EDITORIALS
The Thinking Man's Creatives
Design Thinking is dead. Well, sort of.
And no, this doesn't mean we can stop thinking. Or that "because it looks cool" flies as a stand-alone concept. That's like ending a debate with "because I said so." You may have won the battle, but you've also rendered the battle meaningless.
The Design Thinking legacy.
Cleverly disguised as a process, Design Thinking became serious business. Less like art and more like thoughtful engineering. Businesses willingly invited quirky creativity to the innovation table.
Design Thinking as an overall descriptor is admittedly confusing.
It's not just design. It's the empathetic perspective that makes something matter. The advertising magic when David Ogilvy changed a homeless man's sign from "I am blind. Please help." to an emotion-evoking "It is spring and I am blind."
Make way for the Creative Quotient.
So what's next in our quest to quantify creativity? According to Bruce Nussbaum's Fast Company article, Creative Intelligence (CQ) is the new Design Thinking. He defines the more inclusive CQ as "the ability to frame problems in new ways and to make original solutions."
Excuse me sir, but I need to verify your CQ.
Who knows, maybe someday we'll have to take a CQ test to get into universities or earn an agency position. You test over 200 and you're a freakin' certified creative genius. Go ahead, acquire your intimidatingly-cool eyewear and refine your bizarre creative rituals. The lesser CQ-scoring minions await your brilliance.
But seriously, can creativity really be assessed?
Someone could individually have a high CQ, but creativity requires fuel from different variables. Project passion, collaboration, and even opposition. Robert Fabricant of Frog Design responds to Bruce Nussbaum's article with some valid considerations inspired by the esteemed Wile E. Coyote.
Whatever we call it, the world needs divergent thinkers.
Fearlessly-curious thought leaders who don't accept "well, this worked last time" as a definitive answer. Smart creatives who explore the messy intersection where multidisciplinary perspectives meet. A team of hybrid technologists, idea writers, strategic planners, and visual visionaries. Here's to the thinking man's creatives, and their crazy new solutions that (gasp)… just might work.
This piece is cross-posted from Jennifer Hohn's blog.
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Comments
Great Article. Your intro was missing, 'We Don't Always Get What We Want!' Bruce Nussbaum & Robert Fabricant are way over my head & out of my league, but we did have a design strategy and process that included phases, analytical/conceptual, and a million meetings & presentations inbetween to get to the final design. A lot could come by books & studies of these processes & how they connect with business week! It definately is a way of thinking. CQ reminds me a little of AI, Artificial Intelligence.
Awesome article, J!
newsweek article from last year related to the CQ reference: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html
Interesting article, thanks for posting!
Robert and Bruce are both way smart fellas, and I found it interesting that Robert's article starts with this line:
Why? Because more than 2 years ago Mr. Nussbaum declared that Innovation is Dead.
Some might say this is nothing but an exercise in renaming than a push to real change, but I'd argue it points more to the importance of relevance and reinvention.
Design Thinking helped to give creatives a voice at the table of innovation, and kudos to its inventors and refiners for bringing its many different approaches and techniques out into the public consciousness.
Nonetheless, usage of Design Thinking has become a bit (or more than a bit) restricted by misunderstandings and narrow interpretations.
If CQ helps to push the limits of how interdisciplinary teams collaborate and iterate, engage in externalized thought, and generally utilize people centered design (from research to insight through idea and iteration) then good on it.
Whatever you call it, contemporary design requires interdisciplinary engagement, which in turn requires a cultural fabric to support both innovation and transformation.
Yup. I think Bruces article, need clarification and he wrote I am sure to stir the pot. Let's face it Design Thinking as a business concept quickly tried to become a business in itself. And when it was realized by those who championed it and the untrained design professionals who tried to implement it have decided to move on. And Bruce has a new book to sell confirming this new direction, to redirect the business world. We all know as creative professionals, we solve problems everyday. That process or approach can't be canned, sold, and delivered, with the expectations it will save the world. Anyway glad to see the conversation being kept alive. I write a bit about this too here. http://angrybovine.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/design-thinking-will-never-die/
Thanks for the great insights and related articles! It’s an unruly topic.
I completely agree with you Hugh, Design Thinking / CQ / buzzword-of-choice instigates change through its own continuous reinvention. Let’s see where we can take it.
As Jay alludes, creativity as an anyone-can-do-it commodity lacks the professional creative’s intuition and combinatorial skills. Linear thinkers may never be lateral thinkers. However, when they influence each other, things get interesting.
Melissa mentioned AI. In an extreme example of packaged creativity, I wrote a crazy post on BETC Euro RSCG’s Creative Artificial Intelligence (CAI) software you might enjoy. http://intrinsicalities.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-to-stay-alive-in-advert...
Hopefully, the attempts to implement creativity as a universal approach have led to a greater demand for the real thing. Let’s continue to add value with every problem we solve.
Post new comment