Making Sense of: “Design Thinking is Bullshit”

Hello Humantific readers. Summer is winding down here in New York City and a new season peaks around the corner. This week we are sharing some reflection that we undertook during the summer regarding the near and dear slippery topic of Design Thinking. Between client projects we were reflecting on the nature of various arguments seen over the last few years. As a company we don't actually sell Design Thinking {1} but the founders of Humantific come from design backgrounds and the changing nature of design remains central to our practice.

Those of us who have, in addition to presenting at conferences, also been participating in community discussions here on the global LinkedIn platform, seen a lot of proverbial water pass under the Design / Design Thinking bridge since the fire-hose of discussions began numerous years ago, particularly online. As a steady stream of new people have entered the subject terrain and old-hands decide, for one reason or another, to weigh in from various directions, arguments tend to appear, reappear and rereappear. At this point, a vast avalanche of arguments pro, con, and somewhere in between are well known to many of us.

In our reflection we were thinking that a little roundup of arguments and some analysis might be useful to share at summers end when several readers directed our attention to a presentation made recently by Pentagram’s Natasha Jen provocatively entitled “DesignThinking is Bullshit”.

Forceful, critique oriented and dramatically delivered, we noticed that inside the Pentagram presentation were numerous argument streams that have appeared at various moments in the online discussion groups over the past few years along with a few not seen before. Not sure exactly what the intention was meant to be but Pentagram was now in 2017 tabling one specific set of neighborhood assumptions and the interconnected arguments in high-profile conference presentation form.?

I was reminded of how diverse the design community of communities is in all its richness, certainy and uncertainty, understandings and misunderstandings, perfections and imperfections. Clearly the certainties of one design neighborhood can become very uncertain when transferred to another.

Without the understanding that different design neighborhoods, tackling different scales of challenges with different methods do now exist the picture around Design Thinking commentaries could look very confusing.

Digesting all of that we decided it might be most useful to our readers at this point in time if we published our Design Thinking Arguments Roundup as an alternate perspective on the subject. Not meant to be Pentagram vs Humantific this is more like Many Others + Pentagram + Humantific…:-)

Indeed we discovered that there was a certain cathartic relief in divergently assembling the roundup, instead of focusing on agreeing with or debating one or two arguments. We were guessing that gathering and setting multiple arguments in context might in itself bring some new perspective. We wondered what that writing on the wall might look like.

During the roundup assembly we noted that some arguments have been around for a long time while others are recently arriving. Some arguments are well known to be deeply embedded in the design community. Others are being imported from outside by various parties entering the now extremely activated subject terrain.

Some are strategic arguments while others are focused on tactics. Some suggest challenges, some deny or deflect them. Some offer critism while others suggest solutions. Many are neighborhood specific while others are universal. Some are funny, odd, or nonsensical, while others are seriously serious. Some arguments make no sense at all.

Many have significant implications for both practice and education that are not always widely understood by everyone in the moment. Some arguments have caught fire and gained traction while others were completely ignored by various constituents. Many arguments appearing here we do not subscribe to at Humantific but we are certainly aware of their presence in marketplace conversations.

What became clear in creating this Design Thinking Arguments Roundup is that the subject of Design Thinking remains quite a mess and will likely stay that way for some time as many different parties, with often-conflicting business interests are now, for better or for worse, involved in impacting the conversation.

Right now in the topic of Design Thinking seems to have evolved from the initial idealized uptake years and is now in the more difficult, more critical; lets see how the rubber hits the road phase..:-) In this phase too, the various arguments keep piling up.

It seems probable that our readers will recognize many, perhaps not all, of these arguments. Suffice it to say that if you want to be involved in a simple, tidy, straight-forward subject, Design Thinking isn’t it!

At the end of this post, as part of this sensemaking exercise we take a shot at mapping the 50 arguments along with 10 Humantific arguments in hope that the story of the arguments in total is perhaps more important then any one argument. It seems likely that many additional arguments do exist.

PS: It’s good and indeed useful to take a deep breath and have a robust sense of humor before reading these 60 argument summaries. Some are rather bumpy. Hope this is useful. Enjoy! :-)

Design Thinking Arguments Roundup:

Argument #1. Everyone is a Designer

This now rather oldish argument suggests that everyone is a designer and can do design. This argument is often based on the widespread perception that Herbert Simon (1916-2010) said so in 1969. Calling all change related activity “design” Simon wrote in The Sciences of the Artificial: “Everyone?designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.” This argument makes no distinction between types of design or the challenges or skills within. This argument, now widespread is often made by folks who have never set foot in a formal design school, but are now active in various arenas of design or seek to be. The awkward subtext is often interpreted to mean: There is no need for formal design education or design schools because design is a generalized skill embedded in all changemaking and easily mastered.

Argument #2. Design is Magic Thinking

This is a traditional design argument that suggests all design is a form of largely intuitive thinking that can magically scale from posters and toothbrush creation to world peace size challenges without any changes in default, intuitive driven methods. The magic thinking argument is often made by tenure-track design educators teaching old-school intuitive process as design methodology. The subtext is often that no change in programs, methods or faculty is needed.

Argument #3. Design Thinking is Smarter Than Design

This argument suggests that business leaders would be more agreeable to design as a organizational capacity if the word thinking was added as in Design Thinking and if the activity was restricted to the revenue generating creation of products, services and experiences. This argument was made by strategy-oriented folks seeking an outside “new” device to drive change in the business community via importing the subject of design into graduate business school education. The subtext is that rebranded, not only is Design Thinking smarter than design but its so smart (and potentially lucrative) that it now should be owned by and driven by the graduate business schools and the business consulting community.

Argument #4. Design Thinking = How Designers Think

This argument suggests that Design Thinking is intended to be and is a direct reflection of “how designers think”. This argument assumes there is some consistency between how designers think and makes no distinction between types of design or the challenges, skills or methods within. This argument is often made by the Design 1 & 2 practice community and related education community. The subtext is: What (Design 1&2) designers do today is the subject of Design Thinking.

Argument #5. We’ll Take Just the Thinking Thanks

This argument launched circa 2004 suggests that business managers should think of managing as designing. Interconnected is the suggestion that if business managers “adopted a design attitude the world of business would be different and better.” This argument is made by several business school educator authors seeking an outside “new” vehicle to transform the subject of business management via graduate business education by embracing what they abstracted from the not codified methodology of high profile architect Frank Gehry. The difficult between the lines subtext is that business school graduates should now own the high fee strategically important thinking part of design while leaving the low fee rapidly commoditizing tactical doing part to design school graduates, ie: The professional design community.

Argument #6. Design Thinking is Not Design

This argument suggests that design and Design Thinking are two different unconnected subjects. Beginning in 2007 this was, for 8-9 years the hidden in plain sight central underlying strategy of the largest Design Thinking group on LinkedIn (Now with 100,000+ members.) positioned as a “Group Rule” that was heavily (and often inappropriately) policed. The super aggressive, super presumptuous subtext was that the rising wave of interest in the subject of Design Thinking does not and should not belong to or be led by the design community. See also Argument #13. Designers = Drunken Sailors. [Note: That "Design Thinking" LinkedIn group now has a new more diverse team of moderators on their way to a broadening strategy.]

Argument #7. Process Cannot be Explained

This is one of many anti-process arguments suggesting that the process of design is so highly complex and largely intuitive that it cannot be (and should not be) explained. This argument is often made by Design 1 practitioners using largely intuitive methods that they have not codified. The subtext is: The process of Design (1) has not been codified because it can’t be.

Argument #8. Process = Poor Results

This is another anti-process argument suggesting that process articulation/visualization makes process linear, is bad and will lead to poor or no results. This argument is often made by Design 1 practitioners using largely intuitive methods. The subtext is: Codified externalized process is negative bad and intuitive hidden process is positive good.

Argument #9. Nothing to Invent Here

This argument suggests that the traditional design community is already doing everything that is possible and has been for years, so nothing more needs to be invented by you. Linked to Design is Magic Thinking this argument is often seen coming from old-guard design community practitioners. The subtext is: Thanks but no thanks - no change is needed.

Argument #10. We Just Invented This

This argument suggests that Design Thinking, creative intelligence, participatory design, etc. was just invented last week. This argument stream can often be seen coming from millennials and or from ambitious outside folks newly arriving into the subject. The subtext is that no one seems to be home strategically in the design community making such claims possible without serious objection.

Argument #11. Britches Too Big

This argument suggests that designers have grown highly presumptuous, too big for their britches and need to get back to their traditional knitting. ie They have no business changing. This argument is often being made by competitive folks in other disciplines. The subtext is: Designers need to be put in their place.

Argument #12. Change Comes From Our Celebrities

This argument suggests that change related to design can only originate and be recognized if it comes from the insiders, the old-guard celebrities of Design 1 in particular. This argument can often be seen and experienced in AIGA circles. The subtext is: Our insider celebrities will let you know when change is occurring.

Argument #13. Designers = Drunken Sailors

This argument became famous during the height of the Information Architecture era, circa 2006 suggesting that designers are undisciplined, easily distracted, high-maintenance, soggy wafflers and thus require non-designers to manage them. This was the prelude to the divisive strategy that later appeared as a “Group Rule” on the Design Thinking Linkedin group separating design from the subject of Design Thinking. The highly competitive subtext is that designers need adult supervision.

Argument #14. Graduate Design Education is in Sync with Practice

This argument suggests that graduate design education is in perfect sync and or leading the practice community. This argument is often made by design education leaders seeking to justify existing programs. The subtext is: There is no need for change in design education.

Argument #15. Graduate Design Education is NOT in Sync with Practice

This argument suggests that graduate design education is by design not in sync with the practice community but rather focused on the assumed universal aspects of deep design education. This argument is often made by design education leaders seeking to justify existing programs. The subtext is: There is no need for change in design education.

Argument #16a, 16b, 16c. Design Thinking = Product/Service/Experience Design

This argument depicts Product, Service and Experience Design as what Design Thinking is. This argument is often being made by members of the Product/Service and Experience Design practice and education communities. The subtext is: There is no need to look beyond Product/Service/Experience Design for Design Thinking.

Argument #17a, 17b, 17c. Meta Design = Product/Service/Experience Design

This argument depicts Product, Service and Experience Design as Meta Design applicable to all organizational and societal challenges. Oddly this argument seeks to overwrite and narrow what Meta Design already is from a methods perspective (open-aperture) and converts it to assumption-based. This argument is most often being made by those selling Product, Service and Experience Design services and or related traditional design education. The subtext is: To achieve Meta Design no change in methods is needed.

Argument #18. Meta Design = Sustainability Design

This argument depicts sustainability advocacy as Meta Design applicable to every and all organizational and societal challenges. Oddly this argument seeks to overwrite and narrow what Meta Design already is from a methods perspective (open aperture) and converts it to assumption based. This argument is most often being made by academic sustainability experts seeking to depict their expertise as a new subject terrain. The subtext is a glossed over invitation to pretend that sustainability advocacy is the same as open aperture, strategic design.

Argument #19a, 19b. Organizational Transformation = Service/Experience Design

This argument suggests that service design, experience design and organizational transformation are equivalents. This argument was often made during the era when numerous experience design companies and service design companies were sold to large management consulting firms. The subtext is often that service design and or experience design is the solution to all organizational challenges.

Argument #20. Social Innovation = Product/Service/Experience Design

This argument suggests that all societal problems can be solved by creating more products, services and or experiences, so the same methods can be used. This argument is often being made by members of the Product/Service and Experience design practice and education communities writing themselves into the subject of Social Innovation. The subtext is that traditional design methods of product, service and experience design are perfectly suited for the terrain of massively complex social innovation.

Argument #21. Roger Martin Invented Design Thinking

This argument suggests that not only did Roger Martin invent Design Thinking but he is the defacto leader driving the entire subject. This argument is often made by the Rotman/Martin/IDEO alliance and their many by disciples, oddly including a number of graduate design education leaders. The subtext is the suggestion that the design community lacks its own intellectual leaders and thus someone outside the design community, from the business consulting community, with no formal design training is perfectly suited to be driving the subject.

Argument #22. IDEO Invented Everything

This argument suggests that IDEO invented Design Thinking, human-centered design, brainstorming, challenge framing, observational research etc. Rarely corrected this argument is often being made by disciples of IDEO, graduates of their workshops, etc. The subtext is: It’s safe and quite tidy to assume that high profile IDEO invented everything in and around the subject.

Argument #23. Stanford is Leading Everything

This argument suggests that Stanford dSchool is leading all change not only in the graduate design education community but in the design practice community as well. This argument is often made by the Stanford/IDEO alliance and their many disciples, program and workshop graduates. The subtext is: Leading design practices are all a reflection of Stanford dSchool.

Argument #24. Limitations of Design Thinking

This argument points out that Design Thinking interpreted as product, service and or experience design has serious limitations in that it assumes that all organizational and societal problems and solutions are product, service and or experience related. This argument has appeared in the media written by outside journalistic observers of the dSchool approach. The subtext is: Problem solving oriented observers from outside the design community might see design differently then what is stated in various marketing materials.

Argument #25. Knowledge not Codified

This argument suggests that design knowledge is very small in total and not codified so therefore anyone can do it and manage it. This argument is often made by folks who never set foot in any design school but now seek management positions in this subject. The often seen subtext is that anyone can manage this fuzzy thing called design.

Argument #26. Design = Object Creation

This argument suggests that unless an object is being made it is not design and is not effective. This argument is often being made by Design scale 1 and 2 practitioners as well as academic leaders teaching traditional design methods. The subtext is that real design is object bound.

Argument #27. No Orchestration Please

This argument suggests that any kind of process orchestration is too structured and antithetical to true design. This argument is most often made by Design 1 practitioners, operating in the arena of small-scale framed design problems, rather then large complex unframed organizational or societal challenges. The subtext is: We don’t need to change or even orchestrate our behaviors. Orchestration is for sissies, not true heroic designers.

Argument #28.?Design Thinking = Superficial Training

This argument suggests that many people referring to themselves today as “Design Thinkers” lack adequate training, education and experience. The argument suggests that attending a two hour “Design Thinking” workshop or watching youtube videos is in no way equivalent to even a fraction of undergraduate design education and does not make one a skilled design thinker. This argument is often made by formally educated design practitioners. The subtext is often that without proper skills these newby design thinkers will likely crash and burn not only themselves and their projects but the entire subject.

Argument #29. Design Needs More Science

This argument suggests that many of the challenges now facing design and the planet require more science knowledge to be incorporated into design as a subject. This argument is being made by content focused advocates for change in graduate design education. The subtext is that graduate design education needs to change in this particular direction.

Argument #30. Design Needs Systems Thinking

Enjoying a resurgence, this argument being revisited and respun as new under the banner of Systemic Design suggests that many of the challenges now facing design and the planet would benefit from a systems thinking approach. Parts of this movement also embrace the already existing Visual SenseMaking movement. This argument is often being remade by academic leaders engaged in rebranding, fleshing out, conferencing, rejuvenating and constructively building out this argument. The subtext is that graduate design education needs to change in this particular direction.

Argument #31. Design Needs to Be Evidence-Based

Appearing across several decades under more then one header this argument began appearing in the late 1980s as the importance of information as part of the design process began to be recognized by Richard Wurman and others. Renamed and repackaged recently as “Evidence-Based Design”, coinciding with the rise of the big data wave this argument suggests that design needs to be based, not just on intuitive speculation but rather be informed by evidence of various quantitative and qualitative sorts, made sense of. The subtext is: Gone are the days when 100% intuition ruled the design roost.

Argument #32. Agile/Lean Thinking Trumps Design Thinking

This argument suggests that cutting a typical cycle of design in half, omitting the core functions and calling it “Agile/Lean” is superior to design / Design Thinking methodogies. This argument is often being made by nondesign optimizer folks with an often unrecognized cognitive bias towards action over thinking and conceptualization. The same unrecognized bias typically exists in their organizations. The subtext is that action trumps all regardless of what the action is.

Argument #33. Stay in the Box Design Thinking

This narrowing argument suggests that in order for others to effectively manage it, Design Thinking should only be interpreted as product, service and experience design. In this scenario its more comforting to think of design as an execution process focused on the creation of narrowly focused outcomes. This argument is often being made by the graduate business schools now teaching others what they think Design Thinking is as a process to be managed by business managers who frame challenge categories for the design teams. The subtext is: Don’t stray outside the officially sanctioned box that we made for you.

Argument #34. Design is For Wicked Problems

This argument suggests that design is geared for addressing giant-sized, fuzzy, unstructured, so-called wicked problems. Oddly the philosophical argument is most often accompanied by assumption-based product, service and experience design methods that assume all challenges are product, service and experience related. The subtext is that wicked problems can be addressed by traditional forms of design so no change other then rebranding is needed.

Argument #35. Design is Future Focused

This argument suggests that design is “THE most important mental operation” because it is future focused and Edward DeBono said so. Making a distinction between critical thinking and design, Debono is describing open-aperture design not assumption-based or discipline-specific design methods. The subtext is that creating the future is extremely important and requires generative thinking, not based on the past but designed forward.

Argument #36. Design is about Opportunities not Problems

This argument suggests that design is not about problem solving but rather the pursuit of marketplace business opportunities depicted as very unlike problem solving. This argument is often made by folks selling product creation services not operating in the messy organizational or societal changemaking arena. The subtext is that you don’t need that problem solving thing. What you need is opportunity creation.

Argument #37. Design Thinking = Play

This argument suggests that mastering design centers around adults rediscovering the lost skill of play. This argument is often accompanied by lots of toys, blocks and games. This argument is often made by folks entering the design arena with creativity backgrounds rather then design backgrounds. The subtext is that loosening up is the key ingredient in design / Design Thinking methodology.

Argument #38. Design Thinking = Brainstorming with Post-it Notes

This argument suggests that design is fundamentally about using colored post-it notes during brainstorming sessions. This argument is often made by folks with few process skills beyond brainstorming. The visual subtext is: “Boy that looks really cool!”.

Argument #39. Design Should be 200% Emergent

This argument suggests that design methods AND design outcomes are and should both be 100% emergent, meaning that there is no process and that it will be created each time. This argument is often made by folks who have no codified methods knowledge and are thus selling that absence as critically important. The subtext is process codification is bad and making stuff up everyday from scratch is good.

Argument #40. Design Thinking = Empathy

Influenced by the integration of observational research knowledge from the social sciences this argument suggests that the most important aspect of on-boarding design method skill is learning an empathy orientation, that all other aspects of design spring from this learned skill. This argument is often being made by experienced design research practitioners. The subtext is that human-centered design does not exist without empathetic orientation.

Argument #41. Design Thinking Should be User-Centered

This argument suggests that design must be user centered. This argument is often made by folks assuming design is product creation. The subtext is lets be empathetic towards a group of humans known as users.

Argument #42. Design Thinking Should be Human-Centered

Expanding the focus beyond “users” this argument recognizes that highly complex organizational and societal challenges often involve many types of constituents, not all of whom are “users”. This argument is often being made by Design scale 3 and Design scale 4 practitioners. The subtext is lets be empathetic to needs beyond “users”.

Argument #43. Design Thinking Should be Life-Centered

Expanding the focus considerably this argument suggests that design should be addressing challenges for all life forms on planet earth not just the humans. This argument is becoming popular within neighborhoods of design focused in the context of societal changemaking. The subtext is lets be empathetic to needs beyond humans.

Argument #44. Creativity Thinking = Design Thinking

This argument suggests that creativity and design are interchangeable concepts with interchangeable skills. This argument is often made by folks with creativity education backgrounds seeking to operate as designers in the design arena. The subtext is there is no difference between the subjects and the skills.

Argument #45. Design Thinking Contains No Judgment

This argument suggests that Design Thinking contains no judgment because Herbert Simon said so in 1969. Again in The Sciences of the Artificial Simon wrote: “There are no judgments in design thinking. This eliminates the fear of failure and encourages maximum input and participation. Wild ideas are welcome since these often lead to the most creative solutions.” Since judgment is actually an imporant aspect of design and has always been this argument is being made in 2017 by folks without fundamental methodology knowledge. Confusing divergence with the word design the subtext was/is that design is primarily about brainstorming wild ideas.

Argument #46. Design Thinking is a Failure

This argument suggests that Design Thinking as methodology has already been determined to be a failure and in its place should be “Creative Intelligence”. This argument was made circa 2013 by an adventuresome author with no understanding of design beyond the Design 2 practice community. The mind-mending subtext is that Design Thinking is dead and in its place should be Creative Intelligence, a form of knowledge that already existed forty+ years before his book was published and has already been integrated into strategic design practice for more then a decade.

Argument #47. Don’t Forget Design Doing

Expressing a somewhat ironic full circle return, this argument suggests that design doing is a new idea that was somehow forgotten in the literal interpretation of the term Design Thinking. The irony is that Design Thinking and design doing combined and literally expressed is design. This argument is often being made by experienced design practitioners looking to write themselves into the rapidly expanding Design Thinking conversation. Literally interpreted the ironic subtext is “thanks for the many side-road conversations but design is now and has always been a combination of thinking and doing”.

Argument #48. Design Thinking = No Criticism

This high profile, not frequently occurring critique argument suggests that the current state of Design Thinking methodologies contain no criticism within the process. This argument is being made by folks not understanding that judgment, converging, criticism, evaluation is typically intended to be contained in every step of the design process whether it is drawn as a square, circle, hexagon or something else. This becomes clear to anyone attending even a basic skills workshop. This argument is made by practitioners operating in the Design scale 1 arena, accustomed to intuitive methods, assuming those methods are universal and the focus of Design Thinking. The not accurate subtext is visual methods are linear, lacking in criticism and bad while intuitive methods are nonlinear, inclusive of criticism and good.

Argument #49. Design Output Should Be Measured

This argument comes in numerous different flavors, suggesting that design outputs can be and should be measured. In some versions of the argument this occurrs by assessing the success of the objects it creates and in other versions the degree of change inspired, informed and or realized. How the measures will be untaken, using what criteria and by whom differs from version to version. Some versions of this argument have in mind that designers will be doing all assessing while other versions suggest a broader group of humans will be creating the measurement criteria and doing the measuring. This argument is often made by folks seeking to make design more business-like and useful in various organizational contexts where measurements are highly valued. The subtext is that measurement is responsible positive good and no measure is ineffective negative bad.

Argument #50. Design Thinking is Bullshit

This argument suggests that Design Thinking is an awkward, linear, forced, artificial construction that oversimplifies design and misleads nondesigners into believing they are designers. The argument assumes that the purpose of Design Thinking is to This argument is often made by Design 1 practioners assuming their largely intuitive methods, work terrain and outputs are what the subject of Design Thinking is all about. Often connected to Magic Thinking the subtext is that what professional designers do cannot be codified or taught in a workshop with post-it notes.

HUMANTIFIC’s Top Ten Design / Design Thinking Arguments

2005-2017:

Humantific Argument #1. Design / Design Thinking is in Motion

This Humantific argument suggests that Design and its subset Design Thinking are not set in concrete historical academic subjects. What design is and does is being redesigned in the strategic design practice community everyday as the challenges being faced increase in fuzzy complexity and become part of everyday strategic design practice. Truth be told: The velocity and degree of change underway in the strategic design practice community already extends far beyond that occurring in most formal graduate design schools.

Humantific Argument #2. Design Thinking is a Subset of Design

This Humantific argument suggests that Design Thinking is not a separate subject unconnected from design but rather exemplifies the codified aspects of design methods at various scales. Some interpretations of the term include design doing while others adopt a literal interpretation of just the thinking part. The always present, uncodified, intuitive aspects of Design Thinking are difficult to teach and are thus not included in most Design Thinking workshops geared for incoming executives. Truth be told: It is understood that the synchronization of codified and intuitive aspects of Design Thinking is a significant dimension of the high-level skills mastery of many experienced professional designers.

Humantific Argument #3. There is No One Design Thinking Method

This Humantific argument suggests that views of what design is and does change from problem scale to problem scale (NextD Geographies: Design 1,2,3,4, 2005-2017) and from responding neighborhood to neighborhood. There has never been, and is not now one single design method and thus there is no single Design Thinking methodology. Methods differ across problem scales and even within the same problem scale, often reflecting the backgrounds and focus of the particular method creators. What is relatively consistent from method to method are fundamental behaviors.

Humantific Argument #4. Philosophy vs Methodology

This Humantific argument suggests broad philosophical design statements suggesting design intention to address massive organizational or societal challenges and the actual methods are presently often not acknowledged or recognized to be two different things. Philosophy is not methodology. Embracing the simple notion leads to the realization that much methodology redesign work is needed as the focus of design changes from scale to scale.

Humantific Argument #5. Upstream vs Downstream

This Humantific argument suggests that upstream methods are substantially different from downstream methods in that they have different starting points and different assumptions built in. Upstream methods begin prior to assuming that all challenges are product, service and or experience related. Downstream methods begin with a brief that dictates the challenges have already been decided to be product, service and or experience related. Truth be told: Most traditional design / Design Thinking methods are downstream in nature. A new generation of open-aperture methods seeks to more effectively engage upstream.

Humantific Argument #6. Open-Aperture vs Assumption-Based

This Humantific argument suggests that most traditional design methods are not open-aperture. Often being wrapped in the marketing spin of “Design Thinking”; product, service and experience design methods are assumption-based. They assume upfront before any facts are known that the challenges are related to product, service or experience. Such assumptions are the opposite of open-aperture methods which contain no assumptions regarding what the challenges actually are. Truth be told: Assumption-based methods don’t work well in upstream contexts.

Humantific Argument #7. Externalized vs Internalized

This Humantific argument suggests the ability to externalize process visually is fundamental to the operational context of complex cross-disciplinary innovation work today. As challenges scale, multiple disciplines become involved, time frames are extended, and constant coordination across time and disciplines is expected. Truth be told: 100% intuitive methods do not scale well to this complex context.

Humantific Argument #8. SenseMaking is Rising

This Humantific argument suggests that as challenges scale (from Design 1 to Design 3&4) the need for increased sensemaking rises as part of the design or innovation cycle. More than data visualization, sensemaking embraces and explains all forms of quantitative and qualitative insight. The outputs of sensemaking become the fuel and accelerator of changemaking design. Truth be told: The rise in sensemaking is changing the very nature of design.

Humantific Argument #9. Globalization Undercuts Design 1 (and Design 2)

This Humantific argument suggests that the movement towards engaging in more complex challenges is not a lofty abstract, nice to consider idea but rather is being driven in part by globalization and the rise in complex problems on planet earth. Whether we all like it or not, globalization has already played a huge roll in the commodification of many forms of Design scale 1 and the movement towards need to engage around more and more complex problems. Truth be told: Across the spectrum of Design 1,2,3,4 some professional operational arenas are, due to globalization, shrinking while others are expanding.

Humantific Argument #10. Teaching Design Thinking

This Humantific argument suggests that most programs framed as “Design Thinking” today are not clearly explaining that what they are actually teaching is Product, Service or Experience design rebranded as Design Thinking. Product Design Thinking, Service Design Thinking and Experience Design Thinking are all derived from assumption-based methods. The true nature of Design Thinking is open-aperture, meta, not assumption-based. Today there are downstream and upstream versions of Design Thinking. Truth be told: Both versions, upstream and downstream add different kinds of value.

Design Thinking Arguments Roundup Map

Conclusion:

The story that seems to emerge from this Design Thinking Arguments Roundup can arguably be interpreted and pictured in many different ways.

One reading is; the roundup appears to suggest the subject of Design / Design Thinking would benefit from more design professionals with design backgrounds being more actively involved, not just in defense of existing conditions, programs and or methods, but also in the ongoing reinvention of design beyond traditional, much discussed approaches of product, service and experience design.

For some of us there is certain irony in seeing design utilized as a driver of change in adjoining knowledge communities while change is often deflected and half-hearted in our own community. If the success of selling Design Thinking into other communities becomes a blockage of change in our own community what does that say about collective us?

If this picture is a true one it should be no surprise to anyone that the abscense of migration in an effective, timely manner away from just defense and towards reinvention will result in the design community losing control of the reinvention and leadership aspects of its core subject. Some might suggest that is already underway.

Writing on the proverbial wall turns out to be not always that much fun..:-)

At the end of the day it’s up to all of us really, to set aside community politics and get on with effectively creating the future of design in a changed and changing world.

Hope this is helpful and good luck to all.

{1} Humantific's hybrid skill-building program geared for organizational leaders is called Complexity Navigation and contains three interconnected streams: Strategic CoCreation, Design Research and Visual SenseMaking. For more information feel free to send us an email: engage (at) humantific (dot) com.

Related:

HUMANTIFIC: Clarifying Design Thinking: Forbes vs Humantific

HUMANTIFIC: Making Sense of: "Why Design Thinking Will Fail"

HUMANTIFIC: Double Diamond Method: Understanding What was Missed

HUMANTIFIC: Crediting "How Might We?": Sidney Parnes not IDEO

HUMANTIFIC: Making Sense of Design Thinking & Agile Method

HUMANTIFIC: SenseMaking is Rising

HUMANTIFIC: Harvard Downstreams Design Thinking

HUMANTIFIC: Innovation Methods Mapping: DeMystifying 80+ Years of Innovation Process Design