traditional problem solving and design thinking

May 28, 2021

Design Thinking vs Traditional Thinking

The traditional approach of thinking works on two basic principles. These two basic principles are Viability and Feasibility. Traditional thinking maps out how doable (viability) a task is in a practical manner (feasibility) . It evaluates these two factors to assist problem-solving and is highly used by business executives. Traditional thinking as compared to design thinking works towards avoiding failure, thinking, planning, creating a passive experience, and giving the right answers. The traditional approach is also focused on solutions and aims to get the perfect outcome on the very first try.

On the other hand, the design thinking approach has five steps on a very basic level namely empathize, define, iterate, prototype and test. It is a customer-centered approach that works towards the goal of understanding customer’s needs, requirements, and expectations better to improve the product at hand. Design thinking as compared to the traditional approach works towards asking the right questions and creating the right active experiences.

We discussed earlier that traditional thinking methods focus on viability and feasibility. It is worth mentioning here that design thinking also brings viability and feasibility together, but it first acts upon desirability which is understanding the customer’s needs and expectations regarding the product.

To better understand the difference between design thinking and traditional thinking, we can do a brief comparison between a design thinking manager and a traditional thinking manager. A design thinking manager prefers visual material, intensive observation, rationale & emotional considerations. A design thinking manager is also aware of the fact that failure is part of the process and is comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. He/she also believes in empathy and collaborative effort.

On the other hand, a traditional thinking manager is comfortable with verbal and statistics-oriented content. He / She likes to create a quick interpretation of the situation and focuses on mainly objective and rational information. A traditional manager would lead by organizing and planning as well as expects analytical, deductive, and inductive answers. A traditional thinking manager looks for correct answers, focuses on customer tasks, and likes to work principally individually.

Now the question arising here is that if the design thinking method is better than the traditional thinking methods? To answer this question, we should recall all the information stated above which makes it clear that traditional thinking might limit the scope of design due to it being afraid of failure and crazy ideas that are very well accepted and even used to advantage in design thinking. The main problem with traditional thinking is its approach of asking “WHAT IS” instead of “WHY AND WHAT CAN BE DONE” . On the other hand, design thinking’s mission as stated by Tim Brown is,

“The mission of Design Thinking is to translate observation into insights and insights into products and services that will improve lives”.

So, to answer we can conclude that design thinking is a better practice when it comes to design-oriented tasks which require human-centered thinking which is mindful of the process and culture of prototyping.

Would you like to learn more about what is in store for Design Thinking in the future? If yes, visit our other blog! https://www.thefirstloop.com/post/what-is-in-store-for-design-thinking-in-future

Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving: A Comparative Analysis

Design thinking and traditional problem-solving are two popular strategies for tackling complex challenges. Despite having different goals and techniques, they are both quite effective in their own ways. To properly appreciate the differences between the two, it is critical to first characterize each technique before evaluating how they differ from one another. The essential contrasts between Design Thinking and Traditional Problem-Solving will be addressed in this comparative study, with a special emphasis on the methodology used and how those strategies apply to the setting of a Post Graduate Diploma in Design Thinking .

Understanding Traditional Problem-Solving

Problem-solving is a more structured approach to finding solutions to specific issues. It is a process for finding the underlying cause of an issue and then devising the best solution. Problem-solving requires the following skills:

Concentrate on a single problem

The primary goal of problem-solving is to find a solution to a specific problem. The problem is first identified, and then the best explication is sought.

Responses based on analysis and logic

The purpose of issue-solving is to find rational and analytical answers. It assesses several options and selects the best one using a systematic technique, such as the scientific method.

Repair the immediate problem

The purpose of problem-solving is to solve the current problem.

Examining the Heart of Design Thinking

This human-centred, iterative, and exceedingly creative problem-solving technique’s key component is an empathic understanding of users’ needs, desires, and pain areas. The conventional approach consists of five steps: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. This approach encourages accepting ambiguity, challenging assumptions, and participating in group brainstorming to generate diverse ideas. Because they allow for the rapid development and testing of novel solutions, prototyping, and iteration are critical components of it.

The emphasis on end-users, their feelings, and the overall user experience distinguishes it. This customer-focused strategy ensures that solutions emotionally connect with users, enhancing satisfaction and loyalty. Furthermore, these view failure as an opportunity for growth and learning, allowing people to take calculated risks without fear of repercussions.

Design Thinking: A Human-Centered Creative Journey

This method of thinking contains empathy and creativity, which are valued in the all-encompassing problem-solving strategy. In contrast to traditional methodologies, it seeks to completely know end-user desires and sentiments before going on to solutions. The approach is iterative and encourages open-minded inquiry. Let us look at its core concepts:

Empathy-Driven

It begins with empathy and focuses on the end users. We can develop solutions that speak to people by understanding their needs, desires, and goals.

Divergent Thinking

It encourages unrestricted creativity and outlandish ideas. Brainstorming sessions are encouraged to explore various ideas and create groundbreaking discoveries.

Iterative Process

It is an iterative process of prototyping, testing, and refining. This strategy of continuous improvement and flexibility is feasible.

Is Design Thinking Better Than Conventional Thinking?

It is a more recent way than traditional thinking and has the potential to alter how challenging problems are tackled in enterprises.

The basic goal of this method of thinking is to understand user needs and create solutions that are uniquely tailored to meet them. This encourages the creation of new products, services, and experiences that are more likely to succeed in the market. Traditional thinking typically follows a predetermined procedure to achieve a pre-established outcome. This method is adaptable, collaborative, and focused on understanding people and their needs.

Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving

When compared to problem-solving, design thinking focuses a higher emphasis on developing unique solutions. The first phase in this process is to understand the user’s demands, which are then leveraged to develop original and innovative solutions. Problem-solving, on the other hand, is concerned with identifying a solution to a specific issue.

Problem resolution is more systematic, whereas design thinking is more open-ended encouraging teams to experiment and explore new ideas. The former takes an organized approach, trying for rational and analytical solutions.

Moreover, problem-solving methods are more focused on finding a logical answer, and design thinking caters to user-centred experience. It begins with empathy for the user, which centres the user in the problem-solving process.

Finding solutions to complex problems is possible with the help of these strategies. While problem-solving can be used to assess and implement the best solution, design thinking can help teams generate new ideas to explore potential. By understanding the underlying differences between the two, teams can use both methodologies to find the optimal solution for their specific situation.

Differences between Design thinking and traditional problem-solving

While both methods are effective methods for dealing with complex challenges, there are numerous key differences between the two:

Stages of Problem Solving

Classic problem-solving processes include problem identification, data collection, analysis, solution formulation, execution, and evaluation. The steps guide the process from start to finish. The five steps are typically empathized, defined, ideated, prototyped, and tested. These steps can be iterated and are not always precisely linear. It encourages insistent feedback and teamwork at every stage.

User-Centricity

Though traditional techniques consider user needs, the user experience may not always precede functionality and efficiency. The end user’s social and emotional needs will likely be overlooked. These techniques aspire to deeply understand user needs, issues, and desires. Their emphasis results in solutions that emotionally connect with people, increasing user pleasure.

Idea Generation

In conventional ways, preexisting information and prior experiences limit idea production. It is possible to dismiss innovative and imaginative ideas in favour of tried-and-true ways.

Design Thinking encourages “out of the box” thinking. Participants are encouraged to venture into uncharted terrain and develop wild ideas. The emphasis is on the sheer number and variety of ideas that appear to result in game-changing inventions.

Tolerance for Peril and Risk

Traditional problem-solving may be risk-averse since it focuses on discovering the best and safest solution. Failure is frequently revealed or regarded as a setback.

“Failing fast” and learning from mistakes are themes that it embraces. It encourages people to take calculated chances and learn from mistakes by viewing failure as an opportunity for growth and discovery.

Prototyping and testing

Prototyping and testing are usually performed at the end of a procedure after a solution has been selected. There may be a lack of feedback loops, making implementation challenging.

Prototyping and testing are both part of the technique. Rapid prototyping allows for the testing and improvement of ideas early, eliminating risks and enabling continuous progress. An iterative procedure increases the quality and utility of the final solution.

Embracing Creativity and Innovation

Although the perspectives offered by both of these techniques differ, combined, or used in tandem, they can unleash a powerful force of creativity and inventiveness.

Empathy-driven Solutions

Emphasis on empathy lets us thoroughly understand end users’ needs and goals. We may build solutions that address the issue at hand and produce memorable and captivating experiences by incorporating this component into traditional problem-solving.

Expanding the Idea Horizon

Finding the best responses to conventional problems involves extensive data analysis and prior experience. By integrating it with its divergent approach to idea production, we may study a broader range of possibilities and generate groundbreaking concepts.

Iterative Refinement

While problem-solving is often a linear process in a classic problem, it promotes iteration. By incorporating iterative loops into the problem-solving process, we can continuously hone and enhance solutions based on input and testing.

Risk-Tolerance and Learning

In addition to traditional problem-solving, Design Thinking encourages experimentation and calculated risks, considering failure a learning opportunity. Adopting the mindset of “failing fast” as we navigate the problem-solving process allows us to adapt and develop.

While traditional problem-solving techniques might be effective in some instances, it is an excellent tool for students interested in a career in design and innovation because it emphasizes continuous learning, iterative feedback, and user-centred solutions. By integrating the two strategies, individuals can build a comprehensive set of problem-solving abilities to take on complex challenges and influence genuine change across various domains.

In a nutshell

Problem-solving has evolved into a critical skill in the ever-changing landscape of opportunities and challenges. Traditional Problem Solving has emerged in response to increased innovation and creativity. Both approaches seek practical solutions but differ in strategy, procedure, and outcomes. MIT ID University’s unique and user-centered approach to these methods helps you do well. It aligns well with the program’s goals of stimulating creativity and empathy-driven problem-solving for a Design Thinking Course .

Data was used early in the process to influence our thoughts, solutions, and plans in the traditional approach. To get the best response, we use an ongoing stream of feedback.

The conventional methodology is the traditional approach to problem-solving, and it comprises using the procedures and solutions that are already in place.

While some are more rigorous than others and use more complex assessment methods, they all emphasize “getting better at guessing” at the heart of their treatment.

A question is posed, inspiration is gathered, generative ideas are generated, ideas are made real, ideas are tested to learn, and a tale is told.

A brainstorming session is one of the best techniques to master problem-solving.

Uncategorized

Pursue an MBA in Entrepreneurship from MIT Pune

The Best MBA Specialization for Entrepreneurship

Which field of MBA is best for Entrepreneurship?

Nurturing MBA in Innovation & Entrepreneurship at MIT Pune

Human-Centered Change and Innovation

Innovation, change and transformation thought leadership, lovingly curated by braden kelley, design thinking vs. traditional problem-solving, which approach fosters better business innovation.

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, innovation is the key driver of growth and success. To stay ahead of the competition, businesses must adopt an approach that not only solves problems effectively but also incorporates human-centered thinking and fosters creativity. This thought leadership article explores the two prominent problem-solving methodologies – Design Thinking and Traditional Problem-Solving – and delves into their effectiveness in driving business innovation. Through the analysis of two case studies, we examine how each approach can impact an organization’s ability to innovate and ultimately thrive in a competitive market.

1. Design Thinking: Embracing Empathy and Creativity:

Design Thinking is a customer-centric approach that places emphasis on empathy, active listening, and iterative problem-solving. By gaining a deep understanding of end-users’ needs, aspirations, and pain points, businesses can create innovative solutions that truly resonate with their target audience. This methodology comprises five key stages: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Let’s explore a case study that illustrates the power of Design Thinking in fostering business innovation.

Case Study 1: Airbnb’s Transformation:

When Airbnb realized their business model needed a refresh, they turned to Design Thinking to reimagine the experience for users. By empathizing with both hosts and guests, Airbnb identified pain points, such as low trust levels and inconsistent property quality. They defined the core problem and developed innovative solutions through multiple brainstorming sessions. This iterative approach led to the creation of user-friendly features such as verified user profiles, secure booking processes, and an enhanced rating system. As a result, Airbnb disrupted the hospitality industry, revolutionizing how people book accommodations, and became a global success story.

2. Traditional Problem-Solving: Analytical and Linear Thinking:

Traditional problem-solving methods often follow a logical, linear approach. These methods rely on analyzing the problem, identifying potential solutions, and implementing the most viable option. While this approach has its merits, it can sometimes lack the human-centered approach essential for driving innovation. To delve deeper into the impact of traditional problem-solving on business innovation, let’s examine another case study.

Case Study 2: Blockbuster vs. Netflix:

Blockbuster, once an industry giant, relied on traditional problem-solving techniques. Despite being highly skilled at analyzing data and trends, Blockbuster failed to tap into their customers’ unmet needs. As the digital revolution occurred, Netflix recognized an opportunity to disrupt the traditional video rental business. Netflix utilized Design Thinking principles early on, empathizing with customers and understanding that convenience and personalized recommendations were paramount. Through their innovative technology and business model, Netflix transformed the way people consume media and eventually replaced Blockbuster.

Design Thinking and Traditional Problem-Solving are both valuable methodologies for business problem-solving. However, when it comes to fostering better business innovation, Design Thinking stands out as an approach that encourages human-centered thinking, empathy, and creativity. By incorporating Design Thinking principles into their problem-solving processes, organizations can develop innovative solutions that address the unmet needs of their customers. The case studies of Airbnb and Netflix demonstrate how adopting a Design Thinking approach can lead to significant business success, disrupting industries while putting the user experience at the forefront. As businesses continue to face dynamic challenges, embracing Design Thinking can empower them to drive continuous innovation and secure competitive advantage in the modern era.

SPECIAL BONUS: The very best change planners use a visual, collaborative approach to create their deliverables. A methodology and tools like those in Change Planning Toolkit ™ can empower anyone to become great change planners themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

How to Determine if Your Problem is Worth Solving
What is Design Thinking?
Applying Design Thinking for Innovation and Problem Solving
Design Thinking for Non-Designers

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

Sam Altman thinks AI will change the world. All of it.

Categorical thinking can lead to investing errors

How storytelling helps data-driven teams succeed

Credit: Mimi Phan

Ideas Made to Matter

Design thinking, explained

Rebecca Linke

Sep 14, 2017

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills.The approach has been around for decades, but it only started gaining traction outside of the design community after the 2008 Harvard Business Review article [subscription required] titled “Design Thinking” by Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO.

Since then, the design thinking process has been applied to developing new products and services, and to a whole range of problems, from creating a business model for selling solar panels in Africa to the operation of Airbnb .

At a high level, the steps involved in the design thinking process are simple: first, fully understand the problem; second, explore a wide range of possible solutions; third, iterate extensively through prototyping and testing; and finally, implement through the customary deployment mechanisms.

The skills associated with these steps help people apply creativity to effectively solve real-world problems better than they otherwise would. They can be readily learned, but take effort. For instance, when trying to understand a problem, setting aside your own preconceptions is vital, but it’s hard.

Creative brainstorming is necessary for developing possible solutions, but many people don’t do it particularly well. And throughout the process it is critical to engage in modeling, analysis, prototyping, and testing, and to really learn from these many iterations.

Once you master the skills central to the design thinking approach, they can be applied to solve problems in daily life and any industry.

Here’s what you need to know to get started.

Infographic of the design thinking process

Understand the problem

The first step in design thinking is to understand the problem you are trying to solve before searching for solutions. Sometimes, the problem you need to address is not the one you originally set out to tackle.

“Most people don’t make much of an effort to explore the problem space before exploring the solution space,” said MIT Sloan professor Steve Eppinger. The mistake they make is to try and empathize, connecting the stated problem only to their own experiences. This falsely leads to the belief that you completely understand the situation. But the actual problem is always broader, more nuanced, or different than people originally assume.

Take the example of a meal delivery service in Holstebro, Denmark. When a team first began looking at the problem of poor nutrition and malnourishment among the elderly in the city, many of whom received meals from the service, it thought that simply updating the menu options would be a sufficient solution. But after closer observation, the team realized the scope of the problem was much larger , and that they would need to redesign the entire experience, not only for those receiving the meals, but for those preparing the meals as well. While the company changed almost everything about itself, including rebranding as The Good Kitchen, the most important change the company made when rethinking its business model was shifting how employees viewed themselves and their work. That, in turn, helped them create better meals (which were also drastically changed), yielding happier, better nourished customers.

Involve users

Imagine you are designing a new walker for rehabilitation patients and the elderly, but you have never used one. Could you fully understand what customers need? Certainly not, if you haven’t extensively observed and spoken with real customers. There is a reason that design thinking is often referred to as human-centered design.

“You have to immerse yourself in the problem,” Eppinger said.

How do you start to understand how to build a better walker? When a team from MIT’s Integrated Design and Management program together with the design firm Altitude took on that task, they met with walker users to interview them, observe them, and understand their experiences.

“We center the design process on human beings by understanding their needs at the beginning, and then include them throughout the development and testing process,” Eppinger said.

Central to the design thinking process is prototyping and testing (more on that later) which allows designers to try, to fail, and to learn what works. Testing also involves customers, and that continued involvement provides essential user feedback on potential designs and use cases. If the MIT-Altitude team studying walkers had ended user involvement after its initial interviews, it would likely have ended up with a walker that didn’t work very well for customers.

It is also important to interview and understand other stakeholders, like people selling the product, or those who are supporting the users throughout the product life cycle.

The second phase of design thinking is developing solutions to the problem (which you now fully understand). This begins with what most people know as brainstorming.

Hold nothing back during brainstorming sessions — except criticism. Infeasible ideas can generate useful solutions, but you’d never get there if you shoot down every impractical idea from the start.

“One of the key principles of brainstorming is to suspend judgment,” Eppinger said. “When we're exploring the solution space, we first broaden the search and generate lots of possibilities, including the wild and crazy ideas. Of course, the only way we're going to build on the wild and crazy ideas is if we consider them in the first place.”

That doesn’t mean you never judge the ideas, Eppinger said. That part comes later, in downselection. “But if we want 100 ideas to choose from, we can’t be very critical.”

In the case of The Good Kitchen, the kitchen employees were given new uniforms. Why? Uniforms don’t directly affect the competence of the cooks or the taste of the food.

But during interviews conducted with kitchen employees, designers realized that morale was low, in part because employees were bored preparing the same dishes over and over again, in part because they felt that others had a poor perception of them. The new, chef-style uniforms gave the cooks a greater sense of pride. It was only part of the solution, but if the idea had been rejected outright, or perhaps not even suggested, the company would have missed an important aspect of the solution.

Prototype and test. Repeat.

You’ve defined the problem. You’ve spoken to customers. You’ve brainstormed, come up with all sorts of ideas, and worked with your team to boil those ideas down to the ones you think may actually solve the problem you’ve defined.

“We don’t develop a good solution just by thinking about a list of ideas, bullet points and rough sketches,” Eppinger said. “We explore potential solutions through modeling and prototyping. We design, we build, we test, and repeat — this design iteration process is absolutely critical to effective design thinking.”

Repeating this loop of prototyping, testing, and gathering user feedback is crucial for making sure the design is right — that is, it works for customers, you can build it, and you can support it.

“After several iterations, we might get something that works, we validate it with real customers, and we often find that what we thought was a great solution is actually only just OK. But then we can make it a lot better through even just a few more iterations,” Eppinger said.

Implementation

The goal of all the steps that come before this is to have the best possible solution before you move into implementing the design. Your team will spend most of its time, its money, and its energy on this stage.

“Implementation involves detailed design, training, tooling, and ramping up. It is a huge amount of effort, so get it right before you expend that effort,” said Eppinger.

Design thinking isn’t just for “things.” If you are only applying the approach to physical products, you aren’t getting the most out of it. Design thinking can be applied to any problem that needs a creative solution. When Eppinger ran into a primary school educator who told him design thinking was big in his school, Eppinger thought he meant that they were teaching students the tenets of design thinking.

“It turns out they meant they were using design thinking in running their operations and improving the school programs. It’s being applied everywhere these days,” Eppinger said.

In another example from the education field, Peruvian entrepreneur Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor hired design consulting firm IDEO to redesign every aspect of the learning experience in a network of schools in Peru. The ultimate goal? To elevate Peru’s middle class.

As you’d expect, many large corporations have also adopted design thinking. IBM has adopted it at a company-wide level, training many of its nearly 400,000 employees in design thinking principles .

What can design thinking do for your business?

The impact of all the buzz around design thinking today is that people are realizing that “anybody who has a challenge that needs creative problem solving could benefit from this approach,” Eppinger said. That means that managers can use it, not only to design a new product or service, “but anytime they’ve got a challenge, a problem to solve.”

Applying design thinking techniques to business problems can help executives across industries rethink their product offerings, grow their markets, offer greater value to customers, or innovate and stay relevant. “I don’t know industries that can’t use design thinking,” said Eppinger.

Ready to go deeper?

Read “ The Designful Company ” by Marty Neumeier, a book that focuses on how businesses can benefit from design thinking, and “ Product Design and Development ,” co-authored by Eppinger, to better understand the detailed methods.

Systematic Innovation of Products, Processes, and Services , a five-day course taught by Eppinger and other MIT professors.

Leadership by Design: Innovation Process and Culture , a two-day course taught by MIT Integrated Design and Management director Matthew Kressy.
Managing Complex Technical Projects , a two-day course taught by Eppinger.
Apply for M astering Design Thinking , a 3-month online certificate course taught by Eppinger and MIT Sloan senior lecturers Renée Richardson Gosline and David Robertson.

Steve Eppinger is a professor of management science and innovation at MIT Sloan. He holds the General Motors Leaders for Global Operations Chair and has a PhD from MIT in engineering. He is the faculty co-director of MIT's System Design and Management program and Integrated Design and Management program, both master’s degrees joint between the MIT Sloan and Engineering schools. His research focuses on product development and technical project management, and has been applied to improving complex engineering processes in many industries.

Design Thinking vs Traditional Thinking

Jack O’Donoghue

In this post, we’ll explore the differences between Design Thinking and Traditional thinking.

Let’s get started.

How Design Thinking is Addressing 5 Major Challenges in Healthcare

The Basics of Design Thinking for Improved Patient Care

8 Tips for Implementing Design Thinking in Your Healthcare Practice

Reviews / Why join our community?
For companies
Frequently asked questions

Design Thinking, Essential Problem Solving 101- It’s More Than Scientific

The term “ Design Thinking ” dates back to the 1987 book by Peter Rowe; “Design Thinking.” In that book he describes the way that architects and urban planners would approach design problems. However, the idea that there was a specific pattern of problem solving in “design thought” came much earlier in Herbert A Simon’s book, “The Science of the Artificial” which was published in 1969. The concept was popularized in the early 1990s by Richard Buchanan in his article “ Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”.

Ralph Caplan, the design consultant, sums up the need for design thinking with; “Thinking about design is hard, but not thinking about it can be disastrous.”

Author/Copyright holder: Christine Prefontaine. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY-SA 2.0

A simple overview of design thinking as a problem solving process.

Problem-Solving and Two Schools of Thought

Design thinking is concerned with solving problems through design. The idea being that the future output of the process will provide a better answer than the one already available or if nothing is available – something entirely new.

It is an unconstrained methodology where it is possible that the designer (or design team) will work on many possible solutions at once. It enables designers to consider the problem in many different ways and speculate on both the past and future of the problem too.

This is in contrast to the scientific method of problem solving which requires a highly-defined problem which focuses on delivering a single solution.

This difference was first noted by Brian Lawson, a psychologist, in 1972. He conducted an experiment in which scientists and architects were asked to build a structure from colored blocks. He provided some basic rules for the project and observed how they approached it. The scientists looked to move through a simple series of solutions based on the outcome and entire rule set. The architects, in contrast, simply focused on the desired end-state and then tested to see if the solution they had found met the rules.

This led to the idea that scientists solve problems by a process of analysis, whilst designers solve problems by synthesis. However, later evidence suggests that designers apply both forms of problem solving to attain “design thinking”.

They do this via a process of divergent thinking . A designer will examine as many possible solutions at the beginning of a process as they can think of – then they will apply the scientific side ( convergent thinking ) to narrow these solutions down to the best output.

Design thinking can be as simple or as complex as the business and users require. This IDEO process can be seen as a 3 part process or a 9 part process .

The Design Thinking Process

Design thinking is essentially a process which moves from problem to solution via some clear intermediate points. The classic approach, as proposed by Herbert A Simon, is offered here:

Definition – where the problem is defined as best as possible prior to solving it
Research – where the designers examine as much data as they feel necessary to be able to fully contribute to the problem solving process
Ideation – where the designer commences creating possible solutions without examining their practicality until a large number of solutions has been proposed. Once this is done, impractical solutions are eliminated or played with until they become practical.
Prototyping – where the best ideas are simulated in some means so that their value can be explored with users
Choosing – where the best idea is selected from the multiple prototypes
Implementing – where that idea is built and delivered as a product
Testing – where the product is tested with the user in order to ensure that it solves the original problem in an effective manner

There are many other design thinking processes outlined in literature – most of which are a truncated version of the above process combining or skipping stages.

Here we see a more complex interpretation of the design thinking process and how it fits into the larger business sphere.

The Principles of Design Thinking

In the book, Design thinking: Understand, Improve Apply, Plattner and Meinel offer four underlying principles for design thinking:

Human – all design is of a social nature
Ambiguity – design thinking preserves and embraces ambiguity
Re-design – all design processes are in fact re-design of existing processes
Tangibility – the design process to make something tangible will facilitate communication of that design

It is also worth noting that design thinking functions independently of the design methods employed in any given design process. Design methods are the tools employed (such as interviews, user research , prototypes, etc.) and the assumption is that there are many paths that may be used (e.g. different sets of methods applied) to reach the same “best” result.

Visuals and Design Thinking

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that design thinking is not about graphic design per se. However, designers are often used to communicating their thinking visually and drawings, sketches , prototypes, etc. are often used to convey the ideas created within a design thinking process.

In fact, ideas which are hard to express easily in words are often given shape in the form of visual metaphors. Design thinking thus easily incorporates abstract thought processes – something that scientific thinking may find more challenging to accommodate.

Visual representations of how those involved in the design process might be thinking about a problem.

The Take Away

Design thinking is a process by which designers approach problem solving. It incorporates analytical, synthetic, divergent and convergent thinking to create a wide number of potential solutions and then narrow these down to a “best fit” solution. There are many ways to use a design thinking process to incorporate different methodologies to still reach the same end point. Designers must solve problems in order to add value through design.

Richard Buchanan’s original article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking," was published in Design Issues , vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992.

Peter Rowe’s book from 1987 Design Thinking was published byCambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-68067-7.

Herbert A Simon’s book from 1969 The Sciences of the Artificial . Was published by Cambridge: MIT Press.

Plattner, Hasso; Meinel, Christoph; Leifer, Larry J., eds. (2011). Design thinking: understand, improve, apply . Understanding innovation . Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. pp. xiv–xvi.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0. ISBN 3642137563.

This fascinating case study looks at how IBM plans to bring design thinking to large scale businesses - http://www.wired.com/2016/01/ibms-got-a-plan-to-bring-design-thinking-to-big-business/

See how Pepsi’s CEO, Indra Nooyi, implemented design thinking in her organization - https://hbr.org/2015/09/how-indra-nooyi-turned-design-thinking-into-strategy

Harvard Business Review examines design thinking and how it translates into action here - https://hbr.org/2015/09/design-for-action

Hero Image: Author/Copyright holder: Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY-SA 4.0

Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services

Get Weekly Design Insights

Topics in this article, what you should read next, what is design thinking and why is it so popular.

1.6k shares

Personas – A Simple Introduction

1.5k shares

Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results

1.3k shares

What is Ideation – and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions

1.2k shares

Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights

2 years ago

Stage 3 in the Design Thinking Process: Ideate

4 years ago

Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype

3 years ago

Stage 1 in the Design Thinking Process: Empathise with Your Users

Empathy Map – Why and How to Use It

What Is Empathy and Why Is It So Important in Design Thinking?

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this article , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this article.

New to UX Design? We’re giving you a free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Design Digest

Design Thinking vs. Traditional Design: A Comprehensive Comparison for Young Designers

This article compares design thinking and traditional design, highlighting differences in philosophy, process, user focus, empathy, and flexibility. it offers actionable takeaways for young designers.

This week I want to talk about Design Thinking vs. Traditional Design:

The philosophy behind each approach

The difference in process

User-centered focus in Design Thinking

The role of empathy in Design Thinking

The flexibility of Design Thinking

This topic is commonly misunderstood because both approaches are used in creating designs, but they differ fundamentally in their philosophy and approach. Once you understand the differences between Design Thinking and Traditional Design, you'll be better equipped to choose the most effective approach for your projects and ultimately create designs that truly meet user needs.

Let’s dive in!

Understanding Design Approaches

To fully grasp the distinction between Design Thinking and Traditional Design, avoid these common misconceptions:

Assuming all design approaches are the same: Design approaches vary in their focus and process.

Ignoring the user’s perspective: Especially in Design Thinking, the user's perspective is paramount.

Thinking rigidity equals professionalism: Flexibility can often lead to more effective solutions.

People often make these mistakes because they're not aware of the nuances of different design approaches. As a result, they may create designs that fail to fully address user needs or adapt to changing circumstances.

So, here’s how to fix it:

The Philosophy Behind Each Approach

The first step to choosing the right design approach is understanding the philosophy behind each one. Traditional Design often begins with a specific outcome or aesthetic in mind, while Design Thinking starts with a problem to be solved. The former can lead to beautiful designs that may not meet user needs, while the latter ensures the design is tailored to solve a user's problem.

Understanding the philosophy behind each approach is crucial because it directly impacts the effectiveness of your designs. A design that looks great but doesn't address user needs will ultimately fail to achieve its purpose, whereas a design that prioritizes problem-solving and user satisfaction will be more successful in the long run.

Here's an actionable takeaway you can apply immediately: Before starting any design project, take a moment to reflect on the philosophy that will guide your work. Ask yourself whether your main focus is on aesthetics or solving a user problem. By clarifying your design philosophy at the outset, you'll be better equipped to make decisions throughout the project that align with your goals and result in a design that effectively meets user needs.

To put this into practice, try the following exercise:

Write down the primary goal of your design project.

Identify whether your main focus is aesthetics, problem-solving, or a combination of both.

Use this information to guide your design choices, ensuring that they align with your stated philosophy.

By consciously considering the philosophy behind your design approach, you'll be more likely to create designs that not only look great but also effectively address the needs of your users.

The Difference in Process

Next, consider the process. Traditional Design typically follows a linear process, where each stage of the design is completed before moving on to the next. On the other hand, Design Thinking employs an iterative process, allowing for continuous refinement based on user feedback. This iterative process means that Design Thinking can be more adaptable to changes and new information.

Understanding the difference in process between these two design approaches is crucial because it dictates how you tackle a design project. A linear process may work well for projects with a fixed outcome and clear requirements. However, for projects with more ambiguity, or when user needs may change or be discovered along the way, an iterative process like Design Thinking can provide more flexibility and responsiveness.

Here's an actionable takeaway: Start reflecting on the nature of your projects. If you're finding that there's a lot of change and evolution, it might be beneficial to consider an iterative process like Design Thinking. You can apply this immediately by:

Analyzing your current project: Understand the level of ambiguity and potential for change in user requirements.

Choosing your process: If the project is static and well-defined, a linear process might be more efficient. But, if it involves uncertainty or a need for adaptation, consider an iterative process.

Implementing the chosen process: Ensure the process you've chosen guides your project, and be prepared to reflect and adjust as needed.

By actively choosing the process that best suits your project, you'll be more prepared to navigate the design journey, enhancing the effectiveness of your final design.

User-Centered Focus in Design Thinking

Design Thinking is inherently user-centered. It starts with understanding the user, their needs, and their context, which ensures that the final design is truly tailored to the user. This is different from Traditional Design, which might focus more on aesthetics or technical constraints without giving due consideration to the user's perspective.

Recognizing the user-centered focus in Design Thinking is crucial because it's the key to creating designs that truly meet the needs of the user. It's easy to get caught up in aesthetics or technical specifications, but if a design doesn't work well for the people who are using it, it won't be successful, regardless of how good it looks or how well it's built.

Here's an actionable takeaway for you: Start making a habit of putting the user at the center of your design process. You can do this by:

Conducting user research: Before you start designing, spend time understanding your user's needs, preferences, and challenges. This could involve surveys, interviews, or observation.

Iterating based on feedback: As you develop your design, get feedback from users and use this to refine and improve it.

Evaluating your design from the user's perspective: Before finalizing your design, try to put yourself in the user's shoes and evaluate whether it meets their needs and is easy and intuitive to use.

By consciously putting the user at the center of your design process, you'll be more likely to create designs that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also effective and enjoyable for people to use.

The Role of Empathy in Design Thinking

In Design Thinking, empathy is a key component. Designers strive to understand the user’s perspective, which enables them to create solutions that truly resonate with the user. This is a departure from Traditional Design, where the designer's perspective may take precedence.

Recognizing the role of empathy in Design Thinking is essential because it ensures that the final design solution truly meets the user's needs and expectations. By understanding the user's feelings, challenges, and context, designers can create solutions that users find intuitive, enjoyable, and effective.

Here's an actionable takeaway: Start embedding empathy into your design process. You can do this by:

Engaging with users: Spend time observing and interacting with users in their natural environment to understand their experiences and challenges.

Asking open-ended questions: Instead of making assumptions, ask questions that allow users to share their thoughts, feelings, and needs.

Practicing active listening: When engaging with users, listen attentively to what they're saying, and try to understand the underlying feelings and needs.

By consciously practicing empathy in your design process, you'll create solutions that truly resonate with users, leading to better user satisfaction and more successful designs.

The Flexibility of Design Thinking

Finally, Design Thinking is a flexible approach. It encourages experimentation and learning from failure, which can lead to innovative solutions that might not emerge from a more rigid process. This is a contrast to Traditional Design, which might follow a more rigid, predetermined plan with less room for change and adaptation.

Understanding the flexibility of Design Thinking is important because it allows for adaptability in the face of changes and challenges. In the dynamic world of design, where user needs, market trends, and technological capabilities are constantly evolving, having the flexibility to adapt and pivot can be the difference between a design that is successful and one that falls short.

Here's an actionable takeaway: Begin to embrace flexibility in your design process. You can do this by:

Encouraging Experimentation: Give yourself permission to try different ideas, even if they might not work. This can lead to unexpected and innovative solutions.

Iterating: Don't be afraid to make changes to your design based on feedback or new information. Remember, the first solution isn't always the best solution.

Learning from Failure: Instead of viewing failures as setbacks, see them as opportunities to learn and improve.

By embracing the flexibility of Design Thinking, you'll be better equipped to navigate the uncertainties and changes inherent in the design process, resulting in more innovative and effective designs.

Putting It All Into Action

So, there you have it – the core differences between Design Thinking and Traditional Design, and the unique benefits each approach offers. As young designers, understanding these differences is an important first step in choosing the right approach for your projects.

Remember, the most effective designs are not just about looking good – they're about meeting the needs of the users. So, start by understanding the philosophy behind each approach, be mindful of your process, place your users at the center, practice empathy, and embrace flexibility.

Now, it's time to put all of this into action. Whether it's a new project or a design you're currently working on, try applying these insights. Reflect on your design philosophy, choose the right process, prioritize your users, empathize with their needs, and allow room for flexibility and experimentation.

The world of design is exciting, dynamic, and full of potential. As you continue your journey, remember that every design decision you make has the potential to create a meaningful impact. Happy designing!

As always, thanks for reading.

Hit reply and let me know what you found most helpful this week—I’d love to hear from you!

Thanks for reading The Design Memo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Ready for more?

How to solve problems with design thinking

May 18, 2023 Is it time to throw out the standard playbook when it comes to problem solving? Uniquely challenging times call for unique approaches, write Michael Birshan , Ben Sheppard , and coauthors in a recent article , and design thinking offers a much-needed fresh perspective for leaders navigating volatility. Design thinking is a systemic, intuitive, customer-focused problem-solving approach that can create significant value and boost organizational resilience. The proof is in the pudding: From 2013 to 2018, companies that embraced the business value of design had TSR that were 56 percentage points higher than that of their industry peers. Check out these insights to understand how to use design thinking to unleash the power of creativity in strategy and problem solving.

Designing out of difficult times

What is design thinking?

The power of design thinking

Leading by design

Author Talks: Don Norman designs a better world

Are you asking enough from your design leaders?

Tapping into the business value of design

Redesigning the design department

Author Talks: Design your future

A design-led approach to embracing an ecosystem strategy

More than a feeling: Ten design practices to deliver business value

What is design thinking and why is it important?

Here’s what you need to know about this creative problem-solving technique, including a definition and why it’s taking the business world by storm.

img src="WeWork106BoulevardHaussmann.jpg" alt="open floor coworking area with natural light in Paris">

Design thinking started out as a process for creating sleek new technology and products. But this methodology is now widely used across both the private and public sectors, for business and personal projects, all around the world.

Design-thinking methodology was popularized by design consulting firm IDEO . The methods gained momentum in the larger business world after Tim Brown, the chief executive officer of IDEO, wrote an article in 2008 for the Harvard Business Review about the use of design thinking in business—including at a California hospital, a Japanese bicycle company, and the healthcare industry in India. Today, one of the most popular courses at Stanford University is Designing Your Life , which applies design thinking to building a joyful career and life.

Here’s what design thinking is, how it works, and why it’s important.

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is a process for solving problems by prioritizing the consumer’s needs above all else. It relies on observing, with empathy, how people interact with their environments , and employs an iterative, hands-on approach to creating innovative solutions .

Design thinking is “human-centered,” which means that it uses evidence of how consumers (humans) actually engage with a product or service, rather than how someone else or an organization thinks they will engage with it. To be truly human-centered, designers watch how people use a product or service and continue to refine the product or service in order to improve the consumer’s experience. This is the “iterative” part of design thinking. It favors moving quickly to get prototypes out to test, rather than endless research or rumination.

In contrast to traditional problem-solving, which is a linear process of identifying a problem and then brainstorming solutions , design thinking only works if it is iterative. It is less of a means to get to a single solution, and more of a way to continuously evolve your thinking and respond to consumer needs.

Why is design thinking important?

Design thinking enables organizations to create lasting value for consumers. The process is useful in any complex system ( not just design systems ) because it:

Aims to solve a concrete human need

Using an observational, human-centric approach, teams can uncover pain points from the consumer that they hadn’t previously thought of, ones that the consumer may not even be aware of. Design thinking can provide solutions to those pain points once they’re identified.

Tackles problems that are ambiguous or difficult to define

Consumers often don’t know what problem they have that needs solving or they can’t verbalize it. But upon careful observation, one can identify problems based on what they see from real consumer behavior rather than simply working off of their ideas of the consumer. This helps define ambiguous problems and in turn makes it easier to surface solutions.

Leads to more innovative solutions

Humans are not capable of imagining things that are not believed to be possible, which makes it impossible for them to ask for things that do not yet exist. Design thinking can help surface some of these unknown pain points that would otherwise have never been known. Using an iterative approach to tackle those problems often lead to non-obvious, innovative solutions .

Makes organizations run faster and more efficiently

Rather than researching a problem for a long time without devising an outcome, design thinking favors creating prototypes and then testing to see how effective they are.

The five stages of the design-thinking process

Design thinking follows a five-stage framework.

1. Empathize

In this first stage, the designer observes consumers to gain a deeper understanding of how they interact with or are affected by a product or issue. The observations must happen with empathy, which means withholding judgment and not imparting preconceived notions of what the consumer needs. Observing with empathy is powerful because it can uncover issues the consumer didn’t even know they had or that they could not themselves verbalize. From this point, it’s easier to understand the human need for which you are designing.

In this second stage, you gather your observations from the first stage to define the problem you’re trying to solve. Think about the difficulties your consumers are brushing up against, what they repeatedly struggle with, and what you’ve gleaned from how they’re affected by the issue. Once you synthesize your findings, you are able to define the problem they face.

The next step is to brainstorm ideas about how to solve the problem you’ve identified. These ideation sessions could be in a group, where your team gathers in an office space that encourages creativity and collaboration , an innovation lab , or can be done solo. The important part is to generate a bunch of different ideas. At the end of this process, you’ll come up with a few ideas with which to move forward.

4. Prototype

This is the stage that turns ideas into an actual solution. Prototypes are not meant to be perfect. The point of a prototype is to come out quickly with a concrete version of the idea to see how it is accepted by consumers. Examples of prototypes include a landing page to test consumer desire for a product or a video that demonstrates streamlined logistic processes.

Once you give a prototyped solution to consumers, you must observe how they interact with it. This testing stage is the one in which you collect feedback on your work.

The design-thinking process is an iterative, rather than linear, one. At the end of the fifth stage, you’ll likely have to go back to one or several of the other stages. Perhaps the testing has shown you need to develop another prototype, for which you’d return to the fourth stage. Or perhaps it’s shown that you’ve misdefined the consumer’s needs. If so, you would have to return to an earlier stage of the process.

What industries and roles can benefit from design thinking?

While design thinking originated with designers, it is now widely used by people from all disciplines . Even among design agencies the work is famously cross-functional: IDEO and similar agencies hire non-designers—chefs, engineers, social scientists, biologists—and integrate them into their project teams to add perspective.

Our growth innovation team at WeWork comprises a designer, who focuses on applying this method for the end consumer of a project; a technologist, who uses this technique to deliver value to engineers; and a business strategist, who applies this method to deliver value for business owners and various stakeholders.

Design thinking has been used at Kaiser Permanente to overhaul the system of shift changes among nursing staff. It has helped the Singapore government make the process for securing a work pass in the nation-state easier and more human. Design thinking has been used to solve business problems at companies like Toyota, Intuit, SAP, and IBM .

One reason for the proliferation of design thinking in industries is that it’s useful to break down problems in any complex system, be it business, government, or social organizations. It can be used to explore big questions about how to respond to the growth of technology and globalization, how to pivot in response to rapid change, and how to support individuals while catering to larger organizations.

Design thinking can be used by all departments in a business. It can be fostered by bright, airy physical workspaces that cater to the way employees prefer to work. To employ design thinking in all projects, managers should first define the consumers they’re trying to help and then employ the five stages of design thinking to define and tackle the identified problems. Employing a design-thinking process makes it more likely a business will be innovative, creative, and ultimately more human.

This article was originally published on October 18, 2019, and has been updated throughout by the editors.

Graham Tuttle was a director of growth innovation at WeWork. He has more than a decade of experience in design and new product development. Prior to WeWork, Tuttle worked at frog in design strategy, helping global enterprises and startups take a user-centered approach to product development, innovation, and investment strategy. He has an M.B.A. and a masters of design from the Illinois Institute of Technology and contributed to the development of 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization , a step-by-step guidebook for innovation planning.

Every leader wants a thriving culture, but only select leaders know that investing in wellness can make it happen. Companies ahead of the game have already seen positive results, as research shows nine out of 10 companies that track their wellness spending see a positive ROI.

Designed to cultivate a positive and respectful working environment, here are the most common coworking etiquette rules.

“Busyness” doesn’t always equate with progress—learning how to prioritize tasks will help you make the most of your workday

Business Essentials
Leadership & Management
Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
Entrepreneurship & Innovation
Digital Transformation
Finance & Accounting
Business in Society
For Organizations
Support Portal
Media Coverage
Founding Donors
Leadership Team

Harvard Business School →
HBS Online →
Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

Career Development
Communication
Decision-Making
Earning Your MBA
Negotiation
News & Events
Productivity
Staff Spotlight
Student Profiles
Work-Life Balance
AI Essentials for Business
Alternative Investments
Business Analytics
Business Strategy
Business and Climate Change
Design Thinking and Innovation
Digital Marketing Strategy
Disruptive Strategy
Economics for Managers
Entrepreneurship Essentials
Financial Accounting
Global Business
Launching Tech Ventures
Leadership Principles
Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
Leading with Finance
Management Essentials
Negotiation Mastery
Organizational Leadership
Power and Influence for Positive Impact
Strategy Execution
Sustainable Business Strategy
Sustainable Investing
Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

Business team using creative problem-solving

01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Design Thinking and Innovation | Uncover creative solutions to your business problems | Learn More

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

The four stages of design thinking: clarify, ideate, develop, and implement

Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

The printer is overused.
The printer overheats.
The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Which HBS Online Entrepreneurship and Innovation Course is Right for You? | Download Your Free Flowchart

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

A Systems View Across Time and Space

Open access
Published: 13 April 2023

Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and needfinding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems

Rahmin Bender-Salazar ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5783-6314 1

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship volume 12 , Article number: 24 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

6 Citations

Metrics details

Organizations in a wide array of fields and disciplines are increasingly using design thinking as an innovative process to create products or services that address wicked problems in their industries. Design thinking, a method of creative and collaborative problem solving originating in the tactics of designers, is a product design and development process that is, more and more, being used as a tool to move innovation forward and structure creation processes in diverse disciplines, from product development to food creation to social science research. Increasingly design thinking has become popular beyond the confines of creative and design disciplines and into the realm of wicked problems in social and ecological systems. While design thinking has many forms and applications, this study uses a refined version built upon the key themes of inspiration, ideation, and implementation as defined by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO (2009), and situates it within the social science discipline—namely, systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research. Through a distilled design structure this flexible methodology combines insights from organizational development, social psychology, systems theory, and design research. By embedding learning and reflective practices into the structure of design thinking, a hybrid model of design thinking emerges that is a more effective tool for framing, setting in context, and solving these types of problems within teams.

From large private companies to small NGOs, academic institutions, and government entities, all are striving to learn about and create innovative services, products, and experiences that address the problems the relevant stakeholders in their industries face. Design thinking, a methodology for problem solving that has its origins in designers’ approaches, tactics, and needs to make this multi-disciplinary process explicit (Gregory, 1966 ), has increasingly emerged in recent decades as a powerful method to drive the innovation process in the pursuit of improvement. Design thinking, as described by the emerging management and innovation scholar Michael Luchs, is “…a creative problem-solving approach—or, more completely, a systematic and collaborative approach for identifying and creatively solving problems” ( 2015 , p. 1). Design thinking’s holistic approach to stakeholders and systems, coupled with its participatory nature, has made it an approachable technique to use beyond the fields of art, architecture, engineering, and technology that traditionally have design disciplines. The theories and practice of design thinking have grown in popularity and have been more heavily used in the academic discourses on management and in the business industry over the past several decades. Thus, this discipline has emerged as a problem solving tool beyond the traditional confines of design (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013 ).

This leads to the following research question: to what extent does the application of design thinking, tasked with addressing wicked problems, represent an effective means for team problem setting and problem solving in organizations?

To fully grasp the concepts discussed in this proposal, it is helpful to clarify a few definitions before proceeding. Wicked problems: these are difficult and challenging problems, which appear in all fields and organizations; the most complex, multifaceted, and intractable problems with systemic impact are referred to as wicked problems (Churchman, 1967 ; Rittel & Webber, 1973 ; Roberts, 2000 ). Organizations: This term is defined as “social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific goals” (Etzioni, 1964 , p. 3) and, in this study, they are defined as seeking to solve problems through the creation of a new product or service. Design thinking: The definition of design thinking in this study can be simply understood as the use of methods and research practices to solve problems that are traditionally not in the fields of design, architecture, or engineering.

A brief history of design thinking

Design thinking was evangelized and popularized by IDEO beginning in the early 1990s (Brown, 2009 ); however, it existed in the academic discourse much earlier in various forms. To understand the current and evolving use of design thinking, a historical review of this process is beneficial. Specifically, it is essential to examine the early work examining designers’ practice and research, occurring in the latter half of the twentieth century, by the parents of modern design thought: Lawson ( 1980 ), Rowe ( 1987 ), Archer ( 1979 ), and Cross ( 1991 ).

An initial push to make a more rigorous discipline out of design thinking sprang from what Michael Barry and Sarah Beckman—current researchers exploring learning in design thinking—refer to as “…a need to make design thinking explicit and a need to embrace the many disciplines that are engaged in some way with design” (Beckman & Barry, 2007 , p. 26). The movement towards an explicit design method began in the 1960s, which would later be referred to as the first generation, and the subsequent movement in the 1970s and 1980s, known as the second generation (Rittell, 1984 ). This second generation of design thought began to emphasize the social aspects of design, by including active participants in the process (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ).

As described by Archer, “there exists a designerly way of thinking and communication that is both different from scientific and scholarly methods of enquiry when applied to its own kinds of problems” (Archer, 1979 , p. 18). This assertion from Archer accents not only the thinking aspect but the unique way of communicating used by designers applying the design thinking method towards problem solving. Similar to this, Cross explains that the design thought process is a research practice and a way of processing information, described as “designerly ways of knowing” ( 2001 ), that is an independent methodology with rich theory and should not be dependent on social science theory ( 2007 ). These two scholars lay the groundwork for design thinking to emerge as a distinct discipline for tackling problems in a myriad of disciplines.

In addition, Rowe outlined a systematic design process to problem solving that emphasized the role of the designer to address the needs of the client ( 1987 ). He described this user-centered process as design thinking, which was one of the earliest uses of the term. In Rowe’s design thinking process, a designer intervenes in a client organization; interprets the evidence gathered through quantitative and qualitative investigation; and makes an effort to address the challenges presented in the form of a product or service. In Lawson’s work, the process of design thinking, though not explicitly called that, is explored as a process that utilizes experimentation and information gathering tactics to tailor products ( 1980 ). Lawson’s definition predates Rowe’s use of the term of design thinking but similarly focuses on the designer’s expert role in assessing the needs of a client and testing possible solutions. This process is a tool that designers can masterfully use, informed by their expertise and designerly ways of knowing (Cross, 2001 ), to ultimately solve challenges that often fall into the definition of wicked problems. Rowe and Lawson focus on the intrinsically unique features of design thinking, with an emphasis on how the use of data gathering and testing make it an ideal tool for finding appropriate and optimal solutions.

These foundations of design thinking led us to Tim Brown’s definition of three overlapping, sometimes non-sequential elements—inspiration, ideation, and implementation—as outlined in Change by Design ( 2009 ) and popularized by IDEO. This simple structure serves as the foundation in which to organize the foundational theories for the proposed method in this article. This definition of design thinking is informed by the work of Lawson ( 1980 ), Rowe ( 1987 ), Archer ( 1979 ), and Cross ( 1991 , 2001 ). This foundational design method is broadly defined as the three key elements can be repeated, can overlap, and can be non-sequential (Brown & Wyatt, 2010 ).

Design thinking adapted towards addressing wicked problems

For this exploration of design thinking’s effect and innovative potential in addressing wicked problems, it is essential to understand the corresponding academic discourse and how it has evolved with design thinking. The theory was first described in an editorial by management theorist Churchman ( 1967 ) as a reaction to the term, first coined by Horst Rittel. The article was an exploration of these difficult, virtually unsolvable problems in the management science discourse and responsibility of society and academia to accept their intractability and find innovation solutions to live with them (Churchman, 1967 ). This first formal definition of the concept was further expanded with more defined parameters with the article of Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973 as uniquely complex problems. Rittel and Webber’s ( 1973 ) work framed wicked problems within the context of social policy planning, where problems are often not clear, and contrasted that with problems in mathematics and chess, where there are clear cut solutions. As stated by modern theorists Brian Head and Wei-Ning Xiang, “…the ubiquity of wicked problems is the norm, and present in almost every pressing issue area that matters to human society today…” ( 2016 , p. 1). This description describes the growing relevance and prevalence of wicked problems on human systems and how it has grown in importance from its inception.

Herbert Simon, a pioneer in design research and artificial intelligence, wanted to use a design approach, in the vein of the one described above, as a unique discipline, to tackle “ill-structured problems,” which he described as problems with undefined characteristics ( 1969 ). Simon described his approach to design as a means of “…devising artifacts to attain goals…” (Simon, 1969 , p. 114), which continued a trend of describing design as a solution making and transformative process. This interpretation of design thinking continued to gain momentum amongst theorists and practitioners throughout the twentieth century, which resulted in design thinking as a methodology becoming synonymous with problem solving, especially as a multidisciplinary practice for framing wicked problems (Buchanan, 1992 ). Design thinking as a method to solve problems outside the creative domain began with Herbert Simon, who applied design methodologies to science and his field of artificial intelligence ( 1969 ). This movement of applying the design thinking discipline to fields not traditionally associated with design continued with the product development process used by IDEO, know as Human Centered Design or HCD (Brown, 2008 ; IDEO, 2011 ). The degree of client participation and at which stages of the process vary between methods, but they agree on a key area of design thinking—that the client or product user is the primary focus.

As design thinking moves beyond the traditional creative sphere and enters the realm of addressing wicked problems across a wide spectrum of topics, the discipline is enriched by the rigorous research practices that the social sciences have to offer. The stand-alone discipline of design thinking explored in this article integrates some of the social science methodologies to effectively adapt to the new terrain of designing for social systems. Specifically, this discipline is informed by systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969 ; Dentoni et al., 2023 ; Meadows, 2008 ; Senge, 1996 ), organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ; Kolb, 1984 ; Senge, 1990 ) and action research (Lewin, 1946 ).

Design and systems

Systems are an essential element to implementing a design thinking process that addresses wicked problems, because they allow the designer to see a more expansive view of the problem. To understand how to design a specific product or service, the designer often analyzes the various systems that are involved, such as social, technological, ecological, or political systems. By understanding the inner workings of these systems and collaborating with relevant stakeholders, a designer can co-create a product or service that acts as a targeted intervention to improve the system. This perspective has its origins in general systems theory, formulated by biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy ( 1969 ), which expands the understanding of systems beyond science and analyzes all systems in an intricate, open, and holistic manner. The majority of design thinking approaches are human-centric perspectives on general systems theory in that they focus not only on the systems involved with a specific intervention but also on how the different systems interact with each other. Though most design thinking processes are human-centered, they are not exclusively focused on social systems, because the ecological and built environment are also considered. Expanding on this viewpoint is organisimic theory (Goldstein, 1995 ), which emphasizes human interconnectedness—that humans are intrinsically and inextricably intertwined with the natural environment and the ecological systems therein. In addition, Barry Commoner, in his work The Closing Circle , further stated that everything in living systems is connected to each other and what has an effect on one affects all (Commoner, 1971 ). These ideas inform systems thinking (Dentoni et al., 2023 ; Senge, 1996 ), which is an application of systems theory to interpret the intertwined and dynamic interactions among multiple interdependent elements to inform possible interventions. This approach to interconnected systems informs the design thinking approach through the very foundation of the process—placing the human at the center of the research and looking at all the ways this individual connects with the product, service, or system.

Design thinking to stimulate learning

The principles of design thinking are human-centered, that is, the results are specifically tailored to the end-user, and are created using a process of collaboration, active engagement, and reflection (IDEO, 2011 ). This process can be further explained using the double loop learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ), which informs how reflective practice foundationally builds on learning. Double loop learning involves single loop learning—repeated attempts to address the same issue with the same method—while additionally engaging in reflective practice to learn from past performance and emphasize repeat attempts to refine approaches (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ).

David Kolb, a scholar in learning science, similarly, outlines an experiential learning model ( 1984 ) rooted in social psychology, which focuses on concrete action, learning from experience, reflection, and experimentation. This theory involves an axis of learning with the y -axis containing two opposing methods of processing experience and an x -axis of opposing methods of transforming experience. This axis of learning can be seen in Fig. 1 , and display experience processing in learning from a spectrum of concrete examples as one extreme and abstract conceptualization of ideas as the opposition. The processing of information is similarly balanced that with two opposing methods of transforming experience (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ; Kolb, 1984 ). The two diametrically opposed information transformation processes include reflective observation on one end and active experimentation on the other (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ). In simple terms, the process as seen in Fig. 1 shows two forces of learning that of processing reality and transforming it within each there is a tangible and intangible component. The work of Kolb, Argrys, and Schön increase the potential to learn from the design thinking process with rapid prototyping practice—reacting and changing the product, system, or service based on reflective practices and adapting based on those reflections. Rapid prototyping is influenced by social learning models, which emphasize interaction in learning and the importance of experimentation with both thought and action.

Kolb Learning model as adapted from Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ), Kolb ( 1984 ) and Kolb and Kolb ( 2005 )

Charles Owen, a design academic from the Illinois Institute of Technology who has advocated for design as an engine for innovation ( 2006a ), builds on the prototyping practice from Kolb, Argrys, and Schön. Owen theorized that the design process has discernable phases that, while often not in order, generally begin with the analytic research stage and end with the synthetic experimentation and creation stage (Owen, 1993). This innovation model begins with creating ideas and concepts from research and then applying them to experiments for testing. When used through the lens of learning, this proposed process, as illustrated in Fig. 2 , begins to take shape as a non-sequential, innovative method to interpret and address complex problems. This process is illustrated in the work of Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ) who combined the elements of Owen ( 2006b ) in a simple vestige of two axes and four quadrants. In this prescribed and infinitely repeatable process, concrete analysis brings about observable research that can then be applied to abstract analysis, that is, frameworks and theories. Finally, this leads to abstract synthesis, which is the creation of ideas that can be clearly synthesized to become concrete solutions.

Innovation process as adapted from Beckman and Barry ( 2007 )

Using design thinking in concert with action research

Design thinking, as described by Owen, seeks to form knowledge through action (1997), which is similar in style and approach to Action Research (Lewin, 1946 ) in the social sciences. Action research was first created for researchers to take a participatory and active role in their studies to mold and guide their experience (Lewin, 1946 ), which echoes the role of the designer in a design thinking process. The designer or researcher needs to take account of their subjects and make observations, which is a traditional research paradigm while also understanding their impact as a participant in the process. In addition, reflective practice (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ) is a means to review and learn from past experience, and with this tool, a designer or researcher is able to build on observations of the research subject or client and create the best solutions for them. A similar approach to the use of knowledge aggregated from observations and reflective practice, is the needfinding model, which is an exploration of addressing the needs of a particular subject and working to create a solution tailored to solve this problem for them (Faste, 1987 ). Needfinding in design thinking does not occur as a sequential step after reflection and observation, but rather as a method to guide both of those processes to address the needs of the intended client or product user. Similarly, in action research, needfinding is necessary for the researcher to undertake to gain context of motivations of organizations and individuals involved. In action research, the subject and researchers are all participants and collaborators in the change process and its essential to understand their needs in this context, which parallels the collaborative and solution creating work of a designer.

Schön described design, in its traditional form, as a tacit process with designers’ knowledge that is difficult to transfer or explain ( 1983 ). This situates designers as having specific expertise that is difficult for those without the professional know-how to comprehend or utilize. Design thinking seeks to clarify the discipline of design into a process more akin to implicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takechi, 1995 ), allowing design expertise to be disseminated to a larger audience, including both the designer and the client or product user. This implies that the interaction between the designer and the client is a reciprocal transaction or a communication between interacting components and systems (Germain, 1991 ; Luhmann, 1995 ). This interactive method represents the action research process, where both parties contribute to the creation process, with the designer leading the exercise. The change desired in the design thinking process, rather than research study, is an output in the form of a product or service made in collaboration with the client.

This approach to learning is common within design in that it is meant to create the ideal solution through experimentation, iteration, and continually learning from both. Using participatory action research, that is focusing on rapid learning, repetition of the practice-driven design thinking framework, and reflection, is essential for innovating and solving wicked problems (Argyris & Schön, 1991 ; Lewin, 1946 ).

Innovating through design thinking

Innovation, described as the “core renewal process” in an organization purposed with creating new products and services (Bessant et al., 2005 ), is the mechanism for addressing wicked problems. To innovate effectively to remain competitive, organizations have increasingly turned to the application of design thinking as a process for product development in recent decades (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013 ; Lockwood, 2010 ). Design thinking-driven problem solving is a powerful and disruptive method that creates innovative products and services that seek to address these types of problems across diverse fields.

This article uses a foundational approach to design thinking-driven problem solving, which is, in essence, a flexible framework that does not adhere to a strict structure. Rather, it is able to ebb and flow within the design challenge and cater to the relevant stakeholders. As stated by Sydney Gregory in the seminal work The Design Method , “[the] design method is a pattern of behavior employed in inventing things…which do not yet exist. Science is analytic; design is constructive” ( 1966 , p. 6). Design, in this context, is used as an engine of product, system, and service creation that addresses individuals’ needs and challenges.

The design thinking process explained above can be considered an innovation process (Brown & Wyatt, 2010 ) and has a social learning component (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ). More specifically, this process can be defined as a problem setting method (Schön, 1983 ). Problem setting, as explained by design cognition scholar Willemien Visser is “…the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, and the means that may be chose[n]” ( 2010 , p. 4). Problem setting is the first step towards innovation and tackling a wicked problem. By defining the problem and understanding all of the pieces that interact with it, one can begin to address, but not necessarily solve a wicked problem. To understand how to use design thinking as a method within this innovative problem setting process, one must understand the context of the current design thinking discourse.

Towards a refined design thinking model

Organizations are consistently looking for innovative ways to advance their products, profits, and goals, and design thinking, though not clearly defined, has emerged as a driving force to meet these challenges. Despite the varying definitions (Brown, 2008 ; Dorst, 2006 , 2010 ; Kimbell, 2015 ), there are enough similarities that describe the key elements of design thinking that bring it in line with other design and social science research methodologies. By combining a few of the fundamental elements into a hybrid model of design thinking, it can be used as a powerful tool to address wicked problems that organizations face. This method, as illustrated in Fig. 3 , brings together the elements of Charles Owen’s map of innovation ( 1998 , 2006a , 2006b ), Kolb’s experiential learning ( 1984 ), and Tim Brown’s three signature elements of the design thinking process ( 2009 ).

Hybrid model of design thinking, which is a design process workaround with design thinking and innovation adapted from the work of Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ), Brown ( 2008 , 2009 ), Brown and Wyatt ( 2010 ), Brown and Katz ( 2011 )

The components of inspiration, ideation, and implementation (Brown, 2009 ) serve as the foundation of this hybrid model. Using Brown’s simplified construction could be interpreted as embracing the recent, popular versions of design thinking as a third or independent discipline. However, its approachable three-pronged structure provides a categorical separation between steps and meshes well with Owen’s concepts of innovation—the interplay of analysis and synthesis with abstract and concrete ( 1998 , 2006a , 2006b ). This powerful combination creates a streamlined and flexible framework, where innovation can occur in a non-sequential order, dictated by the needs of the problem. Interestingly, Archer foresaw this hybrid approach when he stated, “time is rapidly approaching when design decision making and management decision making techniques will have so much in common that the one will become no more than the extension of the other” ( 1967 , p. 51). Archer’s foresight in the above hybrid design approach is in line with his third-way ( 1979 ) thought process but differs in that this design discipline works in concert with social science instead of wholly separate from it. Using this innovative hybrid design thinking model, wicked problems can be quickly identified and addressed, with an outlook towards finding specific solutions to fit users’ needs.

Research design

Building on the theoretical model, based on the literature review above, a case study was undertaken to better understand the model in practice. The case study used a participatory design thinking exercise with a cohort of students enrolled in an applied entrepreneurial Masters-level course at Wageningen University. This course was targeted at students interested in entrepreneurship and circular economy, and worked with eight student teams that were developing business ideas using renewable materials in garment production. Disruptive innovation—a product, service, or approach that fundamentally upends the status quo of an industry or field (Christensen, 1997 )—serves as a lens in this case study to analyze the effect of design thinking on problem solving and concept development of the student teams’ entrepreneurial ventures The course was focused on circular economic systems, which seeks to reuse resources in a closed, infinitely repeatable loop, which is in contrast to traditional linear economic models that use finite resources and create waste (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017 ). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a leader in applying the circular transition, define the concept as the following:

A circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces the “end-of-life” concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems, and, within this, business models. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012, p. 7)

Circular economy seeks to reduce humanity’s impact on the environment and climate by decreasing waste and using resources more efficiently, thus attempting to solve the wicked problem of negative human impact on the environment.

Creating a baseline

Participants in the study came from two types of academic backgrounds: a science-based one, and one rooted in the social sciences. There was an observable difference between each group in their ability to learn and apply design thinking. Students from a science-based background, such as environmental science or biochemistry, were able to learn and use design thinking concepts with greater ease than those with a social science, humanities, or management studies background. This noticeable difference may be attributable to the science-based students’ ability to mix and match frameworks as needed to find solutions to complex problems. For example, in physics, students have been taught to use one formula for one situation with its own set of variables, and another formula for another situation with a second set of variables. In other words, the situation dictates what tools are used. Similarly, in the hybrid model of design thinking, which the students were exposed to, specific elements are only applied in certain circumstances and situations. Thus, as design thinking contains elements of the scientific method, this may have resonated more with the science-based students’ usual ways of learning and applying methods.

The overall purpose of creating a baseline was to see what portion of the design thinking concepts had permeated in participants’ minds and how they described those concepts. As such, I used what participants shared as their interpretation or impression of design thinking in their own words. In many cases their descriptions were of a concept without the use of the concept name (e.g., prototype, ideation), and I compared these explanations with the concepts used in the hybrid model of design thinking in an effort to make connections where possible. The students displayed their knowledge of design thinking during the interviews and through the course by describing important elements of the process, namely, creating prototypes, building on failed attempts, and repeated reflection on the implementation of their ideas. To establish a baseline, it was not necessary for participants to use the exact names or descriptions of the design thinking concepts, as the real test of whether they understood these concepts and could apply them would be uncovered during the design thinking in action (DTiA) section of data collection.

This qualitative methods study, informed by design thinking, was conducted in three phases: Phase 1 consisted of an ethnographic observational study and Phase 2 consisted of a series of six interviews (see Table 1 ) with past participants to assess their knowledge of and ability to apply design thinking to a real world problem.

The purpose of these two phases was to collectively gather data to understand the relationship between design thinking and problem solving in a team. Specifically, the data from the two phases seeks to answer to what extent design thinking represents an effective method for team problem setting and problem solving of wicked problems in organizations. Once collected, the data was codified (see Table 2 ) into four major themes: (1) the interviewee’s personal motivation in life and vocational goals; (2) their professed knowledge in the aspects, uses, and approaches of design thinking; (3) the interviewee’s application of design thinking in a scenario; and (4) their assessment of the effectiveness of design thinking.

The research findings examine the research question, “To what extent does the application of design thinking, tasked with addressing wicked problems, represent an effective means for team problem setting and problem solving in organizations?" To answer this question, I used the four themes outlined above to conduct the data analysis, and the interpretation of the data will continue to follow these themes. For the interpretation, I split the four overarching themes into two categories. The first category incorporates the first two themes (personal motivation and knowledge of design thinking) and acts as a baseline to gauge, where the individual is academically and what design thinking concepts they have retained. This is useful information, because it paints a clearer picture of the participants’ individual characteristics, which I then paired with the second category of themes to understand whether these characteristics play a role in the participants’ application of design thinking to solve a wicked problem. The richest set of data comes from the second category. The latter two themes (application of design thinking and perceived effectiveness) are included in this second category as a way to analyze DTiA through role-playing scenarios, which gives insight into the participants’ practical knowledge and application of the hybrid design thinking model used for this experiment.

This DTiA exercise revealed three key features of the hybrid model, which combines behavioral science and traditional design methods to create a flexible and foundational model for addressing wicked problems. Three key aspects within the hybrid model that were particularly apparent in this second category were “problem setting”, “needfinding”, and “double-loop learning”. First, interviewees successfully applied problem setting by outlining all the necessary information that would be required to solve an assignment—in this case, the hypothetical scenario of working with Apple to improve the iPhone’s falling market share. Interviewees correctly prioritized the following: (1) setting up a component team to tackle the issue; (2) collecting data on competitors to compare best practices; (3) understanding the needs of potential and past customers; and (4) creating a process to experiment and iterate on failures. These priorities exemplify the hybrid model’s three central elements and how organizational learning, needfinding, and problem setting are key to the success of the model in addressing wicked problems. What’s more, the interviewees were able to link ecological systems, such as environmental value chains and social systems while looking at both consumers and stakeholders to put the question into context. Second, participants used needfinding to distinguish what aspects of the real world problem were most important to take into consideration when evaluating possible solutions. These aspects focused mostly on the needs of human and ecological systems that were involved with the problem. Third, participants used double-loop learning to test possible solutions to the problems they faced and made iterative changes based on the positive or negative results. Specifically, the interviewees showed how they questioned all of the parameters of the prompt and laid a plan for testing, retesting, and iteration of ideas.

This study’s findings suggest that the hybrid model of design thinking is an effective framework for addressing wicked problems. Namely, participants were able to recall various terms, such as “prototyping” and “ideation” when defining this hybrid model. Furthermore, they displayed implicit knowledge by successfully using aspects of the model, including “double-loop learning,” “iteration,” and “reflective practices,” to find solutions during the DTiA exercise. For example, Interviewee C specifically defined “prototyping” as “a method to create quick test solutions that can then be iterated upon and improved with future versions towards a suitable solution.” Being an explicit definition of this design thinking concept, it is clear that Interviewee C understood and retained the information learned during the course. By contrast, Interviewee A did not identify “prototyping” by name but displayed use of the concept during the role-playing exercise.

The course participants used design thinking in the formulation of their entrepreneurial ventures, which were created to address the wicked problem of environmental sustainability. Two groups of participants in particular, Epsilon and Zeta, used design thinking to address very specific problems they identified within environmental sustainability, which are outlined below.

Epsilon team’s use of the hybrid design thinking method

Epsilon’s innovative solution was developed in response to the lack of incubation spaces for sustainable entrepreneurs in Wageningen, Netherlands—that is, workspaces and offices, where like-minded entrepreneurs can work and have access to investors and experts to grow their businesses. The team focused on Wageningen specifically, because they had the most experience in this city, as students at the local university and as entrepreneurs who had attempted a previous venture here already. Note that this was the team’s second venture attempt for this study. They first explored how to grow a mushroom skin, related to the “living skin” research project, so that they could experiment with different types of coating to make the material waterproof. They planned to sell the waterproof coating to companies to make durable clothing, bags, or car interiors. Through experimentation and the prototyping process, the team tried to grow mushrooms but faced challenges with a lack of expertise and a space to grow the fungi. The team expressed frustration about these obstacles and through reflection realized that getting expert assistance and finding a space to experiment were essential to their success as a venture; however, perhaps, these were problems they could address. As such, the team shifted their focus to a new venture, which was to find an innovative solution to the lack of incubation spaces in Wageningen.

The team researched and tested their new venture concept of creating an organic, sustainably, and locally sourced café that is an office space for ventures in the city, has a network of experts to help entrepreneurs, and offers a location for entrepreneurs to sell and test their products and services. With this shift, the team then went to collect data and surveyed people around the city and the results showed that there was, in fact, demand from residents and sustainable entrepreneurs for this type of space and that Wageningen did not currently have any locations that met these entrepreneurs’ needs. Specifically, they found that a co-working space and having access to experts are actually crucial for entrepreneurs in the early stages of their ventures, because it allows them to test their ideas and learn from others as they iterate on better solutions. Similarly, the team itself was able to learn from the failure and challenges of their first venture attempt, which inspired them to address that problem directly with a different venture. Epsilon’s venture evolved to become a café, store, and incubation space for entrepreneurs in Wageningen that sought to create products or services that are environmentally sustainable and have closed-loop, circular waste streams. Their final venture concept included a plan for further development, testing, and iteration to continue learning as they grow and improve their products.

This team’s journey from one venture to another provides an exemplary use of the hybrid design thinking model. This shift embodies Argyris and Schön’s definition of double-loop learning, the students not only explored their original question related to their venture but also if it was the right question in itself. Argyris and Schön ( 1978 ) described the concept with the following metaphor:

Single loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to perform this task, because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and, therefore, take corrective action. If the thermostat could question itself about whether it should be set at 68 degrees, it would be capable not only of detecting error but of questioning the underlying policies and goals as well as its own program. That is a second and more comprehensive inquiry; hence it might be called double loop learning. (pp. 2–3)

I shared the metaphor above with the students during the beginning of the course, and this group exemplified double-loop learning in the selection and refinement of their venture. Team Epsilon showed their understanding of the context of a venture and how that can change the very nature of a proposed solution as it was for them, when they shifted the problem they focused on. Furthermore, their reaction to changing circumstance can be interpreted as the team displaying Schön’s ( 1983 ) concept of “reflection-in-action” (p. 79). The team struggled with their concept and made changes that ebbed and flowed with the challenges they faced, which in Schön’s definition would be part of the designer’s reflective “conversation with the situation.” Their use of double-loop learning in regard to building on lessons learned and changing approaches based on feedback led them to their new venture and guided how they continued to iterate and improve that new venture. Furthermore, they expertly displayed problem setting and understanding the context of a venture and how that can change the very nature of a proposed solution as it was for them, when they shifted their problem. The final project from this team was well thought out, fit to context and was an exemplary use of the hybrid model.

Zeta team’s use of the hybrid design thinking method

The Zeta team faced very different challenges in creating their venture. The team members, who came from diverse backgrounds and had varying interests and skillsets, came up with a plethora of ideas and had a difficult time choosing one idea to move forward with. The ideation and brainstorming process was not decisive or iterative, and the students expressed their frustration as the process rolled on without a clear venture in sight. The team worried that they had fallen behind and would not have enough time to complete all aspects of the project. With design thinking coaching by the researcher, the team was encouraged to refocus their efforts to think about any problem, not necessarily related to environmental sustainability, and see how they could collectively address it. Once they had decided on a problem, they could then begin introducing aspects related to reducing waste streams and circular economy in an organic way that would connect the problem they chose to the bigger, wicked problem of environmental sustainability.

The team used needfinding to find the requirements of the problem and then utilized framing and reframing to make their venture work in that context. This venture’s process exemplifies frame innovation, coined by Dorst ( 2015 ), which he describes as a “key entrepreneurial activity” (p. 149). The team shifted frames, from seeing their venture as a means to solve an aspect of environmental sustainability, to solving a real-world problem that can be connected to environmental sustainability. The Zeta team went through further consultation and began discussing one team member’s proposed problem based on her experience working with the United Nations (UN) on disaster recovery in Latin America. She described the problem of people needing quick housing when a disaster strikes; the logistic challenges of getting temporary, single use housing into the disaster area; and the waste the homes leave once they are no longer used. This discussion led the group to connect this issue to the “living skin” fungi material to create temporary housing that could be lighter weight, biodegradable, and reusable. This idea connects the problem posed within the problem of environmental sustainability, which was their task. Furthermore, this shift exemplifies an understanding of systems thinking and interconnectedness of social and ecological systems. Once the initial concept was developed, they began to refine the idea using team members’ expertise working in international development and aid as well as environmental sustainability. They then turned to the questions of how to make this into a venture and who would be their target audience. This process led them to brainstorm how they could balance the needs of potential clients (disaster response organizations), potential users (disaster victims), and the natural environment (ecological footprint). The team conducted surveys and found that potential clients would be interested in cost and scale of the potential solution, while potential users would be most interested in comfort and durability. Those considerations were then balanced with creating the minimalist ecological footprint and having a viable business model so the venture would thrive. They made two crucial decisions at this juncture: first, they decided not to manufacture the material but to source it from a third party, and second, they decided to structure their venture as a non-profit focused on the UN and disaster recovery agencies.

Using the design thinking concepts of rapid prototyping and reflection they were able to quickly figure out which ideas were working and abandon those that were not, which ultimately led to a venture they described as “living houses.” This iterative process they embodied shows the power of using design thinking for concept refinement. The team’s final venture concept was a not-for-profit organization that sourced biodegradable and reusable materials to create light-weight, temporary housing to be sold to NGOs, governments, and public international institutions for disaster victims around the globe. Their plan included next steps for further testing and iteration to improve the product and business model. In both cases, the Epsilon and Zeta teams used the hybrid design thinking model to problem set and problem solve as they set up and executed their ventures. This clearly helps address the central research question of the study by showing the utility of design thinking as tool for addressing wicked problems both in the internal venture creation process and the problem the venture sought to address, environmental sustainability.

Connecting team’s use of design thinking hybrid method to interview data

While these team examples provide evidence to support the positive impact of design thinking on problem setting and solving for wicked problems, the most interesting results came from the Phase 3 interviews that took place 1 year after completion of the course. During these interviews the participants were tasked with using the hybrid design thinking model in a theoretical applied scenario. Through these participant interviews, I was able to explore which features of design thinking they had internalized and how they might apply those to a real world problem. As explained in the following discussion, the participants’ ability to use design thinking concepts implicitly and explicitly over a year later shows that the concepts were adopted as a modus operandi, at least in part. As shown in the matrix in Fig. 4 , the participants all showed a high ability to apply the competencies regardless of their ability to define them as. In addition, the participants who did not recall the definitions were able apply the competencies to a higher level of specificity and knowledge than two out of the three interviewees that could.

Matrix showing interviewees’ ability to define ( x -axis) and apply ( y -axis) on key design thinking competencie s

In the scenario with the interview, participants were tasked with describing the steps they would take to tackle the problem of declining market share of the iPhone. Without being specifically prompted, all interviewees included some form of waste reduction and environmental sustainability into their action plan in the scenario. Some causation for the inclusion of these environmental themes could be the students’ backgrounds, their association with the course’s focus on this particular wicked problem, and/or a general growing awareness of the global climate crisis. That said, their ability to connect a problem to a deeper, wicked problem demonstrates their use of the competencies of system thinking and problem setting from the hybrid design thinking model. They were able to place a practical task within a wider context and connect it with wicked problems involved, such as climate change and electronic waste.

Much like in the case of the Zeta team described above, any seemingly unrelated problem can be used as a gateway to begin discerning the mechanics needed to address a specific, wicked problem, which will lead to creating experimental solutions that can be further tested. Furthermore, the participants were able to identify, in name or description, the three core elements of the hybrid design thinking model—inspiration, ideation, and implementation—and delineate corresponding activities for each while also explicitly and implicitly describing design thinking’s approach to solving wicked problems. The participants’ perception of and demonstrated application of design thinking elements in their problem solving procedure in the interview sheds light on the effectiveness of design thinking as a problem setting and solving tool. This suggests that the participants embraced design thinking, specifically the three-pronged hybrid model that melds design methodologies and behavioral science, as a useful process for problem solving. More important than the interviewees identification of the steps of the model, was their application of problem setting and problem solving strategies that follow the three main elements of design thinking. Participants were able to show the use of brainstorming (inspiration), prototyping (ideation), and iteration (implementation) in various ways and interchangeably. This nimble and engrained use of the concept shows its effectiveness as a problem setting and problem solving tool as well as its impact on users.

Connecting findings to the existing literature

This study was informed by a literature review which examined the history, theories, and application of design thinking in addressing wicked problems. In this study, design thinking is considered a “third discipline” or independent area of study that applies behavioral science and design methodologies to a proposed hybrid model. This hybrid design thinking model strengthens typical design methodologies by including (1) systems thinking, taking into account interconnectedness of ecological and social systems; (2) organizational learning, using double-loop learning, reflective practice, and iterative prototyping; and (3) elements of action research, such as collaborative and cyclical feedback with designer and client. This integrated process is particularly pertinent when working on problems beyond traditional design, for it lends a structural framework to behavioral science research using the three phases of ideation, prototyping, and implementation. In the hybrid design thinking model, behavioral and organizational considerations are not merely optional, but rather an essential element that works in congress with design methodologies.

As outlined above, the findings of this study are in line with the literature and research that indicate that design thinking is a potent tool for addressing wicked problems. By their nature, wicked problems are intractable and complex, so when testing ways to solve them effectively the method must be able to adapt with that nature. Specifically, this research suggests that design thinking represents an innovative process uniquely equipped to address wicked problems through its use of “problem setting.” That is, the effective use of needfinding—looking for solutions for relevant stakeholders—and double-loop learning—applying iterative knowledge and testing assumptions while doing. Although the participants in this study represent a very small treatment group in a specific educational setting focused on tackling environmental wicked problems, there is potential to test this experiment more broadly in educational settings focused on a variety of wicked problems.

Implications for future research

There are four overarching implications that result from this study that academic researchers and practitioners should take into consideration when exploring how to use design thinking as an effective method to address wicked problems. First, future research should conduct experiments using design thinking to address wicked problems that occur within other thematic areas, such as gender inequality, wealth distribution, employment with new technologies, and religious tensions, among others. Second, future research should test a variety of team compositions and study settings beyond that of a university. For example, team members could be part of a research institution, corporation, government, or NGO, and studies could be conducted within those organizations or across disciplines. Third, future research should explore what other aspects of design thinking are effective and learn why they are or are not successful in tackling wicked problems. Fourth, future research should test the hybrid design thinking model’s effectiveness using other forms of design thinking as a control. Finally, beyond academia there are implications of this study for professional practice. Gleanings from this study and use of the hybrid model in the field can occur immediately if used as an adaptable and editable tool for problem solving. This can be used in NGO’s, governments, universities and companies working on wicked problems in their work.

Limitations

This was a qualitative methods study that included a participatory design exercise focused on students enrolled in an entrepreneurship and circular economy course, where they were tasked to use design thinking as a method for creating innovative solutions to the wicked problem of environmental sustainability. While designed to examine how effective design thinking is for setting and solving wicked problems for teams, there is a clear limitation of its application on settings outside education, such as in business and practices outside of academia. Although the course was hands-on, involved the creation of a nonprofit or for-profit business, and was team-based, it still took place in an educational setting rather than in the open marketplace. In addition, this study unfolded in a European context and specifically within the Netherlands, which limits its scope further. As stated earlier, there are wider implications for this data beyond being held in an academic setting that influence the results and potential uses of design thinking. As stated above, future studies should be conducted with teams outside of academia who are tackling different wicked problems other than environmental sustainability. Different results could occur in different settings and problems and future research can explore those possibilities.

Beyond the components of the research, this study had limitations with time, as it had to be carried out during a specific semester and was dependent on student availability. In addition, due to university considerations, including the time needed for proposal review and IRB approvals, there were delays in conducting the interviews which were originally set for May 2018, but were carried out in December 2018 and January 2019. However, this allowed for a shift in focus of looking at how the knowledge and practice of design thinking remained implicitly and explicitly in the interviewees’ problem solving practices. A final limitation is that this study was a doctoral dissertation, which means it had a limited budget and a specific time period in which it was required to be completed.

Final thoughts

Analysis of designers’ thinking and doing has been explored for over a half century, and design thinking, in particular, has evolved over the last three decades from a process only used by designers to more expansive use. Along with the expanded use of design thinking is the rightful criticism, skepticism, and curiosity with the approach, which can offer an opportunity for further refinement and transdisciplinary use. This evolution has expanded design thinking from traditionally creative fields to help create products to practical, ergonomic and aesthetic standards to being used by governments, social policy researchers, non-governmental organizations, and many more to solve societal problems and the most difficult among them, wicked problems. The hybrid design thinking model strengthens design methodologies with systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research, which can help deepen and inform the design methods when working on problems beyond traditional design. IDEO’s popularized design thinking process with the three elements of inspiration, ideation, and implementation provides a structure that can be used as a basis to add insights and tactics from social sciences—namely, systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research—and designer’s methods more broadly. Systems thinking offers an opportunity for teams to zoom out and have a macro view of the dynamic, interconnected elements of the wicked problem they seek to address through iterative solutions and reflection. Organizational learning offers a posture of learning which can strengthen the iteration, testing, and reflection processes in design thinking. Finally, action research informed practice with design thinking enables teams to be active participants, researchers, and designers in finding possible solutions to wicked problems. Design thinking when applied to solving problems in an entrepreneurial education setting will add to the effectiveness and innovative nature of the solutions created. Through creative brainstorming, experimentation and reflection being integrated into the creation of entrepreneurial solutions to wicked problems there is great potential ramifications beyond educational settings, such as industry, government, and civil society.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials used in the research are available through the ProQuest dissertation database as part of graduation requirements for the PhD at Fielding Graduate University.

Abbreviations

Design thinking in action

Institutional Review Board

Archer, L. B. (1967). Design management. Decision, 1 (4), 47–51.

Google Scholar

Archer, L. B. (1979). Whatever became of design methodology? Design Studies, 1 , 17–20.

Article Google Scholar

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective . Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared: a commentary. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), SAGE focus editions: Participatory action research (pp. 85–96). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985383

Chapter Google Scholar

Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50 (1), 25–56.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications (Rev. Ed) . George Braziller.

Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation, 25 (12), 1366–1376.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review., 86 (6), 84–92.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation . Harper Business.

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 , 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review., 12 , 31–35.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5–21.

Christensen, CM. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail . Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 978-0-87584-585-2

Churchman, C. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14 (4), B141–B142.

Commoner, B. (1971). The closing circle: Nature, man, and technology . Random House Knopf.

Cross, N. (1991). Research in design thinking . Delft University of Technology.

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17 (3), 49–55.

Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing (p. 16). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Dentoni, D., Cucchi, C., Roglic, M., Lubberink, R., Bender-Salazar, R., & Manyise, T. (2023). Systems thinking, mapping and change in food and agriculture. Bio-Based and Applied Economics. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-13930

Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues., 22 , 4–17.

Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (131–139). Sydney University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. The MIT Press . https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10096.001.0001

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations . Prentice-Hall.

Faste, R. A. (1987). Perceiving needs. SAE Journal, Society of Automotive Engineers., 871534 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4271/871534

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143 , 757–768.

Germain, C. B. (1991). Human behavior in the social environment: An ecological view . Columbia University Press.

Goldstein, K. (1995). The organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man . Zone Books.

Gregory, S. A. (1966). Design and the design method. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The design Method. Plenum Press.

Head, B., & Xiang, W.-N. (2016). Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: More awareness, greater acceptance, and better adaptation. Landscape and Urban Planning., 110 (2013), 1–4.

IDEO. (2011). Human centered design toolkit , 200.

IDEO. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/about

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22 (2), 121–146.

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3 (3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . PrenticeHall.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/40214287?refreqid=search-gateway:69b4159ab026cceba348641bddd445b6

Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified . Burlington: Elsevier Ltd.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34–46.

Lockwood, T. (2010). Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and BrandValue . New York, NY: Allworth Press.

Luchs, M. G. (2015). A Brief introduction to design thinking. In M. G. Luchs, K. S. Swan, & A. Griffin (Eds.), Design thinking (pp. 1–11). Hoboken: Wiley.

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems . Stanford University Press.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer . Chelsea Green Publishing.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company . Oxford University Press.

Owen, C. L. (1998). Design research: Building the knowledge base. Design Studies, 19 (1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00030-6

Owen CL. (2006a) Design thinking: Driving innovation. The Business Process Management Institute BPMI.org . September 2006a

Owen, C. L. (2006b). Design thinking—notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 1 (2), 16–27.

Rittel, H. (1984). Second-generation design methods. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 317–327). Wiley.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1 (1), 1–19.

Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking . The MIT Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . Doubleday.

Senge, P. (1996). Systems thinking. Executive Excellence, 13 (1), 15.

Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial . MIT Press.

Visser, W. (2010). Schön: Design as a reflective practice. Collection, 2 , 21–25.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Wageningen University & Research and Fielding Graduate University for the opportunity to conduct this research in an entrepreneurial classroom setting. Ethical Approval through institutional review board (IRB) is detailed in Appendix B . This work was completed as part of doctoral research of Rahmin Bender (-Salazar) conducted for the Fielding Graduate University and at Wageningen University & Research and published with ProQuest as part of graduation requirements.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Rahmin Bender-Salazar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rahmin Bender-Salazar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Interview Protocol—November 2018

[To open the conversation a bit of small talk and catching up with the former student, what they have been up to and what do they have planned next and this lines up to the informal questions below (in no particular order).]

Welcome and thank you for this time and to explore some of these concepts with you and get your perspective. Now that you have completed the Design Thinking course, I would like to explore with you whether, in your future career, you would consider design thinking as a way for teams to tackle difficult problems, and any ideas you may have on the subject. This is not designed in any way to test your knowledge about design thinking, or to reflect on how you did in class. I would simply like to understand whether, with what you’ve learned, you feel that design thinking is a good way to tackle tough problems, and how you would go about doing that.

Questions to warm up and understand context—5 ~ min

What is your major/main subject of study?

How do you want to use your education and what do you want to do as your vocation?

Design thinking and problem solving—40 min

[The purpose of the first question is to begin to brush on problem setting and begging the design thinking process, the parameters and elements. The goal is to solicit data from participants through storytelling and their thoughts on the topic.]

Can you tell me a story about your experience with design thinking in the class that you thought was memorable?

Are there other examples of things that struck you about design thinking?

What is it about the design thinking approach that you like the most?

Is there anything that you don’t like, or would do differently?

Let’s do some role playing. Let’s say, tomorrow you get hired by Apple to be the head of their new development team. They have a serious problem: the iPhone has reached a saturation point. You are tasked to come up with an entirely new set of functions that will totally reinvent the iPhone. How would you go about doing that, if you were using the design thinking approach? If you can, break it down using the three-phase hybrid model we discussed: Ideation-Prototyping-Implementation.

Is there anything about design thinking you feel you need to know more about, before you could confidently begin to use it?

Wrap up—10–15 min

So in sum, do you think design thinking a good method to produce disruptive innovation, or would you use other methods?

Does design thinking need to be adapted to the fast pace of disruptive change today?

Appendix B: Ethical Approval for Research—April 2018

1) IRB Approval Information

Name: Rahmin Bender.

IRB#: 17–1107

Title: Applying Design Thinking and Practice to team projects seeking to create regenerative and sustainable products to address the wicked problem of sustainable garments

Faculty: Fredrick Steier.

Type: Title Change and General Revisions.

2) Study Summary

The dissertation project seeks to explore through participatory action research, how the application of design methods to address wicked problems represents a disruptive innovation in the process of solution creation and if so or not, to what extent. The disruptive innovation is framed within the context of the Netherlands, the public University education system and the field of sustainable fashion and garment production. The specific context of this study will be at Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands working with student teams creating business ideas, using design thinking and aligned methods, with the renewable materials in garment production. The forty Masters students in a circular economy course will be split into eight teams that will work with designers using these materials to create business and product concepts using design thinking processes facilitated by me.

3) Revision Checklist

I. Change title to: Applying design thinking to entrepreneurial learning spaces purposed with addressing wicked problems.

Title changed to emphasize more on the application of design thinking on the learn space and how it addresses the wicked problem, rather than focusing more and more on the

II. Change question 2 element (c) from “(c) how design process impacts team dynamics of product creation team” to (c) how design process impacts the co-creation of the entrepreneurial learning space.

Question changed to focus additionally on how using the design process not only impacts the outputs of the course but the course itself.

III. Change question 3’s following elements.

Change this bullet: “World Café held after the course to accumulate data and feedback from participants and put into context with the notes.”

New Text: Changed to Design Charrette held after the course to accumulate data, feedback and put notes into context through a participatory designing of future iterations of the course.

Change this bullet: “Depending on IRB is performed data collection will be focused on the World Café portion that will be held in January post course and the course and work will be looked at historically.”

New text: IRB includes data from the course that ended in the end of 2017 as well as data from the participatory design workshop titled a design charrette occurring in 25 April 2017.

Add the following bullet

Design-based Research informed by action research and design thinking will serve as the research method for analyzing the historic data from the course and data collected in the design charrette to address the research questions posed.

The above changes are made to reflect a change from a World Café method to a more intimate design charrette. This change was made because of difficulty getting a large enough participation for a World Café to work, ideally 20 or more people. The design charrette will use the same research element but be in a smaller setting, which will allow for more interaction. Finally, the addition of design-based research to emphasize the element of the entrepreneurial learning space and how that was actively formed and influenced by the use of design methods.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bender-Salazar, R. Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and needfinding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems. J Innov Entrep 12 , 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00291-2

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2022

Accepted : 05 April 2023

Published : 13 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00291-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Design thinking
Problem setting
Design process
Wicked problems
Systems thinking
Organizational learning
Needfinding

Optimization beyond data: Design thinking for SEO

One of the things I love about SEO is its inherent duality.

We get to leverage both sides of our brains:

The right brain when it comes to on-page, content and even link building campaigns.
The left brain when it comes to technical, data analysis, etc.

However, it’s easy to think of SEO as predominantly left-brained. SEO tactics tend to rely heavily on data and numerical figures. We lean into technical know-how and keyword optimization. Logically, we react to what the numbers are telling us and decide the next steps accordingly. It’s a proven approach.

But what about the people driving that data? What about their intent? Can we use more creative thinking to pursue better optimization strategies?

When it comes to SEO, our goal is not really to gain the coveted top blue link. It’s about reaching the right people and addressing their needs by giving what they want as quickly and as easily as possible.

So, how do we reach that goal?

Users are always looking to do something, whether it’s finding information, being entertained or purchasing a product. How do we tap into emotional and behavioral data to support them?

That’s where design thinking comes in.

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is exactly what it sounds like: adopting a designer mindset.

It’s a human-centered framework for problem-solving the way a designer would – by setting out to solve a problem using creativity rather than data alone.

The design thinking process is typically divided into five stages:

Test and evaluate

With design thinking, the emphasis is not only on the solution but also on the end user.

SEO specifically focuses on providing the best solution for a specific audience. It’s about understanding user intent and adding value.

Get the daily newsletter search marketers rely on.

A new optimization process

1. empathize: get to know your audience.

Empathizing in this context is centered around identifying and understanding your audience.

The best SEO strategy optimizes for consumer discovery by understanding the people who are searching. This ensures you’re adding value to users and ultimately growing your audience through increased organic visibility.

Conduct thorough research to learn about your existing audience and gain insights into search behaviors, motivations and pain points.

There are a number of tools available to help research your target audience. Using Google Analytics to understand who is coming to your site is a great place to start.

In GA4, you can view audience reports under User > User Attributes to identify location, gender, age, language and even interests when available.

You can also leverage Google Trends, Facebook Audience Manager and persona mapping or survey tools to learn more about your potential audience.

Gathering this information helps tailor efforts from keyword selection to content creation and off-page efforts. When your SEO strategy is anchored in reaching an audience you fully understand, you can reach them more efficiently.

Dig deeper: An SEO guide to audience research and content analysis

2. Define: What problem are we trying to solve

The next step involves analyzing your audience data to define the SEO challenges you aim to address. This is critical to ensure you address the real wants and needs of the audience through SEO efforts rather than working from assumptions like search volume or clicks.

Based on the unique audiences you have identified, you can better determine the specific challenges you need to address and how to reach users. Consider:

What messaging and terminology is most likely to resonate with your target audience?
Are users struggling to find relevant information on your website?
Are there gaps in your content that need to be filled?
Based on location, what search engines are audiences using beyond Google? Yandex, Baidu, DuckDuckGo?
Based on age and gender, what non-traditional search engines do you need to consider? TikTok, YouTube, Amazon, Pinterest?

Clearly defining the problem allows you to focus your efforts on the areas that will impact your SEO performance most.

3. Ideate: How can we best solve that problem?

With a clear understanding of the SEO challenge, brainstorm as many potential solutions as possible. It’s easy to fall into the same pattern of optimizing your site based on analytics data and search trends, but with design thinking, we emphasize qualitative data over quantitative data.

A few different brainstorming techniques to help transcend your left-brained thinking habits include:

Brainwriting : Everyone in the group writes down three ideas related to the challenge. From there, everyone passes their ideas on to the person next to them to elaborate on the thought starters and add strategies or tactics. This process repeats until the ideas have been passed around the entire group. Ultimately, everyone has contributed to each idea.
Starbursting : Given a specific idea or strategy, create a six-point star around the idea, posing the questions who, what, when, where, why and how. Focusing on these key elements for each idea encourages the team to think about value and execution.

Think outside the box and consider how to create value for your audience through content, website updates, or user experience. In this exercise, quantity is key – use cross-functional thinking to generate ample diverse ideas.

Is content expansion something that could help address your challenge?
Do you need additional content that addresses a pain point?
Do you need to improve the ease with which users find existing content?
Should social media be considered to increase visibility and extend reach?
Are there PR tactics that could help generate earned coverage (i.e., inbound links and brand mentions)?
Would other media, such as video, webinars or podcasts, potentially help address the need?

Maybe traditional SEO tactics will help solve your particular challenge. But oftentimes, by integrating cross-channel tactics, you can better tackle SEO challenges and add value for users.

Dig deeper: SEO planning: Your one-page SEO plan

4. Prototype: Build the thing

Before implementing any SEO strategy or tactics at scale, create “prototypes” to visualize and test your ideas.

Visualization is crucial in understanding how a strategy may address the problem or challenge. However, your prototype does not have to be a high-fidelity visual asset.

This could involve:

Updating keyword maps and topic clusters.
Drafting sample content pieces.
Creating mock-ups of new features.
Developing wireframes for website updates.

In many cases, fancy tools and a team of engineers aren’t necessary. You can use lo-fi tools like Figma or Google Sheets to build basic prototypes that clearly convey the solution.

Whatever shape a prototype takes, keeping the unique problem or challenge in mind and relating it back to the audience is essential.

When considering the effectiveness of your prototype, use role-playing to put yourself in the shoes of the target audience.

Dig deeper: Conveying keyword insights to non-SEOs: A visual approach

5. Test and evaluate: Does this solution work?

Design thinking makes so much sense for SEO because, much like SEO, it is an iterative process.

The final step is to gather feedback on “prototypes” and/or tactics to refine solutions and strategies.

Intentionally test your tactics and continuously monitor performance. Leverage a modern framework for running SEO tests . Embrace a culture of experimentation to evolve your approach and better understand pain points.

A/B test everything from metadata to messaging to content structure.
Leverage heat mapping to better understand how the target audience is using your website.
Test keywords and messaging using Google Ads.
Consider usability testing through a tool such as Hotjar or UserTesting.
Actively seek feedback on your site’s design, layout and functionality via surveys.

Changes in user behavior are more directly and immediately measurable than traditional SEO KPIs.

By testing with real users, you can gather feedback early in the process and make necessary adjustments along the way.

Creative problem-solving for SEO

Remember, it all starts with redefining the problems we are trying to solve.

Reframing SEO challenges around the target audiences’ needs and challenges allows us to better give people what they want.

When your SEO efforts are focused on the right audience, it’s easier to reach them. Traffic increases, which leads to more conversions.

Use design thinking to balance the analytical and creative sides of SEO. It can help you better understand when to use data, ignore trends and take risks, ultimately letting you create more user-centric and impactful SEO campaigns.

Optimization beyond data: Design thinking for SEO

IMAGES

What is Design Thinking, and how is it used to problem-solve?
Traditional problem solving approach
Infographic: Harness the Power of Design Thinking to Retool How You
Traditional Thinking v Design Thinking
Design Thinking For Problem Solvers
Design thinking, explained

VIDEO

Design Thinking: Problem-Solving Strategies for Innovation
Creative Problem Solving: Design Thinking Idea Generating
Biomimicry Innovation inspired by Nature
Design Thinking and Research
What is Design Thinking and How to Apply it to Problem Solving in Business?
Design Thinking vs traditional thinking by Dr.Pavan Soni #designthinking

COMMENTS

Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving Methods
Both Design Thinking and Traditional Problem-Solving have their merits and can be applied in various contexts. Feel free to adapt and combine elements from both methodologies to suit your specific needs and challenges. Epilogue. So…Dear reader, As you embark on your own problem-solving journey, remember the power of Design Thinking.
Design Thinking vs Traditional Thinking
Design Thinking vs Traditional Thinking. The traditional approach of thinking works on two basic principles. These two basic principles are Viability and Feasibility. Traditional thinking maps out how doable (viability) a task is in a practical manner (feasibility). It evaluates these two factors to assist problem-solving and is highly used by ...
Design Thinking vs Problem-Solving: Understanding the Differences
Design thinking is more about creating new solutions, problem solving is more about finding solutions to existing problems. Design thinking starts by understanding the user's needs and then using that understanding to create new and innovative solutions. Problem-solving, on the other hand, is focused on finding a solution to a specific problem.
Traditional vs. Design Thinking: Comparative Analysis
Design Thinking: A Human-Centered Creative Journey. This method of thinking contains empathy and creativity, which are valued in the all-encompassing problem-solving strategy. In contrast to traditional methodologies, it seeks to completely know end-user desires and sentiments before going on to solutions.
Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving
The end user is the last to see the solution in the traditional problem-solving approach. Design thinking is a flexible, continuous, and divergent way of solving a problem. It relies on a ...
Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving
Conclusion. Design Thinking and Traditional Problem-Solving are both valuable methodologies for business problem-solving. However, when it comes to fostering better business innovation, Design Thinking stands out as an approach that encourages human-centered thinking, empathy, and creativity. By incorporating Design Thinking principles into ...
Design thinking, explained
Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills.The approach has been around for decades, but it only started gaining traction outside of the design community after the 2008 Harvard Business Review article [subscription required] titled "Design Thinking" by Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO.
What is Design Thinking?
The team focuses on strategic thinking, problem-solving and the cognitive aspects of design. It involves research and analytical thinking to ensure that design decisions are purposeful. ... 7-step early traditional design process by Herbert Simon. Head, Heart and Hand by the American Institution of Graphic Arts (AIGA) The 5-Stage DeepDive™ by ...
What Is Design Thinking & Why Is It Important?
Design thinking is a mindset and approach to problem-solving and innovation anchored around human-centered design. While it can be traced back centuries—and perhaps even longer—it gained traction in the modern business world after Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO, published an article about it in the Harvard Business Review .
What is Design Thinking, and how is it used to problem-solve?
Design Thinking is a problem-solving framework. Unlike other brainstorming methods, design thinking uses empathetic observation to focus on human-centered needs first before diving into ideation. The process of design thinking is derived from the methods that designers, architects, and engineers all use to do their work.
What is design thinking?
Design thinking is a systemic, intuitive, customer-focused problem-solving approach that organizations can use to respond to rapidly changing environments and to create maximum impact. (6 pages) Design and conquer: in years past, the word "design" might have conjured images of expensive handbags or glossy coffee table books.
Design Thinking: New Innovative Thinking for New Problems
Design Thinking is a large part of that new approach towards innovation, as it allows people, teams, and organisations to have a human-centred perspective, and yet a scientific approach, towards solving a problem. Tim Brown, CEO of the international design consultancy firm IDEO, makes this point in the introduction of his book, Change by Design:
Design Thinking vs Traditional Thinking
Design thinking is a creative problem-solving process that is often used in fields such as design, engineering and business. Unlike traditional thinking methods, which are more analytical and linear, design thinking is more relational and fluid. It allows for different ideas to be explored and combined until a solution is found.
Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving Methods
While both design thinking and traditional problem-solving methods have their merits, the choice between them depends on the nature of the problem, the context, and the desired outcomes.
Design Thinking, Essential Problem Solving 101- It's More Than
The term "Design Thinking" dates back to the 1987 book by Peter Rowe; "Design Thinking." In that book he describes the way that architects and urban planners would approach design problems. However, the idea that there was a specific pattern of problem solving in "design thought" came much earlier in Herbert A Simon's book, "The Science of the Artificial" which was published ...
Design Thinking vs. Traditional Design: A Comprehensive Comparison for
To fully grasp the distinction between Design Thinking and Traditional Design, avoid these common misconceptions: Assuming all design approaches are the same: Design approaches vary in their focus and process. Ignoring the user's perspective: Especially in Design Thinking, the user's perspective is paramount. Thinking rigidity equals professionalism: Flexibility can often lead to more ...
How Design Thinking Is Different from Traditional Problem-Solving
An example of a brand that switched from traditional problem-solving to design thinking is Procter & Gamble (P&G). P&G is a consumer goods company known for its large portfolio of household and personal care products. Historically, P&G relied on traditional problem-solving methods to develop new products, such as market research and focus groups.
How to solve problems with design thinking
The proof is in the pudding: From 2013 to 2018, companies that embraced the business value of design had TSR that were 56 percentage points higher than that of their industry peers. Check out these insights to understand how to use design thinking to unleash the power of creativity in strategy and problem solving. Designing out of difficult times.
What is design thinking and why is it important?
This is the "iterative" part of design thinking. It favors moving quickly to get prototypes out to test, rather than endless research or rumination. In contrast to traditional problem-solving, which is a linear process of identifying a problem and then brainstorming solutions, design thinking only works if it is iterative. It is less of a ...
What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?
Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.
Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and
As design thinking moves beyond the traditional creative sphere and enters the realm of addressing wicked problems across a wide spectrum of topics, the discipline is enriched by the rigorous research practices that the social sciences have to offer. ... Design thinking-driven problem solving is a powerful and disruptive method that creates ...
Design Thinking vs. Problem Solving
What's the difference between design thinking and problem solving? What do you do in each? Get the Design Thinking Guidebook: https://thefutur.com/design-thi...
Traditional Problem Solving v/s Design Thinking
Design Thinking is a problem solving framework. The concept has been around for decades, but in the past five to six years, I used the process as an alternative to a purely analytical approach to ...
Lateral vs Traditional Thinking in Strategy
Traditional thinking, often referred to as vertical thinking, is characterized by logical, step-by-step approaches to problems. It relies on existing knowledge and methods to reach a solution.
Optimization beyond data: Design thinking for SEO
Design thinking is exactly what it sounds like: adopting a designer mindset. It's a human-centered framework for problem-solving the way a designer would - by setting out to solve a problem ...
Problem Solving for the Future of Legal Work Through Design Thinking
While legal design thinking can bring tremendous value to a law firm that is stuck with a current practice problem (associate attrition, failed technology adoption, losing clients), it is uniquely suited to think through future practice problems--in other words, developing a succession process. ... and into a problem-solving approach that ...

Design Thinking vs Traditional Thinking

Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving: A Comparative Analysis

Understanding Traditional Problem-Solving

Concentrate on a single problem

Responses based on analysis and logic

Repair the immediate problem

Examining the Heart of Design Thinking

Design Thinking: A Human-Centered Creative Journey

Empathy-Driven

Divergent Thinking

Iterative Process

Is Design Thinking Better Than Conventional Thinking?

Design Thinking vs. Traditional Problem-Solving

Differences between Design thinking and traditional problem-solving

Stages of Problem Solving

User-Centricity

Idea Generation

Tolerance for Peril and Risk

Prototyping and testing

Embracing Creativity and Innovation

Empathy-driven Solutions

Expanding the Idea Horizon

Iterative Refinement

Risk-Tolerance and Learning

In a nutshell

Related Posts

Pursue an MBA in Entrepreneurship from MIT Pune

Which field of MBA is best for Entrepreneurship?

Nurturing MBA in Innovation & Entrepreneurship at MIT Pune

Human-Centered Change and Innovation

1. Design Thinking: Embracing Empathy and Creativity:

Case Study 1: Airbnb’s Transformation:

2. Traditional Problem-Solving: Analytical and Linear Thinking:

Case Study 2: Blockbuster vs. Netflix:

Related posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Which program is right for you?

Executive Programs

Design thinking, explained

What is design thinking?

Understand the problem

Involve users

Prototype and test. Repeat.

Implementation

What can design thinking do for your business?

Ready to go deeper?

Related Articles

Design Thinking vs Traditional Thinking

Table of Contents

Related Articles

How Design Thinking is Addressing 5 Major Challenges in Healthcare

The Basics of Design Thinking for Improved Patient Care

8 Tips for Implementing Design Thinking in Your Healthcare Practice

Design Thinking, Essential Problem Solving 101- It’s More Than Scientific

Problem-Solving and Two Schools of Thought

The Design Thinking Process

The Principles of Design Thinking

Visuals and Design Thinking

The Take Away

Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services

Get Weekly Design Insights

Personas – A Simple Introduction

Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results

What is Ideation – and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions

Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights

Stage 3 in the Design Thinking Process: Ideate

Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype

Stage 1 in the Design Thinking Process: Empathise with Your Users

Empathy Map – Why and How to Use It

What Is Empathy and Why Is It So Important in Design Thinking?

Open Access—Link to us!

Privacy Settings

Enhanced Functionality

Referral Program

Error Reporting

Analytics Storage

Advertising Storage

Personalization Storage

Advertising Personalization

LinkedIn Insights