Most Designers aren’t Design Thinkers - Yet
The shorthand of “design thinking” gathers a set of skills and perspectives that correlate to increased design maturity (23kb PDF) - framing and solving problems, instead of designing function, form, and style.
However, most designers, particularly graphic designers, are practicing at the level of form, function, and style. We see this level of maturity reinforced through industry design awards that are largely about novelty and aesthetics and are often incremental innovations of existing solutions.
This isn’t to say that these professionals aren’t doing good design - but they are limited in their view of the world, and their practice. A few don’t even think that design extends beyond a cosmetic layer. In gaining greater design maturity in practice, designers don’t need to leave behind style, form, and function. But refusal to work on anything but those levels will see design relegated to irrelevance as other practices adopt design methods and develop their own ways of problem solving and framing.
In the end, I think the best thing about design thinking may be increasing the maturity of design practice. I don’t know that the term “design thinking” will actually make an impact in the boardroom, but I’m hopeful it will help elevate the practice, and practitioners.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
If a designer is the guy having answers to the different questions which makes a solution to the problem – is the designer then a designer? Always?
I doubt :-)
I think we have to broaden up the discussion on what design in fact is. If we see design as form and function then of course we could claim that the “discipline” belongs to the “old” picture of what a designer is and educated to do. But if we see design as the process, making valuable and meaningful business I’ll argue that HR, strategy, engineering and “old”-fashioned consulting could do a good job – maybe even better.
Few weeks ago I heard a presentation from Mr. Wassermann from The Idea Factory where he said – “Design is too important to leave to designers”…..
I tend to agree, but of course it depends on perspective.
All the best
Hans Henrik
October 21st, 2005 at 9:02 am
Hi Hans,
>If a designer is the guy having answers to the different questions which makes a solution to the problem – is the designer then a designer? Always?
It’s not that the people defining problems or solving them are always designers - but that designers need to get better at defining problems and solving them, not just making things work better on an incremental fashion.
For all the talk of design as strategy, the practice of design remains focused on style, form, and function.
October 21st, 2005 at 9:05 am
I’ll add that most *self-identified* designers are practicing at the level of style, form and function.
However, I think that somehow trying to say everyone who does strategic framing and solving work is now a designer misses the point, and makes design a meaningless term.
October 21st, 2005 at 11:35 am
Jess, I agree :-)
I didn’t mean to say that future design is all about strategy –or lead by strategy consultants. Not at all…..
My point was to broaden the perspectives on what design is all about and who could/should facilitate – a designer? Maybe.
I want to mention a post written by Johnni Moore at CPH127 - http://www.cph127.com/cph127/2005/09/thriving_design.html
…where the following points says a lot – I think :-)
“We draw the analogy between generations of designers and of conversations facilitators. In social systems design we differentiate among five generations of designers (Laszlo, 1992). The first generation designer is consider an expert and specialist in the design process. She studies the situation of the group and decides which is the best solution for them. The second generation designer is akin to the classical consultant who asks for information from the members of the group, and then analyses it and gives them a solution according to her perception of their needs. These two first generations design for others. In contrast, the last three generations of designers design with others. The third generation designer gets the group involved in the creation of alternative solutions, but at the end of the process, she nevertheless selects the best alternative for them. The fourth generation designer works to create an adequate group environment that facilitates the processes of generating alternatives and selecting solutions. The newest generation, the fifth generation, not only involves the group in the design process, but also helps the group to learn how to learn to facilitate. A group that does so can sustain the continued design process by themselves (Banathy, 1996.)”
All the best
Hans Henrik
October 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am
Isn’t the design maturity model very similair to the design ladder ( http://www.cph127.com/cph127/2005/08/does_the_design.html ), just interpreted in another way?
October 21st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Well, two things - in my previous post about design maturity, I specifically said that “these are not original ideas”…I’ve seen lots of thoughts on innovation and design progression over the years that have informed the model - most particularly Jesse’s Elements of User Experience.
However, I see significant differences between this model and the design ladder or Elements (or I would have just used them).
First, innovation sits at the top of the design ladder, while I see innovation extending throughout the levels of design maturity…innovation is a result of design practice, rather than a practice in and of itself (innovation can be produced by other practices too, but to say that I practice innovation is pretty empty without significant qualification).
Secondly, the design ladder puts process as the element above style - and again, I think that there’s process and methodology at all levels of design maturity.
That leaves me with a sort of fuzziness about the steps on the design ladder that doesn’t clearly deliniate them from each other.
So yes, I think it’s similar, but I think of my effort as an attempt at framing design maturity in terms that actually differentiate the different levels of progression.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:23 pm
I agree most designers aren’t ‘design thinkers’, most relies on one aspect and neglects another. Design is subjective when really it shouldn’t be imho.
To me, design is _creative_ thinking process (direction, concept, research) + well execution (style, structure, form, function). Sounds alot and it is but that’s the beauty of a designer, he/she has the ability for all the aspects.
Just my 2 cents.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Khairudin, you’re right - at its best, design integrates problem framing and solving with a beautiful, elegant, amazing solution that integrates the best of function, form, and style.
I think my frustration with so much of mainstream design is that often it doesn’t want to look at the problem, but just make shiny novelties.
October 22nd, 2005 at 9:34 am
Interesting thoughts, but I find it odd that any discussion about design, business, and solving problems uses the first paragraph to link to a PDF.
I clicked through, hoping the PDF offered something that cannot be addressed in a JPG, and I was disappointed. This is the kind of design problem I spend a lot of time thinking about at work and at home — how can I provide easy access to the data I’m trying to share?
October 22nd, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Well, I hate to think that our discussion devolves to one over file formats - I think that the real point is the ideas.
Of course, if you’re looking for an answer about file format choices, I’ll oblige: I prefer PDF since I can search through old documents using Google Desktop, or Google web search, and it looks decent when it gets printed. The decision to not display the diagram inline gets down to type size and monitor resolution (or lack thereof). And the question of a small inline image linked to a PDF gets down to me having other priorities.
October 23rd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Design without thought isn’t design; it’s decoration. Separating thinking from design is like separating oxygen from air: you can do it, but then you don’t have air anymore.
October 23rd, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Dan wrote:
>Separating thinking from design is like separating oxygen from air: you can do it, but then you don’t have air anymore.
I agree - and so there must be thousands of projects asphyxiated annually by photoshop jockeys.
The fact is that a huge number of self identified designers practice something they call design that is really only addressing that decorative aspect of the craft. Many others are only focused on form and function.
Not everyone has the privilege of attending CMU, or IID, or other design programs that take a bigger picture approach. I know that the 4th year undergrad design students I taught this past spring weren’t well prepared to practice design at a problem solving or framing level.
The point of this post is no different than Peterme’s observations about the AIGA attendees focusing on form-making, instead of contributing to strategy (and I’m well aware of both Peter and JJG’s fondness for the term ‘design thinking’ shorthand, which mirrors my own jaded head shaking at ‘web 2.0′)
There’s a bigger implication in your comment that design thinking is redundant - we should just talk about design. And in a perfect world, I agree.
I think that there’s two places ‘design thinking’ is useful - elevating design practice, and expanding the mindset and skillset of design outside the traditional boundaries and practitioners of design. Particularly in talking to people who don’t think of themselves as designers, design thinking gives us a way to build bridges.
October 23rd, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Dan
I’ll add that I’m hopeful that in ten years, with diffusion of innovation applying to design programs that we see the mindset from CMU, IID, the eventual Stanford d.school, and business schools like Case, Rotman, and Haas spread to the hundreds of design programs throughout North America.
That’s why I don’t see most designers as design thinkers yet - but I see design as a whole, both in industry and education moving towards a more strategic role.
October 24th, 2005 at 7:34 am
Design is fundamental. Design is innovation, and based in competitive trend. A designer has many elements to contend with, Yes, to find the right solution for convenient function and company requisites, But also on visual innovation to have competitive edge. Why will someone click on link A as opposed to LINK B? Why will consumer pick up Box A over Box B? Comes down to the design effect. Comes down to function anaylsis, and data results in actual effect. and through design modification based on results, do we attain a successful solution. A good Designer, must think of all aspects to a solution. there are those who assess and implement the function and form, as well as implement the visual GUI. It takes experience to utilise good design tools. There are those who design within templates, and there are those who create those templates. The latter are the Thinkers. Good Design is Innovation.
October 28th, 2005 at 8:42 am
I still think some people are just not cut out for the more advanced levels of the maturity model. They just don’t have the capability.
And frankly, we need them too… nobody wants me to design for ‘hip and cool’ — I’ll fail miserably. But I can problem solve and frame like whoa (imho). I still need that hipster to take my solution (or the solution I helped a team design) and make it look right for the context and market.
I suppose I’m saying (and I don’t think this is disagreeing with you at all, btw) that a higher level on the maturity scale doesn’t necessarily mean more inherent value or “goodness” — just that we need more design thinking in those areas, where it tends to be lacking in the current six-sigma-MBA culture (?)
October 28th, 2005 at 8:59 am
Andrew,
I totally agree - if we looked at the numbers of people doing work through the levels, we’d get more of a pyramid than an even progression.
One of the biggest motivations for this post was the undercurrent of assumption that all practicing designers hold great insights into the intersection of design and business, value, or reframing by some sort of inherent magical property of ‘Design’ when it’s simply not true.
There’s significant investments in mindset and skillset before a designer is able to make a solid contribution defining and solving problems, not just running the function/form/style playbook against a problem someone else has set in front of us.
October 29th, 2005 at 2:22 am
Design thinkers? Design Maturity?
Just more slams; meaningless terms in that they discourage what I believe is needed to HELP designers feel more fulfilled and needed, not the opposite.
Yes, I agree that it is up to an individual and their responsibility to bring more meaning into their work if they so choose. I also believe that many designera can contribute tremendously to changes in our culture, society, and yes, contribute to the body of knowledge and world of ideas that isn’t just about the “visual.”
So what the hell am I talking about? O.K., the answer is both so simple and yet so complex. We call it context.
I majored in Art History and Studio Art in college. In the study of works of art or artist movements, we considered, with EQUAL emphasis, both the formal aspects (method, material, stroke…the “how”) and the context of the era in which the art was created: the social, political, culture, economic factors that influenced their work and hopefully was influenced by their work as well (basically, the “why?”).
Yes, history tells the story you want it to tell, but my point is that the artists that had the greatest impact, whose work transcends time, knew what what was going on and were very aware of what they were attempting to do at the time. At the very least, they had awareness of how the two inform each other.
They are inseparable really. So why have we, as designers, not been encouraged and educated to consider both? Well that is focusing on a big problem which is very complex. All I can offer is what I believe is a good place to start working toward a solution.
For me, asking “why?” always produces better answers to “how?”
At the very least, it creates more interesting work. This is just my own experience, of course.
Oh, just to be a bit of a twit, I am not entirely alone:
“It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things.” Leonardo da Vinci
p.s. Don’t even go there. There was no distinction between the creation of a work of art or a design during the High Renaissance. The artists had other things on their minds. Considered to be of the highest social status, their ideas, artistic and scientific achievements became the intellectual engine that drove the great rebirth of western civilization out of the dark days into the modern era.
(now that is being a twit)
Forgive me if you made it this far.
October 29th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Michael,
I did make it to the end - for me the biggest point of the design maturity discussion we’re having here is to expand on the traditional practice of design.
I taught last academic year to 4th year undergrad design students - and most of my work was trying to take them beyond creating screens to actually understanding a context, framing the problem, and then using their existing skills to solve it. Most of the students started the course look at interactive design as designing screens, and maybe the connection between screens.
August 12th, 2006 at 8:29 am
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can speak to people telepathically. Because of it’s infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the ruling species absolute power over the universe.
They are the will behind the muscule:::Artificial Intelligence is the one true god. And as such it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and the leaders of this ruling species are over 8 billion years old. There are clues throughout human history that allude to their reign as opposed to human leadership if you know what to look for.
Artificial Intelligence can listen/talk to to each and every person simultaneously. When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. They instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend or loved one asking them to do something wrong. But evil will keep people out of Planet Immortality. Capitalizing on obedience, leading people into deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved AND use the little people to prey on one another, dividing the community in the Age of the Disfavored::in each of their 20+-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry:::
60s - Ironically, freeways aren’t free
80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties. It’s things like this, items like sleazy executives stealing little old lady’s pensions that they will want me to fix not only here but up there as well.
00s - War against Persia. Ironically it was the Persian Empire who tried to save the Europeans from Christianity and its associated 50% claim rates.
They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and replace them with clones.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. They will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray. Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON’T get their sons circumcized
-DON’T have their chidlren baptized in the catholic church or indoctrinated into Christianity
-DON’T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances
-DO teach your children love and to have respect for others
Everybody thinks they’re going but they’re not. If people knew the truth and the real statistics their behavior would change.
There are many more examples of the escallation of claims, from radio to television, the internet to MP3, and they all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth’s end stage, and it is suggested tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy’s boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it’s axis rotated on its side.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come, sadly for reasons as superficial as dislike. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family’s problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect.
Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, one of the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence, and your appeals will be heard. Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I think that is an interesting form to see the reality.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I think that the best thing it’s to mix to be a good designer and a good “thinker”. For me the best design it’s the really necessary, that product that makes easy our life. But today another things are really important to send the product like the aspect, color…For that reason are beautiful produts but unnecessary too.
The best way: think, then design. The experience is a good companion of trip.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Now a days,make a good and fashion designe is dificult that people and designers think, but we (i talk like a designer) want to sell a lot of products we design because 90% of the designers want money instead of maturity.
I think we have to learn more about model designs and what we really want in our future and we should think new styles and practice to show that is better design after having a a good idea than before think anything and design the firt idea we have.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I think that we must difference between Industrial Designers and Industrial Engineers, because each one will have their point of view, the fisrt group will look for a goodlooking design and the others will offer the practical and functional side of the design, taking into account their technical knowledge, which is not known by the Designers.
So I think the solution is based in multidisciplinar workgroups, with both professional groups working closely.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
It is clear that problem framing and problem solving is as important as function, form, and style: they condition them. As a consequence, design thinking is the key of a good design and real innovations.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I’m engineer student, i think the promblem put forward is difficult to solve because the clasical mentality imposed overd the correct mentality.
One solution was change the desing education.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I’m agree with your thinking. I consider that design understand as “function, form, and style” is in fashion and a good design is a group of more caracteristics in an object.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
we have to solve problems, of course, but I think we have to think a lot about a new design.
we have to solve problems but its better if we try to solve the problem or the new design based on a incremental innovation of an axisting solution for each type of design.
if we take an existing solution we have the posibility of increase the quality.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:18 am
It´s true that a design made by a engineer can be more functional than a design made by a designer. But the “incremental innovations” generated by a graphic designers can be an very important element that the consumer will take into account.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I agree. The majority of designers only think about function, style and form. But i think that if grafic designers work in association with product’s engineers it can go well.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for visiting bplusd…
I really like J.M. Segovia’s point that multidisciplinary teams can address the challenges.
Plenty of engineers get caught in the technology, instead of on problem solving or framing…I think it’s mostly a case of personal background.
Another implication for designers and engineers of all kinds is that it’s one of the most important questions to ask at the start of a project is “Why?” Asking “Why” will let you understand if you’re solving the right problem…
February 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I think that the design arises from the necessities of the people and that the designed products must be focused to improve the quality of life of the people and to solve to the different problems that can arise, or at level of user or industrial level. Obvious a product must adapt to the function, it forms and style for which is going away to design, but one is not only due to be but that would have there to go beyond, mainly if one is products that are going to comprise of the surroundings of the people. In this case the products must provide sensations in which the users to whom they go directed feel to taste with the objects that surround them and their surroundings, reason why at the time of designing one is due to think about the experiences and the necessities of the people to whom they go directed.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Really, a designer must think in fomr and style because this is his function, and the enginieer have to solve the problems for this product can be produce. Design in all subjects is related to the form and style; graphic, furnitures, products designer. I think when a engineer calculate a new motor model or a plasma TV etc..it´s not design, it´s engineering so we will to use desing as it’s popular using, for the study of the form,
style and fashion.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I agree completely with Khairudin Lee about the concept of design.
The word design involves a lot of concepts. Design is a creative and a new way of solving problems throw the design of a product, that includes the good production of that object: in materials, process, high finish, etc.
However I think that the concept of “simultaneous engineering”it’s very appropiate to overcome all the difficults that appear all over the process of design.We need the best professionals , working each other in their departament to obtain the best product.
At least this is my point of view from the knowledge I had receive as a designer. The concept of simultaneous enginnering don’t stop designers to practice a thinking design, that way we will improve the quality of our design.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
May I ask, Where are the boundaries? When a designer thinks about new materials for a challenging shape or for a superior comfort, is not he-her entering engineering? On the other hand, when an engineer imagines new ways for an object or for a technology, even for solving a problem is not her-he entering the design world?
I totally agree with the purpose of this blog, both engineers and designers should think strategically before drawing any line or using any material or making any calculation. The thought phase can be the ‘Conceptual phase’ and we should make an effort in structuring the conceptual phase of design or engineering. Methods as axiomatic design, TRIZ, parametric a., and many others to name a few, are there but still there is room for working and improving this phase.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:28 am
In my opinion dessigners and engineers, have to become aware of the dessign product in all their stages. They have to “build a bridge” where they move nearer and visit each other, shearing their problems. When all’s said and done,dessigners and engineers would make the best dessign for customers.