Posted on

Make Waves: A Design Thinking Workshop on Inclusion and Innovation

A company’s competitive advantage comes from its ability to innovate in a changing environment, and employee innovation plays an essential role. Many highly successful ideas, like Gmail or Post-its, were not mandated from the top but came from passionate employees who saw opportunities that leaders missed. 

However, fostering employee innovation is challenging, especially when you consider the effect of gender and other biases. While women are just as innovative as men, their ideas often get devalued or dismissed, which can be costly for companies. As one study conducted on a large energy corporation noted, “The potential for innovation stemming from women generating ideas in this organisation seems to be largely unexploited, and women’s ideas are less frequently implemented than those of men.” 

To understand and address how gender bias impacts women in the workplace, we recently collaborated with Maureen Carrol from Lime Design to create a new design thinking workshop, with the generous support of Guidewire. 

The rest of the post talks about how we designed the workshop and what we learned from it. 

Our Process

Our first step was to understand the real challenges women were facing in the technology industry. We interviewed many women — ranging from senior leaders to junior employees — to hear their stories about setbacks and frustrations they face in doing their jobs. We then coded the interviews to identify some common themes like communication, relationship building and recognition. The data from the interviews gave us insights on how to design the rest of the workshop. 

Double-bind Situations and Janusian Thinking

Our interviewees shared many double-bind situations they face, in line with research over the last few decades. As an example, women often face backlash for asking probing questions, but sometimes you need to ask the right questions to surface flaws in a design to do your job effectively. So this creates a paradoxical situation driven by two opposing forces – one pushing you to question, while the other holding you back. One of our interviewees shared how she found a way to navigate this situation. Instead of asking direct questions, she would move the discussion to the whiteboard to list out the assumptions they are making and the data they have. The whiteboard serves to take the focus away from gender while also providing an avenue to capture relevant information about the problem. 

The prevalence of such scenarios naturally led us to the theme of our workshop – double-bind situations. Solving such situations is quite tricky because, from the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be a good way out. This is where a creative thinking technique, called Janusian thinking, can be useful. Janusian thinking, named after the two-headed Roman God, Janus, required holding two contradictory thoughts in view at the same time. One way to solve paradoxes using Janusian thinking is by finding another dimension to add and change the nature of the problem. In the double-bind example above, adding the whiteboard to the situation retained the ability to ask tough questions while also removing the threat of any backlash. We shared this technique with the participants to use in their brainstorming phase, if they are able to. 

Personas and “How Might We…”

After we identified the overall theme, our next step was to create personas for our workshop that would resonate with our audience. In our interviews, we realized that challenges that women face early in their career can be different as they rise up higher in the organization. So, we used three different personas – senior leader, mid-level manager and entry level employee to capture the different phases of women’s careers. To craft our personas, we relied not just on our interviews but also studies from gender research that quantified and validated what our interviewees had experienced. Finally, we put together empathy boxes that included the persona description, different artifacts related to the persona (like college stickers or hobby materials) and also research highlights.  

Finally, we created “How Might We…” (HMW) questions that participants got after they had a chance to go through the empathy boxes and had round-table discussions as they went through each artifact. Each of the HMW corresponded to the persona that the unique challenges that the persona faced.  

Participants

While most of our participants were women already working in the tech industry, we also worked with d.Tech High School and invited a few high school girls to participate in the workshop. These students are already learning design thinking in their high school curriculum so the workshop gave them a real-world exposure to using the concepts to solve problems. In addition, we thought that these students would bring new perspectives to the problem solving process. This turned out to be a really good idea in the end.  Many of our participants commented on how much they appreciate the students in their teams and how valuable it was to include student voices into the solution. 

Solutions

Since this was a half-day workshop, we had to move through the process fast. Despite that, we were impressed with the solutions that teams came up with. Each team had to pick one of their ideas and produce a low-resolution prototype in any format they wanted. Some chose to do a role-play approach while others built simple cardboard prototypes. One of the things we realized is that all teams came up with ideas that would improve onboarding or team culture for everyone, not just women and minorities. So while they might disproportionately help women and minorities, they were useful ideas applicable more broadly to everyone. Here are some of the ideas at a very high level that teams came up with (interestingly, some teams independently came up with similar ideas to each other indicating a real need to solve some of these challenges):

  • Improving the onboarding process to allow new employees to quickly build relationships with peers and mentors, using AI to facilitate this process
  • Improving group discussions with assistance from AI that tracks different aspects, including individual emotions
  • Creating better norms to celebrate not just outcomes but how results are achieved

While teams generated many ideas, we did not have time to go through all of them due to time limitations. In a longer workshop, we could also find ways to look at potentially great ideas that might have been discarded while picking the top one. Overall, we thoroughly enjoyed the process of creating and running the workshop, and many of our participants shared that they were really energized working in their teams! 

Posted on

MindAntix Brainteaser: Make-it-Better

The Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, after experimenting with gliders for a couple years, built and tested their first powered plane in 1903. The flight lasted 59 seconds. The next year, after making some design improvements, the brothers managed to stay in air for more than 5 minutes. And finally in 1905, they broke all records by flying 24.5 miles in a little over 38 minutes and landing safely when the fuel ran out.

Interestingly, despite having witnesses and photographic evidence, people were skeptical that two bicycle repairmen, with no expertise in designing airplanes, would have beaten well-funded experts in the field who were actively building their own planes. In fact, a 1906 article on the Wright Brothers in the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune was captioned “FLYERS OR LIARS?”. It took another couple of years for people to finally accept that the Wright brothers had indeed managed to create a flying machine. So how did these two amateurs end up outthinking the experts?

To fully understand that, you have to look at what some educators believe our current education system lacks. Dr. Maureen Carroll, Director of Stanford University’s Research in Education & Design Laboratory, is an advocate for introducing Design Thinking into the K-12 classroom. Our educational focus, thus far, has been on building analytical thinking skills. But, as she explains, “While analytical thinking is critically important, design thinking blends in equally powerful creative thinking.” And, “It’s not that creative thinking is more important… a blend of both types of thinking are more productive for finding truly unique and transformative innovation.”

So, what does the design thinking process look like? As Dr. Carroll and her colleagues describe, the design thinking process has six key components – Understand, Observe, Point of View, Ideate, Prototype and Test. This is an iterative process, and not a linear one. Making prototypes and testing helps in understanding what works and what doesn’t, and in modifying the point of view.

How does this all relate to the Wright Brothers? Essentially, what made the Wright brothers succeed, was their exceptional design thinking skills. In an analysis of the Wright brothers’ thinking, Johnson Laird proposes that the brothers superior reasoning skills gave them the edge over others. Wilbur first spent three months reading up about aeronautical history and recognizing some of the gaps in the knowledge (understanding). They also developed their own, unique point of view on what factors would be most important in designing airplanes. For instance, while Wrights’ contemporaries believed building a light but powerful motors was key, the brothers believed that the ability to control the the plane was more important. They also used analogies from bicycles and nature to design specific parts of the plane (ideation, creativity). And of course, they spent years observing, iterating and building prototypes to test out their ideas.

Encouraging design thinking is the goal behind the Make-It-Better category of MindAntix Brainteasers. The goal is to look at everyday objects – understand how they evolved the way they did, observe how people use them, develop a point of view about what could be improved about them and then come up with ideas on how to make them even better. Design thinking, like other creative problems, helps build both critical and creative thinking. And because of the focus on users, it also helps build empathy. As Carroll and colleagues explain, “Empathy develops through a process of ‘needfinding’ in which one focuses on discovering peoples’ explicit and implicit needs.”

After my son had done a couple of these brainteasers, he identified his own problem –  he wanted to make stickers better. His problem was that stickers lose their stickiness quickly when you try to use them on different shirts (well, it was a problem for him). His solution was to attach the sticker to one magnet and use another magnet to hold it in place. Not bad for a six year old!

Developing basic design skills isn’t hard, even without having to prototype and test. There are hundreds of objects we interact with everyday that are waiting to be improved upon. All it needs is an inclination to pause, reflect and imagine.