Thinking through Design Thinking

IDEO /Tim Brown, Bruce Nussbaum and Stanford d.school call it Design Thinking.

Michael Speaks, Michael Shamiyeh, Bruce Mau talk about Design Intelligence,

Nigel Cross writes about Designerly ways of knowing (one of the best books i’ve read so far on design thinking).

All these ideas deal with design as process rather than object. They all articulate and confirm the idea that there is a ’specific way of thinking that is unique to design’ and ‘that this way of thinking is applicable on any problem’ It is a way of seeing, understanding and making the world, and the ‘design way’ is a universal way, there is no problem that can not be solved, … or so it seems (this is one of the claims of Bruce Mau’s Massive change exhibit and book anyway).

Although one has to acknowledge a certain naivety behind this idea, it is non the less very appealing, especially for a designer, or well … an architect like myself.

Thinking about design as a universal problem solving method radically enlarges the arena for design and provides the design discipline with a sense of authority. It provides a credibility to the discipline that is instrumental in getting designer involved in projects at a point where the fundamental decisions are made, instead of calling designers in to only deal with the cosmetics of a project. One has to read the efforts of IDEO and Bruce Nussbaum in this light, as advocating for a design discipline that is more involved at the moments and places where it matters and where it can make a significant impact.

Beside propagating design thinking to businesses, selling the design way of thinking as universally applicable, provides design with a legitimization for engaging with fields that are normally well beyond their reach, beyond the confines of the design discipline. This is something also propagated in the Volume’s opening issue (#1) under the term ‘Architectural Intelligence’ and there is also some of this attitude present in the “Office for Unsolicited Architecture” issue (#14). I think these ideas bear fruit, but suffer from overestimation, but that’s what usally happens when one advocates something, it quickly turns into a one dimensional argument.

I would like to point out a few problems I have with the current discourse around design thinking:

Design as problem-solving
The underlying paradigm of what “design” actually is in the “Design Thinking” school, is that it is synonymous with problem-solving. This is a limited view of design, and a problematic one. First of all what does it mean to solve a problem? In design there is not one possible answer to a certain question, there are a lot, see the architectural competition as example.

Also one can always question whether any problem is permanently solvable, especially when its problems have a socio-economical dimension, these are known as wicked problems. (see Rittel, Webber – “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”) The term problem solving sounds too absolutist. How many solutions from 50 years ago are regarded as the root of today’s problems?

The more design becomes technical and a from engineering in which the criteria are technical as well, where the margins of error are so small that solutions can be measured in absolute dimensions, in this sense there is a relation between problem and solution that becomes traceable. Design has a huge cultural component, often the problem is artificial, or invented by the designer themselves and is connected more to a cultural zeitgeist than anything else. In what way can we talk about the brief for a project in terms of a problem?

A problem is something undesired that needs to be resolved, but the brief is defined as a wish-list not a problem definition. The brief inspires a projection of the future, and over the course of a design process there surely is problem-solving going on, but it’s mainly a problem-solving cycle that deals with ones own invented or perceived problems, which is legitimate, but one has to acknowledge that problems are not absolute.

Design is a discipline but not a scientific one!

Design as innovation
Another paradigm underlying “design” in design thinking is the one of progress, that design is instrumental in improving our lives, society and the whole world basically. The term “innovation” embodies the believe that the new is better, that technology will improve our lives, its propelled by the assumptions that science, rationality and efficiency will move the world to a better place. It’s a very technocratic conception of design, one that fits perfectly in our capitalist society. Innovation and problem-solving are two branches that grow from the same tree.

Design thinking doesn’t tell us much about thinking.
The “thinking” in design thinking, doesn’t really deal with explaining the thinking in design, it only scratches the surface of what design thinking is really about. Design thinking as propagated by IDEO and Nussbaum is mostly deals with methodology, process, ‘how-to,’ it doesn’t deal with how design thinking actually works. Usually cases are brought forward of how a typical design approach has been successful in tackling a problem, but from this we don’t learn how thoughts unfold in the design process, how thinking unfolds.

Thus design thinking currently deals with describing behavior, symptoms, the consequence of thoughts but not what design thinking consists of itself. It is much like how the Turning Test for testing if a machine is intelligent or not doesn’t tell us anything about what intelligence itself actually is, it only shows that a machine can behave as a human does! But this tells us nothing about the nature of intelligence itself (John Searle’s ‘Chinese Room‘ thought experiment effectively exposes this flaw of the Turing Test)

Especially this last part intrigues me, i’m interested in how designer have their own rationality, how a design can have its own rationality. Just like a mathematician can say this equation is false, an architects can say, this detail doesn’t make sense in the overall concept of the building. Apparently design choices can be more or less right or wrong, within the network of choices made during the design process, while at the same time all most of the choices are more or less arbitrary! intriguing isn’t it!? What is this kind of logic that is operative in design? What is this intelligence that seems irrational but gives enough foundation for making a choice? What mode of reasoning is at work here?

I researched these questions in my graduation work, which consisted of a comparative literature research of three perspective on “reasoning in architecture“, although the findings are relevant to all design disciplines> The three perspectives come from three authors, from three different fields:

Donald A. Schön (1930-1997) a design researcher, but trained as philosopher who succeeded in describing ‘how designers think’ in a way that designers actually recognize themselves. Shön’s work is interesting because of the categories he introduces. These are fundamental descriptions of how a designer engages in the design activity. His categories are open but still defined enough for designers to recognise the fundamental process they are involved in. It describes an iterative process, but does not specify tasks, design phases or steps from beginning to end. It’s not a method for how-to think, it’s provides insight in how thinking works in design. Schön theory is presented in his book The Reflective Practitioner (1983)

Jeff Hawkins (1957) is a computer architect turned neurologist. He is interested in making truly intelligent machines, but believes one can only do so when we understand how the brain produces intelligence. He states that in the cognitive sciences intelligence is judged by the wrong parameter: behaviour. According to Hawkins this is only a manifestation of what intelligence really is, behaviour is but the surface. Hawkins puts forward a theory that intelligence is determined by prediction. According to him the brain makes continuous predictions about the world it ’sees’ through its senses. It makes this predictions by analogy to the past, to what is already stored in our memory. Hawkins theory in presented in his book On Intelligence (2004) You can watch a lecture by Hawkins on TED and here if you want to get in a bit deeper.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) was a philosopher, logician and mathematician. Peirce was interested in where new ideas came from, how the mind was able to put forward fruitful ideas, and in that way it was instrumental in the development of knowledge. Peirce believed that deductive and inductive reasoning were not adequate in describing how this worked, thus Peirce developed a third mode of reasoning, abduction, with which he tried to clarify processes of invention and discovery. Another theory of Peirce is also of importance more specifically for the work of architects, that of diagrammatic reasoning.

He developed the concept of diagrammatic reasoning in the context of explaining creativity in mathematics, but it also gives us a deeper insight in how architects reason through making drawings and models. Because like mathematics also architectural design is mediated activity. Peirce’s theories were developed over his entire career, publishing many papers and articles. For this research the explanation of Peirce’s theories is based on the readings of Michael H. G. Hoffmann and Sami Paavola.

Besides these main protagonists, Aristotle’s Rhetoric plays a significant role in describing the nature of reasoning in architectural design.

What all these authors have in common is that they deal with developing a framework for the fundamental elements and processes of creative thought, by naming them, formalizing and theorizing these they open up a possibility of discourse on these ideas. I’ll elaborate the theories these men have put forward later, for now I’ll leave you with a quote:

“. . . in speaking of logic, we do not need to be concerned with processes of inference at all. While it is true that a great deal of what is generally understood to be logic is concerned with deduction, logic in the widest sense, refers to something far more general. It is concerned with the form of abstract structures, and is involved the moment we make pictures of reality and then seek to manipulate these pictures so that we may look further into the reality itself. It is the business of logic to invent purely artificial structures of elements and relations.” (Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form, 1964)”

Overview of this Post:

Thoughts on this Post: It is interesting to see the process play out with those who are just learning the concepts.  This update also crosses into social uses of Design Thinking.

Original Post and Comments HERE at the d.school projects site

Redesigning Retirement

Our Bootcamp students wrapped up their second design projects this week, and the results were spectacular.

Twelve teams spent three weeks using the design process to re-invent “the Golden Years” for rebellious Baby Boomers. Students were asked to give particular focus to the empathy phase of the process, and develop a strong user Point of View (POV).

How do you do that? Partly by getting out into the world, spending time with people to understand their needs, then narrowing down to develop your solution when you’ve found a really rich need. Here’s an example of how that’s done:

This team–Micol Seferin, Lee Redden, Ashutosh Bagaria and Jacob Klein–had been out talking to users all over town. But when they realized they’d only talked to men, Ashutosh set up another interview, with a Stanford librarian who’d he’d met in his first week on campus. Her rediscovered passion for sewing and need to share it was so compelling, that they did what any great design thinking team would do: they narrowed down to focus on designing for her. That meant moving fluidly past the other users they’d talked with rather than getting stuck trying to design a one-sized-fits-all solution for everyone they’d talked with.

Another fundamental aspect of the design process is iteration: the ability to keep re-inventing your solution based on feedback you’re getting from users. That can be tough when the feedback is: “This sucks,” and you need to start over again. But that’s exactly what the Time Capsule for Superheroes team did when their first idea fell flat with users. Team members Juan Valverde, Karen Cheng, Matthieu Rouif and Tanya Flores tossed out their first idea and came up with something new. You can some of their iteration process through the story they told:

A huge congrats goes out to all of the Bootcamp teams for their great work on the Boomer challenge!

Caroline O’Connor on October 27, 2009 in

[d.school Tags: Agile Aging, Boot Camp, Design Process, Empathy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis]

Question of the day

Our bootcamp students are deep in prototype-test-iterate cycles for their second design project, and they’re asking a question that’s fairly universal for design-process learners:

Do I have to test my prototype with the same users I designed it for?

The short answer is: Heck no!

It’s always best to get as far out of your own experience as possible when you’re looking for users, because outside your comfort zone is where you’ll find the deepest insights. But when it’s crunch time and you’re zooming through prototypes, don’t be constrained because you don’t feel like you have time to go back to users. Sure, your roommate, classmate, or those veteran user-testers otherwise known as d.school staffers can always test a prototype in a pinch, even if they’re not the Baby Boomer you’re designing for. But before you go that route, spend one minute brainstorming a quick way to get to your user group, or a good analogy for your user group. (The analogous testers can sometimes produce the most serendipitous results.) Even if time is so short you think you can only get one user, go get them! A tiny time investment in user-testing can pay massive innovation dividends.

(Pictured user tester: maureenhanratty)

Caroline O’Connor on October 23, 2009

Thoughts about this video: The best point in the video is that Design Thinking is a method that really isn’t just thinking like a designer.  It can be applied to any area (even a dinner party!)

Thoughts on this Post: This graphic and yesterdays video are from the same source (d.School) and are both really good resources.

Original Post and other content HERE

UNDERSTAND

Understanding is the first phase of the design thinking process. During this phase, students immerse themselves in learning. They talk to experts and conduct research. The goal is to develop background knowledge through these experiences. They use their developing understandings as a springboard as they begin to address design challenges.

OBSERVE

Students become keen people watchers in the observation phase of the design thinking process. They watch how people behave and interact and they observe physical spaces and places. They talk to people about what they are doing, ask questions and reflect on what they see. The understanding and observation phases of design thinking help students develop a sense of empathy.

DEFINE

In this phase of design thinking, students the focus is on becoming aware of peoples’ needs and developing insights. The phrase “How might we….” is often used to define a point of view, which is a statement of the:

user + need + insight

This statement ends with a suggestion about how to make changes that will have an impact on peoples’ experiences.

IDEATE

PROTOTYPE

Prototyping is a rough and rapid portion of the design process. A prototype can be a sketch, model, or a cardboard box. It is a way to convey an idea quickly. Students learn that it is better to fail early and often as they create prototypes.

TEST

Testing is part of an iterative process that provides students with feedback. The purpose of testing is to learn what works and what doesn’t, and then iterate. This means going back to your prototype and modifying it based on feedback. Testing ensures that students learn what works and what doesn’t work for their users

Thoughts on this Video:  This may be the best “short” look at what Design Thinking is and how to do it that I have come across.  If you can, find a way to participate in the activities that the facilitator leads.

This is a complex post in that it contains many links and embeds. I have done my best to keep the integrity of the original post.

Original Post on PBS.com IdeaLab

by Chris O’Brian March 26, 2009

I had the great privilege to be invited to sit on a panel earlier this month at the Institute of Design at Stanford to provide feedback on an effort called, “Redesigning Journalism.” I’ve been wanting to visit the “D School” for some time now. So I jumped at the chance to participate.

In this case, design refers to the fundamental way a product is conceived and built. The D School teaches something called “design thinking”. It’s a powerful method and I’ll be writing more in the near future about using it to find new ideas for journalism.

In brief, a design driven approach to creating something new favors a qualitative approach over a data-driven approach. Rather than amassing mounds of data from customer and marketing research, you go out and observe people to understand their lives and needs and how products could fit into them. Folks who embrace design thinking commonly refer to this as building empathy with the customers.

One example of how that could look for newspapers can be seen in this recent post by Michelle McLellan about Carla Savalli, a former assistant managing editor who left the Spokesman-Review in Spokane in October. McLellan writes that Savalli’s “time away from the newsroom has upended the way she views the daily newspaper.” Savalli now sees the newspaper through the eyes of her community, rather than through the newsroom. She’s developed greater empathy for her community. Savalli doesn’t need piles of polls and surveys to understand the community outside the newsroom, because now she’s one of them. Everyone working in a newsroom today needs to have that experience. It requires listening to the community in a very different way.

For an extreme example of this approach, check out this article from the Boston Globe about MIT’s AgeLab, where they had students wear an “Age Suit” to understand how the elderly experience the world.

And if you really want a deep dive into design thinking and empathy, I highly recommend reading “Wired To Care” by Dev Patnaik with Peter Mortenson of Jump Associates.

We used a design driven approach during our Rethinking the Mercury News project in 2007 and I found it to be incredibly powerful. Patnaik writes about how design thinking can “reframe” the way you see the world, and that was certainly true for me. I walked away with a number of thoughts about what newspapers should and should not be doing to reinvent themselves. (More on that in another post).

Design thinking is a movement that’s gaining a toe-hold in the journalism world. Gannett is embracing it, and has hired one of the leading firms in this field, IDEO. You can watch a series of videos that IDEO and Gannett posted about their process here.

And at the Next Newsroom Conference at Duke University last year, I was fortunate that John Keefe, program manager for WNYC in New York attended. He’s embraced design thinking to create a new newsroom for WNYC as well as reinventing some of its programming.

More recently, I connected with Andrew Haeg, a senior producer and analyst for American Public Media in St. Paul, Minn. Haeg is spending this year in Palo Alto on the Knight Fellowship for Professional Journalists. During his time at Stanford, Andrew has delved into design thinking and through him, I was invited to sit on the D School panel.

The “Redesigning Journalism” project grew out of a class being taught by Corey Ford at the D School. Ford recruited a number of folks from across campus, including several folks from the Knight Fellowship program and Stanford’s Graduate Program in Journalism, and broke them into three teams. Their broad mandate was to “Redesign Journalism.”

The teams spent about six weeks on the project, doing observational studies, brainstorming, rapid prototyping, and some moderate testing. Again, the goal of the process is to understand the way people live their lives, and use that information to design products. It’s a highly intuitive and subjective process. On March 12, we gathered in a space at the D School where the three teams each had five minutes to present their idea.

I was part of a three-person panel that was supposed to offer critiques and feedback. The panel also included Tristan Harris, CEO and Co-Founder of Apture, and Andreas Kluth, the Silicon Valley correspondent for The Economist.

Andreas blogged about his experience that night here. One of the groups showed a video of a woman named Rebecca who talked about how she subscribed to the Economist because she thought it made her look smart, but never actually reads it.

Two of the three groups proposed iPhone applications, and I wondered how much of that reflected their own obsession with the gadget versus what they were truly hearing from the folks they observed and interviewed. That’s a tricky thing in a process like this, to truly put aside your own interests to listen fully to what people are telling you. Still, both applications offered interesting services that I could see value in developing.

The first iPhone app was called Newstiles: an iPhone application that aggregates stories by displaying photos into a slideshow on the phone. You can use your finger to slide across the phone and view the photos, and then tap on the photo to call up the story. The belief was that the visual nature of the photos would attract more people into the news.

You can watch their presentation here:

The second iPhone application was called Video DJ. The idea here was that a company, let’s say the New York Times, would hire brand-name DJs to mix video clips of the news into 2-minute videos, and at the end, the user could tap on any of the video clips to full a longer version of that news video. You can see a prototype here:

A couple of my main thoughts: iPhones apps are absolutely worth thinking about. But also remember that there are now over 35,000 iPhones apps in the iTunes store. So you have to think hard about why yours is going to stand out. And you also have to think about clutter on the phone. How many iPhones apps will most people use, particularly news apps? I think not more than four or five at most. So newsrooms need to be thinking about how to get on people’s mobile devices, but it’s also going to be tough to get a spot on that piece of real estate.

Also, the vast majority of news start-ups I come across these days are attempting to create some new way to aggregate stories. I’m sure someone is going to come up with a much better solution that what currently exists, but again, it’s a crowded field, so the bar will be high for standing out.

I did like that both applications sought to offer functionality that took advantage of the way the iPhone worked, rather than just re-posting or re-formatting headlines. And they were both visually creative and very appealing to watch. Tristan and Andreas were bigger fans than I was, but I did think they were both very clever. Perhaps most important, they were trying to understand how people used their iPhone, and how they wanted to experience news and information on that particular mobile device.

My favorite of the bunch was the third team’s product: the Reader Meter. They only had a conceptual framework and not a working prototype. But the idea in a nutshell is to create an application that would sit on every computer in the newsroom and serve as a kind of dashboard to monitor the community’s activity online, both on your own Web site and beyond.

It wasn’t a total surprise this group came up with a solution for newsrooms, since the team included Ann Grimes, director of the graduate journalism program and a former writer and editor at the Wall Street Journal. But the Reader Meter solves a real problem for me: How to keep up with all the conversations happening in your community online. I liked the idea of something that tunes everyone in the newsroom into those conversations and activity. Also, as a business, hopefully this would be something that a newsroom might actually pay to use (even if it’s just a little bit for each copy, it could add up). When it comes to the Web, selling to other businesses is usually a better bet than trying to get consumers to pay for something.

Given the compressed time frame that they had to work under, I was impressed that each of the teams came up with an intriguing idea that sparked good discussions. Did any of them fundamentally solve the problems plaguing the journalism world? No, of course not. But they all did represent fresh thinking, which is what really matters in a process like this.