From the second card in the deck:

“[These cards] can be used…by drawing a single card from the shuffled pack when a dilemma occurs in a working situation. In this case, the card is trusted even if its appropriateness is quite unclear.”

In other words, imo, methods are supposed to be used when messy creativity fails, and not before. Our brains all seize up from time to time. That’s why fighter pilots have a stock of maneuvers, jazz musicians have a stock of licks (http://jazzlicks.blogspot.com/), and restaurants have a book of recipes.

Because you’ve got to work /every day/.

Obviously, anything that makes that easier can become a crutch, qua Matt above.

Thanks for these last two comments. I was really unsure about writing this one, but thoughts like yours help me with my own thought process.

Scott’s book is pretty solid.

As I tweeted during the IA conference, there are specific ‘certifications’ known for instilling dogma in their unsuspecting, paying patrons. Such certifications are a ‘flag’ to me — to assess how much I have to ‘undo’ to make use of their skills. They want to use references as ‘checklists’, rather than as points to consider, based on the circumstances of the situation.

They are not taught to do real “design thinking”. But then one of my favorite stories to tell is one told by IDEO that I use as a classic example of what NOT to do (a case of redesigning a water bottle), becuase the team at IDEO never reframed the problem statement to its lowest common denominator — a true case of design arrogance.

One things is being discussed quite a bit here at the MX conference and that is innovation. But when I squint and peer around the edges, I see that we are really struggling with “fidelity” and “embrace the messy”. Identifying the fidelity by which we select and implement a method and ensuring we tackle those parts of the problems we are least experienced with or feel least up to the task of taking on. ie: having to select methods for those parts of the problems that are the messiest versus ignoring them.

I might so far as to suggest we ask the question at the start of any method selection, “If an experience is unique to the individual, then how can this be best represented in this case/model/process?”

I loved this quote and thought it quite pertinent to this conversation:

“The myth of methodology, in short form, is the belief that a playbook exists for innovation…”

Scott Berkun, The Myths of Innovation (by way of Kim Lenox of Adaptive Path)

Great thoughts here. I think you’ve validated why we need methods in a very honest way. Sometimes they are very effective in informing solutions and other times they are effective in helping people validate their own feelings.

BTW, I saw Roger speak twice at the Strategy conference. Great talk. On thing I always remember aside from his excellent visual is the fact that he wore sneakers to go along with his formal jacket and pants.

I dunno, symbolically that speaks to me.

However, doesn’t dogma give us what we all want to some level, security? There has to be some litmus test, right? “Informed Fuzziness” and “Structured Chaos” are not bankable. People don’t really want just the results of our work, they want the comfort and warm feelings of knowing what you’re going to do to solve their problem. That is how a deal gets papered, show them what you’re going to do and how it works on a spreadsheet. People don’t just need solutions, they also need emotional and psychological management when they are doing new things. Is that what methods are for designers?

Isn’t this, as Roger Martin describes the current right and left brain climate, a designers own “reliability” issue? Designers, the people who trumpet validity, harp on the left brain thinkers because they demand Reliability. However the designers themselves have their own reliability needs, e.g. methods.

So, how do you “gut-instinct” it when the structures around us and the ones we have created oppose it? Do you have to tear your own structures down first?

Check out Martin’s right and left brain concepts here: http://tinyurl.com/5ablf2 

Fingers = Eat = Method

Fork(Tool) = Eat (use) = Dogma

Fork (Tool) = Hair comb (use) = (not)Dogma

ciao, my friends,

betaBonnie