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: User Needs vs. User Wants (What I love about my Aeron Chair...)

If you haven't sat on one of these chairs, I'd highly recommend it (you can always just go to your Local Herman Miller Show-case if your work or friends don't already own one). As a user it's pretty much the perfect chair. I don't think I've sat in a more comfortable chair (when fully configured properly), especially with the optional lumbar support at the back. 

(Not all companies are willing to invest in their employees, but it's definitely a luxury I've totally enjoy at my office.)

(My actual chair - a 10+ year old model)

Herman Miller has always been knowing for their high-end furniture, but when they invented the Aeron, it was a game-changer. I remember being in a fancy dot.com start-up and getting these chairs! It was all the rage, but it was a chair that cost many times more than it's traditional alternatives. (Today's Black-Friday sale @ HM had it at $577.15 from $679.00, but I distinctly remember it being closer to $1000 earlier on.)

This is what the HM sites says in it's description:

The Work Chair Redefined

Aeron changed the way everyone thought about office chairs—from its revolutionary look to its advanced ergonomics to the fact that it's 94 percent recyclable.

Instantly adaptable to all the motions you go through every day while seated, Aeron provides healthy comfort and balanced body support. Its innovative suspension and easy-to-use adjustment controls let the chair move effortlessly as your body moves.

(http://store.hermanmiller.com/Products/Aeron-Chair)

If you haven't already, I encourage you to look at the Design Story feature @ the HM site. 

(Prototype - http://store.hermanmiller.com/Products/Aeron-Chair#story)

(Above is a great example of a low-fi model. In the video, Stumpf talks about another prototype as "just ugly". A topic for another day, but prototypes are great! Sketches are great! Look at how many were created during the Aeron design! Think about the 50lbs of clay from the last blog.)

From the web site there are many quotes, but these are a brief splattering of the most "telling" ones:

"They threw out all preconceived notions of what a work chair should look like."

"Function Is Form"

"We wanted a totally new kind of chair.

"I want to sit on this really bad."

The chair we are looking at today, the first Aeron, over 20 years old (designed in 1992) was a disruptive innovative change. The chair won so many awards and it's crowning achievement is that it's part of the MoMA permanent collection. Yet how could a chair so beloved today actually almost not make it to market?

If you've read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, it tells of the chair didn't do well.

• 4.5/10 for Comfort Scale
• 2-3/10 for  Aesthetics Scale

It actually didn't even meet min. score (7.5) that Herman Miller internally puts on Test Group ratings before product release. It was actually called "The Chair of Death" by in the 1st group. Yet luckily Max Depree the Chairman and CEO of Herman Miller at the time had the foresight to ship it regardless. This is his explanation:

“We are a research-driven product company. We are not a market-driven company. It means that we intend, through the honest examination of our environment and our work and our problems, to meet the unmet needs of our users with problem-solving design and development”

- Max Depree (Chairman and CEO of Herman Miller, Inc)

Notice that Depree clearly understood the role and limitation of Market Driven data. He had the courage to forge forward and now the chair he oversaw is now in the MoMA. Yet that wasn't blind-faith, it was because he knew his guys *knew* users. The product was too disruptive to get an accurate Market Target Group rating.

*****

So why did I write this post? Was it simply just because I wanted to talk about the amazing chair that I've sat on for far, far too long? No. I believe that today far too many people looking at Design Thinking confuse interviewing Users for their Insights with asking consumers their Opinions. In Design Thinking, especially at the Empathy stage, I would never give a survey on a final product and ask them to rate from 1 to 10 what they thought of Comfort, Aesthetics, Usability and then using some fancy math to determine how to optimize those parameters.

It sounds cliche but simply Users don't know what they want. As Design Thinkers if we get "Lazy" and try to get end-users to design products, we will never get Disruptive Innovation. At best all we can is slightly better, incremental development (ie a prettier iPhone, etc). At worse we get something totally unusable, like the Car built for Homer.

(http://onscreencars.com/tv/the-homer-the-car-built-for-homer/)

"A camel looks like a horse that was planned by a committee"

- Sir Alec Issigonis

Users are great at being Users, but usually are very poor Designers. That's why even in Usability Testing we *never* ask questions which lead a user to offer an alternative design. Questions like: "Oh, so you don't like that button? How would you like to see the button?", rather we're about the why: "Oh, so what makes that button difficult to use/hard-to-find/etc?".

So what are Users good for? Why are they SO vital to Design Thinking? They are vital because:

"It's the user's most primal needs that drive our insights which are the basis for our designs."

         User Need ==> Insights ==> Design Ideas

Users don't mean to, but often they aren't trained to separate 'actions' from 'intents', 'opinions and prejudices' from 'feelings and raw emotion'. When we do Design Thinking practically in our teams, we often are asking each other what is the "raw" feeling there, what is the underlying motivation. (Think: Toyota/Kaizen's 5 Why type of approach).

As Malcolm Gladwell put it in Blink:

“The participants in the early experiments weren't telling the testers how they really felt; they were telling them how they were prejudiced against something so different from their experience.”

- Malcom Gladwell (Blink - 2005) 

If you haven't done so already, I suggest looking at my previous blog on Levels of Insight. As we move up the hierarchy we need to become more and more empathetic, it's not up to the user, but the Design Thinker to be properly trained and educated in how to extract those insights. We need to asking the right questions and tune-out the noise.

To become a great Designer I believe you need to ensure that you are not falling in the trap of being caught up with lower insights, fraught with prejudice and fear, but are mining the more deep-seated core "needs" which will drive those monumental "insights". To be honest it's hard work...

    User Interviews != Market Research Panels

If you want to "do" Design Thinking correctly, spend the time upfront with doing single User Interviews that will drive your Empathy stage. Use those interviews to drive your ultimate single Character Composite and then create your Point-of-View and How-Might-We statements in your Define stage.

To end off off, if you also haven't seen the video from the late Bill Stumpf from the Herman Miller sit, it's just great. His best quote is:

"I enjoy myself.. and I do it through Design" -  Bill Stumpf (1936-2006)

(Not surprisingly the video doesn't mention any of the difficulties that Malcolm Gladwell outlined in Blink. It almost makes you think that users loved it on the 1st try! However we know that wasn't really the case. However history and the 'real' market have definitely vindicated Bill Stumpf,  Donald Chadwick and Max Depree.)

Let's get to "WOW". Hope that helps...

Wayne Pau

p.s. Besides reading, Blink and looking at the HM site, another great article on Aeron is on Barkham Office Furniture website here:

http://www.barkhamofficefurniture.co.uk/blog/why-we-love-herman-miller-aeron-chairs-585/

Design Thinking: Levels of Insights (Pau's Hierarchy of Empathy)

So... following up the Empathy video from the Cleveland Clinic in our last blog entry, I thought back to how we do User Interviews with Design Thinking and how we try to 'mine' core insights view User Empathy. As I was trying explain this, I came up with a quick and dirty "Hierarchy of Empathy" that I believe helps to explain the levels of empathy or insights we can get from interacting with users.

I largely based this on the Stanford d.School Bootleg Empathy Mapping tool. As I was trying to explain the Empathy Map, that got me thinking about framework to help explain to reach those special, deep, inferred "insights" during User Interviews.  We use this at SAP for Design Thinking User Interviews, as this helps to formulate the notes from User Interviews in a useful grouping. 

Empathy Map - Stanford d.Sdhool

It's a little like Maslow's Hierarchy, so I'm going to call it:

 Pau's Hierarchy of Empathy

(Pau's Hierarchy of Empathy)

The hierarchy has 5 levels, (0-4, I must be a programmer... *hehe*), where:

Level 0 - "IGNORE" - General Apathy

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

Level 1 - "LISTEN" - What I am Saying...
Level 2 - "OBSERVE" - What I am Doing...
Level 3 - "READ" - What I am Thinking...
Level 4 - "EMOTE" - What I am Feeling...

Levels 1-4 match up directly to the 4 quadrants of the Empathy Map. On the left is the "Observed" or Level 1 & 2 insights and on the right is the "Inferred" or Level 3 & 4 insights.

So in more detail...

Level 0 - is happens when developers create apps without even considering or thinking about the user. This is the worse way to develop or design anything. By the very nature not knowing or not caring enough to find out about end-users, they almost guarantee they will have no meaningful insights.

(This mirrors most of the 7+ billion people in the world you've never met or know anything about. Someone once said that "Apathy" is worse than "Hate". At least with hate, you need to know what you hate. It's the "Takes ones to know one" thing... You don't even know who they are.) 

Note: I draw the line between level 0 and Level 1, because below this line, there is no real quality "user-driven insights". End-user need is not driving the project at this point.

Level 1 - is the first step to cater to the needs of users. The bare minimum is know your end-user enough to communicate to/with them. To have a "common" language when you can 'listen' (and not just hear), what the user is saying. The limitation here is that the Design Thinker still needs to interpret what is said within their own understanding or world-view. 

(This mirrors strangers who you may strike up a one-time conversation with. You have very little background or context, but at least you are able to talk to them. For example, travelling in a new country, while you might technically know the language you could be easily "confused" by an unfamiliar culturally based idiom that wasn't meant to be taken literally.)

Level 2 - is the second step to gather the true needs of users. Unfortunately as we discuss often in Design Thinking people sometimes say one thing and do another. Ethnography is basically a branch of research that involves just 'observing' subjects. Words can sometimes be misleading, but actions have an "honesty" to them. 

(This mirrors people you interact with for longer periods of time and know or judge/assess them by how they interact with you, not just what they say to you . You know their body-language and can read their gestures and actions. That mean-looking colleague just bought you a chocolate bar for no reason, shows maybe he/she doesn't hate you...)

Level 3 - is the start where the designer needs to intimately understand the user as they move away from "observed" insights and into "inferred" insights.  I used 'read' here as in somewhat like "mind-reading". As we all know, there are many things we as human think, but never act upon. There are also many things we want to do, but never actually get around to doing. 

(This mirrors people who can communicate non-verbally with you. Sometimes you can tell what is on their mind without them telling you verbally or non-verbally. When done correctly, there is less chance for being mislead or misinterpreting something as these are in fact the motivations or 'means reas'. If it were real, telepathy would be a great tool, but in its absence we use a combination of context, observations and conjecture to come up with our 'best-guesses'. )

Level 4 - is the highest level of empathy, where you can 'emote' with the subject. Feelings are like raw emotions and can be the core or root of some very powerful insights. Some of the best designs feed off of our very primal emotions, satisfying some of our very deep seated needs/wants. For Design Thinkers, this is the ultimate or root "Why?" 

(This mirrors the very small circle of intimate people in your life that you naturally feel for and over time become intuitively attuned to their state of mind and moods. You basically know them and can live in their "skin". You can literally "be" them for short periods of time.)

The reality is that as you move up the levels, it takes more much time, energy, training, determination and experience to reach the next level of empathy when interacting and interviewing with End-Users. On the flip side, the higher the level of empathy, the more core the insight. If you want to be a *great* Design Thinker, you want to be moving upwards in the hierarchy, to get those more deep-seated, core insights and drivers. 

Hope that helps...

Wayne Pau


p.s. When I tried to Google this and find something similar to this Hierarchy of Empathy (to ensure I did not copy from previous source), I could only find M.L. Hoffman's "Four Levels of Empathy" (below), which was similar, but different. However the list itself does help to re-enforce that as 'children', we start move up a hierarchy of "Understanding" those around us.

1. Global empathy
2. Egocentric empathy
3. Empathy for another's feelings
4. Empathy for another's life condition 

My source for this was: https://www.msu.edu/~mandrews/mary/empathy.htm

There are a lot of parallel's with Hoffman's 4 levels and my Hierarchy of Empathy. However I've made my divisions much more aligned with the Empathy Map of Stanford d.school's Design Thinking process. 

I apologize in advance to anyone else who might have come with a similar pyramid before mine. It wasn't meant to be radical, just a vehicle for visualizing something I wanted to explain as part of User Interviews.

Design Thinking: Explaining Empathy (In a 4 Min. Summary)

(Cleveland Clinic - Every life deserves world class care.)

Just yesterday I was sort of asked last minute to help introduce Design Thinking to a small team at work. As I was rushing through trying to get some core points down that I could communicate in 30min-to-1Hr cram-session, I came across a YouTube video I used again and again to help explain "Empathy". 

If you have less than 5 mins (it's 4:24 long) to explain to someone what Empathy is and why it's so core & fundamental to Design Thinking, I encourage you to consider this video. 

Even if I had only 30 mins to talk about Empathy  I'd put aside 5 mins to show this video. That's how powerful I think it is.

Cleveland Clinic - Empathy: The Human Connection to Patient Care 

(I originally got this video from Tim Brown of IDEO and also author of Change By Design in his blog post here.)

For me personally, I've been in more hospitals lately that I generally wanted to. After seeing this earlier, I certainly did not look at hospitals the same again.

If the Cleveland Clinic approaches their medical work like they do their videos, I believe they will change the world. They are already one of the US' top 4 hospitals. It's no wonder they have a great slogan:

"Every Life deserves world class care."

Hope that helps...

Wayne Pau

p.s. You might want to dim the lights, there may be moist eyes. This video so falls in line with David Kelley's TED Talk I mentioned in last post about the MRI machine and making it more kid-friendly.

Design Thinking: Creative Confidence

I haven't really talked about DT in a bit, so when read about David and Tom Kelley's new book "Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential in All of Us", it really got me thinking. 

(Cover from Amazon here)

For those who have been around Design Thinking for a while, David Kelley is pretty much the 'Michael Jordan' of Design Thinking (and his brother Tom is at least his 'Scottie Pippen' or even more). Being the founder of IDEO and Stanford d.School he is at the forefront of everything DT related. However even more amazing is that his brother, Tom Kelley is also a great force at IDEO and the author of two fundamental books on Design Thinking in The Art of Innovation and The Ten Faces of Innovation. 

(David Kelly - from Stanford d.School website)

However if you listen to David Kelly talk, it shouldn't shock you. He talks about his dad and how he encouraged their family to actually figure out how things worked and actually fix things. He talks about how he works on projects with his daughter even now. 

I haven't read the book yet, but I assume it's likely along the lines of very powerful TED talk he gave in May 2012 on Creative Confidence:

• http://www.ted.com/talks/david_kelley_how_to_build_your_creative_confidence.html

I really encourage you if you haven't heard this powerful talk, to go head and spend the 11 minutes it takes to view it. I have a feeling that for many it will touch you. It doesn't matter if you're a developer or designer. I feel if you're teacher, you should be made to watch it!

In the talk, David talks about CEO types saying they are "Not the Creative Type". He places this as a "Fear of Judgement" many adults have developed. He tells us that with things like Design Thinking, if you "stick" to the process, you can learn to be creative. (My own Design Thinking coach Niels Billou always says "You got to be believe in system...believe in the process...") He states that after his cancer, his new mission is help people "regain their creative confidence". 

Here's an article from Harvard Business Review from David & Tom about Creative Confidence as well. It's a lot like the TED talk, but with some more concrete d.School examples (Pulse reader, Baby incubator, etc):

• http://hbr.org/2012/12/reclaim-your-creative-confidence

If you look at David Kelley 60 minutes interview, around 6:40, they talk about his childhood, where "...he learned the value of building with his hands...".  A great story is how he took apart the family piano, but neglected to put it back (because that was less fun).

• http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138327n

While I don't want to go on the record as encouraging "failure", Niels would always tell me that over 80% of projects fail. A lot of people don't like to hear that. What if David's mom got upset that not every project of David or Tom's went right or got finished? What if David or Tom's crazy ideas were ridiculed, put down or discouraged? Design Thinking has always been about "Fail often to succeed sooner". It's *never* about never being able to or fear of failing

A great by-product of this interview is that David talks a little about his relationship with Steve Jobs and it humanized him a lot for me. What struck me is that David says that Steve tells him the important things in his life, his kids and focusing on the family. Kids. Not legacy, not devices, not apps.

That got me *thinking*. 

If we as Design Thinkers want to change the world, maybe we don't need to do it with 30 & 40 years olds, but maybe with 3 & 4 year-olds. For me, the lesson is that with my 2x daughters that I can help them best by making sure their 'Creative Confidence' is nurtured, blossoms and never questioned.

OH yeah. Here is blog from Metropolis that I believe has some excerpts from the new book and triggered this blog post in the first place!

• http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/October-2013/Empathize-With-Your-Customer/#!

Hope that helps...

Wayne Pau

p.s. Yes, if you watch the 60 mins video, it's the same SAP founder Hasso Plattner that helped David Kelley the d.School, to the tune of $35 million. I can also attest that yes, SAP is still very much committed to Design Thinking. Hasso also went on to found HPI School of Design Thinking back in Germany. He and SAP do walk-the-walk.