design thinking as a mindset

As I finish my seventh semester of architecture school, I’m rounding out a little over 1,170 hours of design studio instruction. Though I’ve felt the process grow much more absurd over the past nine months of creating drawings exclusively for Zoom, the joy in creation and hope inherent in the practice has kept me engaged. That being said, leaving last spring I felt rather separated from the ideal of using design as a force for good that had permeated earlier years.

As I entered this fall, I came in with the goal of becoming a more considered designer. Through studio courses, I think I largely learned the design “process” rather implicitly, with limited opportunities to reflect on why something was done. The fast pace of iteration demanded by architecture school, as well as the investment required for each new drawing, meant there was limited stop-and-think time. As a result, I really learned about how to approach design through osmosis. With that in mind, I joined a design-thinking course in a department within the school of architecture to take a step back and consider design more holistically.

In progressing through this class, I started to learn about “steps “ in the design process through the critique and discussion of the friendly, color blocked models. Most fell into one of two frameworks, the Design Council’s Double Diamond and Stanford’s d.school’s hexagons. Both have a series of sequential steps that involve thinking on systems scale. The Double Diamond also quantifies how convergent versus divergent thinking expands then narrows the focus to outcomes, while the d.school codifies a series of slightly more specific steps: “empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test, assess.”

For me, the closest thing I’d had prior was the typical progression of an architectural project from SD to DD to CD (schematic design, design development, construction documents) delineated with hyper-specific steps to quantify billable hours and distinguish between “basic services” covered in the initial fee and a la carte add ons. These processes represent the extremes–in trying to be a friendly, one-size-fits all approach the d.school’s methodology ends up being reductive, while the architecture profession’s loses clarity in its quest to account for every minute. In the former, each and every step encompasses of branches of information. Says Stanford lecturer Christina Wodtke (2020) in a critique of the d.school, “just because you see a forest doesn’t mean there aren’t a whole lotta trees.” If the practice of design is to find new or better ways to accomplish something, it is irresponsible to ignore the finer details of execution in favor of the larger picture. On the other hand, getting hyper focused on the individual pine cones (something I admittedly struggle with quite a bit) can distract from the central goal and undermine the project.

The Design Council and the d.school are far from the only voices on how to codify the design process. Our class studied many beautiful, pithy diagrams describing the sequence in a slightly different way. Having had the opportunity to explore this great variety of expressing the concept, I find it more helpful to approach it as a mindset rather than a specific, delineated process. Every time a new prospect is tackled means new context and inputs. Having a series of detail drawings versus a community-based education program as deliverables necessitates radically different production methods–each industry requires a certain level of specificity. Moreover–even within industries–approaching designs the same way risks outcomes that are similar. A homogenous approach that neglects nuance can make it part of the problem.

That being said, the d.school’s model and similar distillations have important contributions. Steps like “empathize” and “ideate” as articulated by the d.school are important. However, signifying them as a discrete step risks approaching them once and moving on, limiting them to boxes that aren’t deep enough to contain their content. As Pentagram partner Natasha Jen (2017) notes, a designer’s work relies on a concept of “messy evidence” that cannot be confined to a specific step. Restricting “empathy” to the first part of the process neglects its impact later on and implies it is only helpful for understanding the initial context, not to be referenced when considering later developments. As designer Marlon Darbeau (2019) explains, design doesn’t exist in a vacuum, nor does the solution it is attempting to find–“In all spheres, the capacity to think clearly and deeply about what you’re wanting to do and why you’re doing it is important.” The “steps” of a design thinking model must interact similarly. They must be a holistic collection that all work with each other and interact in different ways with ample opportunities for reflection, not a step to approach once.

Rather than separate steps that may or may not loop in a circle towards each other, I propose a series of tenets to permeate all parts of the design process, acknowledging different levels may be appropriate at different stages, and different industries require different processes.

1. Understand

A large upfront investment is necessary to understand the community and what they desire to change. This means listening to stakeholders and asking questions to ascertain what is serving their needs and what isn’t. According to professorof design Maria Rogal (2019),

Things can be effective and powerful when you are working with people to make things that people actually identify and need and have use a use for… it’s totally considering the context, it’s totally considering what people need, it’s having respect for the autonomy of people as experts and people being able to make their own decisions.

In linking with step two, it also requires returning to those experts (people in the community for their lived experience; designers who have approached similar ideas for their experience, and designers who have approached parallel topics for an outside perspective) at multiple points. Inherent in this process of In my experience, attempting to describe a solution to a non-designer (or simply a designer who hasn’t been working on the topic) is one of the fastest ways to determine strengths and weaknesses in a project.

2. Embrace the Non-Linear (test, iterate, repeat)

It is always necessary to return to previous steps at certain points in the design. Rarely is the first try the best try–part of understanding what is being built involves building it multiple times to better comprehend what works, what could work better, and what doesn’t work. Says designer Randall Wilson (2019) “[design thinking] is not a finite solution,” and it’s only through navigating the process and repeatedly testing multiple hypotheses that an end point is reached.

An important caveat:

The “repeat” does NOT mean start over. Once the design process has commenced, the designer never returns to the origin point. Every iteration deepens insights into the eventual solution. At minimum, there will be a new understanding gained of what doesn’t work. Even in the most extreme “starting over” the “x” point of “progress” might be in the same place, but the “y” point of embodied knowledge is higher.

3. Create Something Bespoke

After a certain point, every solution needs to be approached with an acknowledgement of its unique circumstances, letting those drive decisions rather than a framework of steps. Part of the “Understanding” is beginning to delve into the complexities making up modern systems. Using design thinking can be helpful as a tool to ascertain larger moving parts. At the same time, it may be too blunt a tool for sifting out the finest details–that’s when it is necessary to shift into a different framework or attempt with another lens. An overarching set of principles is helpful for centering and approaching an idea, but does not provide the “execution” stage where the fine parts reach legibility.

Understanding design thinking as an additive entity to the design process allows allows to greater tailor to needs, ensures important parts of mindset aren’t compartmentalized and sequestered from other parts of the process. If every design process is steeped with understanding, iteration, and tailoring throughout then better, more considered, and more sustainable designs will be created, with steps that are most appropriate for the specific situation.

Citations:

Darbeau, M. (2019). Pluriversal Design Interview for SISE 3010 Fall 2019.

Jen, N. (2017, June). Design Thinking Is Bullsh*t. 99U. https://99u.adobe.com/videos/55967/natasha-jen-design-thinking-is-bullshit.

Rogal, M. (2019). Pluriversal Design Interview for SISE 3010 Fall 2019.

Wilson, R. (2019). Pluriversal Design Interview for SISE 3010 Fall 2019.

Wodtke, C. (2020, Jan 12). Design’s Unsexy Middle Bits. Medium. https://cwodtke.medium.com/designs-unsexy-middle-bits-a8cc17f0246d.