0
FRIEZE NEW YORK 2013
INTERNATIONAL HOME + HOUSEWARES SHOW 2013
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2012
BEIJING DESIGN WEEK 2012
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.
Comments
Very interesting article and a lot of great points. In my work I encounter a sinister flipside to the overuse (or overselling) of the phrase "design thinking," in the false expectations among clients and the broader business community that design can be rote. While I agree that process and rigor are valuable additions to creative thought and that the design community should embrace them, in effort to connect with "business thinking" we tend to speak of them as substitutes for creativity, intuition, and inspiration. Embracing the formal label of "design thinking" has put an unfortunate over-emphasis on process at the expense of belief in talent.
Emperor has no clothes? Design Thinking, LEAN, Six Sigma, DFSS. BPI are great tools. Tools don't make the man. Why does the world have to go from one to another. What about learning from best practices and fine tuning our act.Why do we have to get fanatical about one from of thinking or another. Professionals should be independent thinkers and not follow the herd. And I know a lot of great souls who don't move with the herd and this is the group which will transform the world.
Don,
Great piece! I always appreciate your insight and wisdom. The design profession is better off because of you and your teachings.
Ravi
Great article and commentary on design thinking! As an engineer struggling to convert to the design world, I am continually frustrated with the confusion people experience when I try to tell them what it is that I do! I'm currently working on my Master's Thesis based within designing for emotion and while I have somewhat of a grasp on the concepts, translating this information to someone else has been difficult to say the least. I guess sometimes I too feel lost while I try and clear the smoke and mirrors of design. Great article!
Hi Don,
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
Don - What an eloquent assessment of the intentional and perhaps, even the unintentional use, of [the phrase] "design thinking". While it certainly seems to be gaining popular momentum in whatever form it is being referred as (design, integrative, or creative thinking), the simple premise that it has always existed as a tool in design and can be used in various other ways by various other people is something for each of us, designers & non-designers, to keep in mind as we problem solve (or solution find). The transformation that you mentioned above is only going to occur by us all thinking differently and who really cares what we call it, as long as we use the tools we got. Thank you for a great post!
I'm surprised you want to label this a 'myth'. If anyone doubts that 'design thinking' is real and important, you should check out Dick Boland and Fred Collopy's 'Managing As Designing', or go back even further to Mansell and Silverstone's 'Communication by Design', the book that turned me on to the topic (including The Psychology Of Everyday Things.)
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.
Don....
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.
I have to say I'm pretty amazed and baffled to encounter this article here, at a website that celebrates design on a daily basis.. it's a very simplistic way of "undressing" designers of all their education and experience, claiming they are nothing more than outsiders with a fresh point of view. It's like saying a lawyer is nothing more than the book of rules he knows, or a writer just knows lots of cool words... i wish you would look into the some of the methods of design consultancy companies... it goes so much beyond a mere myth, or a fresh look, and i'm sad to see that the true, anachronistic myth - that designers has little value to offer - is still being perpetuated and argued passionately by well educated people.
A proud designer
Interesting. Another nail in the coffin of realism in favour of pragmatism :-)
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
There's a gross fallacy underlying this piece: the correlation between designers and design. 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.
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.
I agree that design thinking is a tool, and that it's not at all unique to designers. But as a designer I feel it's my job to help my clients, who are mostly small business owners, learn to think differently about their businesses. It helps their businesses be more competitive and innovative, and it helps me do better design work for them because they understand where I'm coming from.
So many catch phrases, so little time. We used to call it creative thinking. But like "design" itself, the meaning is worn out by over-adoption and diffusion from over/ab use, usually for sales-sake. Odd how we produce and consume meanings like goods themselves. Consumer thinking?
________________________________________________________
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??
So many catch phrases, so little time. We used to call it creative thinking. But like "design" itself, the meaning is worn out by over-adoption and diffusion from over/ab use, usually for sales-sake. Odd how we produce and consume meanings like goods themselves. Consumer thinking?
________________________________________________________
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??
The phrase "Design Thinking" can be useful, or not. Only time will say. I have my doubts. People are making a strong relation between Design Thinking and business. I think Design Thinking knowledge is more important in schools than in business. If today businessmen have to learn how to explore their design thinking in school, they probably wouldn't need any design consultancies. What a I'm trying to say is: the phrase Design Thinking will confuse more than help Design outsiders to understand Design as a human knowledge area, separated from Science and Humanities.
Designers aren't the only ones peddling this myth. See Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/di20050803_823317.htm
Martin seems to exemplify a lot of what Norman criticizes here.
Your snide inferences with regard to the design industry lead me to think that you are not a creative thinker yourself Don. Think Sydney Opera House, Taj Mahal etc. Everything is designed from a sheet of paper to the salt and pepper shakers, and what we do is definitely not about creating pretty pictures as any one of my students will tell you. I'm not at all surprised you wrote a book arguing against simplicity, since your verbosity is only exceeded by your pomposity. Cheers, paul
It is inaccurate to refer to "Design Thinking" as a myth; the reality is that "Design Thinking" is more elusive than it is a myth. If you take the multitude of practitioners that consider themselves designers, a very tiny fraction actually get "Design Thinking" and what it provides.
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.
Unfortunately, creativity cannot be taught at design schools and "design thinking" seems to be the new term to validate the whole design profession. I am a designer and with the years of practice I do not justify myself anymore: making things more appealing to help companies SELL MORE. That's it. I have survived, sustainability, affection, emotions and so forth. I guess I will survive "design thinking" but still rather happy with my work and, sometimes, happily creative.
Harrison,
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?
I see the opposite of some of this article. In my view "design thinking" just makes design democratic and transportable. You can explain it to someone without a training in design as a process and system of tools that allow you to address a problem/non-problem in a new way.
For some 'non-designers', "creative thinking" is a valueless fuzzy term, whereas "design thinking" exposes some of the structure and process.
Although "Design Thinking", at times, can be used strictly as a cliche by many agencies, many take it very seriously. It's comparable to the person who knows Adobe Creative Suite versus the designer. I would venture to guess most design agencies do not even use the term, as their education in systems design and time/budget for research is thin. However, that doesn't mean it's a sham. I would argue it's in its infancy. I do not think it's similar to just saying "creative thinking" as that really could be anything. "Design Thinking" implies collaboration as not one person or group of designers can completely understand the complexities of science, engineering, biology etc. Design Thinking is inherently a team-based initiative. I agree with a comment made earlier that this isn't "Designer Thinking" but "Design (with a capital D) Thinking". That also implies many disciplines can take part. Engineers can design for example. Maybe not in the same way a Designer would define design to them, but still it is design.
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.
I think it is positive to always search for new meanings, methods and ways of doing things better (lets talks about what "better" should mean), maybe is just a fashion or a new marketing strategy for designers but Design Thinking is moving some people out of the ordinary and that for itself is good. I personally like very much that Mr. Norman clarifies that behind all this "nonsenses" lies Systems Thinking, a much more serious, objective and all professions related way of approaching challenges with real sustainability logic.
Great post. Agree completely, although its not all that surprising. "Design Thinking" is to the 2000's, what "Strategy" was to the 1990's and "Quality" was to the 1980's. You need new BS every so often to keep the consultancies humming. Now, what's the new word for the 2010's? "Plastics"
I find it somewhat ironic that the folks who argue so vehemently against the crux of this column- the notion that there is little about the creative design process that's new or mysterious- fail to recognize the larger trend here: for the benefit of the design community Don Norman makes intentionally controversial statements, intended to generate debate. Pattern recognition is still an important part of good design, no?
Don,
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.
Provocative as always, Don. I agree that this term is little more than great positioning, and that the big idea it refers to is present in any great work (and in its usual vague form, it is simply a reference to "the thing present in any great work").
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.
What about iteration? Tangibility through prototyping? Peer critique? These are all unique qualities of a design process that are not necessarily inherent in "creative-thinking".
Great discussion!
Some related viewpoints here: http://convergence.case.edu/positionstatements/
Design Thinking is different in the way design solutions are different (from, say, management solutions) while engaged with the same problem. Invariably, design always throws up a new creation (tangible or intangible) or re-creates an existing entity that redefines the problem state altogether.
Thanks for your thoughtful essay on design thinking. As a non-designer and a proponent of the value of design thinking, I think there is value in challenging the ideas and forcing us to think about this thing we call design thinking. I first discovered the core ideas of design - and it's applicable to all types of design fields, as the library director at Philadelphia University - where about 50% of the curriculum focuses on design fields - but none of the faculty (many practitioners) used this term. I came to it more though my own studies in our instructional design program.
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.
Don, Remember the old IBM motto "THINK". Well you are always thinking about and often challenging design issues.
Keep thinking,
Bob
I guess we shouldn't be surprised the designers have re-branded critical and creative thinking in a business and cultural climate in which such things are in real demand. Nevertheless calling design thinking a myth is a bit like calling critical and creative thinking a myth as well. It's also a bit like saying that none of these things exist, even though they certainly do.
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.
Who cares what they call it. The fact that so many industries are embracing a more creative approach to their fields should make us rejoice. Sometimes people are so stuck in their thinking that they need a catch phrase or a repackaging of something obvious to illuminate them. And what's wrong with that? Are people shifting their thinking? Is it working? That's what matters. They can call it musician brain or choreographer mind - the term just doesn't matter.
We all should care, or history will repeat itself.
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.
Don, I think you are perpetuating a false definition of "design thinking." You point this out yourself; "Design thinking is a public relations term," you say, but I would like to point out that it's been stolen in the name of public relations; it hasn't always been this way.
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.
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.
Why all the huffing and puffing? As part of an organization that is vaguely implicated of myth-making in this piece, I should point out that design thinking, as it is actually practiced - rather than as it is pontificated about - recognizes that anyone can be a designer, and that anyone can be "creative." (I always think fondly of Ralph Caplan’s points about “designing” legislation, “designing” spaceships and “designer” nail salons). It is only the current business context that makes it appear as though a "myth" is being propagated. And yet, design thinking is a real answer to a real set of problems. I look no further than a lot of my clients. They work in organizations in which they earn their holiday bonuses for NOT being "creative." It is true that history is filled with examples of great ideas and innovation before there was an organized design field. However more recent history suggests that the end of century era of management consulting "best practices" during which the delivery of quarterly profit was (and still is) valued over humanism (think: value.engineering, M&A, off-shore manufacturing and value chain analysis etc.) design has been both an overlooked and undervalued set of skills in most organizations. Design thinking merely democratizes design tools so that other people and organizations can make use of them - hopefully for the good. Design thinking as it is currently practiced is more about enabling and collaboration and much less about the “ta-dah” moment. Design thinking on its best day, can even modestly claim to have contributed to beneficial growth in industry and sometimes even in society. But come to think of it, huffing and puffing about myths is actually a compliment. Myths, like fiction, are actually devices for pointing at truth.
I really appreciate what you're saying here, and I agree. It *is* a useful fiction that can be turned into reality. But I still have concerns that much of what is now associated with "design thinking" doesn't capture the aspects of design that are about craft and technical execution. In many cases the success (and even quality) of an innovative idea is entirely dependent upon how it is realized.
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
Don. Great to hear from you again, insightful and stimulating. Well said. I agree with you entirely, about the myth that is now being propagated by both designers as well as the management community as a mantra for all problems. However we need to look further for some clues for positive action.
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
Quite interesting!
I think design as a profession is at the crossroads. The old role of design, post the industrial revolution and right until now was primarily to sell. Design is, to some extent, one the causes behind the insane sell, sell, sell consumerist culture that exists today. However, being a designer myself, I think some designers are realizing that this role of design is not sustainable, not holistic, and too short-term. Design, or rather design-thinking has to actually solve problems, and not multiply them, or exchange old problems for new ones. It has to look at long-term benefits rather than short term gains.
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.
People do believe designers can do magic things... Interesting thoughts, Dan. It'd be great if smart designers were the ones to change the world.
The term 'Design' in Design Thinking does not stand for a profession. It stands for an activity. Design is the process of creative problem solving. It is not just creative thinking, nor is it just plain problem solving. It IS the act of designing that requires both a structured thought process and creativity applied towards a purpose.
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".
Design Thinking is a "mantra", a hype-phrase and, as has been quite aptly put, a myth. What true designers mean by Design Thinking (if they ever find themselves using this term, which I doubt) is the creative insight of a new point of view. This creative insight is in no way limited to the field of Design, because design is a phase in all fields which require planning before execution. The phrase is used to propagate and perpetuate the perceived value of design firms, and in that it is an honest attempt at conning people. But then that is salesmanship for you. Apart from that, it has no real meaning.
I'm looking forward to your next article! Really enjoyed reading your view and the other's retaliations.
Fallacy lies in the belief that there is a resultant "design thinker" ...
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 ...
Don,
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"
Quite a nice perspective to view things, nice try.... but sometimes people are too caught up in the "out of box thinking" style, trying to be unique and "significantly different" and loosing track of oneself at the process.
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.
Core77, why have a columnist write in a social media format who obviously has little to no interest in engaging in dialogue?
Thank you Don,
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
Well he got the thinking part right on the money. Designers need to think how to solve the problem, and how to build the product for a certain target market.
I think the underlying problem to all this is that non-designers keep trying to co-opt designerly ways of doing things for the sake of financial/business success, without much caring to get the training and experience necessary to think well and act well in a designerly way. Designers need to stand up more for their own discipline.
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).
Hi Don & All,
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?
I "Heart" Don Norman...
Interesting theory surrounding the interpretation of a term / theme. By my interpretation of "design thinking" I find it hard to define it as a myth.
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:)
It's never said that Design Thinking is something brand new. In fact, Edison is often cited as an example, who used the same thinking process for all his creations (who was a scientist). We never say that we 'design thinkers' are a special breed or that this is something miraculous only we are capable of. Instead we acknowledge that designers in themselves cannot solve such complex social and economic problems by themselves effectively enough, which is why we collaborate with engineers, scientists, marketers etc- multidisciplinary teams.
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!
just my 2 cents to this interesting topic
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.
"The real question is: which design thinkers are the John Lennons and Beethovens, and which design thinkers are the New Kids on the Block?"
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.
You should not spit in the plate from which you eat.
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.
Here's the ngram for design thinking and creative thinking:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=design+thinking%2Ccreative+thinking&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
I must admit that there have been times as a designer that I have found myself in a position that is well outside the remit of my skills and knowledge and think that as designers and design agencies we have convinced clients that we are business consultants and marketing strategists that can change their world. This, thankfully happens less since budgets have been cut and blue sky thinking is a thing of the past but what I will say is that what is well within our remit is Design Thinking in the context of the design brief. For example, branding and web strategy is valuable business, something that needs more long term thought, something that needs foundation and substance. This has become our remit and a lot of thinking is and strategy is required for this. Designers solve problems and artists make things look pretty lets not forget this but agreed; less of the arrogance and bull**** would help improve perceptions of the Thinking Designer.
Uh, uh, may i request all "design thinkers" here to back off...meaning, step back from the immediate issue, take a broader look to come up with a design for a more sustainable planet, please? I give here the broad measure you may like to work on: by the estimate of a certain astrophysicist, Earth is valued at 3000 trillion pounds based on age, size, temperature, mass and other vital stats...By the panic estimates of our environMENTALISTS the value is eroding at a reasonably fast pace...so, if you can come up with a new design to stem the rot - i.e. to hold the Earth's value at 3000 trillion pounds, that would be quite nice, really ! Thank you for your attention to this minor cosmic design matter ...do remember, it requires systems thinking: realizing that any problem is part of a larger whole, and that the solution is likely to require understanding the entire system...all the best ! Do feel free to use any other measure of value and/or rate of depletion and kindly pin that to your NEW EARTH solution, to enable proper evaluation....
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.