Hello everyone,
Just checking in on this thread VERY briefly to add a perspective....jumping in so have not read all the posts yet:)
Agreed re: the lack of review on this subject recently, as Ken has so eloquently outlined.
Re: the approach of NextDesign Leadership Institute, GK Van Patter speaks to his approach of Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 eloquently in his conversations with Peter Jones, which both graciously contributed to my recently published/edited book Meanings of Designed Spaces. 
In this book I also tackle this issue of design thinking, but from the perspective of understanding contexts from both theory and practice as these are explored in the context of designed spaces. The academic view of design thinking is somewhat diverse from the more practical view of designers and practitioners in various domains and fields. The idea was to juxtapose theoretical perspectives with those of people in business and working with these concepts.  
A "simple" version or view is impossible IMHO. 
However, what is great about GK's approach is that is gives a "meta" view of the issue in a way that transcends a particular discipline, and rather focusses on changing structures and ways of doing things in business. ( hope that this reflects your view, GK:)
In the case of the book, the contexts of practice are then explored from the perspective of designed spaces for corporate clients in conversations with design management and users in subsequent papers.
Regards
Tiiu
Tiiu PoldmaUniversité de MontréalMontréal Canada
VanPatter, G.K. & Jones, P. (2013). NextDesign Geographies: Understanding Design 1,2,3,4: The Rise of Visual Sense-Making. In Poldma, T. (Ed.). Meanings of Designed Spaces. New York: Fairchild Books, A Bloomsbury Imprint, 477 pages. 


----- snip ------> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:16:55 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: More on Design Thinking
> To: [log in to unmask]

> Dear Jerry,

> The issue you raise is intriguing: “a brief and concise description of what is being considered D1, 2, 3, 4, etc... And what key aspects of design thinking they have in common, since that is what I take to be design thinking, and what criteria are being used in making such distinctions.”
> 
> To answer this in a full, accurate way is the work of a serious article. Even a relatively long post can’t do it at nearly 2,000 words.
> 
> No one has yet published a rich description of the common aspects and different issues in design thinking at all four different scales of complexity in this conversation – artifact design, service and experience design, organization design, and systems design.
-----snip------
> These issues are not simple or easy to resolve. But so far, no one has yet brought this together in the kind of description you’d like to see.
> 
> 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

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