As part of our innovation methods related research we are engaged in ongoing analysis of historical and contemporary process models using the Think Balance Analysis Framework inside the Innovation Methods Mapping book. Considerations for inclusion in Book 2 of this series are ongoing.
From time to time we will be posting new examples in the LAB section of this website as part of this in-progress research.
If you know of an innovation-related process that you would like us to look at feel free to send us a suggestion.
We are particularly interested in historical and contemporary innovation process examples.
So far we have received these suggestions below that we are presently taking a look at:
John Boyd Ooda Loop
Zweibelson “Second Generation Military Design Method”
Publicis Sapient Process
Hirsch & Mann Process
Disney Creation Process
Robert McKim Flow Diagram of Strategic Choices
Design Chain Design Thinking + Agile
Heron Design Process Model
Design Thinking + Scrum
Rampersad Holistic Design Thinking Model
The Universal Traveler
Army Design Methodology
More Coming Soon!
What is the ultimate objective of this book?
In this book we are sharing how Humantific makes sense of innovation process models, historical and contemporary, spanning multiple communities of practice and an 80+ year period. The focus of this study is to better understand innovation methods across the timeline of history in terms of knowledge evolution, design and architectural construction, versus judging the effectiveness of various methods. The ultimate goal of this project is to help move the art, science and design of innovation process modeling forward into the 21st century.
Who is the intended audience for this book?
Anyone working on the R&D of customized method creation can benefit from this book series and the analysis framework within. Not intended to be a “How To” book, or an introductory book, this sensemaking series is of most interest to practitioners with advanced knowledge of innovation and process design. Those working on R&D related to process design as well as process related skill-building will certainly be among our audience. Graduate school instructors, post-graduate students and those interested in the history of innovation process design are also among the intended audience.
Is this book intended to be a complete collection of innovation process models?
The book represents the first volume of an ongoing study that will continue to evolve incorporating many more innovation related process models historical and contemporary moving forward.
Is this book intended to be a study of the merits of thinking, feeling and doing within the practice of design?
No. As stated in the books introduction, the focus of this book is on making sense of process architecture across multiple communities of knowledge and has nothing to do with “the merits of thinking, feeling and doing within the practice of design.” Design community generated process models are only one aspect of this book.
Is this study viewed through the lens of the Humantific process?
No. The Think Balance Analysis Framework shared in the book is a tool that we created early on during the six+ year duration of the books research and several years before the Humantific Process update was created. These are two different creations along a multi-year book development timeline.
Ultimately the ten dimensional considerations within the Think Balance Analysis Framework helped to shape the Humantific process update seen in the book as it might or might not inform process model creations by others going forward.
Early prototype versions of the book did not contain the Humantific process but as we reached publication date, multiple years in the making, we decided to include it. In the back of the book we include the Think Balance Analysis Framework Template described in detail for use and consideration by others. Readers can interpret the framework any way you choose, embracing or disregarding its various considerations.
Were additional materials beyond the process itself reviewed as part of the research?
Yes, as much as possible we included a review of the various instructions and depictions of each process that might inform its intention. Our Humantific library contains many early volumes from innovation history which were invaluable in the research aspects of the book as much of that material is out of print and not digitized.
Does the Think Balance Analysis Framework intend to convey that some process models are more effective than others?
As stated in the books introduction, the focus of this book is not on evaluating effectiveness of any method within. Other books might attempt to do so but this is not the focus of this book.
Why do several, never before seen terminologies appear in the book?
Under the header of Jargon Watch we directly explain in the book that great care was taken not to create jargon for its own sake. In making sense of this complex subject we discovered that no terms existed for several aspects of process design. Terms such as Split Mode and Mixed Mode are not found in literature. There are no terms within the Think Balance Analysis Framework that are proprietary to Humantific but rather are contributed to a better understanding of process design considerations. Whether we all like it or not, making in-roads into complex subjects, introducing new considerations, often involves terminology creation. If readers know of terms in the historical literature for any of the considerations within the Think Balance Analysis Framework we would be happy to review them for future consideration.
What was the most difficult part of the innovation process analysis?
By the far the most difficult part of innovation process analysis to unpack is the popular phenomenon of an accompanying philosophy that may or may not map literally to the actual methodology. In the cases where the philosophy did not match the methodology we stuck with the actual methodology. Assessing philosophy is not the focus of this book.
Was this book an easy project to undertake?
Being sensemakers for many decades we are well aware that making any subject more clear and understandable is going to generate some heat. There are always some folks who prefer that clarity not arrive in their subject domain while others welcome it. We have long ago decided which side of that equation we want to be on but we are well aware that undertaking this kind of sensemaking oriented survey across an 80+ year period is not for the faint of heart.
How has the book been received?
The response has been very positive and we are happy with our small contribution to this complex subject. As authors what we found is that most appreciative of the book are advanced practitioners who recognized the void in literature that this book fills and who are themselves working to make sense of this complex subject.
Can innovation process suggestions be made for consideration in future books in this series?
Yes! We welcome the submission of process suggestions across multiple communities of knowledge, both historical and contemporary for future volumes. Ideal process candidates exist, not just as text descriptions but rather in some kind of visualized form. This work is ongoing.