes or opportunities.
In a previous article (Innovation Compression) I explored the situation when new programmes and initiatives pile up. Despite the best of intentions we need to clear the way for new developmental work.
How much is on your plate right now? Are those who bought the crockery removing stuff as well as piling things on?
Innovation compression might be when good ideas or innovative programmes are introduced [forced] into a space still occupied by previous innovations. Programmes get compacted as nothing is removed, nothing is freed up. This is about new and old(er) innovations attempting to co-exist and it typically leads to a reduction in efficacy of the newer innovation. I suppose the incumbent might hold existing ground and resources.
If the Developmental Space is not available we will be fighting for attention, resources and energy at every turn. The Developmental Space for our new thinking, renewal projects and creative ideas is key.
FREE Bonus Innovation Resource
My innovation resource explores the conditions for innovation at different levels of an organisation and offers some great prompts for improving your innovation culture.
The PDF resource includes
Question and Dialogue Prompt Cards
Explores the common emotional blocks to creativity
Extends the ideas through various levels of an organisation
Builds on known innovation models
Download your copy of the resource by subscribing to my small but perfectly formed newsletter, the Dialogic Learning Weekly – ideas and insight about Innovation, Leadership and Learning,
Innovation is a process with a range of other ideas nested within it. When you peer inside you see creativity, curiosity, feedback and taking action. All interdependent and collectively they might be called innovation.
When you think of the “space to innovate” what immediately springs to mind? The physical environment around you? Space where you might develop ideas? Alternatively perhaps something about the time you have available?
During my work with architects and learning environment projects over the last eight years, I have started to identify a richer, more complex, set of spaces and dependencies. Beyond just the physical space we design.
Each space contributes to the culture and in particular (for this blog post at least) the conditions for innovation. Some spaces are more prominent and noticeable than others, whereas some have a more significant influence than others but cannot be seen.
For each concept, I have shared some initial thoughts, links and quotes. Each section concludes with some small steps, Protocols and Practices you might take to encourage thinking about it’s relationship to your innovation efforts. You will see these in the green blocks like this one.
To conclude the article I have shared a mental model to explore the relationship between the different spaces. I am interested in what happens when one of these spaces is missing or poorly resourced. What impact might this have on the overall Space for Innovation.?
One of the first times I consciously experienced the impact of the physical environment on my thinking was when organising some of the first Teachmeets in my region back in England.
I was able to secure a modern, purpose-built professional learning space for an inaugural TeachMeet in the Midlands and it was a considerable departure from the Victorian school buildings I was accustomed.
The physical environment signalled collaboration and connection as well as high expectations. It was an inspiring place to plan and develop the event.
Of course, the impact of the physical space on our ability to innovate can be unconsciously negative. We normalise our surroundings pretty quickly and so get used to a lack of collaboration, visibility or space to externalise our ideas.
Physical spaces for innovation have become a little cliche. Whiteboards and open spaces, you don’t have to go far to find image galleries of all sorts of workspaces squarely designed for innovation and creativity.
On a much more personal level, the physical space for innovation may look very different for each of us. Fresh air and exercise is an excellent primer for new thinking. Or perhaps you prefer the utility of the whiteboard and the proximity to abundant post-it note supplies.
Of the spaces I am exploring in this post, the Physical Space for Innovation is the most observable. Take a look around you now dear reader; you can quickly judge your surroundings for yourself in how much they are the right conditions for curiosity and ideas.
Protocols and Practices > Triage your space for what is not needed or used infrequently. > Create visible spaces for externalising and storing your ideas. > Change things up – get outside, get out of the room.
Temporal Space
A further space that often conceals the opportunity for innovation is Time. It is one of the most critical aspects of creating the right conditions for change and new ideas to flourish.
It is not just about the amount of time we have but the way we use that time. Too much haste is an emotional block to creativity and will likely push people away from exploring original ideas.
Think carefully about how the pace of thinking and work is being used to suit the needs of different people. Vary the pace to allow everyone the opportunity to share ideas and develop original concepts.
Just as “one size does not fit all” – when it comes to the Temporal Space for Innovation one pace does not fit all.
There’s never enough time to do all the nothing you want.
Bill Watterson
The structure of Time can be lightly resting on us, or it can create pressure. A pressure to perform, create or submit ideas by a deadline. This false-haste can have a negative impact. We need time to play.
John Cleese explains it well:
The open mode is a relaxed, expansive, and less purposeful mode in which we’re probably more contemplative, more inclined to humour (which always accompanies a wider perspective), and, consequently, more playful. It’s a mood in which curiosity for its own sake can operate because we’re not under pressure to get a specific thing done quickly. We can play, and that is what allows our natural creativity to surface.
In schools, we organise time into a table. That enduring structure can dictate the experience way beyond the original remit. Blocks of time signal the start and end of thinking or work. Often days are punctuated by a rhythm a long way from what might be considered ideal for play, deep thinking and innovation.
We might have beautiful, creative physical spaces but time structures that do not match. We have to pay attention to them both.
Protocols and Practices > Explore different times of day for development work. > Protect longer blocks of time you have set aside for deeper work. > Look at the medium to long-term provision of quality project time.
Cognitive Space
The further we are from the Physical the more difficult it is to observe these concepts. The Cognitive Space for Innovation refers to the capacity we have for thinking in a playful, creative and exploratory way.
When our thoughts are swamped or overwhelmed with too many projects, deadlines and tasks it is very difficult to be able to commit to the challenge of innovative work.
You will always be able to pick those moments when your Cognitive Space is crowded, or when your colleagues say, “I don’t have time for that now.” We need to ensure we clear some room for the wide-ranging thinking that innovation requires.
One of my favourite mental models is the analogy of the mind used by Sherlock Holmes. He describes the (Cognitive Space) as an attic. You may have heard of Attic Theory. This passage from a Study in Scarlet explains it some more:
“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these, he has a large assortment and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”
A Study in Scarlet – Arthur Conan Doyle
Attic Theory is an excellent example of applying a physical space analogy to the Cognitive Space between our ears.
The Cognitive Space for Innovation is something that can be hidden to us. Teachers, facilitators and leaders need to carefully uncover the signals of an overcrowded cognitive space.
My favourite method is to ask “What is on your mind?” to a group. Give it a try and then adapt what you are about to do in response.
Protocols and Practices > Identify ways to relieve the pressure so others can focus. > Pay attention to the number of active projects and programmes. > Ask “What is on your mind?” to allow the pressures to be shared.
Emotional Space
“Head, heart and hands” right? The Emotional Space for Innovation is a close ally to the Cognitive Space. The Emotional Space for Innovation for me refers to the commitment, passion and purpose each person has.
This space is about how much we care about the ideas and challenges we are exploring. Perhaps it is linked to whether the people in your team have self-selected (see Agentic) to be there or they have been told.
In teaching, we often talk about how our relationships are at the centre of what we do and how to engage students on an emotional level. Deep down this is true for creating the right conditions for innovation and creativity.
It is literally neurobiologically impossible to think deeply about things that you don’t care about.
So our neurobiology dictates terms when it comes to purposeful work. Regardless of the Physical, Temporal or Cognitive Space, unless we care, we will always be working against a neurobiological tide.
Protocols and Practices > Take your time to connect to the wider purpose of your work. > Use empathy activities (like shadowing) to connect with others. > Regularly re-establish the emotional connection to the task.
Agentic Space
Many of us have experienced this particular space, mainly due to the lack of agency we have. The Agentic Space for Innovation is the room we have to define our own experience.
Put a different way it is how much license we have to implement new ideas. This type of space impacts the pointy end of any innovation process, the implementation and application of ideas.
Without agency, innovation can falter. I sit here writing this thinking I have complete agency over my work. I have control over my calendar and who I work with. As a small business owner, if there is a new idea I want to implement, I don’t need to seek permission or beg for forgiveness.
Collective agency – coordinate with others to secure what cannot be accomplished in isolation.
Personal agency – act with intention, forethought, self-reactiveness, self-reflectiveness to secure a desired outcome.
Which do you most commonly experience during Innovation processes? I would hazard a guess that Collective Agency is the most frequent experience. This is due to the collaborative nature of innovation.
If we are relying on other people, we have very little ability to act with intention and purpose.
The Agentic Space for Innovation may well be a circuit breaker. With all others in play, we may still be waiting for the permission from others. Consider how you might de-couple teams and colleagues enough to have a more open Agentic Space for innovation.
Protocols and Practices > Establish how much agency a team has from the beginning. > Reinforce the permissive culture within the project. > B authentic about follow through and implementing ideas.
What happens to innovation when one of these spaces is missing?
The relationship between these spaces is perhaps the most interesting aspect of this work. They each depend on each other in varying forms. Let’s explore some of the potential ripple effects if we have a space that is not functioning well.
What do you think?
When you don’t have the Physical space for innovation, the process takes longer. This might be true because there is less visibility of ideas and progress, fewer opportunities for working collaboratively and poorer communication between teams.
If our Cognitive space is crowded and overwhelming us, we will likely only engage at the surface level. The commitment to the work will probably wain over time as other competing agendas and projects take their toll. Mental energy is limited.
Time is a crucial ingredient for any creative or innovation work. Without enough quality time, ideas might become less ambitious and revert to safe bets.
Without the Emotional commitment to the work, we get projects that fizzle out. We don’t see the connection to the broader purpose and start to reduce our energy and effort as the drive is not there. Fighting our neurobiology is futile.
If we are trying to innovate without Agency in a culture that historically moderates heavily from the top-down, it creates apathy. Why bother getting invested in innovation when nothing changes? Why should we care when the decision is out of our hands?
Other Spaces
This article is not an exhaustive list so let me know what different types of spaces for innovation you might add.
While I have been working on the post, I have been wondering about the Digital space for innovation as remote teams across the world build software products together.
Alternatively the Collaborative space for innovation which directly refers to the overlapping physical and digital spaces we use for creating ideas together.
From an education perspective, the concept of a Pedagogical Space for Innovation is interesting. The room provided in the approach to teaching and learning for change and renewal.
This article is an exploration of some emerging ideas, and I would be pleased to hear from you in the comments about each of the different concepts.
FREE Bonus Innovation Resource
My innovation resource explores the conditions for innovation at different levels of an organisation and offers some great prompts for improving your innovation culture.
The PDF resource includes
Question and Dialogue Prompt Cards
Explores the common emotional blocks to creativity
Extends the ideas through various levels of an organisation
Builds on known innovation models
Download your copy of the resource by subscribing to my small but perfectly formed newsletter, the Dialogic Learning Weekly – ideas and insight about Innovation, Leadership and Learning,
I recently started a keynote talk with the message, “You are all innovators.” This was not some empty platitude to win over the audience, and the message remains sincere for you dear reader.
After becoming pretty jaded with the polemic and doom-laden openings of most education keynotes these days – I wanted to start on a more positive idea.
Teaching and the world of learning design is one of the most creative of pursuits we have. It certainly is one of the most challenging environments to work in.
Innovation can only be defined in context
One of the main reasons I believe teachers are all innovators is that we apply new ideas, big and small, in a continuous effort to improve the learning experience for students.
Sometimes those ideas take time to implement, but often they occur at the point of learning we share with our students.
When we think of innovation as ‘renewal’ (from the Latin root ‘innovare’) – any teacher will understand the constant questioning and reflection on “what more can we do?”, “how else can we explore these ideas?”, “how might we approach this in a more accessible way?” or “where can I continue to challenge these students?”.
This type of curiosity leads to creativity and taking action. That is innovation in my book.
What needs “renewal” and what doesn’t, is completely defined by context. What is new for one region, district, county, school, department or class, is not necessarily new for another.
There are still people reading my articles on ideas I implemented over 10 years ago and sharing how interesting and exciting they are. What I perceive as innovative is defined by the context I am in, the same is true for you.
Keeping Up with Joneses
This popular idiom refers to people’s tendency to compare their own social standing according to that of their neighbours. It originated from a comic strip that went by the same name, created by Arthur Momand in 1913.
Within the frame of innovation in education, we might consider how we are influenced by the work and progress of other schools. I also think within the echo chambers of education social networking FOMO is generated, a Fear Of Missing Out.
If my class of 30 students is different to the one down the corridor, and to the school across the road / border – perhaps comparisons to other innovation stories is limited in utility.
You can gain inspiration, but whether it is innovative or not, to what degree it is a story of renewal, depends on your context.
Writing in a shared Google Doc
I have had the chance to work with lots of different schools throughout the last fifteen years. One example of innovation that sticks out is the use of Google Docs.
The ability for multiple users to simultaneously work in the same digital space, renewed the process of writing and feedback in my classroom. I was one of the first classroom teachers in the world to be using the technology with my Year 5 class in 2005-2006.
(If you go far enough back in this blog’s archive you will find those posts.)
For my class of students that technology helped with the way we were writing – it was innovative for us in 2006. Using that idea is not innovative for me any more though, it is no longer about renewal.
Since then I have worked with organisations and schools who have never used Google Docs. For them the process still can be renewed. It is still innovative for them even 10+ years after it was for me.
It all depends on our context.
The key thing is not to get caught up chasing other people’s innovative projects. They might just not be applicable for you. Ask yourself is this idea “new” for us or “new” for the world?
Pay attention to the needs of your own context and the students in front of you.
