Designing DeBono

Ever read any of Edward DeBono's books? DeBono's the father of "lateral thinking," an approach to creativity that's been at the core of much of the literature in that area for the past two decades.

Tonight, I came upon Victor Lombardi's post citing DeBono's latest. Here's one of DeBono's two money lines:

You can analyze the past but the future has to be designed.

And, here's the other:

There is always some risk with design. If a design is new, you can't be certain that it will work out and deliver the desired value. Judgment and routine behaviour is low risk so it is the preferred method of thought.

Now, the relationship between analysis and design is best left to another time. But I think it's safe to say that while some portion of design thinking is analytical, a significant portion of it is not. That's because, as DeBono says, analysis works with the past and design is about the future. And, as Yogi Berra is purported to have said, "prediction is hard...especially predicting the future." So, while judgment and analysis yield certainties, designs, no matter how thoroughly "researched," yield hypotheses.

Which reminds me of a story.

Years ago, a friend/client of mine and I were working on a speech which she was to deliver to a large group of financial analysts. She was the president of a design think tank in a Fortune 100 apparel retailer. The speech was on the power of design. As we threw out ideas, we came upon the notion of "rocket science." People often diminish the difficulty of a task by saying, "hey, it's not rocket science."

We decided to use that device to make a point similar to DeBono's.

The speech went something like this:

I was talking to an investment banker the other day about how hard it is to design sweaters. The banker looked at me quizzically and said, "You're just designing sweaters; it's not exactly rocket science."

I looked at him and said, "Yeah, rocket science is easy compared to designing sweaters!  Hell, you know how heavy the rocket is, so you know how much thrust and fuel you'll need. You know where the moon is today, and where it will be in the future, so you know where to aim the rocket. Everything you have to deal with is predictable. Now, with sweaters, we have to try to figure out what the hot color will be, what the hot silhouette will be, and what the hot yarn will be. And we have to do all that a year in advance. So, give me rocket science any time!"

In a very fundamental sense, rocket science is simple, but not easy. That is, there are lot of knowns in the process, but making them happen reliably is extraordinarily complex.

Sweater design is both complicated and complex. Designing best-selling sweaters involves looking into your customer's future and figuring out what she's going to want a year from now. And then having to make sure those sweaters get priced, manufactured, bought, shipped, received, distributed, displayed and sold...all at very high levels of effectiveness and efficiency.

As DeBono hints, the risk of innovation is very different from the risk of execution. If a design is truly new, you can never be sure of how it will be received. That uncertainty, for even the most experienced designer, is part of the appeal that keeps even legendary designers (think: Giorgio Armani) engaged in their work for years on end.

I think it comes down to this: at the end of the day, creativity rejuvenates us and keeps us young; analysis tires us and wears us out.

Tags: Edward DeBono Design

Comments

[Niti Bhan]

I, too, was inspired by de Bono's second quote you mention, when I read Victor's post, but I must admit I much prefer your explanation and the use of the concept of 'rocket science'. Well said, Tom. And something to think about, your final words:

creativity rejuvenates us and keeps us young; analysis tires us and wears us out.

[Niti Bhan]

ps. I've captured it for my blog header quote today :)

[Tom Guarriello]

Thanks, Niti. And, if I may say so in a cross-commenting way, I'm very much enjoying the conversation we're having about unmet needs on your blog.

[fouro]

hah! dat's beeutiful.

But doesn't Dan Brown say anything new is just old stuff we'd forgotten? Wait, I think that's Chris Alexander. Carry on!

[Tom Guarriello]

4, not many people would confuse Chris Alexander with Dan Brown...yours is a one-of-a-kind mind!

[.. atrakasya ..]

Great post - especially your elaboration on why sweater design is more difficult than rocket science.
To add to your last line -
"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art"
- Susan Sontag(1933-2004)

About De Bono's quote, about how the future needs to be designed-

I find it so very interesting to observe that the effort to re-design the past is as strong as the effort to design the future.

Someone left this very interesting comment (above) that brought in dan brown out of nowhere - Essentially, Dan Brown (and work of similar genre) may also be referred to as an attempt to redesign the past, and thereby influence the future.

Not very different from a battle between corporate giants, that are trying to encroach on market share and brand equity, or trying to maintain it.

[Tom Guarriello]

Thanks for the note, ..atrakasya.. I love the Sontag wrinkle on the relationship between the calculative thought of analysis and the dwelling thought of creativity. Fouroboros' Dan Brown comment above is typical of creative juxtapositions and thought-bending. His blog is filled with this kind of thinking.

Redesigning the future by redesigning the past gives me the shivers...the revisionism that permints any action in the future is a large part of what many Americans are reacting to (albeit sub-consciously) in the rising opposition to the president's approach to governing.