e
Design IS Thinking
A few months back, on this forum, Don Norman wrote a great piece that drew back the curtain on the ever-expanding blur that is design thinking. Norman's piece eloquently articulated a number of criticisms surrounding design thinking, but as I thought back on the article, I couldn't help but feel dissatisfied. For all the chatter the piece solicited, there was something left unsaid; something insinuated but not pursued. This fact gnawed at me for months, but I think I've come to recognize the source of my discomfort. Buried deep within the messy cloud enveloping 'design thinking' is the ever so faint echo of design's deep-seated professional insecurity.
So many design articles today seem content to throw the intuitive core of design under the train of its more rational self. They imply, by varying degrees that design fits neatly into two camps: aesthetic pursuit and intellectual analysis. Just as prevalent are the pieces that chastise design for purporting to own creativity. From where this perception arose—I have no clue. Perhaps it's the unintended consequence of selling design process (aka creativity) detached from the pedestrian world of results. Design and designers may have a lot to apologize for, but their advocacy of creativity is surely not one of them. If design is guilty of annexing creativity more effectively than other professions, so be it. There are worse accusations I can imagine.
Where did all this noise begin? Why is it that design, all these years on, consistently finds itself on the defensive? Compulsively seeking to legitimize itself? The reasons are numerous. In part, this state of affairs stems from the fact that, unlike engineering or architecture, there is no process for professional qualification in design. While the pros and cons of this have been debated to the point of boredom, it's clear that the lack of standardization informs design as much as it limits it. Having gone back and forth on this issue any number of times, I cast my vote squarely for the loose structure that has come to define the profession. Why? Because design thrives on ambiguity, and this less than perfect pedigree endows design with the flexibility it needs to steer clear of institutional thinking—a competency increasingly as in demand as creativity itself.
But ambiguity is hard to sell, and this brings us to the second culprit behind design's perennial posturing: entrepreneurialism. Anyone who has spent time in design consulting knows that the mechanics of the business require you to identify some readily understood value proposition; the elevator pitch. Something you can present to your clients (potential or otherwise) as the thing that distinguishes your organization from the other guy. This is natural enough, and if you're successful at this, and your results align reasonably well with what you're selling—you can indeed run a nice business (2008 - 2009 notwithstanding). But what happens when your value proposition becomes the same or similar to that of your competition? Well, then you need to reposition that offering. So it is that the 'black-box' of design is disassembled and demystified obsessively into narrower and narrower spaces. Likewise this constant revisionism can just as easily lead in the opposite direction, toward abstraction; blithely driving design into territory where it is invariably exposed as naive and unwelcomed (see Kevin McCullagh's recent post). To me, both paths are corrosive because they deform the practice of design into a coalition of sorts; one that ultimately weakens the profession by distorting it beyond recognition.
To be fair, design thinking and the rest of the vocabulary we've created for design hasn't been without purpose. It's helped. Design today has entrée to a range of audiences it might otherwise never have had access to. But enough's enough. Let's claim our messy bits. Design IS thinking. Pure and simple. It may not be as ready for the boardroom as design thinking, but it's the truth. Design derives its power and ultimate relevance by the way in which it artfully blends logic and intuition. The enduring truth of this fact is brought home to me every day when I enter our offices at TEAGUE. Here is a design organization founded 84 years ago by a man who paved his own course from commercial illustration to product design before arriving at the nascent field of aviation design. Was he selling design thinking, user-centric design, or universal design? I doubt it. What he was doing was employing his curiosity, talent, and intelligence to explore an ever-expanding range of problems. And Walter Dorwin Teague wasn't unique. Dreyfuss, the Eames', Buckminster Fuller, Achille Castiglioni and a host of other giants achieved their impressive results by employing the same dogged pursuit of opportunity through design—the intuitive as well as the rational; not by making excuses for it.
Design IS thinking. If we as a profession can't muster up the confidence to sell that with conviction - who can?
-
oFavorite This
-
Q27Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Studio Redeye, LLC.
Our goal as a full service industrial design studio is to create designs that emotionally connect wi...
-
Mighty Studios
Mighty Studios is a business-savvy product design consultancy. We believe that good design should be...
-
Spanner
Spanner, a creative engineering and product development design studio, enables the world’s leading b...
-
FLUID Design
FLUID (former LUNAR Europe) is an award-winning creative design and innovation agency located in Mun...
-
Spitfire Industry
WHO WE ARE Spitfire is a design studio headquartered in Brooklyn. Our founder, Isis Shiffer, an awa...
-
Cardboard Helicopter Product Design
We are a boutique product development studio in Cleveland, Ohio, and we make ideas fly. Drop us a l...
-
Sundberg-Ferar | Product Innovation Studio
Sundberg-Ferar, a product design firm, helps the world's leading durable product companies to turn c...
K
{Welcome
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
K
Reset Password
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
My main wish from working in the trenches as an ID'er for the past 14yrs. is that we would get a little more respect from business people, (most engineeers I've worked with think the profession has value) but I guess they (business people) see us as too individualistic and/or outsiders, our thinking to "fuzzy" or unsubstantiated maybe this is what allows us to go beyond the "group think" and contribute new thinking and ideas, but this does not really seem to be appreciated in my experience, it always seems about stereotypes and personalities. You've got to develop a pretty thick skin and yet harbor no resentment towards this ribbing to be successful and an ambassador for the profession. I wish more articles were devoted to helping designers understand this and develop techniques to positively deal with it.
My 2 cents.
Because of our personality types and our training, designers can carry much more cognitive load than the average person...Imagine what we could accomplish if we would obsess over poverty or sustainability the way we obsess over meaningless gadgets...
Bruce describes designers as "a class of aware, well informed trained and educated people who can navigate their way through this field of complexity, negotiating the snaky process of tecnosocial change"... simple and brilliant!
In this context Design Thinking is nothing more than the ability to balance our our large capacity of COGNITIVE LOAD with it's related OPPORTUNITY COST...
Throwing the core of Design under the train: I've always suspected (in the US in particular) that there's an underlying Protestant ethic that corrodes our faith in the intuitive aspect of what we do. "if it feels good it, must be un wholesome in some way- Go and rationalize with process, and you'll feel much better for it".
Repositioning of Design consulting: Notice how certain major Bay Area Design companies have been abandoned by some A-list designers, who took their design cues from a strong personal conviction and intuition, and gone on to be stars. McCullagh got it right, and the repositioning of those hero companies has fouled the waters for the rest of us with "blurry" notions about where the 'real' value of design lies.
It was also a joy to read Bob Brunner's pice a few months ago: http://tinyurl.com/qfwax9 "Design is too important to be left to the thinkers"
inevitable in the digital tool /media age.. but overall, a bad idea.
speed = design ? maybe in part of a process. but to award it?
design requires thinking - that seems a truth. the rest is agenda.
but then again as agenda's go... Design is Thinking is a pretty good one;)
Orwell C3
Design is not related to our capitalistic modern day duties.
We should never feel as if it is necessary to defend ourselves for what we do. We are the hidden leaders of the world. We are the ones that move human existence forward and also the ones that can destroy it.
Without us the Earth would be a cold and dark place for humanity. A place that would be nearly impossible for human life to exist or progress.
Proper design is not only thinking. It is a genuine, insatiable thirst and retention of knowledge and an undying passion to do something with it. Something that enables an exceptional designer to unlock the door to more efficient and sustainable effect.
Thinking is only part of what we do.
There is an immense amount of naturally occurring ability that is required that allows us to bolster human progression. Bottom line, some people have it and some don't.
There is a heavy spiritual side to TRUE design. I believe that a natural designer pulls his/her energy, desire and powers from the cosmos in some mysterious fashion.
There are too many examples of bad design in our world that I would deem 'Horrible thinking', 'No thought at all' and 'Self indulgent, unfeasible/destructive nonsense'.
This dark side of our realm is the direct product of money, capitalism. Driven purely by profit and power.
Separate these two sides of design and you will find TRUE design is reactionary based on what surrounds us.
The finest of us are able to seek, discover and develop the DETAILS!
It is a designers duty to develop ideas and concepts into something that truly benefits society and the planet as a whole, not someone's or things bank account and status.
The reasons for misconceptions and doubts of our roles are based in the chase of money and power.
We would all be walking barefoot without design. We would be living in the dirt with nothing over our heads without design. We would have no way to communicate without design.
We would all be stuck in the same spot in a desert with no shelter, simply staring at each other, without design.
Design started life and will end it if we don't all wake up and do the right thing.
Here's the thing, design thinking is lateral thinking, creative thought, innovation ect... all terms and definitions that change with the world. Most of our educational system is focused on specialization, depth of subject; not breadth. To be specialized in design thinking is to be specialized in generalization. Not to say one could not be good at connecting dots, but to label or categorize designers into a specific category of our own would be somewhat undermining. I believe the path of our future lies in individual value; put the right people together and solutions will emerge. If anybody caught "The Feast" there were some great talks and examples of entrepreneurs utilizing creative solutions to better the world. As for the term design thinking... its only called that until it isn't.
The problem with design thinkers is that they just think, and not deliver actionable solutions.
Lets Balance both!
Think about it once again.
Because in One of the TED show the IDEO CEO Tim Brown mentioned that when Brunnel was making a Great western Ship and building the great western railway line,i think he was using a Design Thinking.
Means right now u think that he was using the term but he was not aware about it.
What it means this whole thing has been messed up by recent modern designer who have developed the new world called Design Thinking.
I can see lot of successful people who are running their business and organization very well organized manner. Means i should make them aware of Design Thinking about what they don't know.
Yes of course it is helpful,beneficial and creative method and lead people and society towards bright future but cant Stand Out on the basis of Design thinking.
Design Thinking -- Creative thinking+idea+well pattern+aesthetic ( well planned lay out )+ Etc. depends on kind of work place.
Do you really think that this can only be bagged by the Designers.
Engineers can also think like that.
Most of the good designers are having the Engineering background.
Don't make it a debatable issue.
Just think how we can develop and modify it to make a bright future.
I think we all know that to think like a designer requires a combination of adbuctive reasoning with deductive and inductive reasoning. The important thing is we as designers train ourselves and get trained to wire our heads so that we can prepare ourselves to think in this way, to get into the right frame of mind as is the term in business speak to allow our conscious and subconscious to apply creativity to find solutions to problems.
When you operate in this frame of mind for a long period of time, it becomes second nature, and rather then simply thinking like a designer when required, you think like a designer all the time.
The biggest issue is that societies do not educate or train people to think like this. Whilst creative thinking is fostered in young children, once you begin school this ability to think creatively is ignored in preference for other forms of reasoning.
We are trained to ignore our ability to not only think abductively, but also how to combine abductive thinking with inductive and deductive thinking.
We get trained to think rationally and analytically about things in every single class we do even in design school, we are required to critically and scientifically analyse a problem and we are trained to write technical reports, essays, and perform exams which test our deductive and inductive reasoning whilst also testing our memory recollection ability.
There was an interesting quote in the UK documentary 'We Are The People We Have Been Waiting For', which says 'we are training and educating students to become academics'.
So design thinking is intrinsically a capability of reasoning which must be 'trained' and 'practiced', to be able to use design thinking effectively and competently you must be able to do it as second nature, not be forced to try to do it.
This is where design working comes in, design working is the physical manifestation of how we think like designers, it appears as tools, processes and methods etc,.
With all the corporate clients I've worked with, they understand the tools, processes and methods because they symbolise a structured approach to thinking, and what I've found is that they tend to approach design working with the same deductive and inductive reasoning that they where trained to do.
Once you try to push them to not only use the tools but to also try to think like a designer, they struggle and some even fail because they can't get into the proper frame of mind.
What I've also noticed is that even individuals who do adapt and learn to get into the proper frame of mind of design thinking, stop practicing how to think like a designer and soon lose the ability and have to keep learning how to do it.
I think that if you're going to try to teach someone how to work like a designer, which is telling them how the processes, methods and tools work, you are not teaching them how to think like a designer, you are simply teaching them how to work like a designer.
To teach someone how to think like a designer is a much more difficult task, as it requires mental training and nurturing and lots and lots of practice and dedication.
Thats why to become a great designer or innovator takes years of practice and dedication, you can't expect your client to achieve this in a workshop or training course, because realistically you are going against 12+ years of institutionalised behavioural training.
We have a serious issue in our educational system wherein marketers/business people are expected to hire/communicate with designers, yet they have no training, understanding, or appreciation for the complexity of what we do.
In essence, year after year we are perpetuating this problem simply by not requiring design classes for marketers and marketing classes for designers. How can the two groups possibly be expected to communicate effectively when we graduate with zero understanding of the other half that limits or enhances our ability to do our work?
Rather than focus on the certification issue, we should instead focus on educating our fellow marketers so that they understand: yes, there is a process/methodology...we don't make fluffy/pretty things AND give them the tools to successfully evaluate and differentiate between good design and bad design.
Supply and demand will do the rest and thereby, we can elevate our industry as a whole.
I agree your point. I offer this interpretation:
If Design IS thinking, than those who think CAN and ARE desginers.
I do not separate myself from engineers when I say I am a designer, for I work with incredible engineers that I consider to be desginers as well. Some of our skills overlap, and those that do not go a long way to solve complex, multi-facted problems. We are problem solvers pursuing truth by way of a multi-disciplinary approach in which the broader philosophy of that approach is largely philanthropic and human. I consider researchers as designers too. It's important for those in all professions surrounding the design of objects to get past the semantic hang-up of professional titles. It is more important that we dimake a distinction between ourselves, regardless of title, from those who do not 'design'. And preferably through action rather that words.
It is possible that these are now separate disciplines. Much of my work is on the PD side, although when I started out I was much more on the Designer side. My experience has been that it is much easier to get clients to invest in the PD approach. Which is to say design thinking is valuable because our clients are willing to pay more for it than plain old Design. Given that, why would you position yourself as a Designer when the dollars are elsewhere?
I strongly agree with the idea of some kind of licensing body. It wouldn't dictate how you do your job once you've been licensed, but it would ensure that all designers have met minimum expected knowledge requirements (as Design education is far from uniform), and it would act as a barrier to people with no design background and a copy of SW who do crappy work and give the rest of us a bad rap.
So why can it not take the the heat ? . The universites are full of cources that teach thinking. But I find the design schools are different. There seems to be a difficulty in teaching "thinking". Is is due to the fact that many in this field are not thinkers ? but followers, keen and eager to follow what is hot ?
There is another theory which states that this has already happened
The heart of design is simply the working out of how to change things. One hopes that it will result in changing things for the better.
You could spend your time learning and practicing accounting or business law to get business done on your own. But it is probably a better use of your time and resources to hire an accountant or lawyer instead.
I guess I'm a little baffled as to why the viability of design as a profession is in question. In my relatively brief experience, the question seems to come most from people who don't need need design, or probably wouldn't see the value of it anyway. If a business or individual can't get why professional specialization can work to give them a successful result, then let them figure out why the result isn't as good when they do themselves. If they never see that, then maybe they didn't need your services in the first place. I would rather spend my time practicing my profession for clients who want my services, than spending my time convincing people who don't want my services that they should.
I could write quite an article about it!
Thanks
E
meaning of design means, let's just stop and (re)ask a few questions:
Is design thinking new?
Is design thinking exclusive to job titles that end with designer(s)?
Can marketing, advertisers, engineers do design thinking on their own without designers?