Definitions of design thinking
In my HBR article I gave a ‘definition’ of design thinking. It was:
Design thinking can be described as a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.
On reflection this is a narrow description that focuses on design thinking’s role within business. The next sentence that I wrote.“….design thinking converts need into demand” , which I borrowed from Peter Drucker, broadens things out a bit but still assumes an economic motivation.
I am grappling with two questions as I think about this.
1. Is there a general definition of design thinking?
2. Is it useful to have one?
17/09/2008 at 9:23 am Permalink
Around usefulness, if I’ve learned something from a similar conversation occurring about information architecture/user experience, it’s less about the definition, more about the value. It’s more important to articulate the value of design thinking and the types of activities design thinkers are good at.
17/09/2008 at 11:36 am Permalink
whichever definition works for you is the right one.
as design is the one solution that answers a thousand questions, i would say that design thinking it is the ability to conceptually transform a large number of singular – maybe on first sight even contradictory – requirements towards one holistic solution.
17/09/2008 at 12:55 pm Permalink
I wonder if jkh’s point about transforming a large number of singular requirements toward one holistic solution is a definition of design thinking or a definition of synthesis. Either way it is useful because it emphasizes the integrative nature of design.
17/09/2008 at 1:26 pm Permalink
hi tim.
in my eyes i can be a useful definition because it builds on the ‘many hands – one soul’ quasi-paradox that we are facing in departmentalized corporate environments… the marketing guys want one thing, the engineers something else and the finance people have their say too … and then there are the customers who might want to fall for something altogether different.
design as such – in the way old walter gropius baptised it – is the equal child of both ‘technology’ (meaning the objective, the fragmented and the digital if one wants to say so) and ‘art’ (meaning the subjective, the holistic and the analog).
it thus overcomes one of the fundamental dilemmas of the modern world – an otherwise not bridgeable gap between many hands and many different interest inside a corporation and the customers fundamental desire – and fundamental right (!) – for a holistic, uplifting and convincing experience.
17/09/2008 at 2:50 pm Permalink
Ultimately, it is the description of the design process that people are able to grasp rather than definitions of design thinking.
Definitions of design thinking are reductive and restrictive which go against the very openness that this kind of thinking practices. I’d much rather go with a simple explanation of the process rather than trying to define it.
17/09/2008 at 6:28 pm Permalink
I think it is a good idea to create a single definition for design thinking. In the past design has struggled to define itself. While we argue amongst ourselves over whether design is about form, function, both, or neither, outsiders are left waiting for clarity on what design can offer. The emergence of design thinking as a concept gives our community another opportunity to create a singular definition that can add meaning and value to the design function.
18/09/2008 at 3:44 am Permalink
Tim,
firstly – thanks. I think that your blog format is a more participative method for digesting the ideas your book will eventually summarize. I’m enjoying it.
Back to topic:
‘Design’ is almost as slippery a word as ‘art’. The group of things we call design has a blurry boundary, which can be grown or contracted according to the context we talk about it in.
It’s a pretty inexact word- which therefore means debate about it and the thinking associated with it is more fun than useful (other than giving a sticky marketing term for Tim’s clever ideas).
It’s a bit like the term ‘cancer’. At the moment, we have called a whole series of diseases ‘cancer’, which decreases the usefulness of the word. I’m sure we will eventually find that the circle we drew around ‘cancer’ was in fact the wrong circle, as it overlapped many different disease areas. I think the same will be found of the word ‘design’.
On a scale that stretches from pure expression to pure utility, I think that design thinking can exist anywhere in between (with art generally closer to expression, and engineering generally closer to utility). However good engineering thinking involves exactly the same steps as good design thinking. In fact, the more I move between disciplines (currently that’s design, engineering, business and marketing), the more I realize it’s just about ‘good thinking’, with every area rewarding the same thought processes.
Perhaps the blog could be titled ‘good thinking’?
Note: for any interested, Eliezer Yudkowsky has discussed the meaning and issues of relying on words and names with much more exactness than I am capable (one summary is at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/thingspace-clus.html).
18/09/2008 at 4:09 am Permalink
Hi Tim,
over at Bruce Nussbaum’s blog I’vve left a comment on a recent posting I did on my design management blog: http://snipurl.com/dleadership
Amongst other I commented on some aspects of design leadership also in relation to Design Thinking and Design Management. An illustration on the linkages can be found at: http://snipurl.com/dleadershipchart
Hope you find it useful!
18/09/2008 at 6:04 am Permalink
im,
Thanks for the great blog, very enjoyable. As a student finishing a Master’s degree in Design, Strategy, and Innovation I have some comments I would like to share.
I believe that the profession of design, whether it be ID, graphic, web, etc., is beginning to receive the notoriety it deserves and while design thinking does not revolve solely around the profession of design I think that they are linked with each other either in success or failure. The professions of design have not been business savvy in the past, which resulted in marketing and sales departments receiving credit for sales of products/services when the root of the success was in the design of the product/service. Design is slowing winning back the notoriety that it deserves as businesses begin to realize that marketing and sales gimmicks are no longer as fashionable as before. Design thinking is also winning over skeptics through IDEO and others work.
The benefits of design thinking and everything that it comes with could also be easily high-jacked by other professions….for example; it could become something called smart thinking and all of the sudden marketing consultancies are in charge of this philosophy. While this may seem territorial and in essence opposite to the philosophy of design thinking, I think it is important for the profession that has created this business tool to maintain control over the future direction, aim, and use to a certain degree. Open innovation is great and the more people using design thinking the greater a tool it will evolve into, but there needs to be guidelines in order to keep the “brand” design thinking at the level it deserves to be. If there is no definition or too ambiguous a definition then the result could be negative. People/businesses could claim to be using design thinking when in fact it could be a mutated, non-beneficial form which could result in the term being given a negative connotation. I think that a definition safe guards against a certain amount of misuse or misunderstanding. It also gives people interested in the philosophy a clear idea of what it is, which could result in a greater amount of interest.
Basically, I think that design thinking and the term has been embraced by early innovators/adaptors, and for these people the definition is not so important because they understand the value of the concept. On the other hand, you will always have the late adaptors who need to be convinced and are generally less open to new ideas. For these people/businesses, it is important to have a definition.
18/09/2008 at 6:55 am Permalink
I think a definition for design thinking is critical to help communicate what we as designers know intuitively to those who do not share our innate perspective. Your definition is a good start. My only concern is that the “feasible” and “viable” components may not always be valid criteria. In my experience, sometimes it requires a bit less constrained “design thinking” to move beyond what can be done and on to what should be done.
18/09/2008 at 7:29 am Permalink
If you simply changed business in your definition to resource, your definition would become at once more flexible and more accurate. In business the resource, or what makes the venture viable, usually starts with funding. But in non-business models (open source, creative commons, social activism) the resource begins with talent rallying around a cause, often with no funding.
18/09/2008 at 7:51 am Permalink
Great blog. I would venture to say that your definition of design thinking is quite static – what is technologically feasible does not allow for design to push technology boundaries, for example, and could be limiting. Also, better that the definition refer to “design methods and the designer’s experience” rather than the designer’s sensibility (which, if interpreted narrowly, has a distinctly EQ ring to it) and methods (as they may be wholly intuitive and personal). Design thinking is about the application of design methodologies to meeting and exceeding user/customer/client needs – whether for personal fulfillment, competitive advantage, or social or organizational change.
18/09/2008 at 8:10 am Permalink
Great blog Tim!
I find definitions more useful when they are used as fuzzy centers, rather than rigid boundaries.
Here is one way of defining Design Thinking:
A human-centered systems thinking that enriches Life by creating experiences that care for its stakeholders. The experiences could be in any form such as products, software, processes, communication, performances and even policies.
It is also the natural response of an empathetic and creative individual, group or society to a problem, need or any idea that can enrich Life.
18/09/2008 at 10:06 am Permalink
Just discovered your site. I found your Harvard article to be a welcome step in helping people to understand the power of design thinking and acting. You asked for suggestions for your new book. I was unable to find the appropriate reply function to that request so will post my thoughts here (is there a link to your new book effort?). A colleague and I wrote a book on design that I think may be of interest to you in your efforts. It is being used in a diverse array of fields even though it is somewhat philosophic. It also has a number of references that I think would be of interest.
The Design Way: http://BooksToRead.com/etp/nelsonad.pdf
Nelson & Stolterman
The Design Way has been named “Outstanding Book of the Year” by the Division of Instructional Development of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
18/09/2008 at 10:23 am Permalink
One of the big barriers I’ve run into is that in many corporations, it can be difficult to win people over the idea that designers can contribute anything other than a pretty skin to someone else’s ideas. I’m convinced that this has less to do with a misunderstanding of design than it does with a genuine fear that designers/IAs/UX people are trying to take away the fun bit of product and service development and leave product/project/marketing managers and business analysts with the boring spreadsheet bits. To that end, I’ve had some success in positioning design as a faciliative method that lets everyone do creative thinking, but produces a deliverable that can always be directly justified by user needs data, business goals and technical feasibility.
18/09/2008 at 12:15 pm Permalink
hello Tim (long time no see!)
I started to write something about design thinking in engineering, e.g. “software design” or “mechanic design”. But then I found Wikipedia, that defines “design thinking” as “Design thinking is a process for practical, creative resolution of problems or issues that looks for an improved future result.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_thinking). This definition is very general: it doesn’t expect that it would be related to humans, business or technology in any particular combination. In fact, I interpret this that design thinking could be applied to any kind of problem (including those that have an analytical solution).
This is quite well in line how I see design. Software engineers design when they plan for the internal architecture and data structures, because there’s no other way. There’s no known recipe, procedure or analytical way for finding out the best solution within the given criteria. The solution proposals must be designed, and only retrospectively they can be analysed to see how well they meet the targets.
In a way design is integrative in nature, because the designer must understand different requirements, but not necessarily in the sense that it should integrate across different disciplines. Design can still take place even if it is applied to for example a solely technical problem.
(Sorry – haven’t read the HBR article though…)
18/09/2008 at 12:54 pm Permalink
Hi Tim,
Interesting blog. As for the definitions I’m partial to the shorter second one. I like things simple and concise. The first definition seemed like an academic response, which can turn people off.
What is your goal in defining “design thinking” and who is your audience? (general public, academic, etc.) Are you trying to make design thinking an elite club or an inclusive gathering? I find often when highly detailed definitions are awarded to a group it is to create a bit of a barrier to others, saying that we in this group are superior in credentials and knowledge.
When it comes to “thinking”, we are talking about universal ability. Just because someone has not been to design school does not prohibit them from thinking about design. I believe IDEO understands that variety of thought leads to greater potential for solution. I would like to see a definition that is somewhat vague and welcoming. Many of the great discoveries came from people that were not pigeon holed in a group, but were exploring outside of their field.
18/09/2008 at 9:24 pm Permalink
I quite like what chris has mentioned. Thinking is pretty basic for us, humans right. Everyone does go through some sort of a decision making process resulting in expected / mostly unexpected synergic effects. When thinking gets more structured, could be planned chaos too, it becomes design thinking. Well there should be some scope for anticipation too, though it is more in line with the ‘fuzzy logic’. In a way, design thinking results in vanishing the need once the solution evolves.
18/09/2008 at 11:46 pm Permalink
A year back when I was at design school, I wrote a chapter on design thinking for my thesis in which I had mentioned design thinking as the journey from one state of thought (when you have a problem or a goal, you begin exploring options, reading up, talking to people) to another state of thought (when you seem to have found your answers). Design thinking supports the “iterative”.
If I had come across your definition then, I would have argued with you on how design thinking should not be curbed by business, politics, culture, education etc, (even in its definition).
Im working with a company now, my opinions have been forcefully changed and I must say that you have indeed defined very well the terms, “design practice”, “designing”, “design doing”.
But somehow Id like to leave design thinking as a free process of thoughts. The term can be defined but in not in a confined sort of way.
19/09/2008 at 12:12 am Permalink
Interesting blog Tim!
I have always come across instances where the stakeholders look up to usability professionals to build/add value with subsequent releases/versions..
Defining Design thinking can be relative to individual scenarios..thinking aloud it could be -
Usability Release!
Collate findings (by researches/user interactions) to concepts that are desirable by market into viable solutions to be achieved and delivered by technology.
Industry wide individuals must have expereinced this crucial role. It would be good to track the trend how this concept must have evolved!
19/09/2008 at 1:23 am Permalink
…an ‘inclusive opportunity seeking’ style of thinking?
19/09/2008 at 5:28 am Permalink
Design thinking is a means of existence. The need to create, for the simple reason of giving ourselves meaning. We make because there is a demand to make. We design because what is already made does not improve our sense of significance. We as human beings want to feel empowered by what we do and design is one way to do that.
19/09/2008 at 11:30 am Permalink
Tim,
Thanks for the blog, it’s great to have an opportunity to see more of your thinking.
I wrestled with the same questions recently and I wanted to share my experience and solution to the problem in case it jogs something for you or others.
I lead a boutique strategy consulting firm. Delivery of design thinking is critical to our ability to differentiate ourselves from our larger and better known competitors. Recently I was planning a new training course, to help new consultants learn design thinking.
Like most (all?) teachers of design, I believe that experience is a far better teacher than words. That said, it did seem to me that it might be useful to my goal to give a bit of theory upfront. One of the first things I felt I needed to explain was ‘what the hell do I mean by Design Thinking?’
My first instinct to solve this problem was to try to find or come up with a general definition of Design Thinking, but as I read other definitions to try to see what might constitute a general definition, none of the other definitions that I came across said exactly what I felt about design thinking. They also seemed horribly incomplete in their descriptions of what I knew to be design thinking. As I wrestled more and more with specific word choices and definitions I became frustrated and decided to take a break for lunch.
As I was making myself a peanut butter sandwich, I had two realizations:
1) I had become engaged in an academic pursuit of the Truth. What I needed was not to communicate a general definition, but to communicate my unique and personal perspective.
2) To me one important part of design thinking is the notion of connecting multiple perspectives – this was lost in trying to come up with the perfect one sentence definition, which by it’s nature could only communicate a single perspective about the topic.
I decided, as I enjoyed my lunch, that I would do away with the singular definition I had been struggling with, and instead prepare two lists – one describing what I see as the key facets of design thinking in our work, and a matched list of what is ‘not design thinking’ to me.
In retrospect, I still think the experience part of the training was far more powerful than the definition, but I think my ‘definition’ went down better and had more of an impact than the general approach I considered because 1) I communicated what I was passionate about, not an abstract concept, 2) my ‘definition’ was designed for my specific purpose, not a goose chase for the Truth.
20/09/2008 at 2:25 pm Permalink
The act of bringing to people’s attention the fact that design is a mode of thought, as well as a practice, is probably more important than any single definition.
Particularly in the west, many individuals have been taught to believe there is only one way of thinking: logical or analytic thinking. The idea that design could be a mode of thought would be completely alien to them – a failure of our education system rather than individuals. I remember getting an A when I did my GCSE in design and having absolutely no understanding of how I could have got that grade. For me, design was ‘art’ or ‘drawing’ – I didn’t understand it as a method and a set of useful thought tools. This is a tragedy. Design thinking is absolutely essential in all walks of life and particularly for the direction the world is taking.
I think any definition would have to draw out the relationship with creativity and the creative process. I believe design thinking and creative thinking are interrelated at a deep level.
Also, is attitude important in the definition? A key attribute of most designers I have spent time with are a constant attitude of ‘things could be better’ or ‘things could be different’. This attitude is the engine behind design thinking and equally important. Then, there is the design habits of ‘noticing’ and ‘daydreaming’. Can these be dissected from some pure act called ‘design thinking’?
This leaves me thinking about the value of definitions full stop. Perhaps definitions just give us permission to stop thinking and accept some over simplified account of something that is, by its nature, organic and multi-faceted. Perhaps we’d be better doing an anatomy of design, that is taking apart all of the elements and inspecting each in turn and how they relate to each other. Or, another route could be to explain it through some kind of reverse engineering, using stories – i.e. take design case studies and back-peddle through the thinking and decisions that led to the end result. Unfortunately, you’ll have the problem that often the key stages of design thinking are governed by the subconcious mind and thus probably opaque to inspection – perhaps you can only talk about the conditions that increase the likelyhood of design thinking taking place. That’s probably why people don’t trust design thinking – large parts of it are not concious, controlled or ‘joining the dots’.
One key aspect – if nothing else we should highlight how natural design thinking is and the fact we aren’t more aware of it is due to its shameful neglect in education.
If I was to teach design thinking I’d want to do this through experience, not analysis. I’d like to see a book that takes people through the design journey and uses this as a vehicle to illuminate the key concepts/ideas. Give them an experience, that’s what design is: a journey and an experience.
If it was me, I’d start with getting people to start noticing the world again properly, then give them generative tools to start seeing possibilities and generating new ideas/connections, then take them through evaluation/prototyping/experiment and end with execution/action.
There’s my definition of desing thinking, as a process:
Observation/noticing
Generation/daydreaming
Evaluation/play
Decision/execution
Sorry about that – it really did need some editing, didn’t it?
Stu
A kinda sorta designer psychologist usability type person thing
22/09/2008 at 11:51 am Permalink
I understand the inherent need to define. It is incident to our nature as humans that naming, classifying and ranking are some of the first tools we bring to each new discovery. In some way, we aim to understand new things using our knowledge of the what we have previously known as conceptual schemes.
Perhabs what Design thinking requires is not some “infallible” truth stated word for word but an understanding of the essense of its truth. Like a metaphor it will extract its meaning from the context.
22/09/2008 at 9:07 pm Permalink
Tim,
Definitions are useful tools for gaining and communicating a shared understanding of a concept. It can be fuzzy, however, rather than concrete. We’re already seeing a multiplicity of ‘what design thinking means for me’ and so some sense of shared understanding – at least as a platform for your book – might be in order.
For what it’s worth: design thinking to me means ‘changing the game’. An attitude that says “I won’t play by your rules, and I don’t accept your constraints” when attempting to solve a problem.
I look forward to reading more as your ideas coalesce into print.
25/09/2008 at 12:32 pm Permalink
IMO, Design Thinking without quotation marks (click HERE to understand why) is more than a discipline or a process … it’s a mindset, an approach, a philosophy, that enhance the need to adjust the rules and principles from the knowledge economy to a consumer-centric creative economy, where the challenge is more than “turn need into demand”. It’s to surprise consumers, understanding their intangible needs and turn them into tangible demands.
It’s a way to discovery expectations consumers didn’t know they had, and turn it in something consumers desire.
Just brand it.
Where can i buy the t-shirt?
Pins?
Mugs?
26/09/2008 at 9:52 pm Permalink
Hi Tim
This is what I understand of what Design Thinking is:
‘Design thinking is a process which provides Opportunities to businesses to develop products & services which will act as a solution to consumer in satisfying his/her need’.
There has to be a general definition which captures the essence of Design thinking and explains it in a simplistic manner. Design thinking to me is a step to Innovate and is one of the tool to reach innovation.
Design thinking is Important & is different from other techniques as it creates a consumer pull demand whereas other management based techniques creates a manufacturer push demand which consumer often resists, therefore the manufacturer has to resort to advertising & PR.
Design thinking provides Solution to consumer which they might be looking for to solve their problems. Whenever we a consumer observes that his/her problem will be solved by a product they purchase that product/service.
As Seth Godin puts it – Consumer of Today only buy Solution & Design Thinking
help companies to develop that solution
01/10/2008 at 3:45 am Permalink
I always feel uncomfortable with ‘design thinking’ and prefer design behaviour/action as a more useful term.. based on Revan’s and Senge’s work I summarised here
http://snipurl.com/3zm52 [ic-pod_typepad_com]
07/10/2008 at 2:06 pm Permalink
A good place to start the search for a definition is to approach it as a design problem. I.e. 1. Understand the need for a definition, 2. Observe real life uses of definitions, 3. Visualise a range of definitions 4. Refine and iterate 5. Implement. (Although Inspiration, Ideation & Implementation work too.)
When our team uses the term design thinking in practise we are often seeking to explain a whole range of related sensibilities and methods to an audience that does not a) understand them and b) value them.
For what it’s worth the definition that we use is that: “Design is a tool to manage innovation.” This is useful because it resonates with the CEOs that we’re communicating with and gives them just enough of an understanding and appreciation to want to know more. It’s obviously not a comprehensive definition but it is fit-for-purpose, jargon free, simple, clean and useable in practise.
Marissa Myer from Google has a relevant insight on the value of left-brain/right-brain thinking. As Jane Fulton Suri has commented in the past, it seems that good design is a blend of creative freedom, empathy and analytical discipline. It’s the blending of the two that makes Design Thinking so powerful.
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=1530
For a different approach to the search for a definition: A question that we used to use in legal definitions was what would you take away to make the thing not the “thing” anymore. My question to you then would be: Which one attribute of design (from your HBR article) would you take away to stop an approach being design thinking?
09/10/2008 at 11:53 am Permalink
Design Thinking: The critical process of design.
10/10/2008 at 4:50 am Permalink
When I read your post and the comments so far I felt that maybe the view of “design thinking” most people have is biased due to the fact that they have a background “in design”.
If I may allow myself to come up with this kind of analysis as a non-native English speaker: The term as such does not define if it is about thinking in design categories (or whatever you may call it) or if it is about how to “design thinking”, which refers to “thinking” as the most prominent of the two parts.
There is a lot of power in this view. It instantly lead me to the work of Edward De Bono, who argues that thinking, or in his case “lateral thinking”, is more than just creativity.
The terminology he uses when speaking about lateral thinking could also help us to approach the term of “design thinking”: For example “perception” and “viewing angle”, “goal”, “process”, “alternatives”, “flexibility” and “execution”.
There is a risk in this view, the risk that classical design capabilities, i.e. the stuff that many of you have studied and practiced for years, may become less important when “design thinking” is really taken seriously. “Design thinking” can be done by anyone who brings in a sufficient openness. Yes, we knew this before, but have we really been aware of it?
When there is “design thinking”, design might just play the role of delivering – a commodity role. To me, that is the real shift when talking about “design thinking”.
14/10/2008 at 2:47 am Permalink
Hi, Mr. Brown! I think that the core of “design thinking” resides in knowing how to exercise the “appropriateness” in the whole design process.
20/10/2008 at 6:40 am Permalink
My understanding has always been that it is the process of responding to a problem, but latterly this has become less and less satisfactory, perhaps it is now more apt to say it is moreover the process of responding to observations.
30/10/2008 at 1:44 pm Permalink
Great post!
For me, put simply design thinking is ‘creative common sense’.
Here the creative rationale is perhaps the defining departure from the more linear modes of sense making. Moreover, design thinking is one such approach to identify, develop/define and communicate concepts for tomorrow, today.
In my opinion, a defined concept of design thinking would be extremely helpful. Firstly, to provide a standpoint to build upon and secondly to enable the effective communication of its credentials to the wider community.
I look forward to seeing what develops!
23/11/2008 at 9:19 am Permalink
At the heart of Design thinking is the intent to modify a human relationship – between people, places, objects, organizations.
Because relationships can include any dimension of human knowledge or experience Design thinking borrows and uses from wherever relevant.
Designers are “relationship modifying specialists” who welcome a chance to order any relationships with any form or content.
22/12/2008 at 12:59 am Permalink
I like your three part split and would expand it as follows:
Viable: Busines
Where: Location
When: Timing
Feasible: Technology
What: Material
How: Process
Desirable: Human
Why: Goal
Who: People
22/12/2008 at 1:37 am Permalink
You also left one out Tim, which I will call “Business Thinking”:
Quantifiable: Price
* How Much: Cost
* How Many: Volume
22/12/2008 at 3:30 am Permalink
Interestingly enough this perspective is not new. Clayton Christensen in his book Innovator’s Dilemma discusses a four part model that fits nicely with this:
1. Availability
2. Compatibility
3. Reliability
4. Cost
However, I would like to mesh Tim’s, Clayton’s and my perspective into the following:
1. Availability
1. Location
2. Timing
2. Compatibility
1. Why
2. Who
3. Reliability
1. How
2. What
4. Feasibility
1. How Much
2. How Many
22/12/2008 at 3:42 am Permalink
Let’s try that again:
Interestingly enough this perspective is not new. Clayton M. Christensen in his book Innovator’s Dilemma discusses a four part model that fits nicely with this:
1. Availability
2. Compatibility
3. Reliability
4. Cost
However, I would like to mesh Tim’s, Clayton’s and my perspective into the following:
1. Viability
1. How
2. What
2. Compatibility
1. Why
2. Who
3. Reliability
1. Where
2. When
4. Feasibility
1. How Much
2. How Many
22/12/2008 at 3:54 am Permalink
Now, looking at this I am reminded of Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Tipping Point and it adds the following character to the model:
1. Viability: Mavin
1. How: Processes
2. What: Materials
2. Compatibility: Connector
1. Why: Goals
2. Who: People
3. Reliability: Salesman
1. Where: Locations
2. When: Schedules
4. Feasibility: Customer
1. How Much: Costs
2. How Many: Units
21/01/2009 at 3:18 am Permalink
I’m not sure I can define design thinking. However, I think it is useful to have a definition of the term. We want to know that when we use the term that we are referring to the same thing. Maybe design thinking can be defined using the designed thinking process. So let’s define the issue first. Maybe it’s one of needing to be able to describe design thinking to those who don’t know about it. If we define exactly why we need a definition of the term perhaps we’ll be halfway towards a definition of the term.
10/03/2009 at 1:19 pm Permalink
My Point is Why Design Thinking?…………..But It should be in other way round………” Think Design “……….because we need to first think……..and then go to design……and for thinking……………………………………. you don’t need any definition.
10/04/2009 at 6:59 am Permalink
May be we’re designed to think something that is a design. So you think as much as you can to make it a perfect one………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ? sove tangram!!
06/06/2009 at 4:16 am Permalink
Hi. I came looking for a definition of design thinking to use in a discussion at a conference, and found this great discussion. And maybe that’s the only reason we need a definition – to start a conversation.
Having said that none of the definitions here really fit my need.
So here is a long adaptation of Tim’s original
Design thinking can be described as a discipline which helps people use their sensibilities and a toolkit of methods to evolve newer and more appropriate responses to life’s challenges and opportunities. Those responses can be anything – products, buildings, software, packaging, organisations, behaviours, attitudes …
We all do it.
It’s just some of us practice it more deliberately than others
12/08/2009 at 1:14 pm Permalink
1. Thinking can only be inferred from behavior. (So let’s set it aside.)
2. Design is an iterative problem-solving process that can be observed.
3. The types of problems that designers attempt to solve involve two dimensional and three dimensional objects, as well as message communications, and a mix of the three.
4. The purpose of design is to solve problems, and to improve those solutions.
5. Design thinking, it can be inferred, sometimes precedes the process of defining those problems and solving them using the iterative design process to create two dimensional and three dimensional objects and message communications—and a mix of the three–and improving them.
24/08/2009 at 9:46 am Permalink
As for whether it’s needed; i think not, design thinking is something that can’t really be explained, it’s not a thing or a moment it’s a process, a value system. You could go someway to outlining it in a book, but I kind of hope the whole process of design thinking can’t be summed up in a sentence or i’m out of a job!
Saying that, thought i’d have a stab at it anyways (get my two pennies in);
Design Thinking is when someone looks at something with fresh eyes, with as few pre-conceived ideas as possible, and goes through a process of improving its situation of it for all interested parties.
05/09/2009 at 4:01 am Permalink
Great information on “design thinking”. thank you for sharing and the post comments. Very helpfull too.
29/09/2009 at 9:17 am Permalink
I am just about to embark on my dissertation which concerns (in part) the way we define disciplines. The one question I am intending to posit is ‘Does design need to answer a public demand?’
I know this appears a very straightforward question at first, but to counter the response ‘of course it does you silly, silly person.’ I would like to make the suggestion that commercially successful design does, much in the same way that successful art does. The concept I am grappling with at the moment is that I think I am discovering a split between design communication and product design.
One of the best ways I can find for myself to describe design communication is that it is the clear, concise transmission of an idea to an audience in the most appropriate way/medium available. What my question is, is can this definition be applied to design in general?
I am aware that I am completely stumbling into this discussion and hope I’m not stepping on too many toes when I provide my (mostly unresearched) position for all to see.
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
-Matt
03/02/2010 at 10:52 am Permalink
I think there can be a general definition to design thinking for an individual, but I do not believe it would be a wise choice to develop a firm definition for all of people to agree on. I do believe ideas, emotions and objects become destroyed once a definition is given to them, because then the idea, emotion or object must abide by that definition. Something as large and abstract as design thinking can never be funneled down into one single working definition for the whole world.
It is helpful to have an understanding of what design thinking is so it will be possible to educate others, but to define the actual term would be to limit it’s possibilities.
23/02/2010 at 10:52 pm Permalink
Please find a visualization done on design thinking on my blog! http://monildalal.blogspot.com/
06/03/2010 at 12:41 am Permalink
Спасибо, интересно почитать)
08/03/2010 at 12:46 pm Permalink
I love the illustration. Thank you for the useful tools and helping me understanding of a concept.
21/03/2010 at 1:23 pm Permalink
Hi Tim,
I see design thinking as “the glue between all disciplines”. Following this line of thought, one could argue we mostly need to create a common language. And finding the one and only definition is not important. It’s about the journey, not the goal. An ongoing conversations about definitions helps us develop (and iterate) a common language. Keep the conversation going
25/05/2010 at 2:51 am Permalink
nice blog brother……………………
22/06/2010 at 2:58 pm Permalink
I think design thinking is about integrating the properties required by someone with the aim of providing valuable solution options (i.e. services or products). My experience as consultant tells me that some people use a structured process others an unstructured process. In the context of building a house the upfront design thinking will be:
1. The idealised design is discussed based on the owners requirements (dreams, desires, needs or emotional appeal – these days eco consciousness).
2. The designer (architect in this instance) who understand (aesthetic knowledge) will design the structure and or each part of the system which are required and develop a description. – this is a creative experiential process
4. A physical representation (blueprint) of the design is made (design thinking product)
5. The builder is consulted for practicalities before the design thinking is ultimately finalised.
I hope this helps
22/06/2010 at 3:28 pm Permalink
In the context of a business the design thinking will be influenced by the training and experience of the individual involved. Who you are will determine what you will focus on. For example there are desired typical properties that are promoted as the ideal “character” qualities of organisations (i.e shared cultural elements). Design thinking in organisations is however much more complex than simply striving for certain qualities. The process of organisational design thinking has to deal with the complex realities of the current culture and prescribe solutions that can bring about organisational learning and development. The typical design thinking in an organisation is about the “ends and the means”
15/08/2010 at 7:39 pm Permalink
Hi Tim,
I love the whole concept on desgin thinking, I am learning about this is my innovation change class. However, my question is what organization/s that has successfully inovated products/services using desgin thinking.
Thank you
Kathy