Design thinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Design thinking refers to creative strategies designers use during the process of designing.[1] It has also been developed as an approach to resolve issues outside of professional design practice, such as in business and social contexts.[2][3]

Origins of the term[edit]

The origins of regarding design thinking as a particular approach to creatively solving problems lie in the development of creativity techniques in the 1950s and the development of new design methods in the 1960s. L. Bruce Archer was perhaps the first author to use the term 'design thinking' in his book "Systematic Method for Designers" (1965).[4] The notion of design as a "way of thinking" in the sciences can be traced to Herbert A. Simon's 1969 book The Sciences of the Artificial,[5] and in design engineering to Robert McKim's 1973 book Experiences in Visual Thinking.[6] Bryan Lawson's 1980 book How Designers Think, primarily addressing design in architecture, began a process of generalising the concept of design thinking.[7] A 1982 article by Nigel Cross established some of the intrinsic qualities and abilities of design thinking that made it relevant in general education and thus for wider audiences.[8] Peter Rowe's 1987 book Design Thinking, which described methods and approaches used by architects and urban planners, was a significant early usage of the term in the design research literature.[9] Rolf Faste expanded on McKim's work at Stanford University in the 1980s and 1990s,[10][11] teaching "design thinking as a method of creative action."[12] Design thinking was adapted for business purposes by Faste's Stanford colleague David M. Kelley, who founded the design consultancy IDEO in 1991.[13] Richard Buchanan's 1992 article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking" expressed a broader view of design thinking as addressing intractable human concerns through design.[14]

Design thinking example video

Solution-focused thinking[edit]

Design thinking is a method for practical, creative resolution of problems. It is a form of solution-focused thinking with the intent of producing a constructive future result.

Design thinking identifies and investigates both known and ambiguous aspects of the current situation in an effort to discover parameters and alternative solution sets which may lead to one or more satisfactory goals. Because design thinking is iterative, intermediate "solutions" are potential starting points of alternative paths, allowing for redefinition of the initial problem, in a process of co-evolution of problem and solution.[15]

Solution-based vs. problem-based[edit]

In 1979 Bryan Lawson published results from an empirical study to investigate the different problem-solving approaches of designers and scientists. He took two groups of students – final year students in architecture and post-graduate science students – and asked them to create one-layer structures from a set of coloured blocks. The perimeter of the structure had to optimize either the red or the blue colour; however, there were unspecified rules governing the placement and relationship of some of the blocks. Lawson found that:

The scientists adopted a technique of trying out a series of designs which used as many different blocks and combinations of blocks as possible as quickly as possible. Thus they tried to maximise the information available to them about the allowed combinations. If they could discover the rule governing which combinations of blocks were allowed they could then search for an arrangement which would optimise the required colour around the layout. [problem-focused] By contrast, the architects selected their blocks in order to achieve the appropriately coloured perimeter. If this proved not to be an acceptable combination, then the next most favourably coloured block combination would be substituted and so on until an acceptable solution was discovered. [solution-focused]

— Bryan Lawson, How Designers Think[7]

Nigel Cross concluded that Lawson's studies suggested that scientists problem solve by analysis, while designers problem solve by synthesis.[8]

Analysis and synthesis[edit]

The terms analysis and synthesis come from (classical) Greek and mean literally "to loosen up" and "to put together" respectively. In general, analysis is defined as the procedure by which we break down an intellectual or substantial whole into parts or components. Synthesis is defined as the opposite procedure: to combine separate elements or components in order to form a coherent whole. However, analysis and synthesis, as scientific methods, always go hand in hand; they complement one another. Every synthesis is built upon the results of a preceding analysis, and every analysis requires a subsequent synthesis in order to verify and correct its results.[16]

Divergent thinking versus convergent thinking[edit]

Design thinking employs divergent thinking as a way to ensure that many possible solutions are explored, and then convergent thinking as a way to narrow these down to a final preferred solution. Divergent thinking is the ability to offer different, unique or variant ideas adherent to one theme while convergent thinking is the ability to find the preferred solution to the given problem.

Design thinking as a process for problem-solving[edit]

Unlike analytical thinking, design thinking includes "building up" ideas, with few, or no, limits on breadth during a "brainstorming" phase.[17] This helps reduce fear of failure in the participant(s) and encourages input and participation from a wide variety of sources in the ideation phases. The phrase "thinking outside the box" has been coined to describe one goal of the brainstorming phase and is encouraged, since this can aid in the discovery of hidden elements and ambiguities in the situation and discovering potentially faulty assumptions.

One version of the design thinking process has seven stages: define, research, ideate, prototype, choose, implement, and learn.[5] Within these seven steps, problems can be framed, the right questions can be asked, more ideas can be created, and the best answers can be chosen. The steps aren't linear; can occur simultaneously and be repeated. A simpler expression of the process is Robert McKim's phrase "Express–Test–Cycle".[6] An alternative five-phase description of the process is described by Christoph Meinel and Larry Leifer: (re)defining the problem, needfinding and benchmarking, ideating, building, testing.[18] Yet another way to look at it is Shewhart's "Plan-Do-Study-Act" PDSA cycle.

Although design is always influenced by individual preferences, the design thinking method shares a common set of traits, mainly: creativity, ambidextrous thinking, teamwork, user-centeredness (empathy), curiosity and optimism.[11] These traits are exemplified by design thinking methods in "serious play".

The path through these process steps is not strictly circular. Meinel and Leifer state: "While the stages are simple enough, the adaptive expertise required to choose the right inflection points and appropriate next stage is a high order intellectual activity that requires practice and is learnable."[18]

Design thinking is also closely aligned to co-design, a form of design thinking where stakeholders associated with the product or service are directly involved in the design process at each stage. This process has been shown to produce more innovative solutions than more traditional perspectives of non-group based stakeholder consultation.[19]

Wicked problems[edit]

Design thinking is especially useful when addressing what Horst Rittel referred to as wicked problems, which are ill-defined or tricky (as opposed to wicked in the sense of malicious).[20] With ill-defined problems, both the problem and the solution are unknown at the outset of the problem-solving exercise. This is as opposed to "tame" or "well-defined" problems where the problem is clear, and the solution is available through some technical knowledge.[21]

For wicked problems, the general thrust of the problem may be clear, however considerable time and effort is spent in order to clarify the requirements. A large part of the problem solving activity, then, consists of problem definition and problem shaping.[22]

Design thinking for social innovation[edit]

Social challenges require systemic solutions that are grounded in the client's or customer's needs. Nonprofits are beginning to use design thinking as well to develop better solutions to social problems, because it crosses the traditional boundaries between public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors. By working closely with the clients and consumers, design thinking allows high-impact solutions to bubble up from below rather than being imposed from the top.[23]

Attributes of design thinking[edit]

Principles[edit]

Christoph Meinel and Larry Leifer, of the HPI-Stanford Design Thinking Program, laid out four principles for the successful implementation of design thinking:[18]

  • The human rule, which states that all design activity is ultimately social in nature, and any social innovation will bring us back to the 'human-centric point of view'.
  • The ambiguity rule, in which design thinkers must preserve ambiguity by experimenting at the limits of their knowledge and ability, enabling the freedom to see things differently.
  • The re-design rule, where all design is re-design; this comes as a result of changing technology and social circumstances but previously solved, unchanged human needs.
  • The tangibility rule; the concept that making ideas tangible always facilitates communication and allows designers to treat prototypes as 'communication media'.

The "a-ha moment"[edit]

The "a-ha moment" is the moment where there is suddenly a clear forward path.[24] It is the point in the cycle where synthesis and divergent thinking, analysis and convergent thinking, and the nature of the problem all come together and an appropriate resolution has been captured. Prior to this point, the process may seem nebulous, hazy and inexact. At this point, the path forward is so obvious that in retrospect it seems odd that it took so long to recognize it. After this point, the focus becomes more and more clear as the final product or service is constructed.[25]

Methods and process[edit]

Design methods and design process are often used interchangeably, but there are significant differences between the two.

Design methods are techniques, rules, or ways of doing things that someone uses within a design discipline. Methods for design thinking include interviewing, creating user profiles, looking at other existing solutions, creating prototypes, mind mapping, asking questions like the five whys, drawing issue trees (or issue maps[26]), and situational analysis.

Because of design thinking's parallel nature, there are many different paths through the phases. This is part of the reason design thinking may seem to be "fuzzy" or "ambiguous" when compared to more analytical, Cartesian methods of science and engineering.

Some early design processes stemmed from soft systems methodology. Koberg and Bagnall wrote The Universal Traveler in 1972 which presented a circular, seven-step soft systems approach to problem-solving 'in daily life'.[27] These seven steps could be followed also linearly or in feed-back loops, and many other expressions and models of design processes have been proposed. Hugh Dubberly's free e-book How Do You Design: A Compendium of Models summarizes a large number of design process models.[28]

The use of visual analogy in design thinking and learning[edit]

Ill-defined problems often contain higher-order and obscure relationships. Design thinking can address these through the use of analogies. An understanding of the expected results, or lack of domain-related knowledge for the task, may be developed by correlating different internal representations, such as images, to develop an understanding of the obscure or ill-defined elements of the situation. The process involves several complex cognitive mechanisms, as the design task often has elements in multiple cognitive domains—visual, mathematical, auditory or tactile—requiring the usage of multiple "languages", like visual thinking.

The languages of design[edit]

Conventionally, designers communicate mostly in visual or object languages.[8] Symbols, signs, and metaphors are used through the medium of sketching, diagrams and technical drawings to translate abstract requirements into concrete objects. The way designers communicate, then, is through understanding this way of coding design requirements in order to produce built products.[29]

The process of design thinking[edit]

As an approach, design thinking taps into innate human capacities that are overlooked by more conventional problem-solving practices.[23] The process is best thought of as a system of overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps: inspiration, ideation, and implementation;[30]or alternatively: empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test.[31] Projects may loop back through inspiration, ideation, and implementation more than once as the team refines its ideas and explores new directions. Therefore, design thinking can feel chaotic, but over the life of a project, participants come to see that the process makes sense and achieves results, even though its form differs from the linear, milestone-based processes that organizations typically undertake.[32]

Inspiration[edit]

Generally, the design process starts with the inspiration phase: understanding the problem or the opportunity. This understanding can be documented in a brief which includes constraints that gives the project team a framework from which to begin, benchmarks by which they can measure progress, and a set of objectives to be realized—such as price point, available technology, and market segment.[32]

Empathy[edit]

Designers approach users with empathy, understanding what humans need or might need, what makes life easier and more enjoyable, what technologically is useful and more usable. It is not only about making things more ergonomic but about understanding people - the way they do things and why, their physical and emotional needs, how they think about the world, and what is meaningful to them.[31] Conventional research methods, like focus groups and survey, can be useful in pointing towards incremental improvements, but those don't usually lead to breakthroughs because these techniques simply ask people what they want. Henry Ford understood this when he said, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said 'a faster horse." and no one would have said a car.[32]

Ideation: Divergent and convergent thinking[edit]

Ideation is idea generation. Mentally it represents a process of "going wide" in terms of concepts and outcomes.[31] The process is characterized by the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking, typical of design thinking process. To achieve divergent thinking, it is important to have a diverse group of people involved in the process. Multidisciplinary people—architects who have studied psychology, artists with MBAs, or engineers with marketing experience—often demonstrate this quality. They're people with the capacity and the disposition for collaboration across disciplines.[32]

Interdisciplinary teams typically move into a structured brainstorming process by "thinking outside the box". During this process participants ideas should not be judged and participants should take generative role.[33] Participants are encouraged to come up with as many ideas as possible and to explore new alternatives. Good ideas naturally rise to the top, whereas the bad ones drop off early on. Every member of the team needs to possess a depth of skill that allows him or her to make tangible contributions to the outcome, and to be empathic for people and for disciplines beyond their own. It tends to be expressed as openness, curiosity, optimism, a tendency toward learning through doing, and experimentation.[23] Convergent thinking, on the other hand, allows for zooming and focusing on the different proposals to select the best choice, which permits continuation of the design thinking process to achieve the final goals. After collecting lots of ideas, a team goes through a process of synthesis in which it has to translate ideas into insights that can lead to solutions or opportunities for change. This approach helps multiply options to create choices and different insights about human behavior and define in which direction the process should go on. These might be either visions of new product offerings, or choices among various ways of creating interactive experience.[32]

Complexity and mindset conditions[edit]

More choices mean more complexity, which can affect organization's decisions to restrict choices in favour of the obvious and the incremental. Although this tendency may be more efficient in the short run, it tends to make an organization conservative and inflexible in the long run.[23] Divergent thinking is the route, not the obstacle, to innovation, and a way to diverge is to define a mindset of condition in which people are encouraged to produce lots of ideas. The most notable themes fall into three general traits: open-minded collaboration, courage, and conviction.[34] Open minded refers to the concept of being opened and accept new ideas and contributions. Courage is also fundamental because innovative ideas are characterized by a high risk of failure. It permits to face failure, element of high importance in order to improve in the right way. In addition, conviction is the mindset which permits to carry on a process or an idea even if there are constraints or obstacles.

Implementation and prototyping[edit]

The third space of the design thinking process is implementation, when the best ideas generated during ideation are turned into something concrete.[23] At the core of the implementation process is prototyping: turning ideas into actual products and services that are then tested, iterated, and refined. A prototype helps to gather feedbacks and improve the idea. Prototypes speed up the process of innovation because allow to understand strengths and weaknesses of new solutions. Prototyping is particularly important for products and services destined for the developing world, where the lack of infrastructure, retail chains, communication networks, literacy, and other essential pieces of the system often make it difficult to design new products and services.[23] Prototyping, testing, "failing many times but quickly and cheaply in order to succeed"[35] are different existing methods to test solutions, but the earlier users can give feedbacks, the lower are the costs for the organizations and higher is the level of adaptation of the solution to customer needs.

Differences from science and humanities[edit]

Although many design fields have been categorized as lying between science and the arts and humanities, design may be seen as its own distinct way of understanding the world, based on solution-based problem solving, problem shaping, synthesis, and appropriateness in the built environment.

One of the first design science theorists, John Chris Jones, postulated that design was different than the arts, sciences and mathematics in the 1970s. In response to the question "Is designing an art, a science or a form of mathematics?" Jones responded:

The main point of difference is that of timing. Both artists and scientists operate on the physical world as it exists in the present (whether it is real or symbolic), while mathematicians operate on abstract relationships that are independent of historical time. Designers, on the other hand, are forever bound to treat as real that which exists only in an imagined future and have to specify ways in which the foreseen thing can be made to exist.

— John Chris Jones, Design Method[36]

Nigel Cross built upon the early work of Bruce Archer to show the differences between the humanities, the sciences, and design in his paper "Designerly Ways of Knowing".[8] He observed that in the sciences the phenomenon of study centres around the natural world, the appropriate methods being controlled experiment, classification, and analysis. In this culture, objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for "truth" are most valued. In the humanities, analogy, metaphor, and evaluation serve as methods of study of the human experience. The values of this culture include subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for "justice". Design, however, concerns itself with the artificial world and uses modeling, pattern-forming, and synthesis to study it. In design, practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and a concern for "appropriateness" are the core values.

Design thinking in business[edit]

Design thinking has two common interpretations in the business world:[citation needed]

  1. Designers bringing their methods into business by either taking part themselves in business process, or training business people to use design methods
  2. Designers achieving innovative outputs or products (for example, the iPod)

The first interpretation has been described by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, at a TED lecture,[37] though his blog[38] also considers the second interpretation.

The limits of the first kind of design thinking in business are also being explored. Not all problems yield to design thinking alone, where it may be a "temporary fix".[39] Design thinking companies including IDEO and Sense Worldwide are responding to this by building business thinking capabilities.[40]

Tim Brown has argued that design thinking is now widely, but sporadically, used in business. He argues that competitive advantage comes from sustained use of design thinking, from becoming "masters of the art."[41]

In organization and management theory, design thinking forms part of the Architecture/Design/Anthropology (A/D/A) paradigm, which characterizes innovative, human-centered enterprises. This paradigm also focuses on a collaborative and iterative style of work and an abductive mode of thinking, compared to practices associated with the more traditional Mathematics/Economics/Psychology (M/E/P) management paradigm.[42]

A study by the London Business School found that for every percent of sales invested in product design, profits rose by an average of 3 to 4 percent.[43]

Historically designers were only introduced in the last steps of product development process, focusing their attention on improving the look and functionality of products, instead looking for a high impact on the world and the society. Design was a tool of consumerism, able to make products more attractive, easier to use and more marketable.[44] In recent years designers developed specific methods and tools to deliver products and services and businesses are beginning to realize the necessity of design as a competitive asset. Therefore, designers bring their methods into business by either taking part themselves in the earliest stages of business processes or training business people to use design methods and to build business thinking capabilities. Design thinking, as the perfect balance between desirability, technical feasibility and economic viability helps organizations to be more innovative, better differentiate their brands, and bring their products and services to market faster.[44]

Design thinking in education[edit]

All forms of professional design education can be assumed to be developing design thinking in students, even if only implicitly, but design thinking is also now explicitly taught in general as well as professional education, across all sectors of education. Design as a subject was introduced into secondary schools' educational curricula in the UK in the 1970s, gradually replacing and/or developing from some of the traditional art and craft subjects, and increasingly linked with technology studies. This development sparked related research studies in both education and design.[45] [8] [46]

In the K-12 sector, design thinking is used to promote creative thinking, teamwork, and student responsibility for learning. New courses in design thinking have also been introduced at university level, especially where linked with business and innovation studies. A notable early course of this type was introduced at Stanford University in 2003, the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, known as the d.school. It draws students from several Stanford departments, including engineering, medicine, business, law, and education, utilizing the d.school approach to design thinking to develop innovative solutions to problems. Also, the REDLab group, from Stanford's Graduate School of Education, conducts research into design thinking in K-12, secondary, and post-secondary settings.[47]

History time line[edit]

pre-1960 The origins of design thinking probably lie in the development of creativity techniques in the 1950s. Harold van Doren published Industrial Design – A Practical Guide to Product Design and Development, which includes discussions of design methods and practices, in 1940.
early 1960s The first notable books on methods of creativity are published by William J. J. Gordon (1961)[48] and Alex Faickney Osborn (1963).[49]

The 1962 Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications, London, UK, started interest studying design processes and developing new design methods. [50]

Books on methods and theories of design in different fields are published by Morris Asimow (1962) (engineering),[51] Christopher Alexander (1964) (architecture),[52] L. Bruce Archer (1965) (industrial design),[4] and John Chris Jones (1970) (product and systems design).[53]

1965 L. Bruce Archer argues that design is "not merely a craft-based skill but should be considered a knowledge-based discipline in its own right, with rigorous methodology and research principles incorporated into the design process". He is also perhaps the first author to use the term 'design thinking', in a limited sense, in his book "Systematic Method for Designers", in the comment "Ways have had to be found to incorporate knowledge of ergonomics, cybernetics, marketing and management science into design thinking".[4]
1967 Archer develops the relationship of design thinking with management: "The time is rapidly approaching when design decision making and management decision making techniques will have so much in common that the one will become no more than the extension of the other". [54]
1969 Herbert A. Simon, notable for his research in artificial intelligence and cognitive sciences, proposes a "science of design" that would be "a body of intellectually tough, analytic, partly formalizable, partly empirical, teachable doctrine about the design process."[5]
1972 Don Koberg and Jim Bagnall pioneer a 'soft systems' design process for dealing with the problems of 'everyday life' in their book The Universal Traveler.[55]
1973 Robert McKim publishes Experiences in Visual Thinking,[6] which includes "Express, Test, Cycle" (ETC) as an iterative backbone for design processes.

Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber publish "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" showing that design and planning problems are wicked problems as opposed to "tame", single disciplinary, problems of science.

1979 L. Bruce Archer extends inquiry into designerly ways of knowing, claiming: "There exists a designerly way of thinking and communicating that is both different from scientific and scholarly ways of thinking and communicating, and as powerful as scientific and scholarly methods of inquiry when applied to its own kinds of problems."[56]

"Design Studies", the first research journal focussing on design processes begins publishing.

1980s Systematic engineering design methods are developed, particularly in Germany and Japan. The International Conferences on Engineering Design (ICED) is formed.

Several books on engineering design methods are published, by Hubka (1982),[57] Pahl and Beitz (1984),[58] French (1985),[59] Cross (1989),[60] and Pugh (1991).[61]

In the USA, the National Science Foundation initiative on design theory and methods led to substantial growth in engineering design methods in the late-1980s. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) launched its series of conferences on design theory and methodology.

The 1980s also sees the rise of human-centered design and the rise of design-centered business management.

1980 Bryan Lawson publishes How Designers Think about design cognition in the context of architecture and urban planning.[7]
1982 Nigel Cross publishes "Designerly Ways of Knowing", drawing on design research to develop Archer's concept that "There are things to know, ways of knowing them and ways of finding out about them" that are specific to design, and showing designerly knowing and thinking to have sufficient intrinsic worth to be included as part of general education.[8]
1983 Donald Schön publishes The Reflective Practitioner in which he sought to establish "an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes that [design and other] practitioners bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict."[62]
1986 The business management strategy Six Sigma emerges as a way to streamline the design process for quality control and profit.
1987 Peter Rowe publishes Design Thinking, focused on architecture and planning.[9]
1988 Rolf Faste publishes "Ambidextrous Thinking", extending McKim's process of visual thinking to design as a "whole-body way of doing."[11]
1991 The first symposium on Research in Design Thinking is held at Delft University, The Netherlands.[63]

IDEO design consultancy formed by combining three industrial design companies. They are one of the first design companies to showcase their design process, which draws heavily on the Stanford University curriculum.

1992 Richard Buchanan's article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking" is published.[14]

Eugene S. Ferguson's book Engineering and the Mind's Eye is published.

1999 Pierre Sachse and Adrian Specker publish the book "Design Thinking" at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - ETH Zurich.[64]
21st Century The start of the 21st century brought a significant increase in interest in design thinking as the term becomes popularized in the business press. Books about how to create a more design-focused workplace where innovation can thrive are written for the business sector by Richard Florida (2002),[65] Daniel Pink (2006),[66] Roger Martin (2007),[67] Malcolm Gladwell (2008),[68] Tim Brown (2009),[69] Thomas Lockwood (2010),[70] Vijay Kumar (2012),[71] Larry Keeley (2013),[72] and Kim Erwin (2014).[73] This shift of design thinking away from the creation of products into the business sector sparked a debate about the hijacking and exploitation of design thinking.
2001 The UK based design consultancy firm livework opens up for business on the basis that the design approach should be extended and adapted to tackle the design of services, marking the beginning of the service design movement.[74]
2005 Stanford University's d.school begins to teach engineering students design thinking as a formal method.[18]
2007 Hasso Plattner Institute for IT Systems Engineering in Potsdam, Germany establishes a design thinking program.[18]
2008 IIT Institute of Design launches Design Camp, premier executive education program offering frameworks and tools for practicing innovation in a variety of industries.[75]
2015 Jenna Leonardo, Katie Kirsch, Rachel H. Chung and Natalya Thakur from Stanford University's d.school founded Girls Driving for a Difference[76] to teach design thinking to young girls across the United States.[77]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Visser, W. 2006, The cognitive artifacts of designing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. ^ Tim Brown. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, June 2008.
  3. ^ Dorst, Kees (2012). Frame Innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-32431-1. 
  4. ^ a b c Archer, L. Bruce. Systematic Method for Designers. Council of Industrial Design, H.M.S.O., 1965.
  5. ^ a b c Simon, Herbert (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
  6. ^ a b c McKim, Robert (1973). Experiences in Visual Thinking. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. 
  7. ^ a b c Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980
  8. ^ a b c d e f Cross, Nigel. "Designerly Ways of Knowing." Design Studies 3.4 (1982): 221-27.
  9. ^ a b Rowe, G. Peter (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-68067-7. 
  10. ^ Faste, Rolf, Bernard Roth and Douglass J. Wilde, "Integrating Creativity into the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum", Cary A. Fisher, Ed., ASME Resource Guide to Innovation in Engineering Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993
  11. ^ a b c Faste, Rolf, "Ambidextrous Thinking", Innovations in Mechanical Engineering Curricula for the 1990s, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 1994
  12. ^ Patnaik, Dev, "Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid Thinking", Fast Company, August 25, 2009. "... design thinking is any process that applies the methods of industrial designers to problems beyond how a product should look. My mentor at Stanford, Rolf Faste, did more than anyone to define the term and express the unique role that designers could play in making pretty much everything."
  13. ^ Brown, Tim. "The Making of a Design Thinker." Metropolis Oct. 2009: 60–62. p. 60: "David Kelley ... said that every time someone came to ask him about design, he found himself inserting the word thinking to explain what it is that designers do. The term design thinking stuck."
  14. ^ a b Buchanan, Richard, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking," Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992.
  15. ^ Dorst, Kees; Cross, Nigel (2001). "Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution". Design Studies. 22 (5): 425–437. 
  16. ^ Ritchey, Tom. "Analysis and Synthesis: On Scientific Method – Based on a Study by Bernhard Riemann - Systems Research 8.4 (1991): 21-41" (PDF). 
  17. ^ Robson, Mike (2002) [1988]. "Brainstorming". Problem-solving in groups (3rd ed.). Aldershot, Hampshire, UK; Burlington, VT: Gower. p. 41. ISBN 0-566-08467-8. OCLC 50746638. 
  18. ^ a b c d e Plattner, Hasso; Meinel, Christoph; Leifer, Larry J., eds. (2011). Design thinking: understand, improve, apply. Understanding innovation. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. pp. xiv–xvi. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0. ISBN 3-642-13756-3. OCLC 898322632. 
  19. ^ Mitchell, Val; Ross, Tracy; Sims, Ruth; Parker, Christopher J. (2015). "Empirical investigation of the impact of using co-design methods when generating proposals for sustainable travel solutions". CoDesign. 12 (4): 205–220. doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1091894. 
  20. ^ Rittel, Horst; Webber, Melvin. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69" (PDF). 
  21. ^ Beinecke, Richard. "Leadership for Wicked Problems." The Innovation Journal 14.1 (2009): 1–17.
  22. ^ Rowe 1987, pages 40–41
  23. ^ a b c d e f Brown, T. Wyatt, J. 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford social innovation review
  24. ^ Saloner, Garth. "Innovation: A Leadership Essential Biz Ed 2011: 26-30" (PDF). 
  25. ^ Cross, Nigel. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer, 2006.
  26. ^ Chevallier, Arnaud (2016). Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. pp.45–138
  27. ^ Koberg, Don, and Jim Bagnall. The Universal Traveler - a Soft-Systems guide to: creativity, problem-solving and the process of design. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann, 1972.
  28. ^ Dubberly, Hugh. "How Do You Design: A Compendium of Models". 
  29. ^ Leborg, Christian. Visual Grammar. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006.
  30. ^ Brown, T. 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review
  31. ^ a b c An introduction to design thinking, dschool.stanford.edu.
  32. ^ a b c d e Brown, T. Wyatt, J. 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford social innovation review.
  33. ^ Kelley T. Littman J, 2005, The Ten Faces of Innovation
  34. ^ Fraser, H. 2006. Turning design thinking in design doing, Rotman Magazine
  35. ^ designandthinking, Mu Ming Tsai,2012, Film
  36. ^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Method Vol 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.
  37. ^ Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think big (YouTube). TED. 
  38. ^ "Design Thinking". ideo.com. 
  39. ^ "Why the d.school has its limits", Stanford Daily
  40. ^ "15 top MBA employers IDEO", Fortune Magazine June 05 2012
  41. ^ "When Everyone Is Doing Design Thinking, Is It Still a Competitive Advantage?". Harvard Business Review. 
  42. ^ Jones, Andrew (2008). The Innovation Acid Test. Axminster: Triarchy Press. p. 20. 
  43. ^ Howkins, John (2003). The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. The Penguin Press. pp. 121–122. 
  44. ^ a b Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think big (YouTube). TED
  45. ^ Archer L. B. et al. (1979) "Design in General Education". London: The Royal College of Art.
  46. ^ Owen-Jackson, G. (ed.) (2002) "Teaching Design and Technology in Secondary Schools", London: Routledge Falmer.
  47. ^ "REDlab- Research in Education & Design". stanford.edu. 
  48. ^ Gordon, William J. J. Synectics, the Development of Creative Capacity. New York: Harper, 1961
  49. ^ Osborn, Alex F. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Scribner, 1963.
  50. ^ Jones, J. C. and D. G. Thornley, (eds.) Conference on Design Methods. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1963
  51. ^ Asimow, Morris. Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
  52. ^ Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964.
  53. ^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970.
  54. ^ Archer, L. Bruce. "Design Management" Management Decision 1.4 (1967): 47-51.
  55. ^ Koberg, Don, and Jim Bagnall. The Universal Traveler - a Soft-Systems guide to: creativity, problem-solving and the process of design. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann, 1972. 2nd edition (1981): The All New Universal Traveler - a Soft-Systems guide to: creativity, problem-solving and the process of reaching goals.
  56. ^ Archer, L. Bruce. "Whatever Became of Design Methodology?" Design Studies 1.1 (1979): 17–20.
  57. ^ Hubka, Vladimir, and W. E. Eder. Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982.
  58. ^ Beitz, Wolfgang, and Gerhard Pahl (ed. Ken Wallace). Engineering Design: a systematic approach. London: Design Council, 1984.
  59. ^ French, M. J. Conceptual Design for Engineers. London: Design Council, 1985.
  60. ^ Cross, Nigel. Engineering Design Methods. England: Wiley, 1989.
  61. ^ Pugh, Stuart. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1991.
  62. ^ Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic, 1983.
  63. ^ Cross, N., Dorst, K. and N., Roozenburg (eds.) (1992) Research in Design Thinking, Delft University Press.
  64. ^ Sachse, Pierre; Specker, Adrian: Design Thinking: Analyse und Unterstützung konstruktiver Entwurfstätigkeiten. Zurich: vdf ETH, 1999.
  65. ^ Florida, Richard L. The Rise of the Creative Class: and How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic, 2002.
  66. ^ Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.
  67. ^ Martin, Roger L. The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2007.
  68. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: the Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and, 2008.
  69. ^ Brown, Tim, and Barry Kātz. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business, 2009.
  70. ^ Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York, NY: Allworth, 2010.
  71. ^ Kumar, Vijay. 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012.
  72. ^ Keeley, Larry, Helen Walter, Ryan Pikkel, and Brian Quinn. Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013.
  73. ^ Erwin, Kim. Communicating the New: Methods to Shape and Accelerate Innovation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2014.
  74. ^ Moggridge, Bill. Designing Interactions. Chapter six. The MIT Press; 1 edition (October 1, 2007).
  75. ^ "Design Camp". IIT Institute of Design—Beta website. 
  76. ^ "Girls Driving for a Difference". Girls Driving for a Difference. 
  77. ^ Cole, Samantha (3 March 2015). "How four women in an RV plan to change young girls' lives: this summer, four Stanford students will bring design-thinking workshops to middle-school girls at summer camps across the country". Fast Company. Retrieved 11 March 2015. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Oxford UK and New York: Berg, 2011.
  • Martin, Roger L. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Press, 2009.
  • Mootee, Idris. Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation. Wiley, 2013.
  • Di Russo, Stefanie. "Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments" . PhD thesis, Swinburne University, 2016
  • Faste, Rolf. "The Human Challenge in Engineering Design." International Journal of Engineering Education, vol 17, 2001.
  • Kelly, Tom. Ten Faces of Innovation. London: Profile, 2006.
  • Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think. Oxford UK: Architectural Press/Elsevier, 2006.
  • Liedtka, Jeanne. Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit For Managers. Columbia University Press, 2011, ISBN 0-231-15838-6
  • Liedtka, Jeanne. Solving Problems with Design Thinking: Ten Stories of What Works. Columbia University Press, 2013, ISBN 0-231-16356-8
  • Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York, NY: Allworth, 2010.
  • Lupton, Ellen. Graphic Design Thinking: Beyond Brainstorming. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011. ISBN 978-1-56898-760-6.
  • Martin, Roger L. The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2007.
  • Nelson, George. How to See: a Guide to Reading Our Man-made Environment. San Francisco, CA: Design Within Reach, 2006.
  • Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.
  • Plattner, Hasso et al. Design Thinking: Understand, Improve, Apply. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2010.
  • Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69.
  • Sachse, Pierre; Specker, Adrian: Design Thinking: Analyse und Unterstützung konstruktiver Entwurfstätigkeiten. Zurich: vdf ETH, 1999.
  • Schön, Donald. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
  • Schön, Donald. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1987.