e
Design Thinking: A Useful Myth
A powerful myth has arisen upon the land, a myth that permeates business, academia, and government. It is pervasive and persuasive. But although it is relatively harmless, it is false. The myth? That designers possess some mystical, creative thought process that places them above all others in their skills at creative, groundbreaking thought. This myth is nonsense, but like all myths, it has a certain ring of plausibility although lacking any evidence. Why should we perpetuate such nonsensical, erroneous thinking? Because it turns out to be a very useful way to convince people that designers do more than make things look pretty. Never let facts stand in the way of utility.
What is design thinking? It means stepping back from the immediate issue and taking a broader look. It requires systems thinking: realizing that any problem is part of larger whole, and that the solution is likely to require understanding the entire system. It requires deep immersion into the topic, often involving observation and analysis. Tests and frequent revisions can be components of the process. Sometimes this is done in groups: multidisciplinary teams who bring different forms of expertise to the problem. Perhaps the most important point is to move away from the problem description and take a new, broader approach. Sounds pretty special, doesn't it?But note that we have had breakthrough ideas and creative thinking throughout recorded history, long before designers entered the scene. When we examine the process in detail, what is being labeled as "design thinking" is what creative people in all disciplines have always done. Breakthroughs in all fields—science and engineering, literature and art, music and history, law and medicine—all come about when people find fresh insights, new points of view and propagate them. There is no shortage of creative people in this world, people with great ideas that defy conventional wisdom. These people do not need to claim they have special modes of thinking, they just do what comes naturally to them: break the rules, go outside the existing paradigms, and think afresh. Yes, designers can be creative, but the point is that they are hardly unique.
Are design consultancies especially good at this effort? Are they somehow mystically endowed with greater creativity than the people employed in their client companies? Nope. But they have one virtue that helps them: they are outsiders. People within a group find it difficult to break out of the traditional paradigms, for usually these seem like givens, not to be questioned. Many of these beliefs have been around for so long that they are like air and gravity: taken for granted and never thought about. Outsiders bring a fresh perspective, particularly if they are willing to question everything, especially that which seems obvious to everyone else. It helps to be an outsider, where tradition and existing corporate policies do not apply, where it is ok to break with the standard way of doing things and where one's promotion or bonus is not in jeopardy.
Design thinking is a public relations term for good, old-fashioned creative thinking. It is not restricted to designers. Great artists, great engineers, great scientists all break out of the boundaries. Great designers are no different. Why perpetuate the myth of design thinking if it is so clearly false? Because it is useful. There is still vast confusion about the role of design. In the popular mind, design means "making things look pretty." This is still the view of most corporate executives, marketing managers, programmers, and engineers.
Why is it that the design community perpetuates this myth? Because it serves the design consultancies well. Hire us, they say, and we will bring the magic of design companies to you, working wonders upon your dead, stilted, unproductive company. There is value in claiming to have a secret, powerful weapon.
But there is a second, more important, and more legitimate reason to embrace the term "design thinking." It positions design in a unique way, forcing companies to view design differently than before. The emphasis on "thinking" makes the point that design is more than a pretty face: it has substance and structure. Design methods can be applied to any problem: organizational structure, factory floors, supply-chain management, business models, and customer interaction.
Design thinking is a powerful public relations term that changes the way in which design firms are viewed. Now all the mysterious, non-business oriented, strange ways by which many design firms like to work is imbued with the mystical aura of design thinking. Yeah, we do things differently than you do: that's why we are so powerful and unique. Is there any evidence that any of the long-held traditions of designers are effective? Of course not: but please don't tell anyone.
So, long live the phrase "design thinking." It will help in the transformation of design from the world of form and style to that of function and structure. It will help spread the word that designers can add value to almost any problem, from healthcare to pollution, business strategy and company organization. When this transformation takes place, the term can be put away to die a natural death. Meanwhile exploit the myth. Act as if you believe it. Just don't actually do so.
-
o4Favorite This
-
Q65Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Bould Design
BOULD DESIGN is a strategic partner for bringing highly functional, beautiful and successful product...
-
Doris DevDoris Dev is a New York and Hong Kong-based product development agency with a proven track record of...
-
aruliden
Aruliden is a global design agency born in 2006. We are a collection of people who care deeply about...
-
Ammunition
Founded in 2007, Ammunition is led by partners Robert Brunner and Matt Rolandson. Our work is create...
-
Agncy Design
Using design as a tool to reduce structural inequity. We work with teams and leaders to make the equ...
-
Acorn Product Development
Acorn Product Development is based in Silicon Valley with design centers in Boston, Denver, Los Ange...
-
219 Design
219 Design is an interdisciplinary product engineering firm based in Silicon Valley. Our team of mec...
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
Don, Fantastic piece. The reality is that most designers are not trained and able to add significant value within the process of creation, that have so radically changed. "Design Thinking "is the result of formers of shape, having to suddenly create value for their services that no longer create value. It is a result of a crisis. I have been in too many design crits where students present dumb assed ideas formed beautifully to the delight of academics who asses their work. The show has to stop at some point. "Design Thinking" also demonstrates how willing academia is in co-opting instead of playing a critical role of developing new knowledge and new roles for designer to be.
It really is hard to break the regular established process in a company. It's always hard to tell everybody around and tell yourself ' I was doing it wrong', 'We were doing it wrong'. But once you have the gut to say it, things get better I guess.
Fantastic piece. The reality is that most designers are not trained and able to add significant value within the process of creation, that have so radically changed.
"Design Thinking "is the result of formers of shape, having to suddenly create value for their services that no longer create value. It is a result of a crisis.
I have been in too many design crits where students present dumb assed ideas formed beautifully to the delight of academics who asses their work. The show has to stop at some point.
"Design Thinking" also demonstrates how willing academia is in co-opting instead of playing a critical role of developing new knowledge and new roles for designer to be.
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=design+thinking%2Ccreative+thinking&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
All myths are false. All methods are flawed.
To reference two of our greatest American designers, Benjamin Franklin and Buckminster Fuller...design is like electricity, we cannot properly define it, but we can witness and sometimes even measure its effects. I might also add that, like electricity, it has polarity and seems to be everywhere.
And to reference our greatest American design critic, Mark Twain, when common sense becomes more common, we might dispense with the word design.
Could just be were all NKotB or should that be the pretenders, however maybe those who condemn the phrase out of some epoch-related sense of subjugation aspire to be even that good.
I just read a book from 1987. "design thinking" by Peter G. Rowe. it's quite intriguing. People like Horst Rittler and Christopher Alexander already worked the path IDEO and the like are wandering on.
This is no problem. I'm just astonished how much of the terminology and pattern reoccur in a more simplified manner in the books of the present "design thinking" movement. Which is again no biggie to me, but that they don't cite the authors which obviously had the same principles in mind, is a gap I cannot get answered .
In favor of the IDEO-clique is that they manage to a) bind the methods emerged from pratical design work experience to the highly theorized frameworks of f.e. Alexander, b) set these frameworks in connection to present topics as multidisciplinarity, social engagement asf and c) wrap it up into an appealing package that motivates folks to get into it. something which the highly theoretic works of above mentioned originators of design thinking' like methodologies couldn't achieve.
lastly i want to note, that the term "design thinking" could be understood to originate NOT from the nowadays common understanding of being related to aesthetic, but being related to the verb "to design". "to design" by itself is not bound to flashy consumerism. it more describes the act of designating a certain matter, as for example to design a solution to a wicked problem which we certainly have quite a bunch to tackle.
I guess I'm surprised that this is coming from Donald Norman, who himself preaches the idea of user-centric design, which lies at the core of Design Thinking as well. And secondly, of course, that I'm a follower myself!
A state of mind that makes one open to identifying problems, entertaining a wide range of possible solutions, and applying the best of those solutions to minimize evaluative iterations until the level of confidence that the problem is solved or not worth the cost of solving...
A state of mind is a myth? I doubt it:)
I feel that what this article is actually about your aversion and exhaustion around the concept of hype marketing more than design thinking itself. In other words, the (over)use of "design thinking" as a banner ad for something magical and mystical is what's really getting to you.
To that end, your profession and proximity to this space obviously exposes you to a higher-than-average occurrence of the hype and excess surrounding a newish management trend.
From my perspective, design thinking has a long way to go in terms of its utilization in solving the most challenging problems we face as a people. The Baby Boomers (sorry, I know you're one of them - but I'm speaking broadly here) surged through our society powered on the notion of linear, type-a aggressive problem-solving. With that backdrop, I welcome even an over-exposure to design thinking as an alternative to the MBA-style thinking that has so dominated business and organizational dynamics for the past generation.
To me (via my firm -- Capital D Design -- that claims to use design principles to solve problems, drive innovation and optimize experiences), design thinking is not something special in and of itself -- it's simply an approach to thinking that I naturally gravitate toward: stepping back, playing the devil's advocate at the most basic level of assumption, and employing my native creativity and honed-by-experience analytical skills to almost every aspect of the problem-solving process. This approach is unique enough in our culture that it seems to have some significant value. So, it's not what I'm doing that is so valuable, but its the scarcity of how I do it, and how well I seem to do it.
This is only thing magical and mystical is that my approach is uniquely mine, and not easily replicated. The value of my design-thinking contributions, therefore, are completely enabled and limited by my own unique creative juices and analytical rigor.
And with that belief, I'd argue that design thinking has an analogy to musical artistry. Allow me to explain:
To say that design thinking is a myth is like saying great composers are a myth. Were Beethoven and John Lennon myth or legend? Both, actually. But their respective creative impact was legendary. So, just because millions of other less legendary and less impactful people also call themselves "composers" does not reduce the importance of great composers in our society.
The real question is: which design thinkers are the John Lennons and Beethovens, and which design thinkers are the New Kids on the Block?
For the record: I think of "design thinking" as a hypothesis that forms an explanation of why great designers have a unique perspective on reality that seems distinct from the perspective of great artists and great scientists, and is closely connected to the "designerly ways of knowing" (per Cross, http://design.open.ac.uk/cross/documents/DesignerlyWaysofKnowing.pdf).
You're quite right. Designers aren't really as excited about the term as everyone else seems to be; although, as you said, it is useful to be perceived as being able to contribute to more than form and style. However, designers have always known that function and structure is at the heart of what they do, we have a long tradition of this starting with Bauhaus and HfG Ulm.
'Design Thinking' has become fashionable because businesses have discovered the value of systems approach (as you have mentioned) coupled with 'thinking with the hands', human centred problem solving, iterations and understanding style & beauty. This, in the context of markets that are increasingly shaped by active consumer participation.
So, yes, it is good for business and it helps to be taken seriously at long last.
Do take a look at the article titled 'Design Thinking for 21st century designers at:
http://thinking-about-design-deepankar.blogspot.com/
Deepankar Bhattacharyya
I think, "Design Thinking" is very much alive and active, no matter how ancient is the existence of Designers or creative people.
Some people can sing, some people can't; some people can design better, some ppl just can't. It's a radical art!!
A Proud Design Enthusiast.
Best wishes for success in your new endeavors. I look forward to following your thinking through Core77, a wonderful platform for clever discourse that started publishing NU Design related work in 2005.
Another view of the creative processes you reference is offered by Roger Martin in his latest book The Design of Business. Looking forward to "Living with Complexity"
DT applies only when there are multiple diverse/differentiated concepts/opinions/perspectives ...
Design Thinking is a meta term for a "talking-stick circle" or "hive think" or in describing team/client/service dynamics ...
I'm looking forward to your next article! Really enjoyed reading your view and the other's retaliations.
It does not matter either what the problem is, or what professional solves it. In that sense any one could indulge in that activity. Those who claim it as their profession are only claiming that they specialize in it ...that they are able to replicate the process at will because they follow and practice a structured process.
But we know of plenty of Designers who look up at the ceiling for inspiration to fall from the roof. Are they all Design Thinkers? No, but hopefully with practice they will be, and so can anyone else-who practices.
Design Thinking is not a one time breakthrough. The most important concept in Design Thinking is the idea of being able to replicate the (for the lack of a better term )"magic".
Everyone, in their own way does design thinking, when they make the most of the resources they have, or when they re-invent, or find a new use for something. Designers are (hopefully) more trained and practiced in this way of thinking and doing. I don't think design thinking is a myth, but I also don't think only designers are the 'experts' at it.
While creative thinking was the buzzword that was flaunted by psychologists and artists in the last century, we now have in design thinking as a new partner that has taken roots in the current century as an approach for all issues and concerns of society and industry.
Dave Malouf above draws our attention to one particular form of thinking which is abductive thinking and abductive reasoning which is used by all those who eventually achieve new and path breaking approaches that most others seem to avoid or miss altogether. This is, as he says, looking to the future with a search for potential possibilities and alternatives rather than analyzing past approaches to find mistakes to correct, which seems to be a preferred approach for both governments and industry. In my view this kind of thinking (abductive) when combined with the action of visualization and building models that externalize the thought into tangible forms are at the base of the building of conviction and motivation that may be needed by communities of decision makers for breakthrough action that constitutes a durable innovation in society and business.
This kind of thought is not the sole purview of the designer but the combination of this kind abductive thought with the action of visualization is the root of most break through innovations and inventions. The big question for me is how can we place this in the hands of many disciplines across the university and not let it remain in the realms of art and design centres and a few management institutes. Such action is also political in nature since the future focused act of building possibilities challenges current positions and comfort zones. Perhaps the myth of design thinking needs to be propagated so that all disciplines try their hands at this adrenalin creating kind of thinking and make it a part of their own method, a sort of sprinkling of the design salts into their own sets of tools.
Dinesh Korjan too throws up the idea above that the emphasis would need to shift from thought to action, that of showing tangible alternatives for future possibilities, and this is the key to the use of design thinking, the way we seem to hold it here in Ahmedabad in India.
M P Ranjan
from NID Ahmedabad
http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com
Some of my thoughts on the subject (plus more interesting discussion in the comments field):
http://www.cooper.com/journal/2010/06/thinking_about_design_thinking.html
But once you have the gut to say it, things get better I guess.
It is important to examine what we are really talking about, as designers, when we say design thinking. A great definition, of sorts, is given by Rotkapchan above:
"The term is "Design Thinking" not "Designer Thinking". It's based on the fundamental divine premise that everything has an inherent design and unless and until we're prepared to look at it from that perspective, we will fail to optimize the potential of all creations."
Call it whatever you want, this "divine premise" is real. It is the reason design is powerful; all things are designed and those designs affect how people relate and behave in the world.
I just made a comment on the blog by Venessa Miemis in Core77, where she talks of 'Futures Thinking' which is a projection on the usual timeframes associated with product lifecycle.
We are talking of Design Thinking, which Nigel Cross initiated with 'Designerly Thinking'.
I am working with groups in Service Design and Engineers in Systems Design, no wonder the business community are confused.
So somewhere between 'small c' creativity of the DeBono type to assist commerce and 'large C' creativity practiced by designers and 'small d' design by laypeople to 'large D' design practiced by design professionals there is a heap of carpetbagging territory.
This why it important to have these conversations, but more importantly it is the profession which needs to rein in the nomenclature to preserve its integrity.
Fortunately perhaps, myths are powerful motivators and the phrase "design thinking" is just that. It's a phrase that can help define a moment of critical engagement in the creative process and there's nothing wrong with that. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
We should probably also remember that critical thinking involves far more than determining the limits of functionality for a given product or service. Critical thinking involves a measure of cultural understanding that exceeds mere functionality.
If you want a myth to demystify in the design business, it's the myth of pure functionality.
Keep thinking,
Bob
Myth or not, I find that design thinking, and what I would refer to as the IDEO method, does provide my colleagues - who rarely think about design - and are so embedded in their daily routines that they are as inside as an insider can be -with some great ideas for how to think differently. Sharing the IDEO method provides a helpful framework for giving them a set of tools for breaking out of the insider role. So for those who are non-designers, design thinking is useful.
And for the commentor who called out Roger Martin, I don't think you've really read his books (did you just look at the b-week article) to understand the opposable mind, the knowledge funnel, abductive thinking, etc - all of which Martin weaves into his theories for better practice. I was going to comment that I believe that the design thinking Norman refers to is the IDEO style of design thinking. The Roger Martin school of Design Thinking is quite different - and I don't think what Norman says about DT applies to Martin's work at all.
Some related viewpoints here: http://convergence.case.edu/positionstatements/
And it's helpful to recognize that someone with an outside perspective can bring such greatness to a project more easily than someone who identifies with the project, but that doesn't help distinguish design consulting from business, engineering, science, or any other independent field.
Dave Malouf and this Harrison remember Bucky Fuller's (and of course lots of other peoples') conception of design as a scientific approach to creativity, innovation, and - I'd argue - self-expression. This conception is effective both to solve problems and to frame design, but it's still stuck in the perspective and the terms of the (crumbling?) dominant paradigm of science.
Don identifies design with structure and substance - he sees it as a path towards a great goal of the hippie generation: depth.
If we follow this insight through a little bit of cultural history (Alan Watts, the Beatles' tour of India, and the transcendental meditation movement) we can recognize a little bit of Zen down in the roots of design thinking. Whether it's focusing - through meditation or matrices - on an object's (or business's) most superficial, trivial, and microscopic details until they reveal the grand shape of the production mechanisms and the social context, or stretching out the couple of minutes it takes to make one more widget into months and months of research, prototyping, and refinement - "design thinking" is about transforming space and time by shaping perceptions.
Don can't find any evidence of design's successes because all the traditional tools are inadequate: science can't measure perception, businesses can't evaluate the subjective, and engineers (except possibly the HCI type) can't compute the margin of error of a judgment.
Although we, at AIGA, the professional association for design, have spent a decade promoting the value of design thinking, we have never equated it with an innovation or methodology reserved exclusively for designers. We, too, are uncertain that "design" thinking is the best descriptor, but we are absolutely certain that creativity can defeat habit, that habits have confounded innovation and that the approaches that are grouped under design thinking are a means of breaking through analytic approaches to strategy and problem solving that may eschew human experience.
We also believe that designers are more likely to approach problems in new ways focused on user experiences, prototyping and human-centered solutions than are some other professions, even while we acknowledge not all designers are adept at this technique.
It seems you are questioning the description of "design thinking" and the misconception that designers are saying only they can do it, rather than the contribution the technique can make to creating value.
What made this article go South for me was the introductory paragraph where Mr. Norman wrote: "Because it turns out to be a very useful way to convince people that designers do more than make things look pretty." This in reality is (ironically) another myth that Mr. Norman is "exploiting" to make his point seem correct. I find it difficult to accept that Design Thinking is a myth (the way this article is framed) when to get there logically means accepting a myth proposed by the author. Designers do make things look pretty sometimes, but that really is not exclusively what we do. The logic is flawed here and I would instead propose that designers see Design Thinking as a really smart and strategic move to lead in a very important area: to solve (what Richard Buchanon and others call) our "wicked problems" With abstract thinking engrained in our education, finding intelligent and more responsible solutions collaboratively (in a leadership role) is simply a smarter way to position what designers do besides pushing pixels and making pretty tables.
For some 'non-designers', "creative thinking" is a valueless fuzzy term, whereas "design thinking" exposes some of the structure and process.
Care to get specific about the "clear and distinct methodologies for identifying problems and providing effective, comprehensive solutions" on which design thinking relies?
And as a followup, can you explain exactly how each of these either identifies a problem or provides an effective, comprehensive solution?
Yes, breakthrough ideas do happen regardless, that is inevitable. What isn't inevitable is the how reliably breakthrough ideas and results can be generated. "Design Thinking" provides clear and distinct methodologies for identifying problems and providing effective, comprehensive solutions. Typically, creatives don't closely analyze and distinguish the processes by which they produce their work, relying on "intuition" alone. Intuition is necessary, but so is a distinct framework for reviewing and evaluating the results you produce at any given point within the process in order to consistently produce breakthrough results.
While I don't mind the name "Design Thinking" (it is effective and descriptive), like most new shiny things that reach the masses or the business world, it tends to get overused and bastardized rather quickly (take "branding" as an example). I think that what we are seeing here is the same thing; a relatively new and attractive concept being co-opted and mutated into something less effective. The name will likely change over time, but it is up to the creative problem solvers to maintain the integrity of the practice.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/di20050803_823317.htm
Martin seems to exemplify a lot of what Norman criticizes here.
________________________________________________________
There is no shortage of creative people in the world; true. There are, however, too few in management and engineering. And not everyone need be a designer (not everyone can be). What is certainly needed is acceptance of the role of creative, big picture, systems-oriented, human-value-oriented (design) thinking: promotion of design/ers to the Chief level, as peer to finance, operations, and engineering. Not least for our very survival. Or you don't get the news: what to expect if we remain linear thinkers in our industrial age box? That is a devil we know, nothing more.
________________________________________________________
For "evidence that any of the long-held traditions of designers are effective"... where to start! My beloved and esteemed Mr. Norman, you are, let's agree, first and foremost an academic, and not a designer, can can be forgiven this call for proofs. Yet this from the author of Emotional Design, who's first chapter is titled "Attractive Things Work Better". Really??
________________________________________________________
There is no shortage of creative people in the world; true. There are, however, too few in management and engineering. And not everyone need be a designer (not everyone can be). What is certainly needed is acceptance of the role of creative, big picture, systems-oriented, human-value-oriented (design) thinking: promotion of design/ers to the Chief level, as peer to finance, operations, and engineering. Not least for our very survival. Or you don't get the news: what to expect if we remain linear thinkers in our industrial age box? That is a devil we know, nothing more.
________________________________________________________
are great tools. Tools don't make the man. Why does the world have to go
For "evidence that any of the long-held traditions of designers are effective"... where to start! My beloved and esteemed Mr. Norman, you are, let's agree, first and foremost an academic, and not a designer, can can be forgiven this call for proofs. Yet this from the author of Emotional Design, who's first chapter is titled "Attractive Things Work Better". Really??
Indeed, many designers are deplorable at applying the principles of Design Thinking, save for the space for which they are accustomed (often a product focus). A doctor is not really a doctor until they learn to be a healer, not a specialist.
Your article is correct and useful if we start from the definition that Design Thinking refers to designers (i.e. visual analysis and interpretation).
But in parts of my work Design (or Systems) Thinking is defined less narrow. It refers to any kind of design - from designing learning experiences to events to interaction to organisational change to processes - that at any time may or may not involve designers in the sense of your article.
Kwela Sabine Hermanns
A proud designer
U r great.
And mostly i like your last point as u said, " Act as if you believe it. Just don't actually do so."
It is really like u'd already told -people take design as ' designer makes things which looks amazing.'
Means every time it is related to the form or the structure of object or product.
So after all it is good for designers who personally dont believe in this thing, because at least people believe in them by this Myth.
So sometimes it is good keep the Myth alive.
For me, the fundamental point of design thinking, that sets it apart from all other forms of thought, is the focus on human agency: first, designers believe the world can be re-configured to suit human purposes, and second, designers reconfigure the world in ways that enhance the agency of others. I don't doubt that the marketing materials of design agencies are as vulnerable to BS as anyone else's marketing, but 'design thinking' denotes something meaningful and important. By comparison, 'creativity' is a very vague term.
I'm curious, in your dissection of design thinking as a myth there was what I think to be the definition of design thinking that separates it from other forms of creative endeavors. This does not replace other forms of creativity or puts it on a higher shelf in and of itself, but in concert with other forms of thinking may be an additive that supplements. That is abductive thinking. That is to say that designers explore the possible futures, instead of validate feasible pasts.
Now going to your point that there have been breakthroughs throughout history, it does seem that all disciplines have had them, that is true, but few have been able to codify and put into practice repeatability into those methods. It seems that greatness is in the humans and the contexts that surrounds those humans and not in any single process at all. But if a team using a process as part of their context can repeatably create greatness can we not learn from those clues to try to reframe our own contexts and replicate our own teams?
In other words, if design thinking is a myth, is there any methodology worth laying down to at the alter? What qualities are in that methodology?
I'm curious as to yours and other people's response to all this. I am by no means a design thinking advocate, but these are some of the questions in my mind.
Last point, I don't think that the proponents of "deign thinking" are actually trying to push designers. They are trying to suggest a tool for non-designers to learn, no? (but this might be relating to a separate DT article I read coincidentally today).
Thank you,
-- dave
Great piece! I always appreciate your insight and wisdom. The design profession is better off because of you and your teachings.
Ravi