Episode Seven - Kevin Morris (Managing Director of OCAD U CO)
Saul Colt: [00:00:06] Kevin it's got to make you crazy when people prescribe to a very firm five step process for design thinking.
Kevin Morris: [00:00:15] Yeah I mean listen I think there's like a good news bad news situation with the whole five step process in design thinking I'm going to start with the good news because I tend to think I'm an optimist. The good news is the three step and five step process of design thinking that has become so popular has made this whole area of design thinking super accessible to people. And so what used to be mystified is this sort of blackbox art innovation was this thing we're super creative people went into a room and they emerged a week later and a puff of white smoke came out of the room and the big idea was ready. People always thought that was something you were sort of you were born with or only certain people had the ability to do that. And I think that sort of codification of the design process has made it easier for people to sort of engage with and grab on to. At the same time I think what's happened with that five step process is we sort of become overreliant on it. We look at the five step process as an easy way to engage with as a starting point. And we never really continue down the journey of figuring out what sort of is behind the five step process or what can happen if you went like really deep in each of those steps in a really rigorous way. Sort of what we call around here like deep design. And so what happens in that in the five step process we kind of get locked in to the process. We feel like the process is sort of the only way to go through it. It's very linear thing where we can only move on to Step Two once we've done it Step One We can only move on. Step three once we're done step two. And the reality is. For designers who practice this innovation stuff for highly creative people who are solving problems. There's really no set way to do it. And what you actually find is there's kind of just this neat group of sensibilities or intuition which come from experience and actually practice and discipline to know how to deal with ambiguity. My former colleague and mentor Larry Keely who is the president of Doblin group used to talk about the hard and discipline of innovation is being able to cut cubes from fog. And there is no real dedicated process to do that. But over time as you practiced innovation and maybe you started with a three step or five step process you sort of learn the ins and outs. You sort of learn where there's a fork in the road where you can for example go back and talk to more of your users or customers to get more research or you sort of learn that hey maybe it's time to start building. We need to start making something or prototyping. And what happens with designers who have practiced for a long time is they generally figure out how to make those decisions about which fork in the road they're going to take. Beyond that process. There's one more thing that drives me crazy about the five step process and that is they tend to drastically over simplify the hard work that needs to get done and to do really meaningful design research and innovation work. And I'm specifically talking about the steps around analysis and synthesis. So if you read a lot of the popular material that's out there about design thinking it looks as easy as doing a five day design Sprint where we can quickly ideate test something get it have to market figure out if it works and all that stuff is great and how its place has its place but so often what we're talking about like big meaty like what some would call wicked problems big things facing society like climate change or inequality or inclusion. Those things actually take time in deep meaningful analysis and synthesis of your research to find the opportunities. We did a project just a few weeks ago with the City of Toronto. And what that meant is like for an entire week in a room and we were sifting through 1400 pieces of data from talking to 80 users and citizens across the city to sort of tease out the patterns and the white space if you will from where there's real opportunity for innovation. If we didn't do that we would have just jumped to what may have been the obvious or novel solutions. And so a lot of the rhetoric you hear lately around design thinking just getting us to the status quo. I kind of agree with because it's done in a bit of a superficial lightweight way and the real opportunity I think is going deep when the situation calls for it and bringing these advanced skill sets around design research simply on analysis and synthesis.
Saul Colt: [00:04:52] Now I see you mentioned a couple of things there and I want to know one thing. And I think it may be interesting give your definition of design thinking why you were talking your time of 1400 points of data your time with all these things. It sounds super hard. So is this something that you can actually teach people. So give me the definition. Give me your opinion if you can actually teach design thinking because I've got a bunch of opinions on this and you know when you talk about you know cutting a cube at a smoker...out of fog. It's like. It's interesting it's like. I basically sell ideas for a living and ideas come easy to me. You know so I always tell people that the ideas the easy part the execution is the hard part and I just like I'm good at both the executions the discipline the ideas the easy part. And you know I joke in for a long time people didn't think it was a joke like I had to stop taking my medication and the voices give me the ideas that sort of became longer and I stopped saying that because I didn't want them people think it's true but. But you know like I'm going on a tangent here but I would love to hear it kind of your definition of design thinking fits the conventional one because you seem to think a little differently but it isn't. And can you teach this because it definitely is a skill that I want to get to that I want to get to the point that this is a skill more people should be embracing.
Kevin Morris: [00:06:20] Yeah sure. I mean let's talk about the traditional way of solving problems that we see in business because that might be a good starting point to sort of set up. Traditional. Folks who might come out of an MBA background or work in strategy. And I you know I did one of those people before we we tend to lead with a hypothesis. And so when a problem or opportunity is presented to us we're very quick to sort of form hypotheses about what a potential solution or answer to that opportunity could be and then analyze our way to what the best option is out of that list of hypotheses that we generated and that's been an effective way of sort of dealing with management type problems or strategy type problems for a long way for a long time. And then a few decades ago what some really smart people realized is that. Actually if you thought about the problem solving processes starting before even solving the problem but actually finding the right problems to solve. You kind of needed a different toolkit. And what they found is that designers were kind of naturally equipped to do things like problem finding to generate more and better hypotheses before going you just testing a shortlist of hypotheses that we might generate today. And so lots of them you know is so to speak magic the design thinking process was instead of converging instead of starting with what we think is the exhaustive list and then working our way to the best option from that list. Let's actually divert first and there are lots of ways that we can diverged through creative ideation methods but more importantly really good research about stakeholders and users that are involved. So when you say you're really good at ideas Saul, I think you probably haven't thought about it in this way before but you're likely just doing a really good divergence all the time you're talking to lots of interesting people. You work with lots of interesting companies across sizes and sectors you notice and pick up on a lot of interesting trends that are just starting to emerge. Probably more so than and sooner than the average person would. You're kind of naturally divergent just in your life all the time. And then when it comes time to you're seeing a problem put in front of you in generating ideas or hypotheses into those you kind of already have this bag full of like dots that you can connect against that. The design thinking framework is really a discipline structure around how to do that on a more repeatable reliable basis. And so what it does is it gives you the tools for where a lot of people would call problem framing. Let's figure out what is the boundary of the problem that we're actually interested in before we go and solve it. And then what are the different sources of like discovery that we used to go and cover to get all the information we knew to generate. First the long list of those ideas. So if you're big bank and you look at your customer adoption rates and you're finding like hey millennials are just not coming to the bank anymore. They could to a branch branch to sign up. Their parents are forcing them to get debit cards at an age like I used to get when I got my first debit card. You know the traditional problem solving that they would say and we need to make branches way more attractive to young people or oh we need to do a better job of getting our messaging in front of millennials. The desired thing are my step back and say like actually what does affective like financial support services like in the life of a teenager today you can see how just that simple spin on what the problem is you're trying to solve can drastically change the list of hypotheses you generate and actually implementing your strategy. So a quick exercise that we do with people all the time to demonstrate this point the difference between just hypothesis based problem solving and doing good home framing. Consider these two innovation challenges I might give you the first one is your bedframe manufacturer Innovation Challenge. Number one is design a better bet. In workshops people sketching all kinds of features and functions into their bad like us be plugs everywhere. One time in a workshop a guy embedded a fish tank in the bottom of his bed. There's always one person who says something inappropriate in that exercise. But they consider the second division challenge which is reimagining way for people to experience sleep The difference in those two things in terms of the type of solutions they offer the hypotheses is drastic and designers are really good at is making sure that the question you're asking is one that's going to be fruitful to actually solving the sort of underlying problems that you're facing. And so design thinking is really just this method for doing better divergence. Before you start to converge on an answer. So I think that's the that's the answer to your first question. Remind me of your second question.
Saul Colt: [00:11:27] Is this something you can teach people like you know you had all those nice things to say about me telling me how brilliant I am how I have got this gift. But yeah yeah. A banker or somebody who you know like you know and I agree with a lot of the things you said. I think the reason that some things you know I notice things that are there. I have made it my life's goal to expose myself to so many different things and you know some a lot of the stuff that I'm more curious about is the off the beaten path stuff. So I don't find my ideas derivative whereas if everyone's reading the same book everyone's watching the same TV show. It's just it's just the way or I believe our brains work our ideas are going to be similar and so that's why I try to you know expand what I'm exposed to but someone who hasn't made this their life goal someone who you know later in their career looking for an opportunity to you know maybe better themselves is this something that you can learn or. Or is it you know if you haven't got an early it's too late.
Kevin Morris: [00:12:32] Yeah I know it's a great question and it comes. It pops up against. You know some of that controversial conversation that happens in the world around design thinking only belong to sort of true designers who are trained and practiced in design. We think that anybody can learn to be a really good design thinker or innovator and it takes practice and discipline. And so we've seen that time and time again with a lot of that organizations that were training. You always have a bunch of skeptics who come at you even if they're not willing to engage. At the beginning there there's always a little bit of magic that happens. When people get to something unexpected or they get to a solution that then gets put in front of a user or someone that they're designing for a customer a colleague and all of a sudden that surprising thing that user sees it in their eyes light up because it actually solves the problem that they're facing. So the skill set that goes behind that we think is totally teachable. It takes a level of excitement at being immersed in the process to sort of get your head around it and get comfortable with it. But that comes with time and we kind of think this is a craft that has to be developed over time. It's not as easy unfortunately as you know doing a three day quickset training camp and then being an expert design thinker. But it's a really good start. And so on top of just sort of acquiring the skills at the individual level. You know I think there were lots of things that organizations need to be doing to make sure that people are actually given the opportunity to learn this stuff. So as much as you might have an appetite to go over design thinking sometimes the incentives might not be a place in your company do it. Sometimes you know there just isn't the appetite for taking on the risks or the perceived risk of sort of doing something unorthodox. So there's an individual total appetite and ability to learn the stuff we think. I think the enabler of that is organizations that start to configure themselves in ways that allow people to learn and use these skills.
Saul Colt: [00:14:37] So I'm paraphrasing what you said aren't ready. So this isn't my original thought but I'm simplifying it so I am. Two questions go. Essentially what you said was that designers start with questions. Businesses start with answers. If that's the case like why are businesses so hesitant to embrace this or why are you so where's the fear like you think this should be a no brainer.
Kevin Morris: [00:15:06] It's a wildly new way of working for a lot of people. And what can seem like giving up control. Oh we're going to let users tell us what they want. We're going to let customers design the bank of the future. That seems wildly uncertain. We don't know what might come out the other hand. It's hard to plan for. It's hard to predict but the results can often be so surprising and so effective that the flip on that is that this is actually a way to de-risk a lot of those new things that you might do as an organization. So when you look at the corporate failure rates on innovation they're stunningly high and we think design thinking is actually the way to de-risk a lot of the new stuff that big organizations are facing. And so if you took all the data that you had about all of your customers and banking across the history of those customers and use that historical data. To make the assumptions about what those users want in the future. Given all the change that's happening around consumer preferences how people engage with brands how people want to be welcomed when they walk into a bank branch or not a bank branch at all. It would be really hard to draw effective hypotheses from all that data that you have historically and the idea of moving forward with a sort of design led view on this opening yourself up to big questions that ultimately lead to more uncertainty but bigger and surprising and probably better solutions for your customers. It's a different way of working feel uncomfortable. It can be hard to budget for that. Sometimes those are things that were starting to think about. It can be hard to put a project plan together when you don't know what the solution is that's going to come out of the other end. Unlike a traditional sort of tech implementation and so there's a little bit of education we think to be tied around how this actually de-risks a lot of the innovation that organizations doing instead of introducing risk. And that gives you a method for sort of taking that risk and turning it into opportunity by letting yourself generate those new hypotheses but also really cool ways to go and test those and minimal ways before you over invest in something that may or may not have traction. Once it gets in the hands of customers.
Saul Colt: [00:17:29] So use the word inclusive earlier in the conversation and thats, I hate to call it a buzz word and I don't think that does any justice but it's certainly a word on top of most people's minds and they they're either thinking about it in many different ways. How does it or why does design thinking need to be inclusive.
Kevin Morris: [00:17:53] Yeah it's a great question and super topical right now. There are two levels of inclusion that you know we've been thinking about a lot. The first is you know we hear a lot about well if designers takeover of designers do this have designers start making decisions here or they won't make the best decisions. Answer The first layer of inclusion is actually you know we don't necessarily see designers as sort of like world dominating taking over the way that we make decisions in organizations. But actually the role of designers increasingly to make sure that the right people are at the table that counts in two ways. The first is making sure that the right levels of expertise are there. So designers are design thinkers working in a vacuum never recommended design thinkers who are able to bring in the right folks who represent social science people who understand humans and the connection between humans and all of the ways that we interact as society people understand technology who can actually build things people understand business strategy and numbers. The designer's job increasingly from what we're seeing is about curating the right set of disciplines not just counting on designers to be this are all my problem solvers. That's one level inclusion. The next level of inclusion arguably more important is actually a discussion of power in who has power in the design process. The old school way of thinking about the designer as sitting in the creative studio alone generating the big bucks ideas and then unveiling that idea to the world and have it sort of taken and adopted is rapidly changing. And thank God for that because what we're finding is that designers are increasingly aware of their responsibility and their role to take that power. That designers once held in the creative studio and handed over to the people who really need a say in the decisions about what's being designed and what used to be designed for them. Now designing with them. So we use a word here that's becoming more and more popular code design which effectively means instead of us taking the sort of top down view and going in and asking customers what they want. We go away we sort of think about all our clever and brilliant design really things that can solve those problems. Those people are actually in the room with us now being in the room with us doesn't necessarily mean that those people are in optimal Kimmett conditions to contribute in a meaningful way. So you know diversity might mean that we have the right representation in the room. Inclusion means are we creating the conditions where people actually feel welcome and encouraged and able to access the conversation we're having about what we're designing. And so for a huge project we did the city recently we had 80 people from across the city come together from across sectors across socioeconomic status across political leanings. They were invited into the conversation. And not necessarily to answer the questions that we thought really important questions to ask like a really strict interview guide. We're were already sort of determining the priorities of what to design against and how to design that thing but actually more to just sort of like listen. To what's important. And it seems so simple it's so obvious that yeah of course we need the right people. Of course we need to just listen. But as humans we are hard wired to have certain conscious and unconscious bias that sometimes when there are structural barriers to those people being included in those conversations. As a university it OK. We're doing a ton to sort of figure out those things. We are decolonizing our curriculum which means we are integrating indigenous ways of working in no way into the things that we're teaching in art and design and strategy and innovation in our master's programs because what we're finding is those things are getting more and better reviews into the room when we are doing the work of design. And what's really interesting about that is when we started designing for the people who traditionally have not been at the table when design decisions are being made the thing we're finding out and other people are finding this team across the design sector is the ultimate solution. Not only is it better for those people who are now at the table it's better for everybody. The famous story about oxidant they met kitchen utensils and a lot of the work that they did in the early days of figuring out what people actually needed in a good kitchen utensil even from like a human factor standpoint is study sort of extreme users services. You had arthritis or chronic. And what they discovered is that if well if you made the handles of the kitchen utensils like really big and clunky almost awkward looking to us and really soft and squishy it was a lot easier to like grab that can opener and repeat around the can or grab that pair of scissors or grab that spatula. And what was really interesting about that is not only did it make it better for people with arthritis. Everybody love that hand more. Microsoft is doing the same thing right now. They're sort of go to mode of design thinking that they're talking about is actually just inclusive design. They're going to the edges. In talking to people who have certain disabilities or extreme perspectives on things because of the position that they have and they're finding that when they design for those things the customer experience is becoming better for everybody. And finally we have a startup here in our incubator fabled tech labs. They are a really great user testing platform that allows companies who are designing an app or a website to test it with users with disabilities and what they are tracking to is that customers who achieve the highest scores on the scorecard for accessibility overall all their customers having WAY better experiences. And so what you're finding on the inclusion front is designers are getting better and bringing the right people to the table in the right disciplines. They're also getting better at fighting the right users and stakeholders to the table who have a stake in what's being designed to design with them and not for them in the output of that is we're getting better design for everybody which is super cool. And so this you know math subs article and I think is in Fast Company recently that you know design thinking is not inclusive design we kind of think it can't be further from the truth. If you're doing really good design thinking you are doing inclusive design. Because the more and better perspectives you have in that divergent process we were talking about earlier the better and stronger hypotheses you're going to have to choose from when you're thinking about the solutions that you want to go prototype. And so we think those two things go hand in hand.
Saul Colt: [00:25:11] So you mentioned use of the term co-design. You mentioned you know OCAD university and you know we're sitting in the offices of OCAD university CO. maybe explain a little bit about Co at the end of that. I want to know you know to our listeners they can hear the construction that's going on with a design thinking was used to plan this renovation project and explain what CO is for people who aren't familiar.
Kevin Morris: [00:25:40] Yeah great question. OCAD U Co is a new venture that's being spun out of OCAD University of course having 150 years history of being Canada's largest in this art and design institution. The mission of CO is really to enable leaders of change in these big organizations to drive transformation using the tools of design and creative problem solving and where that came from is over the last decade or so. OCAD U started to notice a pattern. More and more organizations were knocking on the door saying hey we're recognizing that the problems that we're solving as a company or as a government or as a nonprofit are traditional tools hypothesis generation or whatever those tools that might be there not coming out. And we know that this design thinking set of methods around innovation are more and more important. Can you help us get some of what you have and at OCAD U CO is the way that we're starting to do that. So where we're sitting right now and you mentioned we're all this construction is happening. Is that your Daniels City of the Arts Building right on Toronto's waterfront it's right at the foot of Jarvis in Queens Quay. We opened a new 14000 square foot studio just for the purposes of bringing industry partners in to work with them to scale up their teams their leaders and their organizations on the methods of design thinking creative problem solving. So that can look like a number of different ways. The first is really cool and more immersive boot camps where your team is coming and rolling up their sleeves and they're going deep into the design process. Beyond the three step or the five step process to really get a feel for the hard work of design. Not just not just to say hey this is really hard but to say if you put in the hard work over and above those three steps here's what's possible because you come out the other end of that boot camp with something really cool to show about what those insights guy you let's say you've done that and now you have a sort of 101 level knowledge. The next thing that clients started asking for is like what can you help us practice this. Because we've learned. But now like we're kind of on our own and it's a little bit scary to try us and to your point about why organizations might not go do it. It is kind of scary because you're sort of setting on your own with this new tool box. You don't know how to use all those tools in there and in what order. And so we offer through a ton of our amazing faculty and students and alumni here. This really awesome program that over a number of weeks will allow you to bring a real organizational problem through a creative problem solving process. Your team does the work we provide sort of just in time training and coaching and feedback. So we are sort of guardrails around that and we take off you know some of the edge or the rest of what it's like to go through this for the first time. And then finally we have some clients who are like super advanced you know they've been doing that three step process. They know it's not a three step process but now they kind of want to sharpen the saw and get really good at specific skill sets. And so we offer these deep dives. We're basically in the span of two to three days. We will go super deep on these 16 or so areas that we see as being really critical to your organization's competencies redesign mission. Things like better storytelling for change. Building better prototypes inclusive design and how to make sure that we're actually Co-designing in a way that is inclusive for more senior leaders and organizations how to lead innovation and build a mindset for transformation. And so we have this curriculum of sorts that we're starting to build out that organizations are going through and it's been really cool to see them sort of build up that skill set and take on the bigger and bolder challenges. With more confidence that they're going to get to the right solution because they have the right users of the table the right tools to help them do that. So CO is just out of the gate. We've started in the last few months we've got an awesome roster of sort of founding clients that we're working with and over the coming months we're going to start to roll those things out to a broader group of companies who want to come and work with us on those areas of building skills from designing creative innovation.
Saul Colt: [00:30:06] Cool. You're a busy guy and you get around I get two more quick lightning round questions and then give your day back to one. I think that the most interesting thing about what you just said about what CO does is that that second piece of the three offerings the fact that a brand can bring a real problem and you know leave with a real solution as opposed to being in a classroom setting and own theory and going through. Yeah. Does that make it actually harder. Because like you guys are working for curriculum. You really have to prove like every week that you guys know your business you know you're talking about. Is that exciting or scary.
Kevin Morris: [00:30:48] It depends who you ask. We are super biased and think that's an amazingly exciting and oftentimes that's where that eye opening moments happen with clients in that you know they have to veer off from the rulebook. But we were still able to figure it out together and that is one of the most important moments when we look at this sort of path of learning the set of tools that first moment where you can with confidence say that you can sort of stray from the rulebook but still figure out how to find your way home is super special moment and you see clients kind of light up when they figure out that that's possible. Sometimes clients get so excited about that that they just want to break all the rules and you know go crazy. And that's that's it's a really really good moment. And this idea of sort of I joke it's BYOP Bring a problem and you can take it through our curriculum. Clients really love that because it's letting them see no real context what's possible. We're super focused on the learning outcomes so that means we're building in these moments and ways of making sure that people are adopting the tools and the skills that they need. But for the organization to see their teams learning and practicing new skills and then seeing the impact of those on the product is really cool. And we think really unique.
Saul Colt: [00:32:11] Okay last question how we've talked about is design thinking in things that nobody even knows anything but you you you did a talk recently at TEDX Talk and it was about the opposite of what we target announced more of your photographic sort of passions and pursuits. Talk a little bit about the theme of your TEDX Talk and you know why you went in that direction.
Kevin Morris: [00:32:35] Yeah I mean you know outside of design thinking which shockingly I don't do 24 hours a day. I'm also a huge photography nut and have been for a long time and I think photography is like one of my own unique gifts that makes me you know have some special skill around design. Think your innovation. And you know part of that I realized was you know holding a camera up in front of my face actually gave gives you this really cool excuse to kind of like notice things and be curious to frame things in certain ways quite literally but also figuratively. And I realized there were a bunch of really important lessons that I had learned personally probably subconsciously over the years in taking photos that apply to all the great innovation work that we get to do. So what my TED talk actually talked to of three bodies of photography work done the first was for a period of two years. Every day when I would commute to and from work I would try to go a different route through the city. And I became obsessed with taking photos of houses I called them House portraits and I ended up over that couple of years taking almost a thousand photos of Tron. I was as you know but the lesson I drew from that was like there's always so much value in taking the unexplored route asking the big questions that he's asking because I learned so much about the city but also so much about it like all of these amazing houses and architecture around the city. And when we're working with clients here you know we're straying from the three step process or the five step process. Sometimes that means taking a route to a research or prototype that we wouldn't otherwise take. And it's so cool to take that leap sometimes. Then the second story I shared was about a body of work I did called The Architecture of committee where I used this camera from the 30 it's called Graph flex it's huge like large format film camera. Every photo took like 20 bucks of film because it was so expensive and so rare to find. And you know the lesson learned there was really like the value of slowing down when I have my iPhone and I'm taking pictures I do this for my dog all the time. I will take like a thousand photos and then it's like in five minutes find the best one. We didn't have that luxury when it was like 20 bucks. And when I was doing this project 20 bucks with a lot to be said it meant really slowing down and thinking really hard about what was going to be in the photo. What was the photo what was the wind like. Was going to knock the camera off. And I think there's a lesson there particularly in an era of like design sprains and start ups and move fast and break things. And all of these mantras which I think are great and have their place but there's value in slowing down and really like deeply understanding understanding people what's happening in the world. New Tech the implications of that tech because I think that depth. You know this comes back to a three step process again is where a lot of the magic happens. But when we sort of speed our way through we don't really give ourselves time to understand what's actually possible and then the final story I shared in the TED talk was actually more of a personal one. It was when my grandfather was in the hospital a few years ago. I was lucky enough that hospital is really close to where I was working during grad school and about the time that I started hanging out the hospital with him after school every day. And sure enough I had my camera one day and I actually started taking photos in the hospital. But like from the perspective of a patients. So I took photos of like the wall that you stare at all day if you're in that hospital that took photos of like how hard it was to do some simple things that you take for granted. But you know that the design of that thing had really taken to kill the context of being in a hospital. So an example was you taking a sip of water out of a Styrofoam cup when you were in a horizontal down position is really hard and it seems like a basic thing but that has such a dramatic effect not only on the patient but my family like it was really hard for my family to see that and I ended up producing this photo essay of all these photos I took in my hospital sort of with you know the punch line that's it takes a lot of notice. And curiosity and you know storytelling in terms of how I put these photos together to really understand like the complexity or nuance of a situation that you're designing for. You know if we just sat in this room and talked about ways to make the hospital experience better I'm sure we could come up with a bunch of good ideas probably some terrible ones too if we went in deeply studied what it's like to be in that hospital. The things you get to are dramatically different in that photo essay create it. Funny enough ended up getting in the hands of executive team at one of the largest hospitals in Toronto. They ended up looping me into this thread. Eventually I got to see all these comments of people reading the photo essay and you know the coolest comment for me and it kind of made me really appreciate like my photography skills a lot was. Yeah we knew we had to improve the and experience to do innovation in the hospital but it never really hit us until we saw the photos. That was from the CEO of one of the hospitals and I'll never forget reading that and that email because for me the idea of noticing her taking photos was such a simple thing. It's so powerful and getting other people to come along with the idea that something could be better which really comes back to you. Why would you decide to gang innovation the first place it's always because we think better as possible. And so the TED talk was really like hear these lessons that you can have from photography. Whether you take photos or not. You know they were really cool inside they were like that were worth sharing.
Saul Colt: [00:38:41] I don't now what it is about hospitals but Ilene Gottfried is quite a famous New York City photographer documenting a lot of New York City from street level in the 70s and 80s it just happens to be Gilbert Gottfried's sister. She did a whole series of photographs of them as a book documenting really a year of their mother being in the hospital and it's heartbreaking. I just wonder. Maybe it's just the quiet sitting around hospitals for a lot of creativity can you ever go tell people who you are where you work and all that.
Kevin Morris: [00:39:23] Yeah. Kevin Morris managing director of those awesome new company we're spinning out of OCAD university it's called OCAD U CO and we are sitting right now live in our new 14000 square foot design thinking innovation studio for our industry clients and partners. So you can find us at the foot of Jarvis where the new Daniel's City of the Arts building. And you can find me on Twitter at @Kmorr. Reach out let me know what you're doing with design thinking because I would love to have a good conversation about how you're approaching the same thing.
Saul Colt: [00:39:53] Thank you.