How Real Is Design Thinking?

Design Thinking is not new; the term was mentioned by Nobel Laureate Herbert A. Simon way back in 1969 in his book, ‘The Sciences of the Artificial’. As Sarah Gibson of Nielsen Norman Group has written, there were innovators like Charles and Ray Eames, whose moto was “learning by doing” and who looked at needs and constraints before getting down to designing the famous Eames chair which is in vogue even today. The concept has evolved over the years and the credit for bringing it into the mainstream should go to Tim Brown of IDEO, a global design and consulting firm.

But what exactly is Design Thinking? It is an approach to solving problems and creating innovative solutions. It is considered to be very useful for problems that are not well defined aka wicked problems. “Wicked” problems, is a term introduced by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973 to define social and cultural problems that are complex and difficult to solve because of their inherent nature.

The process of Design Thinking consists of five steps:

Phase 1: Empathise

Understand the problem domain through empathy with the target group and focus on their needs.

Phase 2: Define

Analyse the information gathered and define problem statements and create personas.

Phase 3: Ideate

Start brainstorming and looking for alternatives and possible solutions. 

Phase 4: Prototype

Experiment, find possible solutions and build low-cost prototypes.

Phase 5: Test

Test the prototypes, refine them if necessary, retest and find the best solution.

The above phases are not sequential, as is evident from the diagram and will be repeated till the ideal solution is found.

In short, it is an iterative process which emphasises on the need to empathise with the User/System, articulate the problem at hand clearly, think of various solutions, build prototypes and test them to figure out the best fit.

One of the best examples of successful implementation of Design Thinking is what was done by GE Healthcare to make their MRI machines child friendly. Observing that most children cried during the entire procedure, they transformed the ecosystem from a black hole to pirate ships, beaches, oceans and sandcastles; a classic case of listening with empathy and trying to eliminate the pain points.

Another example was of Oral B. The company wanted to upgrade its electric toothbrush and asked its designers to add functions like tracking brushing frequency, playing music, et al. However, the designers figured out that customers were looking for something different and recommended that they make the toothbrush easier to charge and ordering replacement heads more convenient. The designers focused on what the users wanted rather than what the company brief was.

Apple, Netflix, Airbnb and UberEats are some other organisations that have successfully applied design thinking principles to create and innovate products and solutions.

*Is Design Thinking applicable universally

So can Design Thinking be applied to any and every problem or domain? As Sebastian Kummetz Brunetto, Co-founder INNOVATION RADICALS has said, there are clear dos and don’ts for this. It should be applied when dealing with complex problems where we do not understand the problem domain and do not have a solution in mind. These are typically in the realm of human behaviour and change in the world. He further states, do not use Design Thinking in processes that are not open ended. If you know or want certain results in advance do not use this approach.

For Design Thinking to be successful the right problem statement needs to be chosen, and the assembled team needs to live the methodology. It takes people into uncharted territory and the team members need to be open-minded and ready to be critiqued and challenged. More often than not, it is the promise and the over-the-top expectations that lead to real or perceived failures.

To be clear, Design Thinking is different from Design. It is a process, an approach to problem solving that can lead to innovative solutions; the key phrase being, “can lead to”. It is not a panacea. In fact, major advocates of Design Thinking like Bruce Nussbaum have, over time, become sceptics of the methodology. While accepting the contribution of the process in taking the field of design to a much larger space, the inherent promise of delivering creativity does not always happen, in his opinion. He is not alone in questioning the methodology; there are many more joining the bandwagon.

What is it that the naysayers have against it?

It promises too much

Is too simplistic

Cannot be applied to any problem

Is old wine in a new bottle

Companies may have had a vested interest in promoting it

Some experts have an issue with the first step of Design Thinking itself, which is “Empathise”. How can one empathise with something one has never experienced, they ask? Bryce Johnson, Inclusive Lead at Microsoft Devices says, “I can never truly experience or get in the shoes of a woman who has experienced childbirth”. According to him, to compensate for this, designers and technologists must design with, rather than design for.

Natasha Iskander, Professor of Urban Planning and Public Service New York University says, “Design Thinking privileges the designer above the people it serves and in doing so, limits participation in the design process”. By giving the designer total authority, it squashes more inclusive design practices. Her take on the empathise phase where the designer must listen to the users and understand their perspective is that it is still the designer who is deciding what is relevant and what is not. This, is what she believes, makes design thinking exclusionary.

In conclusion, what is the verdict on Design Thinking? There is no doubting the fact that Design Thinking has delivered phenomenal successes, but one thing is clear – it is not a one size fits all approach. It must be embraced judiciously and needs deep investment in terms of time, patience, commitment to the cause and a team that believes, because great innovations do not happen overnight. Interestingly, alternative approaches are now being suggested by experts like Bryce Johnson who emphasises on recognising exclusion, designing for inclusion, solving for one and extending to many. Bruce Nussbaum talks of Creative Intelligence and defines it as the ability to frame problems and to make original solutions. He argues that like IQ and EQ, organisations need to look for CQ (Creative Quotient) in their teams for design to succeed. Then there are other approaches like Human-Centered Design, Interaction Design, Life-Centered Design and Strategic Design.

Time will tell which of these, if at all, will become the successor of Design Thinking; who knows, maybe none.