Upon reading the articles written by Darso (2012) and Scharmer (2008), it has become evident that there are distinctly different models that can be used to approach a task in innovation. These are the stage-gate model, highlighted by Scharmer (2008), and the non-stage-gate model, highlighted by Darso (2012).
The stage-gate model is process-orientated and requires the user to move through a clear series of steps. When one step is completely finished, another is started. Within this one process, Scharmer (2008) presents five separate movements that form the path of a 'U'; these are co-initiating, co-sensing, co-presencing, co-creating and co-evolving. He also notes that the journey through the 'U' develops seven essential leadership capacities; these are holding the space of listening, observing, sensing, presencing, crystalizing, prototyping and performing. In contrast, the non-stage-gate model (or the Diamond Model), presented by Darso (2012), does not have a distinct set of steps for the user to follow. Rather, the four parameters contained within 'The Diamond of Innovation', namely concepts, ignorance, knowledge and relations are all central for initiating, supporting and managing the innovation process. During a whole-class discussion regarding these two models, we established that both encourage the user to be open-minded and emphasise the importance of effective communication and listening to form relations of trust between group members. It was interesting to compare these two models and observe that the innovation process that we are involved in is defined under a third model; The Design Thinking Model, also recognised as a stage-gate model.
Design Thinking for Educators (2012), which promotes the Design Thinking Model for innovation, outlines five phases of the innovation process; these are discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation and evolution. In groups, our 'design challenge' has been to suggest ideas that could help students to stay at university after class in the new UCC campus at Carlsberg, which opens in September 2016. As the Design Thinking for Educators (2012) toolkit notes, this has required us as a group to be intuitive, to interpret what we have observed and to develop ideas that are emotionally meaningful to those we are designing for. This has been a complex process and has involved us stepping out of our comfort zones as we have learned about the processes involved in innovation. The toolkit also suggests that collaboration is inherent to Design Thinking and, as a group, we have had to embrace each other's strengths and weaknesses in order to make progress. During the experimentation phase, it was interesting to assign de Bono's (1985) 'Thinking Hats' to each group member and ascertain the role that each one of us plays within the group. As we approach the final phase of evolution, I am excited to pitch our idea and, perhaps, begin putting it into action.
 |
| Phase 3: Ideation |
 |
| Phase 4: Experimentation |
Reference List
Darso, L. (2012) 'Innovation Competency - An Essential Organisational Asset' in S. Hoyrup, M. Bonnafous-Boucher, C. Hasse, M. Lotz and K. Moller (eds) Employee-Driven Innovation: A New Approach, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
IDEO (2012) Design Thinking for Educators, available at http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/ (accessed 11/03/16).
Scharmer, C.O. (2008) Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges, California, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
The de Bono Group (1985) Six Thinking Hats, available at http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php (accessed 11/03/16).
