The confused design thinkers and Design thinking :The problematic narratives of Design thinking in business and its implications

 

By Narendra Raghunath

In recent times, there has been a lot of talk about "design thinking" in the corporate world. However, it is not entirely clear what this term actually means. The concept of design thinking can be traced back to the early 1990s when enterprise resource planning (ERP) was introduced in Europe. This was done to streamline processes and standardize operations in order to improve business practices following the formation of the European Union. As part of this effort, ISO standardization was introduced, which emphasized industrial process streamlining as a priority consideration for doing business in Europe.

 While this standardization process helped companies with audit troubles and government regulatory compliance, it also resulted in a frustrating bureaucratic process that led to delays in decision-making. The business houses' pragmatic decision-making processes were replaced by a rigid and lengthy multi-level procedural complaisance. Customers and users found this delay in decision-making to be a difficult and frustrating affair.

Rather than addressing the issue of rigidity at the software system level, design thinkers attempted to minimize the cost impact by addressing the issue at the user and system interaction stage. They assumed that if user-customer interactions in ERP systems were made comfortable, this issue of user/customer frustration could be resolved amicably. To achieve this, they developed user interface design tools, techniques, and methods as tangible solutions to address this issue.

However, when user interface designs still could not meet the expectations of pragmatic user needs beyond its peripheral interface comfort, and the problem still remained embedded in a non-flexible process flow, designers developed the next level of the solution by defining user interaction and user experience design. But since the problem continued to remain at the lengthy operational procedures embedded in software systems, the newly developed user interaction and user experience design also could not resolve the issue of customer needs, which is an essential value point entity in any market.

Despite these setbacks, this hydra-headed software monster and its bureaucratic decision-making processes slowly and steadily found its way through all areas of corporate business governance and its operational management. It is important to recognize that many times, facts are stranger than fiction in the corporate world.

 In recent years, the business world has faced a significant challenge in reconciling its bureaucratic operational systems with the ever-evolving needs of the market. As a result, business executives and corporate leaders have found themselves feeling the stifling effects of their operational procedures. To address this issue, they turned once again to designers for solutions.

 Designers suggested an amalgamation of previously designed tools, techniques, and methods on a single platform to address issues at multiple levels - interface, interaction, and experience. This new approach, known as user-centric design, unfortunately, failed to address the core issue of non-flexibility in operational procedures.

 The prolonged adherence to strict linear operational procedures has had adverse impacts on business decision-making processes, with approaches becoming increasingly bureaucratic and devoid of lateral thinking or imagination. This conflict has created problems not only at the user/market end but also at the executive decision-making level, where fast-paced technological innovations often clash with delayed executive procedures. Nokia's collapse is a prime example of the dichotomy that exists between fast-paced technological innovations and delayed executive procedures.

 The window of time and opportunity that technological innovations and changes leave for an industry to make decisions and implement them has never been so alarmingly skewed. Business executives no longer have the luxury of time to make decisions and implement them.

 Many corporate leaders believe that a lateral design thinking process can salvage the situation by incorporating creativity into decision-making processes. Design thinking prioritizes lateral thinking, allowing for more flexible decision-making processes that can keep up with technological developments. However, this transition has been challenging, as the expertise of designers has traditionally been limited to the micro level rather than macro systems like the corporate world. While emerging exceptions like service design methods are attempting to address macro-level systems, the tools, techniques, and methods must still be derived from their present micro-level conditioning.

 As a result of these challenges, designers attempting to engage in the design thinking process at the macro level have either struggled with their granular discipline thinking models or copied existing macro-level business systems that are already at the core of the problem. User-centric design models have also failed, owing to their peripheral user-end micro-management conceptualization.

 In 2012, the industry reorganized its priorities in design education from skill/craft to design thinking. However, the complexity of this transition was not as simple as the industry had anticipated, and the inadequacy of designers and their expertise has had an adverse impact on introducing lateral design thinking. Despite these challenges, many believe that creative lateral imagination can help overcome these troubles and propel an effective seamless operational process.

In addition to the issue of procedural delays caused by the standardization of procedures that are becoming counterproductive to system efficiency, there is another important issue that businesses and society at large are facing today: the inadequacy of speed that technology is accentuating in society. Although computers and phones are able to increase the speed of operations in their systems, the human experience and interactions that are defined by socio-cultural facets of political and economic factoring of equity and justice or decision-making have not changed much. Considering these are the facets that determine the efficacy of any system, especially in governance and administration defined by interpersonal relationships and ego, most of these technological advancements in speed are turning out to be futile exercises, especially in industry.

Industry and design thinkers have responded to this issue with a user-centric design tool at the experience and interaction stage. They have brought up the business philosophy of “value addition” to their existing business models by introducing related or unrelated features to their products to sustain user interest in their products or systems. For example, the mobile phone has not changed its basic physical form of a rectangle derived from a men's shirt pocket. These days, they keep introducing some “value” additions in terms of apps or recording features to their products to divert human attention span from actual product quality or needs.

 Frustrated with their unsuccessful attempts to be the solution providers in this chaos, many design thinkers are now putting forward a suggestion to augment the existing design practices back to the age-old system-thinking model. They argue that to grapple with the situation, one has to return to the basics with a holistic design thinking process to comprehend the system or address its problem from scratch. However, what they do not unfortunately foresee is that the difference between micro and macro systems is not just about the scale difference in the part and whole where one can apply reductive or deductive methods. Instead, they are about the evolutionary form difference that exists between them. Today, in a micro and macro system, one may be able to disintegrate a part without affecting the whole or a whole without affecting a part. For instance, in business, amalgamation, takeover, sell-out, or liquidation are completely different things for companies and corporates.

 

The question now is where the solution lies or how to solve this vexing question of business and the economy, which are getting into deeper water day by day. Another important question is what the actual design thinking should be. To answer this question, we must consider that macro systems are not a lean metaphorical structure but a colossal evolutionary build-up. For the time being, we need to set aside the formal “form that follows the function” of granular design thinking or the “part that forms the whole” of reductionist thinking. Instead, we need to adopt a new design thinking approach that is capable of addressing the complex interdependencies and interactions that exist in macro systems. This approach needs to be holistic, integrative, and systems thinking and should consider the evolutionary nature of macro systems. Only then can we begin to address the challenges facing business and society at large.

 

The monarchs and Oligarchs of the world of business :

 

In a globalized business environment, with diverse legal protocols and compliances from country to country and state to state, standardized operation procedures are essential for effective administrative control and legal and tax compliance. However, the problem lies not in the rigidity of these systems but in the corporate governance structures that exist in our world today. Most big corporates operate like old European monarchs and oligarchs in their practices and decision-making chain of command. These structures interrupt their chain of command with compulsory procedural compliances involving multiple agencies from taxation, company law board, banks, stock exchanges, states, and nations.

The issue of structural rigidity is not new, but what exacerbates it is the opaque and arbitrary power structures in these organizations. Today, citizens, users, and customers are highly conscious of their democratic rights, including equity and justice, and will not tolerate businesses that operate like absolute monarchs or oligarchs. If these businesses want to be surviving and be viable, then their practices need to be restructured, and their chain of command needs to comply with democracy and its practices.

 Design thinking needs to address this structural issue rather than glossing over it with creative facelifts at the user interface or experience level. Restructuring the power structures to comply with democracy will bring about greater transparency, accountability, and ethical coherence. Corruption and nepotism will be tackled more effectively, and the enforced transparency of linear operational procedures will not become a problem. Designers who focus only on user ends or hold onto monarchic and oligarchic business structures will be erased from human history, particularly in countries like India, where the gap between the rich and poor is widening too fast and too much with its adverse consequences.

 Design thinking should start with understanding the political structure of these business houses and their operations to comprehend their real problem. Democracy should be the best lateral thinking that should inform the design thinking of these organizations. Decision-making should be decentralized, legally compliant, and ethically coherent. This approach will help tackle the structural issues that undermine the efficacy of these businesses and promote transparency and accountability.