Critical Review of Design Thinking Methodology
This report is prepared as a research activity for Hyper Island Digital Management course, Design Thinking module. This is the first part about critical review of Design Thinking. The next part is about practical implemented the methodology and tools in my company, Socjomania (read it here).
Introduction
My first touchpoint with design thinking was post-its. And today, after a lot of lectures about this topic, I still think it is the best association because post-its give us an easy-to-use way to visualize the process of thinking, creating and implementing ideas. The same is doing design thinking. Szczepańska (2017) states that this is an essential tool for simplifying and humanizing problems. It helps to understand the problem and deliver better solutions to customers.
Critical Review of Design Thinking methodology
What is Design Thinking?
Design Thinking is an approach, a methodology, a set of tools, a mindset and a complicated concept, which used in both theory and practice. It is all about solving problems creatively and initiating changes by using a radical collaboration of diverse disciplines, dealing with issues in many professions (Macfadyen, 2014, Dorst, 2011, Porcini, 2009). Thanks to this approach, we have got an opportunity to look at the big picture and help our customers more comprehensively. It can be used to resolve problems that solely data cannot solve (Dam and Siang, 2017c).
Design thinking sounds like the golden mean for resolving issues, but it is not…
But Jen (2017) redefined design thinking, explaining it as a packaging way of designer’s way of working, dedicated to a non-designer audience, by modifying process into a step-by-step approach to creative problem-solving. According to her, it is the untruth, that everybody can apply it to any problem (Jen, 2017). Design thinking sounds like the golden mean for resolving issues, but it is not…
It can just improve the approach to projects and help find a tool to understand customers’ needs and solutions’ properly. Tjendra (2017) suggested that design thinking will quickly fail, due to, among other things, the organization’s fear of chaos-filled processes, so the first step in implementing this methodology in a company should be to understand its mindset.
Mindset in Design Thinking
Design thinking might be a way of life or a way of work (Howard and Senova and Melles, 2015), because of principles that characterise this mindset. The most meaningful of these attributes is the human-centred approach. Being empathetic allows design thinkers to understand social context and provide complex solutions towards people’s needs (IDEO, 2015).
Schweitzer and Groeger and Sobel (2009) tried to describe this sophisticated mindset by identifying repeatedly mentioned themes in both academical and professional literature. Design thinking as a mindset strongly connects with features like:
The most challenging might be Embracing Experimentation, especially in companies, that prefer delivering predictable products by repeatable steps. Kupp and Anderson and Reckhenrich (2017) claimed that “reducing employees personal risk of failure meant reducing their collective chance of success.” As solutions to this problem their stated, among other things, to balance the teams, set ground rules and integrate design thinking into service-development processes (Kupp et al., 2017).
OK, But Why Design?
The design is a tool of consumerism, which can easily visualize our ideas for resolving problems (Brown, 2009). In design thinking, a design is not solely about the looks of the product but rather about different tools, frameworks and attitudes (drawn from other disciplines) focusing on human experiences, needs, and feelings (Gooble, 2014).
A design is not solely about the looks of the product
Saffer (2012) convinces that design thinking is a classic design approach but limited only to easy and fun part. In fact, Mccullagh (2013) maintained that design thinking offers “designing for non-designers”. So maybe it is not about design at all, but more about visualizing solutions to unleash creativity? On the other hand, Kuniavsky (2010) undermined this theory — “Design thinking publications imply that the more Post-Its you use, the more creative you are. That’s a perverse incentive, unless you’re 3M”.
Budd (2017a) noted that “There’s no point in “design thinking” without “design doing”. I like to call this approach: Design”. He is right — without doing we can not be an effective designer. But can we effectively think without design? These two terms seem to be inseparable, but what gives them real cohesion might be system thinking. This is a phenomenon that the problem is part of the larger whole and that you need to fully understand the entire system to resolve the issue (Norman, 2010, Metz, 2012). To understand the whole complex system easily, the visual system might be useful.
Design thinking publications imply that the more Post-Its you use, the more creative you are. That’s a perverse incentive, unless you’re 3M. @mikekuniavsky
To sum up this reflection, design thinking should be a supportive attitude, which helps to understand and resolve problems, to build and analyze, to actively listen and draw conclusions. It is possible to resolve problems and create a solution without design thinking, but this approach gives simple mindset and principles to follow, offers a set of toolkits to implement and suggests a flexible process to go through.
Design thinking should be a supportive attitude, which helps to understand and resolve problems, to build and analyze, to actively listen and draw conclusions.
There Is No One Process
Design thinkers are responsible for conducting a design process. But there is no one process to go through (Brown, 2011). Everybody can design own process because it has never got a static formula. It should be iterated, experimented and innovated (Both, 2016).
D.school proposed a five-stage model of a design process (The Bootcamp Bootleg n.d.):
The design process is not linear, but flexible and iterative (Dam and Siang, 2017a). The fundamental is to be mindful of the process and trust them. It is necessary to know about it and motivate employers when they lose their enthusiasm.
What Does Empathy Stage Mean?
The empathy stage is about observing, engaging and immersing with customers needs, problems, and behaviours. Kelley and Kelley (2013) maintain that “deep empathy for people makes our observations powerful sources of inspiration”. This is a crucial skill in design thinking methodology because it allows design thinkers to “set aside his or her assumptions about the world to gain insight into users and their needs” (Dam and Siang, 2017a, Devecchi and Guerrini, 2017). The real goal of empathy stage, in other words, design research, is to assume beginner’s mindset and observe everything around.
Design WITH empathy to design FOR empathic experiences.
Design thinker, with a fresh set of eyes, should empathize with their customers to understand the problem that he or she is trying to solve. It means to put aside the culture, experience, knowledge, opinions, and skills to understand other people (Dam and Siang, 2017a). But what Devecchi and Guerrini (2017) noticed, we should shift impact from “design WITH empathy to design FOR empathic experiences”. We should listen to users in real-time, but don’t be overly moved by empathy (Vassallo, 2017), because sometimes it can lengthen our process when we count on our customers to tell us what they want. Build, don’t ask, collect data and feedback and then try to adjust project.
Design Thinking And Research Ethics
“One of the primary goals of design thinking is to serve human needs” (Brown, 2009). Therefore we should always think twice if we are doing it to help humanity? To make human life better? Or do we just want to sell some ideas and products? According to Kelley and Suri (2015) and their “Little book about Design Research Ethics” there are three rules to apply when it comes to design research ethics:
When it comes to design research, which includes users and their personal information, we should act ethically and carefully every time. Useful might be being a sceptic designer, constantly looking for threats and potential points of failure (Hall, 2014). This critical thinking attitude gives designers the habit of asking a lot of questions. Also about whether the whole project is ethical?
Are methods and techniques I used in research safe and not harming participants?
Are insights that I collected based on reliable sources?
Company ESOMAR prepared among others Global Guidelines about Social Research, where they set out global standards for self-regulation for researchers (Hall, 2014). Getting to know these documents should be mandatory for researchers because it indicates what information we should process for research purposes.
What’s next?
On this critical research I build practical reflection about how consulting company, Socjomania, can improve design research process thanks to design thinking tools and mindset — you can read it here. Please look at bibliography that I prepared below — these are valuable sources for learning about design thinking methodology. A lot of them are available online, so there is no excuse for reading in the free time :)
If you have any questions — I am waiting for comments or messages at martyna@socjomania.pl.
Bibliography
Adaptive path’s guide to experience mapping. (2013). 1st ed. [ebook] San Francisco and Austin. Available at: http://www.mappingexperiences.com/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].
Both, T. (2016). A d.school design project guide. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/589ba9321b10e3beb925e044/1486596453538/DESIGN-PROJECT-GUIDE-SEPT-2016-V3.pdf [Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].
Brown, T. (2009). Designers — think big! Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].
Brown, T. (2011). Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Business.
Budd, A. [@andybudd]. (2017a). “There’s no point in “design thinking” without “design doing”. I like to call this approach “Design” ;)” [Tweet]. Available at: https://twitter.com/andybudd/status/907976766324703233 [Acessed 19 Nov. 2017]
Budd, A. (2017b). Sticky Note Fatigue and the Fog of Knowledge. Available at: https://clearleft.com/posts/sticky-note-fatigue-and-the-fog-of-knowledge [Acessed 19 Nov. 2017]
Burdick, A. (2003). “Design (As) Research” in Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Brenda Laurel, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cooper-Wright, M. (2015). 12 Design Research methods to get inspired by users. Available at: https://medium.com/design-research-methods/12-design-research-methods-to-get-inspired-by-users-cae4789a094b/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].
Dam, R. and Siang, T. (2017a). 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process. The Interaction Design Foundation. Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process [Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].
Dam, R. and Siang, T. (2017c). Design Thinking: New Innovative Thinking for New Problems. Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-thinking-new-innovative-thinking-for-new-problems [Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].
Dam, R. and Siang, T. (2017d). Stage 1 in the Design Thinking Process: Empathise with Your Users. Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/stage-1-in-the-design-thinking-process-empathise-with-your-users [Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].
Devecchi, A., Guerrini, L. (2017). Empathy and Design. A new perspective. The Design Journal, 20(sup1).
Dorst, Kees. (2011). The Core of ‘Design Thinking’ and Its Application. Design Studies, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 521–532.
Gobble, M.M. (2014). Design thinking. Research Technology Management, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 59–62.
Goodwin, K. (2009). Designing for the digital age how to create human-centered products and services. Wiley Pub.
Hall, E. (2014). Just enough research. A Book Apart.
Howard, Z., Senova, M., Melles, G. (2015). Exploring the role of mindset in design thinking: Implications for capability development and practice. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 1(2), 183–202.
Jen, N. (2017). Design thinking is bullshit. Available at: http://99u.com/videos/55967/natasha-jen-design-thinking-is-bullshit [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
Kelley, D. and Kelley, T. (2013). Chapter 1: Flip | Creative Confidence by Tom & David Kelley. Creativeconfidence.com. Available at: https://www.creativeconfidence.com/chapters/chapter-1 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].
Kelley, D., Suri, J. F. (2015). The little book of design research ethics.
Kuniavsky, M. [@mikekuniavsky]. (2010). “Design thinking publications imply that the more Post-Its you use, the more creative you are. That’s a perverse incentive, unless you’re 3M”. [Tweet]. Available at: https://twitter.com/mikekuniavsky/status/19255913667895296 [Acessed 19 Nov. 2017]
Kupp, M., Anderson, J., Reckhenrich J. (2017). Why Design Thinking in Business Needs a Rethink. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-design-thinking-in-business-needs-a-rethink/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].
Macfadyen, J. S. (2014). Design Thinking. Holistic Nursing Practice, 28(1), 3–5.
Martin, B., Hanington, B. M. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.
Mastelarz, A. (2014). 8 Creative Ways to Share Your User Research. Available at: https://medium.com/mixed-methods/8-creative-ways-to-share-your-user-research-746fae501e2c [Acessed 19 Nov. 2017]
Mccullagh, K. (2013). Stepping Up: Beyond Design Thinking. Design Management Review, 24(2), 32–34.
Norman, B. (2010). Design Thinking: A Useful Myth. Available at: http://www.core77.com/posts/16790/design-thinking-a-useful-myth-16790 [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
Porcini, M. (2009). Your New Design Process Is Not Enough. Hire Design Thinkers! Design Management Review, 20(3), 6–18.
Porter, J. and Brewer, J. (2010). Kill Your Darlings. [online] 52 Weeks of UX. Available at: http://52weeksofux.com/post/1592164002/kill-your-darlings [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
Ralph, B. (2013). Intro to UX Research — One Pot Projects. One Pot Projects. Available at: https://onepotprojects.com/intro-to-ux-research-f55cc09a3431 [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].
Saffer, D. (2012). How to Lie With Design Thinking. Available at: https://vimeo.com/38870717 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].
Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L., Sobel, L. (2016). The design thinking mindset: An assessment of what we know and what we see in practice. Journal of Design, Business & Society. 2.
Szczepanska, J. (2017). Design thinking origin story plus some of the people who made it all happen. Available at: https://medium.com/@szczpanks/design-thinking-where-it-came-from-and-the-type-of-people-who-made-it-all-happen-dc3a05411e53 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017]
Tjendra J. (2013). Why Design Thinking will fail. Available at: http://innovationexcellence.com/blog/2013/02/25/why-design-thinking-will-fail/ [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].
Vassallo, S. (2017). The Case Against Empathy. Available at: https://www.fastcodesign.com/90111831/the-case-against-empathy [Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].
Yeasmin, S., Ferdousour-Rahman, K. (2012). ‘Triangulation’ Research Method as the Tool of Social Science Research. BUP JOURNAL, [online] 1(1), pp.154–163. Available at: https://www.bup.edu.bd/journal/154-163.pdf [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].
