The Design of Business: Difference between revisions

The Design of Business (view source)

Revision as of 19:21, 23 February 2020

4 bytes added , 23 February 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
-This is a short book with some big, and very good, ideas. The problem is, it could have still been shorter - you’ll get the concept from the first chapter, and thereafter very little is done with it. This is partly because the idea is self-explanatory, and it's either something you'll instinctively take to (if you’re disposed to “design thinking”), or won’t.
+This is a short book with some big, and very good, ideas. The problem is, it could have still been shorter - you’ll get the concept from the first chapter, and thereafter very little is done with it. This is partly because the idea is self-explanatory, and it’s either something you'll instinctively take to (if you’re disposed to “design thinking”), or won’t.
 The thesis, broadly stated, is this: there are three main "phases" any business proposition:
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 On the other hand, Martin’s take on the underlying philosophy of design and business development is polymath enough to take in pragmatists like Dewey and Charles Sanders Pierce. Being a fan of {{author|Richard Rorty}} and the post-modern philosophers this went down well with me and struck me as a solid basis for the common sense contained in the book: in a contingent, ironic and pragmatic universe, where priorities, economic conditions, consumer preferences and political orthodoxies change like the wind, big, fast, dumb, inflexible machinery seems like a poor suit to be long in.
-The relentless preference for [[algorithm]]s (mechanical, reliable) over [[heuristic]]s (logical, but requiring interpretation and judgment) seems so blindingly obvious that it's a wonder so much of corporate enterprise is so blind to it. But being a design thinker is not easy - certainly, translating your unorthodox point of view to an anally retentive business analyst requires powers of persuasion not all of us have ("use lots of analogies!" Roger cheerfully advises) and you wonder whether design thinking - utopian an idea though it might be - is one that will generally get nowhere near the beating heart of your average multi-national.
+The relentless preference for [[algorithm]]s (mechanical, reliable) over [[heuristic]]s (logical, but requiring interpretation and judgment) seems so blindingly obvious that it’s a wonder so much of corporate enterprise is so blind to it. But being a design thinker is not easy - certainly, translating your unorthodox point of view to an anally retentive business analyst requires powers of persuasion not all of us have ("use lots of analogies!" Roger cheerfully advises) and you wonder whether design thinking - utopian an idea though it might be - is one that will generally get nowhere near the beating heart of your average multi-national.
 Pity.