Design Thinking: Putting People First
This report was written as part of the Hyper Island DXD module on Design Thinking. The objective was to critically analyse and reflect on Design Thinking as an organisational resource, emphasising the significance of the empathy phase and taking ethics into account. I’ll also reflect on my experience of applying Design Thinking to a brief set by CityCo and Manchester Police.
In its most basic format, Design Thinking is a linear approach to problem-solving using methods perceived previously as exclusively for designers. “Design Thinking is a human-centred approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success” (Brown, 2009, pg. 17). In addition, by emulating the designer, a business can create innovative solutions to challenging problems, usually by teams with varied backgrounds (Moggridge, 2010). Furthermore, Design Thinkers can be traditional designers or those with ‘analytical’ backgrounds but by using the framework, individuals can unlock their creative confidence (Kelley and Kelley, 2013, pg.4).
d.School Stanford, IDEO and the British Design Council are most frequently mentioned as pioneers of the approach. While they all define Design Thinking as a methodology for creative problem solving, IDEO puts the emphasis on the importance of the end user and therefore creating human-centered products, services, and internal processes (Kelley and Kelley, 2013, pg.21). Although, if done correctly the process can try to capture the mind-sets and needs of the target group, assess opportunities based on their needs and find anchor points for designs to start from, forming the perfect balance of desirability, viability and feasibility (Stafford, 2017).
At first glance, Design Thinking is easily mistaken for an abstract notion but various frameworks and models offer tangible methods to navigate through the process. The models are designed to be addressed collaboratively within multidisciplinary teams so different models lend themselves better to different groups depending on the level of guidance (Plattner, Meinel and Leifer, 2013). From the many examples, IDEO’s five phases of the design process (fig. 1), d.School Stanford’s five hexagons (fig. 2) and the Design Council’s Double Diamond (fig. 3) are the most established. Nevertheless, while these models offer guidance, one can argue that studying these alone is not enough to understand Design Thinking, as the opportunity for learning Design Thinking happens with the ‘doing’ (Berk, 2017). Evidently, although the packaging of the different models varies, the steps of empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test remain at the core of them all and therefore, time should not be wasted on deliberating which models but better spent ‘doing’ the process.
While the term Design Thinking has gained more traction and praise over recent years, controversy around interpretation has become more prevalent. For one, Richard Buchanan argues in ‘Wicked Problems in Design Thinking’ that no single term can adequately cover the broad diversity of ideas and methods it claims to. By giving Design Thinking a name, it is possible to restrict the expanding opportunities of design preventing it from revealing unexpected dimensions in practice (Buchanan, 1992, pg.5). In contrast, to others, the issue lies in that it is no more than just a new name for a complex process designers have been exercising for years. Ultimately, glorifying the design process as a new fad. When Jared M. Spool was asked what Design Thinking was, his response was “Problem solving? Multidisciplinary teams? End-to-end solutions? Delighting users? I’d been researching and writing about integrating these elements for decades” (Spool, 2017). Natasha Jen, a partner at Pentagram, supports this view, stating “it must be realised that design thinking is nothing new. It’s a rudimentary problem-solving framework masquerading as a scientific method” (Jen, 2018). It is worth observing that Spool and Jen are designers and thus one can conclude that designers who are already accustomed with the discover, define, develop and deliver process on their own terms, find the name to be a grossly simplified label for their complicated, creative process they have been doing over the duration of their careers.
Potential confusion with the term and understanding the difference between ‘Design Thinking’ and ‘designerly thinking’ has also been debated. The contrast between ‘who’ and ‘how’ design is used in a process, puts the two definitions apart (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013 pg.123). One can debate that the term Design Thinking, can be used beyond the design context and by people without a design background (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013, pg. 123). Thus arguing, Design Thinking can be used as a term that does not involve designing. In an interview with Erik Michielsen, Jon Kolko expressed concerns with this use of the term in this context. “My problem with that approach is that it implies that you can do Design Thinking without doing ‘design doing’” (Kolko, 2011).
From this academic critique of the ethical concerns with using the term Design Thinking, a clear deduction is that the value can become easily lost in the multiple interpretations. Some even claim that Design Thinking is not well understood by anyone, either by the users of it or the public (Kimbell, 2011). Although, Bruce Nussbaum expresses his belief that the “construction and framing of Design Thinking itself has become a key issue” (Nussbaum, 2011). By giving the process a name, it invites those who do not truly understand the definition to use it as a throwaway term, thus devaluing the process. The term Design Thinking, therefore, should not be a considered a simplified, universal application to every chaotic design problem. Furthermore, Hillary Collins goes on to state in her paper ‘Can Design Thinking Still Add Value?’ that the change needs to come as viewing Design Thinking as a paradigm shift instead (Collins, 2013 ). In conclusion, the term is better used as a mentality which can be personalised and adapted to individual teams and problems within the context, allowing expansion rather than restriction.
Not to be confused with sympathy, empathy can be defined as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another” (Hornby and Deuter, 2015). Creating empathy for the user is the first step of the Design Thinking process and a critical foundation for the development of products, services and environments (McDonagh and Thomas, 2011). Similarly, Kolko builds on this, saying through empathising with the users, a design-centric organisation encourages their employees to observe and draw insights from their behaviour, to find their wants and needs (Kolko, 2015). What’s more, only by stepping away from the objective knowledge can we uncover blind spots (Turnali, 2016). In addition, Tim Brown of IDEO goes as far as saying “without the understanding of what others see, feel, and experience, design is a pointless task” (Brown, 2008). It can be concluded that the Design Thinking process starts at the point of deeply understanding the needs and wants of the user, only then can they truly design for them and without this input, it could even be said it is a meaningless activity.
The business potential for innovation through empathetic, user-focused products and companies cannot be ignored. For instance, when Bank of America undertook a user-centred redesign of its account registration, online-banking traffic increased by 45 percent (Ross, 2014). Hasso Plattner too, believes in the potential of empathy in creating innovative business opportunities. He states by observing people, the opportunity arises to uncover insights, which are vital in creating the innovation solutions businesses strive for (Plattner, n.d.). Although, it is crucial that a company fully adopts an empathetic approach to see results, “pretty much all companies insist they focus on the customer. Yet reality often belies that assertion”…” the difference with design-driven companies is that they seek to go far beyond understanding what customers want to truly uncover why they want it” (Kilia, Sarrazin and Yeon, 2015). Thus, evidencing the necessity for ‘doing’ in Design Thinking to see tangible results. To see real change in a business, the requirement to put words into action is vital and analysing those actions at a profound level.
In conclusion, the evidence of a one-size-fits-all approach to users is severely outdated and a deeper understanding of the user is essential for a highly successful outcome (Dam and Siang, 2018). Dr. Prabhjot Singh agrees explaining “We spend a lot time designing the bridge, but not enough time thinking about the people who are crossing it” (Singh, 2010). By underestimating the value of empathising, companies could set themselves up for failure, the Google Glass being an example of this. In 2013, a ‘revolutionary’ product was released but no one bought it. Google failed to empathise with the target user and missed cues on whether the user would use the product (Metz, 2014). Although, in response, Tim Brown argues that he did not view it as failure, explaining that it is a naïve perspective to think the first version would be perfect. Therefore, it could be claimed that the failure of the Google Glass lay in the lack of looping back to the empathy phase within the prototype phase of the Design Thinking process. Concluding that empathy is not just the most important first step in Design Thinking, but the most important step to apply throughout and Design Thinking should not be thought of as a linear process, but an opportunity to revisit previous steps.
Stanford d.school identifies the three ways of creating empathy as; observe, engage and watch/listen. Using these steps as guidelines, different techniques can be adopted to suit the user. Secondary research methods can be used, although sparingly to gain the deepest insights into one’s specific user (Ideo, 2009). For the purpose of this paper and to give context to the second section of the paper, only methods explored within the group project will be discussed. The most widely recognised tool for empathising is person-to-person interviews. Although it can be argued the traditional market research techniques are often unreliable (Evans, 2011). There are pros and cons of different interview formats but in-person interviews give the opportunity for personal intimacy and directness (Mortensen, 2019). In addition, Dinica discusses that they give the opportunity to observe non-verbal communications, which often leads towards deeper insights into what the interviewee is saying (Dinica, 2014). Furthermore, observations as ‘thoughtless acts’ should be noted where possible (Suri, 2005). Within interviews, engaging with extreme users also proves beneficial. Bill Moddridge argues the benefits by saying that only by understanding the viewpoints of a full range of people is it possible to avoid the pitfall of designing for yourself (Moggridge, 2007, pg. 726). While Evans also recognises the significant benefits of extreme users, he claims outside experts should conduct the research to accurately identify the unique modes of thinking without bias (Evans, 2011). To sum up, there are many considerations when interviewing and the value does not only lie in verbal communications, but also in the unsaid actions. Once the interviewer has gained ample experience interviewing, they can unlock hidden feelings and insights behind the spoken words, an invaluable tool for empathising.
Personas offer the opportunity to organise insights and summarise them as an ideal user. “Personas help us understand which tasks are truly important and why, leading to an interface that minimises necessary tasks while maximising return” (Cooper et al., 2014). Furthermore, personas are especially useful for user-facing solutions and allow designers to find the problems in the product from the user’s perspective (Luchs, Swan and Griffin, 2015). On the other hand, Zakary Kinnaird opposes and argues that personas limit designers by primarily focusing on current user needs, consequently not striving for the opportunity to create new ones (Kinnaird, 2017). Consequently, proving the necessity to base personas on real-life data with newly discovered wants and needs.
Outlined are just a few of many tools that can be used to create empathy for a user. Although, assuming a beginner’s mindset for any of the tools can greatly maximise the desired output of finding more profound insights. By doing this, it makes it easier to leave personal assumptions behind and truly delve into the wants and needs of the user, without bias.
When interacting with target users directly with the aim of trying to empathise, ethical considerations must be measured. Some argue it is an ethical duty to meet those with problems, to be able to solve them (Monteiro, 2017). In contrast, Phil Hesketh first suggests considering whether the research has been completed by existing organisations who are working in the research area. By doing so, additional exposure can be avoided (Hesketh, 2016). Once one has decided how and if they will proceed with user interactions, carefully selecting how and where they will be interviewed should be reviewed. As detailed by Lorraine Smith, other points of consideration are diversity within the participant samples, gaining consent and avoiding bias (Smith, 1992). Oberai and Anand resonated with the need to avoid bias too, especially confirmation bias within interviews (Oberai and Anand, 2018). While they believe unconscious bias is unavoidable entirely, it is an important consideration when leading ethical interviews.
As part of the ‘Design Thinking’ module at Hyper Island, I was given the chance to try, test and review Design Thinking tools and techniques in the context of a challenge set by CityCo and Manchester Police.
“How can we design a support tool for a Manchester night out? A night out that helps you consider how to engage with what the city has to offer in a safe and enjoyable way, and what to do if things start to go wrong?”
Comparable to any Design Thinking team in industry, we were split into multidisciplinary groups with different interpretations of Design Thinking. I was the only team member with a formal design background and was familiar with ‘designerly thinking’ but not ‘Design Thinking’ (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013). As none of the group were familiar with Design Thinking, we decided to follow Dan Nessler’s adaptation of the Design Council’s Double Diamond as we felt it gave the most guidance; particularly needed considering the extent of the brief (Nessler, 2016). While considering ethics, I will examine our journey using the methodology and the tools which influenced our outcome most significantly.
Our group chose to target over the 60s and as none of us were part of this age group, creating deep empathy and avoiding assumptions was essential during the discover phase. We could not rely on academic theory alone to understand the wants and needs of the target user (Brown, 2008, pg 33). Therefore, we mainly used a variety of primary research methods while attempting to adopt a beginner’s mindset to avoid bias.
By the end of the discover phase, we insights and observations from twenty-five people. The interviewees were ethically considered and consisted of different; ages, genders, socio-economic backgrounds and marital status. Within the user group, we aimed to discover insights from ‘extreme users’, in these cases were a 60-year-old and an 85-year-old and by considering these we could hopefully cater for the average. We also decided to interview those who worked with over 60s in Manchester and found fascinating insights. By interviewing a representative from Age-Friendly Manchester we were offered a valuable ‘outsiders’ overview of the target group.
We adapted the questions dependent on if we were interviewing those over the 60s or those who worked with the age group and the formats included; in person, over the phone and online questionnaires. We initially used a structured interview format but ‘in-person’ interviews gave opportunities to ask further questions and use the ‘5 Whys’ tool to gain deeper insights, (Ohn, 2006). Unspoken body language was noted where possible. With practice, we learnt to avoid leading questions, although it was more difficult when conducting phone interviews as the need was felt to fill any silences. For ethical reasons, we did not ask for personal information and asked consent to use information that might make the interviewee identifiable. When recording the audio of the conversation, it was essential we asked for consent first and respected the decision of those who denied.
A persona was created from summarising the interviews and was carried through the other stages and even demonstrated our solution during the pitch.
In conclusion, I found this stage in the process to be vital in getting to the true needs and wants of the user. The insights we uncovered were different from initial assumptions, emphasising the importance of this step. I firmly believe that had we decided not to extensively explore this stage of the design process, our solution would have been useless. One personal observation from this stage was that interviewing is an exceptionally difficult skill to master but with more practice, our insights could have been even more profound.
Armed with a wealth of insights and information, we needed to make sense of it all. We used Dan Nessler’s Double Diamond, along with additional tools from Hyper Island’s and SessionLabs’ toolboxes to guide us through this phase. One useful tool for finding clarity, was clustering any insights from the interviews to find common ground and identify the most significant. Confirming Kolko’s belief in the importance of synthesising data, we could find patterns and finished with two overlapping ‘How Might We?’ questions (Kolko, 2011), (Design Kit, n.d.). At times, this complicated the process but we felt they were equally important. The most challenging aspect of this stage was resisting the urge to jump forward to thinking about a solution and because of this, we may have rushed this stage to progress to the ideation phase sooner.
As we did not have long for this phase we decided to embark on a short ‘sprint’ of ideating. Using our HMW questions, we modified the Crazy 8 tool to generate as many ideas as we could in two rounds of 8 minutes, as we did not feel like one round was enough, finishing with over 30 ideas once we had removed repeats. This tool was excellent for generating a great quantity of ideas. By clustering the ideas on a ‘Now, How, Wow’ graph, we could discuss in terms of feasibility, especially important considering our tight deadline (SessionLab, n.d.). Once debated, we completed an ‘Idea Napkin’ each of a proposed solution (The Straight Up Business Institute, n.d.) This tool worked especially well for turning abstract concepts into tangible ideas prepared for discussion. We concluded a combination of two ideas made the best solution. Again, proving the value of collaboration within Design Thinking.
To start the Deliver phase, using storyboards ensured we all understood the solution equally regarding the two main stakeholders. To ‘fail fast’ we wrote up an explanation and immediately started testing it on different target users (Kelley and Kelley, 2013, pg. 39). Feedback through nonverbal communication indicated this method of prototyping was ineffective so a more visually engaging, simplified version was tested for the second round of prototyping.
A personal reflection on this phase was that I found it difficult to prototype a ‘service’ due to its abstract nature. To further develop the prototyping phase of the brief, with more time, I believe a focus group would have been beneficial for receiving more thorough feedback.
Today, with increasingly competitive markets and more compound problems stemming from people in a more complex society, Design Thinking offers a structure to guide designers and non-designers, collaboratively through these challenges. This paper demonstrates that while Design Thinking’s definition lacks clarity, it is still widely praised and embraced. Its human-centred approach, when adopted ethically, can prove hugely beneficial in creating mindful products, services and systems. The empathy stage was critically reviewed using academic and professional resources and then again based on first-hand reflections. As evidenced in a task challenged by CityCo and Manchester Police, it creates a vital starting point to address a problem by finding authentic wants and needs. The client favourably responded to our pitch and praised our “excellent insight into the issues and concerns faced by the older generation and reflects an important issue for the city” (Swift, 2019). Even with the inherent ethical concerns with creating empathy, Design Thinking offers the unique opportunity to uncover fresh human insights and thus drive innovation into the future.
Design Thinking: Putting People First
Research & References of Design Thinking: Putting People First|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source