Imagine this: a group of experts in one specific field are working together on an incredibly challenging problem. They are intelligent, proficient, and polite. They ask reasonable questions, answer them and everyone agrees with each other. Perfect picture, isn’t it? Or not?
Picture: AI generated image that represents the homogeneous team.
According to Linda A.Hill and her book Collective Genius (3), one critical step of the innovation process is creative abrasion. This appears when two ingredients exist: intellectual diversity and intellectual conflict. You cannot create innovations when everyone agrees, and everyone is the same. We need diversity of thoughts to innovate! Diversity goes beyond demographics and culture; it encompasses varied perspectives and expertise. This naturally introduces a constructive tension, promoting deeper concept exploration, a breadth of ideas, and more robust solutions.
Let’s talk about interdisciplinary teams in the design thinking process. Tim Brown believes that multidisciplinary is not the same as interdisciplinary.
“In a multidisciplinary team everyone becomes an advocate for his or her own technical specialty and the project becomes a protracted negotiation among them, likely resulting in a gray compromise. In an interdisciplinary team there is collective ownership of ideas, and everybody takes responsibility for them” (1). The term “interdisciplinary” refers to an approach that integrates knowledge, perspectives, and skills from different disciplines to address complex problems, create new frameworks, or generate innovative solutions.
Picture from istockphoto.com
Tim Brown brings up the P&G Innovation Gym as a strong beneficial example of the interdisciplinary approach, mentioning that it was a strong resource for longer term thinking, a unique environment, and a playground for creativity which allowed different people to innovate time and time again. We also have a notable example of Shimano coasting bikes concept, which was developed by an interdisciplinary team of designers, behavioral scientists, marketers, and engineers in collaboration with IDEO. (1)
Unlocking the power of Interdisciplinary teams
Jeanne Liedtka considers that the main goal of interdisciplinary teams during the co-creation process is achieving alignment across differences (2). She emphasizes that it leads to several benefits for DT process:
- bringing more broad perspective into conversation, and as a result – new and higher order ideas.
- expanding the solution space
- broadening access to networks and resources
- building local capabilities for addressing new problems and creating new networks for future projects.
Thus, the importance of interdisciplinary work is determined not only by the short-term goals of a particular project, but also by the long-term prospects of community development in solving new, larger-scale tasks.
Embracing diversity of thought in a Design Thinking workshop
In our own Design Thinking workshop, the group delved deep into the interdisciplinary journey. Linda A. Hill’s emphasis on intellectual diversity resonated with us, as the group’s multifaceted backgrounds became the bedrock of our own innovation during the brainstorming.
In applying Design Thinking principles, the group recognized each member’s expertise, with each in the group assuming specific roles.
Picture: Photos of group ideation work
The varied strengths and mutual respect led to visualizing ideas and creating prototypes for clarity and revision. Challenges did arise from the diverse perspectives, but this friction proved invaluable. Rather than sidestepping the confrontations, the group embraced them, viewing them as drivers for genuine innovation.
This interdisciplinary venture was not just informative but transformative. It reaffirmed the theories learned and became a celebration of the power of diverse collaboration. The group entered as individuals and emerged united, encapsulating the very spirit of interdisciplinary teamwork.
Written by Service Innovation and Design MBA students Corey L’Esperance, Mamatha Muralidhara, Anastasia Strelnikova
References:
1) Tim Brown, Change by Design, p. 19, 123, 129
2) Jeanne Liedtka, Putting Technology in Its Place: Design Thinking’s social Technology at Work Jeanne Liedtka, California Management Review, 2020, Vol. 62(2) 53–83
3) Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation, Linda A. Hill, Greg Brandeau, Emily Truelove, Kent Lineback, Harvard Business Review Press, 2014, p. 121-147
Leave a comment