This was a very interesting article to read. In my previous work experience and even school projects, I’ve definitely consciously considered design-thinking as a framework to structure the project and roadmaps. However, like the article mentions, I like many often treat design-thinking as this nebulous concept that organizations should apply – however have no idea of measuring.
In my opinion, identifying the “pros and perils of design thinking” heavily depends on the practical implementation/execution of design-thinking in an organization and also the stakeholders/power dynamics involved. Let us discuss the practical implementation piece first.
People using this framework believe that design-thinking is going to improve productivity or efficiency within an organization. However, when there aren’t any measurable goals or concrete checkpoints when “design-thinking” in an organization, then this methodology is virtually useless. However, when quarterly gaols – for example – are defined for an organization and there is regular discussion about how/if design thinking is helping the organization their goals, following this design-thinking approach is useful.
Next, the stakeholders that are actually doing the design-thinking and their scope to affect change – irrespective of whether they ultimately do – is important to consider. Let me be more specific. The failed execution of the design-thinking mindset in Gainesville, Florida is a prime example of failing to understand your audience. The people doing the design-thinking were IDEO members, and the people being impacted by their very practical decisions/outcomes were the people of Gainesville – who, by definition, are not the design-thinkers. Although they should have, the citizens of Gainesville did not have a say (directly or indirectly) in designing the policies that would impact them – only the IDEO members did. That is what led to the disconnect in the IDEO report. It was idyllic, utopic, and generally independent of the current condition and social state of the city. With the IDEO members working off their assumptions of the current state of Gainesville, without actually knowing, they only empathized with their assumptions and not the actual state of systemic poverty, racism, and racial inequality – unbeknownst to IDEO.
While the the IDEO members had great scope to affect change, they were unable to do so because they didn’t know what the citizens really needed. Even inviting representatives of the Gainesville community, especially from the under-represented sections in the city, to the “design-thinking table” would be helpful in empathizing with the actual problems and be sensitive to the social circumstance of the city – instead of making upfront assumptions.
