Page 25 - Transforming an Idea Into a Business with Design Thinking

4 ◾ Transforming an Idea Into a Business with Design Thinking

1.4.1 Traditional Approach

Before Design Thinking became mainstream for evaluating any business
proposition, the two most important aspects that were taken into account
traditionally by business executives were (1) viability, and (2) feasibility. That
approach looked at the business benefits of a proposal (viability) and then
evaluated whether it was doable (viability) in a financially practical man-
ner (either through using resources of the organization or partnering with
a player that could give them a speed advantage) in a timely fashion (fea-
sibility). The initiative which ranked the highest on these two metrics was
blessed with funding and kicked off. It seemed like a very reasonable way
of solving problems. However, if you ask about the journey of any success-
ful start-up, you’ll realize that not a single one followed that approach. They
didn’t have the business value focus at the start of their venture. Nor did
they have all the feasibility aspects figured out before kicking the project off.
They had to go through tens and even hundreds of iterations before they
could finally deliver enough value that was useful for their primary stake-
holders/users. Even if you have an objective analysis of the effectiveness of
that approach in established businesses, you will realize that almost all of
the initiatives did not live up to their expectations.

Why did the business world continue to use that approach even if it
wasn’t effective? There are several reasons:

1. Both viability and feasibility are based on futuristic projections based
on subjective judgments that are, in turn, based on faulty assumptions
of the sponsor. Any projections by nature are fictitious and do not take
into consideration the variability induced through changing parameters.
These parameters are both internal as well as external.

2. The approach follows waterfall methodology* to plan for a long time,
implement for an even longer time and then shove the solution down
users’ throats. Spending a tremendous amount of resources in planning
and presenting takes precedence over recognition of assumptions and
testing for validation.

3. The approach is usually compartmentalized and uses silo-ed thinking.
Different teams provide their inputs from their narrow perspectives.
These teams include finance, R&D, marketing, sales and operations, and
they fail to recognize the interdependencies of all these disciplines.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model