VISUALIZATIONS FOR ADDRESSING WICKED PROBLEMS USING DESIGN THINKING

Transcription

1 Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) ECIS 2014 Proceedings VISUALIZATIONS FOR ADDRESSING WICKED PROBLEMS USING DESIGN THINKING Igor Hawryszkiewycz University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia, Follow this and additional works at: Igor Hawryszkiewycz, 2014, "VISUALIZATIONS FOR ADDRESSING WICKED PROBLEMS USING DESIGN THINKING", Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2014, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 9-11, 2014, ISBN This material is brought to you by the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in ECIS 2014 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact

2 Visualizations for Design Thinking VISUALIZATIONS FOR ADDRESSING WICKED PROBLEMS USING DESIGN THINKING I.T. Hawryszkiewycz, University of Technology, Sydney, Abstract The paper describes the trends to meta organizations and the complex or wicked systems they create. Wicked or complex problems now increasingly require ways other than the analytical approaches used in most design methodologies. Wicked problems are often ill-defined and requirements emerge from a wider vision rather than being predefined. Such emergence requires continuous innovation to quickly provide solutions as design proceeds. Design thinking is one approach to do this. This paper describes how design thinking can be used to address wicked problems and its relationship to project development. Design thinking focuses on ways to encourage innovation and also suggests the visualizations that provide the heuristics to develop ideas as design proceeds. The visualizations provide design frames that enable designers to see systems from different perspectives. The paper identifies three kinds of visualizations, perspectives, system of systems and building blocks and compares them against the unique criteria needed to address wicked problems Keywords Collaboration, Wicked Problems, Business Innovation, Design Thinking, Building Blocks 1 Introduction The paper describes how to apply design thinking to address wicked problems and the visualizations to support it. The paper begins by describing the trends to meta organizations (Gulati, 2013) and the complex or wicked systems they create. It then identifies the impact on system development followed by how visualizations address this impact and ways they can be integrated into system development. As shown in Figure 1, meta organizations are characterized by processes run by different independent firms that must coordinate their processes to a common goal. For example, the producers in Figure 1 must produce what is needed, the consumers get what they want and the delivery is on time and in minimal cost. In Figure 1 the wider vision is to ensure that food gets to consumers. This requires collaborations between producers and consumers to ensure the right food is produced and to respond quickly to any change in consumer preferences. It also requires collaboration with logistics companies to deliver the food to the right place at the right time. Wicked systems are characterized by process ecosystems (Vidgen, 2006) that increasingly require ways other than the analytical approaches used in most project design methodologies. These new approaches place greater emphasis on social rather than analytical methods because wicked problems (Head, 2013) are often ill-defined and requirements emerge through social interaction between Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

3 stakeholders. At the same time such interactions should follow an organized way to lead to an acceptable system and one such way is described in this paper. Figure 1 The Emerging Meta Organization 1.1 Impact on system development The trend to meta organization and their associated problems require: Greater engagement between people in the different firms. Such interaction identifies new directions in the systems and interactions between them, provokes many suggestions, and captures points of view all the characteristics found in design thinking. Ways to put together open systems. System design that facilitates social engagements to continually identify new socially acceptable solutions rather than analytical approaches to create predefined solutions. Multi-stakeholder support to improve communication between stakeholders in different domains, An open and innovative approach to cater for unanticipated requirements and for systems to evolve gradually rather than being predefined. The question also arises on how research is to be conducted in wicked problem environments. Action research and design science are two that come to mind. Action research often assumes repetitive possibilities and hence may not be appropriate. Design science, as initially proposed (Hevner, 2004), has as its goal the creation of an artefact and the development of technologically based solutions to business problems. This is in contrast to what is needed in wicked problems social, business as well as technical solutions that call for business innovation. Here the artefact cannot be clearly defined and hence research questions themselves emerge. Design thinking (Martin, 2009) has been attracting considerable attention as a way to develop business systems in complex environments (Osterwalder, 2010). This paper describes how design thinking can be applied to address wicked problems in complex environment as earlier suggested (Hobday, 2013). Design thinking contrasts to the analytical approach where generally we apply known methods to achieve a clearly specified result. The two major differences from analytical thinking: are greater Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

4 emphasis on stakeholder engagement values perceived and on business model innovation rather than re-engineering. The collaborative approach that characterizes design thinking is suited to wicked problems, which involve many entities and stakeholders, where requirements emerge and require a unique solution. Some major characteristics relevant to system development are: There are no definite specification or requirements of the problem; there are just general goals such as increased sales in a new market, or increasing tourism in some region. Solutions are not true or false, but better or worse, there is no test of whether a solution will work as any solution can result in unpredictable behaviours of users and stakeholders. Solutions for one system must increasingly fit in with solutions to other systems calling for cross disciplinary teams. For example: Creating liveable cities (Macomber, 2013) to improve living in increasingly larger and growing cities while conserving energy needs and providing services to citizens. A number of projects are often proceeding concurrently requiring greater attention to issues such as safety, energy use or increasing green areas. All these need to be put together to create a smart city. Specific requirements arise over time Addressing current social issues such as obesity or unemployment in society. These typically cannot be solved using analytical or predefined solution and need increasing multi-dimensional social solutions as for example improving health, or raising educational levels. Here again any new system must be integrated to existing systems. Global supply chains to arrange delivery of services that lead to improved health or education. This includes logistics systems in the delivery of materials including food supply, especially in underdeveloped regions (Cozzolino, 2011) again requiring the interaction of many systems with requirements changing continuously.. Collaborative systems to security of access to energy, food and water security (Tellis, 2008, Richter, 2013) that is now emerging as an issue in emerging economies. Many systems here are driven through top level directives but involve local agencies in the planning cycle to ensure local needs are considered. The world bank institute for example ( is in their words, helping governments engage with citizens and organizations from the private and civil society sectors to build coalitions and tools aimed at ensuring that all stakeholders have the ability and capacity for effective engagement to solve difficult governance challenges. The emphasis again is on design where requirements continuously evolve as new issues arise between stakehlders. 2 DESIGN THINKING AS A WAY TO ADDRESS WICKED PROBLEMS The main thrust of design thinking is to engage people to collaboratively resolve problems in their context. Its goal is to encourage research experimentation both in technical support as well as business models. The paradigm now is one that does not define a specific result and uses known methods to achieve it. On the other hand (Dorst, 2011) it is to start with stakeholder values, define what is needed to meet them and experiment with ways to achieve this. The design reasoning is now different from analytical approaches and more open (Dorst, 2011). The emphasis is on what to create and in that sense is more experimental. The emphasis is also on collaboration as in this way more ideas come up Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

5 quickly for evaluation. This paper focuses on one aspect of design thinking the visualizations that provide innovative insights for exploration and experimentation. The design thinking activities are illustrated in Figure 2. It shows Martin s view of design thinking on the left. In Martin s view a wicked system is a mystery that is better understood by applying heuristics to solve the mystery that is suggest ideas for solutions to wicked problems through visualizations, metaphors or through different perspectives. On the right is the design thinking process in more detail. It supports the emerging requirements as: All stakeholders are involved at each activity, It is a continuous process, not just one off. Often a design process is followed to release a new system we learn from it and then continue with the next release. Designs often need to be reframed to see complex issues from different perspectives. The emphasis is on solution neutral thinking and visualizations to draw out ideas from different perspectives. Design thinking focuses on collaboration as finding values held by stakeholders or customers itself requires considerable social interaction to define needs. Stakeholder values, their points of view are sought as a system emerges and serve as the driving factor in any reasoning to create a solution. Figure 2 Design thinking An important part of designing thinking is the canvas and presentations or visualizations on the canvas to foster experimentation and collaboration. All the information collected is presented on a canvas. The canvas is a visualization of the current state of thinking about the problem, people s points of view, suggested solutions and comments on these. The important factor is that to reach a holistic Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

6 solution requires collaboration and a continuous evolution on the canvas on the current state of thought. 3 VISUALIZATIONS The paper sees visualization as providing stakeholders with new insights that can lead to discussions on innovative ways to realize stakeholder values. It describes three visualizations and evaluates them. These are: Perspectives to look at the problem in different ways such as social, knowledge, business activities, System of systems, which show the relationships between systems, and Building blocks for experimentation of different business models. It does not see these as alternatives but to provide ways fort designers see their problems in different ways and gain new insights on how to address them. 3.1 PERSPECTIVES focus on relationships One way to generate ideas is by showing visualizations from the different perspectives. The perspectives that we have identified are the social, business activity, process and knowledge perspectives. These have been described earlier (Yoo, Hawryszkiewycz, Kang, 2013) and this paper gives an idea of the visualizations by only showing the social perspective. The important point to note is that in creating the perspectives we choose the actual concepts through open modelling methods. Thus Figure 3 shows the social perspective. This looks such a social network but it combines roles and people and focuses on relationships within a meta organization. Links between roles are the explicit flows of information whereas the dotted lines are informal flows. This visualization is particularly suitable in describing the social interactions within meta organizations. Figure 3 Modeling Perspectives the Social Network Perspectives The research here is qualitative in nature. It presents visualizations that result in a social engagement on alternatives. The social perspective, shown in Figure 3 displays the interaction between the Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

7 different roles. For example, project managers interact with each professional unit to improve the design and procedure of the projects for instance, a project manager faced with the environmental issue of removing a heritage listed tree for building social housing within a given timeframe. As well as the PMO (project management office) the delivery manager consults the technical services manager to allocate professional resources for all projects. It indicates the different roles and collaborators interactions where the social network will be created and where it can be useful for adapting changes effectively in the unanticipated events. Therefore, the social perspective is important for collaboration and participants agreed that organisations must recognise the formal and informal social behaviours in order to work together effectively. Descriptions of some other perspectives can be found in (Yoo, Hawryszkiewycz, Kang, 2013). 3.2 SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS focus on collaboration between business units A system of systems approach focuses on identifying key activities and the relationships between them (Hawryszkiewycz, 2013). Figure 4 is a model that shows a number of systems and interactions between them. Here the supply provision organization arranges purchases by the purchasing group on behalf of projects and their delivery to project sites by the transport group. The method of operation depends on the project site. Each of the ellipses in Figure 4 is a business unit; roles are shown as black dots. This provides a framework that shows knowledge flows between systems. Visualizations now address two perspectives the flow of knowledge facilitated by roles in business units. Figure 4 System of Systems Model The model supports continuous change. Collaboration between systems can be rearranged when needed by creating a new collaborative group as is now becoming important in complex systems. In Figure 4 these are illustrated as ellipses with dotted boundaries can be transient collaborative groups. They are organized to match the needs of a project site and evolve as needed. A collaborative group includes roles, which are allocated to roles in the system in the collaboration. This assignment is Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

8 shown by the dotted line. For example, the Arranging services for area A has a role delivery planner. This role is by both purchasing coordinator in the Purchasing group and transport coordinator in the Transport Group. These give an insight in the way collaboration is arranged. A system of systems model provides a better basis for modelling collaboration when compared to traditional organizational models. Here the business enterprise is modelled as the business Enterprise and its units are also modelled as systems in this case as organizations within the organization. The businesses with which the business enterprise trades are also modelled as systems. Collaborative groups are shown as systems, which are modelled as dotted lines to indicate they are virtual. Thus there is a planning group and two collaborations with the buyer businesses. Models like that shown in Figure 4 are often useful in solution dialogs, especially when modelling relationships between different systems, as often needed in wicked environments. 3.3 BUILDING BLOCKS focus on business innovation An approach increasingly used in design science is building blocks. The idea here is that building blocks at this level of abstraction can foster interdisciplinary collaboration and initially discuss in solution independent terms. The most widely used system of building blocks is that of Osterwalder (2010) shown in figure 5. Figure 5 A canvas based on Osterwalder s business model framework Building blocks provide a natural visualizations of businesses. The research focuses on visualizations that provide ways that lead to creative design. These designs are composed as ways combining building blocks in alternate ways. Building blocks support experimentation on business models. As shown in Figure 6 stakeholders record their points of view and suggestions against the building block and then collaborate at examining the business possibilities provided by different combinations. Building blocks have another advantage. They provide a framework of making statements in solution neutral terms that then encourage innovation. Such discussion and interchange of comments takes place through intense interaction in synchronous environments with comments recorded as postit notes. These are rearranged and commented on as discussion proceeds to some agreeable outcome. Design is now framed within the concepts of building block but designers can experiment with ways building blocks interact with each other. Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

9 Figure 6 The idea behind building blocks 4 Comparing Visualizations It is important to point out that the visualizations described here are not seen as alternatives but as supporting the emerging requirements of system development. Each of them is designed to provide insights and ideas to designers in the open approach used in design thinking. Table 1 compares the visualizations and where they are most applicable, Design insights to improve engagement Multi Dimensional (Solutions cover all domains) Facilitating relationships Multi stakeholder support Facilitating change Traditional methods Modeling tools. System development methodology Limited knowledge sharing as system predefined Shows information flows. Often limits communication between stakeholders. Usually requires redesign Perspective (qualitative approach) Provides different insights the entire system. Limited as divides perspectives but can be used in later stages of design. Can suggest informal micro changes to existing systems. Looks particular expertise for Can suggest minor changes based on the perspective. System Systems of Focus on relationships Focuses on relationships between systems. Useful at high level to describe relationships Clearly demonstrates relationships between roles in different systems. Encourages innovation managing relationships. in Supports change through changes of role responsibilities and knowledge flows Building blocks Supports discussions with different business models Can cover many dimensions if building blocks high abstract level Can identify major changes Requires support for capturing points of view Improves experimentation Table 1 Summary of Visualizations Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

10 It is of course possible to combine all the visualizations, each with its canvas in addressing wicked problems. For example, a start with building blocks involving many partners can be followed a system of systems model to show proposed relationships between the partners. 5 Organizing Design Thinking Design thinking can to some people look relatively disorganized. The collaboration can provide stories but the goal is to integrate into a business solution. The way proposed here to organize activities is shown in figure 7 and organized through the definition of goals or visions, what to do to achieve these visions, and how to do this a classical design thinking process. The process starts with solution neutral terms in order to elicit innovation by encouraging choices. Building blocks provide the framework for questions in a focused and organized way (Hawryszkiewycz, 2013). Visualizations are chosen to match the level. In summary: The vision level - Here the activity focuses on values and key requirements. The important aspect here is to collect stories in solution neutral terms beginning with stakeholder values followed by key requirements, which are solution neutral scenarios of how a system will work. Thus referring to Figure 4 this may be to ensure on time deliveries to areas taking into account local conditions. The vision level is where a vision which defines what needs to be done in solution neutral terms. The main building blocks here are the vision, the key requirements. The key requirements define what we would like to be happening in our system. For example Customers are finding our designs attractive and as a result sales are increasing. The mission level The next visualization must identify the missions or what must be done to realize the key requirements, In the case of the apparel organization it is that it must develop the best designs what we have to be good at. At this level we begin to look in more detail at the systems, persons involved and their interactions. Candidates for modeling include social relationships as well as system of system models that describe the relationships between firms or business units in the meta organization. The context in such systems is continually evolving and as such can effect the behaviour of groups within the system. Such artifacts can for example include policies which are often outside the scope of a particular community but which effect community behaviour. In this sense although social networking provides a foundation it must nevertheless be moderated by social interactions taking place within a business context. A mission here may be Support the creation of coordination units to match area needs. The missions identify the key activities at which we must be competitive and projects based on these activities. For example We must become competitive in delivering on time, or We must be able to quickly respond to area needs. The project level this defines actual tasks to be completed and in terms of design thinking. They are the deliverables. Here projects may be to set up coordination spaces for project areas. Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

11 Figure 7 Defining the levels Figure 7 also shows the relationship to the traditional waterfall cycle. The vision and mission levels predominantly focus on requirements and defining projects that create value to stakeholders within the meta organization. In practice to encourage collaboration the design spaces are managed as post-it notes with collaborative face to face discussions and exchanges of viewpoints as ideas and solutions emerge. Stories are moved around the board to identify potential solutions. As decisions are made they become releases as shown in Figure 2. 6 Design Thinking Spaces and Computer Support What should design spaces look like? Literature suggests that design spaces be organized as a combination of models, questions and narratives, and visualizations where stakeholders can focus on a problem with a solution emerging as a model while bringing their tacit knowledge to suggest innovative developments in the model. Figure 8 shows design space activities and the way of linking them in the design space network. Each design space: Supports strong collaboration through narratives, Experimentation and evaluation of any ideas. Produces an outcome that suggests actions, possibly carried out in other design spaces. Interaction here includes evaluations and comparison of solutions. Subject to evaluations, the solutions are increasingly improved. Linking between design spaces is through sharing of narratives as well as individuals who participate in more than one space. Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

12 Visualizations for Design Thinking Figure 8 A CANVAS on Innospace Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv

13 Visualizations for Design Thinking 7 Summary and future work The paper described the emerging meta organizations that result in poorly structured problems sometimes known as wicked problems. It then described the additional requirements placed on system development by wicked problems and proposed design thinking as a way to address such problems. It saw design thinking as meeting the need for greater social engagement while at the same time providing the visualizations needed to encourage innovation. It describes a number of such visualizations and ways they address requirements placed on system development. 8 References Cozzolino, A., Rossi, S., Conforti, A. (2011): Agile and lean principles in humanitarian supply chain Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management Vol. 2, No. 1, pp Dorst, K., (2011): The core of design thinking and its application Design Studies, Vol. 32, No.6, November 2011, pp Gulati, Ranjai, Pharish Puranam and Michael Tushman. (2013): Meta-Organizational design: Rethinking Design in Inter-Organizational and Community Contexts Special Issues on Strategy and the Design of Organizational Architecture Strategic Management Journal 33, no. 6 June 2112 pp Hawryszkiewycz, I.T. (2013): A System of Systems Approach to Managing Emergence in Complex Environments IFIP WG 8.6 International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, Bangalore, India, June 27-29, pp Hawryszkiewycz, I.T. Design Thinking for Business: A Handbook Design Thinking for Wicked Systems Vivid Publishing, ASIN: B00FOAFKXI, Amazon Books, July Head, B.W., Alford, J. (2013): Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management Administration and Society, March 28, pp Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S. (2004): Design Science in Information Systems Research MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, March 2004, pp Hobday, M., Boddington, A., Grantham, A. (2012): Policies for design and policies for innovation: Contrasting perspectives and remaining challenges Technovation32, pp ). Hung, W. (2013): Team-based complex problem solving: a collective cognition perspective Educational Tech Research Development, 61: Macomber, J.D. (2013): Building Sustainable Cities Harvard Business Review, July-August 2013, pp Martin, R. (2009): The Design of Business Harvard Business Press. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2010): Business Model Generation John Wiley and Sons. Richter, M. (2013): Business Model Innovation for sustainable energy: German utilities and renewable energy Energy Policy 62, pp Sinfield, J.V., Calder, E., McConnel, B., Colson, S. (2012): How to Identify New Business Models MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter 2012, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp Tellis, A.J., Kuo, M., Marble, A. (2008): Asia s Water Security Crisis: China, India, and the United States The National Bureau of Asian Research. Vidgen, R., Wang, X. (2006): From business process management to business process ecosystem Journal of Information Technology, 21, pp Yoo, P., Hawryszkiewycz, I.T. Kang, K. (2013): A Multi-Perspective Approach to Facilitate Collaboration: A Case Study On Australian Public Sector Organisations International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2013, Milan, Italy. Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv