[IDO Concept] Supplementary Note 4: Why are there two types of "Design"? ── The divergence between IDEO's Design Thinking and the U.S. Army's "Operational Design" [ID Edition]

IDEO's "Human-Centered Design" and the U.S. Army's "Operational Design."
Why is the same word "Design" used in such completely different domains?
From that point of divergence, IDO redefines an "organizational OS that synchronizes meaning."

"From Control to Intent"
── Rebooting the organizational OS with "Intent."

(Japanese article is here)

Because I use the term "Intent-Design" in this series, some readers may have had the following question while reading:

"Isn't this just the recently popular 'Design Thinking'?"

Certainly, in terms of dealing with complex problems and deepening the "inquiry (problem definition)" rather than jumping to easy answers, "Intent-Design" is very similar to the design thinking advocated by IDEO and others.
However, the root of the "Design" in "Intent-Design" is the U.S. Army's "Operational Design," and it is actually completely different from IDEO-style Design.

Why do "innovation" and "war," which seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, use the same word? In this installment, I will organize these two similar yet distinct designs and clarify where "IDO (Intent-Driven Orchestration)" stands.

1. "Big D" and "Small d": The Essence of Design

In Japan, the word design is often understood as "appearance" or "styling."
However, fundamentally, Design has an aspect of not only "shaping" but also "defining the very way of seeing the world."

Kazuo Tanaka, a master of the Japanese design world, argued in his book "The Essence of Design" that design has two aspects.

• "Small d": Formative design such as color, shape, function, and beauty (Formative Design).
• "Big D": Conceptual design such as social systems, vision, and the direction to take (Conceptual Design).

The "Intent-Design" presented in this series is definitely classified as the latter, "Big D." And interestingly, one of the fields that has pursued this "Big D" most severely in history was, ironically, the world of "military."

2. Two "Designs": Their Historical Roots

While these two use the same word, they have evolved differently.

IDEO-style: Design that designs human experience (Value Creation)
Its roots are in 20th-century industrial design. It expanded from the design of physical "objects" to "experiences (UX)" that include human emotions and behaviors, and further to "human-centered methodologies" for solving complex business problems.

U.S. Army-style: Design that frames complex situations (Situational Transformation)
Its roots are in "Operational Art," which has continued since the 19th century. In past wars, the composition was simple: "defeat the enemy's forces on the battlefield to win," but modern conflicts are extremely complex.
Therefore, the need arose to design the very definition of "What is the 'victory state' in this war in the first place?" This is "Operational Design."

3. Why are these two "similar"?

What makes it easy for readers to get confused is that the methods and vocabulary are surprisingly common.

4. The Decisive Divergence: Human-Centered or Situation-Centered?

However, the purpose at their "core" has clearly diverged.

　IDEO-style is "Human-Centered":
At the center is "Desirability (desirability for humans)." It aims to empathize with users and create new value and joy.

　Operational Design is "Situation-Centered":
At the center is "Systems Transition." It aims to analyze complexly intertwined elements and transform them into a desirable strategic state (End State).

5. The True Meaning of "Design" in IDO

So, which is IDO (Intent-Driven Orchestration) advocated in this series closer to?

To conclude, IDO is not a simple mixture of the two. It is a reconstruction of the strength of Operational Design, which is "how to give meaning to complex situations," and the strength of Design Thinking, which is "how humans become convinced and act autonomously," around the axis of Intent. The true nature of the "wait-for-instructions culture" and "dysfunction" that many organizations fall into is actually
an excess of "Planning" and a lack of "Design (situational definition)." Because leaders impose only detailed "ways of doing things (Planning)" without sharing "how they perceive the situation (Design)," the front lines fall into a state of stopped thinking.What IDO aims for is not just an idea-generation workshop. Based on the insights of "Operational Design" that frames complex environments, it is a redesign of the organizational OS for the entire organization to have a common "intent" and synchronize autonomously.

The perspective that "Design ≠ Planning" is extremely important in business as well.
Planning defines the "how," while design defines the "meaning."

If you seek autonomy in the field, what leaders should hone is not planning techniques, but the "design techniques" that define the situation.

Conclusion: Design is the act of engineering a "meaning space"

If you thought, "This is just some subspecies of high-minded design thinking," that is a major misunderstanding.
What modern organizations need is not to "manage and control" actions in detail. It is to create a state where the entire organization shares the same situational awareness and Intent, and can synchronize autonomously.

Design is not merely about tidying up forms or sticking sticky notes on a wall.
It is nothing less than the act of engineering "how to see the world" and synchronizing "meaning" within the organization.With this perspective, I will delve into the essence of "Intent" in future articles.

※ "IDO" and "Intent-Driven Orchestration" are unique organizational management concepts proposed by Naotomo Yamazoe.