Because of design’s subjective value, and DT’s abstract characteristics and the fact that DT operates across different platforms, with different sets of rules and value systems, with many players in the field, without defining the Rules of Engagement, there is absolutely no way to assign or associate any value to the deliverables to subsequently validate the profession itself.

The Rules of Engagement, ROE, is a project-tailored agreement, a spec-sheet that features DT’s detailed involvement, its specific obligation and its deliverables. ROEs are imperative in order to give the profession credibility, identify its unique and proprietary assets, and ultimately confirm DT’s undisputed value. This can be achieved only through a well-defined check and balance mechanism that has been adopted and critically enforced within DT’s profession.

• ROE’s main focus is to define and execute the deliverables that are proprietary to DT and furthermore ensure that they are allocated to the Design Thinking Intelligence.
  
• ROE defines the framework, levels and footprint of DT.
  
• ROE is responsible for Value Clarification, Value Allocation and Value Evaluation.
  
• ROE sets benchmarks of its deliverables.
  
• ROE defines the territories and systems where it operates (aesthetic-service-strategy).
  
• ROE defines and executes the projects based on DT principles, while DT Forensics examines, quantifies, and qualifies the results, calibrates deliverables against ROE’s framework and judges the mastery of the execution.
  

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.

Everything that most people in the field of DT had difficulties in explaining was in front of me in form of a simple, elegant, unpretentious piece of copy, designed to appeal to the most sophisticated design purist and simultaneously enlighten to the most left brained business strategist.

Something however seemed unusual. I remember, it had to do with title “Visualization…” which seamed a little too narrow to me. I scrolled back and about lost It. The date: OCTOBER 16TH 1997.

M P Ranjan not only predicted the arrival of Design Thinking, but he also explained in detail the climate and the circumstances.

His paper provided the framework for what we now call Design Thinking and included a detailed analysis of the discipline itself. Every word, every sentence, every assertion in his paper can reside in real time, and without editing, on any influential bog or magazine on design and innovation today. Except it was written twelve years ago. Try to remember when was the first time you heard these terms in context to Design Thinking: “User Centered Design, Complex iterations,Designer generating visible and tangible scenarios” etc…etc..The entire paper is loaded with our current vocabulary on DT. But here is one paragraph that is interesting to research:

“Design Thinking is distinctly different from scientific and management thinking, in that the designer and the design team are willing to cope with a great deal of ambiguity while the boundaries of the design opportunity are gradually brought into focus.”

Is this the first reference to Design Thinking  in context to Design Thinking?

I think many of us owe Professor Ranjan an apology because, intentionally or not, in one way or another, most of us  have plagiarized his work.  There was never any doubt in my mind that M P Ranjan had to be included in the  list of  the Top Twenty of the most important thought leaders on the subject of Design Thinking.

Here is the original paper:  M P Ranjan Design Visual is at Ion 1997

MP Ranjan is teaching design at the National Institute of Design in Ahmebadad, India. He is currently spearheading the efforts to create the  “Bamboo Institute”, a new design school, anchored in the principles of Design Thinking.

Here is a link to Professor Ranjan’s papers. 

Initially, I wanted to write about a different subject, but three Twitter RT’s from our distinguished Design Thinking illuminati, Bruce Nussbaum from BusinessWeek, derailed my thought process. Instead, I decided to respond to his remarks in an open letter.

Dear Bruce,

This is regarding your eloquent comments, and triple RT’s on Twitter, about my list of the Top Twenty Design Thinkers Quote:

1. “Truly Stupid” “
   
2. “Truly Nutts”  “
   
3. “Maeda? No”
   

I will not to take it personal. Hell, you have dismissed way smarter people before me. People with serious credentials, people like; Alice Rawstohrn, critic for the NY Times, Rick Poynor, one of the most respected British design critics, and even  “Designers” in general, with the same arrogant: “They don’t get it’.

I would expect a comment like “truly stupid” from a pubescent Youtube viewer, but not from a journalist, covering a discipline whose main mantra for generating creative output includes: “defer judgment”, build on ideas of others”, “encourage new ideas”.

To be perfectly honest, somehow, I expected it. I have noticed for quite a while that unless ideas originate from members of your inner council, they are unceremoniously discarded to the DT Ghetto of your blog. I, for one, am no longer going to take a passive role in the DT community.

I give you credit for your commitment to Design Thinking and your efforts in promoting the discipline. However, in the last couple of years, I have watched how your inflammatory and insensitive remarks, instead of uniting design and design thinking, they have alienated a large, highly influential design community. But what’s worst is that, instead of presenting different views, finding new content, being constructively critical and focusing your journalistic skills on creating understanding, you used your blog more like a PR service for a handful of people and companies.

You have actually Fox-yfied Design Thinking; if we don’t speak your BrNu-DT language, we are  “stupid”, or we “ just don’t get it”.

Fortunately for BusinessWeek, and many of us, there is Helen Walters, a brilliant, well-prepared , open-minded design journalist, who keeps things “fair and balanced”.

But things, they are a-changing. There are more and more people who are ready to participate in enlightened, informative discussions on the subject. The media is listening. Fast Company, Harvard Business Review, Design Observer are just a few of the credible, and established outlets, that feature stories on Design Thinking. And by the way, their bloggers make that extra effort to engage and monitor their discussions. (hint…hint)

About the Top Twenty Design Thinkers

One of the main issues that Design Thinking has been dealing with,  is the problem of UNDERSTANDING. Design Thinking is stealthy. Most people have a hard time figuring out what it is, what it does, how it works, or where it belongs.

In order for people to understand, they need to reference. If one provides a variety of sources that have a common denominator imbedded in their content, people will be able to find commonalities, identify, isolate, and cross-reference.

The challenge for me was to find a diverse group of highly influential thinkers who, without any embellishment, provide an authentic, panoramic view of the DT domain. In order to create contextual clarity I had to identify, edit, and highlight in a couple of sentences, the components that carry the Design Thinking DNA.

The list is personal, and maybe to some provocative, but it is designed to support, question, and solidify the existing parameters of DT, as well as elicit additional informational on other thinkers and projects.

If you think the list is “truly stupid”… you are of course entitled to your opinion. If you would like to put AG Laffley at the top of the list, I don’t have a problem. If you want to challenge my inclusion of Brad Pitt, it’s ok too.But before you do, take a little journalistic “deep dive” into the Ninth Ward project In New Orleans. Pitt was instrumental in the entire development; from concept, to implementation and execution. Study the project and look for DT characteristics. I call the process DT- Forensics. I make it easy on you…instead of looking for DT footprints, try to find things that don’t belong to Design Thinking…you will have a hard time finding any.

Regarding your comment “Maeda? NO”, questioning John Maeda’s inclusion in the Top Twenty DT list, I am puzzled…I don’t know what to say.

But here is what I would like to say; since you have already made a list of the top Design & DT programs, why not compile your own list of the Top Twenty Design Thinkers?  It would give everybody some serious food for thought, but more importantly the entire DT community would benefit. And ultimately that should be both our objective.

In closing, I think you are truly a nice guy. I met you long ago, and you are partially responsible for my passion for DT. I have tried numerous times to get in contact with you but you have never responded to any of my requests.

I have talked to David Kelly a few times, Roger Martin Invited me to Toronto to discuss my work, and recently I met with Fred Collopy, from Case Western. Some agreed with my ideas, some did not. Personally, I subscribe to some of their work and some I disagree with completely. 

Design Thinking’s main assets are based on an open exchange of thought and the inter-linking of seemingly “stupid ideas” in order to create, what my friend Marcel Wanders calls,  “The Unexpected Welcome”.

Regards,

Nicolae

1.  Bruce Mau. D-Thinker, theorist and doer, the father of modern Design Thinking. His work and design philosophy paved the way to liberate design from its pre-conceived borders. In his words: ”…it is not about the world of design, it is about designing our world”.

2. Steve Jobs, today’s quintessential visionary; discovered, navigated and choreographed through a labyrinth of systems and subsystems to create a holistic, authentic, unmistakable ONE. Jobs is responsible for giving design a seat at the boardroom table and influencing an entire global culture; Design Thinking and Design Doing in complete and absolute synchronicity and harmony.

3. David Kelly, founder of IDEO; coined the term Design Thinking. Kelly is responsible for the creation of Stanford’s d-school, one of the top DT institutions in the world. He has been the key figure in the development, standardization and fine tuning of the Design Thinking curricula.

4. Li Edelkoort, the Grand Dame of design education. As former chair of the Eindhoven Design Academy, she was the visionary and restless promoter of interdisciplinary studies that provided the fertile ground for the development of Design Thinking.

5. Paola Antonelli, chief Design Curator at MOMA, exposed Design’s expanded territories in the monumental exhibition “The Elastic Mind”.  She is the most important ambassador of the design domain. Her curatorial directions give credibility to design’s newly discovered assets.

6. Jonathan Ive, Apple’s Wunderkind, responsible for inducing, managing, cross-pollinating artistic, economical and technological creativity within ONE single interface; Design Thinking’s main objectives flawlessly executed.

7. Bill Mc Donnough, the architect of the future, the architect with a conscience. Mc Donnough uses the essence of Design and Design Thinking to weave, business, ecology and culture into life-changing, real and doable projects around the globe.

8. Hartmut Esslinger, founder of Frog Design, a virtuoso thinker who, for over twenty years, constantly questioned pushed, expanded the mission of the design disciplines.

9. Rene Mauborgne & Chan Kim, economic theorists, who penetrated the analytical world of business and finance with simple revolutionary theories that blurred the lines between left and right brain thinking.

10. Philippe Starck. By thinking of people as active protagonists within an environment, and considering every point of contact with the experience itself, he reinvented the hospitality business model, and paved the way to the development of human-centered, design-driven strategies.

11. Tim Brown, IDEO’s chief, the prophet and voice of DT. His efforts gave Design Thinking global exposure and business validation. His just released book, “Change by Design”, provides some of the first clear and detailed insights into the culture of Design Thinking.

12. Tyler Brule, founder of Wallpaper magazine and Monocle. His keen eye enabled him to curate creative content of the highest grade, and expose the public to a never before seen global aesthetic culture. In the process, he inevitably created an early platform that encouraged the cross-pollination between materials, products, technology, business and design…the fertile ground for the evolution of Design Thinking.

13. M P Ranjan, professor at the National Institute of Design, Ahmebadad, India, predicted the rise of Design Thinking in 1997, and produced, in my opinion, the first and most valuable paper on Design Thinking. It contains ALL of the main DNA strands of DT that are considered still viable today, including the term “Design Thinking”.

14. Chris Anderson, TED’s creativity curator extraordinaire. Chris has been instrumental in designing the ultimate “Experience for the Enlightened Mind”. TED has transformed the monolithic, self-serving conference model into a global interdisciplinary forum that houses some of the world’s greatest creative capital, including that, of most of the top twenty design thinkers.

15. Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School, a relentless ambassador of Design Thinking for business and academia. His work on “Integrative thinking” and its adoption into the DT-strategy, has been crucial in the process of creating contextual clarity between left and right brain thinking.

16. Bill Buxton, Microsoft’s Design Thinker and Doer. Not afraid to be critical of his own company in the pursuit of holistic design solutions. His insights and knowledge into interdisciplinary relationships make him one of the most eloquent speakers on the subject of design and Design Thinking.

17. John Maeda, Head of RISD, one of the greatest minds in cross-disciplinary thinking with the uncanny ability to untangle complex algorithms into simple bite-size elegant morsels of understanding.

18. James Dyson, the modern day visionary, design thinker and design doer. Dyson has been involved for decades in a restless pursuit for finding the propper  synergy and harmony between product, design, technology, human need, learning and teaching.

19. Idris Mootee, under the radar theorist, practitioner and writer. His stunning presentations blur the lines between business and design. His design literacy and strategy knowhow reflect  the ever-so important  ”mutual respect between business and design”.

20. Brad Pitt, actor, design aficionado and activist. Pitt was influential in designing and re-building an entire community in New Orleans based on the core principles of Design Thinking:  people’s needs, sustainable environments, democratic design, quality and wellness.

So, there you have it. That’s my list. There are quite a few people who are missing, even though they are constantly mentioned in the press, and others, that some may not consider Design Thinkers, are at the very top. Why not AG Laffley, the former head of P&G, for example? Well, I have not found enough evidence to consider him a D-Thinker. He is an adopter of the DT intelligence. Laffley is essential to the DT system. Without visionaries like him, new emerging professions like DT may never find a way in the market space. However, we must make clear differentiations within the components of the system itself in order to improve the structure and maintain its  credibility. 

So, go ahead, fire away!!! Whom did I miss? Who does not belong on the list?