A Few Thoughts on the Design Thinking "Hit Piece"

So I recently came across an article in the MIT Technology Review titled “Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?” - it’s a bit older (from the February ‘23 issue), but I believe it’s still new(ish) enough to voice an opinion about.

First things first: as we are now accustomed to, allow me to invite our new friend Generative AI to summarize the article in 2-3 sentences max:

Google Bard

Design thinking is a problem-solving approach that has been adopted by businesses and organizations around the world. However, some critics argue that design thinking has become too focused on innovation and creativity, and that it has lost sight of its original purpose of solving real-world problems. This article explores the history of design thinking, its current state, and its potential future.

Chat GPT

This article discusses the rise and fall of design thinking as a problem-solving methodology. Design thinking, with its emphasis on collaboration, creativity, and user-centeredness, gained popularity in various sectors, including technology, business, and social impact. However, critics argue that design thinking's focus on generating novel ideas without sufficient consideration for implementation has led to unrealistic recommendations and reinforced existing inequities. Efforts are now underway to reform design thinking principles and methodologies to better serve diverse communities and address complex problems.

OK….now that the summary is out of the way….here are my thoughts:

General:?

Wow - this is a total hit piece. Not even targeting design thinking as a process, but the author specifically zeroes in on IDEO. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the writer applied to work at IDEO (perhaps multiple times) but was not offered a position, so decided to go on a personal vendetta. Note: I wouldn’t define myself as an IDEO "fanboy," but I do have respect for the work they do…even though it seems as though they’ve pivoted a bit from product & service innovation to organizational design advisory & consulting services.

To further distill the piece, the author presents an argument against the design thinking process based on 2 main reasons: use of design thinking as a solution inherently?values empathy > experience, and ideas > implementation, which causes it to fail to produce sustainable value for users.

My thoughts, in summation? At best, her arguments are completely subjective in nature, are missing any relevant data to validate them, and are taken out of context. At worst, they are egregiously and categorically false, and the result of some personal vendetta against IDEO (as I mentioned above).

Let’s break it down a bit more, using a few quotes directly pulled from the article, and providing my reaction::

Empathy over Experience?

“We are all creatives, and we can solve any problem if we empathize hard enough.”

"Design thinking gave designers permission to take on any big, problem by applying their own empathy to users’ pain points. The first step of the design thinking process is for the designer to empathize with the end user through close observation of the problem. While this step involves asking questions of the individuals and communities affected, the designer’s eye frames any insights that emerge. This puts the designer’s honed sense of empathy at the center of both the problem and the solution." "We can solve any problem if we empathize enough!"

My reaction: If a design thinker relies on this approach, they are doing it completely wrong. A true design thinking process leverages a co-creative approach whereby the consumers affected are providing the solutions, and the designers merely act as a conduit/facilitator to help their own visions/approaches come to life. Learn what "hacks" they are already using to solve their problems, and elevate those. In my work with IDEO, they are using this approach in a lot of their work.

Ideas over Implementation

“Execution has always been the sticky wicket for design thinking.”

"The next steps were to reframe the problem (“How might we …?”), brainstorm potential solutions, prototype options, test those options with end users, and—finally—implement. Design thinking agencies usually didn’t take on this last step themselves; consultants often delivered a set of “recommendations” to the organizations that hired them."

My reaction: It's not an expertise challenge, it's a preference challenge. The good design thinking firms can execute just as well as they implement, and have a staff well beyond designers who can do it (former McKinsey/Bain folks & executives at companies, etc.). The challenge is many of the projects are set up where the company only gives them the opportunity to ideate - the client then says "we'll take over from here, because we know our company best, and how to get these things off the ground successfully." The reality? This actually sets projects up to fail more than anything else.

Alright, I guess that’s where I’ll finish my rant. In the spirit of a design thinking approach, I’ll also take a minute to “yes, and….” the piece. There are 2 little nuggets within the article that I am in agreement with:

1. Use of "design thinking" as a defined approach: the article indicates that design thinking is no longer mentioned in the Stanford d. School materials. I'm totally cool with that - I don't care what it's called - it's the process that matters. That said…the author was not short of opinions in the rest of the article, so maybe stop complaining about it, and offer your own new term.?
2. Inequalities within the design thinking methodology: "Design thinking has reinforced existing inequities rather than challenging them. Many big problems are rooted in centuries of dark history, too deeply entrenched to be obliterated with a touch of design thinking’s magic wand." Yeah, no crap. But can the author tell me about any type of approach to use that doesn't reinforce existing inequalities? What's the solution? I'd argue that this isn't a design thinking problem - this is a "life" problem.

Look - at the end of the day, I’m not trying to personally attack the author of the piece; she’s fully within her own rights to have her own opinion towards the design thinking approach.?

What does surprise me is that this piece was printed in the MIT Technology Review. Being an MIT-affiliated publication, my assumption was that articles published in the journal would have an academic lean to them; any arguments would be accompanied by corresponding data in an attempt to validate them, similar to our expectations when we read something in Harvard Business Review. This, however, was a pure editorial opinion piece, with not one single data point to validate any of the arguments. This article is way more fitting to be found on Buzzfeed.com, not in a journal even loosely associated with MIT.

My Final Take:

Does design thinking have problems related to its practice? Of course it does, just like any other methodology - none are flawless or perfect.

And though this article was from February, there has been some fresh news to make it a bit more timely again: IDEO recently announced a fresh round of layoffs. That said, even this new data point can be seen from 2 different perspectives based on what one might already believe about design thinking as a practice:?

1. Further proof that the author was correct, and that design thinking, as a methodology, has failed us
2. A sign of the times. Economic uncertainty is the current flavor of the week. IDEO is now owned by a larger co, and layoffs in service industry are becoming more and more prevalent.?

• Feb ‘23: McKinsey announced it was laying off 2K
• March ‘23: Accenture announced it was laying off 19K globally, and ~600 in its Austin office
• April ‘23: Deloitte announced it was laying off 1,200 consultants

IMO, this is design thinking’s biggest problem: it was put on a pedestal; one that it never should have been. This had the result of effectively placing a huge target on its back. Design thinking might be a buzzword thrown around by some designers that want to be compensated a bit higher, but in reality, many people use parts of the methodology in their work every day and don’t even think about it. This is how it should be.

It’s not up to me to decide which way you want to consider these arguments, and it’s certainly not my responsibility to police it, but I do think that there were a few unfair shots fired against design thinking that I felt compelled to at least attempt to address...