It is great that goal setting gets coverage in management and design advice. But a closely related topic is neglected: Changing goals.
Goal changes happen, but often we are unequipped to deal with them. There are not many narratives that encourage goal changes. On the contrary: People we look up to cling to their goals. They overcome hurdles. They have an idea and make it work.
But changing objectives is as essential to design and innovation as setting objectives.
Empirical studies of designers show that an assumed problem and its proposed solution are intertwined; a new design will also cause a new perspective on the problem and thus an adjustment of how the problem is framed 1.
This reframing seems to be essential for the quality of design solutions. Valkenburg and Dorst compared two design teams and showed how the more successful repeatedly developed a new understanding of the design task 2.
Approaches which strongly structure a design process and try to pursue an initially set, fixed goal until implementation (like some interpretations of »Design Thinking«) thus seem to be ill suited for the thinking and acting in design 3.
These are the implications for design. However, the problem of changing goals is also present in management, particularly if concerned with innovation.
In his Book »Technology and Change«, Donald Schön describes that innovation is often framed similar to production 4 [p. 8] : An innovation is lineary worked towards and made. But this is a myth; stories are created which suggest that people followed their goals all along 5, but those stories only work in retrospect.
But acting as if innovation can be planned can be nevertheless useful; it »provides direction… and a stimulus for action«4 [p. 41].
From this perspective, objectives and plans are useful tools: They can guide the process and they can help teams to work together. However, they need to be adaptable, and adaptation is not a failure, but an essential part of innovating.
Dorst, Kees, and Nigel Cross. 2001. “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem–solution.” Design Studies 22 (5): 425–37. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6. ↩
Valkenburg, Rianne, and Kees Dorst. 1998. “The Reflective Practice of Design Teams.” Design Studies 19 (3): 249–71. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8. ↩
Guindon, Raymonde. 1990. “Designing the Design Process: Exploiting Opportunistic Thoughts.” Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5 (2): 305–44. ↩
Schon, Donald A. 1967. Technology and Change. First Edition. Pergamon Press. ↩
Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE. ↩
I found it interesting in this context that Karl Popper uses the non-predictability of scientific progress as an argument against the idea that history follows predictable patterns. See the foreword of Popper, Karl. 2002. The Poverty of Historicism. 2 Rev ed. London: Routledge. This makes our university culture of grants and plans with quasi promised outcomes look like a common delusion. ↩