Design Thinking Part 1: Basic Concepts and Principles

Design Thinking

Design Thinking is a popular topic. And for good reason – Design Thinking is said to have brought the human back to the center of the design process [1]. And various products attribute their success to the use of design thinking [2]. 

Though popular, Design Thinking is also illusive and ill-defined. Even the famed design firm IDEO, which played a major role in popularizing Design Thinking said “There’s no single definition for Design Thinking. It’s an idea, a strategy, a method, and a way of seeing the world.” [3]. Additionally, design educator Julie Schell said “Design Thinking means really different things to many many different people” [4]. Do a Google search for Design Thinking and you’ll quickly find an abundance of information that lacks clarity. 

Despite its illusive and ill-defined nature, the more I learn about it, the more I realize that the core of Design Thinking pervades my personal approach to creativity, innovation, and design. It has become clear to me that Design Thinking has set me apart from those who use different thinking models. 

The purpose of this article (and the other parts in this series) is to demystify Design Thinking just enough so that you can benefit from what it has to offer. 

Without abandoning other ways of thinking, such as creative thinking, engineering thinking, and scientific thinking, I believe all technical and creative people should understand, study, and add Design Thinking to their repertoire of  problem solving strategies.

What is Design Thinking?

Simply stated, Design Thinking is a human-centered creative problem solving approach [3].

Consistent with the simple definition above, yet described in more depth, Design Thinking is the discipline of finding human problems worth solving and creating viable new offerings in response to those problems [5].

Generally there are two ways to describe Design Thinking; (i) as a step-by-step process with design activities, and (ii) as a general pattern of thought. In this way, Design Thinking is both a tool set and a mindset [1]. Both ways are valuable to know and practice. The process of Design Thinking is described in detail in Part 2 of this series, and is further described as a mindset in Part 3.

Brief Overview of Design Thinking as Process 

The Design Thinking Process typically comprises 5 parts that are generally done in the following order [6], where iteration between steps and critiques of step-outputs are implied:

1. Empathize with people experiencing the problem, to gain insights

2. Define the problem in human-centric ways

3. Ideate human-centered solutions

4. Prototype potential solutions early and often to learn quickly and gain new understanding

5. Test solutions with real customers/users to gain new insights about the solution and the problem

Importantly, the insights gained from Step 5 (testing) naturally lead to restarting the process with Step 1 in a continued cycle where new insights are sought on how well the proposed solution fits into the lives of those for whom it was designed. Those insights eventually result in revisions to the design.

Figure 1: The classic design thinking process graphic, adapted from Stanford’s d.school Executive Education [7]. There is no significance to the shape or the color. Iteration and critique are implied throughout.

Brief Overview of Design Thinking as Mindset 

While it is useful and easy to imagine Design Thinking as a process with design activities, most people who practice Design Thinking don’t need a specific process or benefit significantly from having one. This is because -- for them -- Design Thinking is a specific mindset, outlook, and pattern of thought that already drives their actions. Those actions are centered on the creation and testing of new objects designed to solve a human-centered problem.

The key elements of the Design Thinking mindset are [8]:

1. Empathy. The core Design Thinking principle here is that the designer needs to have more than engineering knowledge, or scientific knowledge to solve the problem. They also need to know about the humans who experience the problem and will eventually benefit from the solution [9]. Developing empathy -- or the ability to understand and share the feelings of others -- is a necessary step in serving real people facing real struggles, rather than the hypothetical subjects and problems that are often presented in design problems. When designers have an empathic mindset, they recognize that their own experiences cannot be blindly projected onto other people. Such designers are aware of the biases they bring to the table and work to minimize the effect of those biases by employing a newcomer attitude, where they train themselves to view a situation as someone who has never experienced it before.
   
   Developing empathy is most likely to happen when designers interact with stakeholders, either actively (e.g., interview) or passively (e.g., observation) -- without an agenda or preconceived idea about what to expect [1]. Agendas and preconceived ideas often lead to unvalidated assumptions about people’s needs, which are seeds for design failure [10]. Such assumptions are dangerous because they can be completely wrong, despite the designer’s best intentions to simplify the problem through assumptions.
   
   

2. Collaboration. The core Design Thinking principle behind this element is that design problems are too complex for a single designer to have all the knowledge and insight necessary to solve it. Even if the product itself is simple, the human experience and how the solution fits into and affects society is generally not simple. Therefore Design Thinking requires collaboration between multiple people, each of whom bring important knowledge and experience to the design process.
   
   Designers who employ a collaborative mindset surround themselves with people who are different than they are so that the problem and solution can be viewed from various perspectives. These different perspectives are used to challenge the problem definition and the suitability of the solution. Importantly, such collaboration links back to empathy since one of the important parts of developing empathy is to choose who to engage with. Various perspectives and diversity of thought regarding whom you should engage with will generally produce better understanding of others [1].
   
   

3. Experimentation. A core Design Thinking principle is that visual or tangible evidence trumps pondering on the suitability of a solution. People with a Design Thinking mindset constantly seek evidence, and are OK using low resolution simple prototypes made early and often to gather that evidence. These prototypes are used to experiment and gain insights as fast as possible. Effective use of Design Thinking accepts that not all pertinent phenomena can be sufficiently modeled mathematically or pondered on simultaneously in one’s mind. Therefore physical prototyping is an effective path to assessing design quality. Said more thoroughly, traditional decomposition methods, which break down a problem into simpler parts, unfortunately removes complex relationships between parts that often make the difference between a feasible design and an excellent one that people truly value [11]. Physical prototyping allows all complex relationships to remain intact – especially the socio-technical relations.

Whether as a process or a mindset, a powerful truth about Design Thinking, and perhaps a driver of its ubiquity, is that anyone can practice Design Thinking without permission from their supervisor. 

When can Design Thinking be applied?

Design Thinking is not a good strategy for all problems. For example, there are a large number of engineering problems that can be adequately solved using only engineering knowledge -- knowledge about humans is not needed. In such cases, problem definitions and requirements are assumed to be pre-validated, and seeking insights about the human is not needed. These kinds of problems don’t obviously benefit from Design Thinking. 

Design Thinking is, however, particularly good for the following kinds of problems [12]:

• Problems people care about (human-centered problems)

• Problems with high uncertainty. For example where it is not clear that the problem definition is right, or where the available data seems wrong, or there is resistance to use it, such as using historical data to predict the future.

• Problems that have historically resisted solutions

• Problems affecting diverse groups of people [13]

• Problems involving shifting markets and behaviors [13]

The UK’s Design Council says “[Design Thinking] is extremely useful in tackling problems that are ill-defined or unknown, by re-framing the problem in human-centric ways, developing ideas, and adopting a practical approach in prototyping and testing. At its best, it is also an iterative and agile process of ongoing experimentation: sketching, prototyping, testing and trying out concepts and ideas” [14].

Where did Design Thinking come from?

As you decide how much to trust Design Thinking as an approach for your toolbox, it is valuable to know that Design Thinking emerged from watching effective innovators, and trying to understand and describe what they were doing differently [12].  

Design as a way of thinking emerged in the late 1960’s with Herbert Simon’s influential book “The Sciences of the Artificial” [15] and Robert McKin’s keen focus on designing for the whole person (not just for ergonomics) [16]. Design Thinking concepts made their way into architecture [17] and education [18] before it became an accepted term popularized by Peter Rowe’s book called Design Thinking [19]. Electrical Engineer David Kelley of IDEO adopted it into business innovation and played a major role in popularizing the term. Design Thinking is a major tenet of the IDEO way and the curriculum in the Stanford Design School [20], which Kelley helped establish. Design thinking is now a major strategy used by professionals in nearly all fields including product design, mechanical design, web design, architecture, government and other social sectors.

Concluding Thoughts (followed by exercises)

As someone interested in design, it is important for you to know about Design Thinking. With the information provided in this article, you now have a basic understanding of what Design Thinking is, where it came from, and when it can be applied. A fundamental truth about Design Thinking is that it’s not enough to just know about it -- it also needs to be practiced. Without practice, the core concepts remain ethereal, and never sink in and become a way of thinking, which is how Design Thinking is most powerful. To practice Design Thinking, consider doing the exercises below. Understand that for Design Thinking to be practiced effectively, a human needs to be a part of your practice. If you’re shy or hesitant to talk to people about what you’re working on, now is the time to break free from that mindset and embrace Design Thinking principles. Those principles take time and energy, but are very likely to lead to a better outcome highly valued by those who need the solution.

Read Part 2 of this series or access the entire free short course here.

Design Thinking Exercises

For all of these exercises consider something you are currently designing. If you don’t currently have a project you’re working on, imagine yourself applying Design Thinking to the challenges of having a medical emergency on the ski slopes. 

Exercise 1: Assess your level of empathy

Ask yourself these questions [21]:

1. Who are the individuals you are serving?

2. What are their needs and desires?

3. How do they live?

4. What are their personal experiences?

5. How do your biases limit your understanding of the problem/solution?

If you don’t have solid answers to these questions based on actual interactions with multiple people, you should develop deeper empathy by doing Exercise 2.

Exercise 2: Develop deeper empathy

Interact with people familiar with the challenge so you can gain insight. Ask:

1. Who can you talk to that knows something about the problem?

2. How can you reach people who have experienced the problem?

3. Interact with those individuals, then ask what insights have been discovered?

If you don’t know where to start, pick up the phone and call someone -- anyone -- who might have experience. If you’re working on the medical-emergency problem, call a ski resort. Ask them what they do in an emergency. Before you end the call, ask them for the name of someone else you can speak to who might give additional information. 

Exercise 3: Assess your level of collaboration

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Who have you surrounded yourself with that offers a different perspective?

2. How well do you take their feedback and challenge?

If you’ve not surrounded yourself with others who will challenge your decisions, complete Exercise 4 to develop deeper collaborations.

Exercise 4: Develop deeper collaboration

Ask yourself these questions, then invite others to collaborate:

1. Who do you need to help you better understand the problem?

2. Who do you need to help you develop a better solution?

3. Who do you need to help you judge the suitability of the solution?

4. How will you invite them to engage in the design process with you?

Exercise 5: Assess your level of experimentation

Ask yourself these questions:

1. What experiments did you run today on your project?

2. When was the last time you ran an experiment for your project?

3. Do you feel uncomfortable with low-resolution prototypes?

If you find that you’ve not run experiments lately, plan to run some today. To do that, you may need to become more comfortable with simple, low-resolution, prototypes, since they are a viable path to fast and frequent experimentation.

Exercise 6: Develop experimentation plans

Do the following:

1. List important questions you have regarding the problem. For example, what are the ages of individuals who experience medical emergencies on ski slopes? Try to list many.

2. List important questions you have about the solution to your problem. For example, who pays for this solution, and how do they access the solution?  

3. For items 1 and 2, imagine the least expensive experiment that can be completed to adequately answer the question. 

Part 2 of this series on Design Thinking, or access the entire free short course here.

References

[1] T. Kelley (guest), High Resolution (YouTube), “#16: IDEO’s Tom Kelley is Design Thinking’s Ultimate Disciple, he makes the case as to why,” accessed 20 July 2021. https://youtu.be/L1pBhHjGKvI

[2] Doug Dietz, “Transforming healthcare for children and their families: Doug Dietz at TEDxSanJose”, TEDx San Jose Ca, May 2012, https://youtu.be/jajduxPD6H4, accessed 20 July 2021.

[3] IDEO, Design Thinking (Website), https://designthinking.ideo.com/, accessed 20 July 2021.

[4] Julie Schell (guest), “How to Learn Design Thinking + Design Thinking Pedagogy with Julie Schell,” Design Thinking 101 (podcast), episode 15, accessed 20 July 2021. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-to-learn-design-thinking-design-thinking-pedagogy/id1376884817?i=1000422838814

[5] Dawan Stanford (guest), “A Short Introduction to Design Thinking with Dawan Stanford,” Design Thinking 101 (podcast), episode 32, accessed 20 July 2021. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-introduction-to-design-thinking-dawan-stanford/id1376884817?i=1000451883583

[6] R. F. Dam and T. Y. Siang, “5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process”, Interaction Design Foundation, 2021, accessed 20 July 2021. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process

[7] Stanford University, d.school (website), https://dschool.stanford.edu/, accessed 20 July 2021.

[8] D. S. Araújo, C. M. Mendonça, et al. "Design Thinking Versus Design Sprint: A Comparative Study." International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Cham, 2019.

[9] J. Salmon, “The First Face of Innovation: The Anthropologist,” The BYU Design Review, November 2019, accessed 20 July 2021. https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/the-first-face-of-innovation-the-anthropologist

[10] C. A. Mattson, “Seeds of Failure,” The BYU Design Review, December 2019, accessed 20 July 2021. https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/seeds-of-failure

[11] K. Dorst, Frame Innovation, MIT Press, 2015

[12] Jeanne Liedka, “Designing for the Greater Good, Strategy + Design Thinking, and Measuring Design Thinking with Jeanne Liedtka,” Design Thinking 101 (podcast), episode 1, accessed 20 July 2021. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/designing-for-greater-good-strategy-design-thinking/id1376884817?i=1000410344013

[13] R. F. Dam and T. Y. Siang, “Design Thinking: New Innovative Thinking for New Problems,” The Interaction Design Foundation, 2020, accessed 20 July 2021. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-thinking-new-innovative-thinking-for-new-problems

[14] A. Breuer and T. Herman, “The Guardian: The benefits of design thinking,” Design Council, November 2018, accessed 20 July 2021. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/guardian-benefits-design-thinking

[15] H. A. Simon, The sciences of the artificial, MIT press, 2019. Originally published in 1969.

[16] J. von Thienen, W. J. Clancey, and C. Meinel. "Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking. Part II: Robert H. McKim’s  Need-Based Design Theory," Design Thinking Research. Springer, Cham, 2019.

[17] B. Lawson, How designers think: The design process demystified. Routledge, 2006. Originally published in 1980. 

[18] Cross, Nigel. "Designerly ways of knowing." Design Studies 3.4, 1982, pp. 221-227.

[19] P. G. Rowe, Design thinking. MIT Press, 1987.

[20] R. Faste, “Ambidextrous thinking. In Innovations in mechanical engineering curricula for the 1990s”. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1994, accessed 20 July 2021. http://www.fastefoundation.org/publications/ambidextrous_thinking.pdf

[21] T. Brown, and J. Wyatt. "Design thinking for social innovation." Development Outreach 12.1 (2010): 29-43.