What the Hell is Design Thinking?

Clear as Mud

From the day I entered design industry, the term ‘Design Thinking’ has been frequently mentioned by colleagues and classmates around me. But rarely people gave a clear definition of ‘Design Thinking’, nor could I see anyone used ‘Design Thinking’ in real projects. Is it a tool or framework? Or something else? What is the benefit to ‘have’ it? As a designer, my exuberant curiosity drove me to find answers. In 1987, Professor ROWE coined the term ‘Design Thinking’ in his published book ‘Design Thinking’. However, if you searched ‘Design Thinking’ using a search engine, the most results are related to a model depicting design thinking process given by d.school, Stanford. Not only it gives 5 modes of design thinking, but also a number of methods which are aligned with the 5 modes. At that time, I was very happy that design thinking has a pattern to follow. I think all designers would benefit from it as it is feasible and instructive. I was so excited that I even gave a crash course in design thinking to my colleagues. During the crash course, everything went well but a question I could not answer: what ‘Design Thinking’ actually is.

There are various interpretations of the term ‘Design Thinking’, such like ‘a cognitive style’, ‘a general theory of design’, ‘an organizational resource’, etc. ‘Design Thinking’ has penetrated into many industries after the term is introduced, for instance, IBM, Airbus, BMW, DHL, Bank Of America, Nike, Mayo Clinic, etc. ‘Design Thinking’ has been developed by researchers and professionals from different disciplines and industries. It seems that Design Thinking is an inchoate concept being given different meanings by people from different sections. I think this is why Barsalou et al concluded that “design thinking is more mystical than Tibetan Buddhism” and “attempting to define design thinking aims to define a moving target”.

Besides, professionals tends to give the benefits of applying Design Thinking and a toolkit (methods) to the question, rather than giving the principles lies in the methods. When it comes to a ‘what’ question, people tend to answer ‘how’ instead. Why not? A toolkit, a framework, a model, a pattern is much more ‘tangible’ than a list of principles, a concept, a discipline, though not visible either. It is much easier to popularizing the concept of ‘Design Thinking’ by giving how ‘Design Thinking’ could help and how to do “Design Thinking”, especially in commercial context. Too much effort on ‘how’ masked the discovery in ‘what’.

Cognitive Style?

Lindgaard and Wesselius borrow a theory of metaphor and developments in cognitive science and embodied cognition, trying to link design concepts - ‘such as affordance and visual thinking’ - to ‘the notion that applying and exploring metaphors occurs as a dialectical style of thinking between the gestalt and the particular’. Though a clear definition is not given by Lindgaard and Wesselius, they consider the discourse of ‘Design Thinking’ as a cognitive style. However, like what Verganti et al points out, there is a gap between ‘felt sense’ and design practice. The article does not explain well what makes the distinction that “Design Thinking” is “Design” thinking. Lindgaard and Wesselius do stress the designer’s style of doing - “felt sense” and “externalization”. I argue that this is not proprietary to designers, but to all problem solvers. Just like the structure of inquiry of Dewey, it is a common structure to all inquirers.

For example, a cobbler. Every pair of broken shoes is a new problem to a cobbler. Though shoes tend to have common problems - such as off-sole, worn upper - there are minor differences. Basic cognitive concepts about shoe problems are formed during a cobbler’s training and working. A cobbler then use these concepts metaphorically to understand new problems, use his/her ‘felt sense’ to explore the solutions. As to ‘externalization’, comparing with sketches and prototypes, working memory and shoes are where a cobbler do externalization. As repairing a pair of shoes is not as complex as designing a building or designing a service, working memory could be big enough to contain the ‘externalization’. Plus, it is already a tangible object - shoes - for a cobbler to do comparison and projection, and embodied simulation. Thus, in my point of view, a cobbler also switch attention between gestalt and particular to finish his/her work.

Barsalou et al provide two general reasons why design community turned to cognitive science for answers: “First, cognitive science offers scientific explanations for understanding the design process in terms of cognitive and affective mechanisms (description). Second, cognitive science offers evidence-based principles for teaching and implementing optimal design practices (prescription)”. I argue that cognitive science provides the explanation (underlying mechanism) for all problem-solving process, not only for design process. Thus, the adoption of cognitive theory may not help well with explaining the term ‘Design Thinking’, but ‘Problem-solving Thinking’.

Nonetheless, Lindgaard and Wesselius’s ‘cognitive style’ does help explain the word ‘design’ - a basic characteristic of human being - as interactions between human being and the environment for improving our life quality. ‘Design’ has a number of meanings that it is itself a ‘source of confusion’. Like mentioned before, as to ‘Design Thinking’, people from different sections have different interpretations. As a practitioner of design, I could not help asking myself: is there a simple way for people to quickly grasp its core?

Discipline of Thinking

After read ‘wicked problems in design thinking’ by Richard Buchanan, I realized that ‘discipline’ may be a better word to describe ‘Design Thinking’. Comparing with the relatively underlying explanation using cognitive science, ’discipline’ provides a boundary which distinguish us - as designers - from researchers and professionals from other sections. Thus, first of all, I believe that ‘Design Thinking’ is a discipline of thinking. In addition, the term ‘Design Thinking’ was introduced after the rising and awakening of design research. I think it is very important to consider this context when interpreting ‘Design Thinking’. The birth of ‘Design Thinking’ is the call of the times. It was exactly the social, economic and academic environment of that time brought forth ‘Design Thinking’.

I consider ‘Design Thinking’ as a pragmatic, systematic, creative, empathetic discipline of thinking.

• Pragmatic

  Contemporary designers are no more only ‘shape’ creator, nor ‘appearance’ creator. Contemporary designers are also researchers and problem solvers who would face the initial issues, problems. In order to turn an indeterminate situation to a determinate situation, to satisfy stakeholders, designers would inevitably be involved in the process of inquiry. Sometimes, designers are the ones who start inquires. It is designers’ pragmatic style of conducting inquiry that distinguish designers from other inquirers. Buchanan depicted four common strategies of design research. Cuba and Lincoln summarized four competing paradigms in qualitative research. Designers are not rigorous believers of any particular strategy or paradigm. Designers are result-oriented minded. To achieve the fulfillment, designers would use whichever approach that is useful and effective, in another word, pragmatic. However, it is also designers’ pragmatism that draws lots of criticisms from other researchers who have rigorous belief in a particular paradigm.

• Systematic

  After the Renaissance, the development of natural sciences, especially the development of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, led the division of philosophy. And finally a number of independent disciplines were formed. Since the 20th century, the estrangement of disciplines has been further enlarged. But there are some problems which can not be solved by the power of one discipline, called by buchanan ‘wicked problems’. These problems could be difficult, complicated, completely indeterminate social problems. These problems also could be those common daily problems around us across multiple domains. To solve these problems, we need to consider and balance various factors, need to borrow knowledge from multiple disciplines, in another word, systematic thinking. This is where design could plays a role. Design, as a discipline, is good at solving this kind of problems since it does not have its own subject matter. The subject matter of designers is what the designers deal with. ‘Sustainable Design’ is a good example of how systematic thinking works.

• Creative

  Unlike other disciplines, the power of individuals (designers) is valued in the discipline of design. Since designer is no longer a mechanical component of organizations or pipelines, a large proportion of creation, innovation is involved in designers’ work. Contemporary designer often embrace the unknown or lead the innovation. Designers need to be creative to create new meanings, to break the box. Lindgaard and Wesselius noted that designers used their “felt sense” to search solution and to do exploration. I think it is the “felt sense” which empowers designers to be creative, which is the power of designers.

• Empathetic

  The term “User Experience” is a more widely mentioned term in almost all industries than ‘Design Thinking’. Good experience can not be created, but felt by the users when using, interacting with, engaging in products or services. Thus, in order to fulfill the user, it is essential to have the ability to feel as the users feel. The term ‘User Experience’ is usually accompanied by the term “Empathy”. To explain it in plain language, empathy is the capacity to feel and think in another’s position. Empathizing is inevitably involved in contemporary designers’ work for facilitating the users to create good user experience.

I hope this article helps unveil the ambiguity. However, the interpretation above is one-sided and may be personal biased. I encourage readers to explore various perspectives and conduct further research to form their own understanding. Engaging with different viewpoints can provide a more comprehensive view of the topic and help in arriving at a well-rounded conclusion. Your insights and feedback are valuable, so please feel free to share your thoughts and contribute to the ongoing discussion.