Design Thinking Part 5: Tips and Anecdotes
As we come to the end of the Design Thinking series, I’m reflecting on my years of experience practicing and teaching engineering design. Design Thinking has been an important part of my own design philosophy, and I hope it will become part of yours too. When activated – for the right kinds of problems – Design Thinking has made all the difference between true success and embarrassing failure. In this last part of the Design Thinking series, I provide a brief synopsis of key points from parts 1-4 and then describe the challenges I observe when I see others struggling with Design Thinking. I also provide a few tips for avoiding the pitfalls.
A Brief Synopsis of Design Thinking
Design Thinking is the discipline of finding human problems worth solving and creating viable new offerings in response to those problems [1].
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 [2]. Both ways are valuable to know and practice.
The basic and well-known process of design thinking is [3]:
Empathize with people experiencing the problem, to gain insights
Define the problem in human-centric ways
Ideate human-centered solutions
Prototype potential solutions early and often to learn quickly and gain new understanding
Test solutions with real customers/users to gain new insights about the solution and the problem
Dozens of specific design activities exist for each of these steps. Many of these are described in Design Thinking part 2 [4].
While it is useful to distill Design Thinking to these basic steps, the mindset of Design Thinking is more powerful since any design action or sequence of actions done in the absence of a healthy human-centered mindset will not achieve the goals of Design Thinking.
The basic elements of the Design Thinking mindset are:
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 [5]. Problem framing is an essential part of empathy development because it dictates which stakeholders perspectives are included in the effort [6].
Collaboration. The core Design Thinking principle behind this element is that human-centered 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. The different perspectives that come with collaboration are used to challenge the problem definition and the suitability of the solution. Problem framing is both by good collaboration, and leads to expanded collaborations as new stakeholders are considered.
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 evidence. These prototypes are used to experiment and gain insights as fast as possible. Hence the oft quoted quip fail often to succeed sooner [7].
Reasons why Design Thinking can Fail
Most people agree with Design Thinking in principle, but have difficulty executing it successfully. Why is that? Having taught design for nearly 20 years now, I’ve come to notice 6 common reasons why Design Thinking isn’t working for some people.
1 — Believing that Design Thinking is in the way of other work
Engineers are not trained in empathy development – a core part of the Design Thinking mindset and the first step of the Design Thinking process. When Design Thinking is put into practice for the first time and engineers begin interviewing people or reviewing interview data (or similar), it feels unnatural or in the way of their core engineering discipline. Interestingly, the two other parts of the Design Thinking mindset (collaboration and experimentation) are fundamental to engineering and already part of the engineer’s approach. The same is true about Design Thinking steps 2-5 (defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing). Nevertheless, I have observed that the inclusion of empathy activities and data collection feels foreign or unnecessary to many engineers – I suspect the same is true for many other disciplines. This unfamiliarity leaves many people believing that Design Thinking is in the way of the actual work they need to get done. What they fail to realize is that empathy development is an important foundation to every subsequent design activity they will carry out. Rather than seeing Design Thinking as something in the way of their other work, engineers should realize that the heart of Design Thinking – empathy – is a necessary prerequisite for any human-centered design project.
2 — Failing to get the inputs to Design Thinking right
When engineers decide to engage in empathy-centered activities and data by creating a user persona, for example, they often have difficulty judging the quality of the persona. Because empathy data is an important input, inadequate empathy work easily leads to bad assumptions about the real problems people face and the problem framing, which propagates to less-than-meaningful ideation, and work spent going down the wrong path [8]. Most people begin to get a sense that the path being pursued is not as fruitful as originally thought, which often leads engineers to simply turn to what they know best – the technical elements of the project. Instead, I would encourage engineers to reach an adequate technical solution (minimum viable product) as fast as possible, and then return to and refine the empathy development. Like all design activities, empathy development merits extensive and meaningful iteration, and engineers should expect to revisit their empathy development and data throughout the design process [6]. Unlike the way it feels, revisiting empathy development is not a sign of failure on part of the design team. Rather, it demonstrates a dedication to high quality human-centered work.
3 — Allowing perfectionism to stifle iteration
When engineers embrace empathy development as an essential part of design, and seek to get the empathy data “right”, most observe the vastness and complexity of human data and experiences. When this occurs, they tend to enter a deep research mode that keeps them from doing anything else but empathizing – that is they never move on to the next steps of the design thinking process! When asked why they have not moved on, the answer is always the same: “I haven’t learned enough about the people I’m designing for.” This is a good sentiment, but flawed if the designer remains stuck in the empathize step of Design Thinking. What these engineers have lost sight of is that the defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing that occurs in the steps following empathizing also produces more opportunity to engage with people and continue the empathy development. Ironically, trying to get a perfect understanding of the people during step 1, stalls steps 2-5, which ultimately leads to a mismatch between human needs and the technical solution. This is because stalling steps 2-5 stifles iteration. Without iteration, the design simply won’t evolve. Pressured by the need to evolve the design, engineers in this position often abandon the empathy portion and just do what they are used to – the traditional engineering work.
4 — Thinking we already know the answer
It’s nearly impossible for an engineer to start a design project without immediately considering various solutions to the perceived problem. Because engineers are smart, have solved many problems in the past, and are generally driven by efficiency, it’s easy for engineers to find their solutions desirable and/or obviously adequate. In such cases it is unlikely that the engineer finds much value in seeking what others, particularly non-technical people, think about the proposed solution. Neither is it common for the engineer to feel compelled to challenge the perceived problem that is being solved. This false underlying notion that no additional information is needed means that Design Thinking is not valued in these cases.
5 — Trying to use Design Thinking on the wrong kinds of problems
After learning about Design Thinking for the first time, many engineers try to apply it to problems they are familiar with. But Design Thinking is not the right approach to all problems [9]. It is an approach worth considering when the problems are clearly human-centered, have resisted solutions over time, or for problems involving high uncertainty. Simply stated – Design Thinking is the wrong kind of approach to take for basic engineering problems that form the basis for most engineering training and appear often in daily practice. If one tries to apply Design Thinking to the design of a gear train or a kinematic mechanism, or to a material selection problem, they will most likely find that Design Thinking is obscure, and impertinent. On the other hand, if one tries to apply Design Thinking to larger more abstract problems, they will more likely find Design Thinking valuable. For example, the problems of improving the process of learning to drive a car with a manual transmission, or improving the manual gear shifting experience could both benefit from a Design Thinking approach. In these cases, since experience and learning are definitively human-centered, Design Thinking can be valuable.
Design Hierarchy of Needs [10]
6 — Ignoring your core discipline to focus on Design Thinking
For the engineer and those who rely on them to produce a functional solution, great Design Thinking cannot compensate for failure to meet the basic engineering expectations. This is best described by the design hierarchy of needs (see figure) [10]. At the lower two levels we find core engineering: functionality (it works) and reliability (it works repeatedly). At the upper three levels we find the human centered elements of the design – usability, proficiency, creativity. It does not matter how usable something is, if it does not function or function reliably! The engineer plays primarily a functional role in society [11], but the design engineer can help bridge the gap between technical and human parts of the hierarchy by making the functional elements of the product fit desirably within the larger human experience with the product. While design thinking can enhance engineering, it cannot replace it.
Closing Thoughts
Design thinking is a powerful approach to solving human-centered problems. It is however just one of many forms of thinking that are needed to innovate. 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.
In many ways, Design Thinking is distinctly unique from other ways of thinking – primarily due to empathy development and problem framing. This is clear when imagining what Design Thinking would look like without empathy. In this odd case, it would only be driven by collaboration and experimentation; and the process would only include problem definition, ideation, prototyping, and testing – all of which are noticeable parts of other types of thinking. Empathy is what makes Design Thinking a human-centered design approach, and which makes it useful for solving human-centered problems. Empathy occurs continuously and throughout the Design Thinking process – not just as a first step as some might quickly conclude. For example, when defining the problem, it is framed in a distinctly human-centered way. When ideating, the creativity is focused on the human experience and how it would be improved by a candidate solution. When prototyping, the choice of prototype is centered on answering important questions about how the technology enhances the human experience, and when testing, the testing is done with humans or in human environments to better understand how proposed solutions affect life.
It would be ineffective and problematic to believe that human-centered design problems can be solved with empathy alone, or with technology alone. Like any tool, Design Thinking will need to be used in conjunction with other tools such as scientific thinking and engineering thinking before its true value will be realized. To do that, I recommend using Design Thinking to govern the abstracted larger view of the effort, while letting the scientific and engineering thinking that often govern details be contextualized, constrained, and/or motivated by meaningful human-centered concerns (requirements) that emerge from Design Thinking.
Access the entire free short course here.
References
[1] 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
[2] 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
[3] Stanford University, d.school (website), https://dschool.stanford.edu/, accessed 20 July 2021.
[4] C. Mattson, “Design Thinking Part 2: Design Thinking as a Step-by-Step Process,” https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/design-thinking-part-2-design-thinking-as-a-step-by-step-process, accessed 14 Aug 2023.
[5] J. Salmon, “The First Face of Innovation: The Anthropologist,” The BYU Design Review, November 2019, https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/the-first-face-of-innovation-the-anthropologist, accessed 20 July 2021.
[6] C. Mattson, “Design Thinking Part 4: Framing and Reframing Design Problems,” August 2023, https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/design-thinking-part-4-framing-and-reframing-design-problems, accessed 04 Nov 2023.
[7] Kelley, T., The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, 2001, Doubleday, New York, NY.
[8] M. Fakihi, “The most common pitfalls in Design Thinking,” Medium, 16 Sep 2019, https://fakihi.medium.com/the-most-common-pitfalls-in-design-thinking-9bf3cb2fa0b0#:~:text=If%20you%20try%20to%20implement,lead%20to%20failure%20and%20frustration, accessed 04 Nov 2023.
[9] 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
[10] Lidwell, W., Holden, K. and Butler, J., 2010. Universal principles of design, Rockport Pub.
[11] C. Mattson, “Mechanical Design,” July 2020, https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/mechanical-design, accessed 04 Nov 2023.
