Design Thinking is Dead

Long Live Design Foresight

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

TL;DR at the end

Most innovative processes may be organizationally convenient but depending on the industry, they tend to be shortsighted and inefficient. No matter how the process is laid out, even considering feedback and iterative loops, they are often outdated and underperforming.

An agile design thinking method has been widely adopted in the last decade. A strong customer-centric approach with feedback-driven iterations has provided the ultimate flexibility and the fastest results. In plain words, it’s a wide-funneling exercise with the least possible administrative effort. Putting all the operational money where our mouth is. What’s not to love?

Are fast results good results?

Photo by GR Stocks on Unsplash

Observations

After using this method for a few years, here are a few observed shortcomings.

Shortsighted

Most design thinking methods are firmly planted in the present. There is no mechanism by which strategic foresight is inherently considered.

Linear

It assumes a fixed starting point based on a self-centered vision of a problem statement. It goes on an exploratory and iterative mission that uncovers an evolution of the actual context and refinement of the problem statement only towards the end of the process itself.

Over-simplified

It guides the design team to formulate a problem statement using a self-defined scope and forward-looking boundary box. Often, the problem statement starts with an actual problem. As if, there needs to be a specific problem to find a solution. A possible consequence is the failure to address the potential fundamental pivot needed in the process.

Overly Democratic

In a similar gripe to most workshop processes, democratic vote counting may be very appreciated by participants but do little for the actual problem-solving exercise. Each team member has their skills, but may not all understand the customer-centric context equally. Their excitement may not influence customer-centric problem resolution either. Especially critical in a non-consumer product B2B context, where team members have no access nor experience with the end user’s customer journey. Additionally, they may just go with the easier solution, simply because it’s less work for them or because it’s the chief’s idea.

Undisruptive

From the overly democratic process above, we can conversely witness a “break all rules” and shoot-from-the-hip strategy from some participants. The wilder it is, the most highly regarded it is.

However, the most disruptive ideas are not necessarily tied to the most outlandish concepts. Disruptive ideas cannot be born from thinking in the present tense without an extreme amount of luck, and luck is rarely a reliable strategy.

Reactive

The design thinking infinity pattern is not cohesive to evolution. Going over and over the race track with feedback and iteration will inherently refine the idea/product/service. Depending on culture, some feedback may remain shallow and positive as a sign of politeness and friendliness, skewing the iterative process.

New Era

The faster technology accelerates, the less end-users understand their current needs and future needs. They, themselves, are no longer a reliable basis to drive innovation. We are collectively swimming in a sea of overwhelming, life-changing technological advances. From mapping the customer journey to identifying which products will serve them best, filtering through the noise is becoming a job by itself.

Therefore, it is imperative to adapt innovation tools accordingly.

Photo by Photoholgic on Unsplash

Blurry Vision

Since process-based innovation is most often tied to corporate vision, let’s revisit why most corporate visions and strategies are suboptimal.

The Failing Hook

An organization’s 10, 20, or 30 years vision has little relevance without strong customer-centric strategic foresight and a fundamental openness to pivot. Luck can get an organization through the former, but centenarian organizations rarely survive without the latter.

Yet, too often the importance is on creating the vision itself. A kind of “what do you want to do when you grow up?” question. It is claimed to bring clarity throughout the organization and motivate the employees with a newly found passion for the company and its future.

Diligent leaders may bring in an expert to help them with the task. A fundamentally good idea, if done properly.

However, several consultants operate on the emotional side as a hook. Helping leaders and corporations define their long-term vision injects positivity and motivation, and helps secure a longer-term business relationship. If the boss feels good, the money keeps flowing.

Color me skeptical. Indeed, making the customer feel good is a great marketing strategy. Yet, I’m too pragmatic to live in la-la-land.

A Better Oracle: Customers and Markets

It should not be solely about what the organization “wants to become”, it should be about what the future market growth, direction, and customer base “may become”. An organization-centric-vision-driven strategic plan is just as useful as “being disruptive” is a business model.

Using futurist techniques to extract trends is an insightful way to assess how the future may look for our customers. No one can predict the future, but there are tools to evaluate possible scenarios and plan for them from a future customer-centric and market-shift perspective.

Photo by Octavian Rosca on Unsplash

Enter Design Foresight

Design thinking had some good aspects a decade ago, but relied on the present for customer needs inputs and iterations. This new era requires us to look much further ahead.

We have to skate where the puck is going, and it’s moving faster and faster.

“I skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been.”

— Wayne Gretzky

By replacing “design thinking” with “design foresight”, we consider future scenarios in the innovative process itself.

It requires innovation leaders to reach a new height of well-rounded skills and knowledge since the foresight aspect inherently reduces reliance on external iterative inputs. Design foresight cannot be drafted on a timeline or roadmap. It consists of various forward-facing predictive outcomes based on assumptions.

The benefit is an impactful and revolutionary product if the foresight scenario plays out. Creating a disconnect from the customer’s innovative foresight activities in a B2B scenario is beneficial. Suppliers may not have many insights into this aspect anyway, and having internal foresight expertise drives uniquely independent future solutions. Less customer influence in the supplier’s innovation process may lead to healthier competition, more diversified product solutions, and ultimately faster progression into the future.

Photo by Miguel A Amutio on Unsplash

Conclusion

Design foresight is a paradigm shift for business leaders, creators, and innovators. The good news is, the approach is motivating, fun, and unbureaucratic if done right. Formal plans become of very limited value yet includes thorough planning.

Stay tuned for upcoming detailed insights on design foresight. Feel free to follow me (@krypticgray).

“Plans Are Worthless, But Planning Is Everything”

— Dwight D. Eisenhower

TL;DR

Design thinking is already over a decade old. Time to move on.

Observed Shortcomings

• Shortsighted
• Linear
• Over-simplified
• Overly Democratic
• Undisruptive
• Reactive

From Design Thinking to Design Foresight

Updating our innovation toolbox is paramount to remain relevant in an accelerating world. It needs a component of strategic foresight to assess customer needs and potential market shifts.

By replacing design thinking with design foresight, it is possible to play ice hockey like Wayne Gretzky. i.e. skating where the puck is going.

Interested? Now go back and read the article. :)