Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. In past classes and workshops, I have seen these five steps presented in a zigzag of connected hexagons to represent the core of the design thinking process. I think there is value to this structured framework of approaching complex problems and how to solve them. In particular, it can serve as a starting point to guide creativity and innovation. However, in my view, the hexagon-following-hexagon diagram does not entirely capture the iterative nature of the process, or the need for reassessment and evaluation especially at milestone points. I have seen alternative diagrams that show more loops between steps that might help provide stronger reminders that design thinking is not a linear process.
Maggie Gram’s article “On Design Thinking” and Debbie Levitt’s summary further highlight that design thinking is certainly not without its flaws. Design thinking workshops are often fun, involving people brought together with many post-it notes and pens to practice exercises for stretching creativity and introducing prototyping. However, Levitt emphasizes an important point about the design thinking process: “Quality of work and methodology matter. Critical thinking matters. Working from qualitative research … correctly planned, recruited, executed, analyzed, and synthesized matters.” In other words, it is not just about going through the steps in this framework, but also about considering–thoughtfully and holistically–both what the problem is for the people involved, and what the nature of the problem is. This latter point, if underestimated, can lead to failed results. An example outlined in the readings is IDEO’s recommendations for increasing the “competitiveness” of Gainesville, Florida for new business and talent that, despite their seeming feasibility when presented in a report, could not address the underlying systemic problems brought upon and historically reinforced by racism and poverty in the community. In cases like these, my view is that the problem domain was, to an extent, subject to more challenges than the design thinking process alone could tackle; solutions needed to include considerations of not only what the town’s needs and wants were, but also more broadly an assessment of the problem’s root causes and avenues for solutions, with who, with what, and how. Moreover, I think that the design thinking process is an ongoing one and cases like these would benefit from continued work with the community to prototype and test potential solutions, acknowledging that some (perhaps many) ideas may fail but can inform decisions for the future.
