madison

Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure

By | December 1, 2011, 12:35pm PST

Summary: Design thinking offers an alternative to the rigidity of traditional project management and can help drive successful projects.

Photo credit: String Theory by Michael Krigsman

The endless succession of failed projects forces one to question why success is elusive, with an extraordinary number of projects tangling themselves in knots. These projects are like a child’s string game run amok: a large, tangled mess that becomes more convoluted and complex by the minute.

In my view, the core problem lies in mismatched expectations, poor communication, and a host of other non-technical causes.

During the last few years, the practice of “design thinking” has become popular among some enterprise practitioners and observers. Design thinking helps structure team interactions to cultivate greater inclusiveness, foster creativity, and align participants around specific goals and results.

I first learned about design thinking during conversations with people like Chirag Metha, an enterprise software strategist and design thinking expert; Chirag is one of the most thoughtful folks I know and writes a great blog on enterprise software. With these qualifications, of course I asked him to write a guest post explaining how design thinking can help project teams run successful implementations.

Chirag Mehta is an enterprise software generalist with 15 years of experience in strategy, design, architecture, product management, and product development in areas such as ERP, CRM, BI, middleware, and infrastructure. He is a top independent blogger on cloud computing, an adjunct faculty member, and advisor to many entrepreneurs. Chirag is passionate about design thinking and has coached others at Stanford d.school.

Chirag works for SAP driving business development and early adoption of new applications built on SAP’s in-memory computing platform. Previously, he was a strategist with SAP’s office of the CEO (and CTO), where he served as trusted adviser to the company’s CEO, Chairman, CTO, and executive management on topics such as design thinking, cloud computing, SaaS, Web 2.0, BI, in-memory computing, location-based applications, social media, and sustainability.

Thank you to Chirag Mehta for writing this guest post.

——–

IT projects fail all the time. Business blames IT, IT blames the system integrator (SI), who then blames the software vendor. After all this blaming and shaming, everyone goes back to work on another project without examining the project management methods and processes that caused the failure. And, so, they fail again.

There’s no one definition of design thinking. It’s a mindset and set of values that applies both analytical and creative thinking towards solving a specific problem. Design thinking is about how you think and not what you know; it is about the journey and not the destination.

Having followed Michael Krigsman’s analysis of IT project failures, it became evident that design thinking can play an important role in improving enterprise software development and implementation. The design thinking approach offers a means to address the underlying causes of many project failures — poor communication, rigid thinking, propensity toward tunnel vision, and information silos.

I have distilled important lessons from design thinking into six principles that can help stop project failures. Along the way, we will draw comparisons with Agile development, since that distinction is often a source of confusion when discussing design thinking.

Continue reading for the six principles »»

Michael Krigsman is a recognized authority on the causes and prevention of IT failures.

Disclosure

Michael Krigsman

Michael Krigsman writes and speaks about technology in a manner that most observers consider to be fair and balanced. Michael believes that writing about IT failures, which often have complex causes, creates a unique obligation to be reasonable and accurate in both reporting and analysis.

Michael maintains active personal and professional relationships with enterprise technology buyers, vendors, analyst firms (or individual analysts), consultants, and system integrators. As CEO of Asuret, Michael sells and delivers paid services to members of these same groups.

Vendors regularly reimburse Michael's out-of-pocket travel expenses to attend industry conferences and events. Conference organizers frequently waive entry fees when Michael attends industry events. Michael often speaks at industry conferences and events.

He is a member of the Enterprise Irregulars, a loose association of consultants, investors, industry representatives, analysts, and users of enterprise software.

For daily updates on Michael's activities, follow him on Twitter.

Biography

Michael Krigsman

Michael Krigsman is CEO of Asuret, Inc., a consulting company dedicated to reducing technology implementation failures. Asuret's suite of software tools improve the success rate of enterprise software deployments by quantifying and measuring governance issues that cause most project failures. Michael led the research effort underlying Asuret's model of collective intelligence and its practical application to reducing IT failures in consulting environments. He is a recognized authority on the causes and prevention of IT failures and is frequently quoted in the press on IT project and related CIO issues. He is considered an enterprise software industry "influencer" and provides advice to technology buyers, vendors, and services firms.

Previously, Michael served as CEO of Cambridge Publications, which develops tools and processes for software implementations and related business practice automation projects. Michael has been involved with hundreds of software development projects, for companies ranging from small startups to Fortune 500 organizations. Michael graduated with an M.B.A. from Boston University and a B.A. from Bard College. He is a Board member of the America's Cup Hall of Fame and the Herreshoff Marine Museum in Bristol, RI.

Talkback Most Recent of 29 Talkback(s)

  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    "One of the problems with traditional project management methodologies is that they make people spend more time in executing the solution and less time on defining the problem."

    Well, if you spend too much time defining the problem, you might never get around to solving it.

    In fact, I would say the opposite is in fact true right now - how many times have we complained that companies are too slow to react? They're huge monoliths. The top level takes too long to execute any solutions. If solutions aren't executed, nothing ever gets done.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CobraA1
    1st Dec
  • ZDNet Blogger

    RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @CobraA1 Fair point, except many companies have little understanding how to prepare properly for an implementation. As a result, mismatched expectations surface downstream as failure-causing events.

    Preparation is not just a function of time, but also of thoughtfulness and intelligence. Spending time without intelligent guidance is simply a waste.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mkrigsman@...
    1st Dec
  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @mkrigsman@... 'tis true too. It is a balancing act.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CobraA1
    2nd Dec
  • What exactly is the "design" behind this thinking?
    @CobraA1 you raise a good point.

    We're clearly unhappy with the results and the problems are so widespread that we automatically blame the methodologies. However, when you examine the methodologies, you find that they're actually not to blame. It's the EXECUTION that's the problem. In this case it's not the game, it's the players...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    PragMatador
    3rd Dec
  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    Yes, there are cases of poor execution as well and design thinking is not going to necessarily solve the issue of people being indecisive or complacent. However, solving a wrong problem is same as not solving a problem or solving it wrong; both situations lead to a failure. I have found that not spending enough time on finding the right problem is the primary reason for solving a wrong problem. Design thinking helps people to define the right problem before they decide to execute on it. I'm not suggesting people to spend disproportionate amount of time on finding the right problem as opposed to solving it, but just a reminder to balance both the aspects.

    Thanks!

    Chirag Mehta
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tochirag
    1st Dec
  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @tochirag Yes, critical thinking is the best place to start, but we have all experienced "Paralysis by Analysis." The alternative is "Analysis Paralysis" or "Shoot. Aim.", which is equally bad.

    What you are getting at, I think, is root cause identification. Have a look at http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2010/05/21/eli-goldratt-on-thinking-analytically/ Eli Goldratt has a lott of good and pramatic things to say on the subject of design thinking.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Trevor Miles
    2nd Dec
  • Need more Case Studies...
    @tochirag While I appreciate what you're trying to do here, it's clear that these "principles" have limited practical value to put it very mildly. Out of respect for Mr. Krigsman, I'll reserve more pointed and critical comment but I strongly urge you to seek practical application of these ideas in large, complex IT projects and measure the outcomes. Case studies will help you "condense the nonsense" as Terry Tate would say. I also invite you to read my point-by-point review further down in the responses.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    PragMatador
    3rd Dec
  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    "1. Put a multi-disciplinary team in charge"
    With one of the challenges of failure being the blame game (no one taking responsibility but instead pointing the finger at others), I find this suggestion rather ironic. This suggestion creates a system where the workers have more places to point the finger rather than fewer places to place the blame.

    Management by committee is generally inefficient, it often leads to never ending conflicts of ego centric ideas and eventually, in general, those best at playing group politics are the ones that get their way.

    I do not intend to imply that ideas should be top down. A person-centric team, with the correct person directing a team, does not exclude abstract methods of problem solving by team members nor does it prevent input and ideas from different parts of the team.

    "You can't pin down project failure on one person or one topic and yet we continue to use a person-centric method to manage projects."
    If you can't pin down failure to one person then it was not truly a "person-centric method" of management.

    If different departments can play the blame game, then no one was truly in charge and many were only given the illusion of authority.

    "On many projects, participants focus exclusively on their own individual tasks, thus becoming disconnected from the big picture."
    This is usually the result of a disconnected person in charge. I have worked with managers who had almost no overall awareness concerning the status of the different divisions of a project and often many on the project would take advantage of the situation. In the end the project would fail and those who were slothful would point the finger elsewhere and the manager pointed the finger at a different department.

    I have also worked with managers who often knew more about the status of each division of a project than many who were in charge of each division. When the person that is directing a project is actually doing their job, others who are on the project actually focus because when the project organizer is fully involved the teams are fully aware that the teams have no opportunity to pull the wool over their manager's eyes.


    I am sure that your described system would work, but it takes a diligent organizer to pull it off. Just as it also takes a diligent organizer to efficiently manage and direct a person-centric team.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    John238
    1st Dec
  • ZDNet Blogger

    RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @John238 Thanks for your comments and views -- appreciate your taking time to share them.

    While each of your points may be valid, there is an underlying problem when taking them as a whole, in my view. The basic reality is that coordinating a team (including project participants, technical resources, and business stakeholders) is the key challenge for achieving success. Design thinking offers an approach to align all the players while maintaining a discerning view toward various assumptions and goals.

    Projects fail because participants are self-serving, try to game the system for their own gain, are confused and inexperienced, and so on. While no system can completely stop this behavior, especially on large projects, design thinking at least makes a serious effort. In my experience, serious attempts to align participants will pay dividends.

    On the other hand, if no one involved in the project really cares about the outcome, then why bother to fix anything? In that case, the entire project becomes little more than a political shooting match where everyone is out for themselves. While it's easy to find examples of those projects, I am personally more interested in folks who are trying to do the right thing.

    Although you are correct in suggesting that design thinking is not a panacea to solve all problems, it does offer a genuine step in the right direction. Design thinking offers a worthwhile view that is highly consistent with my own perspective on IT success and failure. That's why I invited Chirag to write this post.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mkrigsman@...
    2nd Dec
  • Project Failure is a Process Problem, not a People Problem
    @John238

    Possibly the most detrimental aspect of how we deal with project failure is the defensive proclivity of pointing fingers and assigning blame. There's usually plenty of blame to go around.

    Instead of trying to figure out who's at fault we would be better off figuring out WHAT went wrong and adapting our process as needed to try to do better the next time. Project failure is a Process problem. There are two logical possibilities:

    1) The process is incapable and therefore cannot result in project success.
    2) The process is capable but the participants are unable to effectively execute it (lack of training, capacity, timeline, etc., all ultimately process-related).

    The third possibility is sabotage, which is a totally different challenge.

    Unfortunately, the mechanism that would allow for proper analysis of the process is usually not given enough respect. This mechanism is the project post-mortem which, when properly executed closes the loop in the continuous process improvement cycle.

    Bill Monroe, Project Portfolio Excellence, Inc.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wmmonroe@...
    2nd Dec
  • ZDNet Blogger

    RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @wmmonroe@... Ah yes, our old friend sabotage. Don't you love it! The fact that it happens never ceases to amaze me.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mkrigsman@...
    2nd Dec
  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @wmmonroe@...

    "Possibly the most detrimental aspect of how we deal with project failure is the defensive proclivity of pointing fingers and assigning blame." Well said, Bill.

    One of the things that design thinking has taught me and several other individuals is the humility. I have learned that failing is perfectly acceptable as long as you learn from it and do a better job next time. I have seen that primary reason behind assigning blame is that people are incapable of dealing with humility by recognizing a failure in public. This drives them to the defensive side. But, if your methodology is inherently designed based on "fail early and fail often" slowly and steadily the blame game goes away.

    Thanks,

    Chirag
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tochirag
    2nd Dec
  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @John238 Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate it.

    I typically see two views on any project: management-centric and team-centric. The management does want single person who is accountable for the failure since people do point fingers at each other. However, in most projects, team-centric view is completely missing. The individuals are made responsible for doing something but they're not necessarily accountable for the overall project since they are removed from the overall vision. I am suggesting to do both: have a person who is accountable for the project (which most projects do) as well as have people on the team responsible as well as accountable for the projects by making sure that they're grounded in the vision and they feel that whatever individual tasks they's performing are not just tasks but they have a broader meaning towards accomplishing the vision. In my experience, this is missing in many projects,.

    You're absolutely right. Any system is as good as the people working on it. Design thinking can't change that, but design thinking can help people who want to succeed and are open to a positive change. Organizational behavior is far more complex than any project management methodology out there.

    Thanks,

    Chirag
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tochirag
    2nd Dec
  • Interesting but I disagree with #2
    I generally agree with a lot of these approaches. But this one I don't agree with:

    2. Prepare for failure in the beginning. I recommend kicking off the project with a ???pre-mortem workshop.??? Visualize all the things that could go wrong by imagining that the project has failed.

    In my experience, what we visualize is much more likely to come into reality than what we don't. And by visualizing success - in addition to increasing your odds - you can accomplish the exact same goal of seeing your obstacles more clearly. Visualizing success in order to "see" the problems more clearly, however, requires that you visualize it truly - personally - even emotionally. When you can put yourself IN the situation of success and articulate what that really looks and feels like - as a group - everything out of alignment with that experience pops into immediate relief. This is a bit of an art, but it's not hard. Here's a more in depth guide for anyone interested: http://ht.ly/7MASt
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Dana Theus
    2nd Dec
  • RE: Design thinking: A new approach to fight complexity and failure
    @Dana Theus

    Yes, but the problem with what you are suggesting is that by "visualizing success" there is the danger of being overly optimistic about the vision, which can be counterproductive when that vision begins to unravel. (i.e., when Murphy's Law kicks in, which is it usually does at the most inconvenient of times).
    ZDNet Gravatar
    crystalsoldier
    2nd Dec

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources