Design Thinking: Failure or Fall Guy?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ernest (00:04):
Hello and welcome to Learn Make Learn where we share
qualitative and quantitativeperspectives on products to help
you make better.
My name is Ernest Kim and I'mjoined by my friend and co host
Joachim Groeger.
Hey Joachim, how's it going?

Joachim (00:19):
I'm great.
I always do that.
I've realized it's that I'mgreat I don't know if I should
change it up we'll stick with itfor now.
But, today we got the firstglimpses of what felt like
summer maybe up here in Seattle.
So that was very nice.
We took advantage of that.
So all in all pretty chill andpretty good.
How about you?

Ernest (00:37):
Yeah, the one, bit of stress I've got is, as I
mentioned just before westarted, I need to, get on a
flight first thing tomorrow, sixo'clock flight, so I have to get
out of the, out of here probablyby about four, uh, to get to the

(00:58):
airport in time.
So that'll be painful, but, um,it's for a fun reason.
So I'm still looking forward toit.

Joachim (01:05):
yeah, that's, that's an early flight.
Do you have TSA pre, can youskip the lines?

Ernest (01:10):
Yeah, fortunately, uh, you know, gosh, if anyone is on
the fence about that, it'sabsolutely worth it.
If you do any amount oftraveling by air, it's
absolutely worth it.

Joachim (01:21):
We still have to do it.
I have to do it.
Yeah, we suffer through thesecurity lines.
Or we just use the fact thatwe're a big family and plead
with the gate agents to let ususe the VIP lane because we have
so many little people.
There's no way for us to dothis.
So, sometimes that works.

Ernest (01:38):
Play the family card.

Joachim (01:40):
Yeah, exactly.

Ernest (01:43):
All right, well, this is episode 14, and today our topic

is design thinking (01:47):
deservedly derided or unfairly maligned.
We'll dive into this in greatdetail in just a minute, but
let's start with some follow upsto our previous episode, Time to
Learn.
Joachim, do you have any followups you wanna share?

Joachim (02:04):
Yeah, so we timed our episode, of course, to come out
just before Watches and Wonders,which is the big trade show
that's happening in Geneva rightnow.
And, people are releasing theirnew watches, which is quite fun
to watch.
And I only wanted to mention mywildcard choice, which was the
brand Hublot, because they'vereleased some interesting

(02:24):
watches.
And one of So excessive.
It should really upset me.
And I, and I want to get upsetabout it because it's so
ridiculous.
But then, when you look at thepictures of it, it's, it's
really kind of cool.
Uh, so it's just very bad.
But they have released theHublot BigBang MP11 in a water
blue sapphire.
So it's a, case, which isabsolutely ridiculous.

(02:48):
There's no reason to have it.
It has a 14 day power reserve.
It looks like a internalcombustion engine or something.
And it costs of course, uh, 171,000.
So it's completely insane.
speak of no constraints, inkeeping with the, the, uh, With
what we were talking about lasttime of trying to cater to a

(03:09):
broad audience, still have theseridiculous time pieces, but
still operate within, withinsome means that people could
maybe access, they're stillexcessively expensive, but they
have released, time only bigbang watches recently in new
materials, including the blueceramics that the chronographs
have the flyback chronograph.
So those are quite fun.

(03:30):
They're very expensive, 15 to 20K, but.
I've, uh, another reason to goback to the Hublot website and
just start questioningeverything regarding my taste
and my sense and rationality, aswe were discussing last time.
So wanted to flag those becausethey're really fun releases, fun
to look at and just ridiculouslyover the top.

(03:51):
Did you have some stuff, Ernest,from Watches and Wonders as
well?
I wonder now.

Ernest (03:55):
Yeah.
Yeah, there were a couple ofthings.
Um, one, just a quick one is,um, I think I highlighted them
as my positive case study is,uh, Cartier and, uh, I think
they continue to bring greatenergy, um, to the market.
And one example of that is, um,a new.
version of the Santos they, uh,unveiled, which is called the

(04:18):
Rewind.
And it has this really beautifulstriking red dial.
But what is really interestingabout it is that the hands
actually turn anticlockwise.
Uh, so the, the Roman numeralsare reversed and there's no
reason for it.
You know, it's just fun.
fun.
And I think that's just anexample of the sort of energy

(04:41):
they're bringing to themarketplace.
The other example is verydifferent, and it's a brand that
I I really haven't paid muchattention to, um, up until now
and that's, uh, I'm going to sayit terribly.
My pronunciation is going to beterrible, but Jaeje leclout, or
JLC let's say from now on, uh,they released some really

(05:05):
striking videos.
High complication watchesprobably the, the peak of it
was, um, there it's part of thisline called the duomet or
duometer.
Uh, and the peak of that is thismodel called the helioturbion
perpetual.
Um,

Joachim (05:23):
Insanity.

Ernest (05:25):
Yeah.

Joachim (05:25):
insanity.
At its best, at its best, forsure.

Ernest (05:30):
And, uh, it would take way too long to explain it, so
we'll just provide a link.
But, uh, the tourbillon is thisreally crazy complication.
It's probably one of the mostcomplicated complications.
And then the heliotourbillonversion of it is, is just even,
you know, times a hundred.

(05:50):
Uh, but.
They did some really interestingand fun things in the design of
the case to, and dial, to reallyshow off these complications,
uh, in a way that I thought waspretty fun and unique.
Um, you know, certainly not anaccessible piece.
I don't even know, want to knowwhat, how much it costs, but,
um, uh,

Joachim (06:09):
ask, you can't afford it.

Ernest (06:11):
Yeah, that's true.
So those were two, um, thatstruck me.
Um, I did have a couple offollow ups as well, um, outside
of the watch world, uh, andthey're both actually listener
comments.
Um, the first comes from afriend of the show and friend in
life, Tina, uh, following upepisode 12, where we discussed

(06:36):
whether or not products shouldbe political, Tina wrote in with
the following.
I'm quoting her now, quote,sharing my favorite company,
innovating products and policyin so many ways, unquote.
And the company she highlightedis called Bobby, which was co
founded by two moms and offersorganic infant formulas.
Last year, the company started asocial and policy impact arm

(06:59):
called Bobby for changed.
I'm sorry, Bobby for changebased on the realization that
giving parents across the U Sthe support that they need.
Would require more than justproducts alone.
Uh, so a really nice example ofa company that's, you know,
making politics a part of whothey are, you know, um, at the
core and being, you know,driving great success from that.

(07:20):
So big, thank you to Tina forsharing this one.
Um, and we'll include links toBobby and Bobby for change in
the show notes.
The next piece of feedback comesfrom another friend, Matt, and
is also in response to ourshould products be political
episode, he wrote quote.
Politics is so divisive thesedays, makes me think of Byron

(07:40):
Sharpe and his advice to makebrands accessible to as many
people as possible.
Having said that, I used to workat Kessel Kramer, who always
preached, if no one hates it, noone loves it.
I think that's probably usefuladvice for early stage
businesses, but if you'vealready got decent market share,
being apolitical might be thebest starting point for business

(08:02):
success and your chances ofchanging the world.
So much depends on context, butdefinitely got me thinking.
It's an interesting layer to addto briefs.
Unquote.
Now for background, Byron Sharpis a professor of marketing
science at the University ofSouth Australia and is the
author of a popular book onmarketing titled How Brands
Grow.
Unquote.

(08:23):
So thanks so much, Matt, forsharing those thoughts.
And I definitely agree thatcontext is vital.
Uh, and overall, we just lovehearing from you.
So please keep the comments andquestions coming to learn, make,
learn at gmail.
com.
All right, now let's move on toour main topic for today.
Design thinking deservedlyderided or unfairly maligned in

(08:46):
case you're not familiar withdesign thinking.
The term design thinking, thefamed design consultancy IDEO is
credited with coining it, soI'll reference their definition.
Quote, design thinking is ahuman centered approach to
innovation that draws from thedesigner's toolkit to integrate
the needs of people, thepossibilities of technology, and
the And the requirements forbusiness success, unquote.

(09:08):
About a decade ago, designthinking was just all the rage
amongst executives across thecorporate world, as Rebecca
Ackerman wrote in an excellentpiece for MIT technology review,
design thinking took hold of thecollective imagination during
the Obama years, a time whenAmerican culture was riding high
on the potential of a bunch ofsmart people in hope filled

(09:29):
rooms to bend history's arctowards progress.
At the same time, consultancieslike IDEO, FROG, Smart Design,
and others were also promotingthe idea that anyone, including
the executives paying theirfees, could be a designer by
just following the process.
Perhaps design has become tooimportant to leave to designers,

(09:50):
as IDEO's then CEO Tim Brownwrote in his 2009 book, Change
By Design, unquote.
But in recent years, the tideturned, with many now describing
design thinking as a failedexperiment.
In fact, the Ackerman piece Ijust cited is titled, Design
thinking was supposed to fix theworld.

(10:11):
Where did it go wrong?
So is design thinking a failedexperiment or is there still
value in the concept?
So long as it's appliedappropriately, you know, you
want to jump in with aperspective on this,

Joachim (10:24):
from The outside as a non designer guy, always been
fascinated with these designconsultancies.
They bring together a lot ofinteresting people.
From the outside, always reallylooked at these consultancies as
having some secret source that Iwanted to understand more about
and absorb more.

(10:44):
So I've been very open minded toeverything IDEO, FROG and these
design consultants is doing.
And I, in the past welcomedtheir encroachment into what
would be considered thetraditional strategic consulting
world Their brand and theirwhole ethos.
means that companies approachthem with way more open minds

(11:05):
than if they went to like aMcKinsey or something like that.
McKinsey is a brand and isexpected to do a very specific
thing.
And IDEO's brand is one, I thinkthat is so much more open minded
and playful and design thinkingleans right into that.
I think the cliche about designthinking is always.
stack of colored post it notesand Sharpie markers and

(11:26):
brainstorming sessions and stickthings on the wall.
that, playful open mindedness issomething that I think if a
company is approaching aconsultancy with that branding,
everyone on the team is open tobe shown something that they
have not seen before.
So I admire that ability to havea brand that's so focused around

(11:47):
that.
As part of preparation for this,I thought the best place to
start is of course, changed bydesign, the book that you
referenced at the beginning byTim Brown.
And, It was somewhatdisappointing, to be honest.
Design thinking is a tool andit's one of many tools.
And I realized that what makesIDEO special is not necessarily
that they've have this term todescribe what they do.

(12:09):
They just have an incrediblyunique group of people coming
together that are attracted tothat business who want to work
there.
I've met people who are graphicdesigners who are doing,
business consulting.
And I think that's what themagic is, is it's the group of
people that have come in there.
So I don't think the actualframework of design thinking has
that much secret source in it.
And so the one thing that wasinteresting, you mentioned, of

(12:29):
course, the fact that thearticle from Ackerman references
the Obama years as a period of,design thinking's ascension to,
you know, serious way of fixingworld problems and change by
design is filled with littleanecdotes about how design
thinking can change society.
And a lot of it reminded me of,uh, the Obama administration's

(12:50):
love of nudges as well, which isthose small behavioral tricks to
that you play on people to getthem to behave well.
When you look at them a littlebit more closely and look under
the hood a bit more, you justask yourself, how generalizable
is this?
You know, does this actuallywork in more complex settings?

(13:13):
So one of the examples thatstood out is actually a chapter
six in change by design.
I don't want to read a wholesection of it, but, an
advertising agency in Japancalled Hakuhodo, were asked to
help the ministry of theenvironment come up with a way
to lower emissions by 6%.
And one of the things theyfigured out is that what they

(13:35):
could do is they could just letthe AC units go from, about 79
degrees Fahrenheit to 82 degreesFahrenheit.
So if they just did that, thatwould help them a long way to
reaching their goal of reducingemissions.
Problem was that thattemperature had been picked
because That's the perfecttemperature for a man in his

(13:56):
business suit.
It's the worst temperature foranyone who does not dress in a
full suit with a jacket,trousers, shirt and tie.
Anyone that deviates from thatwill feel cold or uncomfortable
in those temperatures.
And so the advertising agencyitself created this idea of cool

(14:16):
biz.
and so from June 1st to October1st, everyone who worked in the
office would be allowed andencouraged to wear more casual
clothing.
And in that way they couldincrease the thermostat
temperature to.
82 degrees Fahrenheit and savethe environment.
And so they did a lot of ads andthings that told a story about

(14:38):
how this is cool.
And they also realized theyshould create a fashion expo.
So people would see how theycould still dress in a certain
way to be professional and, uh,wear lightweight materials, have
open necks, et cetera, etcetera.
At the time, the prime minister,Johnny, Joe Kozumi was also
featured it.
Wearing sleeveless shirts, allof these things.

(14:58):
And so it caused a sensationaccording to Tim Brown.
And this was a huge deal increating cool biz as a strategy
for reducing emissions.
When I heard that it just, Isaid, Oh, that's a nudge, right?
Cool.
It kind of works, but beyondthat quirky little example I ask
how many other settings couldyou do something like that.

(15:20):
Tim Brown's book is, uh, I thinkmaybe 15 years old now.
So we haven't done very much todo more to help the environment.
Things are just getting worse.
And design thinking, feelspretty weak.
And hence it reminded me ofnudges.
Like you put a, an image of afly in a urinal, then men will
aim better, when they pee Andagain, you say, okay, from that,

(15:41):
how do I then go to reforming?
You know, the criminal justicesystem, like the leaps from
these small stories that are sowonderful and great for, upper
middle class dinner partyconversation anecdotes, when it
comes down to the grind of howdo we figure this out?
How do we do something reallymeaningful and big?
Get.
It's difficult, and so I feltthat I was a little let down.

(16:03):
I thought there'll be some moremeaty stuff, but really what it
comes down to that summary isget good people into the room
with varied backgrounds who areopen to, trying out new ideas,
have a company that is it's openminded and willing to innovate
and change the way they've donethings.
It seems like those are the onlytwo ingredients and then the
rest is kind of just workthrough the problem.

(16:25):
I, maybe we'll get a chance totalk about.
That the shortcomings of humancentric design in a bit, but let
me leave it at that and thenpull you into designers.
That was a bit of a monologue asalways from me, but where are
you coming down on this?
I feel like you have experienceddesign thinking actually as a
client.
Is that right?
That was part of it.
I don't know if that's where youwant to start, but, I remember

(16:45):
that you've had more experiencewith this directly as a problem
solving framework.

Ernest (16:49):
yeah, yeah.
I'll, I'll definitely, um, speakto that, but I think your
perspective is great on this,and I do think that Um, the
whole concept was oversold, youknow, I think you're, my sense
of it as well is that it reallyisn't going to, um, it certainly

(17:10):
isn't a panacea for these verycomplex systems based issues.
So I think that was just maybeTim Brown trying to sell some
books, um, in terms of businessand overselling on what they
had.
But that said, as you noted, Iwas fortunate enough to have a
chance to work with, um, IDEO asa client and got to see design

(17:35):
thinking in action.
And I came away very impressed.
Um, but just building on yourpoint, Our, task was very
discreet.
It wasn't, trying to, um,address global warming in Japan,
So, uh, in, in that context,what, I think was very helpful

(18:01):
was, uh, or a few things.
One was they brought thisoutsider's perspective, which
is, I think the value that anysort of an agency can bring, um,
looking at you and your brandand your problem set from a
different perspective.
But, so that's really any goodagency is going to offer that.
But off, I'd say also they, theybrought a rigor, around this

(18:26):
approach that, um, I would saythat, you know, we lacked as on
the client side, We were justtrying to keep it somewhat
vague, but we're a company that,you know, did great design work,
but did it in a very specificway.
Um, and not necessarily with alot of rigor behind it.

(18:47):
So, it was very helpful to have,um, this partner in IDEO come in
with, really, a very wellthought through approach.
Um and there is that well worntrope of the colored stickies,
which we, we did do.
Uh, and it was actually usefulbecause it helped us to,
organize our thinking in a waythat, we wouldn't have

(19:09):
otherwise.
Even just, well, another thing Iguess I'd say before I get to
that, another thing I wasimpressed by was the extent to
which they wanted to.
give us their thinking.
Um, I have worked with andworked in agencies where they
try to keep their approach,their process as this sort of

(19:32):
secret sauce, um, that theydon't want anyone else to, be
able to, um, steal away fromthem.
But I was really, um, impressedby the extent to which IDEO
really wanted to teach us thismethodology, this framework,
and, so that we could continueto apply it.

(19:53):
they didn't act as though, oh,we don't want to teach you or
else you might not hire usagain.
So, um, I, I found that reallyrefreshing.
To see that that confidence theyhad that and this belief in this
approach that they had, um, theyfelt that if they could help us
to become conversant in thisapproach, then we would, um,

(20:14):
want to continue to work withthem because, um, we would, um,
Uh, want to approach moreproblems with this in this way.
So uh, that was really a, a nicesurprise, but just one exam,
one, very specific example I'llmention is they, um, give this
great little handbook at thestart of the project that
describes, how they approachthings and just give some

(20:35):
advice.
And in, in this specific case,we were doing some field
research.
And so one of the things theyshared was just some guidelines
around.
How to approach these, um,moments when we're out in the
field.
And one specific thing theynoted was when you do this,
we're going to go out there as ateam of five to seven people.

(20:58):
Let's think in advance aboutwhat our roles will be.
In that engagement, becausetypically what would happen in
this company was we do fieldresearch, you know, the fancy
term is ethnographic researchand you'd end up with five to
seven people all basically doingthe same thing.
maybe one person might be thelead in terms of asking the

(21:18):
questions, but then beyond that,everyone would be taking the
same notes.
Everyone would be takingpictures.
I think that, maybe you couldget some things out of that,
but, uh, I think that would leadto some missed opportunities.
So IDEO had this great guidelinearound, let's think in advance
about who's going to do what.
who's going to ask thequestions, who's going to take

(21:38):
the notes.
Who's going to take thepictures, um, so that we can
each then focus much more, um,wholly on that task and, um, be
more effective in that task thanif we're all just trying to do
the same thing and kind ofstepping over each other.
So, you know,, that's a verysimple example.
It seems like It is commonsense, but I think a lot of

(22:01):
companies, even big establishedcompanies, um, just aren't quite
as, um, thoughtful about thesesorts of things.
And so having, someone like IDEObring that to the table, and
guide you in that process canbe, surprisingly helpful more
than you might think.
in the context of a big companywho you might imagine might

(22:23):
already know all these things.
And then I'd say the outcome wasvery positive.
IDEO definitely helped us to getto a solution that was rooted in
the needs of our Customers, andkind of got us out of the norm
in many companies, which isreally just, um, approaching

(22:45):
things as a reflection of yourorg chart or as a reflection of
just the tools that you have athand.
It really, um, got us to thinkmore from a customer led lens,
uh, and led us to solutions thatwere built on the needs of our
customers versus, our owninternal imperatives.

(23:08):
Uh, so maybe that is a goodsegue into the topic of human
centered design.

Joachim (23:15):
Yeah.
I think it, I think that'sexactly right.
where it leads us we've talkedabout that, understand the
customer journey in the past.
I hope I got the quotationright, but here's one from Tim
Brown.
He says a designer, no less thanan engineer or marketing
executive who simply generalizesfrom his own standards and
expectations will limit thefield of opportunity.
A 30 year old man does not havethe same life experience as a 60

(23:37):
year old woman.
Very obvious, helpful to havesomeone say it.
And if you've brought thesepeople in, it opens up the
conversation and allows you to.
Say these things aloud like you,you were alluding to that.
Some very simple things as noteveryone has to take notes and

(23:57):
then share and do all thosethings.
Sometimes you need that externalparty to be able to give you
permission to behave a certainway.
But back to the other aspect ofwhat you're saying is this, that
has been the main criticism I'veheard about the design thinking
is the idea that it should behuman centric.
and that's where most of theflashpoints have been when I was

(24:18):
looking around and I stumbled onthis LinkedIn post from, Brian
Collins, who is himself afounder of a design and branding
consultancy.
He wrote a whole thing about howhe thinks design thinking is
kind of done because of itshuman centricity.
And it's actually reallydetrimental to the way you think
about the world.
His example is, plastic bottle.

(24:38):
You're thirsty, you want to havea portable way to drink water.
Well then, the human centricdesign approach says, grab a
plastic bottle, it's easy tocarry, lightweight.
You're finished with the water,you throw it away, no problem.
Human centric design hassucceeded.
It's a bit of a straw manbecause obviously a plastic
bottle is a terrible idea,right?
It's hard to recycle, takesenergy, create a lot of plastic
waste.

(24:59):
but his point was basically, ifyou have such a narrow
perspective on the consequencesof your designs, Then it's going
to lead you down some bad placesand then you find yourself
having created a far worse worldbecause you've only focused on a
very specific sliver of theexperience and the impacts of a
product.

(25:20):
and I think that's really valid,right?
And so the big movement thatpeople would talk about is the
systems thinking approach, whichsays everything has spillovers
and feedback loops that arereally hard to quantify.
And so as a designer.
you're really only a participantin the process.

(25:40):
On that theme, I stumbled onthis essay by Kevin Slavin, who
is, one of my favorite thinkersin general right now.
He has this article calledDesign as Participation, where
he really pushes the idea that,if a designer is aware of the
complexity of the system thatthey're dealing with, then out
of that understanding comes adesign perspective that says, I

(26:05):
am merely a participant thatshapes a little bit of the
dynamics of the system.
And I have to be very carefulabout how, my inputs then
generate these feedbacks that Ican't fully predict.
And so I'll just read itquickly.
It says the designers of complexadaptive systems are not
strictly designing systemsthemselves.
They are hinting those systemstowards anticipated outcomes

(26:27):
from an array of existinginterrelated systems.
These are designers that do notunderstand themselves to be in
the center of the system.
Rather, they understandthemselves to be participants,
shaping the systems thatinteract with other forces,
ideas, events, and otherdesigners.
So this interactivity,interconnectedness.
In the, when you read TimBrown's book, kind of alludes to

(26:49):
that being important, but neverhas the framework to help you
really fully fathom thecomplexity of it.
I think there's an appetiteamongst.
product people and brandingpeople to take into account
these consequences that theyhave on the system as a whole.
And by far that has been themost convincing counterpoint to
that, to the whole designthinking is everything.

(27:10):
And we would just reiteratethat.
It's one tool guys, and ofcourse systems thinking is
another tool and jobs to be doneis another framework and,
working backwards from thecustomer as Amazon says, all
these things are tools to beused together in tandem with
each other.
I think a lot of tech platformsthat are in the gig economy or

(27:31):
in the, resource sharing crowdsharing type of world, their
websites have been designed toreally hone in on the user
experience but when anythingmoves a little bit away from
that, the inherent complexityyou back in the face.
Everything has been obscured.
so that's kind of where I wonderto what extent, a designer is

(27:51):
taking into account thepossibility that things can go
wrong and you need to have thatcomplexity.
Nothing can go wrong here.
And when it goes wrong, There'sno way to really dig into it.

Ernest (28:02):
You know, it's funny because, um, way back, uh, in
the early 2000s, in thatcompany, I co- founded
37signals, something we talkedabout was just the, the fact
that in any of these complexsystems, Error is inevitable.
And so we came up with thisconcept that we called

(28:23):
contingency design, justdesigning for when things go
wrong.
And there's a lot of data aroundhow important it is to resolve
those sorts of, situationseffectively.
And that if you as a brand areable to do that, then you can
actually create greater affinitywith your customer than if they
didn't have the problem in thefirst place.
Now, we've created thesetechnologies that try to be

(28:45):
magical and hide all thecomplexity, as you said, and in
the process, create thesesituations where as soon as
something goes wrong, it's justcompletely unsolvable for
anyone.
I ran into a similar sort ofsituation with a shipping issue
and I came to learn that thepeople on the back end at the

(29:08):
shipper have access to the exactsame information that I do, you
know,, and in some respects, youcould say, Oh, that's great.
That's very democratic that,

Joachim (29:16):
Yeah.

Ernest (29:16):
know, they don't have access to any secret
information, but that meant thatno one had any idea where my
package was.
And there was no way toactually, query the people at
the facility where this packagewas sitting somewhere.
I think the challenge that thisgets to is the point of
incentives that's come up insome previous episodes as well

(29:38):
as there's just no incentive toaddress these error cases.
No one wants to, Think no onewants to raise that.
Oh, what if something goeswrong?
You know, no one gets browniepoints for raising these
possible problems.
Um, and so they never get, um,the priority that they need to

(29:59):
actually be resolved so thatThere's a system designed that
enables these sorts of things tobe resolved.
So it's a great point.
It's a great thing to highlight.
And I think too, that the factthat these companies like IDEO
are consultancies is part ofthis problem.
You know, they go in and out,you know, they have these, um,

(30:20):
engagements that last a certainamount of time.
And then when they're done,they're out, you know,, and so.
Um, they can really focus on thesort of sexy stuff on the
surface, but then the folks whoare left in the company kind of
holding the bag, um, have todeal with the sort of grunt work
of making sure the thingactually works and that when,

(30:44):
customers encounter errors thatthey can actually resolve them.
But, it's just not sexy enoughfor the folks in the C suite to
want to, spend any time on that.
So, um, I think the, the natureof the system that we've created
does result in these sorts ofchallenges that you've
encountered yourself.
And I think all of us haveencountered with these, uh,

(31:05):
systems that are now just soincredibly complicated.

Joachim (31:09):
Yeah, I think, you were alluding to the fact that a
consultancy that hops in,they've been given license to
create the new shiny object.
It would be nice to see howcould a design thinking approach
actually be used to enable moreof a subtractive design process.

(31:32):
I will give a full disclaimerhere.
I'm not a big fan of Elon Musk,but he does have these rules of
engineering that are, exactlywhat you'd expect them to be
from him.
They're kind of, um, way toosimplified and over
simplification of complexity,but one of the principles that's
kind of useful, but phrasedpoorly, he calls it try and

(31:55):
delete something in the process.
in other words, There must be away to remove some of that
complexity that's beenaccumulating over time because
different people have hadperspectives and they dip in and
out, much like a consultancycomes in and says, you need to
do this.
And so it would be interestingto think, how does a design
thinking perspective help you ina subtractive one?

(32:18):
Remove things from the process.
And could Tim Brown makesubtractive innovation sexy as
well?

Ernest (32:25):
Right.
Yeah, that's a great point.
It is a fundamentally additivesort of, experience and
encounter when you bring in aconsultant like this.
Although I will say that in ourengagement with IDEO, they did
have one exercise.
Uh, that spoke to this, wherebasically they had us, uh, you
know, we went through the,context of the situation, talked

(32:47):
about the possible, solutions,rooted in the needs of our
customer, but we went throughthis exercise of, okay, so of
these things that, you heard allof these things.
You also have context into thethings that you're doing.
You, the client are doing.
So let's do an exercise where weput on this board, uh, these
different colored post its whereyou have some.

(33:10):
Things that you want to startdoing based on this new
information that we have now,things that you might want to
continue doing, and then thingsthat you think we should stop
doing as a company based on thisinformation.
So they, do have this exercise.
They, they, that speaks to this,where they attempt to address
this idea of, um, taking away aswell as, um, adding new things.

(33:33):
I think the challenge is in thefact that they are.
And that's, this is somethingthat comes at the end of their
engagement.
So then someone on the companyside has to be given the, um, I
guess the authority to be ableto then deliver on that.
And that's extremely difficultto get these big, complex

(33:55):
organizations to get To stopdoing anything, even if they
know those things they've beendoing are not particularly
effective or efficient.
Um, but I just wanted to throwout there that they did have
something that, spoke to that,at least in a small way.

Joachim (34:09):
Actually I wanted to bring up something that we
talked about., in our Sceniusepisode where, we talked about
the crowd, we talked aboutpeople coming together as a
group and innovating together.
And you were presenting acounterpoint that was a little
bit more, I'm going to use thisword in a good way though, but a
little bit more elitist, you'resaying that maybe not everyone
really needs to be in thisconversation right now.

(34:31):
Maybe only a few people reallyhave thought about this long and
hard and have the rightperspective to push this
forward.
So do you think that, um, designthinking is maybe just.
The worst aspects ofcrowdsourcing and the lowest
common denominator stuff when wedo these things, or is there
more to it?
I don't know where, where do youwant to take that?

Ernest (34:53):
It's a really good question.
I think that it can be reallypowerful if you do it at the
right time in the process, andparticularly if you're doing it
early on.
Um, in that it is a great,design thinking offers a great
framework for bringing, peopletogether who might typically
not, um, uh, work together orcollaborate together from

(35:17):
different parts of anorganization and gives them
tools to be able to communicatemore effectively together than
they might, just in their normalday to day practice.
So, you know, I think if you'rein the right time in the
project, it can be reallypowerful.
I think It's kind of to yourpoint about maybe my somewhat

(35:40):
more elitist point of view, um,if you're getting closer into
the point where you're reallyhaving to make a lot of
decisions, I don't think it'squite as effective.
cause to me, the, the greatthing about design thinking,
thinking, at least in myexperience is that it's great at
opening up.
The, um, the scope ofpossibilities and rooting them,

(36:03):
like we talked about in theneeds of your customer, uh, in a
way that I think a lot ofcompanies are really bad at.
So at that front end where youwant to., not just pursue the
same paths that you as a companywould typically pursue.
That's, I think, the time whendesign thinking can be really
powerful.

(36:23):
When you're now getting backinto the point where you've
identified the opportunity,You've identified the key needs
that you need to address, andnow you need to actually make
the thing.
I think that's when it's notquite as useful, because that's
when you do need to sort offilter down, um, and, um, take

(36:44):
some of the inputs away so thatthe team can, uh, focus on now,
you know, Delivering on thosethings that we all talked about
as a team and all identified asbeing the key needs and areas of
opportunity.
So I, you know, just to answerthat point.
I do think it's important whereyou get into it.

(37:06):
I actually wanted to follow upon something you mentioned
earlier as well.
You talked about the gig economyplayers and Um, where this all
fits in, in that context that Iwas just curious to hear more
about that.
Like, what did you mean, aboutdesign thinking and companies
like, say, Lyft and, thesevarious gig economy type

(37:27):
companies.

Joachim (37:29):
I think a lot of platforms mask the inherent
complexity of what's happeningunder the hood with slick user
centric design.
Human centric design can maskthose more subtle and complex
problems that you've notactually solved, but you've just
plastered over with a reallybeautiful experience.

(37:50):
So a good example of platformcentric thinking which is
focused around making thecustomer journey as slick as
possible.
Is actually the Amazon Gostores.
The Amazon Go stores were theseshops that you walk into, you
grab stuff off the shelf, andthen you walk out and it's just,

(38:10):
Friction free environment.
Everyone already has an Amazonaccount.
You're just going to beidentified by those prime
details.
You walk in, you walk outincredible customer journey.
All frictions have been removed.
Totally focused on that.
Human centric design.

(38:30):
technology is, essentiallyinvisible, right?
It's all in the ceiling.
There's tons of cameras there.
And then magic AI takes over.
That was the story that we weresold.
And now of course those storeshave shut down and it turns out
that.
I know that it is not everysingle interaction is being
monitored by a human being, butthere were thousands of people

(38:51):
looking at this footage todetermine if someone was
actually paying attention.
And if they had not stolensomething, should I say rather
not pay?
Did they steal something?
They really put it, takesomething off the shelf or do
they put it back on the shelf?
This was a prime example of,Amazon's, um, one of their
leadership principles is ofcourse, customer obsession,

(39:11):
which is just another way oftalking about customer centric,
human centric design.
Customer obsession is they don'twant frictions.
They just need to be able to buywithout even thinking about the
transaction.
that, they just ignored all ofthe complexity of this problem.
And it was just shoved into theAI box.
And then when that didn't work,it was shoved onto workers so

(39:35):
there is this inherentcomplexity that we've gotten
very good at plastering overwith beautiful design, friction
free experiences, interactiondesign that is very slick.
But lurking under the hood,sometimes an army of human
manual labor that is, that'shandling the heavy lifting of

(39:56):
the complexity of that problem.
So, just another flavor of whatcan be lurking under something
that feels very human centricand very slick, friction free,
but all you've done is hiddenthe complexity of the problem.

Ernest (40:09):
Uh, I I think we're totally, um, aligned on this in,
I love that expression you useof plastered over, um, because I
had the same sort of image in myhead as well, and that, You
know, often these engagementswith these outside consultancies

(40:29):
are just like a salve for someissue.
You know, I think that that issuch a great example because it
does speak to the point you madeearlier about the kind of
plastic bottles for drinks andhow that aligns to this whole
design thinking framework,that's something that's

(40:52):
desirable people do want to beable to take their drinks with
them or in the case of thisAmazon go, people do want to
just be able to go in and outand grab things.
Um, As you know, so just to setsome groundwork for this, um,
IDEO talks about these threelenses of innovation that for
any innovation to be successful,it has to be desirable by
people.

(41:12):
It has to be technologicallyfeasible, you know, something
that you can actually do andeconomically viable.
That's makes, there has to be abusiness case and like the
disposable drink containerdelivers on all three of those,
uh, in today's economy, intoday's environment.
That's it.
But like you asked earlier, isthat really something you should
do, you know,, if you were toactually apply some judgment to

(41:35):
it, is that something that weshould actually make, even
though it might deliver on allthree of those things.
And to me, the Amazon go storeexample is another case of this
where, yes, if you were to askpeople, would you want that
convenience of being able to popin and out of a shop, um,
Without engaging with atraditional tiller, would you

(41:56):
want that?
Most people would probably sayyes.
And, um, I guess now we'relearning that maybe it wasn't
necessarily technologicallyfeasible, but let's just argue
that it was, um, and that therewas economic viability.
I think you'd still want to askthe question.
I would hope, is this somethingwe should do?
Is this, um, from a socialperspective, something that.

(42:21):
we want, uh, as a society tojust completely eliminate any
human interaction, uh, in thecourse of our lives.
And maybe that's me being oldschool.
But, um, I think just on thatbasis, that's maybe the one
thing that is missing fromdesign thinking as it's
articulated today.
Just this.

(42:42):
I don't know what you'd call it,this maybe broader social value
question of is this something,even if it's desirable,
feasible, and viable, is thissomething that from a social
perspective we should pursue?
Um, it feels like it's, it's aquestion worth asking

Joachim (42:59):
Yeah.

Ernest (43:00):
and like you said earlier too, it's a tool.
And I think if Tim Brown and,these other agencies have
oversold it, you know, shame onthem.
But to be fair to them, I thinkyou have to recognize that it's
a tool.
These things are tools.
Design thinking is a tool, justlike you said earlier, that you
can apply like these other toolswe've talked about, but they're

(43:22):
not going to change your cultureas a company.
You know, you can adopt thisthing that's called design
thinking that's, and that'smeant to be human centered.
But if your, if your companyculture is not built on that,
then you're going to end up withthese experiences that you've
talked about, um, where you'vegot this nice shiny object, but

(43:43):
once you get, you know,scratched beneath the surface,
you realize it's actually reallyhuman, um, uh, ah, negative, I
guess, you know, uh, it reallyis just, um, focused on reducing
friction in this oneinteraction.
And then if something goeswrong, well, then you have to

(44:04):
figure it all out yourself.
So, um, I, you know, I thinkthere's some blame to go around.
I think there was someoverselling of the concept, but
I also think that a lot ofpeople were a little, um, uh,
unrealistic in terms of whatthey, um, might've expected that
they could achieve with this onetool.
And so, you know, my ultimatetakeaway is that, as long as

(44:28):
you, as long as you approach itin that way, recognize that it
is one tool in the toolkit thatcan be applied and can be
effective.
You know, it can be a reallypositive thing.
But, just don't try to thinkthat it's going to be this cure
all and is a replacement foryour, your company actually
having a culture that's focusedon your customer.

Joachim (44:49):
Yeah, I agree with that.
I think that's the broader, itcomes back to our, All of the
things we've been speaking toabout this point, right?
Is the design influencesbehavior, influences society.
We have to be aware of that.
And so part of that toolkit isthinking about that chain of
things that comes after thetransaction has been completed.
Right.
Yeah.

Ernest (45:09):
right, well, now that you've heard our perspectives,
we want to hear from you.
Do you see value in designthinking?
Or is it, as Rebecca Ackermandescribes it, a failed
experiment?
We want to hear what you think.
Please share your thoughts byemailing us at learnmakelearn at
gmail.
com.

(45:29):
Now, let's move on to ourrecommendations of the week.
Joachim, do you have arecommendation you'd like to
share?

Joachim (45:35):
Yes, I do.
I just watched this film with myfamily and we really enjoyed it.
It's called, Your Name.
It's an anime that was releasedin 2016, written and directed by
Makoto Shinkai, who isconsidered to be kind of the
modern day Miyazaki., theanimation is stunning and it's
great.
the broad plot of the movie isabout, teenage girl and a

(45:58):
teenage boy body swapping, andone lives in the village outside
of the city and, and Taki, theboy lives in Tokyo.
And of course they envy eachother's lives because they're so
radically different.
It's a very, very sweet film.
It's uncomplicated for a lot ofit.
And then as every good film,second act is always the

(46:19):
complication.
It's really well done.
I really loved it.
There is one recurring, reallyadolescent joke that I just
could have done without that.
It just was very awkward that Ididn't, and it kept coming up.
But other than that, if thatcould have been toned down, I
think the story is very, verysweet.
There's just so many little bitsin it that are, you know, when

(46:42):
things come together, um, it's,I think it's Chekhov's Gun.
It's the idea in, in writingplays and movies.
Like if you're gonna show a gun,it better get used at some
point.
Um, and so there's a lot ofmoments where things are just
shown to you in passing andthen.
In the end, it all comestogether.
It is also to give it that extraseal of approval on, on the

(47:04):
criterion streaming service.
So as part of the criterioncollection, if you, if you need
a third party to verify, this isa good recommendation, but, uh,
that that's actually where wehave.
So, um, I definitely recommendthat.
It was good fun.
Aside from that one adolescentrecurring joke that just keeps
popping up.
I just wish he'd cut that out.
And soundtrack is just reallyfun.

(47:25):
It's a very cheesy soundtrack,but it's very sweet.
It has moments of the typicalStudio Ghibli by Joe Hisaishi
type soundtracks.
Then also just J pop and J rockstuff.
popping out.
It's really very fun, matchesthe mood of the movie perfectly.
Um, Yeah, it's really good.
Wonderful film.

Ernest (47:46):
Oh, that's great.
I've heard great things aboutit.
I think this will finally put meover the edge and get me to
watch it.
Ha ha ha.
Well, uh, I'll actually stay,um, in Japan, um, and If you
don't mind, I was going torefer, just do one, but then
something you said made me wantto add another one.

(48:06):
Um, so the first one I'll, um,suggest is this series on Hulu
titled Shogun.
Um, People our age might recallthe original miniseries that
aired, gosh, many decades ago inthe U.
S.
and was just a sensation basedon the novel, um, gosh, do you

(48:28):
remember the name of the authorby any chance, Joachim, I

Joachim (48:31):
I don't.
No, I don't.
I'm so sorry.

Ernest (48:33):
I think it's maybe James Clavel might be the name, but,
um,

Joachim (48:36):
Yes, it is James Clavel.

Ernest (48:38):
Okay, great.
Um, but it was, uh, it's beenremade, um, on and is airing on
Hulu.
And I think the, the originalminiseries, you know, I hadn't,
haven't seen it in ages, so Ican't recall exactly, but it's
really a remarkable thing inthat it was actually all shot in
Japan.
Um, and there was quite a bit ofdialogue in Japanese and they

(49:02):
made the very interestingchoice, this was in the
original, of Not subtitling theJapanese because they all, they
wanted the experience to bethrough the point of view of the
English character.
So, you know, he didn'tunderstand Japanese.
So when people were speakingJapanese around him, they
didn't, uh, subtitle it becausethey wanted you to feel what he

(49:24):
was feeling.
Um, now in this new, uh, remake,they, um, Do subtitle, this
Japanese, uh, and interestingly,even though it's very, there's a
really focused on authenticitywas not shot in Japan.
It was actually shot in Canadafor the most part, I believe,
which is really interesting, butum, it is really beautiful.

(49:47):
And the interesting thing isit's really more of a show in
Japanese that happens to have afew Western characters who every
so often speak English.
And so, you know, I think forsome people, maybe that might,
it might be off putting, but,uh, I've just really fallen for
it.
And they do a remarkable jobwith translation in that, I

(50:12):
think, in many shows and movies,translation becomes a real, uh,
kind of thing.
thing that you're trying tosolve for, you know, this thing
that slows everything down whenyou have to basically say the
same thing twice because youhave to translate it.
But they do this remarkable jobof making translation part of

(50:34):
the experience of, um, the showand what you're seeing and the
way words are translated becomesvery important.
So, um, The reason I wanted tohighlight this is you made the
point about Japan being thisplace where they're, you know,
all these disasters happening.
And that's something that comesup in Shogun as a theme and, you

(50:57):
know, kind of speaks to why, youknow, at least in the story,
they suggest it might be aninfluence as to why the culture
is the way that it is.
So that's what brought to mindShogun.
But the one I was going tosuggest was, um, Another series
set in Japan, in this case, aseries called Tokyo Vice, uh,

(51:17):
that's on, um, Max, uh, formerlyknown as HBO.
But in this case, I thought itwas very interesting in that
this series, Tokyo Vice, has hadtwo seasons and, um, uh, the
second season just wrapped upand it's really interesting to

(51:38):
look at this.
In the two seasons, in contrast,the first season, um, had
Michael Mann, the famousdirector who directed, um, Heat
and the, uh, film version ofMiami Vice.
Uh, so it, you know, made a lotof sense that he would be
involved.
He was, uh, an executiveproducer and also directed the

(51:58):
first, the pilot episode.
And I think for many people, Hisinvolvement was a big draw for
season two, he was not involvedbecause he was making the movie
Ferrari and it gives the secondseason a very different feel.
And I have to say personally, Ifar prefer the second season.

(52:22):
Um, my sense of it is that thefirst season really.
It feels like it's coming fromthe perspective of a tourist,
someone looking at Japan and theculture of Japan and giving very
much a Westerner'sinterpretation of that.
Whereas my sense, at least ofseason two, is that it's much

(52:44):
more told from the perspectiveof a Japanese person.
Person of Japanese storyteller,even though it wasn't, um, the,
the, um, uh, showrunner is thesame across both, uh, seasons,
but I just feel like the MichaelMann influence really shaped
season one and gave it this sortof outsider's sort of tourist

(53:04):
perspective, whereas his absencegave them the opportunity to
Tell the story differently.
So it's the same characters, thesame setting, and it's just a
continuation into, you know,from season one to season two,
but very different feel and, uh,for anyone who maybe saw season
one and wasn't such a huge fanof it, I'd say definitely give

(53:26):
season two a try because it, it.
is very different and to me muchstronger.
And one really interestingcontrast is that the last
episode of season two, I won'tgive anything away, but I'll
just say that the last episodeof season two is in many ways, a
mirror of the first episode ofseason one.
And there are actually somesequences that that are very,

(53:50):
very similar.
Um, but you know, the executionis incredibly different.
So it's really cool to see thiscontrast when you have different
creatives involved, um, how thatcan really influence the
storytelling, even though youhave the same cast, uh, involved
the same, you know, fundamentalstory you're telling and it's

(54:12):
being told in the same context.
Um, so, um, Tokyo Vice, uh,Season 2 in particular is, is
what I wanted to recommend.
Had you seen either of these,uh, Joachim, Shogun, or Tokyo
Vice?

Joachim (54:26):
I have seen, uh, we did all of season one of Tokyo Vice.
And at the end of it, we didn'tfeel the need to watch anymore.
Um,

Ernest (54:35):
yeah.

Joachim (54:35):
and as you said, the vibe was very neon noir, which
is Michael mann's feeling to allof his movies since Manhunt.
Since Thief, his, movie withJames Caan has a neon noir.
vibe.
and so I think that, that kindof neon noir ish view of Japan
is very much an outsider's viewof it.

(54:59):
And there are many movies thatkind of made everything in Japan
about the neon lights.
And I mean, Blade Runner is aprime example of, you know, what
the future looks like.
It's, it's Japan, but just, Moreneon and then, um, a movie that
also reminds me a lot of thatvibe is black rain by, um,

(55:20):
Ridley Scott as well, right?
It's all neon.
Everything's drenched in theseneon lights.
And, and I think season onereally, they pushed that harder.
That's really interesting thathis absence has helped this
show.
So that's made me also thinkabout maybe we should try and go
into season two with a bit moreof an open mind, because we
really did, we were left pretty,reasonably satisfied with what

(55:43):
we'd experienced.
Um, It wasn't earth shatteringbut yeah, I would be up for it
if the vibe is a little less ofthat, I don't know.
I don't want to call itOrientalism, but this exotic
outsider perspective and, youknow, it's, it's really not like
that.
I think that's what's so funabout, your name, the, the anime

(56:03):
is, um, Tokyo is shown and justas Tokyo and it's very
realistically rendered, crowdedtrains and it's still so,
Wonderful.
But not those tropes of neonJapan, so yeah, it'll be
interesting to see a non neonJapan.

Ernest (56:24):
If you do see it, I'd love to hear your perspective.
And actually, I, We really, Joe,my wife and I, we enjoyed season
two so much we actually wentback and restarted season one
and we both found it just kindof repellent.
We, not only the, the whole, uh,you know, neon noir thing, but
just also really objectificationof women, you know, and

(56:48):
obviously that, That's a themebecause it deals with the Yakuza
and, you know, they deal in thatworld, but, um, it really in
season one, I found just kind ofglorifies that in a way that,
you know, I think you have seenin some of Michael Mann's older
movies as well.
So, uh, you really, they getaway from that almost entirely

(57:11):
in season two.
Um, so yeah, if you do have achance to see it, I'd love to
hear what you think.
All right.
Well, that does it for us.
Uh, thank you so much forjoining us here at learn, make,
learn.
As we mentioned, we want to hearfrom you.
So please send any questions orfeedback to learn, make, learn
at gmail.
com and tell your friends aboutus.

(57:33):
In our next episode, we're goingto focus on famed economist,
psychologist, and author DanielKahneman, who passed away this
past March at the age of 90.
Kahneman is perhaps best knownfor his work in behavioral
economics, for which he andVernon L.
Smith were awarded the 2002Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic

(57:54):
Sciences.
I'm quoting from the Wikipediaentry on Kahneman here, quote,
The Harvard psychologist andauthor, Steven Pinker, said of
Kahneman that his centralmessage could not be more
important.
Namely that human reason left toits own devices is apt to engage
in a number of fallacies andsystematic errors.

(58:15):
So if we want to make betterdecisions in our personal lives
and a society, we ought to beaware of these biases and seek
workarounds.
That's a powerful and importantdiscovery.
Unquote.
Kahneman's passing offers anopportunity discuss his legacy
in the context of productcreation.
And that's what we'll do in thenext episode of learn, make,

(58:37):
learn.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Design Thinking: Failure or Fall Guy?