Towards a More Critical Design Thinking
Design is like the human body. It comes in all shapes and sizes, aspires to do a plethora of different things, morphs throughout time, and derives from a variety of sources. The human body is home to a specific person as design is home to a specific process. Both a person and a process can change in structural and abstract ways, improving from past versions through criticism and feedback. Moreover, both a person and a process experience stress as inevitable change occurs. People are often told to be kind to themselves, kind to their bodies. This same kindness must be incorporated into the design process, allowing the designer a break as they analyze and deeply explore their thoughts. In order to fully understand the design process, each part of its body needs to be investigated from existing design processes to new possibilities for designing.
The term, design thinking, reflects an approach to the creative process of design that incorporates understanding, empathy, and imagination in order to solve a problem or improve something that already works. In order to truly design something great, one needs to receive feedback and criticism from both the user of their creation and other designers. The design thinking process could be compared to blowing up balloons. Balloons are blown up with radical ideas, optimism for a better future, and innovation through a judgement-free brainstorming process. Once blown up, criticism and feedback pop those balloons, leaving the designer to begin again. This can be frustrating, but there is no such thing as negative feedback as all criticism strengthens the final product. During his interview, Lorenzo Hodges emphasized the significance of conversation when design thinking as this allows for differences to be discussed openly and without judgement (Hodges 2019). Each individual person has a unique perspective on the world and we cannot candidly design for them without achieving a sense of empathy and closeness during the design process. Furthermore, during another interview, Omari Souza also spoke about the importance of putting yourself into another person’s shoes as you have to take into account how each of your decisions throughout the design process will affect someone else (Souza 2019). As a designer, it is imperative that you consider the gravity of each decision that you make because we are never designing solely for ourselves. This was specifically emphasized by Tanya Marie Rhule during her interview. She explained that you always have to keep in mind who you are designing for; you cannot avoid people. She believes that design thinking is about applying empathy, iteration, and research in order to create something unique (Marie 2019).
Right now, the go-to process for design thinking is the Stanford d.school Hexagon Model, which focuses on five major steps: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Other visual models of design thinking include IBM’s Enterprise Design Thinking Loop Model and the Visualization Design Thinking Model by Jeanne Liedtka. The Loop Model consists of the steps: observe, reflect, and make, while continuously reinventing and inviting users to join the designers on these steps. Additionally, the Visualization Design Model divides the process into ten steps: visualization, journey mapping, value chain analysis, mind mapping, brainstorming, concept development, assumption testing, rapid prototyping, customer co-creation, and learning launch. These visual models attempt to simplify and breakdown the design process in order to efficiently create a substantial product or experience for the end-user. Despite this, design thinking has faced numerous critiques as many believe that these simplified processes do not take into account the complexity of the design process and do not include criticism as a necessary component of the process.
In an effort to comprehend design thinking, we must delve into and appreciate the extensive criticisms of design thinking. During Natasha Jen’s talk, she remarked that there is a lack of criticism in the design process. She believes that criticism is necessary at every step of the process, and in many models, criticism and feedback are either the last step or nonexistent. Jen’s definition of design thinking is, “Design thinking packages a designer’s way of working for a non-designer audience by codifying their processes into a prescriptive, step by step approach to creative problem solving- claiming that it can be applied by anyone to any problem.” This definition is problematic, according to Jen, as design has just become a box that you can check off (Jen 2020). Attempting to simplify design thinking into pre-packaged steps that can just be checked off disregards the true creativity and brain power necessary to innovate. Christina Wodke agrees with this statement as she wrote in her article, Design’s Unsexy Middle Bits. Wodke wrote that design thinking does not address complexity and that “if complexity is not accounted for in the design, then unforeseen consequences can kill a product” (Wodke 2020). Taking shortcuts during the design process has repercussions as simplicity does not account for small decisions that can have a major impact on the end product. Along with this, in the article, Why Design Thinking is Failing and What We Should Be Doing Differently, Lillian Ersoy explained that critical problem solving during the design process decreases when in large groups because designers need to have their own creative space before opening up to a bigger group. She also expressed that the design process puts too high of an importance on the speed of the design process as great solutions take time (Ersoy 2018).
To make the design process better, there are many steps that I would add or modify. I replaced the term, “empathize,” with “understand” because Wodke spoke about how the end-user’s pain is not the only thing that informs design; it is essential to understand the entire context of the situation to design. I also replaced the step of “identifying the problem” to “identify the opportunity of change” because Wodke also explained that the term, “opportunity,” encompasses both problems and good things that could be better (Wodke 2020). Because of the critiques described by Ersoy, I added a step where the designers are able to brainstorm alone before entering into creative groups to design together and bounce ideas off one another. Brainstorming alone and then in groups allows the designers to give each other feedback on their initial ideas. Furthermore, after the brainstorming process, I put in a step in which the designers take a break to think. According to Ersoy, good innovations take time (Ersoy 2018). Moreover, I added a step after the break for the designers to invite the users to create with them in order to receive additional feedback on their ideas. This step is also highlighted by the IBM Loop Model. Along with this, I introduced a step for criticism and feedback because Natasha Jen emphasized that many design thinking models lack criticism. In order to move towards a more critical design thinking, it is imperative to always be looking for new ways to improve the process. The design thinking process should never be viewed as static or constant, and instead, be viewed as ever-changing and always in constant need of improvement.
Works Cited
Ersoy, L. A. (2018, July 10). Why Design Thinking is failing and what we should be doing differently. Medium. https://uxdesign.cc/why-design-thinking-is-failing-and-what-we-should-be-doing-differently-c8842f843b44.
Hodges, L. Pluriversal Design Interviews for SISE 3010 [Interview]. (2019). Retrieved 2021.
Jen, N. (2020, April 23). Natasha Jen: Design Thinking Is Bullsh*t. Adobe 99U. https://99u.adobe.com/videos/55967/natasha-jen-design-thinking-is-bullshit.
Marie Rhule, T. Pluriversal Design Interviews for SISE 3010 [Interview]. (2019). Retrieved 2021.
Souza, O. Pluriversal Design Interviews for SISE 3010 [Interview]. (2019). Retrieved 2021.
Wodtke, C. (2020, June 13). Design’s Unsexy Middle Bits. Medium. https://cwodtke.medium.com/designs-unsexy-middle-bits-a8cc17f0246d.
