We have various spatial directions. There are forward and backward. There are upward and downward. There is onward. All these indicate directions in which we should move or at least look.
EFFECTIVE
Effective is a very important word. There is a lot of thinking and talking that is concerned with understanding a situation or with describing a situation. From such understanding, perhaps action can be taken. But understanding the situation is not itself action.
Our basic software of thinking is to identify standard situations and then to provide the standard answer: 100% of education is about this. Youngsters are taught the standard situations and how to identify them.
A child with a rash is brought to a doctor. The doctor sets out to identify the standard situation. This is called the ‘diagnosis’. From the signs, the symptoms, the history and perhaps some tests the doctor identifies the situation as ‘measles’. Once this identification has been made, then the probable cause of the illness will be known. Possible complications will be known. The treatment will be known.
So sometimes it may be enough to analyse a situation in order to identify the standard elements. Then you just provide the standard response to the standard elements. The action may then be ‘effective’ because it has always been effective in the past. So the ‘effective’ applies to the action, not the description.
At other times there is no standard situation or there is no standard response to the situation. It may also be felt that the standard situation is not good enough. This is where we come to ‘design’.
Design means putting together the ingredients that we have in order to deliver the value that we want. The thinking involved in design is very different from the thinking involved in analysis.
Unfortunately, most people are trained in school, university, college or life to be good at analysis. This is understandable, because life is full of standard situations which can be met with standard responses. It would not be possible to work everything out from scratch each time. As a result, we do not develop the skills of design.
EFFECTIVE DESIGN
There are two aspects to an ‘effective design’. The first is that the design action will deliver the intended value. A design that does not deliver the value can never be effective, no matter how elegant it may seem. The delivery of value is the purpose of a design and an effective design must deliver the intended value.
The second aspect of effectiveness is that the design must be ‘do-able’. This means that there are indeed mechanisms for carrying out the action. This also means that the action is acceptable to all parties involved. It means, too, that the design fits within the constraints of cost, legality, pollution, etc., etc. If the design cannot be carried out, it is not effective. If the design can only be carried out at great cost or at risk of upsetting many parties, it is not an effective design.
So an effective design has the two characteristics:
1. The design is do-able; the action can indeed be carried out.
2. The design delivers the intended values. So thinking ‘edward’ means thinking towards an effective design. The thinking involved in analysis, description, argument etc. is switched off and the thinking moves in the direction of creating ‘an effective design’.
‘We need some edward thinking here.’
‘Enough of this argument, let’s start thinking edward.’
‘We do not seem to be making much progress edward.
Why do you think that is? Do we lack information or just design skills?’
‘You are thinking edward while he is still trying to find someone to blame.’
‘Edward is the direction in which we should all be thinking.’
‘In what way does that contribute edward?’
‘Some edward thinking, please!’
ONE WORD
Of course, the intention of thinking towards an effective design can always be expressed in ordinary language. But this would need to be done in a lengthy and roundabout way. Once the word is established, then it becomes a convenient shorthand for requesting a type of thinking.
Having a way of indicating the thinking that moves towards an ‘effective design’ also makes very clear the thinking that is not moving in that direction. Argument and analysis have their place and their value, but they are not edward.
Attitudes are weak and they are not easily transferred. Defining a function goes far beyond an attitude and makes that function deliberately usable on any occasion.
In the programmes for teaching perceptual thinking (CoRT and DATT), there are certain directions in which to focus your attention. These are given acronyms so that they can have an existence as a tool.
One tool is the C&S, which means focusing on the ‘Consequences and Sequel’.
I once suggested to a group of 250 top women executives that women should be paid more than men for doing the same job: 85% of those present liked the idea. I then asked them to do a systematic C&S. The number in favour dropped from 85% to just 15%. Yet every one of those senior executives would have claimed to routinely look at consequences.
In the same way, having the directive ‘think edward’ is much more powerful than saying: ‘Shouldn’t we be more constructive?’ The negative is also useful: ‘You are not thinking edward at all.’
CATCH ON
It is not easy to introduce new words into language, even when there is a real need for them. The person using the word would like to feel that the person listening will understand the new word - which is not usually the case. There is also a certain embarrassment in using a new word.
I suggest that you use this word often, but always follow up with a brief description. The word can also be referred back to my name, ‘edward de bono’.
The word should be used in the same way we use the word ‘forward’. We do not say ‘forwardly’. So the directions are simply ‘edward’ and ‘think edward’.
There are times when our thinking must deliver an effective design. This new word should keep us on track in that endeavour.
read all 70 gurus with one feed read all Read all media
