“If we deconstruct design into component parts, could we go so far as to create an algorithm for replicating it? Horrors! Designers want recognition for their different and special genius, not for their processes or tools.”

and

“Think how it must feel to the celebrity designer to have the media be focusing not on them but on Design Thinking and on non-practitioners. Ouch!”

When I read stuff like this – which seems to be suggesting the “backlash” against Design Thinking stems from elitist designer ego – it’s clear to me [the author hasn't] considered the possibility some designers don’t fit the personality profile [s/he seems] to believe is behind the critical response. Horrors!!!

Counter to what [s/he seems] to be suggesting, some designers (including me, a traditionally educated aerospace engineer) have, in the past:

- attempted to explain/teach process to non-professional designers
- supported algorithmic-based generative design programs and mass customization
- given clear examples of how defining the problem is critical to problem solving
- made it clear design is not just for traditionally trained (industrial) designers and acknowledge non-traditionally trained designers can be some of the best Designers ( e.g. http://blog.rebang.com/?p=1405 )
- have agreed with some elements of Design Thinking and taken issue with those professional designers who do, in fact, behave in the manner suggested.

We’re not all ejected from the same mold. Surprise!!!

Furthermore, [the author is] using falsehoods to support [their] position. For example:

“In the old days, designers would ask for the specifications and then go about designing the solution. The definition of the problem was assumed correct.”

Bunk. Perhaps in [their] experience the problem statement was assumed to be correct, but that’s not my experience. In fact, I’ve found the people least comfortable with such an assumption are industrial designers, who seem to always question conventional wisdom. It’s the risk-averse, left-brain operators – the ones who now “want to understand how a designer will approach a problem” and be assured of success by some mathematically derived formula – who most often make this assumption.

[The author asks] the question: “Where is this [backlash] coming from?”

I’ll offer an answer: Some of the critical response is coming from designers who aren’t willing to simply jump on some bandwagon without giving it the critical thought it deserves. I personally know too many designers who have thoughtlessly joined the Design Thinking ranks without having given it any real thought; it just sounded like a good way to gain some business. Same applies to non-practicing designers. Ouch!!!

In response, I’d like to ask, “Why [is the author] framing critical opinions in this one-dimensional manner?” I would have thought a Design Thinker {and, apparently, “one of America’s top strategic design consultants”(!)} would have checked [their] bias at the door and considered the possibility some of the most vocal critics don’t fit the easy profile.

Since Roger Martin and I co-chaired a DMI conference on Design Thinking in June, I have been hearing and reading a lot ….

Which brings me back to my original point: is the issue you’re raising sufficiently relevant to prevent commenting on the substance when I obviously don’t have the time to generate my own custom template and you admit to being aware of the problems of maintaining typographic consistency for software such as WordPress? I don’t see how you can believe it is.

As you’re doubtlessly aware, most of us pick and choose our compromises under real world circumstances. That’s mostly what it is to be a designer. Maybe Marc Newson can design a jet that isn’t intended to fly and Philippe Starck can design expensive juicers that look sculptural but are effectively non-functional, but most of us aren’t afforded those luxuries. Design students should be aware of the realities most of them will face.

Making the choice I did was my own compromise. Letting that interfere with an important conversation is, however, not a compromise I would make. Nor would I expect it from an educator who should, in my opinion, be teaching students about real world issues and how to prioritize them appropriately. No offense, but do you really want to teach your students to close down communication channels because they can’t properly prioritize? I hope not. From my experience there are already too many designers out there who can’t properly pick their battles. Sometimes it’s okay to walk away. That should be taught, too.

Finally, as to the “design thinking” moniker, I simply disagree. As stated above I don’t think it’s appropriate. If someone instead used “right brain thinking”, I’d have no problems, but the word “design” is being stretched thin as it is. Now we’ve attached “design” to a way of thinking that might be prevalent among designers, but is in no way exclusive to them. All we seem to have done is confused the issue; great for the Nussbaum’s of the world who make their living exploiting such catchphrases, but from my perspective it’s not so good for the long-term sake of the design community.

Consequently, as far as I’m concerned, the term can’t be buried fast enough. The last thing the design community needs is yet another confused effort to gain legitimacy in the predominantly left-brain business world through a marketing ploy. Besides, I’ve long believed we’re returning to a “craft”/niche product economy. And there are increasing signs this is finally occurring. When that happens – when the Long Tail starts to flatten, as it appears to be doing – creatives won’t need catch phrases and hype to sell their services. But they will need to understand how to properly communicate.

as far as specifics on the backward quote marks: yep, it’s very likely a wordpress issue — i struggle with typepad issues with my own blog… and it is certainly a compromise between something that works perfectly (and is expensive) and something that has some bugs (and is free).

however, when reading good content, unusual or incorrect type issues do cast a bit of a shadow, especially when the content is design-related. i often liken it to a trust issue that you make with your audience (in a practice-what-you-preach kind of way). would you trust an overweight personal trainer? a mechanic who drives a backfiring car? an engineer with sloppy math? perhaps these type-refinments are the “meat” of the (graphic) design education we’re seeking… and it’s something i’m teaching (or trying to teach) to my students every day. i often ask them: would you trust a visual communicator with a sloppy presentation? typos in their creative brief?

back on topic: i do understand the sensitivity/numbness to the “design thinking” moniker. it’s received a bit too much play in the past few years and is beginning to ring hollow. however, having worked for a firm pegged as one of the originators of the term (and having typeset it in many, many instances), i can only hope that the sentiment behind the catch-phrase will not fall into the corporate-cliche-graveyard because — at its core — it is something quite nice.

again, good stuff. i look forward to reading more.

Please. If you’re going to *insist* on pointing out something so trivial, at least take the time to provide specifics.

(btw, this isn’t a post about “design education”. It’s about “design thinking”.)

DT said: “But hey while we are at it, what do we call it?”

THINKING. Anyone can do it. No one owns it.

I don’t believe in catch phrases… like “innovative thought”.

To me, Design – the coming together of thought and activity – is not just for {applied artists, aka…} “designers”. That’s just an unfortunate linguistic circumstance.

The best Design yields Innovative results. For example, take a left-brain Finance person and a right-brain Graphic Design person. Both, if they are too far to either side, won’t likely be very innovative. They’re unbalanced. Pure right-brain people won’t innovate because they’re in fantasyland. Pure left-brain people won’t innovate because they can’t break rules or see past established guidelines.

Now let’s say the Finance person has a natural talent for musical improvisation. And the Graphic Design person has a natural aptitude for mathematics. Now you have balance and an ability to approach a problem from different perspectives; not too crazy and not too strict. Both are equally likely to Innovate.

Okay, take the Finance person and give them a typical education. What’s outside their Finance core curriculum? Well, they probably take upper level literature, some college level history, and enough language to satisfy a general graduation requirement. They may have to take some religion. Most liberal arts students still have to suffer through basic calculus classes, freshman chemistry, aso. And they’ll still have a chance to take an art class or a media studies class. In other words, it’s pretty good.

Now take the Graphic Design person and give them an education at a typical art school. Outside of Graphic Design what do they get? In four or five years at art school they probably have two years of basic literature; not much more difficult than high school level. They might also take a creative writing class, but it won’t be very rigorous imo. They don’t take world history because they get art history. No upper level math to challenge them (if there’s any math at an art school). No international studies or such classes. No science. No chemistry. Maybe a second language taught at a sister school, but no physics. Maybe rudimentary business “art professional” classes, but nothing like Econ 101/102. Maybe some ergonomics. Maybe. But it’ll be joke if it’s like what I had. But definitely more art classes. Printmaking. Ceramics. Sculpture.

Tell me, which is more likely to have the better inputs into the Design process?

The business world doesn’t need help with Design process; we’re all born designers. They need help with gaining their balance so they can be better at Design.

Stick a left-brain person in a left-brain system and you get more left-brain output. Stick a right-brain person in a left-brain system and you get Innovation. That is why applied artists/designers are so interesting to the left-brain people trying to figure out how to be better Innovators. All they need to do is break free of their way of thinking.

But that’s not easy. I’ve been there. Four solid years immersed at a fine arts college and aptitude since I was in grade school. Four years before I finally figured it out.

Do I believe a typical left-brain business person is going to figure it out after a seminar or a couple of offsite “Innovation classes”?

No.

{Just took a look at the current CIA course schedule. Look for yourself: Link to PDF download.}

That is itself an ignorant statment. Cos I think he gives the people actually in the business of design too littlecredit. They know better than to call such activities “design thinking”.

But hey while we are at it, what do we call it? Perhaps we can set a president here and call it “problem solving”, “innovative thought”, “Innovation thinking?” What do you think?

It’s because they can’t exist without the other that defining either makes no sense {other than using terms like “thinking” and “drawing” which we already have available}. Do you say you engage in “the thinking of breathing” and “the activity/execution of breathing”. No. Of course not. Breathing is a singular integrated thing.

“Design thinking” implies it’s a special kind of thinking divorced from Design; some subdivision process in which applied artists/designers engage, and that’s bullshit, imo. I don’t apply “design thinking”. I think first and then I design (which is the combination of thinking and doing)… and then I evaluate the result and I do it again if necessary.

When I was in school, no one ever called what we did “design thinking”. If someone wasn’t being active and engaged in Design, they were Thinking. Nothing more.

The only reason we have this new phrase, imo, is because the business world is trying to understand us and in the process trying to make what we do fit into their left-brained system. And the reason it has traction is because like most every other “How To” system, it sells. And the people who push the idea of this new way of thinking benefit.

DT said: “The context of how design thinking is used and where people like bruce naussbaum cant articulate well enough simply because he is not a designer.”

Exactly. He doesn’t seem to understand it nor does he even understand the issue within the design community over it.

Not being a designer or a design educator, the vituperative tone of the current blog debate over design education escapes me.

Nussbaum has been surfing Design hype waves for decades. In my opinion, he’s just a business journalist milking his supposed expertise on Design.