There is no doubt that the many challenges we are trying to cope with and the new opportunities we are trying to pursue is far beyond what previous generations have had to deal with. Through our daily actions we are creating and recreating societies around the globe that get entangled into a world that in complexity and pace of change is far beyond most of us – if not all of us. It seems as if we have created a world that we ourselves often find it difficult to live up to.
Handling this challenging situation calls for both creativity, curiosity, high levels of knowledge and innovative capabilities. We are increasingly experimenting with design and innovation methods to foster innovation and solutions centred on people, and to increase the real-world value of the projects. Applying new ways of thinking and looking at challenges from unusual angles is a must, as is the courage to try out new things and to walk down unknown paths with little fear of failure. It is as much about our hands and doing as it is about our heads.
In this continuous “work-in-progress” text I will outline and discuss what I see as important creative and innovative mindsets fit for 21st century living.
Firstly, a know-make-do mindset, that emphasises the importance of making and trying things out in order to move beyond what we already know. Secondly, the generative process of shifting between an explorative and experimenting divergentmode of thinking, that broadens our understanding and possibilities, and a convergentmode of thinking, that analyse, synthesize, creates, make choices, tests solutions and concludes. Thirdly, a dialectic mindsetfor substantiating insights and interpretations of the subject matter through a process of pre-understanding (existing knowledge), understanding (present) and post-understanding. Below I will elaborate on these mindsets of creativity and innovation.
Know-Make-Do
The default approach for the traditional development and decision making, follows a simple two-step process: knowing and doing. You reach out for what you “know”—from past experience, theory, a case study, or a best practice—and then you “do” something based on deductive thinking.
“The problem with this process is that what you “know” is limited to either “what is” or “what was,” while innovation is all about “what could be.” It’s impossible to know what could be without the process of design. To generate new ideas, the design process inserts a middle step: making.”[1]
By making and trying things out in different ways and acting on “what if we…” we initiate a dynamic process where things can develop into things we couldn’t see until we saw the prototype and started playing around with it. “It pushes back on what we think we know, and also changes what we’re likely to do. It shifts the emphasis from “deciding” the future to “designing” the future.” [2]
“Making” is a key element in a design driven approach to innovation and is seen in the widespread use of prototyping, that can range from simple early visualizations like sketches, scenarios and storyboards to more advanced models, mock-ups, simulations, etc.. The options emerge from the work with the prototypes that weren’t there before, Thus, in the process of making, we work our way through the problems, develop meaningful interpretations of the future, and give it concrete shape and content. This is not only a job for specially gifted creative people, but should be done across functions, processions professions? and organisations in order to ensure that the outcome will actually be valuable and appreciated.
Divergent – Convergent
To merge creativity and analysis in projects in order to foster innovative interplay between these two very different ways of thinking, is at the heart of innovation.
Divergent thinking and working, is an attitude that is outward and open, so that everyone can discuss all aspects of a problem. This allows different and opposing perspectives to be collected and highlighted. It seeks new inspirations and insights in order to broaden our understanding. It is experimental and playful in order to create many ideas and alternative ways of framing and approaching a problem – it is fundamentally about expanding our options and creating new opportunities.
A convergent mode of thinking and working is more of an inward attitude, focused on understanding, making sense and moving ahead towards a result. Here we take a closer look at the new ideas and possibilities and explore them in details. This is when insights, data, knowledge, inspirations, etc. are being synthesized and summarized and constrains considered, solutions tested and evaluated and choices made in order to conclude what the best solution would be. It is a very constructive way of thinking, where we lift our ideas from the drawing board and test them in prototypes in order to develop solutions for our problems – a process that should be approached with the same spirit of creativity and analysis as in the divergent process. To navigate these processes is an important part of developing projects, and the double diamond model indicates the project phases that are primarily driven by a divergent and a convergent approach, respectively.
An iterative and dialectic process.
As important as it is to navigate these processes, it is equally important not to take these phases too literally, but to see them only as helpful landmarks. Creativity and innovation are iterative and generative processes of overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps.[3]It is through iterations of inspiration-ideation-implementation, switching between a divergent and a convergent approach, that new solutions and possibilities are generated, that sometimes also lead to unexpected discoveries that move us beyond our present knowledge and practice.
In my experience there is more to the process than just being iterative. Taking lessons from hermeneutics, we know that creating a new or better understanding of any area of interest, takes place in a didactic interplay between ones pre-understanding of the matter (for example based on previous experience, research, narratives or theories) and our understanding through new insights into a matter (for example through interaction, interviews, observations or co-creation with users). This allows for a third post-understanding through reflections on the pre-understanding versus the new insights, that can bring novel perspectives and expand our understanding of the field. This post-understanding becomes the new pre-understanding in an ongoing iterative process of understanding.
These hermeneutics insights into sensemaking are important, firstly to avoid getting stuck in ones pre-understanding, ignoring new insights and user perspectives. Secondly, and equally important, to avoid “going native” with users and ignore existing knowledge, theories and previous experiences or simply stall in the process, not moving beyond specific user experiences and their ability to reframe and imagine better solutions. Thus, with the insight from hermeneutics we have a proper framework for our research, and for the art of making sense of all the insights in order to make sure that we arrive at a well-founded interpretation and understanding (“good gestalt”).
There is a lot more to be said about this, but for now, let this just be a reminder of the rich tradition of qualitative research, that is often overlooked in design-driven projects, where different kinds of interviews, participation, observation, etc. seem to be applied without much consideration for neither validity nor reliability. In my opinion, taking stock of the methodological craftmanship from hermeneutics as applied in for example anthropology and ethnography has the potential to substantiate the methodological underpinnings of many design-driven innovation projects.
[1]http://www.martyneumeier.com/knowing-making-doing
[2]http://www.martyneumeier.com/knowing-making-doing
[3]Brown, Tim, Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation, HarperCollins Publishers, New York 2009, p.16
Jens Boegetoft 
1 Comment