Ingredients of Design Thinking
Over the years, design thinking has expanded from one way of approaching a problem, to many different templates and schools of thought. One highly recognized design is the Stanford’s d.school’s hexagon model. A linear step-by-step design, it names five steps: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Empathizing is the most important aspect of this model. In this step, a designer must put themselves into the user’s point of view, seeking to understand and listen to the community’s issue. Next, after collecting preliminary information, one is now able to define what is the problem to be solved. Ideate consists of coming up with the first solutions, and then narrowing them down into a prototype that can be tested.
This general framework of defining a problem, then coming up with solutions and testing them seems to be a common theme in design models. The hexagon model captures most of the steps that can be found across other design thinking templates. However, one of its flaws is its linearity and rigidity. In no creative process does a designer or artist follow a straight path, never changing or revising their vision. In fact, this process of change and alteration is crucial to the development of solutions.
Another type design that can be found within the many, are loop-like models. This one uses guiding questions to lead the designer into a solution. When asking “what is?”, the designer can analyze the issue at face value. Next, when asking “what if?”, the brainstorming begins. Something unique about this model is that it uses different shapes to indicate how much time a designer should spend on that step. This is the most timely step, in which the designer should submerge themselves into unrestricted brainstorming. “What wows?” asks which of those solutions stand out, so that one can move into “what works?” and test them.
This model is also linear, but it is a lot more flexible than the previous one, due to having a loose guide instead of rigid steps. It leaves a lot more space for brainstorming and revising solutions in order to narrow them down. Yet, one flaw that stands out to me is that “co-creation” is only found at the end. To be a successful designer, one must truly understand the needs and wants of their consumers. This means that there must be constant input and agency from the community throughout the whole process. Natasha Jen brings this up in her talk, “Design Thinking Is Bullsh*t”. She points out corporations’ tendency to co-opt design thinking without understanding what it actually entails. The key is “focusing on people’s desires and needs”, she says, “rather than business needs”.
In fact, I think this is the most pivotal criticism of the field. It is easy to make assumptions about what users want, leave their feedback out, and as a result employ a solution that actually does not work for that population. This can especially be seen in the non-profit field, where often community member’s voices are not centered. The boards who are able to fund these initiatives are wealthy, and usually white. A lot of the time, a complex of saviorism can develop. The white savior complex consists of when people in positions of privilege help others with self-serving objectives, or believing that they are the most equipped to do so. This often happens when Americans travel abroad to the Global South on service trips, for example. Designers can fall into the trap of presuming their user is not suited to create a solution themselves, or that they are necessary to help them find a solution. The main problem with this is that people come in with no understanding of a community’s history, context or needs. This leads to the creation of solutions that are not actually useful, or actually create even more problems. One example of this is in Zambia, where mosquito nets were distributed with the hopes of ameliorating disease. However, citizens of that area used this for a more pressing need due to food insecurity: fishing. This has caused unwanted consequences, such as depositing of insecticide chemicals in the water, and overfishing (Gettleman 2015).
What can be done to correct this tendency? Michael Bonnick believes that design can be the glue to fixing socioeconomic systems, but what must we change in order to achieve this? In many models, the first step of design thinking has been said to be empathizing with your user. However, gathering knowledge through research, interviews, and other ethnographic practices may not even be enough. In order to truly grasp the needs and wants of who you’re working with, community members have to be involved and able to provide feedback in every step of the process. This idea of co-creation and person-centered design is echoed by designer Tania Anaissee. Her concept of Liberatory Design builds on the idea that “we cannot do this to people, we have to do this with people”. Part of the process of design needs to include equity.
Before starting to work, as a designer you must examine your positionality. What positions of power do you hold? What assumptions are you making about your user and their needs? Which perspective are you centering? Western countries approach issues differently than eastern, individualist communities view situations differently than collectivists. Reflecting about your background and how it will inevitably show up in your research is key to avoiding these mistakes. Renata Marques Leitão, a Brazilian designer, defines design as a way to connect two different perspectives. “You have to be born in a third world country to understand some ideas”, she states, confirming that as an outsider, designers must recognize where they lack knowledge about the community. Designer Maria Rogal, from a trans-cultural background, also discussed how it is important to decolonize your design. By de-centering only one way of doing things, a designer avoids forcing their view of the world onto other populations.
Taking all of this into account, I propose an alternate model to the d.school’s. Imagine you are cooking a soup for dinner with friends; first, you must consider your positionality. Contemplate what recipes you know, what ingredients you’re used to using, and which ones you are not. You would also want to ask your guests what kind of soup they want, or what ingredients they would or would not like you to use. Even more, you can ask them to bring their own favorite ingredients before the dinner. After defining what their wants are, you can begin brainstorming how you will assemble them into a meal. Again, you should include your friends in this process, as they might have insights or ideas that you don’t. Trying out different combinations, reframing and refining your plan is an essential part of this brainstorming step. When you all decide on a recipe, meaning you have your prototype ready to go, you can put the plan into action. As you cook the soup, you all take turns tasting it and determining what ingredients you need more of, refining and adjusting your recipe. Perhaps, you tragically find that one of the ingredients simply throws off the whole meal, and decide to return to brainstorming. Maybe you decide you don’t even want to make the soup, and would rather have pizza instead! The idea is that feedback is present at every step, involving the community and fostering co-creation.
In the end, it is important to keep in mind that every designer has their own way of moving. Going back to the origins of design thinking, as Natasha Jen does, we must remember that design was first coined as a “way of thinking”. Design thinking is less about following the recipe, but more about the ingredients you use.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Works Cited
Gettleman, J. (2015, January 24). Meant to Keep Malaria Out, Mosquito Nets Are Used to Haul Fish In. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/africa/mosquito-nets-for-malaria-spawn-new-epidemic-overfishing.html.
Jen, N. (2020). Design Thinking Is Bullsh*t. Retrieved December 04, 2020, from https://99u.adobe.com/videos/55967/natasha-jen-design-thinking-is-bullshit
