Cense

Research.Design.Impact.

Innovation’s Single Biggest Question

by

There is not a bigger question for innovators — social, product, service, policy — than What are you hiring this [ ] to do for you? 

Let’s break this down a little and then explain why we ask that at the beginning of any engagement and all throughout from the first meeting to the final run of the evaluation data. The question gets us to shape what and how we might design our innovation while the answer is about the ways we tell what kind of value it generates and the impact it produces.

What’s in a question?

The start of the question is about you, the aspiring innovator. This highlights the role of the creator and reminds us that we are generating this ‘thing’ by procurement, by design, or by simply encouraging something to be made. Without us (i.e., you), nothing changes.

The active use of hire is about the reality that we are paying for innovation through our time, our energy, our focus, our social (and often political) capital, and our money. All of these could be spent elsewhere. Design is an investment and it’s purposeful. Asking this big question gets us to pause and think deeply about what we’re putting into innovation and what we’re looking to get out of it.

The [ ] is the thing you’re hiring — the proposed service, experience, product, policy, or ecosystem — and is what you’re purposefully bringing about. This is your idea manifest into something real.

The last part is ‘to do for you‘ is active: it’s about ensuring that you’re clear about what purposes it serves. No matter how beneficial your planned innovation might be for others, you are ultimately asking it to serve a role, fill a need, for you. It is you that wants to solve a problem, build a market, or prevent something from happening, and this requires some clarity to innovate well.

What’s in an answer?

Innovation is not just creating things, it’s about evaluating the things we create. If our novel products, services, experiences, and policies don’t generate value for people, they aren’t really innovations. It’s just stuff.

An evaluation perspective on the question asked above might look at things like:

-The roles people played in the innovation process, including the skills they used, experiences they had, and the insights that they gained along the way. This learning is what feeds into our understanding of how an innovation develops along with the people and organization it is a part of. All of that is part of the innovation dividend or ROI.

-The resources used as part of the ‘hiring‘ process like money, time, human resources, and other capital; all can help look at the value of the initiative to see if the costs and benefits make sense.

-What ‘things’ are produced — the prototypes, their functioning, their benefits, and weakness — as well as provide a means to document the iterations, the steps taken, the new ‘offshoots’ that might emerge, and the resulting products, services, experiences, and policies.

-Lastly, the innovation needs to fulfill some requirements or expectations and evaluation looks at what it does in the world, for whom, under what conditions, and what other impacts might emerge unintentionally. This helps assess risks, benefits, and find new opportunities for further development and innovation.

Better questions, better answers

Innovation is what will drive much of the future value of your organization. It’s what allows you to build, grow, adapt, or sustain what you’re doing because even if you don’t feel a need to change, everything is changing around you and sometimes you need to change just to stay where you are.

By asking this one simple question you might find answers that will lead you to much better innovations to shape and create that future.

We help our clients ask this question. If you want our help, contact us and we’ll gladly help you ask better questions for better answers.

Design Skills for Evaluators: Design Loft 2017

by

The Design Loft @ AEA 2017

The Design Loft returns to the American Evaluation Association’s annual conference on Friday, November 10th. The Design Loft will be held on the Mezzanine Level of the conference hotel (note: an earlier program had the Design Loft located on the Exhibition Level). There is a new session every hour.

The Design Loft was launched in 2016 in connection with the Presidential Theme of the American Evaluation Association’s annual conference that focused on evaluation + design. The one-day ‘pop-up conference’ was a huge hit with attendees looking to learn more about design and pick up a skill or two. The Design Loft format is simple: every hour on the hour from 9 am to 5 pm (the last session starts at 4 pm) a different design skill is profiled in a 45-minute, hands-on workshop that allows attendees to meet others, laugh, and gain a practical ‘tool’ for their evaluation practice.

Program

The Design Loft is an experimental space intended to provide conference attendees an opportunity to learn specific tools, techniques, and strategies from the field of design that may have application to evaluation practice.

The Design Loft was first launched in 2016 as an experimental ‘pop-up’ conference within the main annual convention as a means of providing hands-on, practical opportunities for evaluators to learn about design methods and tools that can benefit their work and advance innovation within the field. This year the focus of the Design Loft will be applied to the conference theme of Learning to Action.

Each session runs for about 45 minutes, which will allow attendees to take an ‘active learning break’ between sessions during the conference program. It’s a quick hit of excitement, activity, and learning for action.

AEA Conference Program Description: The Design Loft @ AEA

What is design all about and what can it offer evaluators? The Design Loft is an interactive space where attendees can come and experience design firsthand as part of a series of engaging, short workshops aimed at exposing evaluators to simple tools, techniques, and approaches to using design in practice.

Cameron Norman Ph.D. MDes CE, Principal of Cense Ltd., a Credentialed Evaluator, 20-year AEA member and a professional designer, will guide participants through an interactive, hands-on training experience in a small group format.

The Design Loft is a space for creative thinking, innovation, practical learning, and fun and whether Design is new to you or you wish to broaden your toolkit, time hanging out in the Loft will add much to your evaluation work and budding practice as a designer.

Principles

Design is a structured approach to learning about a topic, identifying needs and developing solutions and responses to problems through the active construction of models and prototypes. Design thinking is the way of approaching this creative process that can be employed by designers and non-designers alike using some of the following principles:

  • Embrace whimsy
  • Show don’t tell (make things visible and tangible)
  • Bias for action
  • Culture of prototyping
  • Time constraints
  • Fail fast to succeed sooner
  • Moving from fail-safe to safe-fail
  • Systems thinking

Schedule of Events

The Design Loft runs Friday, November 10, 2017.

9:00 am:     User Personas: A persona is a tool in design that envisions a typical program user by constructing a profile of their behaviors, perspectives, and lifestyle relevant to the topic drawing on user research. These fictional characters are based on evidence and user-data collected by the design team and can help program designers and evaluators understand and anticipate the issues

10:00 am     Attractor Mapping: Where is the action happening and how we can understand where to focus our energy and evaluations when looking at a complex system? Where might we focus our design and evaluation efforts when so much is going on? This simple, visual approach to system mapping will show us how.

11:00 am     A Day in the Life: What does the typical user of a program go through in their day? How might the reality of a user’s day-to-day experience influence the design of a program and what might it mean for evaluators seeking to understand that experience and its relationship to program outcomes better? This session will show how a simple walk-through of a program using visual tools, acting out, and hypothesis generation might enable program planners, evaluators and collaborators to see new possibilities and insights.

12:00 pm     Journey Mapping: This method helps tell the story of a program user’s experience with a program by tracking the encounters that a person might go through along the program. This allows evaluators and designers to analyze the various touch-point an individual might have with a program and create the right kind of program and data collection opportunity. This allows the evaluator to see where problems and opportunities might lay before implementing a program or looking retrospectively at an existing program.

1:00 pm      5 Whys: This simple set of questions gets us to tap into our inner 5-year old and inquire about not just why something is happening on the surface but toward a more deeper understanding of the cause of a problem. By getting closer to the root of an issue, we are better equipped to design programs that make transformational shifts, not cosmetic ones and evaluations that have the power to transform people and programs alike.

2:00 pm      Role Playing: This physical form of problem exploration and prototyping literally has participants acting out specific actions or scenarios to gain insight into design opportunities, constraints, and challenges. This workshop will provide a perfect mid-afternoon break to get up and move and learn how a simple, imaginative approach to getting out of our head can yield insights and opportunities that will create programs that will resonate with our whole selves.

3:00 pm      Paper Prototyping: This ultra-low tech model of prototyping uses simple tools to construct mock-ups of envisioned products allowing for a quick, low-cost way to see opportunities, challenges and needs without resorting to expensive, time-consuming and potentially harmful full-scale prototypes. Working from an example, participants aid design and assess potential strategic options in a quick, low-cost and effective manner.

4:00 pm      Storyboarding: Movies and plays t and what is needed to make it come alive. We can take the same idea and apply that to evaluations. Visualizing an activity or program through simple drawings — no matter how simply done — can be an engaging way to gain insight into attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and relationships between concepts, project components, and people. This technique will show you how a simple drawing can yield enormous information to guide a program design and the evaluation questions that follow from it.

Engagement for ideas

by

Engage everyone in idea creation

Among the biggest success factors in any organizational change initiative is engaging staff and stakeholders in participating in the change process; this is true for idea generation through the design cycle to implementation and evaluation. How do we overcome the challenge of disengagement to produce productive creative, innovative ideas in our organizations?

Beyond brainstorming

Ideas are usually the starting point for any change initiative. Ideas produce the raw content of problem identification and the seeds for solution generation. Brainstorming is often the means people first think of as a way to generate ideas and explore concepts. However, there are some substantial problems with this approach and some ways around it.

Brainstorming has been widely criticized for good reasons. Among them: it favours those voices who think (and speak) quickly, speak early, often and loudly. Those early suggestions drive the conversation for what comes next, creating a path dependency that’s hard to escape once initiated. If you’re a quieter, perhaps more contemplative person, you’ll find that you are either late to the conversation or not included. From Jungian Personality Theory, this indicates a bias towards extroversion over introversion, which excludes about 40 per cent of the population according to some estimates.

This approach also favours what Min Basadur would classify as an ‘generator’: someone who’s work style preferences favour idea generation. Those from the other quadrants in the Basadur Profile, particularly ‘conceptualizers’ and ‘optimizers’ (ones who’s work style preference leans toward processing and organizing information) are less likely to respond quickly.

Ideas in private and public

Another problem with many ideation strategies is that many really useful ideas are a bit heretical or outlandish. While design thinking writers often refer to the need to generate ‘wild ideas’ without criticism or judgement, the truth is that’s a lot harder to do in practice, particularly when there are power dynamics in the room, reputations, and the real fear that comes with change and challenges to established practices. The public nature of the ideation process favours transparency, but induces self-censorship and produces disengagement for many and hyper-engagement for a few.

A solution is to have those involved in the process generate ideas independently and anonymously contribute them via a suggestion box (digital or analog). Keep the suggestion box open for a defined period — we recommend no more than one week or as short as three days. This allows time for those who are more reflective to mull through their ideas and contribute them, while those who are more quick to generate ideas will not be affected.

These are then collated independently by someone neutral to the problem and solution set and organized thematically. This has the advantage of potentially embedding some of the wildest ideas within a small set of other ideas that might seem far less threatening. If you create a category of ‘wild ideas’ the risk is that the entire category will be dismissed. A more public, but elaborate, means of doing this can be found in the CoNEKTR Model described elsewhere.

This process can be repeated over the design cycle at different stages – anywhere diverse perspectives and feedback is needed.

Overcoming biases to better ideas

The bias toward ‘rapid ideation’ in design thinking systematically excludes people in favour of a well-meaning intention of trying to avoid participants ‘over-thinking’ a problem. While that might happen, it still prevents many from engaging in the process fully because of personality, work preferences, cognitive style and social pressures.

The strategy listed above is a simple, but highly effective means of getting lots of ideas and engaging your entire team in the process. Try it out. You might be surprised what ideas come from it all.

Unpleasant Design

by

Fall_Bench_Snapseed

Much of what we speak of when we talk about design, products and space is making things more livable, attractive or delightful. But what happens when we want the exact opposite to happen? That is the concept behind Unpleasant Design. The term comes from work being done by Gordan Savičić and Selena Savić who have been curating examples of the way governments and business alike have sought to discourage behaviour rather than encourage it through design choices.

The team at 99% Invisible recently profiled this work drawing on examples of how design has been used to discourage things like homeless people sleeping on benches, kids loitering around a shop, or ‘unintended uses’ of public washrooms.

The hallmark object to define this way of designing for non- or limited use is the Camden Bench, named after the London-based council that commissioned the original. You might have seen these in places you’ve travelled. They are these weirdly angular, almost always uncomfortable, and barely functional slabs that serve as benches. But unlike the one pictured above, they are pretty much impossible to use as a bed if you don’t have one, which is exactly its point.

Unpleasant design represents an illustration of design’s power for multiple purposes and not always good. While these designs address certain problems that are posed by behaviours that some find undesirable, they speak to a larger role that design can play in social life. Another example of unpleasant design is not about what’s designed into something (such as spikes), but also what’s designed out of something. One example is the presence of ‘leaning benches’ to replace places to sit. Another is the absence of water fountains in public spaces. The latter is less about providing hydration to people, but more about getting them to buy water rather than take it for free.

Design is as much about what is invisible as it is visible, which is why the brilliant podcast 99% Invisible is such an appropriate name for a show dedicated to looking the often un-noticed ways we shape the world and how it shapes us.

Photo credit: Fall by Clive Powell under Creative Commons License and adapted for use.

What is design thinking? A look at universities

by

Our principal, Dr. Cameron Norman, was recently interviewed for University Affairs magazine on the topic of design thinking. Speaking with journalist Tim Johnson, Dr. Norman discussed what design and designers offer those seeking to tackle complex, thorny problems.

[Dr Norman] notes that designers, especially product designers, are typically experts in conceptualizing problems and solving them– ideal skills for tackling a wide range of issues, from building a better kitchen table to mapping out the plans on a large building. “The field of design is the discipline of innovation,” he says. “[Design thinking] is about taking these methods, tools and ideas, and applying them in other areas.”

The concept of design thinking is something that’s quite new within the academic world and Johnson’s article highlights some of the academic work that is taking place in universities and beyond to understand the role that design thinking can play in tackling complex, even wicked problems.

What presents challenges and opportunities for academia is that problems and design thinking require, by necessity, collaboration and interdisciplinary contributions:

Proponents of DT posit that, with its emphasis on teamwork and its problem-based approach, design thinking is particularly well-suited to solving “wicked problems” – those big, ill-defined, complex, multi-faceted issues that don’t have a clear solution. U of T’s Dr. Norman points to climate change as an example. “There’s no climate change discipline,” he says. “We need everyone from scientists to citizens to politicians. And within universities, you have geography and sociology and biology – you name it – there’s somebody who can play a role.”

However, it’s the approach to the problems itself that also changes the perspective as noted by Greg Van Alstyne from OCAD University’s sLab:

[Design thinking] focuses on collective goals and places a premium on sustainability, community, culture and the empowerment of people, says Greg Van Alstyne, director of research and co-founder of the Strategic Innovation Lab, or sLab, at OCAD University. “It means you go about your problem-solving in a more holistic way. We can say ‘human-centered,’ but it’s actually ‘life-centered,’

By taking a systems perspective on the problem, the problem solvers and the solutions, design thinking is opening up new opportunities for academia and business alike. Indeed, the future of both institutions might be designed quite differently as design thinking moves between them, through them and from the outside to the mainstream.