Thank you Terry. Much appreciated. 
Toni

Sent from my mobile. Please forgive brevity and input errors.

> On 13 Jan 2014, at 4:22 pm, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Toni,
> 
> The origins of design thinking were in engineering design in the middle of the last century. You might find useful:
> 
> Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning (2005) see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.72.1593
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> 
> --
> Dr Terence Love
> PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
> Director,
> Love Services Pty Ltd
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
> [log in to unmask]
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, 10 January 2014 6:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Questions about design thinking
> 
> 
> 
>    Dear list members, 
> 
>    I am hoping that some of you may be able to help me to clarify my understanding of ‘design thinking’ and its significance. 
> 
>    I have come to design from a couple of previous careers: adult language learning and literacy, industry training in the context of organisational change and academic skills teaching in a university context. I also come to design research from the practice of design, primarily designing and often also making physical objects and environments, so my responses to proposed definitions and concepts are coloured by this experience. When I started my PhD at Swinburne and came across the idea of ‘design thinking’ I remember a fellow student providing a definition to do with solving problems through empathy and collaboration. My immediate response was to say ‘so I’ve been a designer all my life and didn’t know it!’ Although I was being flippant at the time, I have not yet read anything that has significantly shifted my position on this. All the definitions and descriptions of design thinking that I have so far encountered seem to me to apply equally well to a whole range of other activities, from business marketing to developing training programs or teaching my children maths. Most of my work prior to being formally involved in design has been about identifying a need or set of problems through consultation with my audience/students/clients, empathising with my audience, strategic planning, developing maps and plans and diagrams to communicate the plan, adapting my plan to feedback along the way, trying again and developing novel ways to communicate or produce a range of complex outcomes. Such activities are not restricted to designers and it would be simplistic to say that everyone is a designer, just as it is simplistic to say that everyone who uses the written word to communicate is a writer. There must be some distinguishing designerly aspect that underpins the term design thinking. 
> 
>    I admit that at first I hoped to avoid engaging with this issue as it was not central to my PhD thesis, but now that I am involved in design education I feel the need to clarify whether ‘design thinking’
> needs to be part of the university curriculum. I am wary of designers claiming to bring expertise to contexts outside of their domain that require specialist knowledge of that field that includes understanding of the ramifications of any interventions in the system or situation.
> That said, I also understand from my own experience in industry training the value and clarity that an outsider’s perspective can sometimes bring to a problem or situation  Lucy Kimbell’s critique of the concept (2011) resonates with me, but I know many academics and design practitioners continue to use and promote the idea of design thinking so I am open to persuasion about its significance. 
> 
>    I did the d.school MOOC on design thinking, which was a great course that promoted a very well-considered process, but it was definitely a process, not a way of thinking. Thinking is an internal activity that interacts with external stimuli but it is not an action that involves others - that is ‘communicating’ or ‘collaborating’. The ‘empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test’ process used in the course is well suited to some types of design but not others. I can imagine that this process would be excellent for responding to specific social issues or proposing an intervention in a pre-existing system such as a medical records system or a home-care service, but it is perhaps a bit unwieldy for typographic design, decorative design or design of a complex environment that is difficult to model such as a zoo, large-scale artwork or interpretive trail (the fields I work in).
> The process is heavily dependent on the ability to model the proposed solution to a defined problem and for the intended user to be able to imagine this solution in the real world and interpret its broader impacts. Aspects such as scale, time and interactivity can be difficult to communicate through models. The process requires access to the ‘user’ or a sample of different user types, which is often difficult. Further, such users are often not as well educated in the particular problem or issue and the range of solutions and their impacts as the designer is – it is part of our role to research thoroughly and to grasp the complexity of a problem or situation and to envisage the interrelationships between aspects of that situation, its context and other variables. This is the case with designing a training program or course; the user cannot effectively provide feedback on it until they have done the course and developed understanding of the concepts rather than just seeing a model of it.
> (I have intentionally crossed the boundary here by describing developing training as a form of design, just to show how muddy the water is here). 
> 
>    Perhaps I am just niggling over terminology. I expect that something called design thinking is about design and thinking and is applicable to all types of design, which is perhaps not its intention. 
> 
>    Is anyone able to tell me how ‘design thinking’ is about design and about thinking rather than being about a strategic, user-centred process for solving all kinds of problems and developing new situations, systems, services or products? What do designers bring to the process that is distinct from what any other intelligent, strategically minded person might offer? 
> 
>    And secondly, why should it be part of a post-grad design curriculum as distinct from the standard design process, strategic design and user-centred design? 
> 
>    Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. _Design and Culture_, _3_(3), 285–306.
> 
>      
> 
>    Best wishes, 
> 
>    Toni
> 
>    Lecturer, RMIT
> 
>    Toni Roberts
> 
>    Hatchling Studio
> 
>    +61 (0)413 455 414
> 
>    www.hatchlingstudio.com.au
> 
>     
> 
> -------------------------
> Email sent using Optus Webmail
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------