design thinking vs critical thinking

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

3 ways companies can scale emissions reduction

Women’s career advice: Remember that exhaustion is not a yardstick for productivity

How, and why, to run a values-based business

Credit: Mimi Phan

Ideas Made to Matter

Design thinking, explained

Rebecca Linke

Sep 14, 2017

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills.The approach has been around for decades, but it only started gaining traction outside of the design community after the 2008 Harvard Business Review article [subscription required] titled “Design Thinking” by Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO.

Since then, the design thinking process has been applied to developing new products and services, and to a whole range of problems, from creating a business model for selling solar panels in Africa to the operation of Airbnb .

At a high level, the steps involved in the design thinking process are simple: first, fully understand the problem; second, explore a wide range of possible solutions; third, iterate extensively through prototyping and testing; and finally, implement through the customary deployment mechanisms. 

The skills associated with these steps help people apply creativity to effectively solve real-world problems better than they otherwise would. They can be readily learned, but take effort. For instance, when trying to understand a problem, setting aside your own preconceptions is vital, but it’s hard.

Creative brainstorming is necessary for developing possible solutions, but many people don’t do it particularly well. And throughout the process it is critical to engage in modeling, analysis, prototyping, and testing, and to really learn from these many iterations.

Once you master the skills central to the design thinking approach, they can be applied to solve problems in daily life and any industry.

Here’s what you need to know to get started.

Understand the problem 

The first step in design thinking is to understand the problem you are trying to solve before searching for solutions. Sometimes, the problem you need to address is not the one you originally set out to tackle.

“Most people don’t make much of an effort to explore the problem space before exploring the solution space,” said MIT Sloan professor Steve Eppinger. The mistake they make is to try and empathize, connecting the stated problem only to their own experiences. This falsely leads to the belief that you completely understand the situation. But the actual problem is always broader, more nuanced, or different than people originally assume.

Take the example of a meal delivery service in Holstebro, Denmark. When a team first began looking at the problem of poor nutrition and malnourishment among the elderly in the city, many of whom received meals from the service, it thought that simply updating the menu options would be a sufficient solution. But after closer observation, the team realized the scope of the problem was much larger , and that they would need to redesign the entire experience, not only for those receiving the meals, but for those preparing the meals as well. While the company changed almost everything about itself, including rebranding as The Good Kitchen, the most important change the company made when rethinking its business model was shifting how employees viewed themselves and their work. That, in turn, helped them create better meals (which were also drastically changed), yielding happier, better nourished customers.

Involve users

Imagine you are designing a new walker for rehabilitation patients and the elderly, but you have never used one. Could you fully understand what customers need? Certainly not, if you haven’t extensively observed and spoken with real customers. There is a reason that design thinking is often referred to as human-centered design.

“You have to immerse yourself in the problem,” Eppinger said.

How do you start to understand how to build a better walker? When a team from MIT’s Integrated Design and Management program together with the design firm Altitude took on that task, they met with walker users to interview them, observe them, and understand their experiences.  

“We center the design process on human beings by understanding their needs at the beginning, and then include them throughout the development and testing process,” Eppinger said.

Central to the design thinking process is prototyping and testing (more on that later) which allows designers to try, to fail, and to learn what works. Testing also involves customers, and that continued involvement provides essential user feedback on potential designs and use cases. If the MIT-Altitude team studying walkers had ended user involvement after its initial interviews, it would likely have ended up with a walker that didn’t work very well for customers. 

It is also important to interview and understand other stakeholders, like people selling the product, or those who are supporting the users throughout the product life cycle.

The second phase of design thinking is developing solutions to the problem (which you now fully understand). This begins with what most people know as brainstorming.

Hold nothing back during brainstorming sessions — except criticism. Infeasible ideas can generate useful solutions, but you’d never get there if you shoot down every impractical idea from the start.

“One of the key principles of brainstorming is to suspend judgment,” Eppinger said. “When we're exploring the solution space, we first broaden the search and generate lots of possibilities, including the wild and crazy ideas. Of course, the only way we're going to build on the wild and crazy ideas is if we consider them in the first place.”

That doesn’t mean you never judge the ideas, Eppinger said. That part comes later, in downselection. “But if we want 100 ideas to choose from, we can’t be very critical.”

In the case of The Good Kitchen, the kitchen employees were given new uniforms. Why? Uniforms don’t directly affect the competence of the cooks or the taste of the food.

But during interviews conducted with kitchen employees, designers realized that morale was low, in part because employees were bored preparing the same dishes over and over again, in part because they felt that others had a poor perception of them. The new, chef-style uniforms gave the cooks a greater sense of pride. It was only part of the solution, but if the idea had been rejected outright, or perhaps not even suggested, the company would have missed an important aspect of the solution.

Prototype and test. Repeat.

You’ve defined the problem. You’ve spoken to customers. You’ve brainstormed, come up with all sorts of ideas, and worked with your team to boil those ideas down to the ones you think may actually solve the problem you’ve defined.

“We don’t develop a good solution just by thinking about a list of ideas, bullet points and rough sketches,” Eppinger said. “We explore potential solutions through modeling and prototyping. We design, we build, we test, and repeat — this design iteration process is absolutely critical to effective design thinking.”

Repeating this loop of prototyping, testing, and gathering user feedback is crucial for making sure the design is right — that is, it works for customers, you can build it, and you can support it.

“After several iterations, we might get something that works, we validate it with real customers, and we often find that what we thought was a great solution is actually only just OK. But then we can make it a lot better through even just a few more iterations,” Eppinger said.

Implementation

The goal of all the steps that come before this is to have the best possible solution before you move into implementing the design. Your team will spend most of its time, its money, and its energy on this stage.

“Implementation involves detailed design, training, tooling, and ramping up. It is a huge amount of effort, so get it right before you expend that effort,” said Eppinger.

Design thinking isn’t just for “things.” If you are only applying the approach to physical products, you aren’t getting the most out of it. Design thinking can be applied to any problem that needs a creative solution. When Eppinger ran into a primary school educator who told him design thinking was big in his school, Eppinger thought he meant that they were teaching students the tenets of design thinking.

“It turns out they meant they were using design thinking in running their operations and improving the school programs. It’s being applied everywhere these days,” Eppinger said.

In another example from the education field, Peruvian entrepreneur Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor hired design consulting firm IDEO to redesign every aspect of the learning experience in a network of schools in Peru. The ultimate goal? To elevate Peru’s middle class.

As you’d expect, many large corporations have also adopted design thinking. IBM has adopted it at a company-wide level, training many of its nearly 400,000 employees in design thinking principles .

What can design thinking do for your business?

The impact of all the buzz around design thinking today is that people are realizing that “anybody who has a challenge that needs creative problem solving could benefit from this approach,” Eppinger said. That means that managers can use it, not only to design a new product or service, “but anytime they’ve got a challenge, a problem to solve.”

Applying design thinking techniques to business problems can help executives across industries rethink their product offerings, grow their markets, offer greater value to customers, or innovate and stay relevant. “I don’t know industries that can’t use design thinking,” said Eppinger.

Ready to go deeper?

Read “ The Designful Company ” by Marty Neumeier, a book that focuses on how businesses can benefit from design thinking, and “ Product Design and Development ,” co-authored by Eppinger, to better understand the detailed methods.

Register for an MIT Sloan Executive Education course:

Systematic Innovation of Products, Processes, and Services , a five-day course taught by Eppinger and other MIT professors.

• Leadership by Design: Innovation Process and Culture , a two-day course taught by MIT Integrated Design and Management director Matthew Kressy.
• Managing Complex Technical Projects , a two-day course taught by Eppinger.
• Apply for M astering Design Thinking , a 3-month online certificate course taught by Eppinger and MIT Sloan senior lecturers Renée Richardson Gosline and David Robertson.

Steve Eppinger is a professor of management science and innovation at MIT Sloan. He holds the General Motors Leaders for Global Operations Chair and has a PhD from MIT in engineering. He is the faculty co-director of MIT's System Design and Management program and Integrated Design and Management program, both master’s degrees joint between the MIT Sloan and Engineering schools. His research focuses on product development and technical project management, and has been applied to improving complex engineering processes in many industries.

Read next: 10 agile ideas worth sharing

Related Articles

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Design Thinking (DT)

What is design thinking (dt).

Design thinking is a non-linear, iterative process that teams use to understand users, challenge assumptions, redefine problems and create innovative solutions to prototype and test. It is most useful to tackle ill-defined or unknown problems and involves five phases: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test.

• Transcript loading…

Why Is Design Thinking so Important?

“Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer's toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.”

— Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO

Design thinking fosters innovation . Companies must innovate to survive and remain competitive in a rapidly changing environment. In design thinking, cross-functional teams work together to understand user needs and create solutions that address those needs. Moreover, the design thinking process helps unearth creative solutions.

Design teams use design thinking to tackle ill-defined/unknown problems (aka wicked problems ). Alan Dix, Professor of Human-Computer Interaction, explains what wicked problems are in this video.

Wicked problems demand teams to think outside the box, take action immediately, and constantly iterate—all hallmarks of design thinking.

Don Norman, a pioneer of user experience design, explains why the designer’s way of thinking is so powerful when it comes to such complex problems.

Design thinking offers practical methods and tools that major companies like Google, Apple and Airbnb use to drive innovation. From architecture and engineering to technology and services, companies across industries have embraced the methodology to drive innovation and address complex problems. 

The End Goal of Design Thinking: Be Desirable, Feasible and Viable

The design thinking process aims to satisfy three criteria: desirability (what do people desire?), feasibility (is it technically possible to build the solution?) and viability (can the company profit from the solution?). Teams begin with desirability and then bring in the other two lenses.

© Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 4.0

Desirability: Meet People’s Needs

The design thinking process starts by looking at the needs, dreams and behaviors of people—the end users. The team listens with empathy to understand what people want, not what the organization thinks they want or need. The team then thinks about solutions to satisfy these needs from the end user’s point of view.

Feasibility: Be Technologically Possible

Once the team identifies one or more solutions, they determine whether the organization can implement them. In theory, any solution is feasible if the organization has infinite resources and time to develop the solution. However, given the team’s current (or future resources), the team evaluates if the solution is worth pursuing. The team may iterate on the solution to make it more feasible or plan to increase its resources (say, hire more people or acquire specialized machinery).

At the beginning of the design thinking process, teams should not get too caught up in the technical implementation. If teams begin with technical constraints, they might restrict innovation.

Viability: Generate Profits

A desirable and technically feasible product isn’t enough. The organization must be able to generate revenues and profits from the solution. The viability lens is essential not only for commercial organizations but also for non-profits. 

Traditionally, companies begin with feasibility or viability and then try to find a problem to fit the solution and push it to the market. Design thinking reverses this process and advocates that teams begin with desirability and bring in the other two lenses later.

The Five Stages of Design Thinking

Stanford University’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, commonly known as the d.school, is renowned for its pioneering approach to design thinking. Their design process has five phases: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. These stages are not always sequential. Teams often run them in parallel, out of order, and repeat them as needed.

Stage 1: Empathize —Research Users' Needs

The team aims to understand the problem, typically through user research. Empathy is crucial to design thinking because it allows designers to set aside your assumptions about the world and gain insight into users and their needs.

Stage 2: Define—State Users' Needs and Problems

Once the team accumulates the information, they analyze the observations and synthesize them to define the core problems. These definitions are called problem statements . The team may create personas to help keep efforts human-centered.

Stage 3: Ideate—Challenge Assumptions and Create Ideas

With the foundation ready, teams gear up to “think outside the box.” They brainstorm alternative ways to view the problem and identify innovative solutions to the problem statement.

Stage 4: Prototype—Start to Create Solutions

This is an experimental phase. The aim is to identify the best possible solution for each problem. The team produces inexpensive, scaled-down versions of the product (or specific features found within the product) to investigate the ideas. This may be as simple as paper prototypes .

Stage 5: Test—Try the Solutions Out

The team tests these prototypes with real users to evaluate if they solve the problem. The test might throw up new insights, based on which the team might refine the prototype or even go back to the Define stage to revisit the problem.

These stages are different modes that contribute to the entire design project rather than sequential steps. The goal is to gain a deep understanding of the users and their ideal solution/product.

Design Thinking Frameworks

There is no single definition or process for design thinking. The five-stage design thinking methodology described above is just one of several frameworks.

Hasso-Platner Institute Panorama

Ludwig Wilhelm Wall, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Innovation doesn’t follow a linear path or have a clear-cut formula. Global design leaders and consultants have interpreted the abstract design process in different ways and have proposed other frameworks of design thinking.

Head, Heart and Hand by the American Institution of Graphic Arts (AIGA)

The Head, Heart, and Hand approach by AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) is a holistic perspective on design. It integrates the intellectual, emotional, and practical aspects of the creative process.

More than a process, the Head, Heart and Hand framework outlines the different roles that designers must perform to create great results.

© American Institute of Graphic Arts, Fair Use

“ Head ” symbolizes the intellectual component. The team focuses on strategic thinking, problem-solving and the cognitive aspects of design. It involves research and analytical thinking to ensure that design decisions are purposeful.

“ Heart ” represents the emotional dimension. It emphasizes empathy, passion, and human-centeredness. This aspect is crucial in understanding the users’ needs, desires, and experiences to ensure that designs resonate on a deeper, more personal level.

“ Hand ” signifies the practical execution of ideas, the craftsmanship, and the skills necessary to turn concepts into tangible solutions. This includes the mastery of tools, techniques, and materials, as well as the ability to implement and execute design ideas effectively.

Inspire, Ideate, Implement by IDEO

IDEO is a leading design consultancy and has developed its own version of the design thinking framework.

IDEO’s design thinking process is a cyclical three-step process that involves Inspiration, Ideation and Implementation.

© IDEO, Public License

In the “ Inspire ” phase, the team focuses on understanding users’ needs, behaviors, and motivations. The team empathizes with people through observation and user interviews to gather deep insights.

In the “ Ideate ” phase, the team synthesizes the insights gained to brainstorm a wide array of creative solutions. This stage encourages divergent thinking, where teams focus on quantity and variety of ideas over immediate practicality. The goal is to explore as many possibilities as possible without constraints.

In the “ Implement ” phase, the team brings these ideas to life through prototypes. The team tests, iterates and refines these ideas based on user feedback. This stage is crucial for translating abstract concepts into tangible, viable products, services, or experiences.

The methodology emphasizes collaboration and a multidisciplinary approach throughout each phase to ensure solutions are innovative and deeply rooted in real human needs and contexts.

The Double Diamond by the Design Council

In the book Designing Social Systems in a Changing World , Béla Heinrich Bánáthy, Professor at San Jose State University and UC Berkeley, created a “divergence-convergence model” diagram. The British Design Council interpreted this diagram to create the Double Diamond design process model.

As the name suggests, the double diamond model consists of two diamonds—one for the problem space and the other for the solution space. The model uses diamonds to represent the alternating diverging and converging activities.

© Design Council, CC BY 4.0

In the diverging “ Discover ” phase, designers gather insights and empathize with users’ needs. The team then converges in the “ Define ” phase to identify the problem.

The second, solution-related diamond, begins with “ Develop ,” where the team brainstorms ideas. The final stage is “ Deliver ,” where the team tests the concepts and implements the most viable solution.

This model balances expansive thinking with focused execution to ensure that design solutions are both creative and practical. It underscores the importance of understanding the problem thoroughly and carefully crafting the solution, making it a staple in many design and innovation processes.

With the widespread adoption of the double diamond framework, Design Council’s simple visual evolved.

In this expanded and annotated version, the framework emphasizes four design principles:

Be people-centered.

Communicate (visually and inclusively).

Collaborate and co-create.

Iterate, iterate, iterate!

The updated version also highlights the importance of leadership (to create an environment that allows innovation) and engagement (to connect with different stakeholders and involve them in the design process).

Common Elements of Design Thinking Frameworks

On the surface, design thinking frameworks look very different—they use alternative names and have different numbers of steps. However, at a fundamental level, they share several common traits.

Start with empathy . Focus on the people to come up with solutions that work best for individuals, business, and society.

Reframe the problem or challenge at hand . Don’t rush into a solution. Explore the problem space and look at the issue through multiple perspectives to gain a more holistic, nuanced understanding.

Initially, employ a divergent style of thinking (analyze) . In the problem space, gather as many insights as possible. In the solution space, encourage team members to generate and explore as many solutions as possible in an open, judgment-free ideation space.

Later, employ a convergent style of thinking (synthesize) . In the problem space, synthesize all data points to define the problem. In the solution space, whittle down all the ideas—isolate, combine and refine potential solutions to create more mature ideas.

Create and test prototypes . Solutions that make it through the previous stages get tested further to remove potential issues.

Iterate . As the team progresses through the various stages, they revisit different stages and may redefine the challenge based on new insights.

Design thinking is a non-linear process. For example, teams may jump from the test stage to the define stage if the tests reveal insights that redefine the problem. Or, a prototype might spark a new idea, prompting the team to step back into the ideate stage. Tests may also create new ideas for projects or reveal insights about users.

Design Thinking Mindsets: More than a Process

A mindset is a characteristic mental attitude that determines how one interprets and responds to situations . Design thinking mindsets are how individuals think , feel and express themselves during design thinking activities. It includes people’s expectations and orientations during a design project.

Without the right mindset, it can be very challenging to change how we work and think.

The key mindsets that ensure a team can successfully implement design thinking are.

Be empathetic: Empathy is the ability to place yourself, your thinking and feelings in another person’s shoes. Design thinking begins from a deep understanding of the needs and motivations of people—the parents, neighbors, children, colleagues, and strangers who make up a community. 

Be collaborative: No one person is responsible for the outcome when you work in a team. Several great minds are always stronger than just one. Design thinking benefits from the views of multiple perspectives and lets others’ creativity bolster your own.

Be optimistic: Be confident about achieving favorable outcomes. Design thinking is the fundamental belief that we can all create change—no matter how big a problem, how little time, or how small a budget. Designing can be a powerful process no matter what constraints exist around you.

Embrace ambiguity: Get comfortable with ambiguous and complex situations. If you expect perfection, it is difficult to take risks, which limits your ability to create radical change. Design thinking is all about experimenting and learning by doing. It gives you the confidence to believe that new, better things are possible and that you can help make them a reality. 

Be curious: Be open to different ideas. Recognize that you are not the user.

Reframe: Challenge and reframe assumptions associated with a given situation or problem. Don’t take problems at face value. Humans are primed to look for patterns. The unfortunate side effect of these patterns is that we form (often false and sometimes dangerous) stereotypes and assumptions. Design thinking aims to help you break through any preconceived notions and biases and reframe challenges.

Embrace diversity: Work with and engage people with different cultural backgrounds, experiences, and ways of thinking and working. Everyone brings a unique perspective to the team. When you include diverse voices in a team, you learn from each other’s experiences, further helping you break through your assumptions.

Make tangible: When you make ideas tangible, it is faster and easier for everyone on the team to be on the same page. For example, sketching an idea or enacting a scenario is far more convenient and easy to interpret than an elaborate presentation or document.

Take action: Run experiments and learn from them.

Design Thinking vs Agile Methodology

Teams often use design thinking and agile methodologies in project management, product development, and software development. These methodologies have distinct approaches but share some common principles.

Similarities between Design Thinking and Agile

Iterative process.

Both methodologies emphasize iterative development. In design thinking, teams may jump from one phase to another, not necessarily in a set cyclical or linear order. For example, on testing a prototype, teams may discover something new about their users and realize that they must redefine the problem. Agile teams iterate through development sprints.

User-Centered

The agile and design thinking methodologies focus on the end user. All design thinking activities—from empathizing to prototyping and testing—keep the end users front and center. Agile teams continually integrate user feedback into development cycles.

Collaboration and Teamwork

Both methodologies rely heavily on collaboration among cross-functional teams and encourage diverse perspectives and expertise.

Flexibility and Adaptability

With its focus on user research, prototyping and testing, design thinking ensures teams remain in touch with users and get continuous feedback. Similarly, agile teams monitor user feedback and refine the product in a reasonably quick time.

In this video, Laura Klein, author of Build Better Products , describes a typical challenge designers face on agile teams. She encourages designers to get comfortable with the idea of a design not being perfect. Notice the many parallels between Laura’s advice for designers on agile teams and the mindsets of design thinking.

Differences between Design Thinking and Agile

While design thinking and agile teams share principles like iteration, user focus, and collaboration, they are neither interchangeable nor mutually exclusive. A team can apply both methodologies without any conflict.

From a user experience design perspective, design thinking applies to the more abstract elements of strategy and scope. At the same time, agile is more relevant to the more concrete elements of UX: structure, skeleton and surface. For quick reference, here’s an overview of the five elements of user experience.

Design thinking is more about exploring and defining the right problem and solution, whereas agile is about efficiently executing and delivering a product.

Here are the key differences between design thinking and agile.

Design Sprint: A Condensed Version of Design Thinking

A design sprint is a 5-day intensive workshop where cross-functional teams aim to develop innovative solutions.

The design sprint is a very structured version of design thinking that fits into the timeline of a sprint (a sprint is a short timeframe in which agile teams work to produce deliverables). Developed by Google Ventures, the design sprint seeks to fast-track innovation.

In this video, user researcher Ditte Hvas Mortensen explains the design sprint in detail.

Learn More about Design Thinking

Design consultancy IDEO’s designkit is an excellent repository of design thinking tools and case studies.

To keep up with recent developments in design thinking, read IDEO CEO Tim Brown’s blog .

Enroll in our course Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide —an excellent guide to get you started on your design thinking projects.

Questions related to Design Thinking

You don’t need any certification to practice design thinking. However, learning about the nuances of the methodology can help you:

Pick the appropriate methods and tailor the process to suit the unique needs of your project.

Avoid common pitfalls when you apply the methods.

Better lead a team and facilitate workshops.

Increase the chances of coming up with innovative solutions.

IxDF has a comprehensive course to help you gain the most from the methodology: Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide .

Anyone can apply design thinking to solve problems. Despite what the name suggests, non-designers can use the methodology in non-design-related scenarios. The methodology helps you think about problems from the end user’s perspective. Some areas where you can apply this process:

Develop new products with greater chances of success.

Address community-related issues (such as education, healthcare and environment) to improve society and living standards.

Innovate/enhance existing products to gain an advantage over the competition.

Achieve greater efficiencies in operations and reduce costs.

Use the Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide course to apply design thinking to your context today.

A framework is the basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text. There are several design thinking frameworks with slight differences. However, all the frameworks share some traits. Each framework: 

Begins with empathy.

Reframes the problem or challenge at hand.

Initially employs divergent styles of thinking to generate ideas.

Later, it employs convergent styles of thinking to narrow down the best ideas,

Creates and tests prototypes.

Iterates based on the tests.

Some of the design thinking frameworks are:

5-stage design process by d.school

7-step early traditional design process by Herbert Simon

The 5-Stage DeepDive™ by IDEO

The “Double Diamond” Design Process Model by the Design Council

Collective Action Toolkit (CAT) by Frog Design

The LUMA System of Innovation by LUMA Institute

For details about each of these frameworks, see 10 Insightful Design Thinking Frameworks: A Quick Overview .

IDEO’s 3-Stage Design Thinking Process consists of inspiration, ideation and implementation:

Inspire : The problem or opportunity inspires and motivates the search for a solution.

Ideate : A process of synthesis distills insights which can lead to solutions or opportunities for change.

Implement : The best ideas are turned into a concrete, fully conceived action plan.

IDEO is a leader in applying design thinking and has developed many frameworks. Find out more in 10 Insightful Design Thinking Frameworks: A Quick Overview .

Design Council's Double Diamond diagram depicts the divergent and convergent stages of the design process.

Béla H. Bánáthy, founder of the White Stag Leadership Development Program, created the “divergence-convergence” model in 1996. In the mid-2000s, the British Design Council made this famous as the Double Diamond model.

The Double Diamond diagram graphically represents a design thinking process. It highlights the divergent and convergent styles of thinking in the design process. It has four distinct phases:

Discover: Initial idea or inspiration based on user needs.

Define: Interpret user needs and align them with business objectives.

Develop: Develop, iterate and test design-led solutions.

Deliver: Finalize and launch the end product into the market.

Double Diamond is one of several design thinking frameworks. Find out more in 10 Insightful Design Thinking Frameworks: A Quick Overview .

There are several design thinking methods that you can choose from, depending on what stage of the process you’re in. Here are a few common design thinking methods:

User Interviews: to understand user needs, pain points, attitudes and behaviors.

5 Whys Method: to dig deeper into problems to diagnose the root cause.

User Observations: to understand how users behave in real life (as opposed to what they say they do).

Affinity Diagramming: to organize research findings.

Empathy Mapping: to empathize with users based on research insights.

Journey Mapping: to visualize a user’s experience as they solve a problem.

6 Thinking Hats: to encourage a group to think about a problem or solution from multiple perspectives.

Brainstorming: to generate ideas.

Prototyping: to make abstract ideas more tangible and test them.

Dot Voting: to select ideas.

Start applying these methods to your work today with the Design Thinking template bundle .

For most of the design thinking process, you will need basic office stationery:

Pen and paper

Sticky notes

Whiteboard and markers

Print-outs of templates and canvases as needed (such as empathy maps, journey maps, feedback capture grid etc.) You can also draw these out manually.

Prototyping materials such as UI stencils, string, clay, Lego bricks, sticky tapes, scissors and glue.

A space to work in.

You can conduct design thinking workshops remotely by:

Using collaborative software to simulate the whiteboard and sticky notes.

Using digital templates instead of printed canvases.

Download print-ready templates you can share with your team to practice design thinking today.

Design thinking is a problem-solving methodology that helps teams better identify, understand, and solve business and customer problems.

When businesses prioritize and empathize with customers, they can create solutions catering to their needs. Happier customers are more likely to be loyal and organically advocate for the product.

Design thinking helps businesses develop innovative solutions that give them a competitive advantage.

Gain a competitive advantage in your business with Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide .

The evolution of Design Thinking can be summarised in 8 key events from the 1960s to 2004.

© Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Herbert Simon’s 1969 book, "The Sciences of the Artificial," has one of the earliest references to design thinking. David Kelley, founder of the design consultancy IDEO, coined the term “design thinking” and helped make it popular.

For a more comprehensive discussion on the origins of design thinking, see The History of Design Thinking .

Some organizations that have employed design thinking successfully are:

Airbnb: Airbnb used design thinking to create a platform for people to rent out their homes to travelers. The company focused on the needs of both hosts and guests . The result was a user-friendly platform to help people find and book accommodations.

PillPack: PillPack is a prescription home-delivery system. The company focused on the needs of people who take multiple medications and created a system that organizes pills by date and time. Amazon bought PillPack in 2018 for $1 billion .

Google Creative Lab: Google Creative Lab collaborated with IDEO to discover how kids physically play and learn. The team used design thinking to create Project Bloks . The project helps children develop foundational problem-solving skills "through coding experiences that are playful, tactile and collaborative.”

See more examples of design thinking and learn practical methods in Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide .

Innovation essentially means a new idea. Design thinking is a problem-solving methodology that helps teams develop new ideas. In other words, design thinking can lead to innovation.

Human-Centered Design is a newer term for User-Centered Design

“Human-centred design is an approach to interactive systems development that aims to make systems usable and useful by focusing on the users, their needs and requirements, and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques. This approach enhances effectiveness and efficiency, improves human well-being, user satisfaction, accessibility and sustainability; and counteracts possible adverse effects of use on human health, safety and performance.”

— ISO 9241-210:2019(en), ISO (the International Organization for Standardization)  

User experience expert Don Norman describes human-centered design (HCD) as a more evolved form of user-centered design (UCD). The word "users" removes their importance and treats them more like objects than people. By replacing “user” with “human,” designers can empathize better with the people for whom they are designing. Don Norman takes HCD a step further and prefers the term People-Centered Design.

Design thinking has a broader scope and takes HCD beyond the design discipline to drive innovation.

People sometimes use design thinking and human-centered design to mean the same thing. However, they are not the same. HCD is a formal discipline with a specific process used only by designers and usability engineers to design products. Design thinking borrows the design methods and applies them to problems in general.

Design Sprint condenses design thinking into a 1-week structured workshop

Google Ventures condensed the design thinking framework into a time-constrained 5-day workshop format called the Design Sprint. The sprint follows one step per day of the week:

Monday: Unpack

Tuesday: Sketch

Wednesday: Decide

Thursday: Prototype

Friday: Test

Learn more about the design sprint in Make Your UX Design Process Agile Using Google’s Methodology .

Systems Thinking is a distinct discipline with a broader approach to problem-solving

“Systems thinking is a way of exploring and developing effective action by looking at connected wholes rather than separate parts.”

— Introduction to Systems thinking, Report of GSE and GORS seminar, Civil Service Live

Both HCD and Systems Thinking are formal disciplines. Designers and usability engineers primarily use HCD. Systems thinking has applications in various fields, such as medical, environmental, political, economic, human resources, and educational systems.

HCD has a much narrower focus and aims to create and improve products. Systems thinking looks at the larger picture and aims to change entire systems.

Don Norman encourages designers to incorporate systems thinking in their work. Instead of looking at people and problems in isolation, designers must look at them from a systems point of view.

In summary, UCD and HCD refer to the same field, with the latter being a preferred phrase.

Design thinking is a broader framework that borrows methods from human-centered design to approach problems beyond the design discipline. It encourages people with different backgrounds and expertise to work together and apply the designer’s way of thinking to generate innovative solutions to problems.

Systems thinking is another approach to problem-solving that looks at the big picture instead of specific problems in isolation.

The design sprint is Google Ventures’ version of the design thinking process, structured to fit the design process in 1 week.

There are multiple design thinking frameworks, each with a different number of steps and phase names. One of the most popular frameworks is the Stanford d.School 5-stage process.

Design thinking is an iterative and non-linear process. It contains five phases: 1. Empathize, 2. Define, 3. Ideate, 4. Prototype and 5. Test. It is important to note the five stages of design thinking are not always sequential. They do not have to follow a specific order, and they can often occur in parallel or be repeated iteratively. The stages should be understood as different modes which contribute to the entire design project, rather than sequential steps.

For more details, see The 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process .

IDEO is a leading design consultancy and has developed its own version of the design thinking framework and adds the dimension of implementation in the process.

IDEO’s framework uses slightly different terms than d.school’s design thinking process and adds an extra dimension of implementation. The steps in the DeepDive™ Methodology are: Understand, Observe, Visualize, Evaluate and Implement.

IDEO’s DeepDive™ Methodology includes the following steps:

Understand: Conduct research and identify what the client needs and the market landscape

Observe: Similar to the Empathize step, teams observe people in live scenarios and conduct user research to identify their needs and pain points.

Visualize: In this step, the team visualizes new concepts. Similar to the Ideate phase, teams focus on creative, out-of-the-box and novel ideas.

Evaluate: The team prototypes ideas and evaluates them. After refining the prototypes, the team picks the most suitable one.

Implement: The team then sets about to develop the new concept for commercial use.

IDEO’s DeepDive™ is one of several design thinking frameworks. Find out more in 10 Insightful Design Thinking Frameworks: A Quick Overview .

Literature on Design Thinking (DT)

Here’s the entire UX literature on Design Thinking (DT) by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Design Thinking (DT)

Take a deep dive into Design Thinking (DT) with our course Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide .

Some of the world’s leading brands, such as Apple, Google, Samsung, and General Electric, have rapidly adopted the design thinking approach, and design thinking is being taught at leading universities around the world, including Stanford d.school, Harvard, and MIT. What is design thinking, and why is it so popular and effective?

Design Thinking is not exclusive to designers —all great innovators in literature, art, music, science, engineering and business have practiced it. So, why call it Design Thinking? Well, that’s because design work processes help us systematically extract, teach, learn and apply human-centered techniques to solve problems in a creative and innovative way—in our designs, businesses, countries and lives. And that’s what makes it so special.

The overall goal of this design thinking course is to help you design better products, services, processes, strategies, spaces, architecture, and experiences. Design thinking helps you and your team develop practical and innovative solutions for your problems. It is a human-focused , prototype-driven , innovative design process . Through this course, you will develop a solid understanding of the fundamental phases and methods in design thinking, and you will learn how to implement your newfound knowledge in your professional work life. We will give you lots of examples; we will go into case studies, videos, and other useful material, all of which will help you dive further into design thinking. In fact, this course also includes exclusive video content that we've produced in partnership with design leaders like Alan Dix, William Hudson and Frank Spillers!

This course contains a series of practical exercises that build on one another to create a complete design thinking project. The exercises are optional, but you’ll get invaluable hands-on experience with the methods you encounter in this course if you complete them, because they will teach you to take your first steps as a design thinking practitioner. What’s equally important is you can use your work as a case study for your portfolio to showcase your abilities to future employers! A portfolio is essential if you want to step into or move ahead in a career in the world of human-centered design.

Design thinking methods and strategies belong at every level of the design process . However, design thinking is not an exclusive property of designers—all great innovators in literature, art, music, science, engineering, and business have practiced it. What’s special about design thinking is that designers and designers’ work processes can help us systematically extract, teach, learn, and apply these human-centered techniques in solving problems in a creative and innovative way—in our designs, in our businesses, in our countries, and in our lives.

That means that design thinking is not only for designers but also for creative employees , freelancers , and business leaders . It’s for anyone who seeks to infuse an approach to innovation that is powerful, effective and broadly accessible, one that can be integrated into every level of an organization, product, or service so as to drive new alternatives for businesses and society.

You earn a verifiable and industry-trusted Course Certificate once you complete the course. You can highlight them on your resume, CV, LinkedIn profile or your website .

All open-source articles on Design Thinking (DT)

What is design thinking and why is it so popular.

• 1.6k shares

Personas – A Simple Introduction

• 1.5k shares

Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results

• 1.3k shares

What is Ideation – and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions

• 1.2k shares

Stage 3 in the Design Thinking Process: Ideate

• 4 years ago

Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights

Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype

• 3 years ago

Stage 1 in the Design Thinking Process: Empathise with Your Users

Empathy Map – Why and How to Use It

What Is Empathy and Why Is It So Important in Design Thinking?

10 Insightful Design Thinking Frameworks: A Quick Overview

Define and Frame Your Design Challenge by Creating Your Point Of View and Ask “How Might We”

• 1.1k shares

Design Thinking: Get Started with Prototyping

5 Common Low-Fidelity Prototypes and Their Best Practices

Design Thinking: New Innovative Thinking for New Problems

Test Your Prototypes: How to Gather Feedback and Maximize Learning

The History of Design Thinking

The Ultimate Guide to Understanding UX Roles and Which One You Should Go For

Stage 5 in the Design Thinking Process: Test

What Are Wicked Problems and How Might We Solve Them?

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Design Thinking & Why Is It Important?

• 18 Jan 2022

In an age when innovation is key to business success and growth, you’ve likely come across the term “design thinking.” Perhaps you’ve heard it mentioned by a senior leader as something that needs to be utilized more, or maybe you’ve seen it on a prospective employee's resume.

While design thinking is an ideology based on designers’ workflows for mapping out stages of design, its purpose is to provide all professionals with a standardized innovation process to develop creative solutions to problems—design-related or not.

Why is design thinking needed? Innovation is defined as a product, process, service, or business model featuring two critical characteristics: novel and useful. Yet, there’s no use in creating something new and novel if people won’t use it. Design thinking offers innovation the upgrade it needs to inspire meaningful and impactful solutions.

But what is design thinking, and how does it benefit working professionals?

What Is Design Thinking?

Design thinking is a mindset and approach to problem-solving and innovation anchored around human-centered design . While it can be traced back centuries—and perhaps even longer—it gained traction in the modern business world after Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO, published an article about it in the Harvard Business Review .

Design thinking is different from other innovation and ideation processes in that it’s solution-based and user-centric rather than problem-based. This means it focuses on the solution to a problem instead of the problem itself.

For example, if a team is struggling with transitioning to remote work, the design thinking methodology encourages them to consider how to increase employee engagement rather than focus on the problem (decreasing productivity).

The essence of design thinking is human-centric and user-specific. It’s about the person behind the problem and solution, and requires asking questions such as “Who will be using this product?” and “How will this solution impact the user?”

The first, and arguably most important, step of design thinking is building empathy with users. By understanding the person affected by a problem, you can find a more impactful solution. On top of empathy, design thinking is centered on observing product interaction, drawing conclusions based on research, and ensuring the user remains the focus of the final implementation.

The Four Phases of Innovation

So, what does design thinking entail? There are many models of design thinking that range from three to seven steps.

In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase innovation framework. The phases venture from concrete to abstract thinking and back again as the process loops, reverses, and repeats. This is an important balance because abstract thinking increases the likelihood that an idea will be novel. It’s essential, however, to anchor abstract ideas in concrete thinking to ensure the solution is valid and useful.

Here are the four phases for effective innovation and, by extension, design thinking.

The first phase is about narrowing down the focus of the design thinking process. It involves identifying the problem statement to come up with the best outcome. This is done through observation and taking the time to determine the problem and the roadblocks that prevented a solution in the past.

Various tools and frameworks are available—and often needed—to make concrete observations about users and facts gathered through research. Regardless of which tools are implemented, the key is to observe without assumptions or biased expectations.

Once findings from your observations are collected, the next step is to shape insights by framing those observations. This is where you can venture into the abstract by reframing the problem in the form of a statement or question.

Once the problem statement or question has been solidified—not finalized—the next step is ideation. You can use a tool such as systematic inventive thinking (SIT) in this stage, which is useful for creating an innovative process that can be replicated in the future.

The goal is to ultimately overcome cognitive fixedness and devise new and innovative ideas that solve the problems you identified. Continue to actively avoid assumptions and keep the user at the forefront of your mind during ideation sessions.

The third phase involves developing concepts by critiquing a range of possible solutions. This includes multiple rounds of prototyping, testing, and experimenting to answer critical questions about a concept’s viability.

Remember: This step isn’t about perfection, but rather, experimenting with different ideas and seeing which parts work and which don’t.

4. Implement

The fourth and final phase, implementation, is when the entire process comes together. As an extension of the develop phase, implementation starts with testing, reflecting on results, reiterating, and testing again. This may require going back to a prior phase to iterate and refine until you find a successful solution. Such an approach is recommended because design thinking is often a nonlinear, iterative process.

In this phase, don’t forget to share results with stakeholders and reflect on the innovation management strategies implemented during the design thinking process. Learning from experience is an innovation process and design thinking project all its own.

Check out the video about the design thinking process below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

Why Design Thinking Skills Matter

The main value of design thinking is that it offers a defined process for innovation. While trial and error is a good way to test and experiment what works and what doesn’t, it’s often time-consuming, expensive, and ultimately ineffective. On the other hand, following the concrete steps of design thinking is an efficient way to develop new, innovative solutions.

On top of a clear, defined process that enables strategic innovation, design thinking can have immensely positive outcomes for your career—in terms of both advancement and salary.

As of December 2021, the most common occupations requiring design thinking skills were:

• Marketing managers
• Industrial engineers
• Graphic designers
• Software developers
• General and operations managers
• Management analysts
• Personal service managers
• Architectural and engineering managers
• Computer and information systems managers

In addition, jobs that require design thinking statistically have higher salaries. Take a marketing manager position, for example. The median annual salary is $107,900. Marketing manager job postings that require design thinking skills, however, have a median annual salary of $133,900—a 24 percent increase.

Overall, businesses are looking for talent with design thinking skills. As of November 2021, there were 29,648 job postings in the United States advertising design thinking as a necessary skill—a 153 percent increase from November 2020, and a 637 percent increase from November 2017.

As businesses continue to recognize the need for design thinking and innovation, they’ll likely create more demand for employees with those skills.

Learning Design Thinking

Design thinking is an extension of innovation that allows you to design solutions for end users with a single problem statement in mind. It not only imparts valuable skills but can help advance your career.

It’s also a collaborative endeavor that can only be mastered through practice with peers. As Datar says in the introduction to Design Thinking and Innovation : “Just as with learning how to swim, the best way to practice is to jump in and try.”

If you want to learn design thinking, take an active role in your education. Start polls, problem-solving exercises, and debates with peers to get a taste of the process. It’s also important to seek out diverse viewpoints to prepare yourself for the business world.

In addition, if you’re considering adding design thinking to your skill set, think about your goals and why you want to learn about it. What else might you need to be successful?

You might consider developing your communication, innovation, leadership, research, and management skills, as those are often listed alongside design thinking in job postings and professional profiles.

You may also notice skills like agile methodology, user experience, and prototyping in job postings, along with non-design skills, such as product management, strategic planning, and new product development.

Is Design Thinking Right for You?

There are many ways to approach problem-solving and innovation. Design thinking is just one of them. While it’s beneficial to learn how others have approached problems and evaluate if you have the same tools at your disposal, it can be more important to chart your own course to deliver what users and customers truly need.

You can also pursue an online course or workshop that dives deeper into design thinking methodology. This can be a practical path if you want to improve your design thinking skills or require a more collaborative environment.

Are you ready to develop your design thinking skills? Explore our online course Design Thinking and Innovation to discover how to leverage fundamental design thinking principles and innovative problem-solving tools to address business challenges.

About the Author

• Get in touch
• Enterprise & IT
• Banking & Financial Services
• News media & Entertainment
• Healthcare & Lifesciences
• Networks and Smart Devices
• Education & EdTech
• Service Design
• UI UX Design
• Data Visualization & Design
• User & Design Research
• In the News
• Our Network
• Voice Experiences
• Golden grid
• Critical Thinking
• Enterprise UX
• 20 Product performance metrics
• Types of Dashboards
• Interconnectivity and iOT
• Healthcare and Lifesciences
• Airtel XStream
• Case studies

Data Design

• UCD vs. Design Thinking

Reasoning: The synapse between critical thinking and design thinking

Thinking critically and the approach of reasoning itself, can become a precursor to an innovative solution for the problem proposed at hand. Designers have long employed different methods of reasoning to create the most relevant and innovative solution for their customers.

If you were to create a loan application, which made loaning process simple and convenient for rural users, what kind of a reasoning approach would you follow? 

As a designer thinking of creating a solution for such a problem, you might think in 3 different ways. Consider some scenarios:

You find through census data that 90% of the people in the village cannot read or write but can communicate verbally. You deduce on the basis of this fact that any user can easily engage with a voice-based application, based on the local language and create one.

You start by an observation gathered from all the people you met that they were able to read and understand numbers. So you induce that an application interface which has numerics written could be understood directly and integrate it in the solution.

During your survey, you observe mobile users (especially women), to be using their phones during midafternoon hours of 3 – 4 pm. You start to think that maybe women are free at that time in the village and think of creating an application which runs a 15 min program. The app sends notification during this one hour and educates the users of basic terminology of the loan process through an interactive story.

Which of these ways of thinking would you consider most valid, likely to work or innovative?

The tale of the 3 styles of reasoning.

Although formal logic is not introduced to a majority of people systematically, but through inference, two forms of dominant logic, grounded in the scientific tradition, have been exposed to most of us.

Deductive reasoning

All men are mortal. Since Socrates is a man. He is also a mortal. The most classical example of this is the 2000-year-old question of whether the ancient Greekgreek Philosopher Socrates was mortal or not. As indicated by scenario 1,  deductive reasoning begins with the assertion of a general rule and ends up in a guaranteed specific conclusion. It stands on a foundation that the conclusion holds true if the premise is true.

Inductive reasoning

If you study and find out patterns of increased mobile sales among younger population than older, you can induct that teenagers are a better market to target by mobile phone makers than the older generations. Inductive reasoning starts with observations that are specific and ends up with a conclusion that is likely but not certain, as explored in scenario 2. Statistical advances have empowered us to reason inductively with the ease of sharing the likelihood of occurrence of a future phenomenon, by studying patterns and using regression to indicate probability. 

Abductive reasoning

The doctor hears her patient’s symptoms, including the regular shortness of breath on cold days and when exercising and abduces that the best explanation of these symptoms is that her patient is an asthma sufferer. Scenario 3 points abductive reasoning to be the one which begins with an incomplete set of observations and ends up with a most likely explanation, given the circumstances. Two different reasoners can abduct different answers, as per their experience, leading to the uniqueness of this method. 

In the 19th century, there was an emergence of a set of philosophers who called themselves as pragmatists, believing that the acquisition of knowledge and understanding did not entail only in progressing towards an absolute truth, but needed active engagement and interaction with one’s context and experiences. These together, John Dewey, William James and Charles Sanders Peirce, laid the cornerstone of a form of reasoning, which came to be known as abductive reasoning from the 19th century.

Is design thinking abductive.

According to Tim Brown of IDEO design thinking is “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.”

Design thinking as a process,  however, takes you through different stages of observation/interaction, empathy, problem formulation, solution deduction, testing, alteration, and reiteration. Each of these steps is intentioned to helps one to think critically and allowing one to do things differently, while remaining focused on the solution to be created for a context or a client. In this way, Design thinking has always been considered analogous to innovative problem-solving.

How design thinking and abduction are considered to be interrelated is by the fact that the abduction alone(among all other reasoning approaches), is able to introduce new ideas to solve problems and lead one to new explanations of life and reality. It is, as Peirce notes,  “the only logical operation which introduces any new idea.”  

New ideas arise when a thinker observes data (or even a single data point) that does not fit with the existing model or models. Hence you can deduct or induct after you have made the speculative leap but unless you make that speculative leap to a new design organization with emergent properties, then there is nothing new that has been designed.

Reason your way towards winning design solutions

1. abduct to innovate.

No good idea was ever proven ahead of time with data. While envisioning to create the next innovative solution it is of value to challenge accepted explanations,  actively look for new data points and infer possible new worlds. Embracing abduction as the coequal of deduction and induction is in the interest of every person who wants to be a design thinker and every company which wants to prosper from design thinking.

2. Do not founder with technological feasibility

Design must be matched to what is technologically feasible, designing products that do not yet have supporting technology can be a difficult proposition. Software designers, two decades earlier inferred from the growth of the Internet, that consumers would want to do all their shopping online, from pet supplies to games to groceries. Startups which tried to work this business model at a time when online security and back-end infrastructure had not yet caught up to their ideas, doomed themselves to failure.

3. Keep the business possibility in mind

Designing an innovative product or service, needs to make business sense. Even if a solution is backed by technological efficacy, if it does not solve a new and urgent user and business problem it might as well go back into the shelves. At the end of the day design is incumbent to create innovative solutions to solve real problems of the end users, intentioned to ease their lives.

4. Strive towards achieving a balance

There are chances we over-complicate things if we indulge in critical thinking when we have clear conclusions or clear observations – one where deductive and inductive reasoning can be applied. However striving for achieving a balance in reasoning and preventing an environment hostile to abductive reasoning can lead us to create both relevant, feasible and innovative solutions.

The pragmatic thinkers argued that no new idea could be proved deductively or inductively using past data, pointing to the relevance of abduction among the different logical models of thinking. In a world which is driven by data and is also valuing creativity and critical thinking as an essential 21st century skill, it is pertinent to check our reasoning habits now and then, and eliminate being invalid and redundant.

Hari nallan.

Founder and CEO of Think Design, a Design leader, Speaker and Educator. With a master's from NID and in the capacity of a founder, Hari has influenced, led and delivered several experience driven transformations across industries. As the CEO of Think Design, Hari is the architect of Think Design's approach and design centered practices and the company's strategic initiatives.

Mohita Jaiswal

Research, Strategy and Content consultant. With a master's from IIT Delhi, Mohita has diverse experience across domains of technical research, big data, leadership development and arts in education. Having a keen interest in the science of human behavior, she looks at enabling holistic learning experiences, working at the intersection of technology, design, and human psychology.

Was this Page helpful?

The critical advantages of a mobile-first strategy, a developer’s guide to voice user interface design, evolution of website design: html to immersive experiences, ui ux design, user & design research, service design.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue we'll assume that you accept this. Learn more

Recent Tweets

Sign up for our newsletter.

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay updated with the latest insights in UX, CX, Data and Research.

Get in Touch

Thank you for subscribing.

You will be receive all future issues of our newsletter.

Thank you for Downloading.

One moment….

While the report downloads, could you tell us…

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Why Design Thinking Works

• Jeanne Liedtka

While we know a lot about practices that stimulate new ideas, innovation teams often struggle to apply them. Why? Because people’s biases and entrenched behaviors get in the way. In this article a Darden professor explains how design thinking helps people overcome this problem and unleash their creativity.

Though ostensibly geared to understanding and molding the experiences of customers, design thinking also profoundly reshapes the experiences of the innovators themselves. For example, immersive customer research helps them set aside their own views and recognize needs customers haven’t expressed. Carefully planned dialogues help teams build on their diverse ideas, not just negotiate compromises when differences arise. And experiments with new solutions reduce all stakeholders’ fear of change.

At every phase—customer discovery, idea generation, and testing—a clear structure makes people more comfortable trying new things, and processes increase collaboration. Because it combines practical tools and human insight, design thinking is a social technology —one that the author predicts will have an impact as large as an earlier social technology: total quality management.

It addresses the biases and behaviors that hamper innovation.

Idea in Brief

The problem.

While we know a lot about what practices stimulate new ideas and creative solutions, most innovation teams struggle to realize their benefits.

People’s intrinsic biases and behavioral habits inhibit the exercise of the imagination and protect unspoken assumptions about what will or will not work.

The Solution

Design thinking provides a structured process that helps innovators break free of counterproductive tendencies that thwart innovation. Like TQM, it is a social technology that blends practical tools with insights into human nature.

Occasionally, a new way of organizing work leads to extraordinary improvements. Total quality management did that in manufacturing in the 1980s by combining a set of tools—kanban cards, quality circles, and so on—with the insight that people on the shop floor could do much higher level work than they usually were asked to. That blend of tools and insight, applied to a work process, can be thought of as a social technology.

• JL Jeanne Liedtka is a professor of business administration at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business.

Partner Center

• Skip to main content
• Skip to quick search
• Skip to global navigation

• Submit a paper
• What We Publish
• Past Issues
• Our review process
• Editorial policies & ethical guidelines

Toward a Critical Design Thinking: Propositions to Rewrite the Design Thinking Process

Permissions : This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Please contact [email protected] to use this work in a way not covered by the license.

For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy .

Design thinking is often praised as a universal tool that can be utilized to address and resolve almost any design problem, even those that are the most complex. Judging by the recent criticism from several key design professionals, design thinking seems ill-suited to confront complex, or so-called ‘wicked’ problems or to facilitate deep thinking. Design thinking falls short of tackling these problems because it only provides ways to empathize with customers, rendering them passive bystanders in the innovation process. In order to address these shortcomings inherent in design thinking, the following discourse introduces deeper critical thinking skills into design thinking, allowing designers in combination with everyday experts to collectively form a political will and act on it. Borrowing from the critical design debate, the new critical design thinking processes developed in response to the growing need for designers to deploy deeper analytical skills to guide their decision-making provides a framework to guide a collective design practice capable of dealing with the complex, multi-faceted nature of current political, economic and social affairs. Rather than sustaining a focus on the development of products and product systems and the means to market them at large scale, designers must now work to shift their practice to create critical meta design tools aimed at solving complex design problems, such as circular design [a] or social design [b] challenges.

Introduction

Lately, the methods that guide design thinking processes have been more heavily scrutinized by design practitioners, educators and researchers who have come to understand that these methods often tend to be largely devoid of critical and deep thinking. [c] This is not new information for those who have followed recent academic discourse, since so many design scholars tend to think of design thinking as a somewhat hostile acquisition in terms of how and why it has been utilized in design consultancies, corporate innovation labs, consulting firms and management seminars. [d] Design thinking in the view of many design scholars is not just a one-size-fits-all design tool, but a term that comprises a variety of diverse design practices. Design scholar Richard Buchanan stressed that the more design opens up to social, ecological and political questions, the broader the practice and study of and research that informs design become. [1] Following Buchanan’s notion, it does not make sense to reduce the term design thinking to a set of specific user-centered methods outlined (for instance) in playbooks like “This is Service Design Thinking” [2] or “The Design Thinking Playbook” . [3] Design scholars like Nigel Cross, Wolfgang Jonas, and Charles Burnett, to name but a few, were some of the first to speak against the application of so normative a meaning being attached to the term design thinking. [4] Jonas, although acknowledging that decision-making processes guided by design thinking would allow the number of potential challenges that design could address to rise by a considerable amount, criticized the fact that design thinking did not effectively facilitate reflection on the specific nature of a given problem, and did not effectively foster a well-contextualized design process. [5]

As of this writing in the early summer of 2019, many design scholars continue to criticize and rethink the purpose of design thinking. For example, Paul A. Rodgers, Giovanni Innella, and Craig Bremner believe that design thinking needs to become more critical to allow it to provide designers and their collaborators with a viable means for dealing with the social, technological, economic and political paradoxes of a complex world, as well as its own paradoxical existence. [6] Lucy Kimbell criticizes current applications of design thinking for its lack of criticality and its sole focus on the designer as the dominant entity in the design process. [7] Most design scholars engage in near-constant critical academic discourse, and, in order to ensure that this discourse is imbued with a high level of critical rigor, it is only natural for them to place an approach to guiding design decision-making like design thinking under scrutiny. Despite this, only a few provide any type of tangible guidance about how to operationalize their vision of design thinking infused with broadly informed, critical interrogation.

The inadequacies of the methods to guide decision-making described by design thinking have led a number of professionals in the field (designers, design managers, and creative leaders) to question design thinking as a viable approach and turn away from it. The praise design thinking has received is based on it being utilized to provide a reliable framework for rapidly creating user-centered design ideas and solutions, but this does not seem to be working any longer. More and more design professionals are rejecting design thinking because so many of the methods that guide it do not accommodate critical thinking. In a recent conference presentation by Pentagram partner Natasha Jen, she stressed that “design criticism is completely missing from the design thinking steps,” and going on to further articulate that critical thinking takes a back seat to the methods that constitute design thinking. Moreover, Jen rejects claims that design thinking “can be applied by anyone to any problem” just because it relies on linearly applied methods. From her point of view, this seems highly problematic, and makes design thinking feel like “corporate jargon” rather than a practice that can be planned and operated in ways that meet the needs of designers. [8] Other design professionals deem design thinking to be a set of tools that fail to foster reflection, arguing that the rigid structure of design thinking eliminates it. Justin Maguire, Senior Vice President of Product Design and User Experience at Salesforce, expressed his rejection of the method when he explained that the failure of design thinking was rooted in the “idea that a process can stand in for really smart people.” [9] Similar to the critique expressed by Natasha Jen, Maguire couched his criticisms of design thinking in a common notion among professionals who utilize design thinking, namely that applying design thinking methods can effectively substitute for a broadly informed, deeply plumbed, critical reflection of the complexity inherent in a given design challenge. The criticisms offered by Jen and Maguire reveal one of the most common misconceptions about design thinking—that it is possible to contextualize, plan to and then resolve complex social, technological, economic and public policy problems by following a set of preconceived, methodologically finite instructions.

As many design practitioners, researchers and educators have come to know them, “design methods” were created to help designers at least begin to consider how their decision-making processes could be informed by building empathy for those who would be affected by what they designed. They were also supposed to help ensure that designers learned to work iteratively, to endeavor to generate and assess, and, as necessary, combine many ideas—as opposed to only a few—for making, doing and changing protocols and procedures. They informed processes that allowed designers to test ideas—often as prototypes—based on a broadly informed and deeply probative blending of heuristically informed processes and intuition. The Design Methods Movement was originally formulated by a small group of British design professionals and educators in their practices and classrooms in the 1960s and 1970s, and by a small group of design educators who incorporated these approaches into the courses they taught at the Ulm School of Design as early as the late 1950s. [e] These were then championed at a series of design conferences held in the U.K. [10] The core ideas that guided The Design Methods Movement considered them to be a desirable and effective support system for guiding the decision-making of designers. Instead of a messy design process that limited the results of good design to what could be achieved merely through trial and error, employing the newly articulated “design methods” could intellectually support and refine this process. Whereas The Design Methods Movement understood and sought to employ methodologies that were much more scientifically guided and comprehensively informed as a means to fundamentally inform the design process than had been practiced or taught previously, much of what now constitutes contemporary design methods described under the auspice of design thinking employs little of this. The methods that now tend to guide design decision-making according to design thinking tend to mimic ethnographic or other anthropological research methods that have been watered down to fit into corporate time constraints, or many designers’ abilities to understand them.

An emblematic example of this limited understanding of research methods reduced down to “design thinking” can be found in the popular design publication “Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions” by Bruce Hanington and Martin Bella. [11] Hanington’s and Bella’s cursory, one- to two-page descriptions of 100 design methods are too briefly described to allow many designers to apply them as viable approaches to address complex problems. The authors consider their publication a means to offer designers, especially those new to the processes that guide design decision-making, a valid platform to guide research led by design. Presenting complex methodological approaches in the kinds of brief descriptions on offer here fails to provide enough comprehensive understandings of how and why these approaches should be considered or operationalized. The chapter they include about design ethnography is telling in this regard. The authors acknowledge that design ethnography cannot be compared to traditional ethnography as a method for increasing socio-cultural understanding, since design ethnography is much more limited in terms of the resources and time that most designers have available within a given project’s schedule to engage in it. But Hanington and Bella suggest that designers can “borrow a lesson” from ethnography to build better understandings about various biases that might affect their users or audiences. Design researchers should bear in mind that the results of design ethnography “depend on specific methods used,” and aim at providing designers with “a comprehensive view of their potential users.” [12] Designers who are eager to learn about how and why ethnographic research methods could yield them with empathetically informed understandings of those for whom they are designing apparently do not get much more than this watery result from this cursory description of a methodology that anthropologists spend years learning.

Overall, the lure of design thinking is embedded in promises of allowing designers to engage in a faster, more efficient, and ultimately more successful design process. Professional design consultancies and design educators adopted design thinking because it promised help for designers in three key challenge areas. First, it afforded them a means to produce effective design outcomes informed by less and less easily defined user wants and needs. Second, it allowed them a seemingly efficient way to create work outcomes that might align with or satisfy more convoluted corporate marketing and production strategies. Third, it championed the promise that an ever-broader range of design problems could be successfully addressed against increasingly crushing timelines. In other words, design thinking’s widespread popularity is derived from the promise that it can be deployed as a kind of universal problem solver that empowered overburdened designers to be able to deal with complex problems that may have unforeseen and undesired outcomes, or that cannot be solved at all—the so called “wicked problems.” [f]

The accusations of Justin Maguire and Natasha Jen, combined with other, more academically rooted criticism, reveal that design thinking continues to fail at the task of tackling the kinds of wicked social, technological, economic and political problems that now confront so many of the world’s populations. Unfortunately, design thinking has also succeeded in keeping a good deal of critical assessment and complex problem-framing out of many design decision-making processes. The watered down, contemporary evolution of design thinking has failed to deliver a deeper understanding of how to effectively address wicked problems and the multitude of often intertwined contextual factors—(again) social, technological, economic and political—that constitute them that it purported to originally address. This is especially problematic for individual designers, design consultancies, design researchers and design educators because approaches to design decision-making guided by design thinking continue to leave designers overwhelmed by the complexity and unintelligibility of most of the wicked problems they and their collaborators and clients must now face. Design thinking also now contributes to an increasing void in the critical thinking methods that inform design education at a time when emerging designers can ill afford to be ill-equipped to understand and address these types of complex problems.

These inadequacies call for a more experiential revision of design thinking and the need for the approaches and methods that inform it to become more critically rigorous, broadly informed and capable of facilitating deep inquiry. In light of this, two main research questions guide this paper:

• How can critically rigorous, broadly informed, complex thinking be effectively introduced and implemented within the design thinking process in ways that benefit both design education and practice?
• How can professional designers and design educators then make the best use of this newly configured theoretical approach to engaging in design thinking and effectively incorporate it into their professional practices and curricula?

To address the first question, at least some elements of design practices that incorporate ‘critical design’ must be woven into design thinking. The first step involves analyzing ‘critical design,’ as it described below, and how its theoretical frameworks intersect with design thinking. To address the second question, the results of a workshop [g] conducted with graduate design students will be presented and discussed. This paper finishes with a preliminary and speculative inventory of how to facilitate critical design thinking.

Operationalizing Critical Design as a Cornerstone for Critical Design Thinking

Critical design is admittedly difficult to define and is probably found in some form almost everywhere in the design world. Still, it must be defined to effectively frame the essential argument of this paper. To this end, Matt Malpass, a well-published [13] [14] [15] expert on the topic and researcher at the University of The Arts in London provides a helpful definition:

Critical design practice is used as a medium to engage user audiences and provoke debate. It does this by encouraging its audiences to think critically about themes engendered in the design work. Operating this way, critical design can be described as an affective, rather than an explanatory, practice in so much as it opens lines of inquiry as opposed to providing answers or solutions to questions or design problems. [16]

Debate is a central tenet of critical design. It revolves around and bolsters the idea that without provocation, there is no broadly informed, deeply plumbed, interrogative dialogue about given decision-making processes, and hence no critical thinking. While this concept establishes a baseline for initiating critical design thinking, it does not also provide the means to facilitate it. To this end, Malpass provides an overly simple answer: by appealing to a given audience’s particular senses and emotions, critical design is said to open up specific “lines of inquiry,” which eventually lead to a more critically and broadly informed understanding of a given problem. By stating that critical design “is not aimed at simplification, but diversification of the ways in which we might understand design problems and ideas,” [18] Malpass underlines the role feelings play in the critical comprehension of the scope of a problem, but also creates a theoretical blank space. If critical design is affective—i.e. it appeals to emotions and not to rationales—how can its criticality work without rational critical analysis? How can critical design transform affect, i.e. the direct, preconscious appeal to a person’s feelings into a distanced and analytical assessment of a given nuisance or problem? In other words, if critical thinking is supposed to be more than an accidental emotional connection based on people’s tastes, fixed opinions or moral convictions, how can critical design achieve this? In Malpass’ concept of critical design, the interdependency of deep reflection and critical thinking remains an aporia. Malpass asserts that the designed object itself contains “epistemic qualities” [18] which in a way “creates a descriptive comprehension of complex issues.” [19] What started as an affective, rather than an explanatory practice, Malpass’ concept eventually turns out to be descriptive in nature. Critical thinking in this notion is predominantly based on the alleged criticality of the object itself. In Malpass’ definition of critical design, critical thinking is the result of broadly informed, intensely reflective inquiry, but the nature and content of these questions remain rather subsidiary in this formal and methodical understanding of criticism. It is a highly debatable assertion that a design object is, in and of itself, provocative in nature and can cause an emotional appeal that then leads to a set of questions that miraculously creates, much less sustains, an enlightened debate. It is even more debatable that this debate takes place among a fragmented audience, and this exchange eventually provokes and facilitates a deep-thinking process and a comprehensive awareness of the complex issues and problems that contextualize the perception and the utility of whatever is being critically discussed. Doubts in this inevitable epistemic chain reaction are backed by the observations that there “is no reliable data that would allow us to make claims about the efficiency of critical design in terms of its potential of influencing a broader audience.” [20]

Malpass unintentionally reveals his theoretical blind spot when he describes design’s ability to spur complex debates when analyzing examples of critical design such as the renowned Hertzian Tales [21] series explored in the book of the same title by the design duo Anthony Dunne und Fiona Raby. Malpass explains that as a work presented in Hertzian Tales, such as the Faraday Chair, “draws attention” to the topic of radiation and electromagnetic fields, it “asks questions” about this topic that “encourages reflection” and ultimately, “exposes part of our material and technological culture that normally goes without consideration.” [22] Interestingly, Malpass never passes the point of praising the work as a means to raise an abstract sense of awareness in his analysis. He simply assumes that a deeper reflection is caused by the questions posed by the design object.

Obscurity or rarity may warrant inquiry, but do not necessarily warrant criticism. [h] Consequently, Malpass praises the work for its “poetic” [24] nature, rather than pointing out a descriptive criticism that the work presents. According to Malpass’ analysis, the ‘epistemic object’ itself provides little deeper understanding of radiation and electromagnetic fields and the political, economic and social contradictions within which they are sustained, but rather a general sense of importance and urgency for its audience.

This is not to suggest that critical design practices could not stimulate debates that might lead to a broader critical knowledge which can then be incorporated into a revised design thinking process. However, to gain critical insights and a deep understanding of complex problems, the focus of this revised design thinking process must surround the debate as it evolves. In Malpass’ conception, critical design is limited due to its concentration on the object rather than the process of inquiry. Visual communication design tends to be most effective when viewed as a means to communicate concepts and ideas which can facilitate debates. ‘Debate’ is defined here as a joint discussion that is controversial and open enough to incorporate conflicting views on a topic. Secondly, it is posited that debate is built on arguments that are not just mere utterances of personal opinions, but reasoned arguments of some sort. Finally, it is posited that debate is centered around the idea of resolving conflicting arguments by weighing them and transforming them into a common understanding. This seems easier on paper than in reality, but a mutual understanding is central to the idea of critical thinking. This is especially relevant for further political actions, such as formulating a collective will and acting on it. As Cameron Tonkinwise, Professor at the University of New South Wales Art and Design in Sydney, Australia, puts it, designers are obliged to “orchestrat[e] the debates through which groups of people come to decide to work together on realizing a particular future.” [25] Creating these debates serves as a cornerstone for critical design thinking. The problems with contemporary design thinking methods are centered around the conviction that meaningful communication design, especially when dealing with the scopes inherent in wicked and complex problems, can only be achieved through joint examination of issues in an open, deep-thinking environment. This is why it is so important to incorporate critical, design-induced debates into design thinking, and to do early in the evolution of a given design process.

Early on in the ideation process, designers as researchers only have a vague and rather general understanding of a given problem—let alone of wicked problems that exceed the usual boundaries of consumers’ interests and preferences. In design thinking, the needs and aspirations of the user serve as the benchmark for innovation and change. But this focus on user needs and aspirations tends to leave out the possibility of using design decision-making to address globally interrelated economic, political, and social problems. Over-focusing on critically considering only the user’s perspective causes a broader understanding of a problem space to get out of sight.

An example of this is the German start-up ‘Share.’ Share provides individual consumers with a good-conscience option by facilitating the purchase of a limited array of consumer goods. As a Share customer, you can buy liquid soap, snack bars or bottles of water and Share takes half of the money earned and spends it on helping to provide aid to developing communities in Africa and southern Asia. Despite the fact that help is given to some of the poorest members of various communities, the practical impact of the funding Share provides to these people is limited by a given consumer’s/user’s interest in helping, which is deeply rooted in an interest to “do the right thing.” From an individual consumer’s/user’s perspective, poverty in Africa and southern Asia is a problem that can be addressed simply by shopping for the right products like the ones provided by Share . This perspective eventually reduces the perception of how poverty affects a large portion of the world’s population to a simple issue that can seemingly be addressed by allowing an organization like Share to provide generous but-relatively-small-scale aid. An alternative to this type of limited, user-centric thinking—what I will deem “the deep-thinking process”—is needed to allow designers to address complex social, economic, public policy and environmental problems in a much broader way. The deep-thinking process connects both the human-centered research aspect of problem identification and framing and the broader understanding necessary to comprehend and address the economic and political dependencies which directly and indirectly affect so many of our discontents. Hence, with regard to the most complex problems that confront contemporary societies, such as achieving and sustaining sustainability, facilitating circular economies, or designing and effectively implementing positive social, economic, and political transformations, deep-thinking guided by broadly informed critical debate is a preferred starting point for design thinking processes.

Although, the status and significance of critical debates about how to engage in the deep-thinking processes necessary to guide critical design thinking may be shared among design educators, the implementation and design of these processes raises key research questions, such as:

• How should a controversial design undertaking that provokes constructive arguments among designers and key stakeholders work?
• How should these arguments be transformed into critically rigorous, scaffolded debate?
• How should this debate be incorporated into broadly informed, deeply probative research processes?
• What should constitute the eventual goal(s) of these types of critical design thinking processes?

For design educators and design practitioners to effectively engage in critical design thinking, it is imperative to answer these questions and then use the knowledge and understandings gained from them to transform them into coherent and applicable decision-making processes that guide design.

Some Theoretical Foundations that Inform Critical Design Thinking

Few texts offer a foundation for addressing, much less guiding, how critical design thinking should be facilitated. Among these texts, the first that will be analyzed here was authored by Liene Jakobsone. It is used to provide an example of an overly general and biased approach, one that suggests merging critical design and design thinking. Jakobsone discusses implementing “the principles of speculative design thinking,” [26] but unfortunately fails to provide a detailed report about what these principles are comprised of or how to apply them to design processes. She concludes by calling for designers to “implement design as a tool to help society escape repressive conditioning.” [27] In Jakobsone’s vision, the already fully politicized and anti-ideological designer uses their tools on a schematic and homogenous society to remove various kinds of repression. This simplistic and general notion of critical design practice leaves central parts of the research questions unaddressed, and, ultimately, unanswered, and therefore does not contribute much understanding or knowledge to help designers and their collaborators effectively engage in critical design thinking.

In contrast, a hypothesis offered by Deger Ozkaramanli and Pieter Desmet is more helpful in terms of how it can help designers and their collaborators address this issue. [28] The authors present a set of guidelines for designing in ways that initiate and sustain provocation and debate. They suggest that designers should attempt to design products and experiences that trigger what they have deemed “personal dilemmas” [29] among project stakeholders and users, and that these should “expose assumptions and stimulate discussion” [30] as a means to encourage deeper levels of self-reflection and awareness about issues of personal (mis-)behavior. Although Ozkaramanli and Desmet rather simplistically assume that, by default, abstract awareness leads to a deeper understanding of complex problems, they provide a step-by-step guide to what they refer to as provocative design. Their theoretical framework for this approach, much like critical design, does not aim to provide simple solutions to complex problems. Instead, the goal is to drive designers and users to experience personal dilemmas through three distinct, carefully crafted and tested design strategies. The first of these makes use of symbols to design objects which “represent conflicting concerns.” [31] Design students, for example, came up with a set of smartphone display symbols that were intended to make users aware of personal behaviors that operated in conflict with each other. One example of this was to use a closed eye to signify a ‘sleeping’ phone—one that could be ignored—and to use an open eye to signify that the same phone was being utilized to facilitate a given activity—or that it needed to be checked. The conflict embedded in this example is supposedly between signifying a given user’s excessive use of his or her phone, via checking it for information, versus his or her ability to leave the phone untouched or ignored.

The second strategy articulated by Ozkaramanli and Deget attempts to trigger personal dilemmas by offering mutually exclusive choices, such as a condom wrapper that opens only on one side, forcing the user to look at a picture of sexually transmitted diseases that not using a condom increases the chances of contracting during sex. The third strategy they articulated challenges designers and users to make certain choices, and to communicate what they believed the “right choice” was, by incorporating subtle but provocative barriers to usage into one or more functional aspects of a given design. An example of this was some of Ozkaramanli and Deget’s design students suggesting a smartphone application that emits annoying noises when people attempt to use their smartphone in social settings where speaking on one could disturb others (i.e., while riding crowded public transport or eating during lunchtime in a busy restaurant). The authors stress that the more the designed objects point to personal dilemmas and the more compelling these are, the more likely users—and those who design for them—will start to reflect on the consequences of their behaviors. The authors also acknowledge the uncertainty of the debate that could surround implementing these approaches to designing and analyzing user behavior by stating that they “ may invite interpretation, discussion, and reflection.” [32] For now, it is safe to offer that these strategies, combined with the tactics and methods Malpass developed to guide engagement in critical design, such as post-efficiency, speculation, design fiction, satire, playfulness, discourse, rhetoric, as well as ambiguity, form a reliable base for future debates. [33]

Key Research Findings that form a Basis for Critical Design Thinking

Ozkaramanli and Desmet admit that, when operationalizing these types of provocative design strategies on behalf of specific groups of users, it was particularly difficult for the designers they worked with and surveyed in their workshops to switch from solution-mode to problem-framing mode. Because designers are usually trained to solve problems rather than identify or frame them in ways that make others aware of them (or the contextual factors that have created them to begin with), Ozkaramanli and Desmet’s workshop participants struggled with applying the strategies discussed above. [34]

It is crucial to address these issues designers may experience due to occupational expectations as they engage in the decision-making processes that inform their work, and to scrutinize the central pitfalls of a design process that fuels critical debate. As a former post-doctoral research associate at the Hochschule für Medien, Kommunikation und Wirtschaft (HMKW), University of Applied Sciences, in Berlin, Germany, I conducted a one-day workshop with about fifteen master’s-level design students at HMKW’s Department of Graphic Design and Visual Communication to research strategies that inform critical design. All participants were unfamiliar with critical design and the idea of provoking controversial debates by engaging in provocative design processes. The task for the group was to develop a designed object, artifact, or experience that provokes a given audience to question its common conceptions about a given subject matter. The core idea was to create visually communicative design objects, such as posters, animations or small web applications that cause audience members to object to and critically reflect on whatever (preferably controversial) subject matter was being presented. The key challenge was to “hit the controversial subject matter’s sweet spot,” which would allow the audience to engage in the right amount of convincing criticism while still allowing for personal argumentation, and, as necessary, conflict.

It took participants several attempts to get used to the proposed methods and strategies. At first, almost everyone in the group suggested a more or less ready-to-use solution for certain problems. After several rounds of openly discussing these early-in-the-process design results, as well as the process itself, participants actively reflected on the initial goal of the challenge, changed their perspective and then began to engage in the critical design process. This gradual shift in perspective was initiated by both the workshop leaders and the students’ willingness to continue to reflect on whether the initial outcomes of their narrowly and shallowly informed design processes caused the effects that they had initially been challenged to stimulate among their audiences. It turned out that the most promising attempts were guided by three key parameters: first, they touched on a topic that the workshop participants identified as being sensitive, such as personal wealth production; second, they raised concerns around a very concrete point, such as personal income; third, they created enough controversy among the group to cause debate, for example by implying that earning (too much) money is reprehensible.

Personal mindset affected the participants abilities to think beyond the solution-driven perspective that most of them began the project attempting to operate. It also was a challenge for these design students to expel strong personal convictions and beliefs in favor of more balanced, broadly informed, deeply reflective thinking. The goal of engaging in this strategy was twofold: first, it was to encourage participants to refrain from approaching this challenge from too singular a viewpoint; second, it was to ensure that they accounted for the affects and influences of conflicting social, political and economic positions regarding a given topic so as to prevent audiences from assuming too much of a given bias as they experienced a particular designed object. Ozkaramanli and Desmet underline the importance of this twofold strategy when they state:

It might have been helpful to further emphasize the essence of this design intention by, for example, engaging the participants in a debate or a role-playing exercise about the design brief prior to the ideation session. Such exercises might have facilitated the sensitive mind-set of taking different perspectives and stalling moral judgment. [35]

Stalling the rush to moral judgment among some of the student participants became one of the most challenging tasks when conducting this workshop. For example, one participant worked with the strategy of dysfunctional design and created an imaginary digital wallet. The participant designed a mock advertisement poster, which explained the wallet’s function to consumers: the more money the wallet stores digitally, the more it weighs due to the wallet’s materials. As a result, carrying around a relatively small amount, say a thousand dollars, is made impossible, since the wallet now weighs more than two hundred pounds. This example caused a lively debate among the other participants because, on the one hand, they knew that money is the means to satisfy almost all of the material and non-material needs of a given individual, but on the other hand, they rooted for the speculative idea to use the inherent functionality of the “weight-gaining wallet” to restrict access to this means. Participants within the debate were making the point that restricting one’s ability to save money does not mean that income inequalities in the world’s societies will become less flagrant. Some questioned the intention of this wallet, asking what positive effects it may have. Participants also hypothetically tested the functionality of the wallet to determine its relative efficacy. In parallel with observations from Ozkaramanli and Desmet, the design students who participated in this workshop—after some discussion—eventually settled on a specific moral viewpoint. They agreed to understand money as a dysfunctional means to unilaterally facilitate one’s personal wellbeing and interpreted the design of the wallet in light of popular moral principles against gluttonous acquisition of wealth as an unjust chain shackling the humane potential of mankind. Although it was posited that almost everyone needs money and is obliged to earn it, the debate never touched on crucial questions, such as: “What is the essential nature of money if everyone needs it and everything must be paid for with it?” Or, “How is wealth produced?,” and, “Why do so few people have it in abundance while it is so scarce for the majority of the world’s population?” It should be stressed that this kind of moral judgment prevented participants from further investigating into and around the problem space that contextualized this challenge, which led them to agree all-too-quickly on a rather preliminary and self-satisfied point of view.

Concluding this piece begins by addressing the first of its four key research questions, namely “How should a controversial design undertaking that provokes constructive arguments among designers and key stakeholders work?” The results gleaned from the operation and analysis of the workshop suggest that a potentially controversial design object or system that stimulates effectively scaffolded debates needs to be guided by an open, broadly informed array of mindsets among the designers involved. This is not something that happens overnight, but rather evolves as the critical design thinking process is deployed to affect the evolution of continuing projects. Also, designers are humans, and, as such, are deeply embedded in everyday mental and physical routines. For them to cast away ill-conceived thoughts and critically reflect on one or more biased viewpoints they may hold that are deeply rooted in social, economic or political beliefs is time-consuming and requires a great deal of dedicated personal reflection. The revelation of this necessity by far exceeded the narrow temporal and spatial boundaries imposed by the logistical limitations of the workshop. With regard to effectively accounting for, and perhaps even jettisoning, one’s own moralistic judgments to avoid inhibiting critical design thinking, I would suggest asking the following: do one’s personal convictions regarding a particular subject matter allow for them to be contested by a well-made, pointed argument? If not, maybe long-cherished convictions in the form of what one had considered to be indisputable higher social, economic or political principles may be worth questioning or even abandoning.

Designers should also strive to create objects, systems and experiences that evoke an open, investigative user’s mindset. To do so, they should attempt to frame the problems they wish to confront in contradictory ways, rather than offer solutions informed by single or myopically framed viewpoints or that suggest there is but one way to interpret and to attempt to resolve the problem. Because outcomes of design processes informed by critical design thinking are by nature contradictory and provocative, these should be self-explanatory. This assures that they appeal to the senses, create questions and therefore prepare and fuel effective, broadly informed debates.

Some Fundamental Speculation about the Critical Design Thinking Process

It is particularly tricky to effectively address the second key research question, “How should these arguments be transformed into critically rigorous, scaffolded debate?” As explicated in the paragraphs above, this question touches on the limitations of a given designer’s experiences as a practitioner and on his or her accrued expertise. For a debate that informs a design process to be fruitful, it must not only be judiciously stimulated, but it must also be thoughtfully guided and managed, both in terms of content and etiquette. This requires certain types of skill, knowledge and experience as a moderator, and, as necessary, as a mediator. Additionally, no designer can possibly cover all these fields of expertise and be well-versed in the myriad of social, political, and economic topics he or she may have to address during a given critical dialogue. Therefore, it becomes useful to open up the facilitation process to professionals, experts, advocates, and external facilitators, such as activists for a specific subject matter who have experiential knowledge of and about how to effectively facilitate and moderate debate. I did not have the opportunity to test this during the workshop I facilitated that forms the basis of this analysis due to time and budget constraints, hence what I am suggesting here is speculative in nature. However, it is important to discuss the facilitation of this process.

The practice of engaging in critical debate itself, much like the practice of engaging in complex innovation processes such as design sprinting, [36] (a process that was designed by Jake Knapp to address pressing design problems quickly), must be a team effort informed by a diverse group of people. Design sprints usually involve people who possess different skill sets and bases of knowledge that can contribute to the articulation and understanding of a variety of viewpoints to provide helpful insights about how to effectively frame and confront certain problems. Within the context of critical design thinking, the designer should be part of these practices, but he or she should not necessarily be the focal point or driving force. The group ideally consists of a handful of experts and thinkers from a range of different fields and disciplines, as well as one or two designers and equally as many users or “everyday experts” (i.e. people who have gained familiarity with a given problematic situation due to their daily immersion in it). There are many viable ways to recruit these people, such as by collaborating with NGOs that could contribute subject matter experts, or by involving market research firms that pay users to participate in given types of analysis and assessment processes. If the topic and goal of the project is something on behalf of which a specific group of people would want to dedicate their time and effort, users from this group can often be inexpensively recruited via social media platforms. Team members could also be selected from design organizations that typically formulate and operate critical design projects, who often benefit from having employees from diverse disciplinary backgrounds working for them. In this way, criticality is not skewed toward the biases of one or more critical stances that have been adopted by the designer involved in the endeavor, but can instead be systematically introduced into the design thinking process.

For the members of the team, their intentions and motivations to participate may differ. Design activists may want to solve issues that they have identified as being close-at-hand, while potential or extant users may want to convey their discontent with particular aspects of an object’s, system’s or experience’s operation or perception in the hope of improving at least some aspects of these, and while subject matter experts may want to share (or impose) their knowledge, and while moderators may simply want to dedicate their skills to facilitating a critical discussion on behalf of advancing a good cause. It is important to communicate the critical design thinking process, as well as its possible outcomes and gains, in advance to motivate team members, but also to prevent frustration deriving from false expectations. It should be conveyed to all team members that the research process does not resemble a typical design thinking process, but is instead initiated by engaging in a controversial dispute. It should also be conveyed that developing a given designed object, system or experience is not necessarily the overall goal of the process, but serves merely as an entry point, or “kick-off,” for critical discussions.

The critical design thinking process consists of two main phases. The first fosters open and divergent thinking and the second is determined by convergent thinking and the search for some sort of ‘solution.’ Before the debate can start, designers (of course) must develop a viable design prototype, one that “is capable of stirring up debate.” They should consult with the team’s experts to discuss possible hidden aspects of the topic at hand and test-run their ideas. Once the debate progresses, ideas and convictions offered during the discussion should be jotted down and visualized so that all involved may quickly access its contents, and so that they may be clustered according to their social, economic and political implications. The facilitator should be able to point out contradictions and encourage members of the team to argue for or against a conflicting point of view as a means to possibly dissolve the conflicting views, or at least achieve compromise regarding them. The facilitator should also monitor the team member’s verbal and non-verbal behavior in order to prevent single individuals to dominate the discussion. In the event of single-sided communication the facilitator could actively address this imbalance or give the floor to someone less vocal. The facilitator should also prevent moralistic discussions by addressing long-cherished conviction that are willfully withdrawn from critical debate. Facilitators also should point out when discussants render discussion irrelevant by bringing in ideals and proposing simple solutions.

The result of the divergent thinking phase should be not only a clearer understanding of the criticism raised in the debate, but also of the underlying reasons for discontents and grievances. The idea of the debate is to gain both, insights into people’s personal convictions and into overall economic, political, and social interrelations. These insights can then—in the second phase—be transformed into preliminary ‘solutions’, such as meta-comments and design guidelines.

To integrate the debate’s results into a broader research process, design thinking must be partially suspended as a way to create successful products for customers’ needs. Design thinking’s pain points and aspirations of users are not simply transformed by this new process into actionable insights that ultimately produce a product that satisfies these needs. The objective of a critical design thinking is to reveal people’s critical thoughts and incorporate them into the ideation process. The critical debates involved in this process reveal people’s values and personal worldviews, which might be used to more effectively design a mass market product. [i] Critical design thinking’s outcome rather aims at taking a group’s critical understanding and addressing problems that are not simply solved by a new product. Instead it seeks to implement an innovation process that reflects on the insights gained and on design’s role in problematic political, economic and social realities.

The insights derived from critical discussions can then be transformed into guidelines, manifests, handbooks, or meta design tools that subsequently inform and guide a broader range of critical design decision-making processes. This is a much more ambitious goal than attempting to design or re-design a single product. For example, a guide that describes circular design processes can inform designers about why circular design solutions are sometimes desirable and beneficial. This guide may state that circular design requires a carefully considered use of materials—in terms of how this use affects the relative availability and sustenance of a variety of resources—and hence suggest that massive research efforts be undertaken in the near future to either alter the development of these materials or invent or incorporate substitutes. It could also provide designers and activists with a set of strategic partners and a critical innovation framework that most likely yield well-thought-out results. [j] A manifesto, on the other hand may criticize the use of non-toxic and non-wasteful materials in relation to corporate agendas. The manifest may transform the debate into radical criticism and state that traditional design as well as circular design necessarily fall short within a system that values corporate growth more than healthy living conditions. The manifesto could then call for a different kind of economic order with a different purpose for design.

The lack of criticism currently undermining the ability of designers and their collaborators to utilize design thinking to affect design methodology serves as an entry point to guide strategic discussions. These can and should introduce critical thinking into the practice of design thinking as a means to improve its efficacy as a means to guide design decision-making. Critical debates are a central tenet of critical design, but are often underexposed as such, since critical design thinking is based on the effective facilitation and moderation of critical debates. The importance of facilitating and moderating these, as well as suggesting ways to initiate them outline means for designers and their collaborators to effectively utilize this method. Foremost, these debates need to be fueled by the analysis of socially, economically and politically controversial design objects, systems and experiences that instigate, or “trigger” personal dilemmas. They can also be fueled by post-efficiency or ex-post (i.e. “after the fact”) assessments of extant design objects, systems and experiences, as well as speculation, satire, use of rhetoric or purposeful ambiguity, and a general refrain from perpetuating moralistic convictions and stereotypical thinking. By creating an investigative curiosity, provocative designs aim at facilitating a critical debate that is supported by a team of experts, users, and designers. Led by facilitators, these debates ideally fuel changes of perspectives about the factors and conditions that contextualize a given design problem, and reveal multiplicities of means to address and analyze it. This deep-thinking experience then informs future design processes by taking whatever knowledge and understandings have been acquired and transforming them into critical annotations, guidelines, manifests, lexica, or other forms of meta design tools. By suggesting ways to productively merge practices of critical design with design thinking into a more critical design practice, as well as a more critical educational practice, critical design thinking can be utilized to ensure that design solutions adequately address and resolve the depth and complexity of 21st century problems. Knowing that transformations in society are not always subject to how decision-making can be affected by design thinking, critical design thinking requires further explorations and applications to adequately test the capability of this speculative approach.

• Almquist, E., Senior, J. and Bloch, N. “The Elements of Value. Measuring –and Delivering–What Consumers Really Want,” Harvard Businesses Review 94.9 (September 2016): pgs. 47–53.
• Brown, T. Change By Design. New York, NY, USA: HarperCollins Publishers, 2009.
• Buchanan R. “Wicked Problems In Design Thinking,” Design Issues 8. 2 (1992): pgs. 5–21.
• Cross, N. “A History Of Design Methodology,” in Design Methodology and Relationships with Science, ed. by M. J. de Vries and D. P. Grant. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993, pgs. 15–27.
• Cross, N. Design Thinking. Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Oxford, UK: Berg, 2011.
• Dunne, A. Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2006.
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “What Is The Circular Economy,” Online. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/what-is-the-circular-economy (Accessed May 15, 2019).
• Fortune Magazine, “Brainstorm Design 2018,” March 14, 2018. Online. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWwTN1pS2eg (Accessed June 28, 2018).
• Hanington, B. and Martin, B. Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly, MA, USA: Rockport Publishers, 2012.
• Jakobsone, L. “Critical Design As Approach To Next Thinking,” The Design Journal 20.supl. (2017): pgs. S4253–S4262.
• Jen, N. “Design Thinking Is Bullsh*t,” June, 2017. Online. Available at: https://99u.adobe.com/videos/55967/natasha-jen-design-thinking-is-bullshit (Accessed June 28, 2018).
• Jonas, W. “A Sense of Vertigo. Design Thinking As General Problem Solver,” Institute For Transportation Design, July, 2010. Online. Available at: http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EAD09.Jonas_.pdf (Accessed September 20, 2018).
• Kimbell, L. “Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1,” Design & Culture 3.3 (2011): pgs. 285–306.
• Knapp, J. Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. New York, NY, USA: Simon & Schuster, 2016.
• Malpass, M. “Between Wit and Reasoning: Defining Associative, Speculative, and Critical Design in Practice,” Design & Culture 5. 3 (2013): pgs. 333–356.
• Malpass, M. “Criticism and Function In Critical Design Practice,” Design Issues 31. 2 (2015): pgs. 59–71.
• Malpass M. Critical Design In Context. History, Theory, and Practice. New York, NY, USA: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
• Ozkaramanli, D. and Desmet, P. “Provocative Design For Unprovocative Designers: Strategies For Triggering Personal Dilemmas,” in Proceedings of DRS: Design + Research + Society – Future-Focused Thinking, Volume 5, ed. by P. Lloyd and E. Bohemia. London: Design Research Society, 2016, pgs. 2001–2016.
• Papanek, V. Design for the Real World. Human Ecology and Social Change. New York, NY, USA: Pantheon Books, 1979.
• Rittel, H. and Webber, M. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): pgs. 155-169.
• Rodgers, P. “Paradoxes in Design Thinking,” The Design Journal 20.sup1 (2017): pgs. S4444–S4458.
• Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. This Is Service Design Thinking . Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers, 2016.
• Tonkinwise, C., “Responses for 21st Century Design After Design xxi Triennale di Milano,” no date. Online. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/25208645/Cameron_Tonkinwise_Responses_for_21st_Century_Design_After_Design_xxi_Triennale_di_Milano (Accessed July 12, 2018).

Sebastian Loewe is currently a Professor in Design Management at the Media-design Design School in Berlin, Germany. Prior to this appointment, Professor Loewe worked as a post-doctoral research associate at the Department of Graphic Design and Visual Communication at the HMKW University of Applied Sciences in Berlin, Germany, where he engaged in research on critical design thinking. The subject of his PhD dissertation is the discoursive nature of kitsch; it was published in 2017 by Neofelis Press, Berlin as “Als Kitsch ausgewiesen!: Neuaushandlungen kultureller Identitaet in Populaer-und Alltagskultur, Architektur, Bildender Kunst und Literatur nach 1989” (“Proclaimed as kitsch!: renegotiations of cultural identity in popular and everyday culture, architecture, fine arts and literature after 1989).” Professor Loewe holds a Bachelor’s degree in media and communication studies along with a diploma in media arts. He co-founded the socially-engaged art and design platform ufo-University. ( [email protected] )

Malpass, Critical Design , pgs. 41–42.

• how to make a submission
• what we publish
• past issues
• our review process
• editorial policies & ethical guidelines

AIGA, the professional association for design

© 2022 AIGA. 228 Park Ave S, Suite 58603 | New York, NY 10003-1502

212 807 1990 | contact

ISSN 2572-7001 (online)

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Lateral Thinking vs Design Thinking: Decoding Problem-Solving Approaches

Lateral thinking and design thinking are both methodologies that steer away from traditional linear approaches, fostering creativity and innovation for problem-solving. Lateral thinking, coined by Edward de Bono, encourages thinking outside the conventional framework, seeking answers that might not be evident at a first glance. It’s about disrupting established patterns of thinking to discover novel solutions to complex problems.

In contrast, design thinking is a more structured process that combines empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to analyze and fit solutions into the given context. This approach, commonly used by designers, aims for a deep understanding of the people for whom they are designing the products or services. Its phases ensure that the creative process is directed and iterative, often leading to innovative outcomes that are tightly aligned with user needs.

Key Takeaways

• Lateral thinking promotes indirect and innovative problem-solving tactics.
• Design thinking follows a structured, user-centric approach to innovation.
• Both methodologies aim to break conventional thinking patterns to achieve creative solutions.

Exploring the Basics of Lateral Thinking and Design Thinking

Lateral thinking and Design thinking are two methodologies that revolutionize problem-solving through creative and systematic processes. Each has distinctive approaches and techniques contributing to innovation and effective solutions.

Defining Lateral Thinking

Lateral thinking , a term coined by Edward de Bono, emphasizes creativity and divergent thinking . It’s a technique that encourages individuals to look at problems from various, often unconventional, perspectives. Unlike traditional problem-solving methods, lateral thinking involves breaking away from established patterns and exploring multiple new ideas, which can lead to unexpected and innovative solutions.

Defining Design Thinking

On the other hand, Design thinking is a non-linear, iterative process that teams use to understand users, challenge assumptions, redefine problems, and create innovative solutions to prototype and test. Involving five stages—empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test—it combines both convergent and divergent thinking to arrive at practical and human-centric solutions.

Comparative Overview

While lateral thinking is primarily about breaking out of traditional thinking patterns to develop novel ideas, design thinking is structured around understanding the user experience and iteratively refining solutions. Both methods highly value creativity and innovation but apply these in different contexts of the problem-solving process.

Cognitive Approaches in Lateral and Design Thinking

The cognitive strategies of both lateral and design thinking facilitate unique approaches to problem-solving. Understanding the thought patterns and mental modes specific to these methodologies allows for strategic breaking of conventional rules and generation of innovative ideas.

Thought Patterns and Mental Modes

In lateral thinking, thought patterns are marked by an avoidance of linear progressions for problem-solving. A lateral thinker might employ techniques such as provocation or random entry points to jolt the mind into new directions, often leading to creative breakthroughs. This approach emphasizes the quantity of ideas over their immediate quality, aiming to explore the breadth of possibilities without limitation. Brainstorming sessions in lateral thinking are structured to foster an environment where out-of-the-box strategies can flourish.

Conversely, design thinking involves a more structured sequence of thought patterns. A design thinker typically functions through empathy , defining problems, ideating, prototyping, and testing. While this approach also values creativity, it applies a more intentional and user-centered methodology, often utilizing collaborative efforts to refine solutions that are both innovative and practical. Constraints are considered key in shaping the process of ideation to align closely with end-user needs.

Challenging Assumptions and Constraints

The psychology behind lateral thinking is anchored in challenging assumptions . It encourages individuals to overturn established norms and explore unconventional solutions. A lateral thinker is taught to question the status quo and consider perspectives that may initially seem unrelated to the problem at hand. This cognitive approach leverages disruption as a means to arrive at novel solutions.

Design thinking, while also challenging assumptions, places considerable emphasis on identifying and working within constraints. These are not seen as limitations, but rather as parameters that guide the design process. Understanding and embracing constraints helps ensure that solutions are not only creative but also feasible and tailored to fit within certain real-world applications . Design thinkers often rely on iterative testing to refine ideas, acknowledging constraints as catalysts for innovation rather than barriers.

Both cognitive approaches endeavor to elevate critical thinking , enabling a re-examination and expansion of problem-solving capabilities for both the lateral and design thinker. Through their respective techniques of inciting provocation in lateral thinking or leveraging constraints in design thinking, they foster environments ripe for the unexpected connections that drive innovation.

Methodologies and Tools

The methodologies and tools of lateral and design thinking encapsulate varied techniques and instruments aimed at innovation and problem-solving. These approaches leverage specific strategic processes for ideation and development, often requiring unique sets of tools to navigate the complexities of creative thinking.

Techniques in Lateral Thinking

Lateral thinking, introduced by Edward de Bono, employs non-traditional techniques aimed at changing perceptions and unlocking unforeseen solutions. One prominent technique is the Six Thinking Hats , a method that compartmentalizes thinking into six distinct modes, such as emotional, informational, or creative thinking. This technique encourages a shift in perspective and helps to avoid the tunnel vision that often accompanies conventional problem-solving. Another commonly used tool is mind mapping , which allows for the visualization of ideas and their connections, facilitating a more dynamic brainstorming process.

• Six Thinking Hats
• Mind Mapping

Techniques in Design Thinking

Design thinking is a solutions-based approach typically iterating through five phases: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. The techniques here focus on user-centric problem-solving. Ideation is a foundational stage where brainstorming and user research combine to generate diverse ideas. Prototyping swiftly turns concepts into tangible forms for testing, which in turn, garners feedback for refinement. This cycle of prototyping and testing ensures that solutions are deeply rooted in actual user needs and experiences. Design thinkers employ various tools and methods in this process, from sticky notes for brainstorming sessions to digital tools for creating interactive prototypes.

• Brainstorming
• User Research
• Prototyping

Practical Applications and Results

In both lateral and design thinking, the focus lies on harnessing creativity and strategy to address complex problems. Organizations employ these methodologies to innovate, generate alternative solutions, and fine-tune their ideas through iterative testing.

Problem Solving and Innovation

In problem-solving, lateral thinking encourages looking at challenges from new angles. It breaks the shackles of conventional approaches to unearth innovative solutions. For instance, a company facing market decline might use lateral thinking to reinvent their product line, rather than just improve existing products. This can lead to groundbreaking innovations that set industry standards.

Design thinking , conversely, provides a more structured approach to innovation. It begins with empathy towards the user and progresses through defined stages of ideation, prototyping, and testing. This disciplined process ensures that every solution is intensely user-focused and has undergone rigorous evaluation before implementation.

Brainstorming and Ideation Sessions

During brainstorming and ideation sessions, lateral thinking is key for generating alternatives that are not confined by current paradigms. This form of thinking champions emergent ideas that might initially seem unrelated but could lead to viable solutions once explored.

Design thinking sessions are deliberate and collaborative. They emphasize collective ideation, where diverse teams work together to flesh out ideas and iterate upon them. It is this collaborative atmosphere that helps uncover hidden needs and wants of users, feeding the creative process .

Building Solutions Through Prototyping and Testing

Prototyping and testing are pivotal in both lateral and design thinking. Lateral thinking often leads to the creation of unconventional prototypes, providing a tangible form to abstract ideas. These prototypes can then be used to test the feasibility and practicality of the new solutions.

Design thinking uses prototyping as an integral step for building solutions . Each prototype undergoes continual testing, which not only refines the idea but also tests assumptions about user behavior and preferences. It’s an iterative process that gradually moves from wide-ranging possibilities to focused, user-centric solutions.

Impact of Lateral and Design Thinking in Organizations

Incorporating lateral and design thinking into organizational strategies significantly boosts innovation and problem-solving. These approaches reshape the environment, collaboration, and cultural objectives within an institution, steering clear of traditional linear methods and fostering a dynamic of perpetual growth and adaptation.

Fostering a Creative Environment

Lateral thinking challenges conventional approaches by encouraging an indirect and creative mindset towards problem-solving. It introduces techniques that may seem unrelated at first glance but can generate disruptive insights and creativity in an organization’s environment. This mindset helps organizations to thrive by exploring multiple possibilities rather than settling for the most obvious solutions. Design thinking , on the other hand, adopts an iterative process that involves understanding users, challenging assumptions, and redefining problems. This fosters a creative environment where solutions are not just innovative but also highly responsive to user needs.

Enhancing Collaboration and Feedback

Encouraging a culture of design thinking within an organization inherently promotes enhanced collaboration . It revolves around multi-disciplinary teams working together, sharing diverse perspectives, and building on each other’s ideas. Regular feedback loops are integral, allowing for the refinement and evolution of concepts. Lateral thinking complements this by adding a level of disruption that can break teams out of cognitive ruts, facilitating an even richer collaborative process that pushes beyond the boundaries of conventional wisdom and explores new avenues for innovation.

Influence on Organizational Goals and Culture

Both lateral and design thinking can profoundly influence an organization’s objectives and culture. Clear goals are essential, but how these goals are approached can determine the level of innovative thinking within the firm. Organizations that emphasize these thinking strategies tend to embed creativity and people dynamics into their culture, cultivating a workspace that encourages experimentation and accepts the risks associated with it. This acceptance forms the bedrock for an adaptive culture that is well aligned with the fast-changing landscape of business and user needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section addresses common inquiries about the distinctions and applications of lateral thinking and design thinking, exploring their unique methodologies and practical aspects within problem-solving.

What are the distinct differences between lateral thinking and design thinking?

Lateral thinking is characterized by an indirect and creative approach, focusing on generating innovative ideas. In contrast, design thinking is a more structured, user-centric approach that involves understanding user needs, ideating solutions, prototyping, and testing.

Can you provide some examples of how lateral thinking and design thinking are applied in problem-solving?

Lateral thinking might involve asking unconventional questions to disrupt the status quo, such as finding new uses for existing products. Design thinking would approach problem-solving by empathizing with users, defining the problem, ideating solutions, creating prototypes, and testing with users to refine the solution.

How do lateral thinking strategies differ from vertical thinking methods?

Lateral thinking strategies are about breaking away from established patterns and considering non-obvious solutions, while vertical thinking methods are characterized by a logical, step-by-step progression where each step is based on the information gathered in the previous one.

In what ways does lateral thinking diverge from critical thinking?

Lateral thinking diverges from critical thinking in that it encourages thinking outside of conventional boundaries and accepting less obvious solutions, whereas critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating an idea or argument to form a judgement.

What are some common techniques associated with lateral thinking?

Common techniques associated with lateral thinking include provocation and movement, random entry, and the use of analogies, all aimed at triggering creative and unexpected solutions.

How does lateral thinking play a role in the field of psychology?

In the field of psychology, lateral thinking is linked to creative problem-solving and divergent thinking—abilities that enable individuals to generate multiple solutions and approaches to complex issues.

You may also like

Lateral Thinking Examples: Boost Your Problem-Solving Skills

Lateral thinking is a problem-solving technique that involves approaching a problem from a unique perspective. It is a method that encourages thinking […]

Linear Thinking vs Lateral Thinking

Every single day we use a number of mental models to help us navigate our increasingly complex world.   Some of these […]

Top 5 Lateral Thinking Puzzles (Tips and Answers Included)

One of the best ways to improve at lateral thinking is to practice with lateral thinking puzzles. Even if you do not […]

What Are Lateral Thinking Riddles?

Ever heard the term lateral thinking? It’s a way of thinking that’s different than what we do most of the time. Generally, […]

Just added to your cart

Systems thinking vs design thinking, what’s the difference.

JUMP TO SECTION

• Introduction
• What is Systems Thinking?
• What is Design Thinking?
• The Differences Between Systems Thinking vs. Design Thinking
• Advantages and Drawbacks of Systems Thinking
• Advantages and Drawbacks of Design Thinking
• Human-Centered Systems Thinking: Integrating Systems Thinking and Design Thinking 
• Frameworks, Tools, and Methodologies for Human-Centered Systems Thinking

1. Introduction

Systems thinking and design thinking are both approaches to problem solving and innovation. Systems thinking starts with understanding entire systems rather than individualized elements to spot opportunities for change, whereas design thinking is focused on understanding people’s real needs to create human-centered products, services, and processes. It’s important to learn the nuances of each when incorporating them into your practice.

2. What is Systems Thinking?

Systems, like healthcare and cities, are big, multifaceted, dynamic things built for a purpose. They span several services and products working together simultaneously. Some systems benefit society, but some can lead to harm too. Donella Meadows, author of Thinking in Systems , describes systems as made up of structures (institutions), relationships (stakeholders and power dynamics), and paradigms (culture and mindsets).

So what is systems thinking ? In his book The Fifth Discipline , Peter Senge gives a systems thinking definition as “A discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots.’ And systems thinking is a sensibility—for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character."

Systems thinking has been around for a long time. If you search the history of the field, you will find your way to pioneering systems theorists like Jay W. Forrester, Russell Ackoff, Donella Meadows, Peter Senge, and more. They codified much of our modern thinking on systems theory, dynamics, and modeling. But were they the first systems thinkers? Certainly not. There are roots in Native American cultures and worldviews, early feminism, and many other examples.

The concept of wholeness is integral to a systems thinking approach. A system is more than the sum of its parts—it's defined by the interaction of its parts. To understand how a system works, you have to study not the individual elements but the linkages between them. When you start thinking in systems, you can then spot opportunities for change. By bringing more awareness to the process of designing systems, we can all be more intentional about creating equitable ones and dismantling harmful ones. 

“A system is more than the sum of its parts—it's defined by the interaction of its parts.”

3. What is Design Thinking?

Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation—anchored in understanding customer’s needs, prototyping, and generating creative ideas—to transform the way you develop products, services, processes, and organizations.

When using design thinking principles, you bring together what is desirable from a human point of view with what is technologically feasible and economically viable.

• Desirability: What makes sense to people and for people?
• Feasibility: What is technically possible within the foreseeable future?
• Viability: What is likely to become part of a sustainable business model?

We teach the phases of design thinking as linear steps, but in practice the process is not always linear. Some of these steps may happen several times, and you may even jump back and forth between them. The phases of the design thinking process include:

Frame a Question —Identify a driving question that inspires others to search for creative solutions.

Gather Inspiration —Inspire new thinking by discovering what people really need.

Generate Ideas —Push past obvious solutions to get to breakthrough ideas.

Make Ideas Tangible —Build rough prototypes to learn how to make ideas better.

Test to Learn —Refine ideas by gathering feedback and experimenting forward.

Share the Story —Craft a human story to inspire others toward action.

If you want to learn more about using a design thinking approach, you can explore design thinking examples, case studies, and activities in our free Design Thinking Resources . 

4. The Differences Between Systems Thinking vs. Design Thinking

You might be wondering: when should I use design thinking and when should I use systems thinking? Each approach has its own distinct characteristics and benefits. Here is a comparison of systems thinking and design thinking:

5. Advantages and Drawbacks of Systems Thinking

Systems thinking enables us to overcome stalled decision-making that often occurs when we’re overwhelmed by the scale of a problem and it’s hard to know where to get started. It helps us see the interconnectedness of things, spot patterns, and identify the right areas to focus our efforts. This approach is a good fit for challenges where there's a lot of stakeholders, competing incentives, or no obvious solution.

Other benefits of systems thinking include:

•  Deepening understanding of a problem by getting different perspectives from people within the system.
• Expanding the range of choices by framing the problem in new and different ways.
• Making more informed choices by understanding how things are interrelated and how choices may impact other parts of the system.
• Anticipating the impact of trade-offs to reduce the risk of unintended consequences.
• Building buy-in and support for solutions by making sure everyone's viewpoint is included.

The goal of systems thinking is ultimately to come up with solutions that are more holistic and take into account the needs of all stakeholders while also understanding the dynamics of the system. A common drawback or limitation of systems thinking is getting stuck in the ideation and thinking phase without getting tangible. When practicing systems thinking without including the prototyping mindsets of design thinking, it can be more difficult to implement the solutions that you come up with. Additionally, when you use a solely systems thinking approach, you may overlook the individual human needs and behaviors that you uncover with design thinking.

6. Advantages and Drawbacks of Design Thinking

Design thinking is valuable because it puts people at the center of problem solving. It encourages us to ask questions and find out what our customers and clients need, rather than assuming we already know all the answers. Brainstorming ideas , prototyping, and iterating allow us to learn faster and improve products and services before they go out into the real world.

Over time, the methods and mindsets of design thinking lead to something even more important—creative confidence. The subtle techniques of design thinking unlock mindset shifts that lead people (many for the first time in their lives) to see themselves as creative. Creative confidence gives people the ability to fearlessly (or with less fear) tackle complex problems in the world.

Here are some additional benefits of design thinking, and how it can help your team or organization:

• Understanding the unmet needs of the people you’re creating for.
• Reducing the risk associated with launching new ideas, products, and services.
• Generating solutions that are revolutionary, not just incremental.
• Learning and iterating faster.
• Collaborating better and tapping into the creative potential of individuals and teams. 

When it comes to drawbacks or limitations of design thinking, some teams may find it difficult to incorporate design thinking because it involves a lot of ambiguity. It’s not a linear path, and sometimes requires looping back to different parts of the process. Additionally, it takes time and practice to practice design thinking at a high level.

Some may also find it difficult to change social norms or behavior on their team. If an organization is used to doing things in a certain way, it might be resistant to a new, more creative way of working. It can be challenging when a team isn’t aligned on applying a design thinking mindset, since it’s such a collaborative approach.

7. Human-Centered Systems Thinking: Integrating Systems Thinking and Design Thinking

Human-centered systems thinking brings together the analytical, holistic tools of systems thinking with the creative human-centered process of design thinking. It’s a mindset and methodology for tackling complex systemic challenges in a human way: staying grounded in the needs of multiple stakeholders while also seeing larger dynamics at play so you can diagnose the real problem, design more effective solutions, and drive real behavior change and positive impact within systems.

Combining systems thinking and design thinking enables you to:

• Zoom in and out, and toggle back and forth between a systems lens and a human lens.
• Gain a deeper, more holistic and human understanding of the system and its stakeholders.
• Develop empathy for both the people and the system itself.
• Understand what drives human behavior and system behavior.
• Redesign the system to produce better outcomes by designing and implementing interventions that drive positive change within the system.

Today, human-centered systems thinking is needed more than ever. We have a greater awareness of the interconnected nature of our world. The challenges we face—as individuals, teams, organizations, communities, and as a society—are myriad and multifaceted. Their scale and complexity can be overwhelming. Where do we begin? How do we start to make sense of things?

So many of our complex systems today are human systems like organizations, which are made up of relationships between people. A human-centered approach to systems thinking starts with people and diagnoses the underlying causes of problems before taking action to solve them, and stays grounded in the needs of many stakeholders while also seeing the larger dynamics at play. When you approach problem solving in this way—deeply human and holistic—you will get to solutions that are more effective, connected, integrated, and ethical.

8. Frameworks, Tools, and Methodologies for Human-Centered Systems Thinking

Human-centered systems thinking isn’t just a theoretical concept—there are practical frameworks and tools that you use to bring it to life. Here are a couple of our favorites:

The Iceberg Model

In a complex system, solving problems requires considering the whole picture and surfacing the root of the problem. The iceberg model is a framework for uncovering the many layers of a system, including behaviors, structures, and mindsets. It helps you:

• Look for patterns over time, starting with what you see
• Uncover deeper structural influences
• Surface underlying mindsets

The Systems Map

A systems map is a tool commonly used by systems designers to lay out all the relationships and interactions between stakeholders in a given system, such as a local high school (shown in the image above). Mapping systems can help you spot opportunities for growth and change.

To create a systems map, follow these steps:

• Write down every stakeholder in your system on a blank piece of paper. Push yourself to think past the obvious.
• Draw arrows between the different parts of your system to identify how they’re connected.
• Reflect on what specific areas you want to examine more closely. What questions come up for you? What gaps do you see?

If you want to dive deeper into systems thinking and learn more tools and frameworks, check out our 5-week online course Human-Centered Systems Thinking.

Expand your design thinking skills and confidence with our Foundations in Design Thinking certificate.

• Combined Shape Copy Created with Sketch. LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
• Share Share on Facebook
• Combined Shape Created with Sketch. Tweet Tweet on Twitter
• Pin it Pin on Pinterest
• RSS Feed Subscribe on RSS

Want to get up to speed on design thinking?

Courses starting soon.

• choosing a selection results in a full page refresh
• press the space key then arrow keys to make a selection

Cart Preview

If this box is checked, you will be able to enter name and email of the recipient(s) after your purchase is complete.

You are creative

Get tips on building creative confidence and applying the skills of design thinking.

• Please complete this required field.

Awesome, you're in!

Get the Syllabus

Enter your email to receive the syllabus and email communications from IDEO U.

The syllabus should be in your inbox shortly. Click below to view the syllabus now.

Creativity and Critique as Formative Processes in Design Thinking

• Published: 19 June 2020
• Volume 4 , pages 2–4, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Brad Hokanson 1 &
• Robert Kenny 2  

3553 Accesses

7 Citations

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Creativity is highly affected and primarily improved through formative processes. Those processes center on assessment during the learning effort and can effectively support the development learners’ intellectual skills. This issue of JDFL primarily focuses on design education and the design process and are examined as models for application in other fields. As such, the various aspects of design thinking are explored with their relationship to developing creativity. Particular attention is paid to using many of the representative short studies included in this issue, which present examples of formative models and critiques for learning and instruction.

We have selected the concept of “critique” on purpose. As often used in the design and creative fields, “critique” is a conversational, formative method of interaction and assessment, and is offered as one that can also be used by instructional designers.

Design as a Way of Thinking About Things

The core aspect of design is a way of thinking and knowing, i.e., it is an epistemology that builds from the process of design as a way of learning and investigation. This process consists of a variety of methods, processes, knowledge application, and skills which are commonly shared across design fields (Nelson & Stolterman, 2001/Nelson and Stolterman 2012 ; Cross 2001 ; Henriksen et al. 2017 ).

Often packaged as “Design Thinking,” these procedural methods also have been distilled, codified, and exported widely to other domains including business and education (Martin and Martin 2009 ; Plattner et al. 2015 ; Kelley and Kelley 2013 ). While a simplified, codified application of design thinking has been translated to external, non-design use, the results have been mixed at best (Kolko 2018 ; Vinsel 2018 ). As Bruce Nussbaum noted, design thinking is “a whole new process that promised to deliver creativity” to the world of big business and focused on process efficiency. But “from the beginning, the process of Design Thinking was a scaffolding for the real deliverable: creativity” (Nussbaum, unpaged, 2011 ).

Design Learning

The design process offers a structure, opportunities to develop creative talents, as well as a range of other complex skills. These opportunities also exist for problem-based learning and other learning activities that parallel the design process. Most design education begins with the consideration of multiple ideas to initiate projects. It is common for an instructor in an architecture or graphics class to require three design ideas to be presented or 20 thumbnails to examine different forms of layout.

Design as an academic endeavor is not limited solely to solving problems. Lawson and Dorst ( 2009 ) describe the design process (and design thinking) as having a number of procedural steps that provide opportunities to encourage creativity. These early phases of “formulating” include identifying and finding problems. The idea of framing (or re-framing) a problem that is posed offers opportunities for early exploration and creativity.

Framing is a “re-directioning” or the re-naming of an initial problem description, which can lead to substantially different outcomes. “Whether we think of it as the reformulation of problems or the identification of elements, making them explicit and developing their characteristics is not clear-cut but is a substantial part of the design project. This is clearly an ‘important and central design skill’” (Lawson and Dorst, 2013, p.50). By its nature, reframing encourages diverse output. As a long-term habit, this recognition and use of semantic reshaping can be considered a form of critical thinking and the weighing initial viewpoints.

Another aspect of the design process is a series of interpretive and developmental moves. An initial “move,” also referred to as a gambit, leads to a subsequent set of decisions. Different beginnings lead to different directions, each reflecting different conceptual orientations and attitudes. These moves interpret the design challenge, the context, and the constraints of a given problem. They also build on the framing of the initial challenge. Subsequently, other developmental moves occur logically and as a consequence of earlier decisions. Inherent in the design process is an ongoing search and evaluation of a variety of answers. This can be described as posing and evaluating multiple hypotheses and sub-hypotheses and is relevant to many other fields of inquiry.

Design learning generally occurs through a process of critique, a review of smaller studies and result in a conversation or narrative that focuses on the results of these initial designs. These shortened works are treasured for their creativity in which failure is actually valued. As Brown once said in his book Change by Design: “fail often so we may succeed more quickly” (2009). In other words, entrepreneurial thinking is not about developing infallible technical expertise or the ability to develop declarative knowledge—it is the skill of developing original and well-structured ideas.

This illustrates a significant difference in design education; there is a focus on the formative elements of learning as necessitated by the design process, and not as much on the summative aspects or results of the process. Creativity (and therefore knowledge about a topic or a solution to a problem) develops through that formative process.

As noted previously, an important aspect of the design process and design thinking is creativity. Designers need to have the ability to solve unique and complex challenges via creative thinking. This describes a skill, creativity, and it can be applied throughout the fields of design, and at all levels of practice. This is one that is generally described as a twenty-first-century skill. Popularly, creativity is not well defined, but researchers in the discipline have a base definition that is widely used and accepted (Mumford 2003 ; Plucker et al. 2004 ; Bronson and Merryman 2010 ; Sternberg 2011 ).

Creativity can be defined as the capability to develop ideas that are both original and valuable (Robinson 2011 ). While the paired terms vary semantically, the practice of design can be seen to parallel this standard definition of creativity, and from that definition broader definitions emerge: “A basic, often-cited definition of creativity describes it as the process of creating ideas, artifacts, processes, and solutions, that are novel and effective… Design involves directing creativity towards goals, actions, and purpose around real-world issues” (Henriksen et al. 2017 , p. 4). Torrance describes creativity, and illustrates the shared qualities of design and creativity:

“[Creativity is] a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies: testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them; and finally communicating the result (Torrance 1972 , p. 5).

This is manifest and applied in design through divergent and convergent thinking, the two principal aspects of creativity. Divergent thinking is the search for different and new forms and ideas. The second, convergent thinking, focuses on one answer and its improvement. Most education focuses on the convergent aspects, seeking a single correct answer. Design processes and design education provide a range of opportunities for divergent thinking, the generative aspects of the process, while in its development of domain knowledge, the development of convergent skills is honed.

Toward the Development of Creativity

Ironically, designers are viewed by the general public as being highly creative. While design may be misunderstood as a field, this may also be due to the theoretical familiarity to the arts or to experience with novel ideas developed by designers. This is not, however, because of specific evidence of creativity per se. Designers may be considered creative because they possess skills that are distinguishing, but not because they are measurably more creative than the general population with comparable education levels. Education in design focuses on the development of domain expertise and not specifically on enhancing creative skills. Creativity development is often not addressed specifically, as with other educational fields.

Development of creativity in design and elsewhere requires an evolution of teaching and subsequently of learners. An important shortfall of design education is a failure to implicitly develop creativity in learners and new design—both as a curricular direction and as a qualitative evaluation. Developing creativity in new designers is a long-term effort and critical to the field. The design process itself, with its iterative subjective judgments and assessments, offers a wide range of opportunities for the development of learner creativity. Each there is a subjective judgment, there is an opportunity for divergent thinking. Needed, however, is a change of orientation of instructors in increasing this needed skill.

This requires a change of focus on the educational process; on the formative aspects, and not the summative aspects of learning. Creativity happens along the way.

The concepts of reframing ideas, making incremental interpretive moves, creativity, and divergent and convergent thinking are central to design thinking, which we suggest is at the heart of formative design. That is why readers of this journal will note an abundance of reporting on smaller research activities and case studies in the various articles. They are also integral to the central theme of last year’s Writers’ Workshop sponsored by the Journal and the three universities that took place at last year’s AECT Annual Convention. The articles included in this issue are representative of the work submitted and conversations that took place among the participants.

Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.print.html

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17 (3), 49–55.

Article   Google Scholar  

Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26 , 140–153.

Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all . Toronto: Crown Business.

Google Scholar  

Kolko, J. (2018). "The divisiveness of design thinking." ACM interactions, May–June, 2018: Retrieved from http://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/may-june-2018/the-divisiveness-of-design-thinking

Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Martin, R., & Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press.

Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15 , 107–120.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world—foundations and fundamentals of design competence . Cambridge: MIT Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design thinking is a failed experiment. So what’s next. Fast company.

Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2015). Design thinking research: Making design thinking foundational. Springer.

Plucker, J., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why Isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39 (2), 83–96.

Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds. Tantor Media, Incorporated.

Sternberg, R. J. (2011). "Creativity". Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 479.

Torrance, P. (1972) Verbal tests. Forms A and B—figural tests, forms A and B. The Torrance tests of creative thinking—norms—technical manual Research Edition. Princeton, New Jersey: Personnel Press. p. 6.

Vinsel, L (2018). "Design Thinking Is a Boondoggle". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2018-05-21. Retrieved 6.10.2019.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Minnesota School of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55108, USA

Brad Hokanson

College of Education, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL, 33965, USA

Robert Kenny

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brad Hokanson .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hokanson, B., Kenny, R. Creativity and Critique as Formative Processes in Design Thinking. J Form Des Learn 4 , 2–4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-020-00047-1

Download citation

Published : 19 June 2020

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-020-00047-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Thinking Tips
• About Us
• Think Smarter
• Contact US

Design vs. Critical Thinking

Think Smarter is now available in audio book form … check it out Mike Kallet is a keynote speaker at the HR Executive Summit - A Utah SHRM conference on March 28, 2019

Design vs. critical thinking:,   lately, i’ve received several inquires about design thinking, and how, or if, that fits with critical thinking.  my response is similar to when i’m asked about, strategic vs. critical thinking ., in a nutshell, design thinking is a structured methodology, to guide teams to create solutions with the end user centric to the solution.  while getting popular these days, its origin dates back to the 1960’s and 1970’s.    design thinking is a great strategy for product and process development.  critical thinking is a, foundation toolset, that is useful in each stage of design thinking as well as every other methodology ranging from product development to customer care, process engineering, financial and business planning, operations excellence models, total quality management, lean and six sigma, everyday problem solving and decision making, leadership and innovation strategies. another way to look at this is that it’s not a matter of design thinking vs. critical thinking; it’s really about using critical thinking as you implement design thinking., back to design thinking …., design thinking is generally a five stage process;,   empathizing with people, their environment, culture and issues while gathering information .,   taking what was discovered in the empathize stage and creating a specific and focused problem to solve.,   come up with solution ideas.  design thinking doesn’t direct any particular way to ideate, but is a stage.,   an inexpensive way to build out some of the solutions generated in ideate stage.,   you test your prototype., design thinking isn’t necessarily a linear process, , especially between the ideate, prototype and test stages.    you’ll often come up with an idea (ideate), build a prototype and then test it, taking the feedback from testing, modifying the idea, re-creating another prototype then test again., critical thinking is a process and set of tools, you would use in each stage of design thinking.   for example;, during the empathize stage, you might sit with a tech support representative as they ask for a faster way to enter inbound customer data, understand and analyze why they do things a certain way, and specifically what they are trying to achieve., during the define stage, , you would certainly want to use critical thinking to ensure the problem you think you will be solving is the problem to be solved.   critical thinking can help you evaluate the value of the solution with respect to the corresponding investments., ideation can come from many different techniques, including critical thinking for both in and outside the box ideas., during the prototype phase, , critical thinking can be used to ensure the prototype is actually emulating the real solution., critical thinking can be used during the testing stage, to ensure the interpretation of the results is accurate., there are dozens and dozens of methodologies, , steps and stages for just about every aspect of every business.  in each of these methods and at every step and stage, critical thinking can and should be used to ensure clarity and the appropriate conclusions that follow., the takeaway:, if you like this edition,, click here to get a free subscription to the headscratcher post.,   a monthly post with tips and techniques about problem solving, creativity, innovation and critical thinking..

Check out our Workshops

Visit us at www.headscratchers.com, if you're not already a subscriber to the headscratcher post, signup here previous versions of the headscratcher post, headscratchers, critical thinking techniques for problem solving, decision making, innovation and leadership. our mission;, to help people become better headscratchers we teach critical thinking techniques to managers, leaders and individuals resulting in the improved performance of an individual and organization..

Design Thinking vs design thinking

This research offers a comparison of the different uses of design thinking and investigates how design thinking is used within business models and compares this to the discipline of design’s practice of design thinking. It aims to clarify both the intended use of design thinking as conceived in the mid-20th century, and the current employment of design thinking which this research proposes has lost its way somewhat. This research also considers how the historic and contemporary models compare to each other and what roles and responsibilities design thinking has today. This research also recognises my own epiphany of how indigenous values can enable design and design thinking’s ability to contribute to positive impacts and innovations in the 21st century.

This research questions the now ubiquitous term ‘Design Thinking’ and asserts there is a misuse and confusion surrounding what could more accurately be described as a ‘coined moniker’ that is used interchangeably and unchallenged in both business and design practice. Initially grounded in a desire to define the differing practice or practices of Design Thinking/design thinking, considered in one scenario as a noun, the ‘codified workshop’, the other scenario, as a verb, and as a part of a designer’s mindset and method; this research aims to elucidate conceptions and misconceptions about design thinking. It also offers a broadened understanding of design thinking, borne of Design Science by design theorists active in the 20th century.

This study begins by using traditional qualitative research methods to undertake a historic inquiry. This is recorded chronologically but importantly this content is considered in relationship to its varied contexts. Having established the content and the contexts of the investigation the next steps involve participatory research methods in which interviews are undertaken with several design practitioners, discovering themes through affinity mapping exercises (Naylor, 2019 & Appendix A). Following this, the identification of both peer-reviewed and more topical open access discussions, podcasts and postings are included to establish the status quo of design thinking discourse and practice in the 21st century. The final phase of this research is a reflective conclusion in which the research is synthesised into a personal dialogue that introduces one of the most important findings of this study: the relevance of mātauranga Māori (Maori Knowledge) to the process and implementation of design thinking moving forward.

The result of the analysis and synthesis of this information is several design teaching tools that elucidate the ‘historic trajectory to date’ of design thinking and a clarification of the lexicon used by the discipline, tools employed, key terms projected and the voices speaking for and to design thinking. The purpose of these tools is to better project the complexity of the practice and enable emergent designers to have a better knowledge base to critique, grow, and benefit from the efficacy of design thinking within both design praxis and alongside corporate organisations, not-for-profits, start-ups, and charities alike.

Copyright Date

Date of award, rights license, degree discipline, degree grantor, degree level, degree name, anzsrc type of activity code, victoria university of wellington item type, victoria university of wellington school, usage metrics.

• Design not elsewhere classified
• Design history, theory and criticism
• Design management
• Design practice and methods