Design thinking was an interesting and strange concept to me when I first learned it. Most definitions of design thinking involve words like “non-linear,” “iterative,” and “innovative.” This sounded like a great idea with limitless potential, but it was also odd that we were applying a framework to something that encourages out-of-the-box thinking. Are we limiting ourselves to a certain subset of solutions with this method? Are certain ideas or perspectives ignored with this innovative framework?
Pros
The design thinking process definitely works well for some use cases. Wild ideas may actually generate novel solutions. Moreover, by making design iterative and structured, more people can learn about design and even improve traditional processes (although not to the extent that’s necessary to be a great designer).
Perils
As mentioned in the article, IDEO packaged design thinking as something that anyone could do, that anyone could succeed at, and that solved any issues associated with design. This is dangerous because, although these new designers feel empowered, they may not be generating ideas of equal quality as professional designers might. Since design is something many are not familiar with, they may take the concept as an all-encompassing solution rather than a tool that needs supporting tools and context. And, regarding context, there is not an emphasis on understanding all perspectives of a problem and empathy. Let’s take a look at the Gainesville example mentioned in the article.
Real-world example – what were the issues that led to its failure? What do you think the designers should have done differently, if at all? Was the problem domain out of scope, was it the process, or was it something more?
When IDEO visited Gainesville, they applied their design thinking framework but only considered a small number of perspectives such as the new mayor’s. They failed to consult actual residents of Gainesville to understand their views on how the city could be improved. IDEO also made fairly rash decisions in replacing the City Commission subcommittees, especially because they do not have domain expertise.
The designers should have reached out and talked to residents, including the large Black and low-income populations. They should have also used the subcommittees and existing employees as a resource to inform the future of the city. The scope that IDEO considered was too narrow and the design thinking process restricted their ideas to non-relevant solutions.
