A new model of the design process
In my previous essay, I started thinking about a more holistic view on design. I thought about how design is not just beauty, not just problem solving, but also problem finding, questioning. How design is all of that. The head, the heart and the hands. Today, I wanted to take this train of thought one step further. Today, I wanted to think about how to connect these three functions of design and how design can help bridge the gaps between strategy and operations in most organizations. All in the name of uncovering the way design can bring the most value and have the highest impact.
Three levels
Design, as most things in business, happens on three levels: strategic, tactical and operational. That these three levels seem hierarchical comes from the dominant ideas about how to organize work from the Scientific Management movement. In that school of thought, strategic work is done by managers that have a higher hierarchical position. That only ever worked in factories and other environments that have a clear, linear business processes that benefits from dumb operational workers that don’t have to think. In complex environments, this doesn’t work. Managers that are supposed to define strategy don’t have the required overview and necessary operational information to make strategies that work. One of the main problems that arises from defining a strategy anyway is that the strategic, tactical and operational levels are disconnected. The reality of most companies is that people do their work regardless of the strategy. Okay, this might sound a little harsh, but there are clear gaps between these three organizational levels in most organizations.
Six areas
To bridge these gaps, we need to let go of the mental model that the levels are hierarchical. Let’s put them all on the same level. Strategy is just different work, not more important or better than other work. And strategy is too important to be left to strategists. We also need to create in-between area’s: strategic tactics between strategy and tactics, tactical operations between tactics and operations, and operational strategy between operations and strategy. Between the three levels interesting things happen.
If we look at it like this, we get to six areas instead of three levels:
- 1. Strategy: question.
This is where we go out and find the right questions. What is the real/core problem? Why is it that a problem? Why is it not working right now? What are the assumptions we have around the problem? What is the question we need to answer in this project? - 2. Strategic tactics: problem framing.
In between coming up with solutions (tactics), and finding the question (strategy), there is work to be done to translate the main questions into a description of the problem that opens up the minds of people to come up with solutions that work. The way you frame a problem determines what kind of solutions that will be found. - 3. Tactics: functional solutions.
This is where the problems are solved by coming up with solutions. What solutions are we going to develop to answer the questions, to solve the problems? What solution fits best to the questions in the project? - 4. Tactical operations: engagement.
Between coming up with functional solutions and determining how they will look like exactly, there is work to be done to imagine how these functional solutions can be designed so they engage people. This is not just about the functionality and the looks but about the interaction patterns, the flow, the user journey, the way we can make the solution work for the users and the business. - 5. Operations: love.
Beauty has a big role to play in how successful a solution will be. People are visual creatures and react to solutions not only with their heads but also with their hearts. Beauty makes people enthusiastic, it opens their hearts. - 6. Operational strategy: purpose.
The whole process is a circle. So between operational beauty and strategic questions is work to be done to make sure that the solutions align with the questions that were uncovered. The final solution is input to uncovering new and more fundamental questions. The solution gets purpose and meaning if the solution is lovely but also solves the fundamental question.
Double loop learning
All these areas feed back into each other. Or they should. Creating solutions in a complex environment requires constant learning. There are two types of learning. The first is single loop learning. You do something, there is a certain outcome, then you change the thing you do so the result is different. You learn by comparing the result to the action. Basic trial and error. This can be an effective and simple method to learn things. The downside is that you might up ending trying lots of actions to get to the result you want. There is also another way of learning and that is called double loop learning. In double loop learning, you not only reflect back on the action based on the result but you also revisit your assumptions, mental model of the situation. Especially in complex situations, this can be a more efficient way to learn.
If we look at the six areas in the design process outlined above, we see that it is best to let the different areas loop back into each other. Each area works on its own assumptions that need to be revisited based on the results in the next phases to get to the best results. (You see the same circular, double loop learning in Agile ways of working.)
If we arrange the six areas of design work in a process and apply the double loop learning, we arrive at the following diagram:
I did not draw all the double loop lines. I drew the line back to the questions that are the foundation, the place where the most fundamental assumptions lie. But all phases can loop back into each other. More often than not, you discover that the functional solution doesn’t work the way you thought it up when you design an engaging interaction for it. Insights from the next engagement creation loops back to the solutions design phase. This goes for each phase. The most impact comes from the phases looping back to the fundamental assumptions in the question phase. It could happen that you find that your assumptions and questions have been wrong once the whole solution is live and completely built. That is the most expensive way to find this out. That is why a Lean Startup approach for testing hypothesis, questions, assumptions is advisable in situations with a lot of uncertainty.
Practical?
What does this mean in practice?
Do we really need another model of the design process? If you Google “design process model” you get thousands of hits. None of them unite the three levels of design: operational, tactical and strategic. Each model is designed for a purpose. The purpose of this model is to unite the three levels of design. The goal is to help optimize the design process.
I came to this out of frustration in projects. Sometimes project don’t flow, they don’t produce the impact they could have and something start to itch. Why did this project not fulfill its potential? Why was the flow not right? Why was there not enough synergy between all the stakeholders? Sometimes it feels useless to me to dissect the design process like this. It feels abstract. It should serve a purpose.
One of the elements in this diagram are the three main functions of design: beauty, function and question finding. They often feel disconnected in projects. I am looking for a way to connect them. Designers in projects come from these different mindsets and I am looking for common ground, intersections, overlap to connect them.
Integrating strategy into design projects is also always a challenge. I was looking for a way to weave strategy into the design process in a more integrated way. One of the main reason for failure to live up to the potential in projects I see is the inability to loop back to the question: what are we trying to achieve here? To not just ask this question at the start of a project. Because the level of knowledge is too low to come up with a good question in complex projects at the start. Looping back to the questions and assumptions should be a continuous effort. Also involving all stakeholders from the start is crucial. All too often the questions, assumptions are not tested with all stakeholders. If you have visual designs, this is much easier. User feedback and research should be more strategic.
But the failure comes from all areas of design. Not just from not looping back to the questions enough. Solutions that don’t create engagement, that don’t solve the most fundamental questions stakeholders have also leads to suboptimal results. Not just the end result but during the entire process. Functional solutions that don’t open up projects fail to create the creativity that is needed. Is this really the AirBnB of car parking? I am looking for a way to organize the design process in a way that the process flows, that creativity is high, stakeholders are engaged. This process can be blocked in many points. I hope that drawing out the system helps me in identifying the points where the energy flow is disturbed and in finding ways to unblock the energy flow.
Too much beauty obscures the questions. That is a hard truth. If a solution looks too beautiful, stakeholders are blinded by its shine and the attention is drawn away from the questions. Too little beauty leads to a lack of engagement. People are motivated to work on elegant, beautiful solutions. The functionality needs beauty to work. Sometimes a less functional but more beautiful solution works better. Sometimes a functionality needs less beauty to make the user stop and think. Always the assumptions need to be tested. Always the questions need to be refined. Always the questions need to drive decisions in all parts of the process. And the stakeholders (including the users) should always be at the center.
Overlapping design levels
In this new process of design, the 3 different levels of strategic design overlap:
Thank you for taking the time to read this article. I hope you enjoyed it. If you did, don’t forget to hit the clap button so I know I connected with you. Let me know what you think in the comments. I will dive deeper into the topics of Design Leadership in upcoming articles. If you follow me here on Medium, you will see them pop up on your Medium homepage. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn to see new articles in your timeline or talk to my bot at dennishambeukers.com :) You can also find me on Instagram. When I am not blogging, I work as a design strategist and project manager at Zuiderlicht.
