Last week Brandweek had anarticle about Design Thinking, and I’ll have to say it was a bit misleading. I’m not going to nitpick the article, but I would like to address a few points that I think are valuable to understand about the topic.
I should start by saying that I am a proponent of Design Thinking, just as I am a proponent of Business Thinking, Legal Thinking, Engineering Thinking, and Political Thinking. All are approaches to solving problems that have evolved to ensure rigor and best practices in their respective professions. Where it gets interesting is when a problem in one discipline benefits from an approach used by another discipline. The current buzz about Design Thinking is an answer to the business world’s need to innovate. The current processes used to guide businesses don’t lend themselves well to doing something new that can’t be measured by current benchmarks. Designers regularly create new solutions that have no benchmarks, so taking a page from the way they work should be helpful to achieve these goals. And it is.
What gets misleading is when the distinction is blurred between an approach that is used in a discipline, and the work, skills, and deliverables expected of professionals in that discipline. If a business person uses design thinking to develop an innovative business model, the outcome is still a business model and the profession is still that of a business person. It does not mean they should be called designers, as they do not possess the skills required of a design professional. If a designer uses business thinking to make their designs more relevant to the business, they are still designers. The article references people with design backgrounds who are now in marketing roles. That would be called a career change.
Finally, it is misleading to narrowly associate tools with disciplines. The article associates ethnography with the way designers learn about consumers, and suggests that focus groups are more for business goals. This is just not true. Ethnography is a research tool, and is used when a deep understanding of consumer values is necessary to solve a problem. This could be a business problem, a design problem, or a pure science problem. If we are truly employing design thinking methodology, we are less worried about what tools we are using, and are instead doing whatever is necessary to achieve our goals.
I don’t know who first coined the term Design Thinking (I’ve heard it was either Tim Brown of IDEO or Roger Martin of the Rotman School of Business), but Roger Martin’s article is still the best I’ve seen in terms of defining the value of design thinking to a business. His article on Reliability and Validity is well worth the read.
Reliability vs Validity.doc (42.00 kb)
Nov. 13 – Update today from Jess to clarify the attribution of who first coined the term Design Thinking:
As far as origins, Peter Rowe wrote a book called “Design Thinking” that came out in 1987. Not sure about earlier usage, but I’m skeptical of either Brown or Martin being the originator. Here’s the Google Book result for Rowe’s “Design Thinking”
http://bit.ly/rowe_design_thinking
Ellen,
We share some common interests in design and venture capital. Please connect with me and elaborate on what you do and some of the projects you’re working on. I enjoy your writing and would like to ask some questions. I am currently running a product design incubator and was also part of the team at the largest student-run venture capital fund which achieved a couple of billion dollar IPOs on the NASDAQ. Let’s talk.
Ellen,
This is probably the clearest comment and thinking I have read on the topic. Congratulations. You take position and highlight one of the biggest shortcomings in most writing on design thinking: the blurring between approach, skills, deliverable etc.
This short text helped me advance in my own reflections on how design thinking can contribute to crafting better business models!
Thanks,
Alex
Great comment clarifying an over hyped term (I think design thinking is a great term, useful shorthand for a certain mindset skillset, but is becoming very watered down these days).
As far as origins, Peter Rowe wrote a book called Design Thinking that came out in 1987. Not sure about earlier usage, but I’m skeptical of either Brown or Martin being the originator.
Here’s the Google Book result for Rowe’s Design Thinking
http://bit.ly/rowe_design_thinking
@Allan – Yes we will talk. I recently wrote a similar comment to an article in Venture Beat. The article was about how the VC model is broken. I don’t necessarily think it’s broken, but I think it needs a fresh perspective.
@Alex – Thank you! Now you know why you saw me squirming when the topic came up a few weeks ago. Your workshops are an excellent venue to clarify this blurring that’s happening.
@Jess – Nice to see you here! Thank you for correcting the attribution and the book link. Watered down is right, and the onus is on all of us to either clear it up or find a new term.
Nice writing Ellen!
Here’s my two-cents on design-thinking…
A powerful methodology for marrying creative right-brain thinking and analytical left-brain thinking, design thinking doesnt prefer one method over another but rather, it blends the positive aspects of both. (Roger Martin calls it integrative thinking.) This talent is at a premium today because innovation so often happens in the space between disciplines. Design thinking can get you into those spaces. Balancing skeptical and cautious with open and risky requires finesse and firms like Continuum, universities like the Rotman School and business leaders like A.G. Lafley are leading the charge.
Interestingly, I had the fortunate opportunity to meet with Roger Martin earlier this month in Toronto. I highly recommend his recent book The Opposable Mind. He’s in the midst of editing his second book, due out next year. Originally he had planned to include the term design-thinking in the title but changed his mind. May have to do with your point…it’s a squishy term that requires far too much explanation.
Last, Roger wrote a great piece for the Journal of Business Strategy called Design and Business: Why Can’t We be Friends? It’s a practical piece for bridging the validity / reliability gap.
Cheers, Chris
I hadn’t read that article yet Chris, thanks! And I agree on the squish factor. I think Roger Martin made the right call. That’s encouraging!
A brilliant post once again, Ellen.
I’m in a strange place with design thinking. I am called to it, infatuated with it and tormented by it. You are so right to point out that there is danger in calling everyone a designer and even more so to defining a craft by it’s tools or by the work, skills, and deliverables of said craft.
Do I concur with Chris F. that design thinking has the potential to bring both sides of the brain together? Yes. But this is one of many benefits and it fails to differentiate as to where and when to apply this process of design thinking to a problem. Do you wait for a problem that requires both hemispheres?? I don’t mean to pick on Chris’ comment, only to highlight the challenge facing all of us in defining and applying design thinking.
Someone once spoke to me about how industrial designers were traditionally focused on how a thing or service was going to be used (and further on the concept of multi-use) whereas marketers were traditionally focused on who would buy the product and subsequently how the market would receive the good or service.
I find this statement to be a far more actionable starting point to define the craft, the benefits and the applicability to a problem regardless of whether I am in marketing, studying law or working to create social change in a remote village.
How so? Design Thinking shifts our focus to those who will be directly using our product or service, or those most affected. It forces us to confront the actors, levers and influencers within a system because we are focused on how they will use the item or service we are looking to create. But the greatest thing that design thinking does, IMO, is to get us to define the problem differently. It forces us to explicitly define the problem in a way that brings value to all parties while recognizing the social differences in each.
Defining the problem becomes the most challenging and critical part of design thinking. I’ve spent as much as 80% of an engagement just defining the problem. The remaining 20% then being a fun-filled, creative blast through the park that can drive true innovation for all parties.
Not sure how clear this ramble of a comment is. More work to be done in my thinking, for sure!