What are the pros and perils of design thinking, especially in regards to marginalized and underrepresented communities?
Maggie Gram and Debbie Levitt bring up some excellent points about the conversation around “design thinking” and what it is. When I came to Stanford in 2019, it seemed all the rage, and my short venture into Product Design via ME 101 left me with a lot of confusion as to what this phrase meant. In the class, it was a lot of brainstorming, writing things on post-it notes, asking questions that really stretch your mind thin, and sometimes discussing what seemed like the obvious. So I decided to go back to Computer Science where everything was true or false (not everything, but more so), and I could forge my own path in design through my creativity.
After reading this article I am more convinced that “design thinking” does not lead to success, and there isn’t one way of doing things. The thinking needed to design software is not the same thinking needed to design a city, or a healthy work environment. There may be a step-by-step solution that IDEO is trying to sell, but that’s all it is: something that can be sold. It’s not something that can be easily learned or “achieved” in that way. Designers who are experts at what they do have gone through years of experience understanding all the separate players in the game: the users, the setting, the situation, and probably many other things that normal people wouldn’t recognize. So I agree, you won’t be a successful designer after trying “design thinking” for 5 days, and that’s why we still have designers today.
In the case of underrepresented communities, I think this is even more obvious. Slapping a design thinking post-in on a fundamental and historical issue is not going to solve it. Bringing in experts who understand the social science, the urban structure, the politics, the geography, and of course the way to make the project successful by convincing the people, is what is going to lead to greater success. It’s a case-by-case problem that needs stretchy minds to solve it.
A failed design project
I really like the Gainesville, Florida example. I’ve never heard of applying design thinking to a city problem. I guess it deals with humans, but I usually image design thinking to apply to a physical product or application. I would definitely encourage this sort of approach in general to solve problems, with bits of specialization. The task here is to make the city more “citizen-centered” (enter walkable cities). Let’s look at all the different things IDEO prescribed the town:
- Rebranding: adopt a new logo, tagline, and visual style
Not a bad idea, but this seems like a last step. I can imagine how it can be a priority just to get the ball rolling and have a “vision” for what this new city will be.
- Create a “Department of Doing” to help people start/grow businesses
Also generally a good idea, we want to encourage economic growth!
- Train city employees on “design thinking.”
How will this help them? Why do they need design thinking to tackle certain problems? How will this make the city more “citizen-focused”?
The problem here was that they never identified the problem. Why was the city not “citizen-centered” in the first place? Why are we forcing the people to suddenly become designers when the task was to hire the designers to create a better city? If the problem is in inequalities with urban planning and business development based on demographics, then we can use design thinking to come up solutions for that. In the general case, new policies can always be put into place. But where are the experts for rethinking what is already there?
