Published on | Prototyping: From UX to Front End — Medium Sian Huxtable-Lee

A Critical Review, Reflection and Analysis of Design Thinking

Introduction

‘Design in its very notion has shifted shape; it’s no longer designing for people but designing with people, and it points to the state of designing by people’. (Emerzei, 2016). One could argue that effective communication and great design must have a narrative; design is not merely pretty pictures but is a collection of decisions with reason and meaning behind them. These ‘decisions’ could make for more engaging, interactive and provocative solutions and stories, which ultimately have an impact on how people see, think and live their lives.

Human-centred design has enabled designers to work closer than ever with their target audience, by allowing them to weave empathy into the finished solution. Human-centred design “is a process that starts with the people you’re designing for and ends with new solutions that are tailor-made to suit their needs.” (Design Kit, n.d.) Design thinking and human-centred design are very similar approaches but are ultimately used to tackle different creative problems. For design to have a narrative, which design methodology is best? Should it be human-centred design, with its high degree of usability and user experience? (Burmester, 2016) Or design thinking, a process that allows for the development of innovative and creative solutions for complex issues? (Burmester, 2016) In this paper, the differences between design thinking and human-centred design will be critically reviewed, along with their tools and methodologies. The ethics around human-centred design and its long-term effects on humanity will be discussed. Finally, design thinking and human-centred design will be described when both are applied to a complex design challenge and their effectiveness throughout the project will be critiqued.

Design Thinking or Human-Centred Design?

This paper previously stated that both design thinking and human-centred design are similar-natured, but their specific uses are varied. Tim Brown, President of IDEO, describes design thinking as “a methodology that imbues the full spectrum of innovation activities with a human-centred design ethos.” (Brown, 2008). The IDEO Field Guide describes human-centred design as “a chance to design with communities, to deeply understand the people they’re looking to serve, to dream up scores of ideas, and to create innovative new solutions rooted in people’s actual needs.” (IDEO Field Guide to Human-Centered Design, 2015). Lucy Kimbell believes “design, or rather design thinking, has the power to stimulate or drive innovation and transform organisations and even societies.” (Kimbell, 2009, p.2).

Despite their different descriptions, one common principle shared between the two approaches is ‘empathy’. Designing with the needs of the end-user as the centre point of the project ensures that the focus of questions, insights and activities (Giacomin, 2014 p. 610) is on the intended recipient of the product, service or system, and not based on the assumptions of the designer. These assumptions could have the potential to contaminate any future design solutions. Sari Kujala (2003) said that getting users involved can be beneficial, both to the success of the system and user satisfaction. However, Kujala also warned that “involving users is not an easy task for designers. Early involvement of users appears to be promising, on the condition that user involvement methods are developed further, and the roles of users and designers are carefully considered.” (Kujala, 2003) Thom Huxtable, Senior Interaction Designer at IDEO (2018), told the author of this paper in an informal interview, that empathy can be found by “not only conducting questionnaires but going and experiencing what our users do. What people say is not always what they do.” (See Fig. 1.)

Fig.1. IDEO Empathy Drawing. Image source: Huxtable, T. (2018.)

Where the two design approaches begin to drift apart, however, is in their overall aims. Design thinking has the broader scope of the two. It can be used for ‘developing new products and services but also for evolving concepts for the solution of social questions’ (Burmester, 2016), whereas human-centred design is often used with the aim to look at user interfaces and fix known issues. (Burmester, 2016) Despite the broadness and focus on creating innovative solutions of design thinking, human-centred design often has a better success rate in organisations and businesses that use the approach because it is more structured in its methodology.

In both practices, the designer’s role is crucial. The design team must be able to ask those users who are involved with the project these questions and find a way to answer them that meets and exceeds their needs; Who?, What?, When?, How? and Why? These questions enable the design team the opportunity to dig through the layers of complexity that often accompany many of today’s design challenges. (See Fig. 2.)

Fig. 2. Human Centred Design Pyramid. Image source: Giacomin, J. (2014. p. 613).

There are many tools available to use to ask these questions. The double diamond is the subject tool of this paper, and a breakdown of its inner workings will be explored further on in the report. In 2005, the Design Council came up with a simple diagram to describe the design process. (Design Council, n.d.) The double diamond is split up into four stages, and despite the linearity of the graphic itself, designers are encouraged to visit each stage repeatedly, with many iterative loops throughout a project. These four stages are: discover, define, develop and deliver. (See Fig. 3.)

Fig. 3. The Design Council Double Diamond tool. Image source: Design Council. (n.d.)

David and Tom Kelley, founders of IDEO, created a diagram which joins the three lenses that they believe need to be balanced with every project: viability, feasibility and desirability. (Kelley and Kelley 2013, p. 19) At the centre of these three factors is innovation. By working on the needs and desires of the customer to build a feasible solution with a viable long-term strategy, designers can be certain of an innovative solution. (See Fig. 4.)

Fig. 4. Tom and David Kelley’s diagram: finding the sweet spot. Image source: Kelley, T. and Kelley, D. (2013, p. 19).

IDEO’s and the Stanford d.school design thinking models work on five nodes, though the terminology used varies between diagrams. The diagram offered in the ‘Design Thinking for Educators’ toolkit from IDEO uses Discovery, Interpretation, Ideation, Experimentation and Evolution (Design Thinking for Educators, 2013) (See Fig. 5.), while the Design Thinking Stanford d.school model uses the terms Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test. (Stanford d.school, n.d.) (See Fig. 6.).

Fig. 5. IDEO’s Five Phases of the Design Process. Image source: IDEO. (2013).Fig. 6. The Stanford d.school Design Thinking Process. Image source: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (n.d.).

Between all the tools mentioned, although the terminology might be different, the core principles of each model remain the same; to create empathy with the user and then define what the empathic learnings are; to start ideation and to build prototypes which are then tested and evolved through iteration, feedback and more testing. These core values, are inherent to both design thinking and human-centred design, regardless of the name or model attached to it.

Ethics

There is perhaps an argument to be had around ethics, and how empathy has changed the role of the designer. Victor Papanek says in his book, Design for the Real World (1985), “Our role is changing to that of a facilitator who can bring the needs of the people to the attention of manufacturing, government agencies, and the like. The designer then logically becomes no more (and no less) than a tool in the hands of the people.” Has designing with empathy gone too far? Does designing for the user and their needs and desires impact the ethics of human-centred design? And is the role of the designer changing to that of a follower, rather than a leader? “Designers were once considered the champions of future need — leading by example. Today they are more likely to be led by customer need (sic). The challenge we face today is that to successfully innovate we must also lead.” (Macdonald et al., 2005)

If what Papanek and Macdonald both said twenty years apart from each other is true, what is the future of human-centred design, and the role of the designer in that future? Fast-forward another thirteen years to the present, and their words still resound in the proverbial ears. Research would suggest that designers have become restrained by their users, shackling them to ideas and concepts that not only aspire to their needs but exceed them in a way that also aims to keep complexity to a minimum, so as not to upset the user. If products or services tell stories containing the consumer as the main protagonist, it should not be forgotten that the designer played a supporting role in that narrative.

However, ‘if followed blindly and left unchecked, this cult of designing for the individual can have disastrous long-term consequences.’ (What’s Next for Design: Towards Humanity Centered Design, 2017). It could be argued that by focusing solely on the consumer’s needs and desires, designers often fail to recognise the long-term effects that can arise because of the creation of products or services. Has a human-centred approach begun to hinder humanity? By users allowing their devices to do the thinking for them, they have become dependent on information being given to them at almost every possibility. As a result, cognitive strength becomes diminished and users become forgetful or lacking in basic skills, such as simple maths or spellings. Designers need to be concerned with what happens at the end of a product’s life, and not just the beginning of it if humanity is to survive beyond technology.

Design Thinking Case Study

A complex design challenge

The following part of the paper will outline how a collaborative team of Digital Experience Design and Digital Management students used design thinking in response to a complex design challenge. The terms ‘the team’ and ‘the group’ will be used to describe the team for the rest of this report. ‘The crew’ refers to the wider group of students on both the Digital Experience Design and Digital Management courses at Hyper Island, Manchester.

The brief was delivered to the crew by Lauren of Noisy Cricket, Mooch of Big Change and Graham of Street Support and together, they form part of the Manchester Homelessness Partnership. The central question that arose from the brief was: ‘How can we improve the systemic, cultural and personal process to enable those people looking for gainful employment to find their success story?’ The task was to find a solution to help re-employment of people with lived experience of homelessness by finding, securing and sustaining work opportunities.

The team discussed how they could implement the design thinking process in an efficient way and in fitting with team needs. To be able to look at the problem and gather fresh insights the team decided that the double diamond tool would ensure a broad scope of exploration. From research carried out, the team identified a range of possibilities and came up with a series of initial ‘How might we…?’ questions. The team used ‘dot voting’ to narrow down these questions, so they could then delve deeper with further research. The two ‘How might we…?’ questions were: ‘How might we create a safe and easy way for businesses to recruit people with lived experience of homelessness?’ and ‘How might we give businesses the tools they need to make the transition into work a smoother process for people with lived experience of homelessness?’

Some of the team were eager to start ideating based on these questions, despite a severe lack of research and understanding of the problem. The team’s inexperience and old habits of jumping into designing straight away became evident. By moving on to the second diamond too quickly, these ideas were ill-thought out and ended up in the ‘parking lot’ — a tool used to ‘park’ ideas without destroying them to allow the team to move forward. This time could have been used more appropriately and should have been spent defining the research gathered.

The group had to loop back into the discovery and define stages of the double diamond. After much discussion and analysis of the new research and findings, including information obtained through interviews, the team discovered the following: ‘There is a vast amount of information spread across various platforms — if the team were finding it so difficult to find information, how would businesses be able to?’

Following this discovery, it became clear that the team had become misaligned as each team member was interpreting the ‘How might we…?’ questions in different ways. The group agreed that the questions were not providing enough focus and structure to be able to move forward.

The team decided to focus their research findings on these questions: ‘Who? What? How? Where? Why?’ From the answers the team gathered from these five questions, they were able to ask a new question: ‘How can charities and the council make information more accessible for businesses?’

The team were able to restructure the problem of the brief using IDEO’s “Frame Your Design Challenge” (IDEO.org, n.d.). The challenge outlined three principal topics to focus further research on, which are Accessibility, Motivation and Support. The “Frame Your Design Challenge” was a success and it allowed the team to create a solid mission statement to define the team goal:

“Our mission is to improve the accessibility of information, to motivate businesses and support them in their ability to employ people with lived experience of homelessness.”

Following validation of the mission statement from Lauren, Graham and the Hyper Island industry leader, Andy Young, the group conducted fresh ideation and brainstorming. The team decided on an online information hub where businesses could gain the knowledge they need to be able to help. Events would also be held to provide a space for businesses and charities to come together to build a network of support.

Once the team had decided on a website, they worked on sitemaps and wireframes that were then iterated. However, the team were set back when it became apparent that once again, the team had become misaligned with how to proceed with the process. A breakdown in communication had led to team members working on what they thought was necessary, rather than what the research had shown. Some of the team had fallen into the trap of designing for the designer, and not for the user at the centre of the project.

A project plan was developed, which focused on the core deliverables, followed by an open brainstorming and note-clustering session on the platform’s content. Two members of the group then attended a talk on businesses tackling homelessness. A common quote discovered from businesses at the event was;

“I want to help, but I do not know how.”

This quote confirmed that the solution the team was developing was heading in the right direction.

For the future platform experience, the team developed new iterations, wireframes and mock-ups. The team also worked on a sitemap and character profile which provided enough input for the team to draft their first storyboard. The designers were then able to finalise the first round of prototyping for testing.

The main discoveries were that there was not enough empathy in the website and the prototype felt “impersonal”. It could be argued that because the two designers working on the prototype had ignored the whole design thinking approach and did not connect the team’s research into the solution, the website became dehumanised as a result. A team member who had been heavily involved with the research and was on-board with the design thinking process was positioned as art director, to ensure the website was redesigned based on the key findings of the research. The team also used the character profile and the customer journey map to enhance the user experience. This iteration would be the final delivery of the prototype presented in the pitch.

Complex design challenge Summary

Applying design thinking to a complex design challenge has prompted a thought: does design thinking need to be named or categorised or is it just a natural way of working for designers? It seems like common sense to keep looping back through the double diamond tool to the research to keep the ideas on track. Even though the diagram does not show it, it is by no means a linear process. The opportunity to put a prototype in front of people to look at still provides the team with primary research, and this prototype could yield the richest feedback of all, ensuring the user is still at the core of the design. By putting the prototype in front of potential users, the team was able to strip out all unnecessary information and rebuild the platform around what the user needs, rather than the group’s assumptions.

Design thinking as a process only works if everybody in the team is on board with that way of working. The methodology fails if this is not the case. The team saw this on several occasions, and the design process stalled because of it. IDEO’s Portfolio Director, Dominic Tan (2018) told the author of this paper in an informal interview, “ensuring that diversity of voices and talent is present in the team who are doing the design, [is important], so as to avoid unconscious bias.” In my opinion, this is an important team dynamic as it allows for maximum divergence of ideation and thinking, so long as the team can converge again to maintain alignment across the whole team.

Conclusion

Throughout this paper, the author has critically reviewed the differences between design thinking and human-centred design, as well as exploring a variety of tools and methodologies. The ethics surrounding human-centred design have been discussed, and the need for designers to consider the long-term implications of their designs to uphold the longevity of humanity. Finally, design thinking and human-centred design when applied to a complex design challenge have been critically reviewed, and the author’s thoughts have been summarised on the process.

With a new chapter in Humanity-Centred Design just on the horizon, designers can provide a plot twist in innovative new thinking that not only asks “‘How might we…?’, but ‘At what cost?’” (Medium, 2017). Human-centred designers must find the balance between ‘good and evil’, ensuring that products and services cater for what users need right now, but keep in mind the adverse effects it has on other groups of people too. Designers might have been playing a supporting role to users in recent years, but they can become the heroes that humanity needs if they embrace the future now.

References

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, [pdf] June 2008. Available at: https://www.ideo.com/us/post/design-thinking-in-harvard-business-review [Accessed 25 Feb. 2018].

Burmester, M. (2016). Design Thinking — new old creativity. UID. [online] Available at: https://www.uid.com/en/news/design-thinking-revolutionize-human-centred-design [Accessed 24 Feb. 2018].

Design Kit. (n.d.). What is Human-
Centered Design? [online] Available at: http://www.designkit.org/human-centered-design [Accessed 22 Feb. 2018].

Design Council. (n.d). A study of the design process. [pdf] Design Council. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_Design_Council%20(2).pdf [Accessed 25 Feb. 2018]

Design Council. (n.d). The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond? [online] Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-doublediamond [Accessed 25 Feb. 2018].

Ermezei, L. (2016). Design Thinking and the Need for Grit. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/swlh/design-thinking-and-the-need-for-grit-3c1a15bd8760 [Accessed 20 Feb. 2018]

Giacomin, J. (2014) What Is Human Centred Design? [pdf] The Design Journal, 17:4, pp. 606–623. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186 [Accessed on 24 Feb. 2018]

Huxtable, T. (2018). Personal Communication. (28 Feb. 2018).

IDEO U. (n.d.). Design Thinking. . Available at: https://www.ideou.com/pages/design-thinking
[Accessed 22 Feb. 2018].

IDEO.org. (n.d.). The Field Guide to
Human-Centered Design [online] Available at: http://www.designkit.org/resources/1 [Accessed 23 Feb. 2018].

Kelley, T. and Kelley, D. (2013). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All. New York: Crown Business, p. 19.

Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-
practice. In: CRESC Conference [online] Manchester: CRESC, pp. 1–15. Available at: http://www.lucykimbell.com/stuff/CRESC_Kimbell_v3.pdf [Accessed 22 Feb. 2018].

Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: a review of the benefits and
challenges. Behaviours and Information Technology. [online] Volume 22(1), pp. 1–16. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ea85/fe196188701f4df1729fc04c58a6ae92ad53.pdf [Accessed 22 Feb. 2018].

Macdonald, N. (2005). Beyond Human Centred-Design? Interactions — Robots! (12:2) p. 75. Available at: http://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/march-april-2005/beyond-human-centered-design1 [Accessed 26 Feb. 2018].

Medium. (2017). What’s Next for Design: Towards Humanity Centered Design [website] Available at: https://medium.com/artefact-stories/whats-next-for-design-towards-humanity-centered-design-and-outcome-focused-thinking-bcda374181fa [Accessed 27 Feb. 2018].

Papanek, V. (1985). Design for the Real World. Thames and Hudson Ltd; 2 ed. London.

Tan, D. (2018). Personal Communication. (28 Feb. 2018).

Figures

Fig .1. IDEO Empathy Drawing.
Huxtable, T. (2018.) Empathy Drawing. [Keynotes presentation] IDEO. [Accessed 28 Feb. 2018].

Fig. 2. Human Centred Design Pyramid.
Giacomin, J. (2014) What Is Human Centred Design? [pdf] The Design Journal, 17:4, pp. 606–623. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186 [Accessed on 24 Feb. 2018]

Fig. 3. The Design Council Double Diamond tool.
Design Council. (n.d.) The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond? [diagram] Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond (n.d. [Accessed 24 Feb. 2018].

Fig. 4. Tom and David Kelley’s diagram: finding the sweet spot of feasibility, viability and desirability.
Kelley, T. and Kelley, D. (2013). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All. New York: Crown Business, p. 19.

Fig. 5. IDEO’s Five Phases of the Design Process.
IDEO. (2013). Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit. [diagram] Available at: https://designthinkingforeducators.com/design-thinking/ [Accessed 25 Feb. 2018].

Fig. 6. The Stanford d.school Design Thinking Process.
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (n.d.) Stanford d.school Design Thinking Process. [diagram] Available at: https://medium.com/@philmichaels/5-components-todesign-thinking-by-stanford-d-school48dd111bbbe5 [Accessed 22 Feb. 2018].

<a href="https://medium.com/media/b85dfbb5286d8a25cf2e754b9462cf45/href">https://medium.com/media/b85dfbb5286d8a25cf2e754b9462cf45/href</a>

Design Thinking was originally published in Prototypr on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Design Thinking

A Critical Review, Reflection and Analysis of Design Thinking

Introduction

Top Stories