Talk:Design thinking

2014 Updates

A lot has happened since this article was first written. Several books specifically about Design Thinking as a method have been published and there has been significantly greater public exposure to the subject in the popular and academic press. As a graduate of Stanford's product design program and someone who has tried to stay current on the subject both personally and professionally, I'm hoping to walk the line between original research and accurate referencing. DWmFrancis (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Some serious editing would be welcome. It's all rather messy. As someone commented earlier, it should really focus on Design Thinking, not design processes or methods more generally. I hope you won't mind if I suggest that an emphasis on Stanford has become a bit too pronounced; the d.school was certainly a significant innovator, but Design Thinking had other origins and is much more widely spread now.

Nigel Cross (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nigel - I agree (in spite of my begin a Stanford PD grad and contemporary of Kelley) but have a question; Since the first documented use of the term "Design Thinking" as a method doesn't seem to occur in the literature until fairly recently (1970ish) and McKim was at Stanford at the time, it's a little difficult to separate the two. Would it help to have a section on the spread of the idea to other venues? What would you think of also expanding the references to the work of L. Bruce Archer in establishing Design as a "knowledge-based discipline in its own right". He was a contemporary of Simon's and contributed significantly to the development of the discipline. DWmFrancis (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could be precise on the 'first use'. I don't seem to have my copy of McKim's book any more, but I don't remember it being about design thinking as we now know it. I'm not really keen on a new section on spread to other venues (it might be contentious). I do agree on greater recognition for Bruce Archer's contributions. Nigel Cross (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Nigel - Please forgive my opacity at not recognizing with whom I was corresponding. I have just put one and one together and realized who you are. (aided by being in the midst of reading your excellent book "Design Thinking"). I recently did a nGram search on the phrase "Design Thinking" and found a distinct starting point in 1960, with a very slight rise between then and 1971 when it was back to zero, followed by a continual rise. I contrast this with the phrase "design thinking", which shows a similar pattern beginning in 1912.

From drilling down into the quotations from the associated texts, I get the very strong impression that there was a shift afoot in the usage from being an idea (ways of thinking when doing design of any type) to being a name associated with a formal process or discipline of "Design Thinking" which started about 1970. How I'd put that into the Wikipedia article without being accused of original research is beyond me at the moment. I am enough of a neophyte Wiki editor that I don't know how to thank you for thanking me for my contribution, so I'll just do it here.--DWmFrancis (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the section on differences between sciences and humanities

I'd like to delete the section on differences between sciences and humanities entirely, since it doesn't add anything to the understanding of the methods or purposes of Design Thinking. --DWmFrancis (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The section is definitely confused in its current state as to the goal and purpose of its information, but the overall purpose for including it is sound. Much formulation of design thinking has been to position it in relation to sciences, humanities, craftsmanship, and the fine arts. Ideally, this section would be directly addressing that line of thought, citing those authors who have positioned design thinking either as a scientific process, a method of fine art, or (most commonly) as an independent discipline with it's own traditions and methodology. It seems this section begins or attempts that, but isn't quite there yet. 208.123.86.130 (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see two problems with that section:

• The first bit is OK, but very related to earlier stuff on "Designers vs. Scientists"
• This edit added in stuff that isn't about "Differences from science and humanities" and then other off-topic stuff was added later.

There is a similar problem on a different sub-topic in that we have one section called "Design thinking as a process for problem-solving" and another called "The process of design thinking"... which has a sub-section about "Divergent and convergent thinking"... which is also a subsection of "Solution-based thinking"... and there are other aspects related to process in "Attributes of design thinking".

I think much of the content in this article needs to be re-ordered in an attempt to give it some structure. Changes to the headings may also help. Some of it may have to be deleted.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I have separated off "Design thinking in business" and "Design thinking in education". These weren't about "Differences from science and humanities". I suspect that those sections - especially the one on eduction - will need cutting back. Yaris678 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree (about the cutting back). Removing the 'multiple issues' tag may be OK, but the fact remains that this article is still a mess!

Nigel Cross (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. I removed the tag because the specific issues it mentioned don't apply. I think the main issue now is one of structure. I don't think there is a tag for that, but I am thinking about how to improve the structure. There is {{Cleanup reorganize}} but I don't think the text in that tag describes the issue. There is {{Very long section}}, which we could add to the "Design thinking in eduction", but maybe we should just hack it back. Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it needs major reduction. One of the problems is that has a rather limited, very USA-centric viewpoint. Any discussion on this should continue under Design Thinking Education talk section. Nigel Cross (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Design thinking education

To solve partially two issues described here (influence by the d.School and Stanford; and the heavy influence of science and engineering), I have been adding another section for design thinking education. These references shall especially help higher education institutions which don't have the facilities nor the budgets to conduct a proper Design Thinking session. Thus, it's more a practical hands-on guide, rather than the description of high level concepts which can't be realized in a normal educational setting. Furthermore, the references illustrate how design thinking can be organized in media management education - thus an example outside of science and engineering...

"Practical Guidelines for Design Thinking in Higher Education

Design Thinking does not necessarily require specialized facilities, tools, and environments. Design Thinking sessions in a higher educational setting can also be conducted on a shoestring budget. Hand-on guidelines fitting to the needs of typical university settings shall help to be able to conduct Design Thinking sessions within the context of normal university settings.[63] Media management education has been acting as one sample scenario for performing these type of Design Thinking sessions. [64]"

++++++ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.190.186 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This section has become far too long and indiscriminate. It needs major cutting and rewriting. Problems include weak citations and a limited, USA-centric viewpoint. Nigel Cross (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

See related discussion under 'sciences and humanities' section above. I will begin major cutting and rewriting. Nigel Cross (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

History Section

In the 1960 entry it says "The beginnings of computer programs for problem solving, the so-called soft-systems approach." I'm not sure what was intended here - but this is definitely wrong. SSM is not "computer programs for problem solving" and does not date from the 1960's.

If anyone can work out what this should refer to please correct, otherwise I will delete. Angrhoiel (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right about it being wrong! It doesn't make sense, and the citation (to a blog) is incorrect: there is no such statement in that blog post. So OK to delete, I would say.

Nigel Cross (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I think part of what that line of the table is trying to say is similar to the quote from the book in the article Engineering and the Mind's Eye. "Since World War II, the dominant trend in engineering has been away from knowledge that cannot be expressed as mathematical relationships" etc.

The source makes an interesting read... but yes, it doesn't count as reliable and it doesn't support most of what is said on that line. I have removed the line.

Either of you guys could have removed it too. It sometimes helps to discuss things in advance, but if something is obviously wrong, just dive in and correct it - there's lots more to be done on this article.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just seen that the "Methods and process" section also mentions soft systems in the 1960s. It does not mention computers and it has a source that could support it, although I can't find the text of the book online so I can't be sure.

Some early design processes stemmed from soft systems methodology in the 1960s. Koberg and Bagnall wrote The All New Universal Traveller in 1972 and presented a circular, seven-step process to problem-solving. These seven steps could be done lineally or in feed-back loops.

Any thoughts on this? Should we put a line back in the table, but based on the above?

Yaris678 (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I do have a copy of Koberg & Bagnall (original 1972 edition). It is a kind of hippy version of a design methods guide, much looser in approach and style than Jones' slightly earlier Design Methods (1970). See this blog [1]. They only mention computers as something they are deliberately turning away from 'for solving complex world problems' (p.1). Apart from the sub-title, they mention soft systems only on page 1:

Since 'Systems' is the name which has been assigned to Cybernetics and the various numerical techniques for modeling problem situations, we have similarly called our more conversational approach by the name Soft-Systems.

I am not sure when or if the term 'soft systems' was used previously. It is usually attributed to Checkland, but his book on 'Systems Thinking' was not published until 1981. Early soft systems thinking and methods are strongly related to current design thinking and methods. Koberg & Bagnall don't seem to have been very influential and don't get cited very often, but they were certainly pioneers, so maybe they deserve their own time-line entry in 1972.

Nigel Cross (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)