Design Thinking Background
Traditionally, the concept of design has been regarded as one of the latter stages of the development process, where designers, supplied with a fully formed design brief of which they have had little or no input, create an aesthetically appealing product for market (Brown, 2008). This process, although often successful in the creation of attractive products, services, and successful advertising campaigns, can only ever be viewed as ‘tactical’ rather than ‘strategic’ as a full understanding of customer’s desires and needs is not achieved within the design process. As a result of this, limited value is often created by these services and products (ibid). During the latter half of the 20th century many developed economies shifted from manufacturing to a knowledge and service economy, where a depth of understanding of customer needs was increasingly important (ibid).
The methodology of ‘design thinking’, also commonly referred to as ‘human-centered design’ or ‘user-centred design’ (Leidtka, 2017) seeks to address this perceived lack of understanding of the target audience within the traditional form of product and service development, by placing the designer at the heart of the design process from the outset. This is a collaborative approach, often involving the end user, which aims to develop a human-centric and empathetic understanding of their desires and needs (Mason, 2022). The concept of ‘design thinking’ exists in both the academic and practice worlds. From a Design perspective, the concept is often rereferred to as ‘designerly thinking’ and within the Management literature it is termed ‘design thinking’ with few linkages made between the two (Johansson-sköldberg, U. and Woodilla, J. 2013). ‘Designerly’ thinking combines the theory and practice from the perspective of the discipline of Design.
Design thinking, however, can be viewed as a simplified version of ‘Designerly Thinking, ’ used within the business and management context by those who have often not had specific training as designers (Johansson-sköldberg, U. and Woodilla, J. 2013). The notion of ‘designerly thinking’ in the academic sense is not fully developed within the academic literature and some critics have argued that due to its perceived lack of empirical support, ‘design thinking’ may be dismissed as a fad (Johansson-sköldberg, U. and Woodilla, J. 2013; Razzouk and Shute, 2012). Scholars from the management discipline often argue that as design thinking and practice are so closely related, there is no theoretical underpinning to it, and this is reflected in the literature where there is no sustained development of the concept (ibid). Although the efficacy of the methodology of design thinking is poorly supported within the literature in terms of empirical research, authors have attempted to construct a typology of the key attributes of the design thinking methodology (Micheli et al., 2019, Razzouka and Shute 2012).
The Key Attributes of Design Thinking
Although design thinking has generated a considerable amount of interest amongst practitioners and academics, there is no single generally accepted definition (Micheli et al. 2019). In a systematic review of the literature around the concept of design thinking, Micheli et al. (2019) identified ten common core attributes of design thinking, found across multiple studies. Following is an overview of each of the attributes identified in the study identified by headings, with further insights from other texts including a systematic review undertaken by Razouk and Shute (2012) which will also be included within each short paragraph.
Principal Attributes:
Creativity and Innovation
Creativity defined here as being “the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of individuals working together,” and ‘innovation’, defined as “the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization” (Amabile, 1988, p. 126 in Micheli et al. 2019). Both creativity and innovation are identified as important attributes as well as outcomes of using design thinking.
User-centredness and Involvement
User-centredness is commonly identified as being a core component of design thinking across the studies analysed (Micheli et al. 2019). By facilitating user-centredness and involvement in the design process this provides opportunity for end users to meaningfully contribute to the early design stages. Empathy is identified as the core value of user-centredness and through developing and deploying an empathetic approach this is the principle means of initiating the user-centred approach. The importance of the human centred approach is also a theme identified by Razouk and Shute (2012). In a table of design thinking characteristics first developed by Owen (Owen, 2007 in Razouk and Shute (2012), they state that “designers must continually consider how what is being created will respond to human needs. They should also consider environmental interests at a level with human interests as primary constraints for the design process.”
Problem Solving
Design thinking is widely identified as being a means of problem solving. This is especially the case when it comes to those problems deemed ‘wicked:’ those which are poorly formed, lacking in clear information, have many clients and decision makers with different and conflicting values, and which have system impacts which are overly confusing. It is argued that design thinking provides the opportunity to break free from linear problem solving where the problems to be addressed are not clearly defined (Micheli et al. 2019). Liedka (2017) explains that non-linear problems are those where the designer undertakes a continual process of problem definition, and iteratively tests for solutions through experimentation rather than through analysis, as might be the case in a more linear approach.
Brown (2008) provides a practical example of non-linear problem solving in action. He cites the case of bike components manufacturer Shimano, which in the early 2000’s was experiencing flat business growth in its high end and mountain bike business in the US. Employing a multidisciplinary team, the company started with a hunch that they focus more on the high-end market, although they were unsure whether this would become the only or main area of growth. At this point they did not fully understand the problem they were addressing, and it was only through multiple phases of working with many different consumers to understand their positive and negative feelings towards cycling, that they developed a whole new concept area for development, tapping into a previously neglected portion of the market. Named ‘Coasting’ this was a high-end bike aimed at those cyclists who had ‘lapsed,’ to encourage them back onto their bike. In this example, the problem initially was unclear, and it was only through working closely with consumers and defining and redefining the problem through gaining an understanding of their needs and desires, that over time, the problem being addressed came into focus.
Iteration and Experimentation
Design thinking is characterised, within the literature assessed (Micheli et al. 2019), as an iterative approach whereby trial and error learning is utilised, testing multiple potential solutions with stakeholders and end users. This iterative approach in the first instance provides the opportunity to identify the problem which needs to be addressed and will then lead to the initiation of cycles of problem definition and experimental solution creation. This prototyping approach aims to experiment and develop concepts rather than finalise them.
Practical measures to enable the process of iteration and experimentation include the use of sketches, mock-ups and prototypes (Micheli et al. 2019). For this aspect of design thinking to be successful, the design team needs to adopt a mindset where failure is embraced as an essential aspect of experimentation (Mason 2022). Leidka (2017) provides a practical example of this mindset in action when describing the approach taken by a group of designers working for the Kingwood Trust: an organisation providing services for autistic adults. Designers expected their prototypes to be physically destroyed by the autistic adults they were intended for, and this was viewed as a means of gathering feedback from users who couldn’t provide this verbally.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration
The importance of people from different disciplines working together is core to the design thinking methodology (Michelli et al. 2019). This is seen as critical to achieving innovation and solving wicked problems. Through bringing together those from multiple different departments, units and organisations, this ensures that teams can address the technical, human and business aspects of a project sufficiently. By bringing together multiple perspectives from outside and within an organisation, this is identified as a core aspect of design thinking (Michelli et al. 2019). The ‘abilty for teamwork’ is a theme following similar lines, identified in Owen (2007) in Razouk and Shute (2012).
Beverland et al. (2016) highlight several ways in which successful inter-disciplinary collaboration can be achieved, but the method that they highlight as being especially important is the notion of ‘sensemaking.’ It is recognised that within this mode of thought, that there are different departmental ‘thought worlds’ where for instance designers, marketers and engineers share different meanings and understandings of the same language. It is important, therefore, that these differences in interpretive schemes are effectively managed to enable successful inter-disciplinary collaboration (ibid). A means of doing this is the creation of frameworks of meaning which are designed to overcome these interpretative barriers. To do this successfully, they will transform rather than merely transferring key areas of knowledge across these boundaries between the different groups from different disciplines (ibid).
Ability to Visualise
Michelli et al. (2019) states that several authors argue that “the act of moving from abstract thinking to visualising ideas and then thinking on top of those visualisations is at the heart of design for innovation” (Boni et al., 2009 p.409 in Micheli et al., 2019). The ability to visualise is core to the designer’s ability to problem solving, therefore it is identified as an integral aspect of design thinking and doing (Michelli et al. 2019). It is through being able to successfully visualise concepts and ideas early in the design process, that designers can embark on an emerging rather than deterministic method of inquiry (ibid). Methods to facilitate successful visualisation may involve the creation of sketches, prototypes, or by using storytelling to visualise potential alternatives (ibid). The importance of the ability to visualise is also a theme identified by Owen (2007) in Razouk and Shute (2012
Gestalt View
Another core characteristic identified is the utilisation of an integrative approach which enables the creation of a deeper understanding of the context of the problem and identification of relevant insights (Michelli et al. 2019). This integrative approach does not just focus on a product or service but is the holistic perception of overall experience of a variety of people (ibid). In practice this often means the examination not only of a specific problem or issue but also how this relates to the environmental or system context in which it exists (ibid). Within this view, by recognising the numerous stakeholders and contingencies, this provides the opportunity for designers to “challenge the original problem statement and incorporate the findings already gained to re-phrase the problem in a meaningful and holistic way” (Drews, 2009, p. 41 in Mechelli et al. 2009). By doing this, it is argued, designers are provided the opportunity to create an “elegant integrated whole, or gestalt” (Vogel 2009, p19 in Micheli et al. 2019). Leidtka et al. (2017) makes the case that successful design thinking is achieved not merely in the individual components and related tools of the design process viewed in isolation, but rather the gestalt of them together, aligned in a co-ordinated end-to-end process. The theme of ‘gestalt’ has parallels with the theme of ‘systemic vision’ in Owen (2007) in Razouk and Shute (2012). The ‘systemic vision’ theme highlights the importance of designers treating problems as system problems providing the opportunity to achieve systemic solutions which utilise different procedures and concepts, enabling a holistic solution (ibid).
Abductive Reasoning
Abductive reasoning is the imagination of ‘what might be’ rather than an analysis of ‘what is’ Michelli et al. 2019). This form of reasoning, in contrast with deductive or inductive reasoning, allows for the creation of new knowledge and insight, promoting a means of generating solutions which are assertion based rather than evidence based (ibid). Within this mode of thought, a designer can utilise an existing frame or create a new one, challenging existing assumptions and practices. It is argued that in the latter of these ‘challenging existing practices and assumptions’ that design-based practices and organisational innovation are most closely linked (ibid).
Tolerance of Ambiguity and Failure
A tolerance of ambiguity and failure is also identified as an important feature of design thinking (Michelli et al. 2019). Ambiguity is inherent in those problems deemed ‘wicked’ and therefore designers should embrace this uncertainty and embark on iterative trial and error cycles, gathering data and stakeholder feedback (ibid). This approach facilitates the ability to define and address problems. Learning is enhanced by embracing early failure, providing the opportunity to positively shape a design or service early in the design process (ibid). This links back to the theme of Iteration and Experimentation, as to successfully experiment, failure must be embraced as it is likely that there will be multiple failures before the final product is achieved.
Blending Analysis and Intuition
It is argued that design thinking blends analytical thinking with intuitive thinking (Michelli et al. 2019). Stephens and Boland (2014,p. 223 in Micheli et al., 2019) elaborating on this, state that design thinking combines “felt knowledge about patterns and holistic associations (‘intuition’) with deliberate evaluation of the usefulness and relevance of that knowledge (‘rationality’).” A key characteristic of design thinking is finding a balance between both rationality and intuition. Razzouk and Shute (2012), identify that designers should have the ability to adapt quickly to the conditions of a specific situation, having the ability to switch between different types of cognitive activity according to the demands of the situation.
Conclusion
Drawing together the points above, the following core attributes of a design thinker become apparent. A design thinker is a collaborative, creative, and innovative problem solver, and not afraid of failure; in-fact failure is seen as an important step in the iterative process of product development. A design thinker can use empathy and intuition to generate a holistic view of the needs of the user. Using this intuition and understanding, a design thinker can also effectively visualise the requirements of the user and can imagine ‘what can be’ rather than ‘what is’.
References
Brown, T. (2008) ‘Design Thinking’, Harvard Business Review.
Beverland, M. B., Micheli, P. and Farrelly, F. J. (2016) ‘Resourceful Sensemaking: Overcoming Barriers between Marketing and Design in NPD *’, Journal of Product and Innovation Management, 33(5), pp. 628–648. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12313.
Johansson-sköldberg, U. and Woodilla, J. (2013) ‘Design Thinking : Past , Present and Possible Futures’, CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, 22(2), pp. 121–146.
Razzouk, R. and Shute, V. (2012) ‘What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important ?’, Review of Educational Research, 82(3), pp. 330–348. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457429.r
Mason, M. (2022) ‘The Contribution of Design Thinking to Museum Digital Transformation in Post-Pandemic Times’, Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(79).
Micheli, P. et al. (2019) ‘Doing Design Thinking: Conceptual Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda’, Product Innovation Management, 36(2), pp. 124–148. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12466.
Liedtka, J. (2017) Darden Working Paper Series EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF DESIGN THINKING IN ACTION.