Friends,
The term design thinking is contested these days for several reasons.
The major problem is that the term has two meanings. One meaning is a
catch-all for a wide range of creativity and innovation processes. Some
work well and some don't, but all are suitable for packaging and use by
consulting firms. In this sense, the term is tarnished by a “flavor of
the month” quality.
The other meaning is that there is genuinely some form of thinking and
working that typifies skilled design process. This approach is distinct
from and different to the analytical approach of the natural and social
sciences, and distinct from and different to the interpretive approaches
that typify the liberal arts and humanities. Despite this, it may draw
on both approaches – one case in point is Nobel Laureate Herbert
Simon’s description of “design science,” a way of working that is
partly rigorous and systematic, and partly heuristic and intuitive,
based on expert knowledge.
In addition to Erik's blog and David's, I suggest a good Core77 post by
Don:
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.asp
Design thinking is a term that remains vague and fuzzy, but it attempts
to summarize a real and valuable approach to problem solving. Erik sums
it up nicely in the last paragraph of his blog: "Design as an approach
or as a form of 'thinking' is not dead. At the same time, it is not yet
alive as a fully developed intellectual and philosophical tradition. A
lot of people are doing a great job today trying to develop such an
understanding, but it will probably take another century to reach a
situation where design as an approach is recognized at the same level
and in the same intellectual and intuitive sense as art and science."
Ken
Ken Friedman
|