User:Braveand/sandbox

The 3 dimensions of design model (3DD)

The "3 dimensions of design model" (3DD) articulates and illustrates the human-centered problem-solving practice defining three pillars: the workforce's thinking and doing activities, and the environment, in which these two events take place.

In Figure 1 we can see their interplay that shape the underlining assumption that a human-centered (or design-driven) culture is a function defined by the interaction between mindsets (thinking + doing) and environment: C=f(M/E). The human-centered mindset inside the working environment establishes a two- way relationship that creates, shapes and develops the organization's culture.

The thinking dimension is defined by the ability to get “a deep holistic human understanding” in exploring the problem domain. This ability implies the acquisition, and or, development of a set of skills required to empathize with the final user and subsequently to define the problem domain based on his, or her needs.

The doing dimensions is defined by the ability to “make meaningful connections materializing new possibilities” in the form of hypotheses. This ability implies skills to ideate and generate a range of solutions and build a tactile representation of them to propel the design conversation.

The environment dimension is defined by the physical context; where the workforce operates. Ultimately, the physical environment is the system that enables and nurtures the thinking and the doing activities.

The human-centered abilities

In a human-centered organization, every person must possess the ability to get “a deep and holistic human understand” to drive or contribute, to the human- centered problem-solving activity. This must-have requirement implies scaling the thinking ability and activity horizontally across the entire organization because every impactful problem has to be framed and attacked through that lens. One single person in the whole problem-solving process, not equipped with this ability, is enough to jeopardize the human-centricity of the final solution.

This ability is indispensable to explore a problem domain from an altruistic perspective, frame or eventually reframe, its formulation, create mindful connections, and extrapolate meanings from an ambiguous domain.

While the thinking is the common ground across all the problem-solvers in the organization, the doing ability and activity is craft-specific. Every person in the company must be able to “make meaningful connections materializing new possibilities” but in his, or her, domain-specific way. In figure 2 we can visually see how these two abilities scale across the organization.

This ability is indispensable to generate and downselect a range of possible solutions and create a domain-specific, real and often tactile, representation of the underlying hypotheses behind that set of proposed solutions; in design terms, building prototypes.

For the industrial design team can be making a physical model using a CNC machine to validate a new smartphone design. For the marketing team, can be sketching a campaign storyboard using pen and paper to test an original advertising message. For the human resources, can be creating a welcome plan, a team introduction strategy, and an orientation microsite to validate the first-day employee onboarding process.

Ultimately, in a human-centered organization, a prototype is just a tangible way to ask questions and validate assumptions with the users; whoever they are.

If we scale these two abilities, embedding them in every relevant problem-solving activity, indirectly, we create the foundation of a human-centered organization. In the next session, we will see how to architect the foundations of an environment that can enable and support the thinking and doing abilities.

The human-centered environment

Space is the body language of an organization and reflects its values (Flink 2012). The interplay between humans and the surrounding environment is profound. From a cognitive standpoint, the evolutionally correct environment establishes a “circle of safety” that engenders trust and fosters collaboration (Sinek 2014). From an operational standpoint instead, this type of environment enables, catalyzes, and ultimately because of the path of least resistance, makes a given behavior sustainable; perceptual decisions are biased by the cost to act (Hagura, Haggard and Diedrichsen 2017).

If we don’t architect the correct environment the thinking and the doing don’t occur, and if they initially do as a result of an extreme effort, they don’t last. The model presented in this paper defines the human-centered environment as a composition of team’s independent and autonomous spaces. Each team’s space is composed of three areas:


 * The thinking area.
 * The doing area.
 * The recreational area.

Starting from a continuous floor plan, we can obtain the three areas using non- structural walls, or if this is not an option, movable whiteboards like the Z-Rack. Figure 3 shows an example of a modular implementation of this type of environment envisioned for a multidisciplinary team in a digital product design and development context.

Make this space operationally independent and autonomous is crucial to provide focus and maximize team problem-solving performances and happiness. This configuration also avoids frequent random interruptions, distraction, and consequential frustrations, typical for instance, of an open-space (Kim and de Dear 2013). Furthermore, the consequent sense of privacy represents another factor that boosts job performance, while the lack of can causes feelings of helplessness (Sundstrom, Burt and Kamp 1980).

The primary objective of the thinking area is to engender collective and holistic focus. In this area, the team leverages the collective intelligence to “get a deep holistic human understanding”, investigate unmet, unarticulated, and latent needs, frame and or reframe the problem domain and visualize the problem- domain definition.

The thinking space physically accommodates on its walls the result of human, business, and technical analyses required to propel the problem-solving conversation. These analyses typically aim to frame the problem domain and trigger the idea generation. Displaying this information on the walls enhances the quality of the team’s collective thinking increasing its efficacy during the problem-solving process by optimizing the short-term memory usage; which has

limited storage and processing capacity (Cowan 2001).

The primary objective of the doing area is to engender individual and atomic focus. In this area, the team maximizes independent contribution.

The doing space accommodates personal desks where every member can go deep and investigate a given detail of a given hypothesis avoiding unplanned interruptions. This area also has a bookshelf to store relevant knowledge in the form of a book and a cabinet for stationery.

The team uses the thinking and the doing physical space as a tool to explore the ambiguity generated by the problem domain. The team’s cadence of the physical switch between the thinking and the doing area is a tangible indicator of the team’s frequency of the mental switch doing during the problem-solving process. This bivalent relationship can also be captured in a behavioral metric that represents the team’s problem-solving efficacy.

The primary objective of the recreational area is to create a neutral zone where the team can mentally and physically unplug from the other spaces and cognitive modalities and relax without leaving the working context.

The recreational space accommodates sofas to sit and relax comfortably and to support casual conversations.

Furthermore, this break-out area fosters lateral thinking generating an additional layer of thought and communication; for the most part informal, but often, highly productive. This area doesn’t, and shouldn’t, preclude having shared recreational spaces between teams inside the building, where the goal instead, is to increase cross-pollination between groups. While the organization predefines the logic behind the space layout, the team has to exercise full control on its look and feel because this affects team cohesion and satisfaction positively. In contrast, when the team doesn’t have control over the way that things looks, or have the ability to adjust the lighting, the temperature, or choose how to conduct meetings, the team spirits plummet (Lee and Brand 2005).

References

Flink, Chris, interview by Hasso Platter Institue of Design at Stanford. 2012. How to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration.

Sinek, Simon. 2014. Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don't. Portfolio Penguin.

Hagura, Nobuhiro, Patrick Haggard, and Jörn Diedrichsen. 2017. "Perceptual decisions are biased by the cost to act." eLife Sciences Publications.

Kim, Jungsoo, and Richard de Dear. 2013. "Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices." Journal of Environmental.

Sundstrom, Eric, Robert Burt, and Douglas Kamp Kamp. 1980. "Privacy at Work: Architectural Correlates of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance." The Academy of Management Journal.

Cowan, Nelson. 2001. "The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity." Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Lee, So Young, and Jay Brand. 2005. "Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes." Journal of Environmental Psychology.

External links

The 3 Dimensions of Design model paper on Research Gate.