Design thinking has its pros, but it also has its place. As a framework for problem-solving, design thinking like that embodied by IDEO is remarkable in its ability to boil down complex systems and issues so that they can be tackled in an organized and methodical manner. This framework is enticing in that it can be easily understood and quickly put into practice, and it does have a proven track record of success in a wide variety of problems across domains. Indeed, when the process of design thinking can be used to remedy problems as disparate as patient information tracking and guerrilla demobilization, it’s tempting to view its five steps as a panacea. In this model, to be a design thinker is to possess the tools needed to administer a cure to the world’s problems.
However, design thinking’s trap of overapplication is its downfall. Part of the beauty of the five-step model is its simplicity, and incredibly complicated and multifaceted wicked problems inherently resist this simplification. While the design thinking paradigm treats the designer as an external force brought into a situation to brainstorm a solution, wicked problems require internal solutions and insights from those affected the most. This mismatch can render design thinking exclusionary, stifling the viewpoints of marginalized groups by excluding them from the ideation process.
Consider the example of IDEO’s efforts in Gainesville, Florida, where the dissonance between the design thinking mission and the city’s problems began with the definition of the problem IDEO was brought in to solve. Rather than tackle the wicked problems of systemic inequity in Gainesville, design thinking was used to simplify these interrelated issues into a single problem of “insufficient competitiveness,” a problem that did not reflect the lived experiences of Gainesville’s underrepresented communities. As the process of design thinking pushed further into generating solutions for the city, the implementation of these solutions also suffered from the same oversimplification and exclusion. The large-scale resignations of African American employees from city offices like the Department of Doing, for instance, are a testament to the traps of design thinking when over-applied. The Black community in Gainesville were effectively shut out from the process of solving the problems that directly impacted their lives. Instead, the insights of other external design thinkers were disproportionately valued even when they had no personal connection to or lived experiences with the struggles faced by underrepresented Gainesville.
Perhaps the solution to this issue is to ensure that the communities who are most heavily impacted by wicked problems play an equally large role in helping to solve them. I believe design thinking as a framework can be a helpful tool in solving problems like those faced by Gainesville if design thinkers act as collaborators with stakeholders in helping generate solutions rather than attempting to wrangle these problems from the outside in. Weaving the voices of marginalized communities into each step of a more design process is vital to make room for more impactful solutions – ideas that truly serve all stakeholders equitably.
