Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, continues to write beautifully about the importance of Design Thinking as a source metaphor/methodology for managers and management interested in growth through innovation and differentiation. As Martin suggests, it is rarely easy to convince corporate squares that they should make the journey to design thinking as a way to drive their corporate strategy. Design is never easy to sell in hostile territory.
As IDEO’s Tim Brown clearly articulates, design thinking is ’strategy making’ in the real world. While Martin and Brown write about these things better than I, I’ve recently had a go in a book to be published in early April—The Innovation Acid Test (Triarchy Press, 2008). In the book, I offer a version of the differences between traditional management thinking (with a splash doing) versus a design-centric approach that is heavy on doing and learning from doing.
It is what I call the Do-Think-Do Principle, and looks something like this:
| TRADITIONAL ENTERPRISE | HUMAN-CENTERED ENTERPRISE |
| Math/Economics/Psychology | Architecture/Design/Anthropology |
| Theory X | Theory Y |
| MBAs | MBDs |
| Decision Attitude | Design Attitude |
| Functional Careers | Integrative Careers |
| Sameness | Differentiation |
| Recipes | Solving Wicked Problems |
| ‘Already Known Results’ | Iterative Processes |
| Order-Giving | Form-Giving |
| Execution | Invention |
| MANAGING THE KNOWN | BUILDING THE UNKNOWN |
As architect Frank Gehry once said: ‘If I knew how a project was going to turn out, I wouldn’t bother doing it.’
Building is a mystery… Executing is a drag.
The Butcher
Leave a Reply