Thinking About Thinking: Design, Breakthrough, and Lateral
Exploring the Dynamics: Design Thinking vs. Breakthrough Thinking vs. Lateral Thinking
Introduction:
In the realm of problem-solving and innovation, three powerful methodologies have gained prominence: design thinking, lateral thinking, and breakthrough thinking. While each aims to push boundaries and generate innovative solutions, they differ in their underlying principles and applications. This article explores the dynamics of the three, highlighting their unique characteristics and examining when each approach is most advantageous.
Design Thinking:
Design thinking approaches complex problems by placing the needs and experiences of users at the core of the design process. It involves a series of iterative stages, typically including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing. Design thinkers emphasize collaboration, creativity, and a deep understanding of user needs to create solutions that are both functional and meaningful. This approach encourages divergent thinking, where multiple possibilities are explored before converging on the most effective solution.
Design Thinking Case Example
A traditional corporation that has utilized design thinking to drive success is Procter & Gamble (P&G). P&G is a multinational consumer goods company known for its portfolio of well-known brands such as Tide, Pampers, and Gillette.
P&G recognized the need for innovation to stay competitive in the fast-changing consumer goods market. They embraced design thinking as a key approach to understand and meet the evolving needs of their customers. By shifting from a technology-centric approach to a user-centric one, P&G aimed to create products that truly resonated with consumers.
One example of P&G’s design thinking success is the development of the Swiffer cleaning system. P&G identified that many consumers found traditional mops and brooms cumbersome and time-consuming to use. Through extensive user research, including observations, interviews, and prototyping, P&G gained insights into the pain points and desires of users when it came to cleaning their homes.
Using these insights, P&G’s design team created the Swiffer system — a lightweight, disposable mop with interchangeable cleaning pads. The Swiffer offered a more convenient and effective cleaning solution that addressed the needs and preferences of busy households.
The introduction of the Swiffer was a game-changer for P&G, as it tapped into a previously unmet need in the market. The product gained significant consumer adoption and became a bestseller, positioning P&G as an innovator in the home cleaning category.
P&G’s success with the Swiffer and other products developed through design thinking demonstrates how a traditional corporation can embrace user-centered design methodologies to drive innovation, differentiate their offerings, and meet the evolving demands of customers in a rapidly changing market.
Breakthrough Thinking:
Breakthrough thinking, on the other hand, revolves around generating radical, transformative ideas that challenge existing norms and beliefs. It is characterized by a willingness to question assumptions and break free from traditional thought patterns. Breakthrough thinkers focus on identifying disruptive opportunities and envisioning revolutionary solutions that have the potential to reshape industries or solve long-standing problems. This approach encourages a more convergent thinking style, where the focus is on selecting and refining a few high-impact ideas rather than generating a wide range of options. By embracing these approaches and mindsets, individuals and teams can unlock the potential for breakthrough thinking. It enables the exploration of new territories, the discovery of innovative solutions, and the ability to make significant leaps forward in addressing complex challenges and driving positive change.
Breakthrough Thinking Case Example
One example of breakthrough thinking methodology being employed is Google’s development of the self-driving car, now known as Waymo.
Instead of approaching the problem of autonomous driving using traditional methods, Google’s engineers took a breakthrough thinking approach. They recognized that autonomous vehicles needed to be capable of handling complex real-world scenarios, such as navigating through unpredictable traffic, pedestrians, and various road conditions.
To tackle this challenge, Google’s engineers employed an approach based on breakthrough thinking methodologies, which involved:
Human-Centered Design: They started by deeply understanding the needs and behaviors of human drivers. By studying human driving patterns and habits, they gained valuable insights into how autonomous systems could be designed to optimize safety and efficiency.
Iterative Testing and Learning: Google gathered a vast amount of real-world driving data to simulate and test various driving scenarios. This enabled them to refine their algorithms and train their self-driving systems based on patterns and experiences encountered on the road.
Collaboration and Interdisciplinarity: Google’s engineers collaborated with experts from various fields, including robotics, machine learning, and sensor technology. They combined their expertise and shared knowledge to push the boundaries of innovation in autonomous driving.
Risk-Taking and Embracing Failure: Breakthrough thinking often involves taking risks and embracing failure as a learning opportunity. Google’s engineers acknowledged that failures and setbacks were integral to the process of achieving a breakthrough. They iterated and improved upon their technologies based on the insights gained from setbacks and challenges encountered along the way.
By applying these breakthrough thinking methodologies, Google successfully developed Waymo, a self-driving technology that has become one of the frontrunners in the autonomous vehicle industry. Their approach of human-centered design, iterative testing, collaboration, and a willingness to take risks and learn from failures has led to significant advancements in the field of self-driving cars.
Lateral Thinking:
Lateral thinking is a problem-solving approach that involves taking unconventional, non-linear paths to arrive at solutions. Coined by Edward de Bono, lateral thinking focuses on breaking free from traditional thought patterns and established frameworks to generate creative and innovative ideas.
Lateral Thinking Case Example
The LEGO Group, the renowned Danish toy manufacturer, exemplifies lateral thinking in the toy industry through its innovative product evolution.
Traditionally, LEGO primarily produced sets with predetermined designs and instructions, limiting the creative possibilities for children. However, in the late 1990s, the company faced financial challenges and needed to find a way to revitalize its brand.
In response, LEGO adopted a lateral thinking approach called the “LEGO Serious Play” methodology. This method encourages individuals to solve problems, brainstorm ideas, and communicate using LEGO bricks as a visual and tactile tool. It taps into the innate creativity of users, allowing them to build and express their ideas in a three-dimensional form.
By embracing this novel approach, LEGO transformed from a predetermined instruction-driven toy to an open-ended system that empowers children and adults alike to explore their creativity and imagination. This shift opened up a world of possibilities, enabling users to build not only the original sets but also their own unique creations and inventions.
LEGO’s lateral thinking approach not only reinvigorated the brand but also redefined the concept of play, focusing on the process of building and experimenting rather than solely on the end result. This emphasis on open-ended play and creativity resonated with consumers and contributed significantly to LEGO’s resurgence as a leading toy manufacturer.
Moreover, the LEGO Serious Play methodology has also found applications beyond play, such as in team-building exercises, problem-solving workshops, and even strategy development for businesses. This broader adoption has further solidified LEGO’s reputation as an innovative and versatile tool for fostering creativity and collaboration.
This example demonstrates how lateral thinking can transform a traditional product by challenging the established norms, introducing new approaches, and expanding the scope of possibilities. LEGO’s embrace of open-ended play and the integration of the LEGO Serious Play methodology propelled the brand to new heights in both the toy industry and other professional contexts.
Wrap-up — Comparing the Approaches:
When to Use Each Approach:
The choice between each process depends on the nature of the problem and the desired outcome.
Conclusion:
It’s important to note that these problem-solving approaches are not mutually exclusive, and they can complement each other in various ways. For example, design thinking can incorporate elements of lateral thinking to encourage more innovative ideas during the ideation phase. Breakthrough thinking can sometimes arise as a result of lateral thinking and design thinking processes, leading to truly transformative solutions.
Ultimately, the choice of problem-solving approach will depend on the specific problem or challenge at hand, the goals of the project, and the desired outcomes. By understanding the strengths and characteristics of each approach, you can choose the most appropriate method or combine elements from multiple approaches to suit the unique needs of your situation.