Dear Stef,
So much for my good intentions about avoiding this thread.
It seems to me that we cannot say that “design thinking” and “designing” are the same.
Much “designing” is done without using the array of understandings, skills, and approaches that typify “design thinking,” “strategic design,” “design integration,” or “integrative thinking.”
A great deal of design is top-down, specified by a brief, or in some determined in ways that do not involve iterative engagement with clients, customers, or end-users.
The majority of professional design studios still operate on the craft-guild culture, where the master of the studio (partner or principal) is the central figure surrounded by the senior designers (journeymen), and the junior designers (apprentices).
An excellent article by anthropologist Bryan Byrne and designer Ed Sands (2002: 47-69) describes the culture of the typical design studio. The problems they describe map onto artisan craft guild culture, and these problems work against the approach that one might describe as design thinking. Many design studios do excellent design work using traditional design approaches and effective design methods – but these may not include design thinking. An even greater number of design studios do problematic work using the top-down, directive approach that is contrary to the design thinking approach.
Larry Leifer and Christoph Meinel (2014: 3-5) articulate what they consider the four rules of design thinking. They write,
“We now have evidence in support of several design thinking activities that have long been considered important, but until this time we have not had an explanation or understanding of their value. Of these, the over-arching truth lies in the fact that every physical product delivers a service; that every service is manifest through physical products. Our research suggests that four ‘rules of design thinking’ are particularly relevant. The challenge of this section is to translate these rules into innovation eco-system design requirements.
“1. The Human Rule: All Design Activity is Ultimately Social in Nature. Never Go Hunting Alone.
“2. The Ambiguity Rule: Design Thinkers Must Preserve Ambiguity. Never Go Home Empty Handed.
“3. The Re-Design Rule: All Design Is Re-Design. Take the Big Idea Home. It Has Been Done Before.
“4. The Tangible Rule: Make Ideas Tangible. Facilitate Human Communication.”
Every member of this list has seen examples of design process that do not follow this kind of model. Even so, these other forms of design process are examples of designing.
With this in mind, I’d argue that most robust approaches to design through design thinking are quite different to common processes of software design, engineering design, or even consumer design as it often takes place.
The point of design thinking – or its cognate forms – is to design better through an appropriate range of iterative processes and focal concerns.
Design thinking is an approach to designing. It is not synonymous with designing. In saying this, I’m not describing design thinking as the cure for all problems, and I am not defining either design or design thinking. I’m simply stating that they are not synonyms.
It seems to me that you are attempting to exclude from design those design processes that are flawed in conception, practice, or completed execution.
This is something one often hears in a colloquial sense: a couple of designers look at an incomprehensible signage system, and say, “this isn’t design!” [noun]. Or a senior designer watches a junior designer make elementary mistakes in specifying a product, saying, “That’s not designing!” [verb]. Or an angry client yells at the producer of buggy software that clutters up the company, “you can’t design!” [verb].
We understand the meaning of such a statement. Even so, these are cases of design and designing. They are bad examples and poor cases, but they nevertheless remain instances of design and designing.
It is in this sense that I’d say that design thinking is not synonymous with designing. Design thinking is an approach to design process, and not all designers use it when they work.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
--
Reference
Byrne, Bryan, and Ed Sands. 2002. “Designing Collaborative Corporate Cultures.” In Creating Breakthrough Ideas, Bryan Byrne and Susan E. Squires, editors. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey, pp. 47-69.
Leifer, Larry and Christoph Meinel. 2014. “All Design Activity Is Ultimately Social in Nature. Introduction.” Design Thinking Research. Building Innovation Eco-Systems. Hasso Plattner, Larry Leifer, and Christoph Meinel, eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, pp. 3-11.
--
Stefanie di Russo wrote:
--snip--
This is why i suggest that we could equally rid the term 'design thinking' and simply just call it *designing*, as in my opinion, both are one and the same.
--snip--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|