<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.fastcompany.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/member_recent_content/145195</link>
 <description>Member recent activity block for member profile page</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-7129</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Everyone can engage in Design Thinking. Not everyone can design everything. We all are required to design every day -- a plan for the day is a design. Design is informed by a variety of activities -- for which Design Thinking, as a discipline, frames.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is WAY too much baggage on the word &quot;design&quot; that prevents it from being the word of choice to engage in a conversation about gathering people together and/or engaging in related activities. A &#039;reframing&#039; is needed. Design Thinking might not be the ideal term -- but I for one, have not found a better one.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:21:30 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paula Thornton</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1307068 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-6159</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Spoken like a designer in denial. In reality, it&#039;s the classic designers who understand the least what the significance of Design Thinking is (and often confuse it with &#039;thinking about design&#039;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s like the junior fish who say: &quot;what water?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:10:32 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paula Thornton</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1292635 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-5984</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Your piece has gotten a lot of uptake via Twitter. Good for you and for the conversation. The problem is, both your piece and the one you reference muddy the waters for the Design Thinking conversation. Both pieces, and even the Wikipedia definition are better labeled &quot;thinking about design&quot;, but are not specific to Design Thinking (as I pointed out here &lt;a href=&quot;http://twurl.nl/lvlrry&quot; title=&quot;http://twurl.nl/lvlrry&quot;&gt;http://twurl.nl/lvlrry&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clearly there is overlap and general reference, but the differentiators are what is critical to truly move the conversation forward and truly capitalize on the corresponding practices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-5984&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:51:12 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paula Thornton</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1289600 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-5860</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Maybe they don&#039;t need any more relationships -- they&#039;re well-connected already? Hmmm...did you do a connected/relationship test factor? How truly creative can you be as a techno-hermit?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 23:32:27 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paula Thornton</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1287071 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-5681</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Clearly, I&#039;ve suspected the same of the city of Seattle as to its visual influence due to tremendous design/technology exposure in a dense 5 mile setting. Still on my &#039;unwritten books&#039; list : )&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 18:12:59 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paula Thornton</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1280899 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-2831</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Oddly, I was pulling together some thoughts on an outline for things to consider for a governance model for a new &#039;innovation working platform&#039;. Control was a big issue and the shift thereof. I leveraged the following quote and reference: “middle management pushed back on the use of E2.0 tools because their roles became disintermediated.” &lt;a href=&quot;http://mikeg.typepad.com/perceptions/2008/04/enterprise-20-s.html&quot; title=&quot;http://mikeg.typepad.com/perceptions/2008/04/enterprise-20-s.html&quot;&gt;http://mikeg.typepad.com/perceptions/2008/04/enterprise-20-s.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-2831&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:01:24 -0500</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Paula Thornton</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1070880 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
