DT Forensics acts as the counterpart to ROE (Rules of Engagement).

“Creativity and Innovation result from a system comprised of three elements: a culture that contains symbolic rules, a person who brings novelty into the symbolic domain, and a field of experts that recognizes and validates the innovation ” M. Csikszentmihalyi

Since DT operates across interdisciplinary platforms it is in constant competition with the deliverables from other disciplines, many of which have a great “pedigree.” DT needs to develop its own “proof of value” if it wants to have a prominent seat in the commercial sector. Because it is active in a variety of domains, it is very easy to attribute, detach, or embellish value parameters resulting from DT.

DT Forensics asks simple questions: Where can one find evidence of DT applications? How can one track this evidence? How can one prove this evidence? How can one document its finding and store the evidence? How can one determine the level of involvement, the quality of the execution? What benchmarks and metrics should reflect the new value systems?

In short:

• Traces and identifies footprints of DT.
  
• Defines the quality of the deliverables.
  
• Determines the depths of DT application.
  
• Calibrates the level of Mastery of DT.
  
• Develops metrics to new value systems.

The rigid process of DT Forensics validates the results that are behind the intelligence and logic of the design mind and adds credibility to the profession. Furthermore it filters and eliminates the noise, clarifies ambiguities, and gradually contributes to the common understanding of Design Thinking.

DT Forensics forces the discipline to evaluate itself according the standards it sets for itself. It forces the discipline to develop experts in this field, who can eventually become critics, specialists or ambassadors to Design Thinking.

Some business strategists,and even members of the d-community, are accusing designers of not getting Design Thinking: “Design it is too important to be left only to designers.” Designers: “What in the name of god gives you the arrogance to imply all of a sudden that you understand the inner workings of my mind, if for years you did not give me the time of day?”

I believe both camps are right, but their approaches are misguided.In my opinion in order for DT to reach its potential, it is imperative to establish a proper relationship between Design and Business. But how?

The answer came to me a few years ago when the “Zollverein,” a business school focusing on DT, was founded in Essen, Germany. One of the first paragraphs stating the objectives of the school still resonates in my mind: “mutual respect between logic and intuition.” Those words were instantly adopted by my unfinished manifesto. I believe that sentence should be engraved on the walls of all business and learning institutions regardless of whether they even know anything about DT. Once that fundamental principle is adopted by both sectors, everything is possible and doable.

Common Objectives in B-schools and D-schools.

• Both schools operate in context to an eco system.
  
• Both programs need to be developed to fit both mindsets.
  
• D-schools and B-schools must adopt different curricula and learning strategies that don’t overlap but complement.
  
• Both schools need to design new programs that are very much anchored in the NATURAL DNA of their discipline.
  
• Both schools need to develop protocols and strategies, and find tools that bridge the mindsets between them, and simultaneously help to cross-pollinate their creative outputs.
  
• Both schools need to develop new platforms that create contextual clarity between left and right brain thinking.

DT objectives in D-schools

• Design schools focus on mining the essence of the design mind, exploring new potentials and exposing and exploring new applications.
  
• Design schools need to learn how to operate in business settings.
  
• Design schools need to teach how to harvest, document and communicate the “Thinking” behind the “Doing.”
  
• D-schools should disassemble existing design disciplines and develop novel fields based on interdisciplinary interaction within its own domain and non-related sectors.

DT objectives for B-schools

• Business needs to understand design.
  
• B-schools need to expose students to design.
  
• B-schools need to teach design literacy.
  
• Business schools need to develop new subjects that interpret data from D-schools or simply have brand new relevant applications.
  
• It is not in the interest of b-schools to copy design; it is in its interest to understand it. Understanding design is the foundation of practicing and applying Design Thinking.
  

One of the objectives of the DTX blog is to “deep dive” into these subjects in more detail and study their merits and shortcomings.

Because DT is operating within interdisciplinary territories, and some of these disciplines depend entirely on metrics, DT must also learn how to deliver measurable results. These quantifiable measurements however are not always in the form of Dollars, Yen or Euros; they are new, evolved value systems that are starting to penetrate even the hardcore left-brain disciplines like finance and banking.

DT has to be able to participate and deliver quantifiable measurements, or more importantly, participate in re-designing new value systems: financial systems, social systems, organizational systems, that eventually can be adopted by other industries or disciplines, “The Reformulation of Value.” Without metrics and benchmarks, in my opinion, DT will not be able to grow, or become an integral part of the business architecture. It will remain a small boutique strategy and remain part of the subconscious mind of the design culture.

The challenge now is to search for new value factors, with new norms, new benchmarks and metrics, that can eventually be shared with the disciplines with which it interacts. DT must establish close and collaborative relationships with left-directed systems of thinking, without sacrificing its integrity. It must search for common thought processes, which have been proven successful within the industry where they primarily reside, but they must be easily understood and applied within right-brain governed systems.

A great example is the QFD system (Quality Function Deployment), one of the closest benchmark systems with both, left & right brain characteristics.

QFD is a methodology that transforms user needs, wants and demands into a deliverable based on design, quality and metrics. QFD puts the emphasis on the customer, therefore adapting instantly to one of the main principles of DT: consumer-centric innovation.

Professor Hugh Claire: “QFD identifies the functions forming quality, and deploys methods for achieving the design quality into subsystems and component parts.”

Once DT value metric systems withstand the scrutiny, they become a permanent and integral part of the DT-strategy toolbox and subsequently subject to DT-Forensics.

As more and more consultancies want to take advantage of the media attention dedicated to DT, it is likely that unless a common definition is adopted soon, the term will be polluted permanently. I, for one, belong to what I would call the “Mau-ist School of Thought,” inspired by Bruce Mau, whom I consider the father of modern Design Thinking. Even though he did not coin, nor use, the term “Design Thinking,” I believe David Kelly did, he is the person whose work liberated design from its borders and pre-conceived constrains and exposed its total power and potential without insulting the intellect by overestimating its capabilities. His book and subsequent exhibition “Massive Change” convinced the minds of key visionary leaders to embrace a new design perspective and permanently weave it into their business models.

In my opinion the design mind consists of two modules: one tangible, Design Doing, and one intangible, Design Thinking.

Design Thinking is the intuitive thought process of the design logic, whose key assets rely on critical thinking and creative solving.

Design Thinking is the intelligence, belonging mostly to the design domain, that produces tangible products, services, experiences…and now, as a new design field, methodologies, processes and strategies.

What does it mean?

When design is stripped from forming, shaping and styling, there is a process of critical thinking and creative solving at the very core of the profession. By consciously understanding and documenting this process, a new field within the design domain emerges that deals with the creativity DNA of the design mind. When properly understood and harvested, one can transfer the creative DNA from design into virtually any discipline regardless of brain direction. This process has been recognized by thought leaders as an extremely valuable tool for fostering creativity and driving innovation.

Design Doing is the physical manifestation of Design Thinking. In addition to communication, product and service, it creates the physical settings and the conditions that induce creativity. Design Doing constructs tangible models and maps scenarios and creates visualization to complex needs that deliver value for virtually every imaginable field or domain.

The symbiotic interplay between of Thinking and Doing with its huge arsenal of proprietary  tools, creates the potential for a new design domain that can be further specialized according to its pairing with other systems and sub-systems: business, social, scientific,  political systems, etc. DT is the active enzyme that facilitates, inspires, activates communication among different disciplines.

Why do we need a definition?

Without a mental model and a conceptual scheme that encompasses the essence of the discipline, it is extremely difficult to communicate and document the norms of the discipline. It makes it impossible to exhibit the cumulative knowledge in an organized way and allow new ideas to be absorbed, edited, filtered and placed in context with existing data. Without a description, rules of engagement, boundaries, a structure, there is no discipline; there are only opinions. Without these parameters, there is absolutely NO WAY to determine, attribute and allocate value, since no one knows where DT exists, where it stops or where it begins.

“You can change the definition of “everyone” and customize it for your industry or passion, but the fact is, we need to read what everyone else is reading in order to have a sense of being in sync.” (Seth Godin)

Design & Design Thinking, with their all-encompassing branches, and a huge arsenal of proprietary tools, applicable to virtually any industry, are perfectly positioned to take a leading role in the new creativity-driven economies.

Because of its positioning at the intersection of business and art, of logic and intuition Design has constantly operated in a pull-push environment. Pushed by creativity, pulled by reality.

There is not a single field or domain that is design-immune.

The Design Mind carries the DNA genes from both brain hemispheres, logic and intuition.

The elasticity of the design mind, with the seamless interplay among artistic, economic, technological creativity, is the perfect solution for handling multidisciplinary and highly complex structures.

The more de-centralized a system gets, the more it becomes necessary to find the glues, links and common traits. Design Thinking provides the connective tissue that holds these parts together.

Every single discipline relies on design for visual help to create understanding and make sense.

Designers have the ability to visualize the invisible, giving form to ideas, concepts and strategies. Design Thinking relies on a rich inventory of visual metaphors and other proprietary tools that help create contextual clarity, validate deliverables and deliver quantifiable measurements.