Damien Newman’s “squiggle” as a critical look at design thinking
You knew it was coming, I’m a designer, after all. Here it comes: let’s talk about design thinking.
Myself, I knew I was going to write about it eventually. But maybe this is like the movie Beetlejuice, where I need to say the phrase three times to conjure the topic properly. Design thinking, design thinking… Wait. Hold on.
Let’s clear the air and get some things straight first. We’ll start with definitions.
Zooming in, zooming out
The design thinking methodology — initially popularized by Stanford’s d.school — is a user-centered approach for innovation and problem-solving meant to be used in a variety of fields, drawing from the possibilities of technology and the requirements for business success. Lots of different groups and companies have formulated their own visualizations.
See below:
As you can see, design thinking is seemingly very colorful and usually involves some number of stages, four to five. d.school defines it as five:
- Empathize
- Define
- Ideate
- Prototype
- Test
While design thinking has gained popularity in fields beyond design, including business, education, and social innovation, it’s important to note that it’s not without its critics. As we explore Damien Newman’s “squiggle” in greater detail, we’ll examine how it relates to design thinking and where design thinking might fall short in addressing the complexities of real-world problem-solving.
Let’s break down it down.
A visual metaphor for the design process
I’ve written about the “squiggle” before and I believe that it’s a simple yet powerful metaphor for the design process, representing the journey from uncertainty to clarity.
It can be broken down into either two main chunks — uncertainty or clarity — or three main sections, see below:
No matter which way you split it, the “squiggle” symbolizes different stages of the problem-solving process:
- Chaos and divergence: The initial tangled mess of loops and scribbles represents the divergence phase, where possibilities seem infinite and confusion reigns. This aligns with the empathy and ideation phases in design thinking, or research and synthesis as labelled above.
- Emerging patterns: As the squiggle progresses, the loops become more organized, signifying the beginning of convergence. Patterns emerge from chaos, and ideas start to take form. This correlates with the define and prototype stages in design thinking, or concept and prototype.
- Clarity and execution: The squiggle finally straightens into a clear line, representing the moment when the problem is well-defined and the solution becomes obvious. In design thinking, this corresponds to the test and implement phase, or design.
Is the “squiggle” a design thinking critique?
While design thinking aims to provide a structured approach to problem-solving, its application in real-world scenarios has revealed several limitations. Newman’s squiggle, in its visual representation of the messy reality of design, inadvertently several potential shortcomings:
- It’s bullsh*t
So says Natasha Jen in her 2017 talk at 99U in which she challenges the notion that design thinking can be reduced to a simple linear process. She argues that this oversimplification minimizes the skill, rigor, and iteration that true design work demands, likening it to “wanting to become an Olympic athlete without wanting to be trained.” - Corporate “innovation theater”
Steve Blank highlighted in 2019 how innovation (and design thinking) can devolve into performative exercises in corporate environments. The squiggle’s simplicity ironically underscores how real innovation’s messiness is often sanitized in these settings, failing to challenge conventional thinking. - Big business homogenization
Bruce Nussbaum, an early proponent of design thinking, noted in 2011 that large companies’ adoption of design thinking has led to its mechanization, diminishing its effectiveness. The squiggle’s chaotic initial phase reminds us that problems often require deep exploration before solution-finding, a nuance sometimes lost in corporate applications. - Overemphasis on ideation, underemphasis on execution
In a 2013 talk, John Maeda emphasized the importance of balancing creative ideation with practical implementation. The squiggle’s long, messy beginning transitioning into a straight line at the end visualizes this potential imbalance in design thinking processes, where the path to execution is often underrepresented.
The “squiggle” as a reflection of reality
Newman’s squiggle offers a more authentic portrayal of the creative process than the linear representation often associated with design thinking. It acknowledges that:
- The journey from problem to solution is rarely linear.
- Confusion and chaos are often essential for breakthrough innovation.
- The process requires constant reevaluation and iteration.
Bridging the gap: Integrating the “squiggle” and design thinking
To address the limitations of design thinking while leveraging its strengths, we can look to Newman’s squiggle for inspiration:
- Embrace uncertainty: Acknowledge that the early stages of problem-solving are often messy and confusing. Resist the urge to simplify prematurely.
- Iterate holistically: Don’t confine iteration to the prototyping phase. Be willing to revisit and refine problem definitions and potential solutions throughout the process.
- Balance ideation and execution: While generating ideas is important, equal emphasis should be placed on developing strategies for implementation and scaling.
- Avoid performative innovation: Ensure that design thinking methodologies are applied genuinely, with a commitment to embracing ambiguity and challenging status quo thinking.
- Contextualize solutions: Recognize that solutions may need to address systemic issues. Take time to understand the broader context in which problems exist.
Wrapping up
While design thinking provides valuable tools for human-centered innovation, it’s essential to recognize its limitations. Newman’s “squiggle” serves as a reminder that true innovation is often messy, non-linear, doesn’t have clear edges, and requires navigating through periods of uncertainty.
By integrating the realities represented in the squiggle with the structured approach of design thinking, we can develop more effective and authentic innovation processes. As we continue to refine our approach to problem-solving and innovation, it’s crucial to remain flexible, embrace complexity, and be willing to dive into the “fuzzy” middle of the creative process.
Only by acknowledging and working with the inherent chaos of innovation can we hope to emerge with truly transformative solutions. The squiggle, in its beautiful simplicity, reminds us that the path to innovation is rarely straight, often confusing, but always rich with possibility.
And so, let’s bring forth design thinking to its full fruition — design thinking, design thinking, design thinking! — and the “squiggle” in our processes and methodologies to embrace the true nature of innovation.
Thanks for reading. Let us know what you think, drop a comment or get in touch some other way, we’re always open to hearing others’ points-of-view — if it’s different or the same as ours.
Citations:
- https://thedesignsquiggle.com/ — Newman’s “design squiggle”
- https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/dschool-starter-kit — Stanford d.school’s starter kit & crash course in design thinking
- https://youtu.be/V8gjDsW3lsY?si=LpLg6tA04L_wFdgh — Natasha Jen’s 2017 talk at 99U titled “Design Thinking is Bullsh*t”
- https://hbr.org/2019/10/why-companies-do-innovation-theater-instead-of-actual-innovation — Innovation (and design thinking) as corporate “innovation theater” in Steve Blank’s 2019 Havard Business Review article
- https://www.fastcompany.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next — Bruce Nussbaum, one of design thinking’s biggest advocates, writes in a 2011 article for Fast Company about how he’s moving onto Creative Intelligence (CQ)
- https://youtu.be/MjSOjwixR4k?si=CDB5d7fAya5jsRt5 — John Maeda’s 2018 talk at Indaba about design thinking and creative leadership
