Design thinking should not be perceived as a secret weapon for building a greater good. I agree that Wicked Problems should not be solved by design thinking because the process itself was not actually designed to solve such problems. Natasha Jen, a partner at Pentagram, defines design thinking as “a designer’s way of working for a non-design audience by way of codifying design’s processes into a prescriptive, step-by-step approach to creative problem solving — claiming that it can be applied by anyone to any problem.” Design thinking is a prescriptive and simplified process, which can be great in some instances and harmful in other instances. As exemplified in the Gainesville story, the IDEO team viewed design thinking as the end-all-be-all tool to solve a highly complex, nuanced problem, which eventually led to harmful consequences for marginalized communities. I believe design thinking can be useful for problems that aren’t wicked; I see it as a method that should be complemented by other methods because it isn’t foolproof.
Juul is an example of a failed design thinking project. It was founded by two alumni from my program, the Master’s Design program at Stanford. Juul was created with the goal of reducing nicotine dependence in adults but it created a new problem: the vaping epidemic in teens. The issue that led to the demise of Juul was that there was no awareness of its potential negative impact. I believe that the design thinking process played a role in the problem; however, I do believe that a human’s tendency to turn a blind eye (i.e., acknowledging that Juul was creating a new market of smokers) in times of great success played a much larger role in the problem.
