Design Thinking for Social Innovation – Post # 2

This is the second post on an article entitled Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, which appears in the current (Winter 2010) issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review.

In design thinking, inspiration is the first step of the process. It embraces the problem or opportunity that motivates people to take action. What struck me most about this phase of design thinking was the authors’ statement that focus groups and surveys rarely yield important insights because all they do is collect data on what people want. Rather, the authors suggest a better starting point – go out into the target area and observe the actual experiences of your constituents. Observe how they move through their day and improvise their lives. Get out there, do “homestays,” and shadow locals at their jobs and in their homes. By becoming embedded in the lives of the people for whom you are designing, you have a much better chance of success.

Ideation is step two. The authors suggest a process of idea development that discourages the “devil’s advocate” and encourages vocalization of many ideas, among which the best simply rise to the top. The authors quote Linus Pauling, a two time Nobel Prize winner, who said “To have a good idea you must first have lots of ideas.” With a diverse group of people with multidisciplinary training, a strong and varied base of ideas can emerge.

Finally, implementation can occur. At the core of implementation is prototyping your designed solution. Testing, iterating, and refining.

Design Thinking for Social Innovation - Post # 1

This past year I read Daniel Pink’s book “A Whole New Mind.” Pink makes a very compelling argument that success in the coming decades depends on a work force that is trained in both left brain and right brain thinking. In particular, he highlights the need for design thinking. Jobs that can be reduced to a formula, mechanized, or shipped overseas are already gone from our economy. But design thinking will always be in demand, no matter what the business or industry. When I realized what he was saying, I immediately gave a copy of the book to my 17 year old daughter and 19 year old son, hoping it would sway them to incorporate some “design” elements in their college or post graduate education.

In the current issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, an article entitled Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt brings the very same “design thinking” approach to large and complex social problems.

The authors describe design thinking as an integration of both our (right brained) ability to be intuitive and to recognize patterns, and our (left brained) ability to be rational and analytical. It describes design thinking as a process that goes through three spaces, inspiration (the problem), ideation (the process of generating, developing and testing ideas), and implementation (the path that leads from the project stage into people’s lives). And movement through the three spaces is never linear. The build in feedback causes looping and reiteration. But the process, while chaotic, produces very effective results.

Stanford Social Innovation Review - Winter 2010 Issue - Post # 1

“The Wrong Risks” by Sheela Patel.

For those of us who run foundations, it is uncommon to hear experienced based and uncensored criticism from the nonprofit grantee world. But a great example of just that is found in "The Wrong Risks," an article by Sheela Patel in the most recent issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review. Sheela worked in a community service center in Mumbai, looking for answers to the entrenched poverty of the “pavement dwellers,” the poorest of the poor in the region. Through years of trial and error, social activism, provocation and dedication, her organization - the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers (SPARC) - found real answers and actually moved the needle for her clients and constituents.

However, were she to start SPARC today, she believes she would never find the funding to run it. Why? Because in the intervening 20 years, foundations have become risk adverse, preferring to protect themselves rather than to take the risks inherent in confronting unjust social structures. And because foundations have become arrogant, perceiving themselves as experts in the field and therefore authoritative, rather than facilitative, partners with their grantees. She says “…foundations today are increasingly treating organizations like ours not as innovators, but as contractors who are hired to deliver their visions.”

Nonprofits are afraid to tell this truth because they need foundation grants. The power imbalance in the relationship between foundations and their grantees weighs in favor of the grant maker and tends to stifle open dialogue.  So I can't help but feel that this article is a gift and presents an opportunity. The new season and new year is a good time to ask: Are we being risk adverse? Are we being arrogant? What is the highest and best use of this Community Foundation? 

Just asking the question opens up a space between thinking and organizational behavior.

"Catalytic Philanthropy" by Mark Kramer (Post #1)

This week I’ll be reviewing an article from the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Mark R. Kramer entitled “Catalytic Philanthropy.” It is an inspiring look at donor commitment to a cause and the difference this can make. This is the FIRST in a series of posts.

All philanthropists want their giving to have real impact. But according to Mark Kramer, it takes more than simply making a donation, however substantial, to a nonprofit. A lot more.

A recent article entitled “Catalytic Philanthropy” by Mark Kramer in the Fall 2009 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review provides an optimum model for engineering social change with donor engagement, persistence and philanthropy.

Kramer believes that most philanthropists only achieve “modest and often indiscernible results, whether individually or collectively.” While acknowledging social conditions would be worse without philanthropy, he argues that today’s conventional philanthropy rarely delivers true social impact and systemic change. Most donors give only money, delegating the work, service provision, and ultimate problem solving to the nonprofit. Kramer states, however, that there is little reason to assume that the nonprofits have the internal skill set and bandwidth to solve such huge societal problems.

Tony Roberts once said, “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.” To make a real impact, something in philanthropy has to change. And that, according to Kramer, is the actual behavior of donors. Picking great nonprofits to financially support is just not enough, because that leaves the entire responsibility for improving conditions solely with the nonprofits.

What Kramer is really pushing on is this: Who takes responsibility for the issue?