Design Thinking — A Web
Design thinking is difficult to define. When presented with a template for design thinking, it is a fair assumption to make that the Stanford design thinking model has influenced much of the designing process since its conception. It contains five to six principals including empathizing with and understanding the target population, defining the problem the design aims to eliminate or alleviate, ideating how the design may function or look, prototyping the design, testing the design, and sometimes assessing feedback based on the design. I believe that this model contains much of the necessary imagery to communicate the principles of design thinking effectively but lacks depth. To me, design thinking is less of a step-by-step process, or a template like a logic model, and more of a conceptual idea that a person employs to problem solve. Designer Michael Lee Poy shares this sentiment as referenced in an interview, as he calls design thinking a problem-solving tool, rather than a model. It operates like a web and disregards any linear structure. In many ways, the purpose of a visual aid for design thinking will always miss the mark because the truth of it does not create an aesthetically pleasing diagram; it is messy, unorganized at times, and sometimes fails. The IBM model for design thinking makes more sense in regard to my opinion above as compared to the Stanford model, showing an infinite loop of observing, creating, and reflection, but still neglects to include the intricacies of design (IBM Design, 2020).
In reading Christina Wodtke’s Design’s Unsexy Bits, I agree with all of her points she makes, which are all criticisms I have made of most design thinking models. Wodtke’s points are best summed in this statement, “Complexity is exponential: If complexity is not accounted for in the design, unforeseen consequences can kill a product” (Wodtke, 2020). Anyone can use the basics of design thinking, but the issue with design thinking is the way in which it is presented — it lacks complexity. Many people share these criticisms, including designer Omari Souza, who, in an interview explained how his believes that design thinking falls short in the participatory part of the design process. This is a sentiment I also share; design thinking was created to be involved and omitting it from the process is dangerous and eliminates the need for the personal side of design.
My greatest fear with presenting design thinking as a visual, simplified model, lies in the fact that design thinking has become an idea that transcends the field of design. That, also, happens to be what I believe as design thinking’s greatest strength. One on hand, these simplified models tend to disregard the complexity of the process. On the other hand, they have introduced design thinking to be employed by a much larger audience. I do not believe in gatekeeping a term for a specific field, and I think all people on this planet could benefit in their individual lives following the practices of design thinking. I do not want to discourage those new to the phrase from learning about it because it seems difficult. It is complex, but I would argue that the roots of design thinking lie in empathy, which is a trait that I believe lies in every person, albeit at different degrees. In interviews provided during the class, Designer Randall Wilson agrees that everyone can use design thinking, but not without using curiosity.
Visual models improve accessibility in some senses, but I do not think that design thinking is best expressed as a graphic; it’s best taught as a principle through examples. Take an example: the golden rule. Grade-school classrooms are often adorned with charming signs preaching to treat others the way you want to be treated. However, a sign above the whiteboard does less to teach first graders about their actions than applying the rule to real life, like a teacher explaining the rights and wrongs of an argument to two seven -year-olds about treating each other the way they’d like to be treated. Essentially, the golden rule demands a behavior change and a switch in mindset. I think design thinking should also be presented as such. It should not be taught as a process, but more of a moral framework of listening and empathy in terms of design. By being taught through trial and error at a young age, much like the golden rule, limits the risk of harming communities during projects in adulthood while also ingraining the idea in the young minds of the future. The interesting thing is young minds tend to already think out of the box. In an anecdote provided in Dam and Siang’s article explaining design thinking, they cite a truck that got lodged under a bridge, and first responder personnel were stumped until a young boy asked about taking the air out of the tires (Dam & Siang, 2020). Teaching design thinking as a principle is possible.
I argue that design thinking should be taught as a principle, not as a process, and should not be exclusive to the field of design. In order to accomplish that, importance lies not in a visual model, but in the applications, that we teach to the youth. An accurate visual model that encompasses all of these points is one that does not make much sense. Instead, it should be taught in practice, and we should be preaching these ideas of cultural sensitivity, empathy, designing for others, and all the other many facets that pour into the hard-to-describe entity of design thinking. To demonstrate my ideology with a model, it is clear that there are too many relationships in order for it to be effective as a visual. The thing with design thinking is that there are so many different components that go into it, and it varies depending on the problem at hand.
