At EuroIA in 2016 I helped to deliver a workshop on design sprints over 80 people. The number of attendees presented challenges. But the 4 hours went without a hitch and we got great feedback after the event. I’ve written more about the content of the workshop in Design Sprints at the BBC – EuroIA 2016 – Appendix and Design Sprints at the BBC – EuroIA 2016 – Answers.
Summary: When we communicate we “encode” what we want to say based on our priorities and preferences. But the people we’re talking to also have preferences, knowledge and assumptions which can filter and alter what they actually hear. By thinking about our audience — and the preferences which shape how they receive and participate in…
Last month I shared a critique of some ways people describe and structure design processes. I also shared a tool I’ve developed to direct “discovery” efforts. I wanted to share more about that tool and talk about why I think confidence is a good measure of success for your “discovery” processes. Creative leadership is about…
When we use ambiguous language to describe design, we make designing even harder. Design projects can be full of ambiguity, particularly when they’re focused on innovation. I’ve recently written about the limitations of the double diamond and suggested some alternative models. I argued that the Double Diamond is a good place to start when you’re…
If we always automatically reach for the Double Diamonds to start conversations and answer questions about design, we might miss opportunities to say something more useful.
I have a love/hate relationship with the Double Diamond. I love the way it communicates two key ideas about design — (1) that design is as much about defining and creating boundaries around problems as it is about creating solutions and (2) design benefits from a dialogue between thinking styles, in this case Divergent creation/discovery and Convergent…
I’ve been writing about the design process, suggesting that different models can give us different perspectives on what we’re doing when we’re designing. I’ve suggested that design is a process of translation and balance – transforming ideas between abstract forms to concrete instantiations that people can experience. In my last post I used the metaphor…
In a post last week, I shared a definition for design. I said: “Design is the translation of intent into experiments designed to generate value.” That post is about how information architecture is the stable set of rules which govern the relationships within a design to bring internal coherence. Information architecture means designs are easier…
Let’s get two things straight — namely what I think “information architecture” and “design” are. I think both names suffer from a problem. They describe both an output and a process. The decisions that you make as you design or architect change the product or service that you’re working on. How you make the decisions is the process…
Leave a Reply