The last three weeks have been a whirlwind of workshops and social innovation. A speaking engagement at the 3P conference in Kitchener had me talking to technologists, business leaders and academics about how to use Design Thinking to make social change. A week of planning sessions in Montreal was about designing extended social programs for people with chronic illness. A productive few days in DC with the World Bank had us working on distributed innovation experiences for offices around the world.

I’ll be honest. I’m exhausted. But when you’re talking about innovation change, it’s hard not to focus on the greater good.

These days, there’s a lot of interest in Idea Couture’s social innovation practice. Much like design thinking, any new and fuzzily-defined term that enters the business world is at least partly cause for buzz. But on the plus side, I know that the majority of the interest is based on the opportunity that Social Innovation presents.

This isn’t CSR. This is business. It’s making money by doing good. And it works.

From pharmaceutical companies who know that their social impact will lead to financial impact, to technologists who are looking for new learning opportunities that extend their definition of value through solving problems of social change, these last few weeks have shown me that the social innovation world is alive. The great Peter Drucker said that, “Every single social and global issue of our day is a business opportunity in disguise”. It seems as though the business world is starting to catch on.

Three years ago, I sat down with a good friend from MaRS to talk about his experience working with not for profits. At the time, I had been hitting a wall doing some business model design work for a now-defunct not for profit. To this day, I’ll remember that conversation as a turning point in my career. “The problem with so many of these (not-for-profits) is that they’re completely afraid of money,” he said. Over the next few years, I’ve grown to understand what he meant.

It’s not necessarily a fear of income – very few organizations have the ability to raise funds like a well run not-for-profit. But for some reason, the dialogue of multiple winners from a giving scenario seems to make many not-for-profit’s uneasy. But whenever a problem is solved, new value is created, and in many cases, that value is being left on the table.

Thankfully, with the number of social-entrepreneurs that I’ve met since that fateful conversation, both through our incubation experience and through talks at a number of universities, a shift is on its way. It seems as though many people realize that one possible future of giving is to also get, be it through new organizational experience, new revenue streams, or reduced operational costs. With benefits like that, it’s no wonder there’s buzz.

The shame of making money through solving real social problems is on its way out the door.

Read any CSR book, and it will tell you that companies will eventually change – not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because their customers are demanding it. While this is certainly true (our design research constantly confirms that customers are asking for social-embedded products and services), I’m now seeing a lot of companies that are shifting based primarily on operational benefits. That puts a smile on my face because the social innovation mandate is coming from both the top down and the bottom up.

I’ll make this very clear – for Idea Couture, Social Innovation means using social impact as a business strategy. It’s about creating real, tangible value for organizations through tackling social problems with ties to their core business model. The expectations are high, both in terms of financial impact, but also delivering results on social impact.

Social innovation is the future of business. It’s hard not to read that and feel a little more optimistic about what’s to come.

Idea Couture has its roots in digital innovation. Frog, Adaptive Path, my good friends at Normative Design, and many other leading innovation firms also have amazingly strong foundations in the digital world. Three years ago, I left the interactive industry to pursue innovation consulting, and while I expected a painful transition, what I found was that infusing big problems with the sensibilities of the interactive space, no problem is insurmountable. Now, all of these firms call upon that experience to tackle problems much larger than designing websites.

I believe that interactive people are the world’s best innovators.

While today, the process of innovation is often labeled “design thinking”, people from the interactive space don’t really need to call it anything other than their job. The process of innovation has been intuitively embedded in user experience since people first started thinking about how websites work. What’s even more incredible is that the interactive space has only reached one billionth of its potential. While we draw on foundations of industrial design and architecture, we’re blazing trails in other unexplored territory.

Digital people are inventors

In a typical design process, defining constraints of a project is one of the very earliest steps. In the interactive realm, a constraint is treated like an opportunity to push the boundaries of a medium. As a result, people are more than willing to hack the rules or create new rules to make the optimal solution work. Their analytical yet lateral ability to solve problems is second to none. Interactive people are inventors.

Interactive people understand systems

Anyone who grew up in a web firm lived the life of the ugly stepchild. If you were building websites in the early 2000′s, you knew that your entire existence hinged on an appreciation of multiple service and experience paths. You were building within a larger organizational system and context – you were one piece of a puzzle. Interactive people are systems designers.

Empathy is at the core of innovation

A web design process is inherently user centred. It requires an in depth understanding of a person’s goals, and your job is to help them achieve those goals. That being said, interactive people understand that an end user’s experience is a reflection of both what you design and their own environment on the other side of the screen. We deal with issues of accessibility, issues of screen size, mobile considerations, situated experience, and more. Interactive people understand user centred design.

Digital people communicate

Since the beginning of my web career, I’ve understood design thinking tools. Prototyping, wireframing and storyboarding are all essential processes in the digital space. Apply those same skills to a service design problem, or to a product design problem, and suddenly abstract concepts make complete sense to your clients. Interactive people apply the design thinking toolkit every day.

Digital people understand performance

One of the largest barriers to innovation is the burden of proof. Since the very beginning of the digital era, people have been measuring websites to communicate the success of innovation, and drawing relevant parallels where no previous parallels existed. Digital people balance business and user objectives.

Interactive designs are always iterative

The day after you build something, you switch to optimization mode. There’s an inherent appreciation in digital that solutions can be elegant, but can always be improved. The idea of constant improvements and iterative design are fundamental to digital processes. They’re also core to the beliefs of innovators.

The medium is in its infancy

Ask an industrial designer to talk about the web, and they’ll base most of their thinking in what’s current. Talk to an interactive designer about the web, and they talk about visions for the future. Every day, some new considerations enters our design lexicon. And every day, some new startup is experimenting with these tools to push the boundaries of what is possible. Digital people are adaptable and flexible.

Innovation in product is innovation in digital

To solve product and service design problems, we need to migrate towards platform thinking. A product is no longer just an object – it’s a hub of connected information and interactions. Yes, strong industrial design can create an object of desire, but without inherently and intuitively applying digital sensibilities to that product, it will arguably be less competitive. Industries like music and publishing are transforming before our very eyes, and who are the best people to lead us into this unexplored territory?

Any of these qualities on their own are factors we look for when hiring innovation consultants. But what’s incredible about interactive people is that, more often than not, they have all of these qualities. And I know this is just a starting point in a long list of skills. I’m not trying to discount the capabilities of industrial designers, researchers, or architects who have found their way into the innovation space, but I do truly believe that the inherent understanding of all the qualities outlined above put former interactive practitioners in a unique position to solve big, important problems.

So did I miss any?

Needless to say, the process of preparing and presenting to the internal IC team had me pretty primed to talk about what Design Thinking is and what it means in the context of Idea Couture, business, and innovation. So I was pretty happy when I went on Quora last night and came across this great question:

Part of the challenge in answering that question is that there is no single definition of Design Thinking. From what I’ve seen and what I practice, there are four points of view on what Design Thinking really is. Each have a different connection to innovation.

1. Design thinking is a person is a person who is capable of forming ideas through abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning implies knowing throughout intuition (no formal proof), which is effectively a new thought. Innovation through new ways of thinking.
2. Design thinking is a human centered way of viewing the world. By trying to solve problems through gaining insights around people’s needs, you’re creating new perspectives which lead to new opportunities for innovation. Innovation through new perspectives.
3. Design thinking is a series of methods allow designers better communicate ideas. Completely new concepts are difficult for most people to grasp, so using a designer’s lens on communications improves understanding. The communication of innovation.
4. Design thinking is a series of steps to guide the innovation process. It’s the meta name given to the activities involved in creating a new idea. Design thinking is innovation.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Just tired of hearing the term “Design Thinking”? Let me know.

Also, here’s a copy of the internal presentation if you’re interested.

That’s a big question that I don’t think the world of crowdsourcing community has quite figured out yet.

Cause Marketing is Not CSR

Here’s an important level-set in the discussion of these platforms – branded cause competitions are a form of cause marketing, not CSR (corporate social responsibility). The difference is small but significant. Cause marketing is a marketing relationship where there is an expected brand benefit, where CSR plays in the realm of philanthropy. In cause marketing, it’s corporate first, cause second.

One of the big debates against these programs is that, “If these companies are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, they shouldn’t make people work for it”. This is a classic example of confusing CSR with CM. I couldn’t disagree more. Cause marketing is not a replacement for existing CSR programs. These programs aren’t just a re-allocation of philanthropy dollars, they result of net new new dollars being contributed to causes from a marketing budget. There needs to be positive brand return, or the program will disappear. So if a little charity work means a lot of new dollars being made available for causes, I’m all for it.

So why does CSR vs. CM matter?

Beyond executing against a program’s rules, cause marketing initiatives have no real responsibility to go any further than giving away a stated prize. Community idea competitions usually result in hundreds or even thousands of new ideas being submitted. Some of those ideas are unnecessary or impossible to implement, but many others represent a bottom up voice for what’s needed in the community.Whether intentional or not, these platforms have given a voice to ignored communities, marginalized populations, and scrappy causes. They have the ability to bring attention to there needs in ways that used to be reserved for behemoth not for profit organizations.

But as with any competition, there are winners and losers. Cause marketing idea competitions make plenty of ideas come to fruition. As a marketing competition, it can’t be reasonably expected that the marketer take responsibility to manage and push forward every idea submitted. In the case of the Aviva Community Fund, we partnered with Benevity in 2010 so that registered charities can use the platform to connect donations as a way to migrate from CM to CSR platform and to let the ideas live on. But we can’t expect that a soft drink or credit card company follow up on every idea – it’s not good business.

The result is that many important ideas get forgotten once the next round of voting starts.

Government and community idea competitions
Idea platforms showcase community needs. So nothing could be worse than a community need being flagged in a competition, then going unfulfilled or un-evaluated. The crowdsourcing competition model uses voting as a way of making idea evaluation manageable, but just because an idea isn’t popular or because the idea creator doesn’t know how to use facebook doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea.

In a previous blog post about classifying crowdsourcing platforms, I introduced a concept called Crowdsourcing Researching -using crowdsourcing as a tool to articulate previously unknown or unmet needs. These ideas platforms are an amazing Crowdsourcing Researching tool to understand community needs. FixMyStreet is a great example of how this can work in government, and with many municipalities moving towards philosophies of open government, listing to the crowd has to be a vertical of activity.

My hope (dream, aspiration) is that in the long term, these competitions find ways to formalize their relationships with government as a way to ensure that all ideas receive the attention they deserve. For the winning ideas, they get a fast-track to implementation under the Cause Marketing program rules. But for all other ideas, they find a formalized way to be reviewed by government agencies to ensure there’s an opportunity for implementation. Idealized, yes I know, but important.

What are your thoughts?

Having spent the better part of the last two years working on the  Aviva Community Fund and MIT Global Challenge platforms, and working on ways to see ideas live beyond the length of a competition, I can tell you that this new form of bottom up innovation represents an important evolution in how problems are solved in the world. And as long as they continue to be brand building powerhouses, private organizations are going to continue to collect important community ideas. What do you think should happen to private competition ideas?

As designers, we constantly crave inspiration from new things to be inspired by.  For the most part however, there is a tendency to seek out images, themes or concepts that clearly demonstrate, a sense of beauty, perfect proportions, dramatic themes and interesting compositions.   A sensual curve here… some techno-babble there, we make a habit of drawing inspiration from a variety of places to avoid getting stuck designing with the same themes over and over again.   We try to avoid the boring cliches’.   We try to see life through a new lens each time, to gain a new perspective on the world.

So what are some of the common themes that stimulate our creativity?   Sometimes designers find inspiration from nature, sculpture, fine art and even architecture.  For the last 50 years in Automotive Design however, the influence has mostly come from a pervasive attachment to sensual forms and seductive images.  Designers have typically tried to capture the energy of these ideas and translate them into physical gestural surfaces, feature lines and graphics. Now, with the advent of the modern constraints combined with a change in cultural reference, there have recently been new identities formed.  Under a wave of newer technologies, and emerging markets there seems to be more influence coming into Car Design from things like Japanese stylized robots (Mech), motorcycles and even electric appliances (cell phones).  Other than the visceral influence of Formula 1 racecars or Syd Mead’s futurist visions,  I cannot think of a more sampled subject for inspiration (typical of the designers of today) than the phenomenon of stylized mech-suit robots such as Gundam, Evangelion or even Ironman.

The influence of all these robo-heros are beginning to influence the faces of cars.  Take Audi for example.  They have gone to great lengths to create a signature theme for the brand with their LED headlamps that better differentiate themselves from other European brands.  There is a tremendous amount of effort that goes into faces of cars to make them more recognizable and distinctive.

So what will automotive design look-like in the future if these tendencies continue?  The answer likely depends on the region you are referring to and also depends on your physical relation to an urban environment.  As the size, safety and engineering constraints take hold, the visible evolution for cars will probably have more to do with materials and aesthetic finishes that each brand chooses to portray.  However, there are many experiments taking place right now in automotive design and it really comes down to how well corporations can cohesively integrate their Design talents with their Engineering talents to address weight, functionality, and versatility for customization.

I think that the next level in aesthetic design will occur when we start to see production cars utilizing more anthropomorphic forms and physical features.  I think Chris Bangles’ contributions is very relevant in this regard as a pure concept that clearly demonstrates the transformable skin of the GINA Light showcar.  This departure from a static sculpture will rapidly open up many new possibilities. Consider the acceptance of the Sci-fi films; Transformers Movies and the Bay film franchise on the younger generations, what will they grow up to design?

Perhaps it is the sub-conscious affect on my generation (Gen X) of seeing the 007 Aston Martins in the James Bond films; the way they always featured special tools.  Or perhaps it was just the way cool ‘more-than-meets-eye’ multi-mode capability of the Autobots that pushed our desire to seek out multiple features in our design proposals.   Don’t be too surprised when in the not-to distant future, you see an automobile that looks more like a sexy robot than a car.  Perhaps we will finally see those ever-elusive Fembots.

I Need these things…

Tic-Tac Toast

Because regular toast is just boring. Just think of possibilities: peanut butter versus jelly, Tuna versus Mayonnaise, hummus versus Baba-Ganoush. Competition + food= the ultimate combination.

Pick Your Nose Party Cups

Because its finally socially acceptable to pick your nose in public- plus these cups are a cheaper alternative to plastic surgery.

Egg-White Separator

Because despite how handy I am in the kitchen, I can never successfully separate the whites from the yolk.

Pizza Boss 3000

Because The food Network and HGTV are my favourite channels.

The Ex Knife Set

Because I have made some pretty bad choices in my day.

If my desire says anything, there is clearly a market for the kitchiest of kitchen accessories.

Justifiable purchases? I know so.

HCI is about people, interactions and system interfaces. First, people do what people are good at, such as observation, interpreting, determining what is important, and making the final decisions. There are situations where human decisions need to be assisted by data visualizations. Secondly, the computer does what it is good at, which is repetitive tasks and routine. Finally, collectively, people will make better decisions or influence each other on their decisions. But neither people (individual or communities) nor computers are forced to do what the other does better. HCI strives to integrate the two so they can compliment each other to achieve more productivity.

There are quite a few challenges in applying universal design in the context of HCI in order to provide the formative insight needed to design interactive products that can be experienced by the mass in different contexts. The distinctive characteristics of these products may be identified by briefly considering the changes in the socio-technical paradigm; from the early days of computing to the 21st century human interfaces intended to provide a gateway into the world of distributed information paradigm; the scope and context of use of the computer (hard to define what a computer is these days, what is the computing power needed in order to be called a computer),;as it becomes a mediating tool for increasing different types of human (both business and personal) activities.

In another short 5-10 years, mini or micro computing devices will be everywhere as medical and consumer devices becoming mass. While HCI is still in its infancy, some HCI practitioners are trying to break away from common conception of an “average” user interacting with a laptop in the office to get work done, and to engage in a conscious effort to develop new understanding, methodologies and tools, in order to understand the following:

How emerging new distributed computational paradigms will create new challenges for HCI designs? How do we research behavior that does not exist today?
How new interaction /interface design can be effectively used to serve an increasing range of system-mediated human activities?
When does interactions / interface design cross the line and becoming service design? Interactive artifacts are now being introduced into service settings in a larger degree.
How new visceral interactions that are driven by interactive paradigms rather than user needs emerge, beyond the imagination of the novice users?
What are the emerging threats to privacy that force us to rethink some fundamental concepts in HCI when attackers, ranging from the curious to the highly malicious, might abuse or subvert the system?

Today, I’m waiting for a flight in Boston Logan airport. And for a change, I’m delighted. What is clear is that this airport has put a bit of effort into some thoughtful design. Armed with my trusty iPhone and an hour until take-off, I thought I’d share a few of the design elements of terminal E that have been pleasantly surprising.

1. Human Centered Seating
Generally speaking, seating in airports is terrible. We’ve all been stuck on old torn leather chairs in dehumanizing rows with uncomfortable leather arm rests designed to ward off delayed travellers looking for a rest. Well Logan has clearly thought about the design of its seating.

While those old friends with sharp arm rests are indeed present (and serve a necessary use), Logan clearly understands that travellers are humans, and humans interact. In addition to the uncomfortable classic, Logan has clearly examined the types positions people sit in at the airport. Ever put your feet on your travel luggage? Well they offer a slightly reclined chairs with a foot rest for the tired. Ever awkwardly sit to have a conversation with the person you’re travelling with? Well Logan has chairs in V formations that allow people travelling together to have a comfortable face-to-face conversation.

In an industry where everyone has to wait, this airport has thought about how to make waiting a little more comfortable.

2. Inviting Spaces
Travel presents a long period of maintained stress. Airports must be one of the lowest quality experiences for the money. A visit to the spa costs you a hundred bucks. Airport taxes aren’t that far off that price.

While an airport can’t necessarily fix all of the experience breakdowns of flying, Logan has created some opportunities for escapism. The airport features several spaces that allow passengers isolate themselves from other travellers to relax. Including these spaces (and offering rocking chairs) gave me the right kind of escape to work on this post.

3. Understanding the needs of the Modern Traveler
As a business traveler, I often look at the airport as my office. A few months ago, I flew out of the Buffalo airport on my way to Boston for some meetings.  As any business traveler flying in the afternoon would do, I entered the terminal and looked for the nearest plug to make sure I had enough juice for the flight. Upon further investigation, every potential outlet was covered in impenetrable metal. The only available outlets? A “Pay for Power” station offering me a charge for a charge.

Logan clearly understands that waiting is more pleasant with entertainment, and modern entertainment requires a plug. Everywhere I looked, there was a free outlet – no co-opted marketing angle, no sitting on the floor next to an outlet because there were no chairs around. Just an understanding of what people need.

4. Wi-Fi for All
In addition to the four letter words most regular travellers drop regularly while being dehumanized, we have a six letter word as well – Boingo. In a world that increasingly looks at the internet as a right not a privilege, the idea of paying $10.00 for 24 hours of Wi-Fi is insulting. Do your passengers a favour – give them a little internet access in exchange for their airport tax dollars.

Logan airport progressively offered me free Wi-Fi upon arrival (all be it, sponsored by Google).  The result? I could catch up on a bit of work and find enough time to jump on  WordPress and offer the airport my compliments. When you have a good experience, you return the favour. If anyone is reading this – connect through Logan.

Airports with empathy
Sure, not all design changes lives. But we should never forget that good experiences certainly have the ability to impact them. Designing a decent airport experience is not rocket science, and a good experience at an airport could go a long way towards helping an industry notorious for experience breakdowns.

Logan airport was certainly not perfect, but what’s obvious is that it was designed with empathy. Somehow, they’ve managed to understand traveler needs and behaviours, and support them with the best design and features they can. Logan airport tries in an industry with a terrible reputation for under-delivering on customer experience, and I can’t help but leave with a positive perspective on my visit.

Have you had a great airport experience recently? Leave a comment and let us know what made it so great for you.

Sydney-born, Portland (OR)-based designer, Cameron Booth has illustrated today’s US Interstate System in a mashed-up map style that’s comparable to the elegant design of H.C. Beck’s masterful London Underground diagram from the 1930s.  Suitable for framing.

Check out a full size of the map here:  Flickr.

Anything elegant is often simple; not everything simple is elegant. Things that are simple are often user friendly, not everything simple is user friendly. Sometimes complexity is needed. Simplicity has different meanings. Good businesses need to be simple and easy to understand, and that’s the investment criteria for Warren Buffet. Businesses are getting too complex these days and most executives, let alone CEOs, know all the moving pieces or have any idea of their risk exposure. And some rely on SAP to manage their enterprise and that’s unrealistic.

There are many different kinds of simplicity, sometimes in form and sometimes in function and sometimes both. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for simplicity on the other side of complexity.” Elegance is “far side” simplicity that is emotionally engaging, profoundly intelligent, and artfully crafted to be two things at once: simple and powerful. Why elegance? Is it an elusive target? Is it only applicable to design?

A business model includes the raw function of what we (economist) refer to as its “industry” (it’s a bank or a retail chain or a newspaper, for example), but can also include particular ways of operating the raw function (a branchless bank or low-cost airline, a discount retailer or a free online social network, for example). Thus the business model “function” can shade into “performance” when particular approaches to types of customer, levels of service and brand ethos are considered. The architectural side of the business model is how the core components are stacked together and that impacts the function as well as the performance. It can be simple and elegant AND it can be complex and elegant.