This article was an extremely interesting read, especially as a product design major where design thinking is preached as the almighty solution to problem-solving. It was always something that has been preached but never challenged. It seems impenetrable, but wouldn’t all of the worlds problems be solved if that were the case?
Design thinking is the reason why I am in product design. I was originally a pre-med looking to eventually become a sports medicine doctor, but after taking Designing Your Stanford and using design thinking to navigate my college career, I was hooked. Design thinking has transformed the way I approach problem solving. First, it encouraged me to fall in love with both the problem and the process, from drawing up wild ideas, to getting messy with rapid prototyping and testing, to being willing to fail early and often. Secondly, design thinking taught me that keeping people at the center of what I design will allow me to create a product that truly meets their needs. These two aspects of design thinking are what make me passionate about my work.
I’ve never really thought of the perils of design thinking until I read this article. The biggest peril of design thinking, a perspective conveyed in this article, is that organizations will see it as a magical potion to spark innovation within their teams without realizing its prerequisites (“quality of work,” “methodology,” and “critical thinking”) for successful implementation. It is actually amusing to realize that organizations will utilize design thinking as a mere topping, rather than the main ingredient. To me, design thinking isn’t effective if it’s just regarded as helpful tips or just a new perspective to problem-solving; it’s a methodology that requires deep and thorough practice beyond what can be delivered in workshops and exercises. In retrospect, it makes me appreciate the design work I’m doing at Stanford, where I’ve been able to deeply apply tenets of design thinking in various contexts to make impactful projects.
I believe the main reason the Gainesville case study was a failure was because it was solution-oriented, rather than human-centered. The designers framed the problem with a solution, looking at different ways to help grow new businesses, like making it more attractive on the outside, training design thinking, etc. But they failed to walk in the shoes of Gainesville’s population and instead took on a more top-level city approach. They didn’t consider cultivating an environment for its citizens that met their baseline needs to help them reach those goals of new businesses and talent.
After reading this article, I’m still wondering: what exactly are the limitations of design thinking? We all know it’s not bullet-proof, so what does design thinking overlook? In what situations will it fail? Why? I’m really curious to know the answer to this as someone who has blindly put it on a pedestal all this time. I want answers.
