Thoughts on this Article: The book was reviewed in an earlier post (see tags), but this overview brings up a good point about applying the principles of Design Thinking to creating the kind of life that you want.

Original Post HERE at FastCompany

Can Design Thinking Solve Your Problems and Make You Happier?

BY Michael CannellTue Nov 17, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Imagine for a moment that a business needs a radically innovative approach to a vexing problem. Designers and managers start with an intense focus on the human aspect–the real problems their customers face in daily life. Somebody gives the obligatory talk about out-of-the-box thinking. Then they step back–way back–and let creativity, not the cold exigencies of logic, reframe the problem. When it works, this process can lead to startling new solutions. In the parlance of the moment, this is called “design thinking.”

In this fix-the-world Obama moment, when all is up for review, design thinking is applied to everything from new auto showrooms to health care.

Can it also refine your personal life? Warren Berger (above) thinks so. In his new book, Glimmer, Berger argues that basic design strategies can be adapted to everyday issues, such as how to get along with colleagues, how to balance work and life, and how to ease gracefully into old age. Berger says the book’s title expresses that moment when a new solution to an old problem comes into view. “The designer’s job is to solve problems every day and create alternative solutions,” Berger says. “What can the rest of us learn from that?”

To find out, Berger interviewed 100 designers and 100 other innovators and creative types about their methodologies, though most of the book focuses on Bruce Mau (above), the Canadian graphic designer who made his studio’s inner workings available to Berger. In a recent interview, Berger sketched out three ways that design thinking can be applied to your life:

1. Designers are good at asking stupid questions. “Step back and reassess everything. Ask fundamental questions: Why are we living in this city? Why am I in this job? There are all sorts of assumptions in your life to reconsider.”

2. Designers put problems into visual form. “Bruce Mau never thought he’d apply design principles to his own life, but when he was overwhelmed by travel and work he created a graphic representation of how he spent his time. Designers know that when you see everything in front of you, connections and patterns become more understandable.”

3. Designers think laterally. “They force their brains to go sideways and consider solutions that are off the path. For example, a bank can transform into boutique hotel or a community center. Most of what Dean Kamen does is apply technology to new areas. The trick is to avoid problems in a straightforward manner so that you’re open to left-field possibilities. It’s all about getting away from heuristic bias.”

Lurking behind this discussion is a fundamental question: Can design thinking promote happiness? “You can design your life so that it’s stimulating,” Berger said. “Richard Saul Wurman, creator of the Ted Conference, is always learning about a new field. When he’s done with the project or book he moves on. I think that’s a good model for designing one’s life so that it has flow. We tend to be happiest when we’re challenged. But not over challenged.”

Thoughts on this Review: It seems a bit odd to review a  book review, but it seemed important to offer an opinion in this case..  Overall, Witzel seems to give a pretty solid overview of the book. However, in what seems to be an attempt to belittle the Design Thinking process that the book outlines, Witzel says that this is a rehash of old concepts that date back to the 1800′s.  I assume (maybe incorrectly) that Morgen Witzel has read the book that he references, but I do not agree with the comparison and conclusion.  I have included a link to the book in the article below for those of you who have A LOT of time to read pages of very detailed manufacturing issues.  The concept that Babbage introduced in that book was one of strict and detailed systematic analysis – not design as Martin makes the case for in his book. While Morgan Witzel is a very respected historian and business author, I think the “added” information in the review takes away from his credibility as a reviewer on this topic.

Original Article HERE (via) LA Times

What makes innovation work isn’t really a mystery…

The idea that a systematic approach to design is key to success isn’t as novel as ‘The Design of Business’ may make it seem — the concept was introduced in the 1800s. Still, the book is worth a read.

How McDonald’s Corp. got its start is discussed in “The Design of Business.” In the 1950s, the McDonald brothers figured out what American families wanted to eat when they went out for the evening: a simple, quick and tasty meal. (Christine Cotter / Los Angeles Times / March 12, 2009)

By Morgen Witzel November 9, 2009

What distinguishes truly innovative businesses?

Over the years, we have been told that innovative companies master the art of knowledge management; focus on their core competencies; get close to and listen to customers; have a long-term strategy for innovation and invest in the future; or are superior in identifying disruptive technologies.

Now, in “The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage” comes a new idea, or what purports to be one. Roger L. Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, argues that the key to success is design, or what he calls “design thinking.”

This attempts to harness the creative talents within a business and give them a focus toward a goal. Traditionally, says Martin, businesses have relied on one of two models of creative thinking.

The first is the analytical model, in which companies invest heavily in formal analysis of environmental trends, new markets and so on and try to predict where the world is going.

The second is the intuitive model, in which managers trust their instincts and feelings and develop innovations they think will work based on a kind of educated guesswork.

Martin says that “neither analysis nor intuition alone is enough. Rather than forcing a binary choice to drive out either analysis or intuition, the burden of this book is to reconcile the two modes of thought.” The rest of the book aims to extract the best from both methods to combine them in a new model called the “knowledge funnel,” which comprises three stages — illustrated by Martin in the opening chapter by telling how McDonald’s Corp. got its start.

The first stage concerns broad-based, often highly intuitive thinking in which people ponder questions and suggest answers. Martin terms this stage “the mystery,” or the thing we cannot explain.

The second stage is the development of “a rule of thumb that helps narrow the field of inquiry and work the mystery down to a manageable size.”

The third stage is the algorithm, a formal system for managing knowledge and getting innovation to the market. At this point, intuitive thinking ceases, and it is all about system and process.

In the 1950s, the McDonald brothers sought to figure out what American families wanted to eat when they went out for the evening. After experimenting with formats, they came up with a rule of thumb: Americans want a simple, quick and tasty meal.

Enter Ray Kroc, who formed a partnership with the brothers and developed a formal system for rolling out the concept to restaurants across the U.S. and then around the world — the algorithm.

Later, Martin shows how companies such as Apple Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co. have used this system to good effect — Apple to stay at the cutting edge of product development; P&G to refresh its customer offerings and make its products more attractive.

On the face of it, this looks like a good system. Start with the intuitive understanding, then use a combination of intuitive and rational methods to map out a design concept and translate this into a product or service, then use formal systems thinking to roll it out.

The discerning reader may well be saying, “So what?” Although the book uses contemporary examples, the idea that a systematic approach to design is essential to business success was argued persuasively by Charles Babbage in “On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures” in the 1830s.

Should that put you off reading the book? No — old ideas still have value. In fact, for readers interested in the processes of design and of translating innovations from concepts from product to market, there are some interesting bits of detail and discussions on how exactly this is done.

Morgen Witzel is a frequent contributor to the Financial Times of London, in which this review first appeared.