Design Thinking
By
Nigel Cross
How Designers Think
Design Strategies
Three key strategic aspects of design thinking appear to be common across all these studies: (1) taking a broad ‘systems approach’ to the problem, rather than accepting narrow problem criteria; (2) ‘framing’ the problem in a distinctive and sometimes rather personal way; and (3) designing from ‘first principles’.
First, there is the ‘systems approach’ adopted by innovative designers. From his study of innovators, Maccoby suggested that: “The innovator has a systems mind, one that sees things in how they relate to each other in producing a result, a new gestalt that to some degree changes the world.’ This sounds similar to the approaches adopted by Gordon Murray and Kenneth Grange. Maccoby continued with an example which might almost be describing Murrays approach: ‘For example, one can think about a car in terms of all its parts working together to make it go…In contrast, most engineers do not think in systems terms. They are concerned about designing a good piece-part, like a clutch.’ This sounds like Gordon describing how his approach is different from conventional, piece-focused, engineering design. It also sounds similar to the approach adopted by Kenneth Grange, in his re-perceptions of the problem as given, usually from the user’s point of view, and considering the user’s overall task for which the product is being designed. This ‘systems approach’ is evident, for example, in the way Kenneth designed the Frister & Rossman sewing machine so as to facilitate the whole process of sewing and the maintenance of the machine. Gordon Murray’s introduction of pit stops also illustrates how a total systems approach was adopted – not just a focus on the design of the car, but on the larger picture of winning the race.
Secondly, the designers appear to explore the problem from a particular perspective, in order to frame the problem in a way that stimulates and pre-structures the emergence of design concepts. In some cases, this perspective is a personal one that they seems to bring to most of their designing; for example, Kenneth Grange has a strong, emotional distaste for what he considers to be ‘contradictions’ in design, where the object is not well adapted to the user and the patterns of use. As he said, ‘My attitude is to want it to be a pleasure to operate.’ And it was from operating the sewing machine that the new concept of an asymmetrical layout emerged, and the rounded edges, which gave the clients the re-styling that they wanted. In the case of the design of the hydro-pneumatic system, Gordon Murray’s problem frame was governed by his focus on “How the hell we can get ground effect back?’ in order to achieve his goal of the fastest car, while satisfying the criteria set by the FISA regulations. This problem frame led him to the concept of the hydro-pneumatic suspension system. For these designers, therefore, their problem framing arises from the requirements of the particular design situation, but is strongly influenced by their personal motivations, whether they may be altruistically providing pleasure for the product user, or competitively achieving the fastest car despite the regulations.
Thirdly, these designers either explicitly or implicitly rely upon ‘first principles’ in both the origination of their concepts and in the detailed development of those concepts. For example, Gordon Murray stresses the need to ‘keep looking at the fundamental physical principle’ for innovative design, and in his design to regain ground effect he focused on the physical forces that act on a car at speed. And we saw in his city car design work that fundamental principles in details such as suspension and in manufacturing were part of the thinking from the very beginning. Kenneth Grange is less explicit about first principles, but it seems clear that he adheres to the modernist design principle of ‘form follows function’; he approaches design problems ‘by trying to sort out just the functionality, just the handling of it, and by-and-large out of that comes a direction’. This approach is evident in the examples of his product designs, which are based very much on the ‘first principles’ of function and usability. It was also evident in his design of the High-Speed Train, which he based on aerodynamic analysis, and in both the big HST and the little sewing machine he questioned the established, underlying, standard engineering ‘requirements’ that had dominated the previous solutions.
Finally, it seems from these examples that perhaps innovative design arises especially when there is a conflict to be resolved between the (designer’s) high-level problem goals and the (client’s) criteria for an acceptable solution. Creativity is often stimulated when there is a conflict to resolve, and it may be that these successful designers recognize this and seek the stimulus of conflict. Such conflict is particularly evident in Gordon Murray’s design strategies in formula one, which was to challenge and, if necessary, somehow to circumvent the criteria set by the technical regulations. In Kenneth Grange’s case, the potential conflict is often with the client’s criteria for a product re-styling job, whereas his goal is to provide the product’s user with an enhanced affordance of use from the product. As he said, ‘You are almost invariably brought in by somebody who has got a very elementary commercial motive…It’s extremely unusual to be brought in to approach it from this usability, this function theme’. And yet, of course, the client’s criteria still have to be satisfied.
These similarities in design thinking are illustrated in Figure 4.1. In each case, at the upper, systems level there is a conflict, or potential conflict, between what the designer seeks to achieve as the highest goal and what the client sets as fundamental criteria. At the intermediate level, the designer frames the problem in a personal way, and develops a solution concept both to match that frame and to satisfy the criteria. The designer applies that problem frame at the lowest level, in order to identify and draw upon first principle of physics, engineering and design that help to bridge between the problem frame and a solution concept.
At the lowest level is explicit, established knowledge of first principles, which may be domain specific or more general scientific knowledge. At the intermediate level is where the designers strategic knowledge is especially exercised, and where that knowledge is more variable, situated in the particular problem and it’s context, tacit and perhaps personalized and idiosyncratic. At the highest level there is a mix of relatively stable, but usually implicit goals held by the designer, the temporary problem goals, and fixed, explicit solution criteria specified by the client or other domain authority.
Design Expertise
At the beginning of this book, in Chapter 1, I set out some of the ways that the activity of designing can be investigated, and in the intervening chapters I have reported and discussed some of my own studies, and related these to the work of other researchers. In the main, my approach has been one of empirical investigation, based on reported experience or observation and analysis. In explaining and relating these various studies, I have tried to build an evidence-based understanding of how designers think and work. But presenting a description of how designers design has also been attempted in other, sometimes more imaginative ways. One of these is the use of metaphors or analogies that help to explain what it is designers do, and the complexity of that task.
One of the most unusual metaphors was that used by Herbert Simon, when he likened the activity of a designer to that of an ant. Simon compared any creative problem solver, such as a designer, to an ant returning to its nest across a stony terrain. At any given moment, the ants own horizon is very close, and all it can see are the rocks around it. To the ant, the terrain is not all visible in advance, and it cannot foresee all the obstacles lying in its path on the way to its goal. All it can do is deal with the obstacles as it comes to them – working a way around or over them. The ant, like a creative problem solver, according to Simon, is likely to take what an outside observer, with much more of a global view, to be a circuitous route ‘home’ to the solution goal. What Simon tried to communicate by this metaphor was his view that the apparent complexity of the ant’s (or problem solver’s) behaviour is largely a reflection of the complexity of the environment (or problem situation) in which it finds itself, while the underlying cognitive processes that control the behaviour may be relatively simple. So in this view, understanding designing is more about understanding design problems than about understanding design thinking.
Christopher Jones used another metaphor of the designer, this time as an explorer, searching for a hidden treasure. Although apparently very different, this metaphor shares several features with that of Simon’s: there is a definite goal, which will be recognised once it is reached; there is an unknown and difficult terrain; and the route to the goal may in retrospect appear to have been unnecessarily circuitous. However, Jones assumed that the explorer, unlike Simon’s ant, has a significant intelligence. This intelligence can be used to help plan a design strategy, and to respond to any clues about the path to take that may be found during the search. Jones was suggesting that the designer can have a map, or a model, of the design process, to guide and control the search.
However, the metaphors used by both Simon and Jones seem to be wrong in one important aspect. In design there is not an already known goal; the designer creates the goal in creating a solution concept. If there is an already known goal, then problem solving is a matter of searching for that goal, as Jones and Simon suggest. But searching for something that is lost is not what designers do. They do not search for a lost city or a buried treasure. Rather, they create a fantasy city or magical treasure of their own. In a sense, they are genuine explorers, mapping unknown territories and returning with fascinating finds, rather than the searchers after certainties that both Jones and Simon describe.
Development of Expertise
Education is not only about the development of knowledge but also about developing ways of thinking and acting. We are all familiar with the concepts of the novice learner and the expert performer, and aware that something happens in the development from one to the other. A novice undergoes training and education in his or her chosen field, and then at some later point becomes an expert. Education in design has well-established practices that are assumed to help this progression from novice to expert; but there is still rather limited understanding of the differences between novice and expert performance in design, and how to help students move from one to the other.
There has been more of a history of work on understanding expertise in some other fields and contexts, including those chess, music, science and sports. From these studies, there is a general view that expertise can only be developed over time as a person matures. Usually, there comes a point when a peak of performance is reached, and then an inevitable decline begins. This performance peak will be reached at different ages in different domains: for physical sports, it may be around the age of middle-twenties, whereas in mental activities it may not be until much later in life; in the sciences, people seem to produce their best work in their thirties, while in the arts it may be in their forties. Some outstanding individuals seem to defy the general pattern of development-peak-decline and continue producing great work well into later years.
A universal aspect that seems agreed from studies of expertise is that it requires a minimum period of practice and sustained involvement before performance reaches a recognised expert level of achievement – at least 10 years from first involvement. This is not simply a matter of experience or exposure to the field of endeavour, but of dedicated application. One of the key factors in the accumulation of expertise is believed to be sustained, deliberate, guided practice.
The psychologist Anders Ericsson, who is an expert in the study of expertise, has suggested that ‘The attained level of performance of many types of experts, such as musicians, chess players and athletes, is closely related to their accumulated amount of deliberate practice.’ Usually, a young person may display a certain aptitude or interest, and parents or teachers then encourage and guide their development. But without the dedicated application of the individual, levels of performance will remain modest. Again, according to Ericsson, ‘Superior expert performance is primarily acquired…Many thousands of hours of deliberate practice and training are necessary to reach the highest levels of performance. Most international masters emphasize the role of motivation, concentration and the willingness to work hard on improving performance…The masters seem to consider inborn capacities and innate talent as relatively unimportant.
The development of expertise usually seems to pass through different phases (Figure 8.4). In all fields, the accumulation of experience is a vital part of the transformation to expert. For some people, the ‘expert’ level of achievement is where they remain, perhaps with some continued moderate improvement before reaching their peak and beginning their decline. A few manage to go beyond the level of their peers, into a further stage of development, reaching outstanding levels of achievement and mastery. At the other end of the scale of maturity, all of us are introduced to a variety of human activities, whether it be playing football or playing the violin. We all improve a little, but some, as noted above, will begin to practice with a dedication – and probably a joy – that sets them apart.
The philosopher Hubert Dreyfus has outlined six phases of development from novice to expert and on to ‘visionary’ levels of ability. He suggested that a novice strictly follows given rules to deal with a problem, and develops to an ‘advanced beginner” who shows some sensitivity to exceptions to the rules. Dreyfus then distinguished competent, expert and master levels of performance as follows:
A competent problem solver works in a radically different way. Elements in a situation are selected for special attention because of their relevance. A plan is developed to achieve the goals… Problem solving at this level involves the seeking of opportunities. The process takes on a trial and error character, with some learning and reflection…The expert responds to a specific situation intuitively, and performs the appropriate action straightaway. There is no problem solving and reasoning that can be distinguished at this level of working…The master sees the standard ways of working that experienced professionals use not as natural but as contingent. A master displays a deeper involvement in the professional filed as a whole, dwelling on successes and failures. This attitude requires an acute sense of context, and openness to subtle cues.
Moving from one level of expertise to another is not necessarily a steady progression. It is not simply a matter of knowing more and learning to work more quickly or smoothly. The changes of level involve working in different ways. This shift to working in a different way can develop almost unnoticed by the learner but can mean shifts in level of attention that we all experience in learning a skill, as the fundamentals become performed unconsciously.
Natasha Jen: Design Thinking is Bullsh*t
What Is Design Thinking? An Overview (2020)
Design thinking – what, how, why, when?
| Paweł Żebrowski | TEDxSzczecinLive
Design Thinking | Doreen Lorenzo | TEDxUTAustin
Rise of Design Thinking in India
| Ankur Grover Kunal Gupta | TEDxTISS
0 thoughts on “Design Thinking”