Design Theory Communication & Multimedia Design Bas Leurs ([email protected]) March, 2014 Key concepts Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking /
Aug 17, 2014
Design Theory
Communication &Multimedia Design
Bas Leurs ([email protected])March, 2014
Key conceptsLecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking /
what we discussed last week...
Snow shovel case
Sensemaking Questioning
Prototyping Sketching
UNITiD
Studio space
Today’s programme
Modes of thinking
Design expertise
Key concepts
Design Thinking
design thinking
Lucy Kimbell (2011)
Design Thinking as a cognitive style
Design Thinking as a business resource
Traditional design practice (“studio life”)
Business and organizational practice
Problem solving Innovation
Traditional design disciplines(e.g. architecture, product design)
Any context from healthcare, education to sustainability
Design schools MBA’s / Design schools
Purpose
Focus
Context
Training
Different discourses
Design Theory Innovation management
Business Design
Mindset MindsetMaintaining the
status quoChallenging the
status quo
Design is more than an agent of change, it is change...
While change is exciting for some, it is positively
terrifying for others.
Scott Doorley & Scott Witthoft (2012)
BUSINESS DESIGN
Rationality, objectivity, reality is fixed and quantifiable
Subjective experience, reality is socially constructed
Analysis aimed at providing one "best" answer
Experimentation aimed at iterating toward a "better" answer
Planning Doing
Logic, numeric models Emotional insight, experiential models
Pursuit of control and stability, discomfort with uncertainty
Pursuit of novelty, dislike of status quo
Abstract or particular Iterative movement between abstract and particular
Liedtka & Ogilvie (2011)
Underlying assumptions
Method
Process
Decision drivers
Values
Levels of focus
Tim Brown (2008, 2009)
• Empathy• Integrative thinking• Optimism• Experimentalism• Collaboration
Tim Brown (2008, 2009)
Design Thinking
harvard business review • june 2008 page 3
observing these important times of transition,the innovation teams explored potential solu-tions through brainstorming and rapid proto-typing. (Prototypes of a service innovation willof course not be physical, but they must be tan-gible. Because pictures help us understandwhat is learned through prototyping, we oftenvideotape the performance of prototyped ser-vices, as we did at Kaiser.)
Prototyping doesn’t have to be complex andexpensive. In another health care project,IDEO helped a group of surgeons develop anew device for sinus surgery. As the surgeonsdescribed the ideal physical characteristics ofthe instrument, one of the designers grabbeda whiteboard marker, a film canister, and aclothespin and taped them together. “Do youmean like this?” he asked. With his rudimen-tary prototype in hand, the surgeons were ableto be much more precise about what theultimate design should accomplish.
Prototypes should command only as muchtime, effort, and investment as are needed togenerate useful feedback and evolve an idea.The more “finished” a prototype seems, theless likely its creators will be to pay attentionto and profit from feedback. The goal of proto-typing isn’t to finish. It is to learn about thestrengths and weaknesses of the idea and toidentify new directions that further proto-types might take.
The design that emerged for shift changeshad nurses passing on information in front of
the patient rather than at the nurses’ station.In only a week the team built a working proto-type that included new procedures and somesimple software with which nurses could callup previous shift-change notes and add newones. They could input patient informationthroughout a shift rather than scrambling atthe end to pass it on. The software collated thedata in a simple format customized for eachnurse at the start of a shift. The result was bothhigher-quality knowledge transfer and reducedprep time, permitting much earlier and better-informed contact with patients.
As Kaiser measured the impact of thischange over time, it learned that the mean in-terval between a nurse’s arrival and first inter-action with a patient had been more thanhalved, adding a huge amount of nursing timeacross the four hospitals. Perhaps just as im-portant was the effect on the quality of thenurses’ work experience. One nurse com-mented, “I’m an hour ahead, and I’ve onlybeen here 45 minutes.” Another said, “[This isthe] first time I’ve ever made it out of here atthe end of my shift.”
Thus did a group of nurses significantlyimprove their patients’ experience while alsoimproving their own job satisfaction and pro-ductivity. By applying a human-centered de-sign methodology, they were able to create arelatively small process innovation that pro-duced an outsize impact. The new shiftchanges are being rolled out across the Kaiser
A Design Thinker’s Personality Profile
Contrary to popular opinion, you don’t need weird shoes or a black turtleneck to be a de-sign thinker. Nor are design thinkers neces-sarily created only by design schools, even though most professionals have had some kind of design training. My experience is that many people outside professional design have a natural aptitude for design thinking, which the right development and experi-ences can unlock. Here, as a starting point, are some of the characteristics to look for in design thinkers:
Empathy.
They can imagine the world from multiple perspectives—those of col-leagues, clients, end users, and customers (current and prospective). By taking a “peo-ple first” approach, design thinkers can imag-
ine solutions that are inherently desirable and meet explicit or latent needs. Great de-sign thinkers observe the world in minute de-tail. They notice things that others do not and use their insights to inspire innovation.
Integrative thinking.
They not only rely on analytical processes (those that produce either/or choices) but also exhibit the ability to see all of the salient—and sometimes contradictory—aspects of a confounding problem and create novel solutions that go beyond and dramatically improve on existing alternatives. (See Roger Martin’s
The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking
.)
Optimism.
They assume that no matter how challenging the constraints of a given problem, at least one potential solution is
better than the existing alternatives.
Experimentalism.
Significant innovations don’t come from incremental tweaks. Design thinkers pose questions and explore con-straints in creative ways that proceed in en-tirely new directions.
Collaboration.
The increasing complexity of products, services, and experiences has re-placed the myth of the lone creative genius with the reality of the enthusiastic interdisci-plinary collaborator. The best design thinkers don’t simply work alongside other disciplines; many of them have significant experience in more than one. At IDEO we employ people who are engineers
and
marketers, anthropolo-gists
and
industrial designers, architects
and
psychologists.
Exploration ExploitationThe invention of business The administration of business
Roger Martin (2009)
Preferences
MysteriesDiscoveryLong-termHigh risk
Preferences
AlgorithmsEfficiency
Short-termMinimal risk
Inventor Manager (Accountant)
Designer
IntuitiveThinking
AnalyticalThinking
DesignThinking
Helen Walters (2011) http://helenwalters.com/2011/03/21/design-thinking-wont-save-you/
modes of thinking
Nigel Cross (1990)
Abductive Thinking
Abduction is the logic of conjecture.
“vermoeden”“gissen”
Kees Dorst (2010)
132
To cut to the core of design thinking we build on the way fundamentally different kinds of UHDVRQLQJ�DUH�GHVFULEHG�LQ�IRUPDO�ORJLF��LQ�SDUWLFXODU�WKH�ZD\�5RR]HQEXUJ��������KDV�GHVFULEHG�WKH�ZRUN�RI�3HLUFH��:H�ZLOO�GHVFULEH�WKH�EDVLF�UHDVRQLQJ�SDWWHUQV�WKURXJK�FRPSDULQJ�GLIIHUHQW�‘settings’ of the knowns and unknowns in the equation:
WHAT + HOW leads to RESULT
(thing) (working principle) (observed)
In Deduction, we know the ‘what’, the ‘players’ in a situation we need to attend to, and we NQRZ�µKRZ¶�WKH\�ZLOO�RSHUDWH�WRJHWKHU��7KLV�DOORZV�XV�WR�VDIHO\�SUHGLFW�UHVXOWV��)RU�LQVWDQFH��LI�we know that there are stars in the sky, and we are aware of the natural laws that govern their PRYHPHQW��ZH�FDQ�SUHGLFW�ZKHUH�D�VWDU�ZLOO�EH�DW�D�FHUWDLQ�SRLQW�LQ�WLPH��
WHAT + HOW leads to ???
Alternatively, in Induction, we know the ‘what’ in the situation (stars), and we can observe UHVXOWV��SRVLWLRQ�FKDQJHV�DFURVV�WKH�VN\���%XW�ZH�GR�QRW�NQRZ�WKH�µKRZ¶��WKH�ODZV�WKDW�JRYHUQ�WKHVH�PRYHPHQWV��7KH�SURSRVLQJ�RI�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOHV¶�WKDW�FRXOG�H[SODLQ�WKH�REVHUYHG�EHKDY-LRU��DND�K\SRWKHVHV��LV�D�FUHDWLYH�DFW��
WHAT + ??? leads to RESULT
7KHVH�WZR�IRUPV�RI�DQDO\WLFDO�UHDVRQLQJ�SUHGLFW�DQG�H[SODLQ�SKHQRPHQD�WKDW�DUH�DOUHDG\�LQ�WKH�ZRUOG��:KDW�LI�ZH�ZDQW�WR�FUHDWH�YDOXDEOH�QHZ�WKLQJV�IRU�RWKHUV��OLNH�LQ�GHVLJQ�DQG�RWKHU�productive professions? The basic reasoning pattern then is Abduction:
WHAT + HOW leads to VALUE
(thing) (scenario) (aspired)
Abduction comes in two forms—what they have in common is that we actually know the value WKDW�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��,Q�WKH�¿UVW�IRUP�RI�Abduction-1, that is often associated with ‘prob-lem solving’, we also know the ‘how’, a ‘working principle’ and how that will help achieve the YDOXH�ZH�DLP�IRU��:KDW�LV�VWLOO�PLVVLQJ�LV�D�µZKDW¶��DQ�REMHFW��D�VHUYLFH��D�V\VWHP���VR�ZH�VHW�RXW�WR�VHDUFK�IRU�D�VROXWLRQ��
??? + HOW leads to VALUE
7KLV�LV�RIWHQ�ZKDW�GHVLJQHUV�DQG�HQJLQHHUV�GR²FUHDWH�DQ�REMHFW�WKDW�ZRUNV�ZLWKLQ�D�NQRZQ�ZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH��DQG�ZLWKLQ�D�VHW�VFHQDULR�RI�YDOXH�FUHDWLRQ��,Q�WKH�VHFRQG�IRUP�RI�Abduc-tion-2��ZH�21/<�NQRZ�WKH�HQG�YDOXH�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��
??? + ??? leads to VALUE
(thing) (scenario) (aspired)
6R�WKH�FKDOOHQJH�LV�WR�¿JXUH�RXW�µZKDW¶�WR�FUHDWH��ZKLOH�WKHUH�LV�QR�NQRZQ�RU�FKRVHQ�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶�WKDW�ZH�FDQ�WUXVW�WR�OHDG�WR�WKH�DVSLUHG�YDOXH��7KDW�PHDQV�ZH�KDYH�WR�FUHDWH�D�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶��WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�LQGXFWLRQ��DQG�D�µWKLQJ¶��REMHFW��VHUYLFH��V\VWHP²WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�$EGXFWLRQ����LQ�SDUDOOHO�
132
To cut to the core of design thinking we build on the way fundamentally different kinds of UHDVRQLQJ�DUH�GHVFULEHG�LQ�IRUPDO�ORJLF��LQ�SDUWLFXODU�WKH�ZD\�5RR]HQEXUJ��������KDV�GHVFULEHG�WKH�ZRUN�RI�3HLUFH��:H�ZLOO�GHVFULEH�WKH�EDVLF�UHDVRQLQJ�SDWWHUQV�WKURXJK�FRPSDULQJ�GLIIHUHQW�‘settings’ of the knowns and unknowns in the equation:
WHAT + HOW leads to RESULT
(thing) (working principle) (observed)
In Deduction, we know the ‘what’, the ‘players’ in a situation we need to attend to, and we NQRZ�µKRZ¶�WKH\�ZLOO�RSHUDWH�WRJHWKHU��7KLV�DOORZV�XV�WR�VDIHO\�SUHGLFW�UHVXOWV��)RU�LQVWDQFH��LI�we know that there are stars in the sky, and we are aware of the natural laws that govern their PRYHPHQW��ZH�FDQ�SUHGLFW�ZKHUH�D�VWDU�ZLOO�EH�DW�D�FHUWDLQ�SRLQW�LQ�WLPH��
WHAT + HOW leads to ???
Alternatively, in Induction, we know the ‘what’ in the situation (stars), and we can observe UHVXOWV��SRVLWLRQ�FKDQJHV�DFURVV�WKH�VN\���%XW�ZH�GR�QRW�NQRZ�WKH�µKRZ¶��WKH�ODZV�WKDW�JRYHUQ�WKHVH�PRYHPHQWV��7KH�SURSRVLQJ�RI�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOHV¶�WKDW�FRXOG�H[SODLQ�WKH�REVHUYHG�EHKDY-LRU��DND�K\SRWKHVHV��LV�D�FUHDWLYH�DFW��
WHAT + ??? leads to RESULT
7KHVH�WZR�IRUPV�RI�DQDO\WLFDO�UHDVRQLQJ�SUHGLFW�DQG�H[SODLQ�SKHQRPHQD�WKDW�DUH�DOUHDG\�LQ�WKH�ZRUOG��:KDW�LI�ZH�ZDQW�WR�FUHDWH�YDOXDEOH�QHZ�WKLQJV�IRU�RWKHUV��OLNH�LQ�GHVLJQ�DQG�RWKHU�productive professions? The basic reasoning pattern then is Abduction:
WHAT + HOW leads to VALUE
(thing) (scenario) (aspired)
Abduction comes in two forms—what they have in common is that we actually know the value WKDW�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��,Q�WKH�¿UVW�IRUP�RI�Abduction-1, that is often associated with ‘prob-lem solving’, we also know the ‘how’, a ‘working principle’ and how that will help achieve the YDOXH�ZH�DLP�IRU��:KDW�LV�VWLOO�PLVVLQJ�LV�D�µZKDW¶��DQ�REMHFW��D�VHUYLFH��D�V\VWHP���VR�ZH�VHW�RXW�WR�VHDUFK�IRU�D�VROXWLRQ��
??? + HOW leads to VALUE
7KLV�LV�RIWHQ�ZKDW�GHVLJQHUV�DQG�HQJLQHHUV�GR²FUHDWH�DQ�REMHFW�WKDW�ZRUNV�ZLWKLQ�D�NQRZQ�ZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH��DQG�ZLWKLQ�D�VHW�VFHQDULR�RI�YDOXH�FUHDWLRQ��,Q�WKH�VHFRQG�IRUP�RI�Abduc-tion-2��ZH�21/<�NQRZ�WKH�HQG�YDOXH�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��
??? + ??? leads to VALUE
(thing) (scenario) (aspired)
6R�WKH�FKDOOHQJH�LV�WR�¿JXUH�RXW�µZKDW¶�WR�FUHDWH��ZKLOH�WKHUH�LV�QR�NQRZQ�RU�FKRVHQ�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶�WKDW�ZH�FDQ�WUXVW�WR�OHDG�WR�WKH�DVSLUHG�YDOXH��7KDW�PHDQV�ZH�KDYH�WR�FUHDWH�D�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶��WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�LQGXFWLRQ��DQG�D�µWKLQJ¶��REMHFW��VHUYLFH��V\VWHP²WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�$EGXFWLRQ����LQ�SDUDOOHO�
Abductive ThinkingAnd why design is such a complicated act
Deductive reasoning
• Deduction means determining the conclusion
• Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application
Inductive reasoning
• Induction means determining the rule
• Inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general.
Taking your best shot! Doing a best guess!
• Abduction means determining the precondition.
• Abduction has been described as the “logic of what might be,” (Martin, 2009)
• Abduction can be thought of as “the argument to the best explanation”. (Kolko, 2009)
Conclusion merely likely!
Abductive reasoning
Conclusion guaranteed!
design
natural sciencemathematics
Black Swan?All of the swans that all living beings have ever seen are whiteTherefore, all swans are white.
SyllogismAll men are mortalSocrates is a manTherefore, Socrates is mortal
Types of reasoning
See the paper of John Kolko (2009)
Aha Erlebnis“The abductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It is an act of insight, although extremely fallible insight.” (Pierce, 1998)
Think of: Dr House, Sherlock Holmes
and other TV personas who solve
unsolvable puzzles.
A B C
B
Therefore, we are absolutely certain that all the marbles in the bag are red (because all the marbles are from bucket B)
There are three buckets A, B and C. We can see and we know that allthe marbles in bucket B are red.
It is the case that someone has put some marbles from bucket B in the bag (but we cannot see what’s in the bag).
All the marbles from bucket B are red.
Rule
The marbles in the bag are from bucket B.
Case
The marbles in the bag are red.
Result
conclusion!
Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed!Deduction means determining the conclusion
Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application
A B C
B
When we open bag, we see that the marbles are red.
So, all the marbles in bucket B are red (although this might not be true if there is blue marble in bucket B, but we cannot see if that is the case)
It is the case that someone has put some marbles from bucket B in the bag.
All the marbles from bucket B are red.
Rule
The marbles in the bag are from bucket B.
Case
The marbles in the bag are red.
Result
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely!Induction means determining the rule
Inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general.
A B C
B
We have a bag, when we open it, we see that the marbles are red.
There are three buckets A, B and C. We see and we know that all the marbles in bucket B are red.
So, it is the case that someone has put some marbles from bucket B into the bag.
All the marbles from bucket B are red.
Rule
The marbles in the bag are from bucket B.
Case
The marbles in the bag are red.
Result
Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot! / best guess!Abduction means determining the precondition.
Abduction has been described as the “logic of what might be,” (Martin)Abduction can be thought of as the argument to the best explanation. (Kolko)
Henry Mintzberg & Frances Westley (2001)
“Thinking first” “Seeing first” “Doing first”
Decision making approaches
•Science•planning / programming•Verbal•Facts
•Art•Visioning / imagining•Visual•Ideas
•Craft•Venturing / learning•Visceral•Experiences
Works best when:
• The issue is clear
• The data is reliable
• The context is structured
Works best when:
• Many elements have to be combined into creative solutions
• Commitment to those solutions is key
• Communication across boundaries is essential
Works best when:
• Situation is novel and confusing
• Complicated specification would get in the way
• A few simple relationship rules can help people move forward
established
production processes
new product development
disruptive technologies
Henry Mintzberg & Frances Westley (2001)
“Thinking first” “Seeing first” “Doing first”
Decision making approaches
•Science•planning / programming•Verbal•Facts
•Art•Visioning / imagining•Visual•Ideas
•Craft•venturing / learning•Visceral•Experiences
Works best when:
• The issue is clear
• The data is reliable
• The context is structured
Works best when:
• Many elements have to be combined into creative solutions
• Commitment to thos solutions is key
• Communication accros boundaries is essential
Works best when:
• Situation is novel and confusing
• Complicated specification would get in the way
• A few simple relationship rules can help people move forward
established production processes
new product development disruptive technologies
Design
design expertise
Unselfconscious culture Selfconscious cultureForm-making is learned informally, through
imitation and correction.Form-making is taught academically,
according to explicit rules.
Christopher Alexander (1964)
Unselfconscious culture Selfconscious culture
Form-making is learned informally, through imitation and correction.
Division of labour is limited, specialization of any sort is rare (there are no architects).
Each man builds his own house.
The technology of communication is underdeveloped (no written records or architectural plans, “direct design”).
Form-making is taught academically, according to explicit rules.
Division of labour is abundant, there are many specializations (architects, bricklayers, carpenters)
Each man buys or rents his own house.
The technology of communication is well developed (many written records, “indirect design”).
Christopher Alexander (1964)
Nigel Cross (1990)
Design ability
designers...
• produce novel, unexpected solutions
• tolerate uncertainty, working with incomplete information
• apply imagination and constructive forethought to practical problems
• use drawings and other modelling media as means of problem solving.
• resolve ill-defined problems
• adopt solution-focussing strategies
• employ abductive/productive/appositional thinking
• use non-verbal, graphic/spatial modelling media.
The nature and nurture of design ability Nigel Cross Design Discipline, Faculty of Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7
6AA, UK
Understanding the nature of design ability can better enable design educators to nurture its development
in their students. Such understanding has been promoted by a wide variety of studies of design activity
and designer behaviour. From a review of these studies, design ability is summarised as comprising
resolving ill-defined problems, adopting solution-focussed cognitive strategies, employing abductive or
appositional thinking and using non-verbal modelling media. These abilities are highly developed in
skilled designers, but are also possessed in some degree by everyone. A case is therefore made for design
ability as a fundamental form of human intelligence. The nurture of this ability through design education
is discussed, with particular reference to the problem of providing design education through the
distance-learning media of the Open University. Keywords: design education, design ability I hope that the title of this paper makes clear that it really
has two parts. The first is concerned with the nature of
design ability - the particular ways of thinking and
behaving that designers, and all of us, adopt in tackling
certain kinds of problems in certain kinds of ways. The
second part is concerned with the nurture of design
ability - that is, with the development of that ability
through design education, and in particular with the
attempts made at the Open University to nurture design
ability through distance-learning media. My view is that through better understanding the
nature of design ability, design educators may be better
able to nurture it. I therefore see these two - nature and
nurture - as complementary interests, and I do not
intend to venture into those corners of psychology where
fights go on over nature vs nurture in the context of
general intelligence. However, I shall try to make a claim This paper is based on the author's Inaugural Lecture as
Professor of Design Studies, given 31 May 1989 at the Open
University.
that design ability is, in fact, one of the several forms or
fundamental aspects of human intelligence. The appellation 'designer' has been helping to sell
products for some time now. I think it started with
'designer jeans' - trousdrs which, though derived from
workmen's garments, were clearly not meant for work-
ing in. A wide range of 'designer' products then
appeared, from designer cars to designer pens. However,
the appellation has now become virtually a term of abuse
- ranging from the 'designer stubble' seen on the faces of
fashion victims to the 'designer socialism' seen in some
sections of the British Labour Party. I even saw a
magazine article about 'designer diseases' such as the
'Stendahl syndrome' which is supposed to afflict those
overcome by the beauty of Florence. 'Designer' products
are now recognizable by their dominance of form over
function. 'Designer' therefore currently seems to mean some-
thing trendy, fashionable and insubstantial. But fortu-
nately the idea that good design can actually be a selling
Vol 11 No 3 July 1 9 9 0 0142-694X/90/03127-14/$3.00 © 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
127
Experts
NovicesNigel Cross (2004)
Experts vs Novices
deductive reasoning‘depth-first’ approach
to problem solving
‘generative’ reasoningbreadth-first approach
to problem solving
Experts have been exposed to a large number of examples of the problems and solutions
Experts are able to store and access information in larger cognitive ‘chunks’ than novices can, and to recognise underlying principles, rather than focussing on the surface features of problems
Expert designers move rapidly to early solution conjectures, and use these conjectures as a way of exploring and defining problem-and- solution together.
Bryan Lawson (2004)
Gambits
Experts have studied a substantial body of precedent in order to have developed schemata that enable them to recognise underlying structures in design situations that allow them to employ and adapt gambits.
tricks to solve
recognisable problems
Chess masters rarely analyse a board situation, rather they recognised it.
Herbert Dreyfus (2003), Kees Dorst and Isabelle Reymen (2004)
Expertise levels
Novice ... will follow strict rules to deal with the problem
Advanced beginner ... is sensitive to exceptions to the ‘hard’ rules of the novice.
Competent ... selects the elements in a situation that are relevant, and chooses a plan to achieve the goals.
Proficient ... immediately sees the most important issues and appropriate plan, and then reasons out what to do.
Expert ... responds to specific situation intuitively, and performs the appropriate action, straightaway.
Master ... sees the standard ways of working that experienced professionals use not as natural but as something they rely on. A master displays a deeper involvement into the professional field as a whole
Visionary ... consciously strives to extend the domain in which he/she works. The world discloser develops new ways things could be, defines the issues, opens new worlds and creates new domains.
Rule based thinking
Situation based thinking
Strategy based thinking
Bachelor levelSkills
novice
advancedbeginner
competent
expert
visionary
(Lawson & Dorst, 2009)
master
Expertise levels
Rule based thinking
Situation based thinking
Strategy based thinking
10,000 hour rule
Ericsson (2001)
Expertise levels
Many thousands of hours of deliberate practice and training are necessary to reach the highest levels of performance.
P1: JzG052184097Xc38 CB1040B/Ericsson 0 521 84087 X February 28, 2006 6:17
694 the cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance
Figure 38.4. Estimated amount of time for solitary practice as a function of agefor the middle-aged professional violinists (triangles), the best expert violinists(squares), the good expert violinists (empty circles), the least accomplished expertviolinists (filled circles), and amateur pianists (diamonds). (From “The role ofdeliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance,” by K. A. Ericsson,R. Th. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Romer, 1993 , Psychological Review, 100(3), p. 379and p. 384 . Copyright 1993 by American Psychological Association. Adaptedwith permission.)
musicians had spent over 10,000 hours prac-ticing, which averages 2 ,500 and 5 ,000 hoursmore than two less-accomplished groups ofmusicians at the same academy, respectively(Ericsson et al., 1993). In comparison to ama-teur pianists of the same age (Krampe &Ericsson, 1996), the best musicians from theacademy and the professionals had practiced8,000 more hours.
The core assumption of deliberate prac-tice (Ericsson, 1996, 2002 , 2004 ; Ericssonet al., 1993) is that expert performanceis acquired gradually and that effectiveimprovement of performance requires theopportunity to find suitable training tasksthat the performer can master sequentially –typically the design of training tasks andmonitoring of the attained performance isdone by a teacher or a coach. Deliberatepractice presents performers with tasks thatare initially outside their current realm ofreliable performance, yet can be masteredwithin hours of practice by concentratingon critical aspects and by gradually refiningperformance through repetitions after feed-
back. Hence, the requirement for concentra-tion sets deliberate practice apart from bothmindless, routine performance and playfulengagement, as the latter two types of activ-ities would, if anything, merely strengthenthe current mediating cognitive mechanismsrather than modify them to allow increasesin the level of performance. Research iscurrently reevaluating claims that someindividuals can improve their level of per-formance without concentration and delib-erate practice. Even the well-known fact thatmore “talented” children improve faster inthe beginning of their music developmentappears to be in large part due to the fact thatthey spend more time in deliberate prac-tice each week (Sloboda, Davidson, Howe& Moore, 1996). In a recent study of singersGrape, Sandgren, Hansson, Ericsson, andTheorell (2003) revealed reliable differencesof skill in the level of physiological and psy-chological indicators of concentration andeffort during a singing lesson. Whereas theamateur singers experienced the lesson asself-actualization and an enjoyable release
key concepts of design theory
DESIGN = . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clarity on Outcomes
If public managers have a clear understanding of an organization’soutcomes, they are better equipped to find ways to deliver thoseoutcomes to the public.
Outcomes often loom large in the public debate when a newpublic service is being established or an existing one expanded,such as building new hospitals, or creating an after-school program
Zeroing In on Outcomes 21
Traditional Performance Measures
OutputsProcesses(Activities)
Inputs
Resources used to deliver the products and services of a program or organization
Series of actions or operations conducted to achieve an end goal
The final products, goods or services produced by a program or organization
Outcomes
Initial Intermediate Long-term
The impacts, benefits or consequences for stakeholders resulting from the outputs ofa program or organization
Public Service Value Measures Outcome
FIGURE 2.1
Inputs, Processes and Outputs versus Outcomes
term outcomes. However, if we did, we would find that manyof the outcomes we reference are in the short-term or inter-mediate-term category, since we are focusing on particularorganizations and ways to help improve their specific per-formance. An interesting additional aspect of this is that afocus on long-term outcomes would probably need to accountfor a group of organizations or an entire sector to be able toencompass all of the factors that contribute to achieving anend outcome.
DESIGN = CHANGE
Design is more than just a product (output), it is about the change (effect) it initiates
transformation function
DESIGN = FUTURE ORIENTED
Design is about how things ought to be, and making it happen.
state 1 process state 2
initial state future state
DESIGN = ENVISIONING POSSIBILITIES
Making stuff... envisioning posibilities and possible futures through sketching, prototyping, enacting, storytelling etc...
l
earning
designing
taking an action that transforms the internal (knowledge, beliefs)
doing an interventionthat transforms the
external (world, context)
DESIGN = LEARNING PROCESS
DESIGN = SENSEMAKING
Understanding reality in a specific way, identifying patterns that have been overlooked by others
DESIGN = ABOUT FIT
ProductProblem User
Business
fitFITfitFIT
fitFIT
Coordinating the alignment of discourses; resolving conflicts of interest
DESIGN = TO IMPROVE THE HUMAN CONDITION
Product
Problem User
Business
fitFIT
fitFITfitFIT
Salut!