Scarcity, inventiveness, cross–pollination, design thinking & pedagogy

In chapter 3 of The Ten Faces of Innovation¹, IDEO's Tom Kelley describes an impressive case in which a Nigerian innovator, Bah Abba, had used simple local materials to create an effective evaporation-cooled food storage system. For Kelley, this is more than just a case of overcoming adversity. It demonstrates a particular character from the "design thinking" ensemble: the cross-pollinator. Bah Abba was able to combine disparate elements readily available in the local environment, into an unforeseen combination. The cross-pollinator is particularly important and effective when operating under difficult conditions. In fact, scarcity is the force that drives the cross-pollinator:

There's a principle at work here that we would all do well to respect. Sometimes a lack of resources and tools can prove to be the spark that helps you to seek out and make new connections. It goes beyond the idea that "necessity is the mother of invention." Scarcity and tough constraints force you to break new ground because the "business as usual" path is simply not available. (Kelley & Littman p.78)

What does this mean for learning space design? In his article on Design Thinking², Tim Brown (also from IDEO) describes how prototyping is an essential part of innovation. This activity takes place in what Brown calls ideation space. Following the IDEO approach, an ideation space is a controlled and safe zone for experimentation, cushioned from the complexities and immediacies of the outside world (it sits alongside two other types of space: inspiration space where the disruptive exigencies of real situations are encountered, and implementation space where we build products to be shipped out and used by real people in real situations). When constructing an ideation space, perhaps we need to embrace scarcity: start with as little as possible: just enough inspiration, just enough cross-pollination. And then add new elements only when necessity drives us back to the inspiration space.

In practical terms, there are some simple implications for pedagogy:

1. Make it clear that the students are working in a limited, constrained space.
   
2. Limit the number of ideas and example that can be thrown into the mix.
3. Keep the design teams small.
4. Use lo-fi prototyping.
5. Switch off the internet.
   
6. Use constrained formats (posters, elevator pitches, short films) within ideation processes, so as to concentrate thinking upon the key elements of a problem.
7. Allow the students to go out for inspiration when necessary, but limit what they can bring back with them.
   

When teaching e-portfolio design to the IDCM MA students, the biggest challenge is to get them to understand and operate within the constraints of the available tools: they tend to behave like hyper active cross-pollinators. Next term I will try to use these approaches to get them more focused and more realistic.

________________

¹Kelley, T. & Littman, J. The Ten Faces of Innovation: Strategies for Heightening Creativity, Profile Books, 2008
²Brown, T. Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, June 2008.

Robert O'Toole : 27 Jul 2009 07:21 |  Tags: Design Methods Design Thinking Inspiration |  Comments (0) |  Report a problem