Revisiting Design Thinking
In my first week of blogging, I decided that I could write about “design thinking,” since it was a buzzword, I felt like I had some unique thoughts, and otherwise thought I was equipped to explain it. I was almost certainly wrong, and as has been the case a number of times thus far, I wrote about something that would later be addressed by Don Norman in DOET. Other examples include kitchen stoves, which Norman used to explain mapping in chapter 3; A/B testing, which was mentioned in chapter 6; and the strange retention of the QWERTY keyboard, something Norman also very briefly noted in chapter 6. If I had ever just skimmed the table of contents to see what was coming ahead, I probably couldn’t have foreseen these, but I could have foreseen further instruction on design thinking, because chapter 6 is actually just named “Design Thinking.” Today, to interact more with chapter 6, I want to review my old post with the new knowledge I’ve acquired.
Fortunately, it looks like I was not arrogant enough to believe I could provide my own definition of design thinking before. Instead, I opted to explain an anecdote from my life that I thought was close. I still think this anecdote is valid, and captures parts of some of the ideas that are at the core of design thinking. November Me set this quote off by itself:
It’s unlikely that you’ll get to a new place by thinking about the same problem in the same way. Instead, you have to find a unique way of thinking about it, a new angle, that may even seem wrong at first because of how strange it is. But this is “thinking outside the box.”
This isn’t a good definition of design thinking. But it does capture half of the Double Diamond model, which Norman sees as core to design thinking.
The Double Diamond Model
(Yes, there are many graphics of the Double Diamond out there already. I just wanted to make my own because I could, and then I wouldn’t be using anyone else’s work.)
The idea behind the Double Diamond is that each diamond represents divergence and then convergence in thinking. At the first stage, a problem is presented — the design team almost always has to take one step back and actually think of a number of possible causes for the problem, rather than just trying to solve the problem as it is given to them. Don Norman says he has a policy of “never solve the problem I am asked to solve,” because it is usually just a symptom of something else at the root. Teams of designers should generate many ideas — divergence — before examining each to agree on one as the best answer, the most probable cause — convergence — before they begin to design solutions. The same should be done to generate solutions — think of as many ideas as possible, learn from each, and narrow down options to find the best solution possible.
My quote above captures elements of idea generation, or ideation. In ideation, it is important not to rule out any idea from the get-go as being too stupid, outlandish, or impractical. Every idea has the possibility of informing designers of something worth learning, even if the idea as a whole doesn’t end up being viable. So my rough description of “good design thinking” is really an affirmation of the value of ideation, which is just one component of design thinking as a whole.
Working hand-in-hand with the Double Diamond model are the four steps of the HCD process: Observation, Ideation, Prototyping, and Testing. These steps are sometimes called the “spiral method,” because it is almost always best to repeat them and make adjustments, but each repetition gets you a little closer to the goal, rather than just going in circles. It seems to me like this minute detail is really more for non-designers than designers, as the relationship between different teams is something Norman stressed in chapter 6 and seems like it will also be the focus in chapter 7.
Observation is conducted by design researchers to get in-depth qualitative data on real people and their real needs. Learning about how people use products and what unfulfilled needs they have is integral to determining the initial cause — this stage roughly correlates with the first diamond.
Ideation was already defined above. At some point in the future, I will no doubt learn of some prominent ideation techniques/methods — I think this is something I’ve seen in the blog posts of students in past HCDE 210 classes. In the meantime, I’ll leave it at a definition, but ideation is a huge cornerstone of intelligent design, so I have no doubt we’ll be revisiting it someday. Ideation roughly represents the divergent phase of the second diamond.
Prototyping and testing go hand-in-hand to examine the strengths, weaknesses, and overall viability of proposed products. They most often reveal elements to be improved upon, which means that the HCD cycle/spiral should reset, usually back to step 2 — ideation. Sometimes, the cycle includes another round of observation, if a product has been changed enough that new field data is needed, but most often this step can be skipped on subsequent iterations and just be accounted for in user testing in step 4.
So what’s my “new and improved” definition of design thinking?
In some poetic way, giving design thinking one singular definition would be doing it an injustice, because it promotes ideation, creative thought, and frequent assessment and adjustment of options. Design thinking should just be allowed to refer to the employment of any process that facilitates design, rather than the use of a limited number of selected processes — because that limits creativity in ideation. I honestly don’t think I want to give the term a solid definition, or throw it around a lot — it almost feels like something non-designers can use to refer to design from the outside. I don’t need to follow a business buzzword — I just need to ideate and design for humans.
It’s New Years Eve, and I’m wrapping up this post on my 3rd bus of the night around 9:30pm. No, I didn’t buy an ORCA regional pass this month — I was never going to hit 36 buses without classes, so I did a lot of walking and not a lot of taking the 44 on my various trips to campus over break. Fortunately, my new UW student ID activated yesterday, enabling me to travel around tonight free, and I have had a good time so far. I didn’t think I’d get so sentimental tonight, but I would say the end of the year and the decade feel heavy. On the upside, I feel a bit of cheer in the air that can break the Seattle freeze for just one night — it feels like everyone I see is on my side, and I guess we’re all together to face the 2020s. Tonight I was able to take a 512 down to Chinatown/Intl District — my first time on those double-decker bus models, and they had tons of space for my laptop (but not any space for my head when I was standing on the second level). I took a 36 to my friend’s Ethiopian church and got a tour around and got to listen to music for about an hour before the service, but I am still hoping to connect with other friends tonight (and I don’t speak Amharic, so I don’t understand the message), so I headed out about an hour ago. I took the LINK Light Rail for the first time, and I will definitely do so again — it was the quickest and smoothest leg of the trip by far. I had a nice conversation with the security guy at that station — he’s got a long night, but I think we both feel the atmosphere is deviated from the usual, if only for the night. Everyone has a lot to reflect on, both for the last year and the last decade, and to plan for the year and decade ahead. I am hoping for new experiences, new opportunities, and new places, and ready to put in the work to get there — it’s just about focusing myself on where I need to be. Happy New Year to all, and it’s time to go take control of your future. To leave you with one of my favorite phrases right now in parting,
2020 is your decade.
Best, Rand
