Design Thinking Part 3: Design Thinking as a Mindset

Design Thinking as a Mindset

The two previous parts of this series focused largely on Design Thinking as a toolset comprising a 5-step process (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test) and many design activities (such as brainstorming, participatory observation, journey maps, and many more). 

This third part of the series focuses solely on Design Thinking as a mindset. Recall that a mindset is an established way of thinking, or a set of feelings about something, which is typically reflected in one’s behavior. This article attempts to describe 10 beliefs commonly held by those who are good at Design Thinking. 

Why does a Design Thinking mindset matter? It matters because it is at the root of what drives good designers to act. This is slightly different than the toolset (5 step process with activities), which just tells the designer what to do, regardless of context, need, etc. In this way the toolset is limited, and limiting. On the other hand, the mindset of Design Thinking is enabling and freeing because it represents the beliefs that the designer uses to choose good design actions at appropriate times given the unique characteristics of the problem being solved. 

As you read through this article, pause to reflect on if you agree or disagree with these beliefs, and why you have or have not chosen to practice them. 

First, a Bit of History

People have long been trying to understand the mind of the problem-solver/designer. In the early 20th century, a behaviorist model of thinking was dominant. It centered on the idea that thinking is a “mechanistic behavior which just happens to go inside the head” [1]. Behaviorist Thorndike (1911) believed thought consisted of only one mechanistic process -- the formation of associations. He concluded that problem solving was simply successive mental trial and error [2].  

By the mid 20th century a deeper model emerged on how humans solve problems. This model, characterized by Gestalt Psychology [3], suggests that humans do much more than consider each component of a problem in isolation, instead humans seek to understand the complex whole of the larger system and the inner workings of the components. Wertheimer (1959), the father of Gestalt Psychology, “saw problem solving as grasping the structural relationships of a situation and reorganizing them until a way to the solution is perceived” [1].

Herbert Simon

By the late 1950’s one of the main historical figures of Design Thinking entered the scene: Herbert Simon. Simon was particularly interested in characterizing design as a science, which he and others did sufficiently well to see design recognized as a legitimate field of study [4]. As a field, design science includes "the study of the principles, practices, and procedures of design" (toolset) and "includes the study of how designers work and think" (mindset) [5, 6]. Simon made a distinction between the natural sciences and the sciences of the artificial, arguing that the designer’s process and way of thinking was driven by the designer’s interest in the artificial (synthetic human-made objects). Simon’s theories posed an alternative to behaviorism -- they positioned design as operational -- “concerned not with the necessary but with the contingent -- not with how things are [natural science] but with how they might be [artificial]” [7].

Three Different Kinds of Design Problems

Simon’s theories led to an important characterization of problem types -- a characterization important to the discussion of Design Thinking versus other kinds of thinking. Problems can be classified in three ways: 

1. Well-defined problems are “exhaustively formulated… and solved by a knowledgeable man without the need for further information” [8]. It is said that well-defined problems clearly define the end goal, thus leaving it to the problem solver to only devise an appropriate means to achieve the end goal. This kind of problem represents nearly all of the textbook problems engineers encounter in their university coursework. These kinds of problems do not benefit significantly from trying to solve them with a Design Thinking mindset.

2. Ill-defined problems are such that neither the end goal, nor the means to achieve it are known completely before the problem solving begins. This requires the problem solver to formulate (define) the problem and devise an appropriate solution. These kinds of problems do benefit significantly from approaching them with a Design Thinking mindset -- especially the mindset centered on empathy development and problem definition.

3. Wicked problems are problems that are so ill-defined they are without a definitive formulation and without the possibility of becoming fully defined. They are also such that there is no definitive end to the problem solving -- no guarantee that the single right answer has been found, nor is there an opportunity to justify that a solution is completely right or completely wrong. For these kinds of problems, different problem formulations result in different solutions, and vice versa. For these reasons, these problems are described as wicked [4]. Wicked problems may only be approachable with a Design Thinking mindset since there are so many intertwined interdisciplinary elements to the problem.

Most mundane design problems are well-defined. Most human-centered design problems are ill-defined. And most of the grand challenges, such as those defined by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (such as ending hunger), are wicked problems.

The social, political, and economic complexities of ending hunger make the problem a wicked one.

Kees Dorst argued that modern problems worth solving are wicked by nature and require new and innovative ways of thinking and working: “...it makes no sense to keep trying to tackle these problems the way we used to. The trusted routines just don’t work anymore. These new types of [wicked] problems require a radically different response” [9]. To help designers, Dorst promotes the value of problem “framing”, which is the ability of expert designers to create new approaches to problem situations. This includes both defining the problem and approaching the solution in innovative ways. A deeper discussion of framing is provided in Part 4 (forthcoming) of this series on Design Thinking.   

What is the Mindset of Design Thinking?

The radically different response that Dorst refers to can be facilitated by the mindset of design thinking [9]. But what exactly is the mindset of Design Thinking? Below are listed 10 beliefs commonly held by those who have a Design Thinking mindset. The list of beliefs and subsequently-described mindsets are derived primarily from Donaldson and Smith’s distillation [10] of the published literature on “designerly ways of knowing”, a term introduced by Cross to describe the designer’s mindset [6]. 

Importantly, Donaldson and Smith describe these mindsets as an “intricately woven set of interdependent cognitive practices. Separating them out into distinct entities in order to label and define them is problematic. Doing so can lead to the erroneous impression that they can be described, practiced, observed, or measured in isolation.” With that in mind here are a list of 10 beliefs that are described separately, though they are intricately woven together.

1. All design problems are wicked: “When faced with seemingly straightforward or tame problems, the expert designer recognizes that all design problems are wicked problems” [10]. To tackle wicked problems, framing is an integral part, where “framing is the creation of novel perspectives, standpoints, or positions from which a wicked problem can be tackled. It involves creative analysis and conceptualization of wicked problems and the complex nature of contexts within which problems are situated” [10]. Because various perspectives are considered, expert designers know that a single person alone does not have all the necessary skill nor knowledge to devise an appropriate solution. “Framing is not an isolated stage of the design process, but rather a constant state of mind and a continual cognitive process” [10].  “The human centric approach of expert designers not only informs the framing process, but permeates all aspects of design” [10].

2. Project goals and constraints will change rapidly: “Unlike scientific methods of problem solving, where there is a rigid delineation of goals and constraints from the onset, designers rapidly change goals and constraints throughout the process” [10], this is necessary because new and changing information is constantly becoming available to the designer. As such, expert designers are able to thrive in ambiguous and uncertain environments [11].

3. The context for the design is essential: “Contextualized thinking addresses the complexity of the imaginary or real context, including the social dynamics and physical considerations inherent to the environment. Designers ‘observe the world in minute detail. They notice things that others do not and use their insights to inspire innovation’ [12]” [10].

4. Problem formulation and solution finding happen simultaneously: For expert designers, abductive reasoning is a central cognitive process [10]. Abductive reasoning is a third kind of logical reasoning that stands in addition to deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning builds on accepted truths. Inductive reasoning builds to accepted truths. Abductive reasoning accepts that there is no guaranteed truth to build on (such as a well-defined problem statement) nor an accepted truth to build to (such as a definitively desirable solution). Abductive reasoning, therefore, requires a back and forth interplay between the development of increasingly plausible problem statements and plausible solutions. Designers work to formulate the problem and the solution simultaneously. Cross expressed this when he said that “solution conjectures should be used as a means of helping to explore and understand the problem formulation” [6].

5. Creative problem solving requires concept exploration: The essence of design work is creative problem solving. This involves both divergent concept generation and convergent concept selection. The designer’s mind uses two different cognitive processes when diverging and converging. Divergence is imaginative, accepting, constructive and expanding. Convergence is evaluative, critical, decisive, and narrowing. The expert designer knows there is a time for divergence and a time for convergence, and is particularly cautious of attempts to conflate them. The designer expects multiple rounds of divergence and convergence, where strengths and weaknesses identified during convergence are seeds for new ideas that emerge in a fresh round of divergence [13].

6. Prototypes are for thinking: “Contrary to popular conceptualizations, prototyping is not about exploring the feasibility of a design. Nor is it the physical act of creating a working model. Prototyping is an extension of the cognitive toolkit of the designer, a means of ‘thinking with your hands’ [14]” [10]. “As the design project proceeds, the prototypes and mental formulations simultaneously coevolve in a trajectory from abstract to concrete [15]” [10]. However, it is not often a smooth translation from abstract to concrete but rather an oscillation between multiple layers of abstraction [6].

7. Design actions cause consequences that require constant restrategizing: The expert designer is in a constant state of reflection. Reflection-in-action “arises from and is situated within the action of designing [16]” [10]. “During an instance of reflection-in-action, the designer investigates her understanding of the situation -- restructuring her framing of the problem, her interpretation of what might be going, and the strategies she has been employing through her actions. This restructuring suggests new strategies which lead to new actions. This entire reflective process occurs in the midst of the action and is inseparable from the action” [10]. “Each move the designer makes will produce unintended consequences, which pull the designer into a reflective conversation with the ever-changing situation” [10].

8. Relevance is designed: “Relevance implies impact on multiple levels, ranging from the individual (the designer and individuals impacted by the design) to larger societal, cultural, and political realms…, thereby tying the final implementation of the design back to where the whole process began with empathic thinking” [10]. Expert designers know that to identify a desirable solution, more than scientific and engineering knowledge is needed. Information about people, systems of people, and the human condition are needed to develop relevant solutions.

9. Information is never complete: “Experienced designers know that it is possible to go on almost forever gathering information and data about a design problem, but that they have to move on to generating solution proposals which in themselves begin to indicate what is relevant information” [17]. Interestingly, expert designers are not trying to acquire complete information as a way of unlocking the next step in the design process. They are often seeking just enough information to create a mental model or a prototype of a rough solution that will allow for deeper exploration and more information.

10. Designs evolve to desirable states over time: Designers know the first design is not the final design. The initial work always evolves to more desirable work through iteration. As such, expert designers plan for and take incremental steps toward the end goal [18, 19, 20].

Closing

When the toolset of Design Thinking is coupled with the mindset of design, designers are at their strongest. Developing the mindset of Design Thinking requires time and repeated experience. The toolset on the other hand is about knowledge and tactics, therefore it can be learned relatively quickly. To cultivate a Design Thinking mindset, consider trying these two exercises:

Exercise 1: You have a mindset; this is what drives your behavior. As reflected in your design behavior (the way you approach problems, gather information, make design decisions, etc), what is your design mindset? Write out a paragraph, or list describing it. 

Exercise 2: Which of the 10 beliefs listed above do you accept? Why do you or don’t you accept them? What experiences have you had that are represented or not represented by those beliefs? What experiences can you try to have that would help you test these beliefs?

Access Part 4 of this series on Design Thinking, or access the entire free short course here.

References

[1] Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Routledge.

[2] E. L. Thorndike, Human Learning, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1931

[3] K. Cherry, “What is Gestalt Psychology?” Very Well Mind, 05 Aug 2021, accessed 16 Sep 2021. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-gestalt-psychology-2795808

[4] P. G. Rowe, Design thinking. MIT Press, 1987.

[5] M. T. Greene, R. Gonzalez, P. Y. Papalambros, and A. McGowan, “Design Thinking vs. Systems Thinking for Engineering Design: What’s the Difference?”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, 2017

[6] Cross (1982), "Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science". Design Studies, Vol. 3 No. 4 pp. 221-227.

[7] H. A. Simon, The sciences of the artificial, MIT press, 2019. Originally published in 1969.

[8] Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the 'first and second generations'. Bedriftskonomen, 8, 390-396.

[9] Dorst, Kees. Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT press, 2015.

[10] Donaldson, J. P., & Smith, B. K. (2017). Design thinking, designerly ways of knowing, and engaged learning. Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1-24.

[11] C. A. Mattson, “Ambiguity and Design Freedom,” The BYU Design Review, December 2020, accessed 16 Sep 2021. https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/ambiguity-and-design-freedom

[12] T. Brown, Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92. 2008

[13] Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley.

[14] Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2019). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation (Vol. 20091). New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

[15] Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important?. Review of educational research, 82(3), 330-348.

[16] Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 27-34.

[17] Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.

[18] C. A. Mattson, “Two Dramatically Different Approaches to Design: From the Art of Innovation,” The BYU Design Review, 20 May 2020, accessed 16 Sep 2021. https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/two-dramatically-different-approaches-to-design-from-the-art-of-innovation

[19] C. A. Mattson, “Iteration: The most important concept in design,” The BYU Design Review, December 2020, accessed 16 Sep 2021. https://www.designreview.byu.edu/collections/iteration-the-most-important-concept-in-design

[20] Mattson, Christopher A., and Carl D. Sorensen. Product Development: Principles and Tools for Creating Desirable and Transferable Designs. Springer Nature, 2019.