Leveraging divergent thinking as a means of idea generation

The single most important concept I now understand better as a direct result of the course and work on this group project was how to approach idea generation in a new manner – through divergent thinking. As an ex-Strategy consultant, many of the issues I faced each day in my role focused on arriving at the optimal solution to a problem or challenge, a single solution that is. Divergent thinking removes the quantitative limitations and enables a more free-flowing, creative approach to idea generation, one that emphasizes proliferation over perfection. The application of the divergent thinking methodology allowed our team to explore out-of-the-box solutions to address our persona’s most pressing concerns. We were solving for a just a single use case, but through a more open-ended solutioning process.

Solving and designing for one

The second most important concept I now understand better as a direct result of the course and work on this group project was that the single most important project insight could come from one user i.e. validation amongst a common persona group wasn’t necessarily where the most suitable insights would be discovered. Additionally, getting comfortable with solutioning for the needs of one  was critically important as we approached the KLRU project. While there were commonalities amongst our interviewees, our idea – “The Short” was sourced through one individual, one that had sought a daily information burst, one that approached the happenings in a light-hearted manner. This served as the foundation of our forward momentum for the project and became the core idea for our final leave-behind deliverable.

Building a more impactful design thinking project

Overall, I learned a lot throughout the course of the semester working on the project with KLRU. For future classes, I would recommend considering crowd-sourcing a client and corresponding project + scope from the class. My inclination is this method would lead to enhanced engagement from more students and a greater sense of project investment. This could also lead to some unique collaborations between the University, the community and students (e.g., student startups). Maintaining the phased framework will ensure content remains relevant and structured enough to maintain supplemental material consistency from year to year. The variety in project scope would provide some interesting resources for students with varied interests.

I would highly recommend limiting the defining the research methodology phase or combining with another as I found this the least impactful. This may have been because research methodologies are so case-specific. However, I will note the visual representations the professor used from past project and client work was a really interesting opportunity to explore variation of findings / outputs. I would have appreciated seeing even more applications and examples related to this topic (e.g., interviewee media consumption on timeline).

I would also love to explore the IDEO curriculum in more detail / with greater adherence. I found the materials included as a part of the class lectures were limited in content (lots of photos) and would not be very beneficial to use as reference going forward in my career. If the slides contained more relevant content, I think the class time would also be more engaging. With that said, I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about the Professor’s personal experiences and applications using the design thinking methodology.

Working as a team and course feedback

Working in teams can be challenging, particularly when there are so many competing demands on the time of the individuals involved. Due to the number of group projects in other courses this semester, this group project posed the expected challenges. Many were time-constrained and working to prioritize their growing to-do list. It is always good preparation to get back to the real world where many of us will again be working on teams. However, I found it a bit isolating working with essentially only my team of four for the entirety of the semester. I wonder if there is a lecture that could tie in methods for operating effective teams that would also give students the opportunity to interact with others in the class. Alternatively, using short, in-class activities that encourage increased collaboration amongst other team members. I would imagine this may be an effective method of cross-team collaboration and would be interested to see how the challenge statement and solutioning phases morphed as a result.

I wouldn’t say the group work contributed to increased enjoyment of the learning or enjoyment of the material, but I would certainly say it was beneficial for idea exchange and for stress-testing our proposed solutions to the key challenge statement. As mentioned previously, I feel that working with individuals in the class not on our project teams on small, sprint efforts may allow for greater overall enjoyment of the course.

The phased project approach I found to be highly beneficial for a number of reasons. First, it allowed for a mental delineation between content which aids with recall. Second, it allowed for redirection as needed based on class and professor feedback – i.e. couldn’t go too far down the wrong path before course correcting. Third, it allowed for small milestone achievements from which the team could derive motivation.

I really appreciated the light-heartedness the Professor brought to the course and the warm environment he created in the classroom. This may have been the result of giving the class insight into his home life (e.g., daughter, partner, chocolate-making). the open-mindedness with which he approached class questioning or the openness with which he accepted ongoing critique and strived to better the class as a whole – or all of the above. I found it endearing and refreshing.

1. What are your personal experiences with individual creativity?  Have you had times when you felt especially creative or, even, especially uncreative?

I feel most creative when the following conditions are met:

• I have a deep understanding of the problem statement and/or experience working in the applicable context/environment (some exceptions resulting from insights derived from lack of expertise, but cross-functional application to particular solutions)
• I employ a genuine interest in the topic or category as it translates directly to my investment in the pursuit of creative solutions
• I am working with a cross-functional team that is able to draw on diverse backgrounds and expertise
• There exists an environment of safety i.e. iteration and change are not just accepted, but encouraged
  • IDEO philosophy of deferring judgement and going for quantity
  • Osborn’s cardinal rule – censor criticism and encourage “freewheeling brainstorming”

I feel least creative when the following conditions are met:

• I am working individually
• Strict time constraints exist
• The environment is not “safe” (see notes above for ideal state)

2. What are your personal experiences with organizational creativity?  Have you worked at companies that felt or behaved in ways that made them more creative or, even, especially uncreative?

Having worked at Deloitte Consulting for 4+ years, it is evident the emphasis on creativity and creative development processes varied across offering portfolios within the organization. There are a number of offerings that necessitate a more deliberate use of creativity (e.g., Deloitte Greenhouse). However, it’s worth mentioning all roles at Deloitte leveraged creative problem solving to bring our client’s visions and strategies to life.

How Deloitte is fostering creativity in a historically rigid industry:

• Launch of Deloitte Digital, Deloitte’s creative digital consultancy: Focused on transforming the digital journey, Deloitte Digital combines the creative and digital capabilities of their studios and the broad reach of an advertising agency with the technical expertise, deep business strategy and relationships of one of the world’s largest consultancies to support the growth and success of organizations around the globe.

• Acquisition of creative agencies to strengthen internal creative capabilities and external service offerings: In 2016, Deloitte announced its acquisition of Heat, San Francisco-based advertising agency. The union would kick-start Deloitte’s commitment to transformation and delivery of creative client solutions within the broader Deloitte Digital portfolio. August 2017 marked the announcement of Acne, an award-winning European creative agency offering creative, strategic, digital and other services to clients, particularly in the lifestyle and luxury retail sectors.

• Opening of Deloitte Greenhouses as a resource for executives and teams aimed at solving their biggest organizational challenges: An innovative environment that changes the way Deloitte clients solve business challenges. By taking participants outside of their everyday environments, Greenhouse sessions disrupt conventional thinking, spur creativity, bring about new perspectives, and lead to tangible solutions.

3. Do you think you, as an individual, are even capable of being creative by yourself?  And, better yet, do you think a group within an organization is capable of being creative?

This harkens back to my response to question one above. I feel most creative when I am working with a group comprised of diverse sets of experiences, skills and expertise. Drawing on unique insights that challenge preconceived notions of an industry or problem are vital for fostering creativity.

The 2012 New Yorker article references Alex Osborn’s most celebrated idea, “How to Organize a Squad to Create Ideas.” The role of brainstorming is a divergent activity that increases in value with the proliferation of ideas. Contrary to Osborn’s assertions, research and studies indicate working with others as a part of the brainstorming phase limits resulting consideration sets and ultimately the likelihood of identifying optimal solutions for solving challenging problems. With that said, I’ve found success phasing brainstorming sessions – first allowing individuals to brainstorm independently followed by a group session. Doing so seems to minimize the effects of Groupthink through this critical phase of creative development.

4. What do you think about the idea of different creative types of problems and, thus, different creative processes?  Should we trust ourselves just to know or sense when we need one type of approach versus another?

Creative processes and frameworks exist to aid in the identification and solutioning of creative problems. Using them as a resource can most certainly be helpful, but should be used with precaution. The processes and frameworks are not intended to be one-size-fits-all. Teams should encourage flexibility, not adherence as they approach problems and look for creative solutions. One of the most important tenets of the creative process is exploring the unknown and boxing teams into a predetermined framework or process can have an adverse effect on creativity. We should trust those with experience in creative solutioning most when determining the optimal approach.

“You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backward. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.” – Steve Jobs, 2005 Stanford commencement speech

On March 10, 2018, I and twenty-five MBA classmates from the University of Texas departed central Cape Town for two days of manual labor and immersive learning in support of Heart Capital Village, a social enterprise dedicated to transforming the lives of the previously disadvantaged through vocational and entrepreneurial programming. What I cynically anticipated would only be manual labor and brief, likely superficial interactions with South African locals, turned out to be a personally transformational experience. It was at Heart Capital I would uncover and embrace one of my passions. It would be a moment now, when looking back, which would allow me to connect the dots.

We arrived on site at Heart Capital in the morning and were greeted by Sarina Spector, a transplant from NYC who had turned a month-long fellowship into a lifelong commitment to the people of South Africa and the mission of Heart Capital (it may have helped that she also fell in love with the son of the Founder). We were first given a tour of the recently completed vocational village and introduced to the live-in Heart Capital team. The village would serve as a place for locals, entrepreneurs and those hoping to give back to stay while contributing to the social ecosystem. We would be the first guests to stay in the village and would be helping with the site’s finishing touches and final setup, which would include greenhouse irrigation, landscaping, painting, and more. I volunteered to run irrigation lines, thinking my tall stature may be of help to the greenhouse team. Truth be told after a half hour of work, I felt I was more of a hinderance than a help. I also questioned if we’d leave Heart Capital having shoveled some dirt and not much else. With that in mind, I reluctantly ventured to my next activity, planting shrubs. After a few minutes of false productivity, I bailed. I thought there must be something more I can do, offer or learn.

After a few minutes of roaming around the grounds, I heard two South African women chatting and laughing. I followed the laughter and ended up in the village’s makeshift kitchen. I walked in and was immediately enveloped with warmth, not from the South African heat, but rather from the generous and welcoming nature of Felicia and Thandi. These two women were immigrants from neighboring Zimbabwe and served as the on-site culinary team. They had begun preparing the evening’s meal for our team. I’d always loved to cook and, truth be told, I felt it was most certainly better than planting shrubs with people I already knew. I jumped into the kitchen almost instinctively and had a potato peeler in hand before they could even attempt to turn me away.

In the following few hours, I learned more about South Africa than I had during the entirety of our trip. I learned both Felicia and Thandi had come to South Africa from Zimbabwe because of the job opportunities. Both were sending money home to family members unable to make it to South Africa. Felicia told me of her aspirations to own and operate her own restaurant and the challenges she would face in doing so as an immigrant. Felicia and Thandi explained one of the primary reasons they lived on-site at Heart Capital was because it was safe. Beyond the gates of the community, violence was rampant. In fact, Felicia’s husband had recently been mugged and beaten.

I also learned the two women had a childish curiosity about my American life. Having never been anywhere but their homes in Zimbabwe and their new residence at Heart Capital, many of the questions I received were based on stereotypes of the US from major motion pictures. I had to tell them we don’t all drive large vehicles, recreationally shoot guns or live in large sorority houses. I fielded these questions in most cases with laughter as I continued to peel potatoes. We swapped recipes and talked shop all while I played a few songs from my most recently curated playlist and they showed me a few of their favorite artists. We danced, we laughed and we joked. So there we were, three very different people from very different parts of the world, brought together by a kitchen and the universal language of food.

The dinner table is a centerpiece for families and communities. The process of cooking is historical and cultural and food truly has an inexplicable way of bringing people together. I look back on the experience in the kitchen with Felicia and Thandi with such joy and gratitude. They helped me discover my passion for supporting communities and youth in need through food and healthy living.

What made this experience so enjoyable? I’ve distilled it down to a few key components I believe apply generally to my personal experiential rubric.

+ Organic

My interaction with Felicia and Thandi wasn’t on our itinerary. In fact, there was no expectation any of our team would help prepare our meals. I have found that I get far more enjoyment from those things I cannot anticipate. It’s possible that is because I am present, existing in these moments with no preconceived expectations about what is about to happen.

+ Genuine

Working in the kitchen is humble work. Everyone is created equal in the kitchen, all working toward the same goal. It creates a safe space where secrets can be shared and trust can be built. There is no room, nor time, for bullshit in the kitchen. There is always far too much to be done. Felicia and Thandi were so open and forthcoming with their personal hardships. I can’t help but think they wouldn’t have felt comfortable sharing in an environment outside the kitchen.

+ Experience vs. outcome oriented

I had no deliverable to prepare, no metrics to measure, no expectations during my time in the kitchen. I was present in the moment soaking in the knowledge and wisdom of two incredibly generous and inspiring women. It was in this case that people were ultimately the experience providers.

“Our name, heart capital, says a lot about us. It embodies our consciousness, compassion and devotion to transform quality of life for the better. We’re about tapping into the bigness and openness of our heart, and hearts around the world. By combining our humanitarian mindset with our enterprising approach, we set ourselves apart by being business-like in a sector that usually isn’t. We are resourceful and resilient in every aspect of our mission because we know first-hand just how tough it is out there. We constantly push the boundaries with bold creativity, to find better ways of doing things. Innovation and ingenuity come easily to us, because we are determined to achieve our goals and we will never, never, never give up. No matter what challenges we face, we have fun because we love what we do. But at the end of the day… it’s about hard work, on the ground, making a real, tangible difference, where it matters most.

1. Summary of findings (things you found interesting, similarities of dissimilarities between the two)

• Typical weekday exercise
  • Both interview participants selected a typical workday without being prompted (vs. a weekend day)
  • Food and work were the most time-consuming, prominent activities and served as the basis for weekday “transitions”
  • Hobbies were concentrated toward the end of the weekday
  • Restaurant reviews are accessed around meal times
  • Weather information typically accessed only in the morning
• Digital ecosystem exercise
  • A relationship existed between the volume of digital sources from which information was obtained and the amount of information accessed throughout the day based on the typical weekday exercise i.e. the interviewee sourcing information from more platforms allocated more time of the day to that access on the timeline and from more diverse categories
  • National news media was the only common digital source
• Close to you exercise
  • Both the “what I can’t live without” and “what I care about” sections consisted of very few commercial, tangible goods. Many items depicted referred to purpose-driving needs (e.g., new experiences, culture)
  • There was significant overlap in the “can’t live without category” e.g., family, food, health)
  • Pets fell in the “care about” section vs. the “can’t live without” section

2. Experience as a researcher using these tools (easy/not easy, potentially valuable / not valuable, ways you could make them better)

• Interviewees were distracted by the categories at the top section of the typical weekday exercise. Recommend splitting into two parts, introducing the categories after the timeline has been sectioned.
• The close to you exercise posed significant challenges for the interviewees, who felt as if the exercise triggered deep life evaluation. Both mentioned a desire to reprioritize their current behavior / time allocations because it did not align with what they wrote
• The scripts were vital in guiding the interviews. Specifically, walking them through each exercise in parts so as to not overwhelm participants was extremely valuable guidance
• While the exercises were relatively short (~15-20 min per interview), interview fatigue is something to look for during a research session
• The diversity of sources by which the participants received information was impressive. There was little overlap and extensive numbers of sources

1524 09 11 2018 Persona – Self Exercise

Prototyping

Prototyping

Prototyping

Ideation

Prototyping

The (in)exclusivity of design.

As a former management consultant working in industry during the rise of design thinking methodology, I had always thought design was exclusive, meant solely for the creative department, the artists, the data scientists, the designers. What I didn’t know at the time was that a core tenet of design and design thinking is its inclusivity. In fact, I discovered very quickly the importance of broadening the spectrum of experiences of those involved in the design process as well as the applications for design outcomes for finding optimal design solutions. This meant that even I, a hyper-structured and process-oriented consultant, had a lot to offer in the realm of design, both at work and at home.

This post will therefore be an exploration of the design thinking methodology with the premise that we are all designers and have much to contribute to better our lives and the lives of those around us. I will also provide some design thinking anecdotes and golden nuggets from my recent work with Play4Tomorrow, a bay-area startup striving to empower young people to design their lives and do things they never imagined through entrepreneurship and play.

Design thinking at a glance.

Stanford’s d.school refers to design thinking as a method for creative problem solving. More helpful are the process modes put forth by the d.school that serve as a tangible toolkit for implementing design thinking – empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test.

• Empathize: One element that sets design thinking apart from other design methodologies is the emphasis on being human-centered. Observation, engagement and immersion allow us to approach problems through an empathetic lens. This lens gives us crucial insight into the user – who they are, what is important to them and how they interact with their environment.
• Define: The definition phase leverages the findings from the empathize phase to develop an actionable problem statement or point of view. Deep understanding of the user allows us to frame the issue and scope the specific challenge. POVs should inspire, compel and empower, but also provide a focused approach to generating innovative solutions that satisfy the user’s needs.
• Ideate: The ideation phase is a method of divergent thinking in which many diverse solutions are explored. The goal is to extend the frame of thinking beyond the easy or obvious and leverage the varying perspectives of the team to identify out-of-the-box solutions.
• Prototype: Prototyping brings ideas to life and provides a physical manifestation of a proposed solution to the problem statement. We prototype to engage and interact with an idea as if we were the user, a true empathy-building activity. Prototypes take many forms (e.g., post-it notes, role-playing, storyboards) and are intended to allow for quick learnings, iteration and improvement.
• Test: Testing is another iterative phase of the design thinking process which allows for the refinement of prototypes and solutions. The testing phase can commonly become a time to pressure test whether the POV has been properly framed. As users being to engage with / test the solution, testing becomes a platform to continue assessing the proposed solution through the lens of empathy

 “d.mindsets”

Design thinking is clearly a misleading term. Doing, making and iterating are the lifeblood of design “thinking.” This is what the d.school refers to as bias toward action, one of the seven “d.mindsets” that lay the foundation for successful design thinking.

• Show don’t tell
• Focus on human values
• Craft clarity
• Embrace experimentation
• Be mindful of process
• Bias toward action
• Radical collaboration

Design thinking in action.

This summer I had the privilege of working with Play4Tomorrow, a bay-area startup striving to empower young people to design their lives and do things they never imagined through entrepreneurship and play. Each day we worked with 60+ kids, grades six to eight, to solve the problems facing their worlds using the d.school framework for design thinking. The young entrepreneurs designed, prototyped and tested anything from a modern-day school lunch to a DJ turntable t-shirt. In some cases, the vision was directed, in others the kids drove the programming all the way from initial ideation to final testing. A few preliminary findings from my three months of observations:

• Children embrace the design thinking methodology: In contrast, I have seen many adults struggle to engage in design thinking. Why the difference? I would argue it has everything to do with early and continued exposure and emphasis on convergent models of thinking vs. the divergent philosophies so instrumental in the creative design process of design thinking. This phenomenon should wane as younger populations continue to be introduced to creative design at early developmental periods in their lives. The models of thinking will offer simply an alternative approach with which to create and assess the world around them.
• Youth from underserved communities tend to ideate / solution for basic needs (e.g., food, housing, healthcare) as compared to their more affluent counterparts who tend to ideate / solution for commercial needs (e.g., gaming, sports, clothing): It was fascinating to witness the “problem” identification process amongst the different demographic groups. Contrary to what many may hypothesize, the kids often opted to solution for issues beyond themselves (e.g., world issues, community issues, family issues). The children tapped beautifully into deep understanding and empathy.
• Design thinking helps children assess the world around and empowers them to be agents of change. The design thinking framework provides an actionable toolkit that individuals of all ages can leverage to define problems and identify innovative solutions. Early introduction to diverse methodologies add to our ever-growing toolkits.

This analysis will compare and contrast the design of a culinary incubator, Kitchentown, and a culinary co-working space, Forage Kitchen.

Kitchentown Makers

Forage Kitchen Co-working Space

Kitchentown Ovens

Ice Cream from Kitchentown Startup

Forage Kitchen in Oakland, CA

1. What makes them similar and / or better than one another?

Forage Kitchen, a culinary co-working space in Oakland, California, provides commercial kitchen space to local food startups and commercial producers with the intent of expanding the local food economy.

Kitchentown is a culinary incubator in San Mateo, California focused on providing full-service incubation services and support to culinary startups looking to scale.

What makes these business models similar?

• Forage Kitchen and Kitchentown provide working stations and kitchen space that can be rented on an hourly basis for a fee. In addition to the hourly working station fees, there are variable fees associated with the use of cold and dry storage.
• Both models seek to improve the local food economy and the broader food system by supporting food businesses that will have ramifications in the local community and beyond.
• Both businesses engage with the local community through extensive programming and events (e.g., classes, product markets, dinners)
• Both provide an onsite café where members can showcase products and engage in market-testing activities.

What makes them different?

• The scope / offerings: Forage Kitchen identifies as a pure co-working space and lacks the broad spectrum services offered by an incubator like Kitchentown, which is differentiated by its white glove service for culinary startups during critical phases of growth. However, Forage Kitchen has begun boutique-style, Small Batch Co-Packing in which culinary startups can outsource production. This is a unique offering not offered by competitor kitchens in the SF / Bay Area market. While both kitchens host events, event space rental for corporate and social events is a core offering at Forage Kitchen.
• The cafés: While both locations offer an in-house café for entrepreneurs to market-test, Kitchentown’s café is a fully functioning business that operates as an entity within the facility regularly vs. the Forage Kitchen café which operates on a more seasonal, need-based schedule. Additionally, Kitchentown features products from its culinary startups within the space that are available for purchase during café hours.
• The culture: Forage Kitchen emphasizes a culture of collaboration and a strong sense of community, a key differentiator for a player in the culinary co-working / incubation space. Kitchentown’s culture is strongly tied to its extensive network and community of expert mentors, founders and industry leaders that enables them to provide entrepreneurs with the resources they need to grow. Their goal is to support the success of each business within the space through a definitively competitive, entrepreneurial mindset.

2. Break down aspects of design + the outcomes or reactions to the design that seem important and relevant?

There are a few aspects of design that are critically important when considering success metrics in both an incubation and co-working model:

• The entrepreneur experience: There is clear variation in the level of service offered above and beyond the use of kitchen space between the two models. One provides value as a low-cost provider for culinary startups seeking additional preparation space. The other offers an array of business support resources including networking connections, coaching and in some cases even capital. It is important to note both provide value. However, they provide value in different ways that may be more or less relevant to culinary startups and founders dependent on the phase in which they are currently operating. Additionally, both models offer café spaces in which companies can market-test new products and food innovations, eliminating the need to invest significant amounts of capital in potentially risky ventures without proving demand first.
• The brand: Kitchentown is a well-known name in the culinary incubation space. The incubator has successfully supported the launch of a multitude of food startups and helped secure numerous contracts with local and national retailers as a result of its deep expertise and strong partner relations. Kitchentown is also expanding. The newest location is scheduled to open in 2019 and will be located in Berlin, Germany. The international reach will be tremendously beneficial for culinary startups as a gateway for international expansion. It is clear the Kitchentown brand is now synonymous with success in the culinary incubation space. This legacy will continue to drive applications to Kitchentown from budding food entrepreneurs, giving Kitchentown a unique competitive advantage. Forage Kitchen is new in the arena and still working to build a following and network of partners. However, deep-rooted connections within the restaurant industry will continue to serve as a sourcing mechanism for future partners.
• The community experience and engagement: As mentioned above, both locations have an on-site café. Kitchentown’s café is a fully functioning café at the front of the culinary incubation space offering coffee, bread and pastries from two businesses operating out of the space, snacks and treats also from incubated businesses. Products from other businesses launched or operating within the space are showcased and available for purchase within the café. This not only offers market-testing opportunities for the food startups, but engages the local community in conversations around food innovation. In addition, the café provides a valuable additional revenue stream for Kitchentown. Both Kitchentown and Forage Kitchen host events periodically (e.g., specialty dinners, markets) that also serves to engage the local community, particularly those individuals with an interest in the intersection of food, innovation and sustainability. These events support the entrepreneurs and create buzz around the kitchens and the brands represented.
• The physical space: Ample work stations, cold and dry storage are of the utmost importance in both models.

3. What would improve or degrade the design?
   • Paid memberships for local community i.e. monthly members receive package of product, VIP invites to special events, etc. creating an additional revenue opportunity / differentiated offering
   • Both kitchens note limited dry and cold storage as the major constraint. Expanding both would allow for an increase in overall space utilization
   • Incentive programs to encourage businesses to use space in off-peak times
   • Forage Kitchen should explore a fully-functioning café in the space and eliminate any down time in operations