After reading Bruce Nussbaum’s recent article, Design Vs. Design Thinking, I have to ask, what is design thinking? Why? Because the way he refers to design thinking conflicts with my more or less ambiguous definition.

The first thing that struck me was his reference to design thinking as a new field. New field? Is design thinking a field, or a way to approach problems? I would go with the latter. It just seems really odd to think of someone saying, “Yeah, I work in the field of design thinking.”

I am a designer. Therefore, I bring design thinking to the problems I encounter. I can’t help it, because I’m a designer. Designers use design thinking. Isn’t design thinking merely recognizing what designers do as useful and applying the design process to problems that aren’t typically considered to be privy to designers?

It almost seems like the Nussbaum believes design thinking to be something beyond design, and definitely something that is closely tied to business and management. If so, perhaps he’s got the name wrong, which he acknowledges in the article.

The fact is that design thinking (or whatever we wind up calling this new field) is being created at the borders of design, business, engineering and even marketing. And I don’t know which institutions will take the lead in promoting it. We have the Stanford D-School, the IIT Institute of Design. and the Rotman School of Management in Toronto taking early leads in developing design thinking. The California College of the Arts is offering an MBA in Design Strategy.

Carnegie Mellon School of Design is not mentioned in the article, perhaps because we actually design stuff here. I find the school’s absence intriguing, regardless, especially since we have one of the foremost design thinkers on the planet in the form of Richard Buchanan. I’d love to get his perspective on the new field of design thinking.

This post is really just a collection of thoughts stemming from my last thesis paper meeting. I’m still mostly reading at this point and sort of framing the argument along the way.

My original inquiry had to do with the leap of faith from design research to design concepts. This has led me to a focus on design process and how designers approach problems.

Some ways of shaping my argument include:

• Can we teach the “black art” of design to non-designers?
• Ways for non-designers to become comfortable with the design process.
• If we can’t talk about design, how do we tell it to others?
• Clients are OK with visual design and product design, so why is everyone so freaked out by interaction design?
• Why do people want models? Process?

Some recent great quotes I’ve pulled from How Designers Think include:

• “None of the writers quoted here offer any evidence that designers actually follow their map.”
• “It is often not possible to say which bit of the problem is solved by which bit of the solution.”

One idea that has some resonance with me has been that the actual design process cannot be explained, and that every attempt is a reflective act that makes the process seem more logical than it actually is. This may be the problem I have had with trying to define the design process all along, as I recognized mid-process that I couldn’t explain how things were moving forward while acknowledging that the progress was in fact fruitful.

I’m not sure if that notion makes the step-by-step lists for plowing through the design process a useful act of faith or just completely useless to non-designers. Perhaps I will gain more insight the more I read and digest.

After finishing How Designers Think, I plan to move onto The Reflective Practitioner in earnest, and also Thoughtful Interaction Design, which arrived today.

So why do people want to model the design process? It’s complicated and mysterious, and like me, people want to understand. But what if the answer turns out to be, for all our effort, we can’t understand the design process, at least not in full?

My graduate seminar class with Dick Buchanan ended yesterday. For this last class, we discussed pluralism and objectivity, which Buchanan states as the fundamental problem of design.

Why is it a problem? There is no subject matter in design. Designers make their subject matter. “This is a very peculiar thing,” Buchanan says.

I agree. And while it makes sense, it’s not always obvious. For instance, I’m at a school studying design, which inclines one to think there is subject matter to study.

However, Buchanan warns of this temptation to believe design has subject matter. What one may think of as the subject matter of design is really either history of design, or comments on existing designs.

A Cup Is a Cup Is a Cup

Buchanan defines objectivity in design as the object we create. What makes design interesting is that we don’t all agree that a cup is a cup is a cup, and there are different ways of practicing design. Is this something in the nature of design? Or something in the nature of the world? These are questions he asked.

The frustrating aspect of design is that you can’t practice it without some idea of what you’re doing. Though the more you find your own way, you find that other people do things differently. This difference, or pluralism, is what needs to be reconciled.

So how does one deal with pluralism and objectivity? Well, designers need to understand that we don’t have to agree on the values of on how we see the world; we only have to agree on what we’re going to make. Buchanan says designers must help people find their own view, and understand how other people do things.

All Done, But Only the Beginning

I thought that was a nice way to round up the class: stating a fundamental problem, but providing hope that it can be overcome.

Overall, I thought the course was valuable, even though no absolute answers were offered. It makes sense now given the ambiguity of design problems, lack of subject matter, and different ways of practicing design.

While the class is over, it is only the beginning in a likely endless contemplation of design thinking in relation to design practice and it’s impact on the world, and, of course, my place in it all.

In response to a previous comment, I tried to define what an interaction designer does in rebuttal to the assertion that the goal is to build a better mousetrap. I wrote:

From an interaction design standpoint, you might ask why we have mousetraps? Are mice the real problem? How do mice get into areas where you would then want to trap them? The solution to the problem may not have anything to do with a mousetrap at all.

Hence, interaction design is not about building a better mousetrap.

Recently, I read “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking,” from The Idea of Design by Dick Buchanan. As I read, I realized that what I described above is not an interaction design approach, but a design approach: taking the given problem; trying to find the real problem; inventing a solution.

Because of our use of the term interaction in Buchanan’s course (e.g., the four modes of interaction), I have been incorrectly mixing design and interaction design, especially when trying to answer questions from people outside the School of Design about what an interaction designer does.

While I can answer what an interaction designer does if I stay focused, I do slip into explaining general design practice, which in a case a couple weeks ago, produced a very strong reaction from one of my friends.

My friend had asked what sort of work I would do after my degree. And I told him I didn’t know, because design can be applied to any problem. As examples, I gave a range from redesigning a simply control to designing a country’s tax system.

He was amazed, and disbelieving. He could not believe that a designer would have much business designing a tax system, and thought subject matter experts would be quite offended to have a designer solving a problem believed to be within their domain.

What he didn’t understand, and what I found so inspiring about the Wicked Problem essay, is that designers do not have a domain, and that design is a way of thinking, not an applied art. Unlike subject matter experts, designers can move between subject matter and apply their practice.

While I did try to explain this, my friend would not accept it. And as I read the Wicked Problem and became excited about the potential for design thinking in the world, my enthusiasm was tempered by the hurdle this position faces, as I know from experience my friend’s idea of a designer’s role is not uncommon. In fact, just a few months ago I may have had his same understanding.

It makes me wonder how it will feel to go out into the world and try to apply design thinking as I am learning it, and if we will ever get to a place where the designer is called upon to contribute to the solution of all wicked problems.