What IS "Design Thinkng"?
Although the term Design Thinking is common today in both the design and business worlds, what people mean when they utter this term can be vastly different. In addition to not having a standard definition (and, therefore, a common understanding), many in each world are reacting against the term--just as (and partly because) it has become popular--and new terms are being proposed to replace it. Some of these terms include: integrative thinking (from Roger Martin at Rotman), design doing (from David Kelley at IDEO), and design intelligence (from Bann Banerjee at Stanford). Each of these are true, of course, and none are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps, it's more important to create a shared understanding of what falls under these terms, rather than worry about the term anyone specifically uses. The following points illuminate how we teach "design thinking" in our program:
It wasn't always this way, of course. In particular, the design world's history has been characterized by the sole designer's vision, often mythologized by both designers and the Press. Much like the architecture world's phenomenon of "starchitects," Design used to be about a singular, often one-way vision of the world, made real through (mostly) physical products and simply made available for consumers to purchase. The reality has always been different. Teamwork and interdisciplinary collaboration has always been necessary to actually realize a designer's vision even if he (and it was usually a "he") had the influence to drive the development himself.
We know and teach better these days and even the Press is starting to recognize the design myths they often still promote.
By no means are all of these principles the sole responsibility or domain of design. Many of these are commonly practiced in other domains, like engineering and management. However, design approaches have initiated some and adopted many of these criteria and they are now almost uniformly part of the current design experience. In addition, all of these are becoming to be standard principles across the domains of engineering, business, NGOs, and the sustainability field. Even the government would greatly benefit by adopting and practicing these principle.This overlap is critical, however, as it forms a new basis for a shared conversation across all organizations.
Although the term Design Thinking is common today in both the design and business worlds, what people mean when they utter this term can be vastly different. In addition to not having a standard definition (and, therefore, a common understanding), many in each world are reacting against the term--just as (and partly because) it has become popular--and new terms are being proposed to replace it. Some of these terms include: integrative thinking (from Roger Martin at Rotman), design doing (from David Kelley at IDEO), and design intelligence (from Bann Banerjee at Stanford). Each of these are true, of course, and none are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps, it's more important to create a shared understanding of what falls under these terms, rather than worry about the term anyone specifically uses. The following points illuminate how we teach "design thinking" in our program:
- prototyping and iteration (it's surprising how many people, even in business, believe that solutions are simply created form specifications, ready-to-go in the first try)
- integrative thinking processes, at appropriate times, combined with more traditional deductive, and analytic thinking and processes
- systems thinking (and its application to strategy): you can think of all of thes rest as part of systems thinking
- multi-disciplinary teams
- multi-stakeholder engagement (this doesn't need to be full "participatory design" to be effective
- deep/rich customer research (into emotions, values, and meaning ,not merely price and performance): need-finding instead of solution-finding (this is actually a part of stakeholder engagement)
- experience perspective (and not merely a focus on the product or service)
It wasn't always this way, of course. In particular, the design world's history has been characterized by the sole designer's vision, often mythologized by both designers and the Press. Much like the architecture world's phenomenon of "starchitects," Design used to be about a singular, often one-way vision of the world, made real through (mostly) physical products and simply made available for consumers to purchase. The reality has always been different. Teamwork and interdisciplinary collaboration has always been necessary to actually realize a designer's vision even if he (and it was usually a "he") had the influence to drive the development himself.
We know and teach better these days and even the Press is starting to recognize the design myths they often still promote.
By no means are all of these principles the sole responsibility or domain of design. Many of these are commonly practiced in other domains, like engineering and management. However, design approaches have initiated some and adopted many of these criteria and they are now almost uniformly part of the current design experience. In addition, all of these are becoming to be standard principles across the domains of engineering, business, NGOs, and the sustainability field. Even the government would greatly benefit by adopting and practicing these principle.This overlap is critical, however, as it forms a new basis for a shared conversation across all organizations.