Why design thinking is good for innovation?
According to Tim Brown “design thinking” is to participate in a dance of four mental states :
Divergence – Is the path to innovation, not an obstacle.
Convergence – It is time to eliminate options and make choices.
Analytical – Without analytical forms of thinking would not be possible to understand complex problems.
Synthetic – is the act of extracting meaningful patterns of the totality of information collected.
These four states are not presented in a logical and predetermined sequence. Here is the intuition that is privileged.
When this dance is performed carefully consider that design can help solve many problems, however, Alan Van Pelt says people are predisposed to cognitive bias and to be led by emotions which can contribute to bad decisions.
In other words, not minimizing these cognitive biases dance is like to trod the foot of your partner.
When we are prone to the pitfalls of decision making, when uncertainty is large, this is where design thinking is more useful.
The issues highlighted here reveal not only the need for careful observation and allows an analogy not superficial, but also clearly reveal the existence of excess optimism and its consequences.
Being over-optimistic allows innovation to happen.
The delusional optimism makes us cling to ideas more than we should.
David McRaney says that “our opinions are the result of years to pay attention to information that confirms what we believe, ignoring the information that challenge our preconceived notions.
We are, some more than others the fruits of education and learning based on choices between yes and no and so we tend to some pitfalls in the decision when there is risk and reward.
Our brains fool us with what guard, he becomes attracted over long distances when they mean big rewards.
Dopamine is responsible for these ways of working of our brain- Large gains dopamine small gains, little dopamine.
By nature we learn to repeat behaviors that maximize the payoff. But we also learned to be rewarded for little things, when we confirm what we think.
“Thanks to Google, we can immediately seek support for the most bizarre idea imaginable. If in our initial research does not show the results we want, we will give a second thought, and just experience a different query and search again. – Justin Owings”
These signs, or the confirmation bias either delusional attitude of optimism are crucial on the road of innovation and leads to wrong decisions and sometimes the painful losses .
Estimate in an exaggerated way and confirm in cognitive shifting the information we want is a big misstep.
These disastrous steps when on innovation teams become easily predictable consequences. To avoid a result of failure or even fiasco the best choice is for third place instead of A or B, Van Pelt said citing the example of Starbucks.
When a group of innovation is initially formed, may be tempted to create such a disruptive innovation that transforms the company (radically). Before starting the competition these teams must show that work as a team and of course display service.
This can be done by establishing an active and effective network of connections that enable it to leverage innovation.
Pair avoid fiascos such as happened with Windows Vista, the teams should be aware of confirmation bias and cognitive biases for estimates overstated. The principle of Simplicity by John Maeda is well applied in this situation.
When planning major initiatives, business leaders and team innovation exaggerate the benefits and low cost and thus prepared them for failure. There is a lack of reality.
Some results of surveys done with students on the eve of integration in the workplace shows that 70 % of respondents feel more able than others to lead teams of innovation. It is clearly an excess of optimism.
The leaders of innovation may be subject to these abuses and must rely on the risks and obstacles they will face in leading a project.
Many of them if they do not rationally leave at the starting point.
However self -confidence makes that risk and in cases of failure are justified with time or external factors. The plan failed.
Van Pelt believes it essential to have the notion that having a plan is just one of the possible scenarios.
Planning includes all the thinking, where, when and how, that is, displaying the maximum possible cases. And where possible is the major source of food analogies presented in schools that the future leaders of innovation.
When you face the challenges, even with a plan, the leaders must understand that there are potential dangers in analogies, such as fixation on superficial similarities and that pattern recognition can undermine this reasoning.
The analogies are not a shortcut! They are a way of effecting an understanding.
Our tendency to overestimate surface similarities is due to anchor at a point which is then adjusted by us to what we are interested in giving rise to demand for information to justify our approach.
To avoid superficial analogies follow the advice of Gavetti e Rivkin:
1 – Recognize the analogy and identify its purpose. It is an analogy used? How?
2 – Understanding the source. Why the strategy does have worked before? There is a chain of cause and effect that explains why the original strategy worked?
3 – Study the analogy. The analogy is more than superficial?
The logical cause for the identified source, remain at the target?
4 – Translate, decide and adapt. How the strategy does or needs to adapt to the new situation? What do believe it works?
Beware of our tendency to over- estimation.
This post is based on “What innovation teasm can learn from behavioral economics” Alan Van Pelt DMI International Conference . My special thanks to Jorge Barba who send me the document!