Day 26: Through the eye of a fly

Ubuntu is an essential African philosophy. A human is only a human through other humans. Identity and existence is a relative reality. Another African proverb says that a single finger cannot lift a grain of rice. This struck a particular cord earlier this week when I met with Mat. The Design Council has placed a lot of emphasis on having consortia pitch ideas for social good. We spoke at length about the checks and balances that such a project structure brings, built-in.

In a group where everyone thinks alike, not much thinking happens. Even though the pitfalls of groupthink are well known, most companies still rely heavily on their internal dialogue to define the truth of their future. How many boards do you know of actually conduct peer review on the 5 year plans? Sure, oversight committees and non-executive board members bring in some perspective but are generally too removed form the operations to share their insight with middle management, whose judgement ultimate decides how the plan is executed.

Operationally I also struggle with the concept of a brief and how it often leads to a very narrow solution to a particular project. At a point in every project you face the question: "do we proceed with the right solution to the challenge, or do we proceed with the right solution for this company?" This is a very real trade off. The company's limited resources or lack of skills in certain areas will often prevent them from implementing a more holistic, and ultimately robust solution. The budget owner wants to see a solution that is tightly constrained by their remit and resources. Faced with this choice you are often forced to suggest a scoped down solution that does not deliver either the differentiation or disruption expected. This limitation for me is inherently proscribed by the concept of a single company issuing a brief to a single agent or supplier.

By asking consortia, including the whole value chain and consumer groups to work together on 'challenges', the design council is lifting the debate. Yes it is more challenging and time consuming to coordinate disparate and often conflicting interests. Herding cats towards one solution is not easy but in an idea launched through this approach, they will reduce the impact of emergency unit violence. That is right, upset patients and disoriented caregivers freaking out in the A&E costs £69 million a year. The cost of this complex issue is about the same as the salaries of 4800 nurses. The multi-facetted design solution is a wonderful example of how smart, inclusive design can counter cost pressures of the failing health system.

How could this consortia thinking become more prevalent in the way companies define company strategy and go to market initiatives? NGO's and charities have the engagement but not the scale or commitment that business can deliver. A blended approach should deliver more integrity, thinking of a constituency of solution seekers rather than the limited "stakeholder management". This multi-facetted approach can then deliver the stunning sight of a fly's compound eye.