Category Archives: Design

Problems vs. Solutions vs. Complaints

Problems vs. Solutions vs. Complaints

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you see a problem, tell someone. But, also, tell them how you’d like to improve things.

Once you see a problem, you have an obligation to seek a solution.

Complaining is telling someone they have a problem but stopping short of offering solutions.

To stop someone from complaining, ask them how they might make the situation better.

Problems are good when people use them as a forcing function to create new offerings.

Problems are bad when people articulate them and then go home early.

Thing is, problems aren’t good or bad. It’s our response that determines their flavor.

If it’s your problem, it can never be our solution.

Sometimes the best solution to a problem is to solve a different one.

Problem-solving is 90% problem definition and 10% getting ready to define the problem.

When people don’t look critically at the situation, there are no problems. And that’s a big problem.

Big problems require big solutions. And that’s why it’s skillful to convert big ones into smaller ones.

Solving the right problem is much more important than solving the biggest problem.

If the team thinks it’s impossible to solve the problem, redefine the problem and solve that one.

You can relabel problems as “opportunities” as long as you remember they’re still problems

When it comes to problem-solving, there is no partial credit. A problem is either solved or it isn’t.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Systems Thinking Meets Empathy

Designing Solutions for Interconnected Problems

Systems Thinking Meets Empathy

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

For decades, organizational innovation has been dominated by a mindset of reductionism: breaking a complex problem into smaller, manageable parts. We optimize the part, declare victory, and are often shocked when the whole system breaks down. We’ve managed to perfect the gear, but forgotten how the clock works.

Today’s challenges — digital transformation, climate resilience, supply chain volatility, and toxic organizational culture — are not isolated problems. They are interconnected systems. Solving them requires a fusion of two powerful disciplines that, when combined, create a force multiplier for change: Systems Thinking (the structural view) and Empathy (the human view).

This fusion is the essence of designing truly holistic and sustainable solutions. It moves us beyond mere product fixes to genuine systemic transformation.

The Failure of Incremental Optimizations

The core trap of reductionist thinking is the Unintended Consequence. Consider the classic example of optimizing a call center. By focusing purely on reducing the “Average Handling Time” (AHT), you successfully lower labor costs (an optimized part). But the system responds by increasing customer frustration, spiking repeat calls, and driving employee burnout (a systemic failure). The local win leads to a global loss.

Systems Thinking forces us to zoom out, seeing the organization not as a hierarchy of departments, but as a network of feedback loops. It requires identifying leverage points — small changes that yield large, lasting results — rather than just hammering on symptoms.

Empathy: The Only Way to Map the Human System

Where Systems Thinking provides the map of structure, Empathy provides the coordinates of human behavior. A map of the system is useless if it doesn’t accurately represent the people within it. You can’t identify a leverage point in a human system without understanding the motivations, fears, and cognitive biases that govern behavior.

Human-Centered Design (HCD) uses empathy to uncover latent needs, but when scaled to address large systems, that empathy must be elevated. It becomes about mapping the human-to-human and human-to-process connections. This qualitative understanding reveals the true cultural and emotional feedback loops — the places where fear reinforces inertia, or where purpose creates a virtuous cycle.

The Integrated Approach: Five Steps to Systemic Empathy

  • 1. Define the Boundary with Humility:
    Use Systems Thinking to define the true scope of the problem. Which external stakeholders, historical decisions, and seemingly unrelated departments are truly influencing the issue? We must resist the urge to draw the boundary too tightly around our own silo.
  • 2. Map the Feedback Loops (Human and Structural):
    Don’t just map process flows. Use Empathy to map the emotional and political flows. Where does the fear of a leader reinforce risk aversion? Where does a metric (like AHT) incentivize the wrong human behavior?
  • 3. Locate the Leverage Points at the Intersection:
    Look for places where human behavior and structure violently intersect. A simple policy change may be a leverage point, but only if it addresses a deep-seated human pain point revealed through empathy. This is where you stop fixing symptoms and start changing the system’s DNA.
  • 4. Co-Design the Intervention with the System:
    Never design the solution for the system; always design it with the system. Involve people from multiple, traditionally siloed points in the loop — Legal, Finance, Operations, and the end-user — to ensure the solution is structurally viable and emotionally adoptable.
  • 5. Measure Systemic Impact, Not Local Gain:
    Did the change truly improve the entire network? Your success metrics must be holistic. Measure outcomes like employee engagement and customer lifetime value, not just localized metrics like output per hour.

Case Study 1: Reforming the R&D Investment System

Challenge: Stagnant Innovation in a Fortune 500 Manufacturing Firm

A massive manufacturer struggled with risk-averse innovation despite generous R&D funding. Reductionist analysis focused on optimizing the stage-gate process (the part).

Systemic Empathy Intervention:

The team interviewed engineers, lab managers, and the CFO (Empathy). They discovered a powerful Systemic Loop: The rigid financial forecasting requirement (Structural Loop) fueled engineers’ fear of committing to risky projects, which meant they only proposed incremental ideas (Human Behavior). The solution was to create a small, separate “Discovery Fund” for high-risk, low-budget projects. This fund was shielded from traditional forecasting requirements, immediately lowering the fear-of-failure feedback loop. The small structural change, informed by human empathy, successfully unlocked the entire R&D system and generated a rapid spike in ambitious proposals.

Case Study 2: Improving a Public Service Delivery System

Challenge: High Employee Turnover in a Local Social Service Office

A metropolitan social service office had high case worker turnover, leading to poor service continuity. Traditional fixes focused on increasing salaries or hiring more HR staff (addressing symptoms).

Systemic Empathy Intervention:

The team shadowed case workers and interviewed citizens (Empathy). They uncovered a debilitating Vicious Cycle: Case workers were forced to use outdated, disconnected administrative software (Structural Loop), leading to hours of manual data entry instead of counseling clients (Human Pain). This caused burnout and emotional drain (Human Behavior), which led to high turnover, further burdening remaining staff (Reinforcing Loop). The structural leverage point wasn’t salary; it was the software. By co-designing a simplified mobile application with the case workers, the organization successfully automated 60% of data entry, immediately improving job satisfaction and halting the vicious cycle of turnover. This structural change, driven by empathy, stabilized the entire service delivery system.

Conclusion: Designing Holistically

We are no longer optimizing products; we are optimizing human systems. To lead change today is to stop being a reductionist tinkerer and start being a Systemic Empathy Architect. The future belongs to those who can zoom in with deep, qualitative empathy to understand the human experience, and then zoom out with Systems Thinking to find the elegant structural leverage point that solves the whole problem, not just the part.

“If you want to create change that sticks, don’t fix the symptom. Map the human system, find the fear, and insert empathy as the structural leverage point. That’s how you design transformation.”

The time for siloed innovation is over. Embrace the integrated power of Systems Thinking and Empathy. Your first action: Take your last failed innovation project and re-map it, this time focusing only on the human feedback loops, not the process steps. Lead the charge toward truly holistic, human-centered transformation.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Nominations Closed for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022

Nominations Closed for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022Human-Centered Change and Innovation loves making innovation insights accessible for the greater good, because we truly believe that the better our organizations get at delivering value to their stakeholders the less waste of natural resources and human resources there will be.

As a result, we are eternally grateful to all of you out there who take the time to create and share great innovation articles, presentations, white papers, and videos with Braden Kelley and the Human-Centered Change and Innovation team. As a small thank you to those of you who follow along, we like to make a list of the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers available each year!

Nominations are now closed.

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2015
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2016
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2017
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2018
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2019
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2021

Do you just have someone that you like to read that writes about innovation, or some of the important adjacencies – trends, consumer psychology, change, leadership, strategy, behavioral economics, collaboration, or design thinking?

Human-Centered Change and Innovation is now looking for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022.

The deadline for submitting nominations is December 24, 2022 at midnight GMT.

Nominations are now closed, but people were able to submit a nomination in either of these two ways:

  1. Sending us the name of the blogger and the url of their blog by @reply on twitter to @innovate
  2. Sending the name of the blogger and the url of their blog and your e-mail address using our contact form

(Note: HUGE bonus points for being a contributing author)

So, think about who you like to read and let us know by midnight GMT on December 24, 2022.

We will then compile a voting list of all the nominations, and publish it on December 25, 2022.

Voting will then be open from December 25, 2022 – January 1, 2023 via comments and twitter @replies to @innovate.

The ranking will be done by me with influence from votes and nominations. The quality and quantity of contributions by an author to this web site will be a contributing factor.

Contact me with writing samples if you’d like to publish your articles on our platform!

The official Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022 will then be announced on here in early January 2023.

We’re curious to see who you think is worth reading!

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Great Design Requires Great Testing

Great Design Requires Great Testing

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

When you design something, you create a solution to a collection of problems. But it goes far beyond creating the solution. You also must create objective evidence that demonstrates that the solution does, in fact, solve the problems. And the reason to generate this evidence is to help the organization believe that the solution solves the problem, which is an additional requirement that comes with designing something. Without this belief, the organization won’t go out to the customer base and convince them that the solution will solve their problems. If the sales team doesn’t believe, the customers won’t believe.

In school, we are taught to create the solution, and that’s it. Here are the drawings, here are the materials to make it, here is the process documentation to build it, and my work here is done. But that’s not enough.

Before designing the solution, you’ve got to design the tests that create objective evidence that the solution actually works, that it provides the right goodness and it solves the right problems. This is an easy thing to say, but for a number of reasons, it’s difficult to do. To start, before you can design the right tests, you’ve got to decide on the right problems and the right goodness. And if there’s disagreement and the wrong tests are defined, the design community will work in the wrong areas to generate the wrong value. Yes, there will be objective evidence, and, yes, the evidence will create a belief within the organization that problems are solved and goodness is achieved. But when the sales team takes it to the customer, the value proposition won’t resonate and it won’t sell.

Some questions to ask about testing. When you create improvements to an existing product, what is the family of tests you use to characterize the incremental goodness? And a tougher question: When you develop a new offering that provides new lines of goodness and solves new problems, how do you define the right tests? And a tougher question: When there’s disagreement about which tests are the most important, how do you converge on the right tests?

Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Nominations Closed – Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022

Nominations Closed for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022Human-Centered Change and Innovation loves making innovation insights accessible for the greater good, because we truly believe that the better our organizations get at delivering value to their stakeholders the less waste of natural resources and human resources there will be.

As a result, we are eternally grateful to all of you out there who take the time to create and share great innovation articles, presentations, white papers, and videos with Braden Kelley and the Human-Centered Change and Innovation team. As a small thank you to those of you who follow along, we like to make a list of the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers available each year!

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2015
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2016
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2017
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2018
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2019
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2021

Do you just have someone that you like to read that writes about innovation, or some of the important adjacencies – trends, consumer psychology, change, leadership, strategy, behavioral economics, collaboration, or design thinking?

Human-Centered Change and Innovation is now looking for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022.

The deadline for submitting nominations is December 24, 2022 at midnight GMT.

You can submit a nomination either of these two ways:

  1. Sending us the name of the blogger and the url of their blog by @reply on twitter to @innovate
  2. Sending the name of the blogger and the url of their blog and your e-mail address using our contact form

(Note: HUGE bonus points for being a contributing author)

So, think about who you like to read and let us know by midnight GMT on December 24, 2022.

We will then compile a voting list of all the nominations, and publish it on December 25, 2022.

Voting will then be open from December 25, 2022 – January 1, 2023 via comments and twitter @replies to @innovate.

The ranking will be done by me with influence from votes and nominations. The quality and quantity of contributions by an author to this web site will be a contributing factor.

Contact me with writing samples if you’d like to publish your articles on our platform!

The official Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022 will then be announced on here in early January 2023.

We’re curious to see who you think is worth reading!

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

3 Steps to Find the Horse’s A** In Your Company (and Create Space for Innovation)

3 Steps to Find the Horse's A** In Your Company (and Create Space for Innovation)

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Innovation thrives within constraints.

Constraints create the need for questions, creative thinking, and experiments.

But as real as constraints are and as helpful as they can be, don’t simply accept them. Instead, question them, push on them, and explore around them.

But first, find the horse’s a**

How Ancient Rome influenced the design of the Space Shuttle

In 1974, Thiokol, an aerospace and chemical manufacturing company, won the contract to build the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) for the Space Shuttle. The SRBs were to be built in a factory in Utah and transported to the launch site via train.

The train route ran through a mountain tunnel that was just barely wider than the tracks.

The standard width of railroad tracks (distance between the rails or the railroad gauge) in the US is 4 feet, 8.5 inches which means that Thiokol’s engineers needed to design SRBs that could fit through a tunnel that was slightly wider than 4 feet 8.5 inches.

4 feet 8.5 inches wide is a constraint. But where did such an oddly specific constraint come from?

The designers and builders of America’s first railroads were the same people and companies that built England’s tramways. Using the existing tramways tools and equipment to build railroads was more efficient and cost-effective, so railroads ended up with the same gauge as tramways – 4 feet 8.5 inches.

The designers and builders of England’s tramways were the same businesses that, for centuries, built wagons. Wanting to use their existing tools and equipment (it was more efficient and cost-effective, after all), the wagon builders built tramways with the exact distance between the rails as wagons had between wheels – 4 feet 8.5 inches.

Wagon wheels were 4 feet 8.5 inches apart to fit into the well-worn grooves in most old European roads. The Romans built those roads, and Roman chariots made those grooves, and a horses pulled those chariots, and the width of a horses was, you guessed it, 4 feet 8.5 inches.

To recap – the width of a horses’ a** (approximately 4 feet 8.5 inches) determined the distance between wheels on the Roman chariots that wore grooves into ancient roads. Those grooves ultimately dictated the width of wagon wheels, tramways, railroad ties, a mountain tunnel, and the Space Shuttle’s SRBs.

How to find the horse’s a**

When you understand the origin of a constraint, aka find the horse’s a**, it’s easier to find ways around it or to accept and work with it. You can also suddenly understand and even anticipate people’s reactions when you challenge the constraints.

Here’s how you do it – when someone offers a constraint:

  1. Thank them for being honest with you and for helping you work more efficiently
  2. Find the horse’s a** by asking questions to understand the constraint – why it exists, what it protects, the risk of ignoring it, who enforces it, and what happened to the last person who challenged it.
  3. Find your degrees of freedom by paying attention to their answers and how they give them. Do they roll their eyes in knowing exasperation? Shrug their shoulders in resignation? Become animated and dogmatic, agitated that someone would question something so obvious?

How to use the horse’s a** to innovate

You must do all three steps because stopping short of step 3 stops creativity in its tracks.

If you stop after Step 1 (which most people do), you only know the constraint, and you’ll probably be tempted to take it as fixed. But maybe it’s not. Perhaps it’s just a habit or heuristic waiting to be challenged.

If you do all three steps, however, you learn tons of information about the constraint, how people feel about it, and the data and evidence that could nudge or even eliminate it.

At the very least, you’ll understand the horse’s a** driving your company’s decisions.

Image credit: Pixabay

Endnotes:

  1. To be very clear, the origin of the constraint is the horse’s a**. The person telling you about the constraint is NOT the horse’s a**.
  2. The truth is never as simple as the story and railroads used to come in different gauges. For a deeper dive into this “more true than not” story (and an alternative theory that it was the North’s triumph in the Civil War that influenced the design of the SRBs, click here

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Preserving Ecosystems as an Innovation Superpower

Lessons from Picasso and David Attenborough

Preserving Ecosystems as an Innovation Superpower

GUEST POST from Pete Foley

We probably all agree that the conservation of our natural world is important. Sharing the planet with other species is not only ethically and emotionally the right thing to do to, but it’s also enlightened self-interest. A healthy ecosystem helps equilibrate and stabilize our climate, while the potential of the largely untapped biochemical reservoir of the natural world has enormous potential for pharmaceuticals, medicine and hence long-term human survival.

Today I’m going to propose yet another reason why conservation is in our best interest. And not just the preservation of individual species, but also the maintenance of the complex, interactive ecosystems in which individual species exist.

Biomimicry: Nature is not only a resource for pharmaceuticals, but also an almost infinite resource for innovation that transcends virtually every field we can, or will imagine. This is not a new idea. Biomimicry, the concept of mimicking natures’ solutions to a broad range of problems, was first coined by Janine Benyus in 1997. But humans have intuitively looked to nature to help solve problems throughout history. Silk production in ancient bio-technology that co-opts the silk worm, while much of early human habitations were based on caves, a natural phenomenon. More recently, Velcro, wind turbines, and elements of bullet train design have all been attributed to innovation inspired by nature.

And Biomimicry, together with related areas such as biomechanics and bio-utilization taps into the fundamental core of what the front end of innovation is all about. Dig deep into virtually any innovation, and we’ll find it has been stolen from another source. For example, early computers reapplied punch cards from tapestry looms. The Beatles stole and blended liberally from the blues, skiffle, music hall, reggae and numerous other sources. ‘Uberization’ has created a multitude of new business from AirBNB to nanny, housecleaning or food prep services. Medical suturing was directly ‘stolen’ from embroidery, the Dyson vacuum from a sawmill, oral care calcium deposition technology was reapplied from laundry detergents, etc., etc..

Picasso – Great Artists Steal! This is also the creative process espoused by Pablo Picasso when he said ‘good artists borrow, great artists steal’. He ‘stole’ elements of African sculpture and blended them with ideas from contemporaries such as Cézanne to create analytical cubism. In so doing he combined existing knowledge in new ways that created a revolutionary and emergent form of art – one that asked the viewer to engage with a painting in a whole new way. Innovation incarnate!

Ecosystems as an Innovation Resource: The biological world is the biggest potential source of potential innovative ideas we have at our disposal anywhere.  Hence it is an intuitive place to go looking for ideas to solve our biggest innovation challenges. But despite many people trying to leverage this potential goldmine, including myself, it’s never really achieved its full potential. For sure, there are a few great examples, such as Velcro, bullet train flow dynamics or sharkskin surfaces. But given how long we’ve been playing in this sandbox, there are far too few successes. And of those, far too many are based on hindsight, as opposed to using nature to solve a specific challenge. Just look at virtually any article on biomimicry, and the same few success stories show up year after year.

The Resource/Source Paradox. One issue that helps explain this is that the natural world is an almost infinite repository of information. That potential creates a challenging signal to noise’ search problem. The result is enormous potential, but coupled with almost inevitably high failure rates, as we struggle to find the most useful insights

Innovation is More than Ideation: Another challenge is that innovation is not just about ideas or invention; it’s about turning those ideas into practice. In the case of biomimicry, that is particularly hard, as the technical challenge of converting natural technology into viable commercial technologies is hampered because nature works on fundamentally different design principles, and uses very different materials to us. Evolution builds at a nano scale, is highly context dependent, and is result rather than theory led. Materials are usually organic; often water based, and are grown rather than manufactured.  Very different to most conventional human engineering.

Tipping Point: But the good news is that materials science, technology, 3D printing and computational and data processing power, together with nascent AI are evolving at such a fast rate that I’m optimistic that we will soon reach a tipping point that will make search and translation of natural innovations considerably easier than today. Self-learning systems should be able to more easily replicate natural information processing, and 3D printing and nano structures should be able to better mimic the physical constructs of natural systems. AI, or at least massively increased computing power should make it easier for us to both ask the right questions and search large, complex databases.

Conservation as an Innovation Superpower: And that brings me back to conservation as an innovation superpower. If we don’t protect our natural environment, we’ll have a lot less to search, and a lot less to mimic. And that applies to ecosystems as well as individual species. Take the animal or plant out of its natural environment, and it becomes far more difficult to untangle how or why it has evolved in a certain way.

Evolution is the ultimate exploiter of serendipity. It does not have to understand why something works, it simply runs experiments until it stumbles on solutions that do, and natural selection picks the winner(s). That leads to some surprisingly sophisticated innovation. For example, we are only just starting to understand the quantum effects used in avian navigation and photosynthesis. Migratory birds don’t have deep knowledge of quantum mechanics; the beauty of evolution is that they don’t need to. The benefit to us is that we can potentially tap into sophisticated innovation at the leading edge of our theoretical knowledge, provided we know how to define problems, where to look and have sufficient knowledge to decipher it and reduce it to practice. The bad news is that we don’t know what we don’t know. Evolution tapped into quantum mechanics millennia before we knew what it was, so who knows what other innovations lie waiting to be discovered as our knowledge catches up with the nature – the ultimate experimenter.

Ecosystems Matter: But a species without the context of its ecosystem is at best half the story. Nature has solved flight, deep-water exploration, carbon sequestration, renewable energy, high and low temperature resilience and so many more challenges. And it has also done so with 100% utilization and recycling on a systems basis. But most of the underlying innovations solve very specific problems, and so require deep understanding of context.

The Zebra Conundrum: Take the zebra as an example. I was recently watching a David Attenborough documentary about zebras. As a tasty prey animal surrounded by highly efficient predators such as lions, leopards, cheetahs and hyenas, the zebra is an evolutionary puzzle. Why has it evolved a high contrast coat that grabs attention and makes it visible from miles away? High contrast is a fundamental visual cue that means even if a predator is not particularly hungry; it is pretty much compelled to take notice of the hapless zebra. But despite this, the zebra has done pretty well, and the planes of Africa are scattered with this very successful animal. The explanation for this has understandably been the topic of much conjecture and research, and to this day remains somewhat controversial. But more and more, the explanation is narrowing onto a surprisingly obvious culprit; the tsetse fly. When we think of the dangers to a large mammal, we automatically think of large predators. But while zebras undoubtedly prefer to avoid being eaten by lions, diseases associated with tsetse fly bites kill more of them. That means that avoiding tsetse flies likely creates stronger evolutionary pressure than avoiding lions, and that is proving to be a promising explanation for the zebras coat. Far less flies land on or bite animals with stripes.  Exactly why that is remains debatable, and theories range from disrupting the flies vision when landing, to creating mini weather fronts due to differential heating or cooling from the stripes. But whatever the mechanism ultimately turns out to be, stripes stop flies. It appears that the obvious big predators were not the answer after all.

Context Matters: But without deep understanding of the context in which the zebra evolved, this would have been very difficult to unravel. Even if we’d conserved zebras in zoos, finding the tsetse fly connection without the context of the complex African savannah would be quite challenging. It’s all too easy to enthusiastically chase an obvious cause of a problem, and so miss the real one, and our confirmation bias routinely amplifies this.

We often talk about protecting species, but if, as our technology evolves to more effectively ‘steal’ ideas from natural systems, from an innovation perspective alone, preserving context, in the form of complex ecosystems may likely turn out to be at least as important as preserving individual species. We don’t know what we don’t know, and often the surprisingly obvious and critical answer to a puzzle can only be determined by exploring a puzzle in its natural environment.

Enlightened Self-Interest. Could we use an analogy to the zebra to help control malaria? Could we steal avian navigation for gps? I have no idea, but I believe this makes pursuing conservation enlightened self-interest of the highest order. We want to save the environment for all sorts of reasons, but one of the most interesting is that one-day, some part of it could save us.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Fostering Inclusive Innovation Environments

Designing for Diversity

Fostering Inclusive Innovation Environments - Designing for Diversity

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

We live in an age where innovation is the ultimate currency of business survival. Yet, too many organizations pursue innovation using a narrow, homogenous lens. They gather teams of like-minded individuals, often with similar backgrounds and training, and wonder why their breakthroughs are incremental rather than disruptive. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I argue that the most powerful, often untapped engine for exponential innovation is Diversity — specifically, the deliberate design of truly Inclusive Innovation Environments. Diversity is not a compliance metric; it is a profound competitive necessity, particularly in the creation of global products and AI systems.

Diversity, in all its dimensions — cognitive, experiential, cultural, and demographic — brings a wider array of perspectives, mental models, and pain points to the problem-solving table. However, diversity without inclusion is merely a census count. Inclusion is the act of creating a climate where every individual feels psychologically safe to contribute their unique perspective, challenge the status quo, and bring their “whole self” to the work. When inclusion is fostered, diverse inputs lead directly to superior outputs: more robust testing of assumptions, earlier identification of blind spots (including dangerous algorithmic bias), and the creation of products and services that resonate across varied global markets with reduced risk of cultural failure.

The Three Pillars of Inclusive Innovation Design

To successfully shift from mandated diversity to organic, inclusive innovation, organizations must focus on three core design pillars:

  • 1. De-biasing the Problem Frame: Innovation often fails because the problem is defined too narrowly, based on the experience of the dominant group. Inclusive design mandates empathy research that actively seeks out and centers marginalized experiences. This involves techniques like “extreme user” interviews and mandatory cross-functional, diverse ideation teams to ensure the problem frame is broad enough to serve all potential customers, from rural users to global citizens.
  • 2. Formalizing Psychological Safety: Creative risk-taking—the heart of innovation—cannot happen in an environment where people fear speaking up or making mistakes. Psychological safety must be formalized through explicit team norms, such as Inclusion Nudges (behavioral prompts that encourage equitable participation), and leadership commitment that celebrates “informed iteration” (learning from failure) rather than punishing it. This is essential for encouraging honest critique of an idea, regardless of who proposed it.
  • 3. Designing for Cognitive Diversity (The “How”): Beyond demographics, true innovation power comes from blending different ways of thinking — analytic vs. intuitive, divergent vs. convergent, or specialists vs. generalists. Leaders must intentionally build teams that feature constructive abrasion, where diverse cognitive styles are encouraged to challenge one another respectfully, leading to solutions that are stress-tested from multiple angles before they hit the market.

“Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance. But true innovation is having your song played, your moves celebrated, and the playlist changed because of your input.”


Case Study 1: Microsoft and the Accessible Controller

The Challenge:

Traditional gaming controllers, designed for two-handed dexterity, excluded millions of gamers with physical disabilities. The innovation problem was framed too narrowly, focusing only on the “average” user.

The Inclusive Innovation Solution:

Microsoft’s development of the Xbox Adaptive Controller was a masterclass in inclusive design. The project wasn’t led by a single internal R&D team; it was a deep collaboration with external organizations dedicated to accessibility and, critically, with users with various physical limitations who became co-designers. They focused on a modular design that could adapt to the user’s specific needs, not force the user to adapt to the technology.

The Innovation Impact:

By centering the experience of “extreme users,” Microsoft created a product that not only opened up the multi-billion-dollar gaming market to a previously excluded demographic but also established a new, modular standard for human-computer interaction. The innovation was driven by the empathy gained through actively including and listening to a traditionally marginalized user group, demonstrating that designing for the edge ultimately expands the core market and elevates the entire product category.


Case Study 2: IDEO and the Innovation of Bathroom Fixtures

The Challenge:

A client asked IDEO to redesign a commercial bathroom fixture — a seemingly mundane, mature product—for better user experience and efficiency. The initial team, composed mostly of male engineers, risked designing based on their own, limited perspective.

The Inclusive Innovation Solution:

IDEO deliberately staffed the project with a demographically and cognitively diverse team, crucially including women from various backgrounds. Through ethnographic research, the female team members immediately identified and centered a critical, overlooked pain point: women often use the bathroom differently (e.g., using sinks to adjust clothing or makeup, the height of mirrors relative to professional dress, etc.). This insight, which the male-centric team would have missed, allowed them to re-frame the problem from mere water efficiency to improving the entire grooming ecosystem.

The Innovation Impact:

The resulting fixtures and designs addressed a wider spectrum of needs, leading to innovations in mirror placement, shelf space utility, and overall ergonomics that provided superior value and differentiation. This simple staffing decision demonstrated that when a diverse team is empowered to challenge the existing artifact based on varied lived experiences, the resulting innovation is fundamentally deeper, more empathetic, and commercially stronger, reducing the risk of creating a product that only half the population truly values.


The Leadership Mandate: From Compliance to Creativity

Designing for diversity is the ultimate act of human-centered innovation. It requires a shift in leadership focus: from viewing diversity as a mandate to viewing it as a strategic accelerator of creativity. This means actively dismantling the homogeneous echo chambers that characterize too much of corporate decision-making.

Leaders must be accountable for the quality of inclusion, not just the quantity of diversity. By adhering to the three pillars — de-biasing the problem frame, formalizing psychological safety, and designing for cognitive diversity — organizations can unlock the full, immense creative power of their people. Innovation will not thrive in silence or uniformity. It requires the beautiful, constructive chaos of difference.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

If You Can Be One Thing – Be Effective

If You Can Be One Thing - Be Effective

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you’re asked to be faster, choose to be more effective. There’s nothing slower than being fast at something that doesn’t matter.

If you’re given a goal to be more productive, instead, improve effectiveness. There’s nothing less productive than making the wrong thing.

If you’re measured on efficiency, focus on effectiveness. Customers don’t care about your efficiency when you ship them the wrong product.

If you’re asked to improve quality, that’s good because quality is an important element of effectiveness.

If you’re asked to demonstrate more activity, focus on progress, which is activity done in an effective way.

If you’re asked to improve your team, ask them how they can be more effective and do that.

Regardless of the question, the answer is effectiveness.

Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Prototyping the Future

Experimenting with Emerging Possibilities

Prototyping the Future

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In the high-stakes game of organizational change, inertia is the silent killer. Leaders often talk about innovation, but they are terrified of the risk associated with committing millions to an unproven concept. This fear traps organizations in a cycle of incrementalism. As a human-centered change and innovation thought leader, I argue that the most powerful antidote to this paralysis is prototyping. Prototyping is not merely a step in a design process; it is a mindset — a strategic, disciplined commitment to experimenting with the future in the present. It is the art of making the unknown tangible, allowing us to fail safely, learn quickly, and dramatically increase our Return on Learning (ROL).

We must shift from an obsession with traditional ROI (Return on Investment), which punishes failure, to prioritizing ROL (Return on Learning), which rewards clarity and speed. Prototyping the future requires moving from a culture obsessed with detailed planning to one that values informed iteration. It means creating low-fidelity, high-impact simulations of emerging possibilities — be it a new product, a process, or an entirely new business model. This commitment to creating fast, disposable versions of the future dramatically lowers the psychological cost of failure, fostering the psychological safety necessary for true breakthrough innovation. Whether it’s a cardboard model, a basic wireframe, or an immersive Virtual Reality (VR) simulation, the goal is to maximize the learning extracted per dollar spent.

The Three Imperatives of Strategic Prototyping

To successfully prototype the future, organizations must focus on three core strategic imperatives that accelerate learning and reduce risk:

  • 1. De-Risking the Unknown with Speed: The primary function of a prototype is to identify and test the riskiest assumption in an emerging idea. It must be fast, cheap, and disposable. We aim to fail quickly and often at the conceptual stage, saving significant time and capital that would otherwise be wasted on building a perfect solution for the wrong problem.
  • 2. Generating Empathy Through Tangibility: Abstract ideas are difficult for stakeholders and customers to critique meaningfully. A prototype — whether physical or digital (e.g., an Augmented Reality model) —forces interaction. This human interaction generates deep empathy and reveals hidden needs, emotional reactions, and critical user friction points that no spreadsheet or survey can capture.
  • 3. Creating a Shared Vision: The future is difficult to discuss because everyone imagines it differently. A prototype serves as a Shared Artifact — a concrete, singular point of reference around which a team, and the entire organization, can align their vision, critique constructively, and unify their efforts. This speeds up decision-making and aligns cross-functional silos.

“Don’t fall in love with your first idea. Fall in love with the clarity your first prototype creates.” — Braden Kelley


Case Study 1: The IDEO Shopping Cart – Prototyping the Experience

The Challenge:

The design firm IDEO was challenged by a major grocery chain to redesign the common supermarket shopping cart. The initial, narrow focus was on engineering and durability, which would have resulted in only incremental changes.

The Prototyping Solution:

IDEO’s human-centered approach started not with engineering, but with experiential prototypes. The team quickly built several low-fidelity models using rudimentary materials (duct tape, bins, children’s seats) to test radically different concepts — like a cart with a built-in calculator or one with better maneuverability. They took these rough models into the grocery store for real-time testing, observing customer and employee interaction and failure points.

The Innovation Impact:

By prototyping the user experience rather than the final product, IDEO discovered critical, unarticulated needs—like improved maneuverability and safer child seating—that led to fundamental design shifts. The process proved that fast, visual, and highly interactive prototyping is the most efficient way to unlock breakthrough innovation by placing the human at the center of the learning loop.


Case Study 2: Amazon’s “Working Backwards” – Prototyping the Document

The Challenge:

Amazon, known for its high-velocity innovation, needed a mechanism to ensure that product teams were building things customers actually wanted and that ideas were vetted quickly without expensive software development.

The Prototyping Solution:

Amazon formalized a process called “Working Backwards,” which uses a document-based prototype. Before a single line of code is written, a team must write a Press Release (PR) announcing the finished product to the world. The PR is a one-page, customer-centric narrative explaining the product’s benefit, the problem it solves, and its release date. Accompanying the PR is a detailed FAQ and mock Customer Reviews.

The Innovation Impact:

This simple, text-based prototype forces immediate clarity and user focus. Writing the press release first ensures the team can articulate the customer value proposition before spending any engineering time. If the PR isn’t compelling, the idea is instantly shelved or iterated upon. This low-fidelity, high-discipline prototyping method de-risks multi-million-dollar projects by ensuring the idea is sound and clearly focused on the human need before the execution even begins. It is the ultimate example of prototyping the communication and the value proposition.


Conclusion: Leading with Iteration and ROL

Prototyping the future is the most responsible way to lead change. It replaces the paralyzing certainty of the five-year plan with the agile confidence of constant, low-cost learning. Leaders must create the cultural conditions for this to thrive: namely, by celebrating fast learning and treating failed prototypes as valuable data points, thereby building an organization defined by high Psychological Safety and high ROL.

The innovation landscape moves too fast for slow, secretive, and large-scale commitments. By adopting the three imperatives—speed, empathy generation, and shared vision creation—through prototyping, you ensure that your organization remains perpetually adaptive.

“Stop trying to predict the future. Start building disposable versions of it.” — Braden Kelley

That is the definitive strategy for unlocking continuous, human-centered innovation.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: 1 of 950+ FREE quote slides available at http://misterinnovation.com

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.