I was introduced to the concept of design thinking just last year, and I was certainly swept up in the seemingly simple yet universal process of it all. At least in CS 147, it really drives home just how “applicable” the process is by allowing groups to choose a target group they want to design a solution for (within the themes of their sections). The process of it was fast-paced, generative, and at some times felt silly as group members suggested increasingly outside-the-box ideas. One thing that I noticed as I went through this was how difficult it was for me to “think-outside-the-box” when ideating. It is true that any idea could potentially lead to a good solution, but I found myself only offering “practical” ideas, ones that seemed to be grounded enough in the problem we identified at hand. After reading this article, I can see that part of that reason was the fear of “lofty solutions” from the design thinking process, ones that could potentially ignore the myriad of factors that contributed to the problem in the first place. This is not to say design thinking is without its benefits; it can certainly generate different ways to tackle identified issues, and I believe with careful, considerate, and intentional thought, a proposed solution can succeed. However, I think these benefits remain largely in designing consumer products or services, not in situations pertaining to administration, communities, or larger societies. As the article highlights, there are often many deep-running roots to issues in these areas that cannot be summarized into one neat problem. Doing so runs the risk of completely ignoring how those factors contributed to the issue in the first place, which ultimately does not solve the issue. At best, I think it would just be a temporary bandage. In America, this would concern a lot of marginalized and underrepresented communities, where the systems and norms in place usually don’t serve them well. The people themselves know what the more pressing matters are for them, and might have more actionable solutions than an external, hired “design thinking” group.
Regarding the Gainesville design experiment, I think one of the early mistakes was firing “qualified people who [were] professional public administrators because they question[ed] [Anthony Lyons’] actions.” Being able to receive, understand, and incorporate feedback is essential for improving, even outside of design thinking. Concern and resistance is normal with changes as drastic as those, but dismissing them altogether is bad for both the person in charge, and for the direction of the project as a whole. I also think that neglecting essential community voices, such as assistant city manager Fred Murry who focused on affordable housing, was another flaw. Relying on a firm to summarize the community in a short time cannot replace longtime administrators who worked on critical areas. While I can’t suggest a complete solution, I think expanding their interviews and observations to the rest of Gainesville (rather than a storefront downtown) would be a start in a better direction. Perhaps talking to the current working officials would provide additional insight to the larger policy issues at hand. While I don’t think design thinking could properly tackle the issues in Gainesville, making sure to include a better sample of voices in the community would already be a better start to identifying a problem and building actionable steps.
