As the motive of social innovation is altruism rather than profit-making (Rediscovering Social Innovation by James A. Phills Jr., Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale T. Miller, 2008), I think the bottom line of design thinking is also genuine heart toward underprivileged people not financial return. If money was the first and foremost drive of design thinking, I don’t think ‘design thinkers’ could go through inspiration space for a long period.
During inspiration space, innovators conduct a lot of close examination to discover what people’s actual needs are. However, it is done by “watching what people do (and do not do) and listen to what they say (and do not say)” (Change by Design by Tim Brown with Barry Katz, 2011), rather than by conventional methods like survey or academic research (Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, 2010). Basically, innovators have to stay with them, live with them, and understand them, because “the only way we [innovators] can get to know them is to seek them out where they live, work, and play for an intensive period of observation” (Change by Design by Tim Brown with Barry Katz, 2011).
In this sense, I think inspiration space necessitates innovators’ humble, compassionate, and altruistic mind in finding right systematic solutions, diffusion methods, and distribution channels. Innovators have to take a close look at the clients’ society, to be more specific, culture, history, religion, governance, and tradition, as we talked in class, by living with them and speaking to them as partners, not as seller-and-buyer relationship. If it were only for finding a niche market or Blue Ocean, they would have not finished inspiration space.
2. Any Better Efficient Ways for Ideation Space?
The article titled Design Thinking for Social Innovation mentions that “to have a good idea you must first have lots of ideas”, and it is good to “have a diverse group of people involved in the process”, namely, “multidisciplinary people”(Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, 2010). However, I also think that there are shortcomings in this - this process will require a lot of time, effort, and energy to communicate with people from different backgrounds and even to understand what exact meaning of all these ideas, because multidisciplinary people would have different norms and terms. Would there be any efficient ways to overcome this possible problem so innovators can reach optimal systematic solutions more effectively and efficiently?
During inspiration space, innovators conduct a lot of close examination to discover what people’s actual needs are. However, it is done by “watching what people do (and do not do) and listen to what they say (and do not say)” (Change by Design by Tim Brown with Barry Katz, 2011), rather than by conventional methods like survey or academic research (Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, 2010). Basically, innovators have to stay with them, live with them, and understand them, because “the only way we [innovators] can get to know them is to seek them out where they live, work, and play for an intensive period of observation” (Change by Design by Tim Brown with Barry Katz, 2011).
In this sense, I think inspiration space necessitates innovators’ humble, compassionate, and altruistic mind in finding right systematic solutions, diffusion methods, and distribution channels. Innovators have to take a close look at the clients’ society, to be more specific, culture, history, religion, governance, and tradition, as we talked in class, by living with them and speaking to them as partners, not as seller-and-buyer relationship. If it were only for finding a niche market or Blue Ocean, they would have not finished inspiration space.
2. Any Better Efficient Ways for Ideation Space?
The article titled Design Thinking for Social Innovation mentions that “to have a good idea you must first have lots of ideas”, and it is good to “have a diverse group of people involved in the process”, namely, “multidisciplinary people”(Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, 2010). However, I also think that there are shortcomings in this - this process will require a lot of time, effort, and energy to communicate with people from different backgrounds and even to understand what exact meaning of all these ideas, because multidisciplinary people would have different norms and terms. Would there be any efficient ways to overcome this possible problem so innovators can reach optimal systematic solutions more effectively and efficiently?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.