Design Thinking: Origins
Companies are beginning to realize the true value of designing products and services. If one finds themselves at a company participating in this shift, there’s a good chance they have heard of (or practice) design thinking.
Design thinking focuses on utilizing the scientific process to better understand human needs in regards to products or services. To better understand and leverage the value of design thinking we will look at it’s history and development.
This paper is intended for both design practitioners and non-design practitioners. My goal in writing a thorough history of design thinking is for designers and non-designers to arrive at a better understanding of the topic, and inspire them to explore design thinking at their organization or practice.
Defining Design Thinking
Before we begin I want to take a moment to define the type of design thinking that will be explored. There is ‘designerly thinking’ which is a designer’s practical skills and competence in regards to design theory and practice (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya). The second is ‘design thinking’, which is where design methods are used beyond the usual design context for business purposes (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya).
I want to make a clear distinction between design thinking and human-centered design. While they are not mutually exclusive, human-centered design is a process that cultivates deep empathy with people (Design Thinking Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)). In contrast, design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that balances feasibility, viability, and desirability with user empathy (Design Thinking Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)). Design thinking accounts for strategic business purposes (customers, product-market fit, etc.) and operating efficiency (how to nurture collaboration in-house, company culture, etc.).
The design thinking that most are familiar with today wasn’t created at a single moment in time. It began in the early 1900s as more of a philosophy and theory. Over the next century, it slowly developed as design and science blended, blurring the lines between the fields. Eventually, it turned into the methodical and rigorous process that organizations utilize to cultivate innovation today. It can be argued that design thinking’s origins began in the modern movement of the 1920s due to a “desire to produce works of art and design based on objectivity and rationality” (Cross). There was a desire to bring the objectivity of science into design.
However, I find that design thinking as we know it today began with John Dewey in the 1930s because he focused on the objectivity of science as well as people’s emotions and interactions with objects.
The Seeds of Design Thinking
John Dewey (1859–1952) was an American philosopher regarded as one of the most influential scholars at the beginning of the twentieth century. Dewey believed that interaction is a universal trait of natural existence: “Everything that exists in as far as it is known and knowable is in interaction with other things” (Dalsgaard). The idea that people, places, and things are all connected is the beginning of design thinking. Applied to today, It’s the notion that people do not experience products or services in a vacuum but in a particular situation with internal and external forces acting upon them.
The interaction consists of three steps: situation, inquiry, and transformation (Dalsgaard). All situations have context, there are a subject and their internal and external environment. An inquiry is an action a subject takes in the given situation. A subject’s inquiry is impacted by internal and external factors. Lastly, transformation is the aftermath of the inquiry. When a subject inquires there are results from whatever action they take. Think of opening a car door. A situation is a person approaching the car from the outside, the inquiry is extending their arm and wrapping their hand around the handle while pulling towards them, and the transformation is the door opening.
Dewey articulated these thoughts in 1938 but they were applied to education, aesthetics, and psychology rather than design (Dalsgaard). While Dewey’s pragmatic ideas are design thinking in its infancy, they can still be utilized today to solve modern and complex business problems.
The Technological Impact of WWII
Dewey’s ideas in 1938 lead us into the following year with the beginning of World War II, in 1939. It goes without saying how much of a tremendous impact the war had on the world but I would like to draw attention to its impact on the development and advancement of technology.
The war created a huge need for quick advancements in technology to best the other side and win. The United States pulled together universities, government agencies, and computer scientists to collaborate and develop new technologies that would help win the war. In wartime, spending money is no issue but time is of the essence so these groups quickly banded together to help the U.S. by creating an edge in their technological capabilities. It was these advancements in technology, in particular computers and networks, that have shaped the world we live in today.
When the war ended in 1945, people found themselves surrounded by new technologies and the new, complex, and multi-dimensional problems they created. Over the next two decades, researchers and scientists found themselves trying to navigate the newfound world with theories, methodologies, and processes relating to business and science through the practice of design. It’s interesting to examine these problems through Dewey’s lens. While his ideas focused on the smaller level interactions of people, places, and things, it could still be applied to the larger level issues post-WWII. It wasn’t until the 1960s that one can firmly point at the next big moment in design thinking.
Increasing The Accessibility of Design
In Herbert Simon’s (1916–2001) 1969 book The Sciences of the Artificial, he set out to legitimize an experimental way of design research (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya). His definition of design was ‘the transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones’ (Simon). While Simon never directly mentions Dewey, there are some overlapping thoughts between the two men, specifically regarding people living in certain conditions. I believe Simon’s book and his definition of design are so important in design thinking history because it was a unique approach to design and research.
Another interesting thing to note of Simon is the distinction he drew between creating something new and dealing with existing reality. He didn’t believe artistic creation and engineering were mutually exclusive (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya). I believe this train of thought is important to design thinking because of a typical product team consisting of a designer, manager, and engineer all deal with the discovery and delivery of a product or service. While the size of the team impacts the degree to which they take part in the delivery or discovery process the fact remains that their roles are not viewed as mutually exclusive.
The biggest takeaway from Simon’s book is how he suggested design could be viewed as interdisciplinary. One didn’t need a background in design to understand and utilize it. ‘What I am suggesting is that they can carry on such a conversation about design, can begin to perceive the common creative activity in which they are both engaged, can begin to share their experiences of the creative, professional design process.’ (Simon).
Wicked Problems
Up to this point in history, we see the ways designers, scientists, and researchers have tried to merge the fields of science and design to address the complex problems of the world. There was an emphasis on creating solutions and methodologies but not much in the way of creating a better understanding of the problems they were trying to solve. This changed in 1973 with Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber’s article on “wicked” problems. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning focuses on how these larger, societal problems did not have definitive answers. World problems, especially economic and social, were no longer as simple as having a goal, planning, and creating a solution.
They detailed ten different characteristics that make up a wicked problem:
- There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule
- Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
- There is no immediate and no ultimate test solution to a wicked problem
- Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly
- Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively desirable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan
- Every wicked problem is essentially unique
- Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem
- The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
- The planner has no right to be wrong.
What’s interesting about Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning is how they prioritized gaining a deeper understanding of humans within these wicked problems too. They called attention to how culturally homogenous the pre-industrial era was in comparison to the cultural diversity of the post-industrial society (Rittel, Webber). Rittel and Webber’s article created the foundation of design thinking as we know it today because it framed both the idea of wicked problems and the prioritization of the human aspect within a wicked problem.
Complex Problems vs Wicked Problems
There is a distinction between the complex business problems, and the larger wicked problems within society. Design thinking can be applied to complex business problems because there are measurable outcomes from the iterative process. For example, if Pepsi wants to enter into a new beverage space, they can utilize design thinking to understand what their customers desire and test new flavors. Entering a new space is extremely difficult for any organization, but they can better manage risk by setting clear goals and outcomes that are facilitated through design thinking. In contrast, a wicked problem such as poverty isn’t as cut and dry. It’s foolish to believe the design thinking process can solve poverty. Human-centered design is better suited for a wicked problem like poverty because it emphasizes empathy for the homeless, not monetization, or creating a value proposition. Wicked problems do not have a definitive answer because there are so many moving parts. Measuring success is difficult because it’s hard to quantify the parameters of success as well as to measure it over time.
The Modern Manager
There were two notable pieces related to design thinking in the 1980s: Nigel Cross’s Designerly ways of knowing (1982) and Donald Schön’s The Reflective Practitioner (1983). While Cross’s article focuses on design education, he makes great points regarding designers and wicked problems. ‘The designer has to learn to have the self-confidence to define, redefine and change the problem-as-given in the light of the solution that emerges from his mind and hand.’ This is a critical skill for product designers practicing design thinking today and one aspect of having a “designerly ways of knowing” thought process. In Schön’s article, he explores the role of technical knowledge and artistry in business settings. He depicted the duty of a designer as ‘creation and reflection-upon-creation’ to constantly improve competence and re-creation (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya).
He also touched on the importance of managers in this process, stating how they deal with uncertainty in decision making and building up capacity for ‘problem-solving through long and varied practice rather than through studying theory or techniques’ (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetinkaya). An important thing to note is how the role and capabilities of a manager have changed since then. A manager no longer solely relies on their experience in the decision-making process. Modern managers are now able to strike a balance between reflection-upon-creation and experience because of the prevalence of data and analytics. With the help of their team, the best ones can identify and prioritize particular data points, to more accurately arrive at a solution or idea for their organization.
Intersection of Art and Science
The next piece in the design thinking history puzzle comes in 1992 with Richard Buchanan’s article Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Similar to this paper, he chronicled the origins of design thinking as we know it today. He points out that during the Renaissance period, liberal arts (such as social and natural sciences, mathematics, and philosophy) grew exponentially, and they were explored with increasingly refined methods (Buchanan). The ability to learn these fields became more difficult due to specialization and fragmentation (Buchanan). These fields lost touch with each other.
Lastly, he points out the ‘impossibility of rigid boundaries between industrial design, engineering, and marketing.’, and the ‘impossibility of relying on any one of the sciences (natural, social, or humanistic) for adequate solutions to…the inherently wicked problems of design thinking’ (Buchanan). One thing to note is Buchanan echoes Simon’s thoughts on how creativity and engineering are not mutually exclusive. In summary, Buchanan is making a plea for interdisciplinary and collaborative work between art and science, reminiscent of the Renaissance period, through design thinking methods to enrich human life.
Where We Are Today
I want to touch on Stanford School of Design (the d.school) and IDEO’s contributions to design thinking. These organizations are typically credited with coining the term design thinking as it is known today. David Kelley founded IDEO in 1978, and the Stanford d.school in 2005 (The Evolution of Design Thinking). IDEO brought design thinking to the mainstream by developing easily accessible terminology and methods for designers and non-designers alike (The Evolution of Design Thinking). The Stanford d.school, also considered a thought leader in the human-centered design space, ‘has made the development, teaching, and implementation of design thinking one of its own central goals since its inception’ (Wheatley). Kelley in many ways is instrumental in making design thinking more accessible for the masses and therefore allowing more people to see the value of its place in modern business.
Conclusion
Design thinking is very much a human-centered design process. If we were to personify design thinking as a person, what events and ideas would it be composed of to be the ‘person’ that it is today? In its infancy in 1938, John Dewey observes everything is connected. In 1939, World War II began and its tremendous impact on the advancement of computers and networks is still felt today. After the war ended in 1945, during the next two decades, the world economy slowly began rebuilding and shifting from the Industrial Age to the Post-industrial Age. Design thinking’s formative years take place during this time in response to the newly formed wicked problems of the Post-industrial Age. A plethora of articles and books explored these wicked problems through the lens of design and science like never before. Humans became more connected, consuming more than ever, and faced new, open-ended problems.
As we shift into the Information Age, it’s important to note that design thinking is still in its formative years. Design thinking as one knows it is only fifteen years old. Businesses are realizing the value of design thinking and it is slowly working its way into legacy companies. And as technology exponentially grows, and society grapples with new, complex problems, we can utilize design thinking to remember the human side of things.
Works Cited
Buchanan, Richard. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, 1992, p. 5., doi:10.2307/1511637.
Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies, vol. 3, no. 4, 1982, pp. 221–227., doi:10.1016/0142–694x(82)90040–0.
Cross, Nigel (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3) pp. 49–55.
Dalsgaard, P. 2014 Apr 12. Pragmatism and Design Thinking. International Journal of Design [Online] 8:1. Available: http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1087/606
Dam, Rikke Friis, and Yu Siang Teo. “Design Thinking: Get a Quick Overview of the History.” The Interaction Design Foundation, www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-thinking-get-a-quick-overview-of-the-history.
“Design Thinking Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).” IDEO, designthinking.ideo.com/faq/whats-the-difference-between-human-centered-design-and-design-thinking.
Ulla Johansson-Sköldberg, Jill Woodilla, and Mehves Çetinkaya. “Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22.2 (2013): 121–46. ProQuest. Web. 26 Jan. 2020.
Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, 1973, pp. 155–169., doi:10.1007/bf01405730.
Rowe, Peter G. Design Thinking. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1987. Print.
Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT Press, 1969.
“The Evolution of Design Thinking.” IDEO, designthinking.ideo.com/history.
Whearley, Natalie. “History & Approach.” Stanford D.school, Stanford D.school, 18 Feb. 2017, dschool.stanford.edu/fellows-in-residence/project-fellowship-history-approach.
