To grasp the full picture, it's essential to first define what Design Thinking truly involves. At its core, it’s a popular method for solving problems by focusing on users' needs. While definitions vary slightly, they all emphasise a human-centred approach and systematic thinking:
- McKinsey describes it as a systematic, intuitive, and customer-focused problem-solving method designed to adapt to rapidly changing environments and create significant impact.
- Design-Interaction.org explains it as a non-linear, iterative process involving five phases: Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. It’s particularly useful for addressing ill-defined or unknown issues.
- Tim Brown, Executive Chair of IDEO, defines it as a human-centred approach to innovation that blends people’s needs, technological possibilities, and business requirements.
These definitions reveal that Design Thinking overlaps significantly with traditional design methodology. It’s essentially a way of thinking about design and problem-solving but often feels like a repackaging of what design has always been.
The Problem with Buzzwords
The term Design Thinking can sometimes feel like a buzzword, adding unnecessary complexity to what is already a straightforward concept. It’s as though calling something Design Thinking makes it sound more sophisticated when, in reality, it’s just a new label for an old method. Design has always been about understanding users, addressing their needs, and finding innovative solutions.
The repeated emphasis on ‘human-centred’ and ‘systemic reasoning’ may obscure the fact that these are fundamental aspects of design. Design is already a human-centred thinking process. The term seems somewhat tautological—like calling something 'Thinking Thinking' or 'Design Design', as design has always involved planning, thinking, and problem-solving by understanding and meeting human needs. Overcomplicating these terms risks confusing rather than clarifying the true value of design.
The Real Value of Design
Introducing new names for the design process often serves marketing purposes more than practical ones. By creating these new terms, there’s a risk of oversimplifying or distorting the true nature of design, which has always been a deliberate, thoughtful process. Terms like Design Thinking may unintentionally diminish the depth and expertise of the design field by making it seem like anyone can ‘think’ their way to design without the deep practice and skill involved.
This contributes to the undervaluation of designers as professionals, particularly in the tech industry, where they are often seen as a ‘nice-to-have’ rather than as valuable assets. Rather than valuing designers as strategic problem-solvers who drive innovation, companies may reduce their role to merely enhancing aesthetics. This perspective overlooks the expertise and critical thinking that designers bring, ultimately missing out on their potential to create meaningful, lasting solutions.
Mastering Design
Rather than focusing on the latest trends or jargon, it’s far more beneficial to truly understand and master the principles of design itself. Once your team has a solid grasp of core design principles, you can explore specialisations like UI, UX, or graphic design. But the foundation must be in place first.
In summary, while Design Thinking and similar terms may have value, they often create unnecessary confusion. A strong understanding of design fundamentals will always have a more significant impact than chasing the latest buzzwords.
Method, Process, and Workflow: Comparing Design Thinking and Design
The processes below, contrary to popular (and misinformed) opinion, aren't linear. For example, if you're in the prototype phase, you may find it necessary to return to the definition phase or to the ideation phase and make the necessary adjustments to your design. A method, as I mentioned in the essay What is Design, is a structure—the overall framework or organisation of a system, process, or concept. It's not a rule dictating what is allowed or forbidden within a given context. Compare the methods:
Design Thinking Method:
- Empathise: Understand the user.
- Define: Formulate the problem statement, identify requirements, and note limitations.
- Ideate: Develop ideas using methods such as collages, wireframes, and blueprints.
- Prototype: Build low or high-fidelity prototypes.
- Test: Evaluate the prototypes with users.
Design as a Problem-Solving Process - the foundational method:
Before Design Thinking became a fashionable framework, the design process was largely viewed as a problem-solving endeavour. Designers focused on creating functional and aesthetically pleasing solutions that met user or business needs, and in fields like industrial design / physical products, it often followed a more linear or cyclical process. While the specifics of the process varied depending on the discipline (e.g., industrial design, engineering, architecture), the general design process typically included these key stages:
- Research: Analyse competitors, the market, review the current application/product, and understand users.
- Definition: Formulate the problem statement, identify requirements, and note limitations.
- Ideation/Conceptualisation: Develop ideas using methods such as collages, wireframes, and blueprints.
- Design Development/Prototype: Refine and build low or high-fidelity prototypes.
- Test: Evaluate the prototypes with users.
Key Differences and Considerations:
In Design Thinking, the exploration phase focuses primarily on understanding the user. While this is crucial, it can sometimes overlook other important factors, such as the competitive landscape and existing product capabilities. Without considering competitors, the market, or your product’s history, designs may lack critical context and relevance. For large companies with big departments, it may make sense to have specialists handling different parts of the design process—such as separate teams for UI, UX, or product design. However, even in these cases, the foundation of design knowledge should be in place for all professionals involved. Understanding the bigger picture and foundational principles of design is essential for ensuring cohesive and meaningful outcomes.
In contrast, a broader design approach integrates market research and product knowledge, leading to a more comprehensive strategy that addresses all relevant factors. For digital products, this broader approach is especially necessary, as designers often find themselves navigating constant feedback loops from stakeholders, where input can be inconsistent or even contradictory. This can make the process feel inconsistent and less defined compared to physical product design, where more structured feedback loops exist.
In the digital product world, design is often cyclical and non-linear, with constant revisions and updates. Changes may be driven by shifting technological capabilities, emerging trends, or the discovery of better solutions. In such cases, flexibility is key to adapting to evolving project requirements. The design process must be flexible enough to accommodate these changes, and it's essential to adapt the method to each unique situation. Incorporating regular reviews and adjustments between phases helps ensure that feedback is captured and used effectively.
Ultimately, while a non-linear cycle might be used for digital products, the same design methods can still be applied to either scenario. The ability to iterate, refine, and adapt through each phase allows for a more dynamic and responsive design process, ensuring that the final outcome is aligned with both user needs and business goals.
Design is foundational
While methods should evolve to meet current needs, creating new frameworks and jargon that undermine the essence of design isn’t the solution. Design is dying. Unfortunately, the tech market has lost touch with what design truly means. The rich history of design, along with designers who’ve been trained in its principles, is fading.
This should not be confused with UI/UX design, which, while valuable, often focuses on surface-level elements and lacks the deeper, foundational understanding of design as a problem-solving framework. Today, many individuals without formal design education are learning tools like Figma to create mockups for software interfaces and calling themselves designers—a trend that gives me chills. Similarly, companies struggle to define the role of a designer, hiring product designers but expecting them to take on tasks traditionally handled by graphic or visual designers. This misalignment leads to confusion and undermines the profession’s value, blurring the line between true design professionals and those without a solid grounding in design principles. As a result, the true value of design is fading—a concerning trend that calls for a resurgence before it’s lost entirely.
What About Users? Understanding User Needs
Users often struggle to articulate what they truly need. Asking them directly can be misleading, as their responses are shaped by current understanding and experiences. A famous quote often attributed to Henry Ford (though its origin is debated) captures this: ‘If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.’ This illustrates that users may focus on familiar solutions rather than envision new possibilities.
Instead of relying solely on user feedback, observing how users interact with your product offers more accurate insights into their real needs and challenges. For instance, if you’re developing a cosmetic product, users might express broad desires like ‘I want to be beautiful and younger.’ However, by observing their behaviour, you can uncover more actionable insights.
Learning from Cutthroat Industries
I’ve learned a great deal from the fashion industry, which serves as a prime example of forward-thinking. Designers in this field often work several years ahead of current trends, using macro trends such as political, economic, and societal changes to inform their predictions. Rather than directly asking customers what they want, fashion designers anticipate future desires through trend forecasting. This proactive approach demonstrates how looking beyond immediate customer feedback and understanding broader societal shifts can drive innovation.
Integrating Market and Product Knowledge
In the context of digital products, especially complex software such as those used in the VFX industry, understanding both the market and your own product is crucial. If you focus solely on user feedback without considering the market and existing solutions, you risk developing a product similar to what competitors have already created or overlooking solutions that may already exist within your own organisation.
While Design Thinking is valuable for user research, it can be limiting if it doesn’t incorporate a broader understanding of the market and existing products. For teams with limited resources or small, relying solely on Design Thinking may not be sufficient to drive innovation.
Fancy Vocabulary: What’s the Problem?
Jakob Nielsen terms this issue ‘vocabulary inflation,’ where constantly changing terminology creates confusion. Just as inflation destabilises an economy, shifting language disrupts clarity in design. Nielsen argues that the pursuit of new, fancier terms instead of using clear, established language complicates communication.
This confusion makes it difficult to understand and build upon previous work. In design, evolving terminology can obscure core principles and hinder effective knowledge transfer, similar to how learning history would be challenging if names and terms were constantly changing. In essence, consistent terminology is crucial for clear communication and preserving design knowledge.
The Takeaway
Designing products for a better life and a better future demands more than just user feedback and knowing how to use mockup software. It requires a holistic understanding that includes observing user behaviour, analysing market trends, and having a deep knowledge of your product’s capabilities and competitors. While Design Thinking has its place, relying solely on it limits the scope of innovation.
To create exceptional solutions, designers must draw on a broader, foundational approach—one that not only anticipates needs but also safeguards the integrity of the design profession itself. Instead of creating new jargon and methods, we must focus on evolving design. Formalising and standardising design education, with a focus on quality to ensure the future of professionals, as a foundational discipline for all design specialisations, is key. This is how we can breathe new life into design before its essence fades away.