Innovative Design Thinking (IDT) is holistic, contextual, rational, system, synthetic, functional, thing-neutral, demand-led, want-pull, abstract-to-detail, socio-technical thinking, and any combinations of the above. So, how is it compared with traditional problem solving after all?
In a typical problem-solving situation, a problem description (or solution requirement) with as much details as possible is defined and given by an external party. The problem solver is tasked to find a solution that can achieve the objective of these given requirements under various constraints. The path from a problem (i.e., what is required) to a solution (i.e., how to fulfill this requirement) is direct but often iterative. The problem solver needs to know as much about the problem description, and must follow very precisely the solution requirements that were prescribed. All the creative focus and energy are devoted to finding a solution to a well-defined problem along the what-to-how path.
Innovative design thinking is a different problem-solving scenario. The innovator is first presented with a problem description with some solution requirements. However, not all the details have to be specified (or known) because this given problem description only serves as a starting point to stimulate innovative thinking, rather than a fixed target for finding solutions, of an innovation adventure. Rather than jumping into the solution mode directly right away, the innovator must first gain more insights of the targeted problem domain by asking questions such as "who" and "why". The who question relates to who are the intended customers of this targeted domain, and the why question asks why they are not happy with what they current already have from market competitors.
These knowledge about current customer needs and market competitions provide the innovator with useful insights (i.e., a base) for "innovating the opportunity", which is an important phase that does not exist in traditional problem solving. During this opportunity innovation phase, the innovator must extrapolate from the current needs to some emerging trends that predict future customer wants. Opportunities for breakthrough innovation, which is a special kind of innovation that will be precisely defined later, can happen later if the innovator is able to identify a new trend that can radically redefine the meaning of the product or service (i.e., the new opportunity) to be innovated in customers' mind at this initial phase of IDT.
Once a new opportunity for innovation is discovered, the innovator can then choose a set of functional requirements that, when fully realized in the physical world, can satisfy this new opportunity. Note that these functional requirements for IDT here (i.e., what) are chosen by the innovator, which is very different from those solution requirements given by external parties (or customers) in traditional problem solving. With these self-chosen what, the innovator can then move to the next phase of "innovating the solution" where possible "how" (the innovative solution) for the "what" (the newly discovered opportunity).
In short, IDT has two interrelated phases: first innovate the opportunity and then innovate the solution. The former must be rationally derived from social reality, and ensures "doing the right thing"; whereas the latter should be optimally derived from brute reality, and strives for "doing the thing right". The what-to-how path in IDT is largely self-defined by the innovator based on his/her insights gained from asking the "who" and "why" questions, rather than been completely prescribed by others. This IDT path follows closely the socio-technical paradigm of who, why, what and how cycle that will be explained later.
These knowledge about current customer needs and market competitions provide the innovator with useful insights (i.e., a base) for "innovating the opportunity", which is an important phase that does not exist in traditional problem solving. During this opportunity innovation phase, the innovator must extrapolate from the current needs to some emerging trends that predict future customer wants. Opportunities for breakthrough innovation, which is a special kind of innovation that will be precisely defined later, can happen later if the innovator is able to identify a new trend that can radically redefine the meaning of the product or service (i.e., the new opportunity) to be innovated in customers' mind at this initial phase of IDT.
Once a new opportunity for innovation is discovered, the innovator can then choose a set of functional requirements that, when fully realized in the physical world, can satisfy this new opportunity. Note that these functional requirements for IDT here (i.e., what) are chosen by the innovator, which is very different from those solution requirements given by external parties (or customers) in traditional problem solving. With these self-chosen what, the innovator can then move to the next phase of "innovating the solution" where possible "how" (the innovative solution) for the "what" (the newly discovered opportunity).
In short, IDT has two interrelated phases: first innovate the opportunity and then innovate the solution. The former must be rationally derived from social reality, and ensures "doing the right thing"; whereas the latter should be optimally derived from brute reality, and strives for "doing the thing right". The what-to-how path in IDT is largely self-defined by the innovator based on his/her insights gained from asking the "who" and "why" questions, rather than been completely prescribed by others. This IDT path follows closely the socio-technical paradigm of who, why, what and how cycle that will be explained later.
No comments:
Post a Comment