The problem is the way we see the problem
Will the father of design thinking please stand up?
Interrogate problems to determine a frame and a logical progression for critical thought. Define creative thinking as the discovery of a concept which links a set of problems to a set of solutions.
The framework for this exercise is design reasoning.
The first rule of style is to have something to say
Design thinking is having its day in business analytics. Management consultants, innovation instructors, and software developers supply definitions and toolboxes. The emphasis often is on the ideas, sometimes on the process, and occasionally on the problem. Idea management software is for sale, boasting coded generation of large numbers of ideas.
Jo Szczepanska dedicates an excellent Medium story to key players who added to design thinking. George Pólya does not make the list.
Jo is not alone. The mathematician George Pólya is arguably the first to formalize design reasoning, although he is never mentioned in modern definitions of the process.
Pólya is known to the public for his book, How to Solve It, published in 1945. The tome sold one million copies, which must be a record for a book on mathematics. A leading research mathematician of his time, he is regarded as the father of the modern emphasis on problem solving in math education.
I am not good enough for physics and too good for philosophy; mathematics is in between.
Pólya identifies four principles of problem solving.
Neglect of the obvious does not show necessarily stupidity but rather indifference
Begin with understanding the problem.
The first principle is so obvious it is often missed. Pólya says when a potentially helpful idea presents itself, we do not appreciate it, for it is so inconspicuous. True that.
Where should I start? Start from the statement of the problem. … What can I do? Visualize the problem as a whole
Visualize the problem as vividly as you can. Pólya wants you to impress its purpose on your mind.
He details issues to be addressed in carrying out the first principle.
The ability to physically write the problem and conditions constraining the problem is mandatory. Brainstorming on a whiteboard with a few notes is not sufficient.
Do you understand all the words used in stating the problem? Can you restate the problem in your own words?
Most of us spend too little time thinking about the problem itself. Einstein said, if I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend fifty-five minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions. He talked of trains and clocks, then wove time and space into a single fabric.
If you are having trouble, Pólya suggests drawing a figure. John Sandford’s conceit of circles and arrows is my favorite choice. Regardless, what is unknown here? Does the nature of the conditions suffice to determine the unknown? Or not.
In the parlance of design thinking, the frame contributing to the last fix is unlikely to be the one you need for the next.
It is generally useless to carry out details without having seen the main connection
Pólya notes there are many reasonable ways to solve problems. His second principle is just as matter of fact.
Devise a plan.
Find the connection between data and the unknown. Can you derive something useful from the data? Can you think of other data appropriate to determine the unknown?
Analogy pervades all our thinking, our everyday speech and our trivial conclusions as well as artistic ways of expression and the highest scientific achievements
You may consider auxiliary problems if an immediate connection cannot be found. A few questions eventually should lead to a plan. Here’s a sample.
Look at the unknown. Try to think of a familiar problem having a similar unknown. Have you seen it before? Or have you seen the same problem in a slightly different form? Do you know a related problem? Could you use its method of solution?
Go back to definitions. Can you restate the problem still differently? Have you accounted for all essential notions involved? He included a rather radical thought, oddly appropriate 75 years after initial publication.
Can you change the unknown or data, or both if necessary, to make the new unknown and new data are nearer to each other? Climate change problems are susceptible to such an approach. So is gaslighting.
A great discovery solves a great problem, but there is a grain of discovery in the solution of any problem
The third principle is carry out the plan.
At this stage, it may be easier done than said. Add care and patience to your skill set. Persist until the solution, or a new plan, presents itself.
The first and foremost duty of the high school is to emphasize methodical work in problem solving
Design thinking involves experimentation. Even mathematicians seek solutions by trial and error in the form of a series of experiments. Each probe attempts to correct errors committed by the preceding. Pólya used the mathematical term successive approximations to capture the notion.
Trials come closer and closer to the desired result. Pólya did not discourage students from using trial and error; on the contrary, he encouraged intelligent use of the fundamental method of successive approximations. Yet he convincingly showed “for …many … situations, straightforward algebra is more efficient than successive approximations.”
In lay language, a single formula may trump a series of small steps.
The best of ideas is hurt by uncritical acceptance and thrives on critical examination
The final principle is important in business applications.
Look back. What worked, and what did not?
Can you use the result or the method for some other problem? Tactical examples are building blocks for successful problem-solving strategies.
A good teacher impresses students with the view that no problem is completely exhausted.
An idea which can be used once is a trick. If it can be used more than once it becomes a method
Design thinking sounds like agile programming in software design. Both constitute an iterative process in which we seek to understand the user, examine assumptions, and redefine problems. The comparison is not born of coincidence. Design reasoning has its putative origins in the broader design community circa 1987. It is a collection of methods for design problems construed generously.
Modern design reasoning is Pólya recast with a bit of sociology and released from any mathematical constraints.
The takeaway lies in the section headings originally written by Pólya himself. Repurposing solutions is a central tenet of his philosophy. Have you seen the same problem in a slightly different form?
You know his methods. Apply them to design thinking.
