Computer voice
UX Podcast episode 310.

[music]

James Royal-Lawson
I’m James.

Per Axbom
And I’m Per.

James Royal-Lawson
And this is UX podcast, balancing business, technology, people and society since mid 2011. And we have listeners, new and old, all over the world from Belgium to Uzbekistan.

Per Axbom
And now just to give you a little bit of a heads up, there’s a little bit of swearing in this episode, including in our introduction.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, I get to swear. Anyway, as a design anthropologist, and psychologist, Anna Kirah creates meaningful, relevant and valuable solutions through understanding people’s motivations and expectations.

Per Axbom
And the key to Anna’s work is a people centric approach to innovation, service design, leadership, and organisational change.

James Royal-Lawson
Anna Kirah is not only a well respected design anthropologist and psychologist, but she is also one of the highest rated From Business to Buttons-speakers, to date. Making a huge impact on the audience with her talk, “Fuck design thinking”, at the 2022 edition of the conference.

Per Axbom
Anna will also be returning to From Business to Buttons 2023 to give us more truth bombs, together with a stellar lineup in Stockholm on May 12. For 10% off the ticket price, you can use the discount code “UXPodcast”.

[music]

Per Axbom
What kind of feedback do you get, when you challenge thinking?

Anna Kirah
I think that’s a very good question. And it really depends on context, that depends on who is in the room, you know, on a one on one level or a group. And it also has a lot to do, unfortunately, with power dynamics. So if I challenge it, and I have no power, and I’m in a group with just designers whose egos are very associated to what they produce, and they tend to be those that are designing for, even though they say they’re co creating, then I can’t, I don’t have much leeway.

Per Axbom
…yeah…

Anna Kirah
But when I challenge, and you know, and actually, and the whole idea around challenging is, I have to be able to read the room, to challenge, and so how I challenge, I’ve learned over time, is how would I challenge those with the established power, is very different than I would in a situation when I’m holding a you know, in a conference. So I’ve been in those situations where I find it’s a manoeuvring. And it’s, I call it “the dance”, that a good practitioner has to be a good dancer, you have to be able to move in and back, into the side and around. And what you’re doing all the time is negotiating that space and negotiating the relationship because my goal is to build a relationship, not kill the relationship.

Per Axbom
…yeah…

James Royal-Lawson
Is it connected to, as well, how threatened the person feels? Like, I mean, if you want to be confrontational, then you’ve got to, I suppose you would you have to threaten them. So if you’ve got to hit the, you’ve got to hit the right thread.

Anna Kirah
Exactly. And if I say something, you know, offhand, that’s threatening that can really take a lot of work to get them back into the trust. So it really depends on context. And the biggest challenges I think, working with leadership groups, are middle management, they tend to be, middle management is much harder than leaders even. It’s remarkable, and trying to work with them and facilitating change, which is ultimately what I’m constantly in the job of doing. It’s a some form of change. And it requires an enormous amount of humbleness and an enormous amount of patience to figure out how to do it.

So really, the talk “Fuck design thinking”, was a wonderful moment of freedom for me. Where I could just speak from my heart and set it in perspective. And I’m watching the audience just so you know, I’m not doing this blind, it’s very improv, so the audience guides me and when I see they’re listening, or they’re laughing, or they’re, they get it or you know, then then I just add more. I really have to thank the audience for allowing the performance to be as it turned out, because they gave me the cues. And if I can’t see the audience, I’m, you know, I’m not that great. So, so it was a, it was a dialogue with the audience that allowed that to develop, and how in the world choices and what was going on. So I am very grateful for that particular audience. And you know, that comes once in a while, but it’s not every time always, that you get such a beautiful audience that was curious, allowed the provocation, allowed that and wanted to know more.

Per Axbom
This is super interesting to me, of course, because it connects with your talk in a way that you are asking of designers to also challenge within their spaces, the classic way of doing design work, to not get stuck in thinking that you are someone solving other people’s problems, but instead, get dirty and down with people you are designing for and design with them, and work more towards what you call transdisciplinary thinking. Where you actually are asking people to share their titles essentially, work on the same level, everyone is equal, and you come up with new models and new solutions and things you don’t know anything about. So there’s a lot of things, you’re challenging yourself, but you’re also challenging the people around you.

Anna Kirah
It is absolutely correct. And it requires an enormous amount of reflection, about your own behaviours, and the behaviours of others. And why do we react to some and why do we not react to others? And how are we perceived? And how do do we perceive others? And this constant negotiation, this constant is, is really the only way to do this. And of course, there is a element of idealism in it. But I’ve actually been in situations and I can honestly say that every great project I’ve been on that actually had impact, because we say we impact and I’ve been to all these conferences and see how wonderful it is, and I’m like, ‘really?’. But when it really happens, it happens because we trust each other.

And it doesn’t matter if you have the lawyer in the room or the engineer in the room or the designer in the room or the coder in the room, or the anthropologists in the room or the psychologists in the room. It’s it’s that we’re listening, actively listening to each other and building upon each other’s you know, our understanding and questioning “did we understand correctly?”. And when we do that, we suddenly don’t even… it’s like an out of body experience, is what I see is is that we’ve merged. We’re no longer a designer or an anthropologist, we’re just humans trying desperately to find a good solution. That’s when the “aha-s” happened. That’s when the magic happens. That’s when we’re suddenly in a new space. And “bam”, we get an a solution that we can go to, it doesn’t happen when we’re sitting, “I know best” “I know best”. And it could be that the designers are completely humble. And it’s the engineers who are the pin in it…I can’t say that. I have to be careful what I say. There can be pains. But you know some discipline. If one discipline owns the power in the room, it’s it doesn’t work

James Royal-Lawson
When you use the phrase “transdisciplinary thinking”, I mean, how does that differ from, just, you know, collaborating, or, you know, or working in a team? What, what makes, what defines “transdisciplinary thinking”?

Anna Kirah
Well, that’s a really good question too, because I think it’s that we can collaborate together. And we do that and there’s teamwork. And…but let me, let’s look at teamwork first, and then remind me to talk about collaboration if I drop it, because I can go off on different tangents. But when we talk about teamwork, you know, the waterfall way of doing things. We would argue that’s teamwork. And we the cross disciplinary way, you know, we work with designers and the handover process in itself is something I call “passing the monkey”. If you think about it, a handshake breaks as soon as you’ve finished with the handover, there’s a break. And that “break” is is where the danger lies.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, like the relay race and athletics when you’re kind of you’re handing over the baton.

Anna Kirah
Yes. And so then you go off on your own. And I truly believe I don’t believe in this idea of the “genius”. I don’t believe Thomas Edison found out the electricity, you know, the light bulb by himself, or Bill Gates found what he found, but that there’s been people around and they may have articulated it first. But they, great ideas come from us working together, not individually sitting in a room in some dark corner saying, “Aha, here’s the thing”, and even if we did come up with that idea, it gets better, it gets polished, because we’re in communication and collaboration with others. So that’s if we take teamwork. But teamwork could also be the can transdisciplinary approach, and where you’re sitting together, and working together equally. I did a project in 2007, where I took leaders to Soweto to a ghetto in South Africa, where they had to work with, each group had two people from Soweto, and they were told exactly that you have to collaborate, you have to work together through every step of our design process. And it was remarkable that all but one group failed.

The most important thing is the failure happened when they went to the solution stage. Because when they went to ideation, the leaders were so used to being listened to and heard, they went to the whiteboard and ignored, and they were pushing and elbowing each other to get to the board first and leaving behind the people from Soweto, who were in the room, but just left out. And then the one group that succeeded. Everyone was always through all the phases sitting around a table, their body language, they were bent over the table listening, you know, forcing themselves to listen. And these are people who came from completely different backgrounds, disciplines, cultures, deeply listening and engaging, but the others no. So they tried, but they were in that, in this is one of the reasons why can’t stand the word empathy. You can fake empathy, but you really can’t fake that caring, that I really want to make this better, together with others.

Per Axbom
I think, I mean, I would definitely be in the danger zone of walking up to a whiteboard, because it’s like, it’s embodied in me almost, it’s like, that’s how, that’s how meetings work. That’s how, so we’re talking about this, let me walk up to the whiteboard. So…

James Royal-Lawson
…oh wait Per, just to, just to interrupt Per, and just say, I mean, the thing is, as well, you’re often paid to be that person who is expected to go up there to the whiteboard and deliver a solution that you’ve been called into the room to do that in other people’s eyes, possibly.

Per Axbom
Which means that I, in that situation also would need to step up and challenge the way that we do things together.

Anna Kirah
Precisely and even challenge the idea that you are some wizard, because, you know, I get it. We’ve all been there. I’ve been there. It feels wonderful. When, when you’re appreciated, right? So when we get that, you know, “Oh, my goodness, I’m actually getting paid”. So then we have a tendency to put even bigger blinders on us and, you know, go for it, “Yeah, yeah, I’m the expert”.

Per Axbom
“And if you’re paying me this much, I must be really smart.”

Anna Kirah
Yeah. And that’s the times I failed.

James Royal-Lawson
That’s a wonderful segway into like, the whole thing about ego. You know, the idea of, well, leaving your ego out of the room. To explain a little bit more about why that, while connected on from what you’re saying now, why is it such a good idea to leave Per’s ego out of the room when we’re having a workshop?

Anna Kirah
Because if we actually acknowledged that we’re doing it with the trash can outside the room, and you put it there. The ego no longer has its power over anyone. And what happens is you can make jokes about it. You can be really annoyed at somebody in the meeting and raise your hand and say, “I need to go get my ego”, and it takes away the burn. You know, when you come back and then you do your rant. And then you say okay, “Now I’ve put my ego back”. It allows the expert in you know, or whatever it is that’s happening, the anger if that doesn’t matter, but people see it in a different way. And then when people can call out, “Oh, you took your ego hat without asking”, and, you know, it becomes a game. So you’re putting in play into it. And I think it makes it a lot of fun.

James Royal-Lawson
It’s like almost like a shared labelling exercise that now I’m putting the ego label on now, and I’m going to use it and oh, no, you’ve forgotten your ego label, here’s your label. So you’re, you’re really, you’re really surfacing that, that judgement, I guess,

Anna Kirah
Yeah. And it allows us to be more clear on our own behaviour. It’s also so it, all of it is, the idea is to facilitate that, we all screw up. And we, every single one, there is none of us, none of us who are perfect all the time, and allowing for that, I think relaxes people. And it’s, it’s, I find it really beautiful. And it happened because you know, I’ve been in there where I’ve been paid to be cocky and say that you guys don’t know what you’re doing, and it doesn’t work, no one wants to be told what to do, nobody. So this idea of the transdisciplinary also allows people together to come in and what does that do? It self motivates us. We want to be part of the solution, we want to be part of the responsibility. And when we’re given that opportunity, we’re more likely to succeed at it.

Per Axbom
Just spontaneously, I’m just thinking, “Well, somebody invited to the meeting. So somebody owns the meeting, and somebody owns the result of the meeting”. So it always comes down to someone has the power. Someone can say at the end, “So we this, we arrived at these results, but we’re the ones who are going to implement it, or we now will take it from here”. So there’s I mean, even if you’re doing the right thing, there’s always this danger and risk constantly of somebody just taking over.

Anna Kirah
Which is a segway, actually now you’ve segwayed into my latest work. Because one of my criticisms I barely talk about, but I do mention it in that talk, was that I have some very, very big concerns with our mapping, they become final deliveries, you know, whether it’s the user journey, or whether it’s a gigamap, or some beautiful document of an organisation or a thing, you know, it’s often idealised, but even if it’s not, it’s like it as soon as it’s made, it’s in the past. Because organisations are dynamic, products are dynamic, services are dynamic. And what I see is we create relics. And I question if it is our responsibility, when we hand those over, and we walk away, if we don’t own that, are we, you know, aiding and abetting in, practically criminal behaviour. So it’s not, it’s not technically criminal behaviour, but are we eating and abetting power dynamics that are actually harming organisations or other things. We really need to understand the consequences of our deliveries. We’re often in those situations where the final delivery is one of these pretty gigamaps, and I’ve recently done one where I was just appalled, they would pay a lot of money for that one map to put in the boardroom. But that mapping was to give certain individuals power. And we don’t talk about those things.

So you know, my world and the my envisioning of the future is with artificial intelligence. It’s with creating, either, I have two kind of variants. One is, could we do it like “Mission Impossible”, where, where after, you know, we we show them that deliverable, but it only lasts for 30 minutes, and then it’s dissolves? You know, it just disappears, you know it burns up, “poof”, it’s gone. Our mission is complete? “Poof” it didn’t exist, you know, that’s one variant. The other variant is, what if it was a living organism? What if it was dynamic and changed with the changes that people are trying to make so that they they interject with something new, and you can see the result of that and go, “oh, that didn’t work let’s change that”, and you know, is it better or worse than it was? Do we go backwards? Or do we go forwards?

I think AI is going to be a very important element of this in the future, and how we create dynamic tools, and the other part is is that you know, our tools, they’re magical. So there, I call it “shamanism work” where you know, we deliver these magical things and nobody else can do it. It’s not because we’re more intelligent. It’s because we own those tools. And what if we created tools that people could use together? And we’re better at that. And I think we saw a little bit of that with Miro. During COVID, we saw a little bit more of that happening, the democracy of a tool, because we had to, and how seeing how organisations, because that was a more fluid dynamic tool that could be changed. And I think there’s something, a big learning in that. So that’s one of the main areas I’ve moved further with since last year. And the other is how do we go slow with a sense of urgency?

Per Axbom
Oh, interesting. Oh, I’m writing on that topic, as many people are nowadays with AI, because we’re sort of rushing into it. And we shouldn’t be rushing, but but we have to rush because it’s going so fast. So what are your conclusions?

Anna Kirah
My conclusions are, that the whole world is going nuts, way too fast. And that it is our core responsibility to slow things down. And I’ve been experimenting on this. And I also feel that there’s a big difference between design anthropology and design. So I’m writing a lot about that in the foundations of design anthropology, which I’m teaching now. And what I see is, and this is a paradox, so if you take the double diamond, from the British Design Council as a model for how to do a project, what I find is that, with the the diverging and converging and the diverging and converging again, what I find is, is that designers put so much structure in it, they plan so much for it, that they’re not really doing a double diamond, they’re almost doing a linear process. And…

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, it’s kind of just kind of open into small diamonds constantly.

Anna Kirah
Yeah. And what an anthropologist does is by training, we don’t plan because we care so much about what’s called the emic perspective, the others perspective. So we’re hopping into this, you know, out like this, and if anything we need help to come back in. But we go out automatically, and we’re always in conflict with the designers, I’ll give you a very good example and it’s around the interview guide. So they spent two weeks making an interview guide that has constrained them, and structured them way too early in the process. Whereas designers might need that constraint and construct, I mean design anthropologists, need that constraint and structure later. So where we can merge is by learning to be a little less structured in the beginning, just having conversations instead of closing down the space where the “aha’s” happened back to what we talked about in the beginning, that great magic happens, where we’re not expecting it.

James Royal-Lawson
But at the same time, though, here is I guess, a bit of a balance between feeling self esteem, confidence, and feeling like I can get through this particular part of the process. Because I’ve, I’ve prepared enough to be confident that I know what I’m doing, at the same time as not constraining myself and closing doors.

Anna Kirah
And in my experiences is an all that preparing. You’ve actually said it just now, which is my big “aha”, is all those tools are for us, not for the people. And I’ve been reading so many articles, and we talk about enabling communication with the users. And I’m like, “Are you kidding me? How arrogant is that?” to say that you need to have our probes or our generative tools, and all of our special little things. And that allows us to communicate, you know, with, you know, it’s like saying that these people can’t communicate on their own. And what if we did it the other way around? What if we created those tools together with the people we’re trying to understand? And I think that just understanding that we think we sit with this expert hat thinking that we know best, when in fact that we’re closing doors to the beauty of the process. And I love the double diamond so I use the double diamond all the time. But I use it differently. And it’s where in the process do you use a quick interview guide? We’re in the process do you use probes? We’re in the process? Who makes those tools? Are we asking ourselves enough? Who’s doing what and why?

Per Axbom
I have to say what I’ve been looking at AI now and seeing all these people share on LinkedIn, how they’re using chat GPT to generate analysis of interviews, and even making interview guides for them, or let’s make make a persona for me. Your…It’s the same tools. So it’s still you’re not even, you’re not even…This is a fantastic AI tool, you’re not even able to imagine that we can do something completely different. But again, it’s like you’re stuck in this mindset of, we’re building a website for someone. Why would someone want a website if they can just ask the tool to download the document for them? You don’t need a website anymore. Why are you even building the interface?

Anna Kirah
Exatly!

Per Axbom
We’re not thinking about the people at the other end, we’re thinking about making our own tools more efficient.

James Royal-Lawson
Because you’re getting paid to use them Per.

Per Axbom
yeah…(sigh)

Anna Kirah
hahaha…

James Royal-Lawson
You know, where would your research practice go if you suddenly didn’t need the research practice anymore?

Anna Kirah
Oh, my goodness, gracious. I have also been thinking that there’s been some discussion, you know, at the university, “Oh, what are we going to do with this, they can make their personas online, you know, with the…”, and I’ve looked at it. And I’m like, you know, first of all, I don’t like personas, but I like real people. But if they are going to make a persona, I trust the machine a hell of a lot more. (Anna laugh) So what is the problem?

James Royal-Lawson
It is a step forward now. This is this is getting worrying.

Anna Kirah
Why are we making a problem? If you want to make a persona, go for it, let him make one.

Per Axbom
Because you’re all you’ve already discarded sort of the tool anyway. But listening to your talk, it’s, it’s about this. If you try and evaluate what you’re learning, you need to do that in conversation with others. The sad thing I’m seeing is that people are having conversations with something that isn’t human, and trying to find insights. But the insights aren’t happening there. It’s because we’re again, trying to hide and make something more efficient and feel safe, because I can sit in front of my computer and feel safe here. And I don’t have to interact with other people and challenge my own thinking.

Anna Kirah
And that brings, you know, I had some students, this number of years ago who made a future scenario. So they made a product for a future scenario, when we no longer talk together, touch each other. What happens? How do we get people human again, how do we get them to speak together and look each other in the eyes and smile, the things, touch each other, we need these things. I had a very powerful, so my research in the next few years is going to be about this, a very powerful experience at a conference where the conference owners were very upset with me about a workshop I had, because I wasn’t giving them a structure. You know, I wasn’t giving them the, “I think there’s no structure here”. And, you know, we were looking into to this idea of going slow in the sense of urgency. And the more they got their knickers in a twist. The more I was sure I was on the right track. And it was bizarre. And then when I came to this conference, there was a huge room of people. And I used most of the time to just ask the each person one question, which was, what do you want to get out of this workshop? And they you know, they would tell who they were, what they wanted to get out of it. And I mirrored it back I use the time. Let me make sure I understand correctly. Is this what you want? And I did this around the room. It took an hour and a half of a two hour workshop.

What happened was, you know, you can imagine what people were thinking, “Oh was enough time for me to say”, you know, “Oh, she said the same thing as me.”, “Well, that’s not fair”, “Oh, this is you know, is this going to be meaningful?”. And so you see the stress in the room? Do we read the room enough and at the end, everybody was in love. They were in love with each other they were, we were now together and this goes back to rapport building of…you got a project you just got $100,000 to do a project, you damn well better be spending time, getting people together and spending that time because it’s so worth it, and it will so help you on the results later on in the process. So I was able to model basically what I do. And all sorts of what you can imagine in business meetings where people are tapping, “is this an efficient way to use your money into the ‘dadada’?” “Yes”. And the power of that we have people crying at the end of joy. And you tell me that we don’t need it.

James Royal-Lawson
I was actually reflecting on back of what you said, towards the beginning of the interview about, you know, working together, Edison and so on, these kind of great minds over the years that they, they did it work in isolation. And I started to think about how, you know, hundreds of years ago were these these great minds would exchange letters. And I think Edison was exactly that there was two of them wasn’t that were inventing light bulbs, and they were they were exchanging letters, and talking about these ideas. They were allowing, there was the exchange of dialogue, communication, minds, swapping things and, you know, we’ve, we’ve always done that in innovation, I guess, whether it’s, whether it’s not formal or not kind of part of a process, it’s the need as a human to, for your brain to go beyond your own skull and connect with something else.

Per Axbom
And the things that we always regard as the greatest inventions, are the inventions that allow us to communicate even more.

Anna Kirah
Yes, bingo. For me, technology, and humanity is they always are linked together. And we need to always keep that link and never allow it to break.

Per Axbom
I don’t think there’s a better way to end this interview. Thank you, Anna,

Anna Kirah
Thank you very much.

[music]

Per Axbom
I think I was really moved towards the end here, when Anna was talking about touch. And for me, it’s just, there’s so many aspects of being human, that will be pay so little attention to when we’re working with digital products, and just having that closeness is so important. And we are working with digital tools that are supposed to affect people across the world sometimes or across a huge distance and across time as well, because people use the things that we build, long afterwards we’ve built them. So having that connection to the people you’re building with, it’s so important to have that ahead of time. Because that’s how you know, and learn about the things that you need to be paying attention to when you’re designing.

James Royal-Lawson
I also took it the whole kind of, because I mentioned about exchanging letters, you know, the great minds of the past, and that, that need to be more than one brain, which we talked about know about pair designing and pair programming, all this kind of stuff. But…

Per Axbom
I’m always Per designing

James Royal-Lawson
Well you are, it’s difficult to avoid, isn’t it? The double Per, but now that the double diamond thing, that you’re effectively you’ve got your personal double diamond the whole time, least I’d like to do that, I need time when I’m working by myself. So I can get flow, I can get focus, depending on the task, but you need that. But then I also need time to share that with someone else. And and probably get some kind of like, feedback or acknowledgement that “Yes, it’s a good idea”, “No, this is not really right, James”, and then so you go in and out in your own little double diamond floor constantly.

Per Axbom
But you also need that feedback and that conversation with someone who doesn’t feel inferior to you. So there can’t be a power imbalance because they’re at risk always there is then that they will actually sort of praise you because of who you are, rather than what you’ve actually showed them.

James Royal-Lawson
Yes, you need the trust and openness to be able to make that work. But it’s but it’s important, because if not, you risk being isolated. Yeah. And I think an isolated designer is never going to be a truly useful designer.

Per Axbom
I mean, no, it’s dangerous. It sounds like a dangerous concept and dangerous, not only for, I mean, the effect of what you’re building, but also for the person who is alone.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, it doesn’t this tie up nicely to there was a slide in Anna’s talk, which we didn’t talk about, really in the interview, which we’re talking about her self reflection on to use the example of the, you know, the the back of the seat instructions you have on aeroplanes where it tells you that you need to secure your own mask before helping others with with their masks that applying that to designers that you’ve got to reflect on yourself, you know, like your own past, your own present where you are now and also where do you where you want to be in the future.

Per Axbom
Exactly. And the message being I mean, you can’t help anyone else if you are not well yourself. And that ties in why do we get things wrong? Because we are stressed, or there’s peer pressure…

James Royal-Lawson
…or hierarchy…

Per Axbom
….or health is bad, there’s so many reasons to get things wrong. But if we’re not thinking ahead of time about, “these are my values”, “this is how I think”, “this is how I want to work”, “these are my experiences”, “these, this is my set of ethics”, “these are my values”. If I don’t think about that ahead of time, and I divert from them, even though I’m not noticing, then, after some time, I’m gonna realise I’m not working according to who I myself am. And that I think is extremely dangerous for the results. But for you as a person.

James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. And you won’t believe if you aren’t aligned, you can’t do good stuff.

Per Axbom
Exactly!

James Royal-Lawson
So thank you very much for listening today. And if you aren’t already following or subscribing to us, or whatever you need to do in whatever podcast client you are listening to us on, then just press a button. There’s bound to be a button somewhere close by, you can press. Press more buttons. It’s been a while since I’ve said that one.

Per Axbom
What’s recommended listening have you found for us?

James Royal-Lawson
Recomended listening. I’ll put links to these episodes in the show notes which you will find in the podcast client. If not, you’ll find it on uxpodcast.com, but I recommend you go along visit the design thinking tag on our website because that will allow you to see all the episodes that we’ve tagged up as design thinking over the years. So not only is there this episode, there’s the last episode, episode 309. There is this interview we did in 2019 with Jeanne Liedtka, which is about design thinking which we call the business value of design, episode 224. Then we’ve also got the classic two part interview with Don Norman (#125 and #126), which was design doing, which is nice because we get the talking about the journey that we’ve been through that you get the progression from design thinking to design doing and then to people and society and all these kind of thoughts that we’ve evolved during the year.

Per Axbom
…and then just fuck it all…

James Royal-Lawson
I think there’s a couple more episodes as well there that we’ve we’ve tagged up as design thinking which knowing us means that they’re not explicitly about design thinking but they will have some link and something thought provoking for you. Not threatening, but provoking.

Per Axbom
Awesome. Remember to keep moving.

James Royal-Lawson
See you on the other side?

[music]

James Royal-Lawson
Um Per, I actually think this is probably one of the worst ones we’ve ever had.

Per Axbom
Okay, excellent.

James Royal-Lawson
Where do sharks go on holiday?

Per Axbom
I don’t know James. Where do sharks go on holiday?

James Royal-Lawson
Finland.

Per Axbom
Oh, hehe

James Royal-Lawson
I’ve actually got another one. That’s probably as bad right. Okay. Where do bees go on holiday.

Per Axbom
I don’t know James, where do bees go on holiday?

James Royal-Lawson
Stingapore…

James Royal-Lawson
It’s not even a place!