Design Thinking Failed... Now What?
- Christopher. S. Sellers
- Jul 14
- 4 min read
When it comes to innovation there's a billion dollar elephant in the room, but you won't hear STEM or corporate talk about it because they're generally one of three types of people.
They genuinely don't see it.
If they could see it, they would have to admit that their process is ineffective.
They do recognise their innovation is ineffective, but they don't know how to fix it.
For person number one, the running joke in the industry is… 'Those who need innovation the most, are convinced everything is fine'… so despite our best efforts, we find some grace to move on.
For person number two, denial is a powerful obstacle to overcome. Processes like design thinking, while popular, have proven largely ineffective in moving the needle on creative and innovative outcomes.
An article from MIT, aptly titled 'Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong'? articulates the short-comings of design thinking experienced at Google:
"... for all the excitement and Post-its they generated, the brainstorming sessions didn’t usually lead to built products or, really, solutions of any kind".
This is something I've been saying for the last five years — how no other creative industry employs a design thinking process — that it is a cult exclusive to STEM and corporate — and unsurprisingly, the results aren't there to support the hype.
Then there is person number three. They know there's a problem. They understand their process isn't cutting it, so what's the alternative?
I'll let you in on a secret, it's not a new process, instead let me lay out three creative principles you should consider first…
1. CREATIVE VALIDATION
Data reports that 90% of startups fail. $256 billion was lost on failed startups in 2023.
The real insight is behind the data — that from 100% of funded startups, 90% of these fail.
This paints a very different picture and illustrates how weak ideas overwhelmingly receive investment, and high-value ideas are often missed or ignored.
These are issues of decision-making and idea validation; how you determine the difference between a good idea and the best idea, and the amount of investment each are worth.
2. CREATIVE SKILLS
McKinsey cites: "Over 90% of executives report being unsatisfied with their organisations’ innovation performance".
90% is an interesting statistic… perhaps you see a parallel between the fail rate of startups and the outcomes of corporate innovation.
This suggests a deeper, more universal issue underpinning the professional approach to creativity, innovation and the kind of skills, process and thinking required to generate high-value ideas. Surely, if design thinking was an effective process to deliver innovation, McKinsey would offer a different result.
In reality, executive teams lack the creative skills to consistently generate high-value ideas or consistently deliver genuine innovation.
The problem is not a matter of process — there are no shortage of innovation processes — the problem is a matter of creative skills — skills drive process.
3. CREATIVE INSIGHT
Data reports on the traffic.
Data is great, it's very useful. Creative insight identifies the hidden value within the data.
My simplest analogy is this… data reports on the traffic… you see cars, buses, taxis.
Insight identifies Uber… an opportunity that was there all along, but you never saw it because you were fixated on the data reporting of cars, buses and taxis.
Creative insight enables you to draw out billion dollar value that competitors don't see; this is how you design disruption.
Understanding these three creative principles, here's what you should consider when it comes to your own innovation.
Using startups to illustrate the challenges in developing, new and innovative ideas, the data overwhelmingly reports that 90% of these projects fail.
Applying some creative insight, we recognise that this data only reports on startups that receive investment and ignores all the ideas that don't.
That this data is actually reporting on funded startups — startups validated by VC's and Executive Boards — and that these startups overwhelmingly fail, losing billions every year.
And that this fail rate mirrors the dissatisfaction expressed in corporate innovation — innovative projects that are validated by CEO's and Executive Boards.
Despite relative resources, finances, talent, tools, processes and marketing, both startups and corporate deliver comparable, underwhelming, innovative outcomes.
Strange, isn't it?
So maybe the problems with innovation are deeper and more universal than the data would suggest. And maybe decision-makers have serious issues with how they design and validate ideas for investment.
This is billion dollar innovation elephant in the room and where we return to our three types of people:
The genuinely don't see it.
If they could see it, they would have to admit that their process is ineffective.
They do recognise their innovation is ineffective, but they don't know how to fix it.
Luckily there is a fourth type of person; someone who aspires to make change, they recognise their innovation has challenges and while they might not know how to fix it, they're willing to try a different approach.
Because to borrow a famous quote, repeating the same process to expect a different innovative result, is the definition of insanity... not everyone has $256 billion to lose.
If you're still here, there's three ways I can help:
Read my latest book WHY SMART PEOPLE AREN'T CREATIVE to demystify modern innovation and learn the creative skills required to design billion dollar ideas.
Take my online course ENHANCING IDEATION and learn how to draw out creative insight from data to improve the quality of your ideas.
Bring me in to workshop with your Executive Team and learn the skills to ideate, solve and design billion dollar innovation.
#ai #creativity #innovation #designthinking #collaboration #disruption #investment #vc #casestudy #venturecapital #validation #ideation
Christopher S. Sellers is an International Thought Leader, Author and Speaker
on the billion dollar value of creativity
Comments