Introduction to Design Thinking

September 12, 2012

Design Thinking is one of the more recent buzz words in the design community. In this
introductory article, I will investigate what Design Thinking is, what its main
characteristics are, and take a look at the process and the methods associated with it. I
will also take a brief look at the history of Design Thinking.

What Is Design Thinking?

First, I will outline what Design Thinking is all about. There are various ways of teaching
and practicing Design Thinking, and definitions and descriptions vary accordingly.

A Design Methodology
Basically, Design Thinking is a design methodology. It differs from traditional design
approaches in specific ways described below. For example, some authors characterize
Design Thinking as more creative and user-centered than traditional design approaches.

A Problem-Solving Approach or Process

Design Thinking can be regarded as a problem solving method or, by some definitions, a
process for the resolution of problems (but see  below  for the differences between methods
and process).

As a solution-based approach to solving problems, Design Thinking is particularly useful

for addressing so-called “wicked” problems. Wicked means that they are ill-defined or
tricky. For ill-defined problems, both the problem and the solution are unknown at the
outset of the problem-solving process (as opposed to “tame” or “well-defined” problems,
where the problem is evident and the solution is possible with some technical knowledge.)
Even when the general direction of the problem may be clear, considerable time and effort
is spent on clarifying the requirements. Thus, in Design Thinking, a large part of the
problem-solving activity is comprised of defining and shaping the problem.

The resulting problem resolution is regarded as creative, fluid, and open, and also as the
search for an improved future result (this is in line with Herbert A. Simon’s (1969)
definition of design as the “transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones.”)

A Creativity Approach
Unlike analytical thinking, which is associated with the “breaking down” of ideas, Design
Thinking is a creative process based on the “building up” of ideas. As Baeck & Gremett
(2011) put it, analytical approaches focus on narrowing the design choices, while Design
Thinking focuses on going broad, at least during the early stages of the process.

In Design Thinking, designers do not make any early judgments about the quality of ideas.
As a result, this minimizes the fear of failure and maximizes input and participation in the
ideation (brainstorming) and prototype phases (see  below ). “Outside the box thinking”
(“wild ideas”) is encouraged in the earlier process stages, since this style of thinking is
believed to lead to creative solutions that would not have emerged otherwise. The motto
here is “everyone is a designer.”

A User-Centered Approach That Brings Design into the Business

World
According to Baeck & Gremett (2011), Design Thinking is a more creative and user-
centered approach to problem solving than traditional design methods. They point out that
“Design Thinking defies the obvious and instead embraces a more experimental
approach.” The heart of the method is in understanding the customer: All ideas and
subsequent work stem from knowing the customer.
The Design Thinking methodology is not just applied to design problems. Design
Thinking is seen as a way to apply design methodologies to any of life’s situations. It is
often used to explore and define business problems and to define products and services. In
other words, Design Thinking brings the design approach into the business world. In this
vein, Design Thinking has been characterized as a discipline in which the designer’s
sensibility and methods match people’s needs, by applying what is technically feasible
and by contemplating what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and
market opportunity. As a methodology or style of thinking, it combines  empathy  for the
context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions,
and rationality and feedback to analyze and fit solutions to the context – All this helps
derive a solution that meets user needs and at the same time generates revenue, that is,
drives business success.

Attributes of Design Thinking

In the course of defining Design Thinking, I have already mentioned a number of
its characteristics or attributes. In Table 1 below, I list the Design Thinking  core
attributes, together with their descriptions, as summarized by Baeck & Gremett (2011).
This provides a better overview of the attributes. I also added some comments based on
the definitions above to explain how attributes and definitions fit together.

Attribute Description Comment

Ambiguity Being comfortable when Design Thinking addresses wicked = ill-
things are unclear or when defined and tricky problems.
you don’t know the
answer
Collaborative Working together across People design in interdisciplinary teams.
disciplines
Constructive Creating new ideas based Design Thinking is a solution-based
on old ideas, which can approach that looks for an improved
also be the most future result.
successful ideas
Curiosity Being interested in things Considerable time and effort is spent on
you don’t understand or clarifying the requirements. A large part
perceiving things with of the problem solving activity, then,
fresh eyes consists of problem definition and
problem shaping.
Empathy Seeing and understanding The focus is on user needs (problem
things from your context).
customers’ point of view
Holistic Looking at the bigger Design Thinking attempts to meet user
context for the customer needs and also drive business success.
Iterative A cyclical process where The Design Thinking process is
improvements are made to typically non-sequential and may
a solution or idea include feedback loops and cycles (see
regardless of the phase below).
Nonjudgmental Creating ideas with no Particularly in the brainstorming phase,
judgment toward the idea there are no early judgments.
creator or the idea
 Open mindset Embracing design The method encourages “outside the box
thinking as an approach thinking” (“wild ideas”); it defies the
for any problem regardless obvious and embraces a more
of industry or scope experimental approach.
Table 1: Core Attributes of Design Thinking (from Baeck & Gremett, 2011) with
descriptions and comments

The authors point out that Design Thinking is not only a combination of these attributes
but also a cyclical progression of activities. I describe these in more detail  below , when I
turn to the Design Thinking process and to the methods that are applied during the
different stages of the process.

Characteristics of Design Thinkers

There is a certain overlap between the attributes of Design Thinking and
the characteristics of Design Thinkers, because the latter perform the former. Thus, the
core attributes of Design Thinking from Baeck and Gremett can also be used to
characterize how Design Thinkers behave (I selected only those attributes that describe
designers). Moreover, in his seminal 2008 paper entitled,  Design Thinking , Tim Brown
from IDEO provides a “Design Thinker’s personality profile” and, as a starting point, lists
some of the characteristics to look for in Design Thinkers. Finally, I found a “mindset for
Design Thinkers” in a d.school Bootcamp Bootleg from  2009  and in an
updated 2010  version, which was also used in 2011. I juxtaposed these characteristics and
briefly commented on them in Table 2.

d.school d.school Tim Brown Baeck & Gremett (2011) Comment

Bootcamp Bootcamp (2008)
Bootleg Bootleg
(2009) (2010)
Focus on Focus on Empathy Empathy “Focus on
human human values human
values values”
includes
empathy for
users and
feedback
from them.
Create Craft clarity Integrative AmbiguityCuriosityHolistic All these
clarity thinking Open mindset items refer to
from styles of
complexit thinking.
y “Clarity”
refers to
producing a
coherent
vision out of
messy
problems.
Baeck &
 Gremett focus
on attitudes
of the Design
Thinker.
Optimism Only
mentioned by
Tim Brown,
but seems to
be regarded
as a universal
characteristic
of Design
Thinkers.
Get Embrace Experimentali CuriosityOpen mindset Experimentati
experimen experimentati sm on is an
tal and on integral part
experientia of the
l designer’s
work.
Collaborat Radical Collaboration Collaborative Refers to the
e across collaboration collaboration
boundaries between
people from
different
disciplines
(having
different
backgrounds
and
viewpoints).
Show, Show, don’t Emphasizes
don’t tellBias action, for
tellBias toward action example, by
toward creating
action meaningful
prototypes
and
confronting
potential
users with
them.
Be Be mindful Emphasizes
mindful of of process that Design
process Thinkers need
to keep the
overall
process
(which is
 regarded as a
core element
of Design
Thinking,
see below), in
mind with
respect to
methods and
goals.
Table 2: Characteristics of Design Thinkers (sources are provided in the text)

All in all, I would derive the following characteristics of Design Thinkers from the table
above:

 Focus on human values and needs. Have empathy for the people, solicit user
feedback, and use it in their designs
 Make experimentation an integral part of the design process, are active “doers”,
communicate through meaningful artifacts
 Collaborate with people from various backgrounds and respects their viewpoints;
enable “breakthrough insights and solutions to emerge from the diversity”.
 Can deal with wicked problems, are curious and optimistic, are integrative
(holistic) thinkers who look at the bigger context for the customer.
 Are mindful of the overall Design Thinking process with respect to goals and
methods.

Methods and Process – Introduction

According to Wikipedia , the terms design methods and design process are often used
interchangeably, but there is a significant difference between the two:

 Design methods are all the techniques, rules, or ways of doing things that are
employed by a design discipline. Some of the methods for Design Thinking
include traditional HCI methods (or UCD methods), while others are more specific
to designers, or borrowed from creativity training.
 Design process is the way in which the methods come together through a series of
actions, events, or steps. In this article, I usually refer to process stages or phases.
As we will see below , there is no specific process that defines Design Thinking as
such; instead, different protagonists describe the process in their own way.

In the following, I first try to distill a “prototypical” Design Thinking process, and then I
list methods that can be used in the course of the Design Thinking process.

Process
The Design Thinking process builds on earlier models that have been proposed for the
design process. It consists of a number of stages, typically between three and seven, and
can be linear or circular, that is, it may return to the starting point and begin a new
iteration. It may also include various feedback loops between stages, and may even have
several stages taking place in parallel. It is therefore more useful to view the process
stages as “modes” instead of as sequential steps (see d.school Bootcamp Bootlegs
from 2009  and 2010 ).
Process Stages
In his book The Science of the Artificial, Simon defined an early model of the design
process , consisting of seven stages: define, research, ideate, prototype, choose,
implement, and learn. This model more or less still describes the “prototypical” Design
Thinking process. Within the model’s seven steps, designers can frame problems, ask –
hopefully – right questions, create more ideas, and choose the best answers. As already
mentioned, the steps are not necessarily run through in a linear fashion; they can occur
simultaneously and can be repeated (see Figure 1 for illustration).

Several different models of the Design Thinking process have been proposed (see  Table
3  below for examples), including a three-step simplified triangular process by  Tim
Brown  from IDEO (2008), and the chart shown in Figure 1 from the d.school/D-School
(2009), consisting of six sequential stages which may include various feedback loops:

Figure 1: The d.school/D-School Design Thinking Process

(from: www.designthinkingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Design-thinking-
process.png )

The schematic d.school/D-School process consists of the six

stages, Understand, Observe, Point of View, Ideate, Prototype, and Test, but an actual
process can be much more elaborate due to the many feedback loops that are involved.
The d.school also published a model consisting of five stages
(Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test) in their d.school Bootcamp Bootleg
papers (2009 , 2010 ) and called them “modes” that designers are in.

Attempt at a Comparison of Process Stages

In Table 3, I juxtaposed the stages as defined by various Design Thinking protagonists
and also gave the stages my own labels. I have sometimes extended stages as well. Note
that the protagonists in some cases use different labels for identical stages.

Proto Wikipedia IDEO Tim d.sch d.school Baec Mark

typica /Herbert Simon Toolkit Brown ool/ Bootcamp k& Dziers
l (IDEO D- Bootleg (HPI) – Gre k
Stage ) Scho Modes mett (Fast
s ol (201 Comp
(HPI 1) any)
)
Unde Define Discove Inspirat Unde Empathize: Defi (1)
rstan ry ion rstan Observe, engage, ne Define
d the d immerse the the
probl probl proble
em em m
to
solve
Obser Research Obser Look
ve ve for
users inspi
ratio
n
Inter Interpre Point Define (Problem —
pret tation of statement)
the View
result
s
Gener Ideation Ideation Ideatio Ideat Ideate Ideat (2)
ate n e e Create
ideas multi and
(Ideat ple consid
e) ideas er
many
options
Proto Prototype Experi Implem Proto Prototype Gene (3)
type, mentati entatio type rate Refine
experi on n proto selecte
ment types d
directi
ons(3.
5)
Repeat
(option
al;
steps 2
and 3)
Test, Objectives/ Evoluti Test Test Solic (4)
imple ChooseImpleme on (includes refine an it Pick
ment, ntLearn d improve solution user the
impro s) feed winner
ve back ,
execut
e
Table 3: Comparison of Several Design Thinking Process Models

Despite some differences, there seems to be a broad agreement between all the
protagonists about the stages and what they entail. This allows me to describe the
“prototypical” stages of the Design Thinking process as follows:

 Understand the problem: Get an initial understanding of the problem

 Observe users: Observe users, visit them in their (work) environment, observe
physical spaces and places
 Interpret the results: Interpret the empirical findings
 Generate ideas (Ideate): Engage in brainstorming sessions to generate as many
ideas as possible (expand the solution space)
 Prototype, experiment: Build prototypes and share them with other people
(narrow down the solution space again, experimental phase)
  Test, implement, improve: Test, implement, and refine the design (narrow down
the solution space again; solution-driven phase)

Methods
In the course of the Design Thinking process, a wide variety of methods can be
employed – There are no strict rules as to which method to choose. Some of the employed
methods are typical of the way designers work; others are similar to the ones used in user-
centered design, or have been borrowed from creativity training.

In Table 4, I listed methods that are used and promoted by the d.school (from d.school
Bootcamp Bootleg, 2010 ) to illustrate the kinds of methods that can be used in the Design
Thinking process; see the paper  for descriptions of the methods. I also assigned the
methods to process stages (called “modes” in the paper) and contrast them with exemplary
traditional HCI/UCD methods.

Stage (Mode) Methods from d.school Traditional

Bootcamp Bootleg (2010) HCI/UCD/Ethnography Methods
(Examples)
Observe users  Assume a  Define problem statement
(Empathy) beginners mindset  Observe users (may include
 What? How? think aloud protocols)
Why?  Conduct site visits (contextual
 User camera study inquiry) (users doing their
 Interview (for tasks at their work places)
empathy)  Interview users, send
 Extreme users questionnaires
 Analogous
empathy
 Story share-and-
capture
 Bodystorming

Point-of-view  Space saturate and  Contextual inquiry models

(Synthesis, group (including affinity diagrams,
Interpret the  Empathy map etc.)
results)  Journey map  Personas, roles
 Composite  Use cases, scenarios, user
character profile stories, day-in-a-life
 Powers of ten scenarios, etc.
 2×2 matrix
 Why-how ladder
 Point-of-view
madlib
 Point-of-view
analogy
 Point-of-view
want-ad
 Critical reading
checklist
  Design principles
 “How might we”
questions

Ideate (Generate  Powers of ten  Brainstorming

ideas)  Stoke  User days, focus groups
 Brainstorming (+
selection)
 Bodystorming
 Impose constraints

Prototype  Bodystorming  Prototyping

(Experiment)  Impose constraints o Low fidelity:
 Prototype for Wireframes, paper
empathy prototypes, simple
 Prototype to test HTML prototypes
o High fidelity: More or
less functional
prototypes

Test, improve  Testing with users
 Prototype to
decide
 Identify a variable
 User-driven
prototyping
 Wizard-of-Oz
prototyping
 Feedback capture
grid
 User tests in the lab (may
include think aloud protocols)
 Remote user tests
 User tests in the field
 Informal user tests (e.g. with
colleagues, friends, etc.)
 KPI studies

Other  Storytelling  Storytelling

 Shooting video (+  Card sorting
editing)
 I wish, I like, what
if

Table 4: Overview of Selected Methods That Can Be Employed in the Course of the
Design Thinking Process Contrasted with Examples of Traditional UCD Methods

Additional Components
Design Thinking schools and protagonists typically highlight certain characteristics,
attributes, or rules of their Design Thinking variant as important for the success of Design
Thinking projects. I might discuss this in a forthcoming article about real-world examples
of Design Thinking. Here I present just an example for illustration. The HPI D-School in
Potsdam, Germany, lists three important components of Design
Thinking: process, (variable) space and multidisciplinary teams. I present the two not yet
mentioned components below:

 (Variable) Space: The “HPI D-School culture” is strongly reflected their  team
working environment. The HPI D-School focuses strongly
on mobility and adaptability. Therefore, most things are on wheels and can be
moved around. The D-School developed its own tables and whiteboards, which are
commercially available. Walls and many other surfaces serve to capture and share
ideas. Informal team meetings are held at spots located in and around the school
building.
 Multidisciplinarity: The HPI D-School leaders “believe that innovation happens
when strong multidisciplinary groups come together and build a common
collaborative culture to explore their different perspectives.” In their experience,
“Design Thinking is the glue that holds different types of disciplines together and
makes the projects successful.”

A Brief Look at the History of Design Thinking

In the 1960s, some designers were looking for a design methodology, also under the label
of “design research”, that was comparable with the approach in the natural sciences and
was aimed at understanding and improving design processes and practices in a broader
sense. For example, artificial intelligence and cognitive science researcher Simon tried to
establish a “Science of Design.” As he wrote in  The Science of the Artificial, this would
be “a body of intellectually tough, analytic, partly formalizable, partly empirical,
teachable doctrine about the design process.” There, he also defined a seven-step model of
the design process, which still influences models of the Design Thinking process.
According to Wikipedia , many designers quite interestingly rejected the notion of a design
methodology in the 1970s, including some of the early pioneers such as Christopher
Alexander, who is also known in the UI design field for architectural patterns.

In the early 1990s, Terry Winograd, who together with David Kelley of IDEO and Larry
Leifer has been counted among the creators and proponents of Design Thinking, became
widely known for his attempts at “bringing design to software”. In 1992 he edited a book
bearing exactly this title (read the review ). Winograd also took part in many discussions
about design; in 1997, I attended such a discussion myself at the CHI 1997 conference in
Atlanta, Georgia. Kelley contributed to the book the article  The Designer’s
Stance through an interview by Bradley Hartfield, and made a number of statements that
more or less foresaw Design Thinking (taken from my  review  of Winograd’s book):

 “It might help to pose two caricatures – two hypothetical extremes. One is
engineering as problem solving; the other is design as creating. … The designer
has a dream that goes beyond what exists, rather than fixing what exists.”
 ” … the designer wants to create a solution that fits in a deeper situational or
social sense.”
 ” … design is messy. Engineering … is not supposed to be messy. … The designer
can handle the messiness and ambiguity and is willing to trust intuition.”
 ” Successful design is done in teams.”

The design agency IDEO has been supporting and marketing the Design Thinking
approach since the early 1990s, and has been hosting the “Design Thinking Research
Symposia” since 1991. IDEO was also involved when the d.school (School of Design) was
founded at Stanford University in 2005, among others by Kelley, Leifer, Bernard Roth,
and George Kembel, who now leads of the school. In 2005, SAP co-founder Hasso
Plattner made a personal donation of U.S. $35 million to fund the d.school, which is
officially named “Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford.” Two years later, in
October 2007, the D-School at the HPI in Potsdam, Germany, was founded and took up
operation. Both of the school’s programs are characterized by “the collaboration of
students from a variety of faculties, emphasizing mutual respect and linguistic
communication that is not weighed down by business and technical jargon.” The D-School
in Potsdam, Germany, is led by Ulrich Weinberg. In November 2008, the HPI at Potsdam
and Stanford University launched a joint research program on innovation, which is jointly
led by Leifer and Christoph Meinel.

According to Wikipedia , the new millennium has seen a boom in Design Thinking, as the
term has become a buzzword in business. Moreover, the shift of Design Thinking away
from the design fields and into the business sector sparked a debate about the hijacking
and exploitation of Design Thinking. A number of books have been published this century
on the topic of Design Thinking, including, among others, D esign Thinking (2009) by
Plattner, Meinel, and Weinberg (see my book review ).

Final Word
I have accumulated my knowledge of Design Thinking from presentations at SAP and
conferences, and by reading books and articles about the topic. I wrote this article to help
readers gain a general understanding of the concepts of Design Thinking across different
proponents of the approach. Since I do not have any practical experiences with this
approach, I will refrain from evaluating it, which was not the purpose of my article.

Note: In a related post , I discuss the relationship between Design Thinking, other design
directions, and UX/UI/UCD design.