Design: Matching Innovation Types to Organizational Capabilities | Soren Petersen

Innovation is Purposeful Change
The lifeblood of any organization is matching its unique internal capabilities (Enablers: technology) with external needs (Drivers: market), to attract resources, which then enables growth. In the competition and collaboration between organizations in ecosystems, those most adaptable to change, survive and even thrive. In a dynamic environment, an organization’s ability to change is largely dependent on its ability to successfully innovate.

So, by matching the organizations internal capabilities with external needs by design, it is inside the designer that the lifeblood of capabilities, of the organization, pumps through, but who controls the designer’s heart?

So, where does design come into play? Design matches external opportunities to internal capabilities, such as market needs with technology solutions. Design does not necessarily have to be carried out by management, industrial designers or engineers; anyone can be designing, in isolation or as part of a design team.

In other words, if the lifeblood of the organization really pumps through the designer, it is the designer, structurally, who  becomes the heart and mind of the organization. At least within the domain of the capabilities of the corporation. Once at the heart of the organization, He/she becomes the vessel who is able to make the connection between external opportunities and internal capabilities.

Design does not necessarily have to be carried out by management, industrial designers or engineers;

So, if design is not specific to any culture inside the organization architecture, how do you design a designer?

To carry out any innovation with a purpose the designer needs to use all the capabilities of the organization, but, because every workspace has a culture at the center of all its capabilities (culture, organizational architecture, process, and assets) including culture, the designer has to be many people.

But, when pealing through the layers of people, in the end there is only one culture the designer comes out of and that is the organization’s. As the articles says, “anyone can be designing”, but they all need to be designing within the culture of the Organization, which means being true to the brand.

By being true to the brand, the designer can come with many capabilities and still be a part of any organizational culture or structure; be a part of any process; and, in the name of design, consume all assets in the action of creating a purposeful ( and I would  be including meaningful) change.

And so on, but like almost everything else living, designing comes down to control. If the lifeblood of an organization pumps through the heart of a designer and the mind of the designer controls the heart; how does the organization control the capabilities of the designer and make changes in those capabilities at the same time?

The designer is hopefully designing around a culture, but who really knows that is what’s happening out there or if there is any culture to the design at all. To find out what the designer’s culture is, what do you do? Asks his/her mother, look on Facebook, tweet, or post an image? Yes, at least I suppose so, but why is culture that important?

All change has a cost and all cost of change is paid by the capabilities of the organization. Therefore the organization needs to control the costs of change to protect its capabilities, including to preserve its organizational culture, both internally (workspace) and externally (market space). Culture is that important because it is structurally centered around the capabilities of the organization and ultimately pays the cost of change in the organization.

Because lifeblood is actually the power of the organisation, the only way to really control the designer is through time of distribution.

As the chart shows: organizations can do this “time” in increments (let’s do this together) or in a disruptive (your way or the highway) way.

And therein lies the problem. Do we do it on your time or the organizations?

I suppose that is the answer to the question: between your way or the bi-way?

And, at the moment of that inertia, when every capacity of the design is the place, that is where the competition really begins.

via Design: Matching Innovation Types to Organizational Capabilities | Soren Petersen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s