Chapters Dialogue/Project/Methodology/nl

Methodologie Design Thinking Het creëren van innovatieve oplossingen is complex en uitdagend, ongeacht of het gaat om openbare diensten, beleid of internationale betrekkingen. Aangezien bestaande watervalprocessen minder nuttig worden gezien als onvoorspelbaar bij het omgaan met nieuwe of onvoorziene omstandigheden, is de noodzaak voor nieuwe benaderingen van innovatie ontstaan. De volgende beschrijving is geïnspireerd op het boek van Ingo Rauth "Design Thinking: an approach to wicked problem solving in the public sector" (2014). Design is oorspronkelijk ontwikkeld als een discipline om nieuwe en onverwachte uitkomsten te creëren onder complexe omstandigheden. Hoewel innovatie van oudsher gericht is op technische, op engineering gebaseerde benaderingen, brengt het probleem van het ontwikkelen van oplossingen voor een complexe en onzekere toekomst andere uitdagingen met zich mee. 'Design Thinking' wordt al sinds het begin van de jaren 1960 bestudeerd, sindsdien wordt door managementwetenschappers betoogd dat de manier waarop ontwerpers denken en werken besluitvormers ten goede kan komen bij het omgaan met complexe problemen. Maar het was pas in het begin van de jaren 2000 dat een algemene benadering van design werd geformuleerd. In de meest algemene zin, kan Design Thinking worden omschreven als een aanpak voor mensgerichte innovatie. Het biedt een proceskader en toolkit die zich sterk richt op de context, waarden en behoeften van de gebruiker, en deze als uitgangspunt neemt voor het creëren van zinvolle oplossingen (producten, diensten, processen, organisatiestructuren etc.). Het gebruikersperspectief kan helpen om afstemming te bieden tussen diverse teams en organisatieafdelingen. Ten eerste bevordert het de kracht van samenwerking en diversiteit. Een divers team zal verschillende perspectieven inbrengen terwijl ze nadenken over manieren om de uitdaging op te lossen en verschillende technieken ondersteunen het proces van het gezamenlijk genereren van ideeën. Wanneer observaties of beslissingen in functionele afzondering plaatsvinden, bestaat het risico dat ze alleen gebaseerd zijn op een gefragmenteerd begrip van het probleem. In het proces ligt een sterke nadruk op een diepgaand begrip van een uitdaging in zijn complexiteit, voordat wordt begonnen na te denken over mogelijke oplossingen. De eerste drie fasen g staan dan ook in het teken van het begrijpen van het probleem: Begrijpen, Observeren en Synthese. Alleen een diepgaand begrip en precieze framing van een (complexe) uitdaging maakt het mogelijk om relevante en zinvolle oplossingen te creëren in de tweede helft, dat bestaat uit de fasen Ideevorming, prototyping & testen en implementatie. In dit deel van het proces ligt de focus op het verkennen van mogelijke oplossingen door zoveel mogelijk ideeën te genereren, snel en eenvoudig prototypes te bouwen om een idee tastbaar te maken en dit zo vroeg mogelijk te testen bij potentiële gebruikers. Het proces heeft een iteratief karakter – het bevordert snel leren en verbeteren in elke fase. De feedback in de testfase zorgt bijvoorbeeld voor leren dat het begrip van het probleem verdiept. Dit leren kan worden gebruikt om het prototype te verbeteren, of om met nieuwe ideeën te komen, of zelfs om de hele probleemstelling te herformuleren. Deze aanpak kan organisaties beschermen tegen mislukkingen die kostbaar zijn, zowel in termen van tijd als geld. In plaats daarvan kunnen ze zichzelf transformeren tot lerende organisaties die zijn afgestemd op het perspectief van de gebruikers en in staat zijn om uitstekende producten, diensten, strategieën en structuren te creëren. Last but not least is er het moeilijkste deel van Design Thinking: een oplossing tot leven brengen door deze te implementeren. Implementatie is eigenlijk geen onderdeel van het proces, maar eerder een overgang tussen Design Thinking en klassiek management: business (of non-profit) strategie, projectmanagement en alle processen die nodig zijn om de gedefinieerde strategiedoelen uit te voeren. Zonder implementatie zullen zelfs de beste ideeën geen impact hebben. Fasen van het Design Thinking-proces Understand and Observe both characterise the research part of the process. Instead of building ideas based on (personal) assumptions, it is valuable to understand the user’s context, behaviour, underlying needs and challenges. Understanding characterises all types of desk research, including setting the framework for the field research and preparing the interviews, observations and immersions. Observing is the field research part, which means interviewing users, observing behaviour, immersion in situations and using cases. The research that takes place in the Design Thinking process is of qualitative nature, while the quantitative part comes into play rather in the implementation phase of an idea. Both types of research are often combined, with, for example a quantitative analysis of the gathered insights from the qualitative research. If Design Thinking is applied in an explorative way in order to gain an understanding of a previous fuzzy problem or poorly defined, not fully understood problem (as opposed to User Testing for an existing product or service) – qualitative research is a valuable tool for that purpose. Qualitative research can be very useful whenever it is necessary to dig into stories and to gain insights in complex situations with different stakeholders. It is a tool that helps to find patterns and contradictions in stories people tell. The research phase is not only about collecting data (in form of stories and insights), but also about building empathy. Listening carefully and being empathic in regard to the personal context of the interviewee, without judgement or prejudice – permits the uncovering of surprising and unexpected stories, aspects and challenges. At the same time, empathy for people and context needs to go hand in hand with rationality to analyse the situation. In addition, considering all relevant stakeholders and their perspectives rather than only touching on isolated aspects of a challenge is of key importance. With an inclusive approach, which means talking to all stakeholders, it is more likely that a “360° view”, which is as little fragmented as possible, will be obtained. Building empathy for all stakeholders and their (often contradictory, opposing) viewpoints, allows for a meta-view of a complex topic. The third phase in the Design Thinking process is Synthesis, which can also be described as problem framing. While Understanding and Observing all about collecting as much information as possible, Synthesis is about narrowing down the amount of information to its “nuggets”. Synthesis means making sense of bits and pieces of information, grouping it into a whole picture and understanding relationships, causes and contradictions. Divergence and problems are often not expressed in a clear statement by users, but rather emerge through opposing ideas, values or requirements. By bringing together information from different sources, it is possible to uncover patterns that are not obvious in the beginning. The process of Synthesis is best supported by visualisation and can include various tools and frameworks, depending on the content, amount of time and goals of the project. The second half of the process is about creating solutions by using different techniques for Idea Generation, Prototyping & Testing and bringing the idea to life through Implementation. Once a precise problem statement has been framed, it is then about Idea Generation: a large number of ideas permits exploration of the different aspects of a problem. A diverse team will bring in different perspectives while thinking about ways to solve the challenge, and different techniques support the process of idea generation. Prototyping & Testing is about translating an idea into something tangible and testing it with potential users. It can be a paper sketch, a role play, a Lego construction, a comic strip or just about anything that helps to explain the core value of an idea. Prototyping helps teams to align the core functions of an idea and to get quick feedback from users in order to learn from it. Users can interact with the prototype, which is far more valuable for feedback than only talking theoretically about an idea. A quick & dirty prototype invites users to review it critically, whereas shiny and “finished” prototypes will mostly receive feedback about their look and usability. As Implementation is not a direct part of the Design Thinking process (yet a crucial factor for Innovation!), we will not go into detail about this topic. Please see theory on Strategic Management and Business Administration for further information. All phases utilise a number of techniques (e.g. brainstorming, storytelling, visualisation) from various disciplines (business development, systemic thinking, service innovation, ethnography, lean software development etc.). Design Thinking can therefore also be considered as a toolbox. It is not a newly invented method, but rather a framework that brings together existing tools and practices and makes use of them in different phases. Rather than strictly following procedures, it is more useful to adapt the principles of Design Thinking to the individual context. Adapting the Design Thinking process to the Chapters Dialogue project Choosing the Tools All tools need to fit the context. If they don't work, they need to be "hacked" Before starting such a project, it is important to get an idea about the individual culture of the organisation (here: the Wikimedia movement) because, as previously mentioned, all methods or tools need to fit the context. And if the tools don’t work for the project, one needs to “hack” the tools. Kira therefore started by evaluating what kind of Design Thinking practices were relevant for the Chapters Dialogue. The Wikimedia movement is international, with Chapters spread all over the world and run by people with the most varied backgrounds, all operating in highly differing social, economic and cultural systems. Each unique context setting needed to be taken into consideration when trying to create an understanding about the Wikimedia movement. How else could one understand the decisions and behaviour of those local organisations and their stakeholders? We knew that we needed to work with a high level of empathy. This is why we chose to meet as many interviewees as possible personally and to visit them in their environment in order to gain a deep understanding about their work, their aspirations and their challenges. Building trust was a precondition for a fruitful interview and it was important to give each interviewee the space they needed to tell their own individual story. In a movement so complex and diverse, it is only natural that the many opinions of its players are different, some even opposing and contradictory, controversial and emotional. The situation included a large group of organisations and individuals from all over the world, a complex history of the movement and different, interdependent issues and challenges all of them were facing. What was needed most in this situation was clarity. Clarity about the different perceptions, problems and challenges, presented in a frank and open way. It was clear that this project was all about Understanding, Observing and Synthesis of insights. We set the goal of designing and conducting extensive story-based research, interviewing all the Chapters individually. Rather than crunching numbers, we were looking for stories. Qualitative research is best suited to finding patterns and contradictions in stories people tell. In the case of Chapters Dialogue, this was exactly what was needed. The Design Thinking philosophy strongly emphasises empathic skills, which are crucial for any proper field research. Being a good “story collector” means properly listening to people, leading to meaningful insights about their concerns, beliefs and motivation. Combining inside knowledge & outside perspective Crucial aspect of the project: combination of inside knowledge and outside perspective One crucial aspect of such a project is the combination of inside knowledge and outside perspective. As the topics that we wanted to address were in part highly sensitive and emotional, we needed to approach them in a careful and respectful way. This was only possible by combining knowledge about movement culture, behaviour, rituals, must-haves and no-gos with methodological skills. Having both of these aspects go hand in hand was a key asset for the project. This included: A thorough briefing: Nicole provided Kira with the basic knowledge about the Wikimedia movement, provided several links and documents (it’s all on Meta!) and introduced her to Wikimedians from around the world. Leadership and support by Nicole: From strategic decisions and iterative alignment of the project goal and scope through to agreements on details and next steps, Nicole provided strong but participatory leadership. Since Kira was new to the movement, Nicole supported her in terms of communication and stakeholder involvement, introduced her to the target group and helped her to avoid possible pitfalls. This way, Kira could adjust her project management, methodology and execution accordingly. Constant exchange of thoughts: In the course of the project, we experienced so many mind-boggling situations and personalities and had to cope with greater and lesser challenges. All of that required a constant exchange of our own perceptions and alignment of our thoughts for subsequent decisions and actions. The synchronising was crucial for pushing the project forward together and prevented us from getting lost on the way to the next phase. And even if that does sound and challenging, we can say: Yes, it was a lot of fun, too! Preparing all presentations together: We paid special attention to the respective audience and each presentation pursued a particular goal. Preparing the presentations together helped us to again consider both the Wikimedia view and the Design Thinking approach. We presented the insights several times, and each presentation required re-definition and adjustment the presentation style, tone and final appeal.

Learn more about the implementation of the project Or go back to know more about the motivation behind the project the project's set-up