Design Thinking: 'Pronoia' and Boosting Creativity

"Pronoia' 9pts - Wayne Pau BY CC

Never heard of "Pronoia"? Until a few months ago I thought "Pronoia", was a made-up word (... actually it IS a real world according to Oxford dictionary...). I was listening to a populour TEDTalk and Prof. Adam Grant, author and professor at Wharton School on "Are you a Giver or Taker" said:

"Pronoia is the delusional belief that other people are plotting your well-being. - Prof. Adam Grant"

What is Pronoia? It is the EXACT opposite of "Paranoia". Recently passed away Andrew Grove of Intel lived by the motto: "Only the Paranoid Survive".

Without spoiling the TEDTalk, Prof. Grant argues we need to create cultures that nurture and protects GIVERS. My next points may be biased because I feel I'm Ned Flanders type GIVER on even days and Dr. House type GIVER on odd days (*but* being Canadian I may be most polite Dr. House EVER...).

Yet looking at only the personal, myopic view, I believe choosing to be a GIVER is a big creativity booster. Aside from the organizational/societal benefit of GIVING, I believe the very act of GIVING changes you and unlocks inside each of us a positive creative force.

In my non-scientific, highly biased and myopic opinion (because I have neither the smarts or resources of Economist likes Steven D. Lewitt and Stephen J. Dubner), I believe that GIVERS, or from here on I will call them natural "Helpers" are more creative because:

#1 - Helpers become good Problem Solvers

People come to Helpers with Problems. Helpers exist to solve Problems. The more people you help with, the better you get at it. Good problem solving skills are like muscles which improve and strengthen through usage.

#2 - Helpers become highly Diversified

Helpers additionally are exposed to all kinds of new and interesting opportunities (especially as your reputation grows...). From a pure math point of view, the number of projects/endeavors you can 'help' with is exponentially larger than those that you can do 'on your own'. Keep 'helping' others and in no time, you'll be asked to 'help' on things you likely never imagined you'd work with.

#3 - Helpers become more Empathetic

Contrary to populour belief, Hate is not is the opposite of Empathy, Apathy is. Helpers are more Empathetic by necessity, because to 'help' with a new problem, you have to know a little and understand the situation/problem set. To *actually* be 'helpful', you need to be somewhat proficient and understand the thing you're 'helping' with.

#4 - Helpers learn to be Objective

Helpers, by definition are less vested (ie. the idea wasn't theirs and only join on later) and that Objectiveness often makes them a powerful force. Repeatedly being the external voice of reason helps train Helpers to be more Objective and be less overly attached to their initial ideas and biases.

Past SAP Month-of-Service Shirts - Wayne Pau BY CC

It is my own personal belief that beyond the "Corporate" social responsibility of companies, encouraging individuals to give back is valuable in of itself. It makes me very happy when companies (like my employer SAP) help support programs that allow employees to work in their communities and Help others. It's seriously a win-win scenario.


At the end of the TEDTalk, Prof. Adam Grant finishes with:

"The great thing about a culture of givers is that's not a delusion — it's reality. I want to live in a world where givers succeed, and I hope you will help me create that world. - Prof. Adam Grant"

I'm 100% on board. However I'm hoping I'm already personally succeeding (regardless of what others do) by leveraging the creative benefits of having a Giving Mindset, even if no-one else changes

Hope that helps...
w.

-----------------------------------

Wayne Pau is (... a GIVER and ...) Development Architect at SAP working on creating a new breed of enterprise Internet of Things products. A graduate of University of Waterloo Systems Design Engineering, Wayne has taken pretty much every job there is in Software/Product Development. Feel free to connect/follow on LinkedIn, Twitter (@Wayne_Pau) or Blogger (http://waynepau.blogspot.ca/).

Note: All views are my own.

Design Thinking: is like Teenage Sex...

Escalator Acting As Stairs, (Devonian Gardens, Calgary AB) - Wayne Pau CC BY

Warning: I normally only write nice and polite blog posts. However this has been bugging me for quite sometime, therefore if I am offending anyone's sensibilities I apologize in advance. Hopefully I'm not starting the New Year on the wrong foot.

To bastardize a quote from one of my favourite authors Dan Ariely on Big Data:

"Design Thinking is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it…” - Wayne Pau (2017)

The only big difference is that I think those who have been doing Design Thinking for a long time do know what it truly is (and what it is not). Unfortunately *not* being a typical formulaic step-by-step methodology and more a loosely knit tool-box and mantra, Design Thinking is vulnerable to many misconceptions and misunderstandings. Often small parts of a true process are used and labelled Design Thinking or people using similar methodologies and calling it Design Thinking.

Here are five reasons why I am sometimes forced into uncomfortable conversations which end with: "I'm really sorry Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. important person but you're not really doing Design Thinking..."

#1 - You didn't Interview any Real Users.

I've been at projects where they have advised that we skip the Empathy stage altogether since the senior people in the room know everything there is to know about the problem. A big reason to use something disruptive like Design Thinking is because you want to come up with something different and more than just additive innovation. 

You just don't know what you don't know.  You want to know why your team isn't getting any new and radical insights? Well quite simply start by going outside your organization and outside your team to the 'user'. If you haven't left the building yet, you aren't doing it right.

#2 - You started with with a Problem Statement.

Design Thinking has two whole stages before we even come up with the problem statement (aka the Point-of-View and How-Might-We Statements). By jumping into what you think the issue is, you skipped eliminated 2/5 or 40% of Design Thinking stages (Empathy, Define, Ideate, Prototype & Test). 

Many times by truly doing the Empathy and Define stages, you learned what the real underlying problem is and how you might go about rectifying the situation.

#3 - You didn't get a good Design Thinking Coach or Facilitator

It's easy right? Read a few blogs. Tried the Design Project Zero introduction. Baptism by fire right? (Ignore the fact that turn-key, all-inclusive, end-2-end project with IDEO or FROG could cost you $1M.) Running your first Design Thinking project isn't like taking the self-guided tour at the MoMA, where you can do a little research yourself and get by quite reasonably.

The real issue is that really no two Design Thinking projects are identical. The exact path or tools you used to attack on particular problem won't necessarily be the same way you tackle another problem. Good coaches and facilitators have been through a few projects and have a good idea of what to when things go south (because when things are going 'well', everything is 'easy'). Unless a group is well experienced with Design Thinking, you are going to need some level of guidance.

#4 - You didn't build and/or test anything.

"Build to Think. Test to Learn" - d.school Introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide

An idea is just an idea until you put it into life. While factories and roller-coasters today can be built virtually in 3D software, unfortunately the 'best' way we do this in Design Thinking is building some type of prototype and get people's feedback on it. 

Ideas are fuzzy and vulnerable to interpretation and misunderstanding. Prototypes are often tangible and interactive. In Design Thinking we actually go out of our way to make decision/stance on something and test it out in the prototype. This way we often a get clear positive feedback (in which case we can decide to amplify) or negative feedback (in which case we decide to remove or change it).

#5 - You didn't iterate on anything.

Basically you did the bare minimum and came up with a new wacky idea and put all your hopes on that one idea will change *EVERYTHING*. If you were honest, you probably just ran out of time, weren't that committed or didn't read that chapter on 'Failing-Faster to Succeed-Sooner."

How was your First Drawing you ever did? First Cake you baked? First Story your wrote? Design Thinking depends heavily on the power of iteration and that we might not get it right the first time, but we'll eventually get something amazing! One or two short brain-storming sessions does not make a Design Thinking project.

Curious Chameleon, Toronto Zoo - Wayne Pau CC BY

Design Thinking seems like all the rage today. That's great. The d.school, IDEO and others have really helped share this with the world. Yet like every other wave of innovation, those whose are actually implementing the methodology properly and not just sapping on the label of Design Thinking will be the ones reaping the rewards.

Hope that helps...
w.

-----------------------------------

Wayne Pau is Development Architect at SAP working on creating a new breed of enterprise Internet of Things products. A graduate of University of Waterloo Systems Design Engineering, Wayne has taken pretty much every job there is in Software/Product Development. Feel free to connect/follow on LinkedIn, Twitter (@Wayne_Pau) or Blogger (http://waynepau.blogspot.ca/).

Note: All views are my own.

Design Thinking: Missing Empathy for the "Silence Majority"

(Originally from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/us-election-results-and-state-by-state-maps/)

 
As a general rule, I don't normally blog on the politics & elections (let alone another country's election). Last night, as exhausted as I was, staying up past 1:00 am following the US presidential results, I was utterly captivated and enthralled.

On one website (http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/) they predicted a big Clinton win: 322 vs 216. In the end it was Trump win: 289 vs. 218. They got it wrong. $millions and thousands of pollsters.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but reflecting I believe this (and other recent world events like Brexit) have taught me:

#1 - Go Wide, and then Go Wider again.

Simply looking at celebrity endorsements or analyst reviews Clinton should have won. Trump party dissenters ignored or didn't believe in #SilentMajority (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/analysis-rural-america-silent-majority-powered-trump-win-n681221).

(Originally from http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president)

The final results were almost 60 million US citizens voted for Trump (almost 19% of total pop.). How much of that 60 million was adequately interview and understood?

#2 - Louder isn't Better. Louder isn't Right.

Look aingt Twitter before, during and after it's hard to see how Trump won. Trending hashtags #HesNotMyPresidentlike (https://twitter.com/hashtag/HesNotMyPresident) and #Trumpocalypse(https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trumpocalypse) are still lamenting his win today.

(originally from https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trumpocalypse)

But louder doesn't win elections. Smart comments doesn't win elections. Money doesn't win elections (Trump spent less than half of what Clinton did).

(originally from http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/)

Majority does. Clinton might have won the Twitter war, but Trump won the election.

#3 - Technology without Empathy is just Technology.

I work a technology company. I am in a technical role. I believe deeply in technology. However the take away I will remind myself is:

"Technology without empathy is flawed. It's just technology." - Wayne Pau

Today's pollsters have more tools than any other election before us. Yet they couldn't have been more wrong, even losing to a monkey (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/05/this-mystical-chinese-monkey-has-figured-out-who-will-win-the-u-s-election/). Garbage in, garbage out. #CloudComputer #BigData #MachineLearning are great, but they needs good inputs, good data.

(originally from https://twitter.com/hashtag/silentmajority)

How did everyone get it so wrong? Simply put they lacked Empathy for the User. They failed to identify a huge number of US citizens who were tired of the status quo and wanted change, massive change. But this time it was not just change in Republican vs. Democrat, but lifetime Politician vs. Outsider.

A cynic could say although many voters disliked Trump and his message, many voters (still) feared and disliked Clinton more. Which is ironic for a campaign that seemed founded on inclusion and diversity. 50% of the voters did not 'feel' included or well represented with Hillary Clinton.

We shall see what the next 4 years brings. (Maybe Russia & US relations might be healed: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/us-election-the-world-reacts/index.html) However as a Design Thinking coach, I think I've learned to never underestimate the need for Empathy. Technology in and of itself is not enough.

Hope that helps...
w.

Design Thinking: Sticky Note Confidential

For something that was created almost by accident, Sticky Notes are basically a Design Thinker's bread and butter. As part of Brainstorming session they are essential and until they create a more environmentally friendly electronic version, I'll still be going through them by the multi-pack! However, beware not all Sticky Notes are created equally and after many years of cycling through different brands, colours and formats, I will share with you my 5x basic rules for purchasing Sticky Note...

#1 - Get Super Sticky!

I stick with 3M and where possible the "super sticky" version. In 2003 3M released a new formula which is at least double as sticky as the original in my ad-hoc testing. This makes it perfect for offices where I am using any old painted wall (vs. clean glass or whiteboard). They do cost a little more (approx 20% - $18.99 vs $22.56 for 12x 3"x3" yellow, but have only 90 vs. 100 sheets), but the last thing you need is to have all your ideas drop to the floor, especially after they have been moved around once or twice.

(For the record, I almost always go 3M Post-Its when I can. I have used some very poor cheaper brands and they just don't stick well. Some peel off really poorly or curl up into an egg-roll shape the moment you remove it from the pad. 
The generic patent for Post-Its ran out in 1990s, but I imagine 3M will have the exclusive on Super Sticky for quite a while longer. So if you want the super sticky you'll have to go 3M.)

Currently I get the 14x pack @ Costco for $11.99 in Canada.

#2 - Get Bright Colours!

I use the more vibrant collections vs. traditional dull, pastel "Canary" yellow. Nothing seems to bore me more than a sea of yellow Stickies with thin blue ball-point pen ink that I cannot read until I am within arms length. The original colour was an accident, but you don't have to keep repeating the accident.

Turns out 3M sells multi-pack in 'collections' which are palette of 5x colours. I like Rio and Marrakesh, because I believe the vibrant colours help to stimulate the mind. I actually avoid Marseille and pastels as they are muted and give off the impression of dull idea.

(For the record, I always pair my bright colours with coloured brand-name Sharpies. This gives me near infinite combination of text + stickies to ensure there is lots of visual diversity. In a bind I do use white-board markets, but find the chisel tips sometimes annoying. I am *VERY* careful to remind folks not to use the indelible/permanent markets on the Whiteboard and *JUST* the Sticky Notes only! No pens please. )

Recently Costco no longer carries the multi-pack, but they have BIC permanent markets, 26 for $9.79

#3 - Get Traditional 3"x3"!

I have tried smaller and larger pads, but the square 3"x3" seem to work the best. There is enough space to get a good picture/visual, but not too much as to invite long, boring rows upon rows of text. Square pads provide nice symmetry and allow for both vertical and horizontal grouping.

(For the record, for me it's more 'feel' thing, the 3"x3" seems to fit into my palm quite nicely, better than the smaller 2"x2" and larger 3"x5" pads. 2"x2" are very hard to see and differentiate from anything more than 5-6ft. 3"x3" pads take up 60% of space 3"x5", allowing for quite a bit more ideas per square foot!)

#4 - Get Extra!

As a Brain Storming facilitator, the last thing you need is someone saying they 'had' more ideas but ran out of Sticky Notes. Buy in bulk and get extra as unused Sticky Notes don't really expire and can be used in a future Brain Storming session.

In an ideal world, everyone would start out with their own 90-100 sheet pack, but in most cases I do split a pack among multiple people when I have larger groups.

(For the record, in most typical sessions I use anywhere from 200-500 Sticky Notes, so get bulk multi-colour packs to keep things economical.)

#5 - Watch out for the Gimmicks!

There are number of options you can get now and most of then interfere or distract with the process. Especially if you are ordering on-line, read the description and avoid:

• Dispenser: The accordion style as these are special dispensers. Using these in a Brainstorming session will ensure someone will write an idea upside-down.
• Lined: The lined pads are extremely distracting and discourage using a large part of the pad for visuals.
• Full adhesive: These are great at sticking to surfaces as the sticky surface areas is increased greatly, but I find it slows some people down. Getting Super Sticky pads are often enough. (However for users who always write on pads up-side down, these can solve that problem!)

The last unwritten rule (with apologies to Chase Jarvis) is "The sticky note you have is better than the one you don't". Grab anything you can get your hands on (even if it's 3"x5", pastel yellow, knock-off brand with lines!!!) and split it up so everyone has at least a few to start off with. There should no excuse to getting out ideas once the session starts.

In reality I actually have two habits that always keep ready to do a brain storming session at a moments notice:

A) Design Thinking Bankers Box

I have on a shelf a Bankers Box that I literally just dump new stationary supplies and old left-overs from past BrainStorming sessions. I label it my "Design Thinking" box and right now it sits in our d-shop. Keeping it isolated and separate from the stationary cabinet ensure that a local supply emergency does not constitute a Brain Storming emergency! Also ensure that any left-overs are collected and used up next session.

B) Sticky Note Ziploc Bag

I also have a larger freezer Ziploc bag full of at least 4-5 packs of Sticky Notes and 5-6 multi-coloured sharpies on top of my desk or in my bag. So when I find out our meeting in 2 mins is actually a brain-storming sessions, I just grab the bag along with my coffee mug.


You can watch a vblog version here: https://youtu.be/uqIWohb-cNo


Hope that helps!

w.

Design Thinking: The greatest Danger to Brainstorming! (In defense of Brainstorming - Part 2)

(A little while ago Fast Company's Rebecca Greenfield wrote a piece entitled "Brainstorming Doesn't Work; Try this technique instead". I wrote a response: "In Defense of Brainstorming (aka you may not need Brainwriting)", but I realized *now* that I had forgot to add what I think is instead the biggest obstacle to Brainstorming, so this Part 2 attempts to address that.)

There are *many* obstacles to a good Brainstorming session, but the actual biggest *danger* I believe is not having enough 'quality' ideas and especially getting those amazing, once-in-a-lifetime radical ideas. It's the same principles regarding Quantity and Quality of ideas.

(For more info on why I believe quantity begets quality, see a previous post on 50 lbs of clay and how Quantity also intrinsically begets Quality.)

User Interview/Insight expert Steve Portigal has a great graph I like to use to illustrate the divide between the 'first wave' of pedestrian ideas and the 'second wave' of magical of "Wacky, transgressive, innovative, breakthrough, weird" ideas. Steve goes so far as to say we need to slough through the 'bad ideas' to get to this 'second wave'.

(Steve Portigal - Power of Bad Ideas)

As good Design Thinking coaches and Brainstorming facilitators we need consciously to *PUSH* to get people into the 2nd hump or 'second wave'.

This is why as part of Part 1 of this post, we have rules #1, #2, #6 & #8

1. Defer Judgment - to prevent smoothing radical ideas
2. Go for volume - to push envelope to get to great ideas
3. One conversation at a time - to ensure everyone gets a voice
4. Be visual - to stimulate right-side of the brain and communicate efficiently
5. Headline - to communicate efficiently, allowing iterate through ideas quickly
6. Build on the Ideas of others - to help iterate and evolve ideas
7. Stay on topic - keep sessions moving and prevent time wasting
8. Encourage wild ideas - getting past the easy, obvious ideas

(8x Rules for Brainstorming)

Over the years I've personally become more keenly aware of passing through the barrage of easy ideas ('first wave'), into the more difficult silence or lull of little/no ideas and then finally into the flood of 'second wave' ideas.

(1st Wave vs. 1st & 2nd Wave Brainstorming)

The above graphics attempts to show the difference between simply settling with only 'first wave' Brainstorming vs. 'first wave' and 'second wave' Brainstorming. In this example, it's 7+ more Ideas Total and 3+ more Great Ideas.

Funders and Founders Anna Vital has a great post called How Many Times You Should Try with an info graphic that shows James Dyson tried 5126 prototypes before his initial success. How close are you to Brainstorming out that truly great idea? Are you giving up before the second 'hump'?

If you want to keep doing additive or derivative innovation, don't worry about what Steve Portigal is talking about. You can Brainstorm out the next iPad-mini from the normal sized iPad, basically a slight/marginal improvement over the original. (BTW Apple/Tim Cook, if you reading this, maybe you should 'invent' the *new* iPad-Biggie while you're at it...)

OR *IF* you want to do something disruptive and truly innovative, to build that first iPad, iPod, or iPhone, then I encourage to have a look both the Quantity and Quality of ideas your next Brainstorm.


Hope that helps...

Wayne Pau


p.s. There is no magic number of post-it-notes where the you know you are getting the 'second wave' of ideas. However it's not uncommon when I get a group as small as 5 people to aim for 150 post-it-notes within a 30 minute session.

5 people x 30 mins ==> 150 Ideas

It sounds radical, but it is really is a reasonable target. The first 50-100 will probably be 'first wave' ideas. If you push really hard, often you can get an extra 50-100 ideas if you are consciously about it. (As your diverse, T-shaped, multidisciplinary teams evolves, you'll easily surpass this target! Honest.)

Design Thinking: In defense of Brainstorming! (aka. You might not need Brainwriting...) Part 1

A  week ago Fast Company's Rebecca Greenfield wrote a piece entitled "Brainstorming Doesn't Work; Try this technique instead". While Fast Company has many great articles and I did agree with some of pitfalls listed in the article, (with apologies to Leigh Thompson of Kellogg School), but I think Brainstorming works just fine if you're doing it 'right'. We don't need Brainwriting, but rather just stick to Design Thinking's Brainstorming 8x rules and you should be in great shape!

We love Design Thinking at SAP and we especially love the Brainstorming part. Along with SAP I suggest that Stanford d.school, IDEO and many other companies also aren't giving up Brainstorming anytime soon. When done correctly, I believe those companies are still reaping many rewards from those sessions.

We have 8x basic rules that govern Brainstorming sessions (link to d.school Bootleg PDF on Brainstorming):

1. Defer Judgment - to prevent smothering radical ideas
2. Go for volume - to push envelope to get to great ideas
3. One conversation at a time - to ensure everyone gets a voice
4. Be visual - to stimulate right-side of the brain and communicate efficiently
5. Headline - to help communicate efficiently and filter through ideas quickly
6. Build on the Ideas of others - to help iterate and evolve ideas
7. Stay on topic - keep sessions moving and prevent time wasting
8. Encourage wild ideas - getting past the easy, obvious ideas

You can see a great blog post describing the rules above by Caroline O'Connor of Stanford d.School at Rules for Brainstorming.

Below are 3x concerns I have regarding why Brainstorming wasn't being applied optimally in Leigh Thompson's research. I've love to see if the statistics and outcomes would have differed if the groups had a proper Design Thinking coach and were adhering to the d.school process.

#1 - In Design Thinking Brainstorming sessions, we have idea/post-it-note rounds where team members write down their ideas on post-it-notes by themselves individually before verbally sharing with the group.There are definitely oral parts of it, but I disagree with Leigh Thompson's premise that (2:01 of How to Stop People from Dominating Meetings video):

Brainstorming: Simultaneous Oral Generation of Ideas
Brainwriting: Simultaneous Written Generation of Ideas

If Brainstorming was just Oral Generation of ideas, why do I keep buying so many darn Post-it-Notes and Sharpies! One of the d.school Design Thinking rules is being visual (#4), which *only* can happen on written down ideas. We do in fact write ideas, atomically one per Post-it-Note all.the.time.

(Using Voting Dots with Design Thinking)

#2 - In Design Thinking we also use voting dots to help semi-democratically decide on which ideas to execute on first. The dots are equal in size (and therefore also equal in 'voice') and can't lobby other dots, so aren't vulnerable to 'Doom Loops'. The process is usually done with little talking, so once again minimizing any dominating participate effect. (There is obviously still some small possibility of peer pressure but it's largely minimized for the reasons stated above.)

#3 - The Stanford d.school's Design Thinking Brainstorming has more rules and structure in place over and above the 2x rules that Leigh Thompson from Kellogg School has. Rules that encourage full group participation and embrace not just balance but also diversity. So if you're looking to change things up, why not move to a more encompassing methodology?

While it's often hard to argue with Fast Company or Kellogg School, but I believe I'm going to keep to Stanford d.school's Design Thinking Brainstorming sessions. At least for me, it's been working great and we don't often suffer from Doom Loops and Uneven Communication Effect. 

We've never really had a problem with that using d.school's Design Thinking methodology. These days I feel that a "Brainstorming Session" without these rules is just a discussion. ;) It's not really what we'd call "Brainstorming."

Hope that helps...

Wayne Pau

p.s. I realized that I did not outline what I thought was biggest obstacle for Brainstorming. Therefore I'll be posted a follow-up Part 2 on this posting.



Original Links for Fortune & Fast Company articles on Brainwriting:

• Fast Company - Brainstorming Doesn't Work Try This Technique Instead
• Fast Company - Solving Brainstorming's Loudmouth Problem
• Fortune - How To Neutralize A Meeting Tyrant

Design Thinking: LEGO & DT (Not just for Kids!)

I *always* had an obsession with LEGO so please excuse me if this posting is a little bias. For years my relatives and family friends knew every X-mas and Birthday a fail-safe gift was LEGO.

For me LEGO is a great fit for Design Thinking approach and development overall because:

1. LEGO supports Rapid Prototyping
2. LEGO is Abstract
3. LEGO is Creative
4. LEGO is a Right Brain activity
5. LEGO is Constrained.
6. LEGO supports CI (Continuous Integration)
7. LEGO is Fun
8. LEGO supports A11y (Accessible)
9. LEGO is Reproducible.
10. LEGO supports i18n (Internationalization)

Don't take my word about it. Tim Brown has a whole chapter (Chapter 4 - Building to Think, or the power of prototyping) in Change by Design. To be honest, if you aren't building or prototyping something, you may not be doing Design Thinking effectively. 

1. LEGO supports Rapid Prototyping

LEGO builds are generally fast. There is no waiting for things to dry, no ordering parts, no welding, etc. It's so fast that often it's better to start building than it is to design something on paper (or in a some CAD program) beforehand. Changes can be done on the fly without having to re-architect the whole build.

Lastly LEGO builds are generally transient and don't last forever. It's understood that they get taken apart and put back in the drawer for reuse later. Therefore builders are less attached to a specific prototype, a key component to good rapid prototyping. 

2. LEGO is Abstract

One the best things about how abstract LEGO creations can be. People know it won't look exactly miniature real-life replica, like how LEGO mini figures all have the same head-shape and no knees! (Actually the Yoda LEGO mini figure doesn't bend at the waist and is quite a bit shorter than other mini figures, but you get the picture...)

Prototypes often have a low-fi feel and therefore invite user feedback which is core component of Design Thinking.

3. LEGO is Creative

When MOC'ing (My Own Creation) LEGO you are really building something from your own imagination. Kids never just sort or sit and admire LEGO bricks. Everyone around a random pile of LEGO seems to consciously or subconsciously starts to build things. It's like doodling.

This what I call the 'Reverse Entropy of LEGO' effect. Few LEGO fans can stand still and watch LEGO just sit there.

4. LEGO is a Right Brain activity

Without getting too technical, LEGO building is more a Right Brain process, like drawing vs. say writing. For those that traditionally favour Left Brain activities, LEGO building helps encourages Right Brain usage for a more Full Brain approach that can foster new ideas and ways of thinking .

5. LEGO is Constrained

Somewhat counter-intuitive, but for Design Thinking one great feature is that LEGO is constrained. While Desirability is the first pillar tackle, good Design Thinking designs optimize Desirability, Viability and Feasibility.

LEGO only has 6,800 unique pieces (down from 12 ,000 a few years back) and for projects we are usually constrained even further to the pieces we have at hand. Working within these constraints helps us get familiar with this pillar of DT (Feasibility) and often fosters even more creativity!

6. LEGO supports for CI (Continuous Integration)

Just like some software tools, LEGO supports backing-out recent changes and trying new things. You often don't have to destroy a whole build just to try out a small change. So unlike a painting or drawing this fosters continually updating, refining and trying new wacky ideas!

Parts can even be built separately and added together easily at the end. Integration with LEGO is always fairly easy, as generally all LEGO blocks fit with other LEGO blocks, it's a fully compatible system.

(Also, as an Agile/SCRUM Master coach, you generally *always* have something to show. =) Even if it's a few block at the end of a sprint or iteration!)

FYI - This happens to me *all-the-time* at home. I'm constantly tweaking and trying new ideas out even on old builds I have displayed. A great idea comes to mind and I'm never afraid to try it out because it often only takes seconds to reverse it!

7. LEGO is Fun

The most common verb action for LEGO is 'play', even more than 'build', 'designing' or 'creating'. Maybe it's great childhood memories, but it's rare that you have to convince someone to 'play' with LEGO. When we use LEGO in Design Thinking workshops, I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it 'work'.

8. LEGO supports A11y (Accessibility)

LEGO is Accessible. Anyone can play with LEGO. Most people are usually attracted to LEGO. I have a few sets on my desk at work and they are *always* a conversation starter. LEGO with it's Duplo lines is a toy that a person at any age can enjoy. While not everyone is a master-builder, almost anyone intuitively can start to put LEGO bricks together. You don't need years or weeks of intensive training and like drawing it seems every child is drawn to it.

9. LEGO is Reproducible

While MOC'ing (My Own Creation) is often tough, rebuilding an existing model is much more accessible. Unlike painting or drawing, it's quite easy to reproduce a LEGO creation, given the finished product.

Like an '3D Printing' process, it's possible to have an exact replica in your hands anywhere in the world almost immediately. Every replica is also exactly the same.

10. LEGO supports i18n (Internationalization)

LEGO is international. It sells pretty much everywhere in the world and seems to be quite universal in it's appeal. Started in Denmark, it's still family owned and as of 2013 was the 2nd largest toy manufacturer (behind Mattel). Like IKEA, LEGO instructions have no words and meant to be understood in any market.

Germany is the #1 LEGO consumer, followed by the US. On average everybody on the earth owns about 86 pieces bricks  LEGO. *Yikes*. I own a lot more than 86! ;)


So go, get your boss to order you some more LEGO for the office! Go ahead and dig out that LEGO bin and tell your spouse you're putting in some overtime!


Hope that helps,
Wayne Pau 

p.s. I've tried my best to use "LEGO" as the plural. For those *particular* enough to notice, the plural for LEGO is not legos. I believe it's supposed to be 'LEGO bricks'. This is called out in the 'Fair Play' guide on the LEGO site in the section "Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site".

Another site, Brick Brothers in their glossary has gone and said it's like 'sheep', which is both the singular and plural form as opposed to 'sheeps'. 

:) More than you wanted to know right?