Why diversity of thought is key to solving problems

When I started working at BT last August, I, like everyone else, was oblivious to that time being the last 7 months of a pre-Covid world.

We’re now 10 months into this global pandemic and the future is more uncertain than ever. These last 10 months have taken a lot from us, but I like to think they’ve given a lot too.

One thing being plenty of time for reading and reflection.

One particular book has made me reflect on my work at BT.

It’s called ‘Farsighted: How We Make the Decisions That Matter the Most’ by Steven Johnson.

It uses historical examples to show how humans have succeeded or failed when making important decisions.

Everything from Charles Darwin’s thoughts on marriage to how removing a natural pond in New York led to decades of socioeconomic damage, with the area becoming the most (in)famous slum in the US: Five Points.

The book discusses ways to make better decisions but what stood out to me is Johnson’s emphasis on diversity of thought, and its effectiveness in solving problems.

What is diversity of thought?

To explain what it is, Johnson talks about a decision made by Vancouver’s water authority. I won’t focus on what the authority did but instead on the core of the technique it used to solve the problem.

He says: ‘mapping a decision as complex as establishing new sources of drinking water for a metropolitan centre requires a network of diverse perspectives to generate anything resembling an accurate map of the problem.’

Interesting etymological side note:

A common term used for this kind of collaborative deliberation is “charrette” — which derives from a French word for cart. This goes back to the 1800s when architecture students would wheel their models into the street in a cart for last-minute feedback before submitting them.

Over time the term has come to describe an open process in which different stakeholders are invited to critique an existing plan or suggest new ideas. Put simply, working en charrette helps you move away from the narrow perspective of a single like-minded group.

How does this relate to BT?

We’re going through a large-scale digital transformation at BT.

Like all digital transformations, there are complex problems to solve along the way. In the digital design team, it’s our responsibility to think through these problems and find an innovative solution.

Recently, I worked in a team formed to help customers buy a new BT Sport product called BT Sport Monthly Pass. The proposition was simple, but the existing technical interdependencies were extremely complicated, and blocked our route to an innovative solution.

I could talk a lot about what we did* but I think how we did it is more important, and useful for other teams as we move forwards through this transformation.

*we created a clear, simple and understandable order journey that increased conversion by 12%.

Diversity of thought in action

Like all new teams, there was a period of disagreement and false starts but the underlying ambition to adopt an agile, multidisciplinary way of working was shared by all of us.

We acknowledged each other’s unique skills when crafting a particular area of the customer experience but none of that would have mattered if we didn’t approach the problem en charrette.

Taking time to:

- co-create service blueprints and user journey maps

- understand each other’s working processes

- observe user research as a team

helped us develop a shared understanding early on.

This isn’t to say individual expertise was overlooked but I think that prescriptive roles and a one-track way of thinking can inhibit progression in a problem-solving space.

The idea that a content designer does X, the product designer does Y, a developer has to be writing code to be adding value, and a product owner doesn’t adopt design thinking is a limiting mindset to have.

As Johnson says: ‘The power of diversity is so strong that it appears to apply even when the diverse perspectives being added to the group have no relevant expertise to the case at hand.’

An idea can come from anywhere, and it’s everyone’s responsibility to live this mindset if you want to innovate.

We did this with BT Sport Monthly Pass, and it was a great success.

Blurring the line between roles and encouraging people to break free of being pigeonholed is key to a valuable outcome for our users.

After all, we’re all problem solving if you zoom out enough.

Managing multiple perspectives

Diversity of thought means more opinions. With more opinions, a problematic tendency can emerge — something we should be aware of when working as a group.

Johnson says legal scholar Cass Sustein has observed how groups have a ‘rich mix of information distributed among their members, but when they actually gather together in person, they tend to focus on shared information.’

Some group members are ‘cognitively central’: their own knowledge is also held by many others in the group.

Some are ‘cognitively peripheral’: their own knowledge is unique to them.

Recognising this and taking advantage of cognitively peripheral information is key.

But cognitively central people often have more of an influence in open discussions and participate more in collaborative deliberation.

Cognitively peripheral people fear being seen as an outsider if they offer information not shared by the majority of the group.

To get around this, we need to design a decision-making process that exposes these hidden gems.

In the design community, we’re all aware of activities and workshop templates that encourage creative thinking but there are common formulas that could be tweaked to maximise the diversity of thought.

For example, dot voting.

On one hand, it’s a great way of allowing individuals to have their voice heard while quickly reaching a group decision.

But because it’s visible to all group members, those who are cognitively central often lead others to vote in the same way. So, the decision made ends up being the opinion of one or two group members.

Why not break up the group for this exercise and let individuals vote without being influenced?

Also, rapid sketching activities like crazy 8s — extremely effective at encouraging people to think outside the box but when presenting sketches, the same situation can occur.

I’ve seen how the order in which people present can influence others and make them second guess their ideas, brush over the detail and even scribble out or change them before they present.

Why not ask each individual to present to the facilitator in private before discussing as a group? This will encourage cognitively peripheral people to share more openly.

It’s no secret that diversity across all aspects leads to more innovative output but we should think harder about how to make the most of all perspectives.