Thinking Design
Οr, considering practical aspects of the design process with a business outlook.
As a designer and design educator, I understand design as a messy, creative, extrovert, esoteric, synthetic, and analytic practice, that can be chaotic, organized, liberating, oppressive, intuitive, structured, and fun. Sometimes, all at once, with the scope of creating “a plan for arranging elements to accomplish a particular purpose”, as per the definition of design by Charles Eames interviewed by curator Madame L’Amic of the Musee des Arts Decoratifs in Paris, in 1972. Place design within a strict business setup and some manager is bound to flip out. How could esoteric and intuitive practices be monitored? What would the KPIs for chaos be, and how does fun benefit business? Design practitioners might respond easier — their background and experience help, but it is not easy for someone outside the creative mindset to swiftly deliver clear answers with traceable lines of thought. So, it was only a matter of time until someone from the design sector would try to bridge the gap between design and business.
The Design Council in the UK began formalizing the design process in 2003 to give it shape and depth, bringing design closer to the discussions on innovation at the time. Codifying two phases where divergent and expansive thinking is followed by convergent and analytic focus, the Design Council illustrated each of these phases in the form of a diamond shape, hence the ‘Double Diamond’ was developed. Additionally, these were described in four steps — “discover”, “define”, “develop” and “deliver”, only to put words and meanings to the once abstract understanding of the design process.
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the design process was also mapped into a shareable narrative branded under the name of Design Thinking. Developed by the design company IDEO and Stanford D. School it was articulated as a driver of change and innovation in the business world through a series of books, articles, courses, conferences, and projects. Presented as an organized set of steps, distinct, clear, and interchangeable, using language relatable to non-designer boards of directors, Design Thinking communicates design research and development workflows. It bares similarities to the design process as expressed in the form of the Double Diamond, though here we see 5 distinct steps — “empathize”, “define”, “ideate”, “prototype” and “test”. Originally presented as the Holy Grail for innovation — understandable for any new concept trying to earn its share in the consulting market, Design Thinking has since gained a lot of traction, friends and foes, it has been interpreted and misinterpreted, praised for some unexpected outputs and criticized for not working too close to the realities of project implementation, leaving concepts ungrounded.
Unfortunately, as in every attempt to bring form and systemization to fluidity, bridging the gap between design and business has left some things behind; omitted others in lieu of communicating the most important points; promises may have been diluted, and various party expectations may have been misaligned. Both, Double Diamond and Design Thinking, even if discussing the same process, have pros and cons in their style of communication and achievements.
From experience, though, I thought I’d share that being a designer and working with the Double Diamond does not make one a Design Thinking expert, though definitely one is more seasoned and able to dive deep in each step of the way. On the other hand, training in and practicing Design Thinking does not make one a designer*. At most, with no design background, being exposed to the mindset of design through Design Thinking can form a more versatile frame of mind for the individual, a more agile culture within a business and a more systemic approach to design’s inherent messiness. Thus, the two parties, design and business, are able to discuss as equitable disciplines in a board room — just like companions who both want to move the current status quo ahead, breaking some eggs to make omelet in the meanwhile.
As part of my collaboration with Found.ation, I will be discussing the five steps of Design Thinking in five posts. In these, I will be highlighting aspects of the Double Diamond and a designer’s perspective within the Design Thinking steps, not in its defense, but in the hope that the business crowd now exposed to Design Thinking gets to see the value of collaborating with designers, and the design crowd realizes what makes business tick. And all this from the vantage point of a designer who, aside from other design work, has come to do some work in the business sector by training, mentoring and motivating non-design teams to produce better, more fitting and meaningful work.
* Please note that replacing formal design education with training in Design Thinking is a precarious matter, that may lead to confusion of whether one is a designer or not. So let us not confuse the two. For now, we will not be discussing formal design education here.
The links to the five texts focusing on the respective steps will be added below as they are being created.
Step 1 — [empathize]:
Step 2— [define]:
Step 3 — [ideate]
Step 4 — [prototype]:
Step 5 — [test]:
Learn how to turn innovation on in any organization or reach out to Found.ation for a tailored solution: thefoundation.gr.
