The notion of “design thinking” has emerged as a topic of great discussion in recent years among design practitioners, educators across disciplines, and organizations of all kinds. Whether you’re a student, graduate, or seasoned veteran you’ll find value in the following dialogue which explores some of its many interpretations and applications.
This interview was conducted by Dianne Hardin, a Master of Design Candidate at The University of Cincinnati, College of Design, Art, Architecture & Planning as part of her research for the DMI FutureED project. Hardin wanted to get perspectives on design thinking from practitioners responsible for providing it to clients and teaching it to students. This past summer, she spoke with frog Design Research Director Jon Freach and Associate Creative Director Lauren Serota, who are also founding professors at the Austin Center for Design, which aims to transform society through design and design education.
Jon Freach: I feel like it’s a strange term mainly because design is active. It’s a very tactile, physical kind of discipline born of the apprentice model of training. I’ve learned design through mastering instruments AND theory (this is now a 20 year + process), and the best design graduates of today seem to retain very similar skills, although the raw material is different. I wouldn’t want my students to gain the impression that all they were learning how to do was think through ”thinking”. In design, there is a lot of model building, shaping, and forming no matter what the subject matter is, such as a phone or an interaction or a process.
Lauren Serota: I’m not a big fan of the phrase design thinking. I think because I’m a designer and I’ve always had a little bit of a difficult time with the notion of it just being a philosophy, or set of values, or way to think about things versus a way to act on things. That being said, I appreciate that the concept is being incorporated into curricula and into business in a meaningful way. To me, the term means three things: human-centered, always putting people in the middle; system-aware, recognizing that everything we make or do exists in and affects a larger system; and lateral, and valuing the thoughtful, creative and appropriate over the efficient.
JF: As an example, our clients are a little surprised when we (frog) show up to facilitate a work session that applies design thinking methods and we quickly set the expectation that they’ll be moving around, sketching, and building ideas with pieces of sticky paper. Routinely, what I hear is something on the order of “I’m not very creative, so don’t expect much.” Design introduces new methods in the business process and culture that force a juxtaposition between different entities and produces something unexpected. This is what De Bono is getting at with “lateral thinking”.
The evolution of design methods is really tied to their ability to move an organization or institution. How do the methods facilitate storytelling across the company? What kind of stories get told? More importantly, what “sticks” to the extent that groups invest in them? Then, how do they manifest in the world? What products, services, or experiences are brought to market?
LS: We are in the thick of a macro-trend - of things that used to be novelty, or even merely appreciated becoming commoditized. More and more we are basing our perception of value on the overall experience we have with the things that we purchase or the services to which we subscribe. This experience can be many things - the feeling that we have using something, the association we have with the brand, a call with customer service, or the other people using it and the platform it provides us. The differentiation for business is becoming less the product and more the spaces between the product and its user, and the amount of choreography needed to make this pleasant requires a cohesive and person-centered approach. All of these things provide value and differentiate a product or service, and are the result of businesses evolving towards design thinking.
JF: 4 - It’s related to my earlier point about applying creativity, forcing combinations between ideas that might not have existed, and using the output to facilitate the telling of a different kind of story across an organization (a more human/empathic/creative one).
LS: 4 - Businesses see it as something they don’t know how to do, but something that’s becoming important - so it has a high value right now. As this type of approach becomes more common across and outside of design curricula, it will be more common and therefore less valuable - hopefully it will become a regular part of the way that many businesses are run.
JF: Abductive logic - making a quick decision with the best information available while understanding the bias in your thinking. Design methods add a certain type of discipline to the very ambiguous experience of trying to define and tame wicked problems. Some design methods, like iteration, can remove inhibitions to try out an idea because even if it’s not right you know that you’re going to do it again.
LS: A belief that it’s right to test things out (and it’s OK to fail), that it’s right to iterate and it’s mandatory look outside of your own experience. The ability to try on different perspectives, to take a step back, or a step deeper. And willingness to truly be objective - to recognize that there aren’t always “wrong” or “right” ways to do things, and that decisions don’t always need to be quantified.
JF: I think anyone can learn given the right conditions and instruction.
LS: I don’t think it has anything to do with design, actually. I think that somehow design has just been the vessel through which this kind of thinking has manifested itself. And it happens that we have to do it often as designers. There are people who are, by trade or occupation, very far from designers who are naturally able to look at the world objectively and connect the dots in a meaningful way. Some people are born doing this, some can be taught through exposure to it, and some people either choose not to or aren’t naturally predisposed to it. I think a big part of it is how you’re wired. On the contrary, I know traditional designers who are extremely talented in their craft, whom I wouldn’t consider “design thinkers.”
I talk to my students about this often, because while some of them will graduate and find themselves in a design role - e.g. as an interaction designer or visual designer - many of them will end up doing something meaningful, applying the process they’ve been taught but without “design” in their title. There is such a predisposition to what “design” is and should be, that it is often in disservice of itself.