A new model of the design process
By: Dennis Hambeukers
Tags: Design Strategy, Design Leadership, Model, Design Model, Design

In my previous essay, I started thinking about a more holistic view on design. I thought about how design is not just beauty, not just problem solving, but also problem finding, questioning. How design is all of that. The head, the heart and the hands. Today, I wanted to take this train of thought one step further. Today, I wanted to think about how to connect these three functions of design and how design can help bridge the gaps between strategy and operations in most organizations. All in the name of uncovering the way design can bring the most value and have the highest impact.

Three levels

Design, as most things in business, happens on three levels: strategic, tactical and operational. That these three levels seem hierarchical comes from the dominant ideas about how to organize work from the Scientific Management movement. In that school of thought, strategic work is done by managers that have a higher hierarchical position. That only ever worked in factories and other environments that have a clear, linear business processes that benefits from dumb operational workers that don’t have to think. In complex environments, this doesn’t work. Managers that are supposed to define strategy don’t have the required overview and necessary operational information to make strategies that work. One of the main problems that arises from defining a strategy anyway is that the strategic, tactical and operational levels are disconnected. The reality of most companies is that people do their work regardless of the strategy. Okay, this might sound a little harsh, but there are clear gaps between these three organizational levels in most organizations.

Three levels of work in organizations

Six areas

To bridge these gaps, we need to let go of the mental model that the levels are hierarchical. Let’s put them all on the same level. Strategy is just different work, not more important or better than other work. And strategy is too important to be left to strategists. We also need to create in-between area’s: strategic tactics between strategy and tactics, tactical operations between tactics and operations, and operational strategy between operations and strategy. Between the three levels interesting things happen.

Six areas of design

If we look at it like this, we get to six areas instead of three levels:

1. Strategy: question.

This is where we go out and find the right questions. What is the real/core problem? Why is it that a problem? Why is it not working right now? What are the assumptions we have around the problem? What is the question we need to answer in this project?

This is where we go out and find the right questions. What is the real/core problem? Why is it that a problem? Why is it not working right now? What are the assumptions we have around the problem? What is the question we need to answer in this project? 2. Strategic tactics: problem framing.

In between coming up with solutions (tactics), and finding the question (strategy), there is work to be done to translate the main questions into a description of the problem that opens up the minds of people to come up with solutions that work. The way you frame a problem determines what kind of solutions that will be found.

In between coming up with solutions (tactics), and finding the question (strategy), there is work to be done to translate the main questions into a description of the problem that opens up the minds of people to come up with solutions that work. The way you frame a problem determines what kind of solutions that will be found. 3. Tactics: functional solutions.

This is where the problems are solved by coming up with solutions. What solutions are we going to develop to answer the questions, to solve the problems? What solution fits best to the questions in the project?

This is where the problems are solved by coming up with solutions. What solutions are we going to develop to answer the questions, to solve the problems? What solution fits best to the questions in the project? 4. Tactical operations: engagement.

Between coming up with functional solutions and determining how they will look like exactly, there is work to be done to imagine how these functional solutions can be designed so they engage people. This is not just about the functionality and the looks but about the interaction patterns, the flow, the user journey, the way we can make the solution work for the users and the business.

Between coming up with functional solutions and determining how they will look like exactly, there is work to be done to imagine how these functional solutions can be designed so they engage people. This is not just about the functionality and the looks but about the interaction patterns, the flow, the user journey, the way we can make the solution work for the users and the business. 5. Operations: love.

Beauty has a big role to play in how successful a solution will be. People are visual creatures and react to solutions not only with their heads but also with their hearts. Beauty makes people enthusiastic, it opens their hearts.

Beauty has a big role to play in how successful a solution will be. People are visual creatures and react to solutions not only with their heads but also with their hearts. Beauty makes people enthusiastic, it opens their hearts. 6. Operational strategy: purpose.

The whole process is a circle. So between operational beauty and strategic questions is work to be done to make sure that the solutions align with the questions that were uncovered. The final solution is input to uncovering new and more fundamental questions. The solution gets purpose and meaning if the solution is lovely but also solves the fundamental question.

Double loop learning

All these areas feed back into each other. Or they should. Creating solutions in a complex environment requires constant learning. There are two types of learning. The first is single loop learning. You do something, there is a certain outcome, then you change the thing you do so the result is different. You learn by comparing the result to the action. Basic trial and error. This can be an effective and simple method to learn things. The downside is that you might up ending trying lots of actions to get to the result you want. There is also another way of learning and that is called double loop learning. In double loop learning, you not only reflect back on the action based on the result but you also revisit your assumptions, mental model of the situation. Especially in complex situations, this can be a more efficient way to learn.

Double loop learning

If we look at the six areas in the design process outlined above, we see that it is best to let the different areas loop back into each other. Each area works on its own assumptions that need to be revisited based on the results in the next phases to get to the best results. (You see the same circular, double loop learning in Agile ways of working.)

If we arrange the six areas of design work in a process and apply the double loop learning, we arrive at the following diagram:

A new design process model

I did not draw all the double loop lines. I drew the line back to the questions that are the foundation, the place where the most fundamental assumptions lie. But all phases can loop back into each other. More often than not, you discover that the functional solution doesn’t work the way you thought it up when you design an engaging interaction for it. Insights from the next engagement creation loops back to the solutions design phase. This goes for each phase. The most impact comes from the phases looping back to the fundamental assumptions in the question phase. It could happen that you find that your assumptions and questions have been wrong once the whole solution is live and completely built. That is the most expensive way to find this out. That is why a Lean Startup approach for testing hypothesis, questions, assumptions is advisable in situations with a lot of uncertainty.