Design thinking

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

Design thinking stands for design-specific cognitive activities that designers apply during the process of designing.[1]

Overview[edit]

Design thinking has come to be defined as combining empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions, and rationality in analyzing and fitting various solutions to the problem context.[2] According to Tim Brown, CEO and president of IDEO, the goal of Design Thinking is "matching people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and viable as a business strategy" [3] The premise of teaching Design Thinking is that by knowing about how designers approach problems and the methods which they use to ideate, select and execute solutions, individuals and businesses will be better able to improve their own problem solving processes and take innovation to a higher level. There is also considerable academic interest in understanding design thinking and design cognition.[4] The first formal academic research symposium on Design Thinking was organized at Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, in 1991, and has developed into a regular series.[5]

Origins of the term[edit]

(For a detailed evolution, see History, below.)

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,[6] and in design engineering to Robert McKim's 1973 book Experiences in Visual Thinking.[7] Rolf Faste expanded on McKim's work in the 80s and 90s while teaching at Stanford,[8][9] defining and popularizing the idea of "design thinking" as a method of creative action."[10] "Design Thinking" was adapted for business purposes at IDEO by Faste's colleague David M. Kelley.[11] 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.[12] Richard Buchanan's 1992 article, entitled "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking",[13] expressed a broader view of "design thinking" as addressing intractable human concerns through design.

Design Thinking Example Video

Solution-based thinking[edit]

Design thinking is a formal method for practical, creative resolution of problems or issues, with the intent of an improved future result. In this regard it is a form of solution-based, or solution-focused thinking which starts with a goal (a better future situation) instead of solving one specific problem. By considering both the present and future conditions, the parameters of the problem, and possible solutions, may be explored simultaneously. Cross asserted that this type of thinking most often happens in the built, or artificial, environment (as in artifacts).[14]

This approach differs from the scientific method, which begins with thoroughly defining all the parameters of the problem in order to create a solution. Design thinking starts without preconceived problem definitions and solutions, in order to discover hidden parameters and alternate optimized paths to the goal. Because Design Thinking is also iterative, any solutions are also potential new starting points for future phases.

Bryan Lawson Architects vs. Engineers, 1979[edit]

In 1972, psychologist, architect and design researcher Bryan Lawson created an empirical study to understand the difference between problem-based solvers and solution-based solvers. He took two groups of students – final year students in architecture and post-graduate science students – and asked them to create one-story structures from a set of colored blocks. The perimeter of the building was to optimize either the red or the blue color, 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 maximize 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 optimize the required color around the design. By contrast, the architects selected their blocks in order to achieve the appropriately colored perimeter. If this proved not to be an acceptable combination, then the next most favorably colored block combination would be substituted and so on until an acceptable solution was discovered.[15]

Nigel Cross concluded from Lawson's studies that scientific problem solving was done by analysis, while "designers" problem solve through synthesis.[14] Kelley and Brown argue the Design Thinking utilizes both analysis and synthesis.

Analysis versus 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 Thinkers also use divergent thinking and convergent thinking to explore many possible solutions. 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 "correct" solution to the given problem. Design thinking encourages divergent thinking to ideate many solutions (possible or impossible) and then uses convergent thinking to prefer and realize the best resolution.

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

Unlike analytical thinking, design thinking is a process which includes the "building up" of ideas, with few, or no, limits on breadth during a "brainstorming" phase. 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 Outside the box thinking 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 example of a design thinking process could have seven stages: define, research, ideate, prototype, choose, implement, and learn.[6] 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; they can occur simultaneously and can be repeated.

Define
  • Decide what issue you are trying to resolve.
  • Agree on who the audience is.
  • Prioritize this project in terms of urgency.
  • Determine what will make this project successful.
  • Establish a glossary of terms.
Research
  • Review the history of the issue; remember any existing obstacles.
  • Collect examples of other attempts to solve the same issue.
  • Note the project supporters, investors, and critics.
  • Talk to your end-users, that brings you the most fruitful ideas for later design.
  • Take into account thought leaders' opinions.
Ideation
  • Identify the needs and motivations of your end-users.
  • Generate as many ideas as possible to serve these identified needs.
  • Log your brainstorming session.
  • Do not judge or debate ideas.
  • During brainstorming, have one conversation at a time.
Prototype
  • Combine, expand, and refine ideas.
  • Create multiple drafts.
  • Seek feedback from a diverse group of people, include your end users.
  • Present a selection of ideas to the client.
  • Reserve judgement and maintain neutrality.
  • Create and present actual working prototype(s)
Choose
  • Review the objective.
  • Set aside emotion and ownership of ideas.
  • Avoid consensus thinking.
  • Remember: the most practical solution isn't always the best.
  • Select the powerful ideas.
Implement
  • Make task descriptions.
  • Plan tasks.
  • Determine resources.
  • Assign tasks.
  • Execute.
  • Deliver to client.
Learn
  • Gather feedback from the consumer.
  • Determine if the solution met its goals.
  • Discuss what could be improved.
  • Measure success; collect data.
  • Document.

Although design is always influenced by individual preferences, the design thinking method shares a common set of traits, mainly; Creativity, Ambidextrous thinking,[9] Teamwork, User-Centerdness (Empathy), Curiosity and Optimism.

An alternative, five phase, description of the process, as described by Hasso Platner, is;

  • (re)Define the Problem - Design Never Ends
  • Needfinding and Benchmarking - Understand the users, design space
  • Bodystorm - Ideate
  • Prototype - Build
  • Test - Learn

The path thru these process steps is not strictly circular. Platner states; "While the stages are simple enough, the adaptive expertise required to chose the right inflection points and appropriate next stage is a high order intellectual activity that requires practice and is learnable."[17]

Attributes of design thinking[edit]

Rules[edit]

PlatTner asserts that there are four rules to Design Thinking;[18]

  • The Human Rule: All Design Activity Is Ultimately Social in Nature
  • The Ambiguity Rule: Design Thinkers Must Preserve Ambiguity
  • The Re-design Rule: All Design Is Re-design
  • The Tangibility Rule: Making Ideas Tangible Always Facilitates Communication

Wicked problems[edit]

Design thinking is a solution-based approach to solving problems, and is especially useful when addressing what design thinkers refer to as Wicked Problems. Wicked problems are wicked in the sense that they are ill-defined or tricky, not wicked in the sense of malicious.[19] For 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.[20]

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.[12]

The A-Ha moment[edit]

The "A-Ha Moment" is the moment where there is suddenly a clear forward path.[21] 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 seems 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 is constructed.[22]

Resistance, fear and the devil's advocate[edit]

For Design Thinking, there are several players who can stop the process. These enemies of Design Thinking are Fear, Resistance and the Devil's Advocate. These enemies distract from design thinking by stopping creative production by use of unconstructive negativity.

Fear keeps a designer from the actual doing of using their methods and process to achieve goals. Both are internal psychological hesitations that can distract the designer from creating or focusing on solutions by shifting the focus, instead, to doubts of self-worth, anxieties of "will it be good enough," or procrastinations.[23]

Resistance can be encountered through internal psychological disruptions. Resistance stops design thinking by confusing the goal with all sorts of other things that need to be done first. Resistance shifts the focus from solutions and ways to get to those solutions to anything other than realization.[24] Resistance can also be encountered through other people. Donald Schön talks about the resistance of students towards their professors and the resistance of professors towards students in the learning process.[25]

The "Devil's Advocate" is that one person who never has anything productive to say, but immediately knows and voices exactly why every initially proposed solution will not work. This personality goes further than critical thinking and analysis into negative criticism. This person has the ability to kill projects by shifting the focus from potential solutions to hypercritical problems that might not even matter in the end. The goal of this person is to stop any further ideation towards a solution, and ought to be banned from the room.[26]

Methods and process[edit]

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

Design methods are all the techniques, rules or ways of doing things that are employed by a design discipline. Some of these methods for Design Thinking include creating user profiles, looking at and understanding other designer's solutions, creating prototypes or study models, mind-mapping, asking the five-whys to get to a crux of the problem, site-analysis, etc.

Design Process is the way in which the methods come together through a series of actions, events or steps. There is no solitary process that can define Design Thinking. There are as many different design processes as there are designers multiplied by design problems.

Many of the early Design Processes stemmed from Soft Systems Methodology in the 1960s. Koberg and Bagnall's wrote The All New Universal Traveller in 1972 and showcase a circular seven-step process to problem-solving; although they also proposed that these seven steps could be done lineally or in feed-back loops.[27] Stanford's D. School came up with an updated seven step process in 2007.[28] In between there has been many different proposed design processes including a three-step simplified triangular process (or the six-part, less simplified pyramid) by Bryan Lawson[15] or any of the processes documented in Hugh Dubberly's e-book How Do You Design: A compendium of models.[29]

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

Ill-defined problems, such as design usually rely on higher-order relationships such as analogies as a part of their rationale. This is due to the lack of understanding of the expectation of the results wanted from the definition or lack of domain-related knowledge for the task. In this case, the usage of analogy can help the designer to relate different internal representations such as images, in order to create a transfer of the concepts expressed as a source and target representation in order to create a new product or design. The process involves several complex cognitive mechanisms, as the design task usually relies on the visual domain, thus involving the usage of visual thinking in the cognitive process of design.

This takes us to the mapping process between the source and target representations, it is proposed that contrary to regular analogies, the visual analogies in design are a two way mapping that iterates between the source and the target by means of image manipulations in the reasoning process giving feedback between both. One such example is the one of the Dommelsch campaign in 1991[30] in which a mapping by the designer between images of vacation spots and the product, in this case, beer was made by manipulating the images in order to combine them and relate the concept of vacations and holidays with beer by means of using images to generate the analogies. It is then that this process, that it can be akin to sketching in order to convey the relation of ideas or concepts in order to generate a new product, be it an image or an object. It is also noted that given a series of constrains in design, usually as part of the proposal part of the process, the analogies help to create new solutions by means of the mappings and manipulations between source and target representations.

The usage of visual analogies in order for learning in design processes is also present, as studies realized in 1997 and 2001[31][32] by comparing the usage of design-domain knowledge and visual analogies in the solution of an ill-defined problem of design between experts and novices in the area. The studies showed that the novices and experts used visual analogies in order to generate solutions, but an interesting effect shown in the studies was that novices tended to rely on referential images onto which manipulations were made in order to generate solutions more often than experts. This is an interesting effect due to that as gaining knowledge, cognitive processes and mechanisms act in an economic manner by choosing the ones that require less resources, given that knowledge is present, it is more easily accessed in order to produce solutions by using such techniques. The novices on the other hand, gain expertise in the matter by visual analogies as a mean of knowledge acquisition, this helps them to generate rules of design based on empirically gained experience by usage of visual analogies.

Differences from science and humanities[edit]

Although many design fields have been categorized as laying 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.[33]

Design can be seen as its own culture in education, with its own methods and ways of thinking which can be systematically taught in both K-12 and higher education. Nigel Cross sets out to show the differences between the humanities, the sciences, and design in his paper "Designerly Ways of Knowing". He observed that:

The phenomenon of study in each culture is
  • in the sciences: the natural world
  • in the humanities: human experience
  • in design: the artificial world
The appropriate methods in each culture are
  • in the sciences: controlled experiment, classification, analysis
  • in the humanities: analogy, metaphor, evaluation
  • in design: modeling, pattern-forming, synthesis
The values of each culture are
  • in the sciences: objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for 'truth'
  • in the humanities: subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for 'justice'
  • in design: practicality, ingenuity, empathy , and a concern for 'appropriateness'[14]

The language of design[edit]

Designers communicate in a visual[34] or an object language.[14] 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.[35]

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, for example: 'the iPod is a great example of design thinking.'

The first has been described by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, at a TED lecture,[36] though his blog[37] also considers an element of the second.

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'.[38] Design thinking companies including IDEO and Sense Worldwide are responding to this by building business thinking capabilities.[39]

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.[40]

Companies that integrate the principles of design thinking in their innovation processes often share a certain mindset or are striving to cultivate a more creative and human-centred company culture.

History[edit]

pre-1960 The origins of new design methods in the 1960s lay further back in the application of novel, 'scientific' methods to the pressing problems of the 2nd World War from which came operational research methods and management decision-making techniques, and 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.
1960s The beginnings of computer programs for problem solving, the so-called soft-systems approach.

The 1960s marked a desire to "scientize" design through use of the computer science soft-systems approach.[41]

1962 The First 'Conference on Design Methods,' London, UK.

Books on methods and theories of design in different fields being to be published: Asimow (1962) (Engineering),[42] Alexander (1964) (Patterns),[43] L. Bruce Archer (1965) (Industrial Design),[44] Jones (1970) (Architecture).[45]

The first books on methods of creativity are published; Gordon (1961),[46] Osborn (1963).[47]

1965 L. Bruce Archer, professor of Design Research at the Royal College of Art argues that design was "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" and states; – "The most fundamental challenge to conventional ideas on design has been the growing advocacy of systematic methods of problem solving, borrowed from computer techniques and management theory, for the assessment of design problems and the development of design solutions."[44][48]
1969 Herbert A. Simon notable for his research in artificial intelligence and cognitive sciences establishes a "Science of Design" which would be "a body of intellectually tough, analytic, partly formalizable, partly empirical, teachable doctrine about the design process."[49]

Visual psychologist Rudolf Arnheim publishes his book "Visual Thinking," which inspires the teaching of ME101: Visual Thinking, by Robert McKim, in the School of Engineering at Stanford University.

1970s Notable for the rejection of design methodology by many, including some of the early pioneers.

Christopher Alexander, architect and theorist wrote – "I've disassociated myself from the field. There is so little in what is called 'design methods' that has anything useful to say about how to design buildings that I never even read the literature anymore. I would say forget it, forget the whole thing."[50]

John Chris Jones, designer and design thinking theorist stated - "In the 1970s I reacted against design methods. I dislike the machine language, the behaviourism, the continual attempt to fix the whole of life into a logical framework."[51]

1973 Robert McKim publishes Experiences in Visual Thinking.[7] which includes "Express, Test, Cycle" (ETC) as an iterative backbone for design processes.

Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber write 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.

Horst Rittel also proposes that the developments of the 1960s had been only 'first generation' methods (which naturally, with hindsight, seemed a bit simplistic, but nonetheless had been a necessary beginning) and that a new second generation was beginning to emerge."[52] This suggestion was clever, because it let the methodologists escape from their commitment to inadequate 'first generation' methods, and it opened a vista of an endless future of generation upon generation of new methods.[53]

1979 L. Bruce Archer starts off the next decade's inquiry into designerly ways of knowing stating – "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."[54]
1980s Systemic engineering design methods are developed, particularly in Germany and Japan. The International Conferences on Engineering Design (ICED) is formed.

A series of books on engineering design are published: Hubka (1982),[55] Pahl and Beitz (1984),[56] French (1985),[57] Cross (1989),[58] and Pugh (1991).[59]

A series of Design Journals begin to be published: Design Studies in 1979, Design Issues appeared in 1984, and Research in Engineering Design in 1989.

Other important developments: Publications of the Design Methods Group and the conferences of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA). 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, professor of architecture at University of Sheffield, publishes How Designers Think[60] about design cognition in the context of Architecture and Urban Planning.
1982 Nigel Cross, Professor of Design Studies and Editor of Design Studies Journal writes Designerly Ways of Knowing showing Design as its own culture to be taught in schools by contrasting it with Science culture and Arts and Humanities culture. This is based on the idea that "There are things to know, ways of knowing them and ways of finding out about them that are specific to the design area."[14]
1983 Donald Schön, professor and theorist in organizational learning, pens his seminal text Educating the Reflective Practitioner in which he sought to establish "an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which [design and other] practitioners bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict."[61]
1986 The business management strategy Six Sigma emerges as a way to streamline the design process for quality control and profit.
1987 Peter Rowe, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, publishes Design Thinking.[12]
1988 Rolf Faste, director of the design program at Stanford, creates "Ambidextrous Thinking," a required class for graduate product design majors that extends McKim's process of visual thinking to design as a "whole-body way of doing."[9]
1990s Ideas of organizational learning and creating nimble businesses come to the forefront.
1991 IDEO combines from three industrial design companies. They are one of the first design companies to showcase their design process, which draws heavily on the Stanford curriculum.
1992 Richard Buchanan's article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking"[13] is published.
1995

Ikujiro Nonaka writes The Knowledge-Creating Company[62] on how to transfer knowledge from expert to novice within a business based on the work of Michael Polanyi's tacit versus explicit knowledge.

2000s The 2000s brought a significant increase in interest in design thinking as the term becomes popularized in the business press. Books written for the business sector about how to create a more design-focused workplace where innovation can thrive: Florida (2002),[63] Pink (2006),[64] Martin (2007),[65] Gladwell (2008),[66] Brown (2009),[67] Lockwood (2010).[68]

This shift of design thinking away from the product fields and into the business sector sparks a debate about the hijacking and exploitation of design thinking. Accordingly to Bill Moggridge, co-founder of IDEO, in the end of 2000, Lavrans Løvlie, Ben Reason and Chris Downs, joined forces to found live|work, an UK based design consultancy firm which opens up for business on the basis that the design approach should be extended and adapted to tackle the design of services.[69] This marks the beginning of the service design consultancy firms movement worldwide.

2005 Stanford University begins to teach engineering students "Design Thinking" as a formal method. Known as the "d.school".[70]
2007 Hasso- Plattner-Institute for IT Systems Engineering in Potsdam, Germany establishes a Design Thinking program.[70]
2008 Hasso- Plattner-Institute Design Thinking Research Program started at Stanford.[71]
2013 Radford University begins offering an online Master of Fine Arts in Design Thinking

References[edit]

  1. ^ Visser, W. 2006, The cognitive artifacts of designing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. ^ Tom Kelley and Dave Kelley, Creative Confidence, Crown Business, 2013, ISBN 978-0--385-34936-9, pages 19-20.
  3. ^ Design Thinking - Thoughts by Tim Brown, http://designthinking.ideo.com
  4. ^ Cross, N (2011) Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work, Berg, Oxford and New York.
  5. ^ http://design.open.ac.uk/cross/DesignThinkingResearchSymposia.htm
  6. ^ a b Simon, Herbert (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
  7. ^ a b McKim, Robert (1973). Experiences in Visual Thinking. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. 
  8. ^ 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
  9. ^ a b c Faste, Rolf, “Ambidextrous Thinking”, Innovations in Mechanical Engineering Curricula for the 1990s, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 1994
  10. ^ 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."
  11. ^ Brown, Tim. "The Making of a Design Thinker." Metropolis Oct. 2009: 60-62. Pg60: "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."
  12. ^ a b c Rowe, G. Peter (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-68067-7. 
  13. ^ a b Buchanan, Richard, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking," Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992.
  14. ^ a b c d e Cross, Nigel. "Designerly Ways of Knowing." Design Studies 3.4 (1982): 221-27.
  15. ^ a b Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980
  16. ^ Tom Ritchey. "Analysis and Synthesis: On Scientific Method - Based on a Study by Bernhard Riemann." Systems Research 8.4 (1991): 21-41. http://www.swemorph.com/pdf/anaeng-r.pdf'
  17. ^ Design Thinking Understand – Improve – Apply, Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York, 2011, ISBN 978-3-642-13756-3, page xiv.
  18. ^ Design Thinking Understand – Improve – Apply, Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York, 2011, ISBN 978-3-642-13756-3, page xv.
  19. ^ Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69. http://www.metu.edu.tr/~baykan/arch467/Rittel%2BWebber%2BDilemmas.pdf
  20. ^ Beinecke, Richard. "Leadership for Wicked Problems." The Innovation Journal 14.1 (2009): 1-17.
  21. ^ Saloner, Garth. "Innovation: A Leadership Essential." Biz Ed 2011: 26-30. http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/packages/PDF/Innovation.GarthSaloner.pdf
  22. ^ Cross, Nigel. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer, 2006.
  23. ^ Bayles, David, and Ted Orland. Art & Fear: Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking. Santa Barbara, CA: Capra, 1993.
  24. ^ Pressfield, Steven. The War of Art: Break through the Blocks and Win Your Inner Creative Battles. New York: Warner, 2002.
  25. ^ Schön, Donald A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
  26. ^ Kelley, Tom, and Jonathan Littman. The Ten Faces of Innovation. London: Profile, 2006.
  27. ^ Koberg, Don, and Jim Bagnall. The All New Universal Traveller: a Soft-systems Guide To: Creativity, Problem-solving and the Process of Reaching Goals. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann, 1981.
  28. ^ D.school: Institute of Design at Stanford. Web. 15 Aug. 2011. <http://dschool.stanford.edu/>. <http://www.designthinkingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Design-thinking-process.png>
  29. ^ Dubberly, Hugh. How Do You Design: A Compendium of Models. <http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.html>
  30. ^ Goldschmidt, Gabriela. Visual Analogy- a Strategy for Design Reasoning and Learning <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.85.7990>
  31. ^ Goldschmidt, Gabriela. Visual Analogy- a Strategy for Design Reasoning and Learning <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.85.7990>
  32. ^ Casakin, Hernan. 'Visual Analogy as a Cognitive Strategy in the Design Process: Expert Versus Novice Performance<http://www.creativityandcognition.com/cc_conferences/cc03Design/papers/22CasakinDTRS6.pdf >
  33. ^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Method Vol 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.
  34. ^ Wong, Wiccus. Principles of Two-dimensional Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972.
  35. ^ Leborg, Christian. Visual Grammar. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006.
  36. ^ Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think big (YouTube). TED. 
  37. ^ http://designthinking.ideo.com/
  38. ^ "Why the d.school has its limits", ' 'Stanford Daily' '
  39. ^ "15 top MBA employers IDEO", Fortune Magazine June 05 2012
  40. ^ Jones, Andrew (2008). The Innovation Acid Test. Axminster: Triarchy Press. p. 20. 
  41. ^ http://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/a-brief-history-of-design-thinking-the-theory-p1/
  42. ^ Asimow, Morris. Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
  43. ^ Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964.
  44. ^ a b Archer, L. Bruce. Systematic Method for Designers. Council of Industrial Design, H.M.S.O., 1965.(
  45. ^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970.
  46. ^ Gordon, William J. J. Synectics, the Development of Creative Capacity. New York: Harper, 1961
  47. ^ Osborn, Alex F. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Scribner, 1963.
  48. ^ http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095422338
  49. ^ Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: M.I.T., 1969.
  50. ^ Alexander, Christopher. "The State of the Art in Design Methods." DMG Newsletter 5:3 (1971): 3-7.
  51. ^ Jones, John Christopher. "How My Thoughts about Design Methods Have Changed during the Years." Design Methods and Theories 11.1 (1977): 45-62.
  52. ^ Rittel, H., 1984, "Second-Generation Design Methods." Developments in Design Methodology. N. Cross (Editor), John Wiley & Sons, UK pp. 317-327.
  53. ^ Cross, Nigel. "Forty Years of Design Research." Design Studies 28 (2007): 1-4.
  54. ^ Archer, L. Bruce. "Whatever Became of Design Methodology?" Design Studies 1.1 (1979): 17-20.
  55. ^ Hubka, Vladimir, and W. E. Eder. Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982.
  56. ^ Beitz, Wolfgang, Ken M. Wallace, and Gerhard Pahl. Engineering Design. London: Design Council, 1984.
  57. ^ French, M. J. Conceptual Design for Engineers. London: Design Council, 1985.
  58. ^ Cross, Nigel. Engineering Design Methods. England: Wiley, 1989.
  59. ^ Pugh, Stuart. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1991.
  60. ^ Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980.
  61. ^ Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic, 1983.
  62. ^ Nonaka, Ikujirō, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford UP, 1995.
  63. ^ 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.
  64. ^ Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.
  65. ^ Martin, Roger L. The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2007.
  66. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: the Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and, 2008.
  67. ^ Brown, Tim, and Barry Kātz. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business, 2009.
  68. ^ Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York, NY: Allworth, 2010.
  69. ^ Moggridge, Bill. Designing Interactions. Chapter six. The MIT Press; 1 edition (October 1, 2007).
  70. ^ a b Design Thinking Understand – Improve – Apply, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, page v
  71. ^ Design Thinking Understand – Improve – Apply, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, page xvi

Further reading[edit]

  • Cross, Nigel. "Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work." Oxford UK and New York: Berg, 2011.
  • Cross, Nigel. "Designerly Ways of Knowing." London UK and Boston MA: Birkhauser Verlag AG, 2007.
  • Gänshirt, Christian: Tools for Ideas. An Introduction to Architectural Design. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag AG, 2007, ISBN 978-3-7643-7577-5.
  • 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 0-23-115838-6
  • Liedtka, Jeanne. "Solving Problems with Design Thinking: Ten Stories of What Works." Columbia University Press, 2013, ISBN 0-23-116356-8
  • Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York, NY: Allworth, 2010.
  • 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.
  • Hasso Plattner, Christoph Meinel, Larry Leifer Design Thinking: Understand – Improve – Apply. London, UK: Springer, 2010.
  • Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.
  • Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69.
  • 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.

See also[edit]

Portals
Lists

Notes and references[edit]