Using the Prototyping Approach to Designing Generative Processes

Generative processes are critical to future oriented or strategic thinking efforts. It is from these processes that opportunities, ideas, and choices are identified and more fully articulated. Often, some of the best new approaches to strategies are generated in ideation, applying the prototyping approach to develop the best and more appropriate generative processes for the overall effort can be quite useful. I will describe ways I have done so.

Designing a strategic planning process through prototyping. I created a tool to prototype strategic crafting. Recently, I used the tool to help a large executive team develop a comprehensive strategic planning process. The group was set to launch a year-long strategic planning effort during a multi-day retreat and did not have a long history of integrated strategic planning. Most of the individual units had deep strategies and were showing success in execution, but this new effort was going to be different. It required strategies to be crafted that integrated activities and outcomes across the units. A key part of the crafting process was going to be generative, identifying and articulating a long list of potential opportunities from broad constituencies, testing them, and selecting the best ones for future strategy.

We worked with a card deck composed of 30+ strategic planning tools and processes and conducted the prototyping sessions live at a leadership retreat. The goal of the prototyping was to design the strategic planning process. Each card included the name of the tool and a short but illustrative description of what the tool was and what was hoped to result from using the tool. There were blank cards for adding tools not in the original deck. There were also three different colors of cards: white cards with core tools that were required in any prototype, yellow cards that were optional to be included or discarded, and green cards with more advanced or innovative tools that awarded bonus points for use.

The cards were about three by five inches printed on heavy cardstock. Here are some samples:

   

Prior to the retreat, I worked with a local design team of executives that also would be participants. The goal of this pre-work was to test the language and tools to ensure they would make sense and include local necessary requirements for the planning process. At the retreat, after a day and a half of exploring challenges, opportunities, and models of planning processes used in other places, I conducted the 3 hour prototyping workshop. There were six teams composed of six or seven individuals each and we started building prototypes out of six tool decks. The cards were randomly spread across each table. They also had large-format sheets of paper, markers, and tape. The teams were asked to review the card deck and select the planning tools they believe would be the best moving forward. They also were asked to develop a planning timeline then arrange the tool cards in chronological order across the timeline. The teams had 60 minutes to build the prototype and develop a graphical representation that goes along with a 5-7 minute verbal presentation. It was shared that it was a competition and the group with the best prototype would win.

The groups started in a concentrated effort to inventory and understand the tools. Within 15 minutes, nearly everyone in the room was standing, moving the cards around, cutting and pasting sheets of paper, and being generally boisterous – good results. By about 45 minutes of process, six distinct prototypes began to emerge, some of them quite novel. I found that almost every group created a new planning tool, some more than one. After 60 minutes, I was able to quiet the room and begin the presentations. The team had fun and produced creative results.

During the processing of the results, we further refined the prototyping by selecting the one that appeared to most meet the needs of the entire group. It was a simple vote by the entire group. We then moved on to discuss what characteristics from the non-winning prototypes should be included in the next iteration. A new prototype began to emerge. We had significant buy in, if not complete consensus. The whole process moved forward and more refinements were made in subsequent sessions, but I felt at the time that we had made tremendous progress in a short time, perhaps doing in three hours what might had taken weeks or months without using a prototyping process.

Collaborative facilitation mapping. Much of my work involves developing small to large group interactive sessions for clients, typically CEOs or senior leaders. I often work with client side teams and collaborate with one or more facilitators. I also use a variety of generative processes in most of my projects. Unless they have worked with me in the past, when building proposals, I tend to have a difficult time explaining to the clients what these processes are, why they take up some much time, and why I recommend that so many people get involved. One approach that I am using more and more to design and deliver generative processes is online collaborative facilitation mapping with full prototyping flare.

There are a number of emerging online tools that allow teams to collaborate real time, either across distances or asynchronously at varying times and places. I like to build initial process prototypes, get everyone connected to be able to view and manipulate the model, and turn loose the power of prototyping to let the ideas evolve. I typically include data about the events, like dates, locations, and length of time. For each of the generative processes, I also write and vet outcome and output statements. Outcomes are those things we like to have resulted from the process such as new ideas, an increased sense of engagement, or enhanced teamwork. Outputs are those things that are tangibly created during the process such as lists, pictures, models, or other artifacts. The final component of the facilitation maps are the minute by minute details of the activities, which include timelines, speaking roles, process plans, and required materials.

We then iterate these maps, adjusting activities and outcomes along the way. Typically, the process starts with a small group and expands over time to all of those involved in planning and delivering the generative processes. This prototyping approach generates buy in, creates alignment in expected outcomes and outputs, and help to keep the event or process on track when it is happening live. Speaking roles are clarified and participant engagement is maximized.

In summary, you might find a lot of what I’ve written here a bit down in the weeds, but I wanted to give detail to how the prototyping approach can be applied not only to visual and physical object, but also to activities and processes. So give these methods a try, create one of your own, and explore the power of prototyping for process generation.

---

Robert Brodnick, Ph.D. Vice President for Strategy & Innovation www.strategicinitiatives.com robert@strategicinitiatives.com 530.798.4082

What is Prototyping?

What is Prototyping?

Prototyping is a process for building models of potential solutions, refining them through repeated testing, and preparing them for eventual production or implementation. Prototyping as a process has probably always existed since humans began building tools to improve how they performed tasks. In essence, it’s a process of continually improving and adapting a tool or application to its environment. Prototyping coevolved with the scientific and industrial revolutions. It wasn’t until the 1960s and 70s, however, that we started to see prototyping more clearly described and defined as a specific process with steps, stages, and methods. It was also critically embedded in design and design thinking models.

Prototyping is embedded in design thinking. Now, prototyping as a fundamental part of the design thinking process, has spread to a wide variety of applications. The design process I prefer to use follows the six steps and stages in the graphic below. I will take more time in a later article to explain the design thinking process, but for now here are the six steps in brief.

Design: During the design phase, it is most important to spend time identifying the problem, understanding who are the clients and stakeholders, and scoping out the project. I like to use a design brief to summarize and communicate the work here and eventually establish criteria for success.

Futuring: The futuring process is one of background research, environmental scanning, and any SWOT (or similar) analysis. It is important to identify the forces at play in the current environment and at some point in the (not too) distant future and articulate the implications for your organization, the larger context, and the various stakeholders.

Divergence: Divergence is about creating choices. It is also about building on ideas over multiple sessions or iterations. The result is early concepts of potential solutions that can be further refined over time.

Convergence: The convergence process is one of narrowing down choices to those ideas best suited to action and results. Often, it is helpful to develop and refine key planning assumptions and test ideas to discover what “wows” so that tougher, later choices become easier.

Prototyping: Prototyping is a process for building models of potential solutions, refining them through repeated testing, and preparing them for eventual production or implementation. I often follow six steps in the process.

1. visualize possible solutions from the best choices

2. use stories bring ideas to life

3. determine what elements or functions the prototypes will test

4. build models, develop experiments, and get feedback from stakeholders

5. refine the prototypes

6. determine what works and plan to launch

Implementation: Here in the last stage of the design framework, we plan to make the ideas real. Decisions are required about the timeline, budget, impacts, and feedback mechanisms.

The four orders of prototyping. In one of the seminal writings on design thinking the 1992 article Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Richard Buchanan put three significant conceptual stakes in the ground. First, he postulated the design thinking was a new and emerging liberal art. Second, he framed the design process as a way to solve some of the world's most difficult and wicked problems. Third, he explored how design thinking is applied across a large number of problems and how extensively design effects contemporary life. He summarized four orders for design thinking and therefore four possible realms for prototyping.

1st order: 
symbolic and visual communication. Examples here include graphic design works like typography, publications, illustration, photography, video, and computer graphics and animation. This order focuses on communicating ideas and information.

2nd order: 
materials and tangible objects. Examples here include everyday products, clothing, tools, machines, and anything we use in our 3D world. Design here can go between the virtual and physical and extends to include psychological, social, and cultural experiences related to the objects.

3rd order: 
activities, services, and simple systems. Examples here include services, user experiences, human machine system interfaces, simple organizational processes – anything where one or more individuals are experiencing interactive interaction with an intentional and pre-designed system.

4th order: 
complex systems to include cultures, environments, and organizations. Examples here include architecture and urban planning, complex engineered systems, and social systems and media. As Buchanan writes, this order is “more and more concerned with exploring the role of design in sustaining, developing, and integrating human beings into broader ecological and cultural environments.”

Most of the focus of my design and prototyping work deals with the 3rd and 4th order problems. In next week’s post, I will give you a concrete example of a fun technique I use to help strategy teams generate their own processes for generation and ideation.

What Are Generative Processes?

What Are Generative Processes?

Generative processes – and there are many approaches, models, and methodologies for generating ideas – are in essence ways to diverge from a starting point and create choices. Generative, or divergent, thinking has several characteristics and all of the methods have the outcome of increasing the number of options being considered. During idea generation, individuals and groups work to identify new ideas and solution and see things differently then they are now. There are a notable number of processes to use to generate ideas. Some include:

·       brainstorming ·       role playing ·       story telling ·       storyboarding ·       collaboration ·       critiquing ·       empathy research

·       sketching ·       prototyping ·       positive turbulence ·       creative problem solving ·       mind mapping ·       brainwriting ·       worst idea technique

·       headlining ·       image collaging ·       user experience ·       impromptu video ·       wish technique ·       whiteboarding ·       forced analogies

In studying these and other methodologies and have boiled the essence of these down to six steps. The graphic below shows these steps relative to each other.

I find that creating intentional intersections in ways of knowing, various disciplines, and different practices helps to increase the variety and number of ideas. To move groups in that direction, early in the process you need to limit or completely remove habits of judgment. Helpful ground rules in the process include: understanding the objectives or the problem, deferring judgment, focusing on quantity, withholding criticism, welcoming unusual ideas, combining and improving ideas, and questioning anything you don’t understand.

During the preparation step, it is important to consider how participants can enter a state free of judgment and full of creativity. Much depends on the setting and the facilitator. The process cycles between states of stimulating thinking, capturing what is offered, and building on ideas. Eventually, the energy of the group wanes and idea generation slows down – a perfect time for a new stimulus. When the group has covered the ground the can or when the generation process hits its target, it’s time to wind down the process and prepare for the next steps.

For the methodologist readers, let me review the six steps as a series of questions for consideration along the way.

1. Considerations for Preparation:

Who will lead or facilitate the sessions?

Who will participate in the sessions?

Where will the sessions be held?

What will the environments be like?

What materials are needed (easel, paper, white board, pens, etc.)?

What are the ideation sessions desired outcomes?

2. Techniques for Stimulation:

What techniques do the facilitators have at their disposal to get new ideas flowing when the first wave of ideas wanes?

Should you include turbulators in the session (individuals placed there intentionally to stimulate participants)?

If so, who would do a good job in the role?

What artifacts will you have on hand to further stimulate the flow of ideas (handouts, data, video, pop up speakers, etc.)?

How can you switch ideation techniques midstream to encourage stimulation (whole group, small group, individual, writing, post it notes, etc.)?

Can you change the environments or settings?

What other elements of surprise can you bring to the sessions?

3. Sharing and Offering:

How many facilitators will be necessary?

How will participants know when to share ideas?

Will only one individual be asked to speak at a time?

Will offers be written down or just verbalized?

Which facilitator will take the lead in directing the offers?

How will facilitators preference builds (new twists on the last idea, more on that later) versus new ideas?

How can facilitators cut off deep discussion, critical responses, and other distracting comments?

How can you get the sessions back to ideation if it turns into something else?

4. Capturing Ideas:

What media will be used to capture ideas?

What level of detail will be captured?

Will the sessions have secondary media (audio or video recording, transcription, note takers, etc.)?

How many facilitators will be needed to record ideas?

How can the capture be visually presented throughout the session?

How much technology will be used (remember when it goes bad, it usually really goes bad)?

What can you do during capture to make your life easier when synthesizing outcomes?

5. Building on Ideas:

Not every offer is a good idea – but, even bad ideas can lead to great ideas later. How can you create an environment where builds are encouraged?

Is there a way to encourage participants to say when an idea is a build, or does that even matter?

Should you capture builds in the original idea stream or make some kind of note/format to remember them later?

Progressive ideation is a powerful technique. How can you take the results of early ideas and intentionally build on them to create better ideas?

How can you use the design of the sessions to layer builds?

6. Concluding the Ideation Session:

When will you know you have enough ideas?

Can you ensure that everything was captured and recorded? It can be difficult to reconstruct notes later.

What comments will be made to conclude the session?

What feedback will be given to participants?

When will a summary be available?

How do you plan to synthesize the results?

To what degree was the problem statement addressed?

Will follow up sessions be needed?

With this in mind, I will move on to describe the prototyping process, and in the post that follows, bring the two together by explaining a specific technique I have found useful in designing generative processes for strategy crafting.