Content uploaded by Suzanne Stein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suzanne Stein on Jun 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Creative Techniques Handbook 2015 Digital Futures OCAD Univeristy
Figures
Figures - uploaded by Suzanne Stein
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Suzanne Stein
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
This paper is about the role of scenarios in strategic management. Generally, a scenario depicts some feasible future state of an organisation's environment and mostly includes the dynamic sequence of interacting events, conditions and changes that is necessary to reach that state. The scenario approach changed considerably during the last two decades. This is reflected in the different functions ascribed to scenarios. The more traditional functions (in first generation scenarios) are tool for evaluation and selection of strategies, integration of various kinds of data, and exploration and identification of future possibilities. The more recent ones (in second generation scenarios) are making managers aware of environmental uncertainties, stretching of managers' mental models, and triggering and accelerating processes of organisational learning. The paper discusses especially the latter cluster of functions which are closely linked to each other. By linking the dynamic scenario-development process to Kolb's learning cycle and strategic management, the strategic learning cycle can be enhanced. The strategic learning cycle elucidates a number of bottlenecks that may seriously hinder learning within strategic management (e.g. cognitive inertia and feedback lags). Scenarios seem to dissolve these bottlenecks and in doing so support strategic learning.
In user-centred design, a widespread recognition has surfaced for the importance of designers to gain empathy with the users for whom they are designing. Several techniques and tools have been developed to support an empathic design process and several issues are indicated that support an empathic process, but precise definitions and a framework of what makes ‘empathy’ is missing. Although the need for empathic approaches in design has been repeatedly stressed, a fundamental basis of the concept of empathy is missing. The goal of this paper is to inform the discussion in the design community by applying the concept of empathy as it has developed in psychology. This paper presents a review of how empathy has been discussed in design and psychology literature, and proposes a background framework for supporting empathic approaches in designing. The framework presents empathy in design as a process of four phases, and gives insight into what role the designer's own experience can play when having empathy with the user. This framework can be applied to three areas: research activities, communication activities and ideation activities.
Creativity is often touted as a miraculous road to organizational growth and affluence. But creative new ideas can hinder rather than help a company if they are put forward irresponsibly. Too often, the creative types who generate a proliferation of ideas confuse creativity with practical innovation. Without understanding the operating executive's day-today problems or the complexity of business organizations, they usually pepper their managers with intriguing but short memoranda that lack details about what's at stake or how the new ideas should be implemented. They pass off onto others the responsibility for getting down to brass tacks. In this classic HBR article from 1963, the author, a professor emeritus at Harvard Business School and a former HBR editor, offers suggestions for the person with a great new idea. First, work with the situation as it is-recognize that the executive is already bombarded with problems. Second, act responsibly by including in your proposal at least a minimal indication of the costs, risks, manpower, and time your idea may involve. Extolling corporate creativity at the expense of conformity may, in fact, reduce the creative animation of business. Conformity and rigidity are necessary for corporations to function. The purpose of organization is to achieve the order and conformity necessary to do a particular job; without it there would be chaos and decay. And large companies have important attributes that actually facilitate innovation. For one thing, big businesses distribute risk, making it safer for individuals to break new ground. For another, bigness and group decision making function as stabilizers, and stability encourages people to risk presenting ideas that might rock the boat.
We present the results of three field experiments demonstrating the effect of scenario planning on field experts’ judgment of several long-range investment decisions. Our results show, contrary to the past findings, that the use of multiple scenarios does not cause an aggregate increase or decrease in experts’ confidence in their judgment. Rather, expert judgment changes in accordance with how an investment fares in a given scenario: it becomes more favorable if the investment is found to be useful for a particular scenario used by the expert, and vice versa. This scenario-induced change is moderated by the expert's confidence in his/her judgment before using the scenario. Finally, our results show that field experts prefer more flexible options to make specific long-range investments after using multiple scenarios.