Design Thinking:

A paradigm on its way from dilution

to meaninglessness?
Petra Badke-Schaub,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Norbert Roozenburg
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Carlos Cardoso
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

Abstract
This paper is a critical view on design thinking, addressing both, the
limitations of the traditional design thinking research as well as the
contributions of the new approach, often referred to as design thinking
movement. The traditional design thinking approach meanwhile can
look back on a broad research history but has to cope with its
fragmented variety of empirical results, due to a lack of theoretical
integration; the new view on design thinking can be seen as
management strategy which is not grounded on empirical studies and
suffers from an ambitious and too general concept. Both approaches
could gain from each other in different ways.
1. Introduction
A new movement called design thinking gains increasing attention
across different disciplines. This movement promotes design thinking
as interdisciplinary and innovative strategy. However there is a question
of how to integrate or distinguish this concept from the existing
traditional design thinking approach.

Defining a complex concept such as intelligence or behaviour such as

designing is always a difficult endeavour. When introducing a new
definition, one has to state which parts do and do not belong to the
defined field, area or concept. Hence, a new definition makes a difference,
ultimately becoming vulnerable to all kinds of critical feedback. However,
there are a number of advantages in creating a new definition. On the one
hand, it has the potential to avoid ambiguity. On the other, it facilitates
communication within a particular research field, as well as amongst
scholars from different disciplines. Furthermore, a clearly defined concept
supports the integration of empirical results of different research
approaches and studies. This is especially true in a genuinely
interdisciplinary area as design research where a minimal consensus is
necessary to arrive at a common understanding, and finally to progress in
the field. Although empirical research on designing does not have a very
long tradition, design thinking has gained the position of a paradigmatic
concept describing design-specific cognitive activities that designers apply
during the process of designing (Dorst 2009; Visser 2006).

Concepts change throughout time due to the fact that new knowledge has
been created and/or theoretical developments deliver new ways or
explanations. Thus, the question arises, what exactly constitutes the
knowledge which led to a new understanding, a new concept of design
thinking? With the publication of his book entitled Change by Design:
How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires
Innovation, Tim Brown (CEO of the design consultancy IDEO) emerged
as one of the major promoters of the new design thinking movement
(Brown 2009). The main argument for underlying this movement is the
need for innovation in order to face the current and future global
challenges,
 an approach to innovation that is powerful, effective, and broadly accessible,
that can be integrated into all aspects of business and society, and that
individuals and teams can use to generate breakthrough ideas that are
implemented and that therefore have an impact. (Brown 2009, p.3)

This approach is on the one hand a claim for a visionary business strategy
(Lockwood 2009, Martin 2009, Verganti 2009). On the other, the authors
envision a power of designers to influence the world and thus to have an
impact on society. However, the new design thinking approach does not
refer or acknowledge the results from research on this same topic over the
last decades.

In this paper we want to shed light on the question why has the traditional
concept of design thinking been overtaken by industry as a mainly
business and management approach. Although the concept of design
thinking has been established and widely accepted in the scientific
community for as long as 25 years, the new' movement seems to ignore
this approach by ambiguously redefining its core principles. We will
discuss briefly three main principles of this framework and by this we will
try to explain why this sweep over is not beneficial for the scientific
development of design thinking research. We will finalise with a brief
extrapolation of necessary changes in order to arrive at a more
comprehensive and integrated scientific knowledge of design thinking
research. Ultimately, such changes ought to be applicable to education
and practice, continuously building on empirical research and
contributing to the further theoretical development of the field.

2. Design Thinking: the new approach

In the following we analyse the key presuppositions which characterise
the new design thinking approach. The analysis is mainly
concentrated on the elaboration and statements which Tim Brown
(2009) conveys in his book Change by Design. He defines design
thinking as a discipline that uses the designers sensibility and
methods to match peoples needs with what is technologically feasible
and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value
and market opportunity. (Brown 2008, p. 86). Brown stresses three
basic premises of the new design thinking approach:
a) Design thinking is equally relevant for designing products and
spaces, as to the design systems or dealing with abstract problems
such as services.
This premise is also true for the traditional approach. However, it
is important to state that whereas design thinking research has
until recently referred mainly to the design of products, whilst
neglecting systems and services, both aspects are now gaining
more relevance for the customer and thus for the designer.
b) The primary goal of design thinking is disruptive innovation to
gain competitive advantage on the global market.
This statement has been claimed decades ago, and as such it does
not provide new insights nor does it point to new behavioral
strategies or requirements. In fact, it has already been more than
forty years when practitioners in engineering design developed
the first methodologies, which aimed at supporting the design
process and, consequently, the development of innovative
products (see for example Kesselring 1954; Pahl & Beitz 1984).
And at the same time, 1952, Alex F. Osborn, the godfather of
brainstorming, published the book Wake up your mind: 101 ways
to develop creativeness.
c) Design thinking is human-/user-centered, and thus based mainly
on non-obtrusive methods such as observation. Brown for
instance states:
Design thinking is valuable not just in so-called creative industries or for
people tasked with designing products. Rather, it is often most powerful
when applied to abstract, multifaceted problems: improving a guest
experience at a hotel, encouraging bank customers to save more, or
developing a compelling narrative for public-service campaign. (Dust jacket,
back panel)

This premise refers to the main dogma of the new design thinking
approach, which strongly focuses on the user whilst leaving the
designer behind. Design thinking is part of the managerial task
and thus can be done by different people other than designers.
Hence, design thinking is not an activity reserved to the designer
but can be, or better needs to be, done also by other people
involved in the innovation of products and services development
processes.
In the following we will examine three major characteristics of this
approach in more detail, the design thinker, design thinking as
business and management activity and design thinking as roadmap to
improve society.

2.1 The designer as design thinker

Brown (2009) describes the designer as (design) thinker who is supposed
to realise high market impact in organisations, the white knight
guaranteeing to arrive at innovative solutions:
Design thinking is an approach that uses the designers sensibility and
methods for problem solving to meet peoples needs in a technologically
feasible and commercially viable way. In other words, design thinking is
human-centered innovation. (Brown 2009)

The underlying argumentation is as follows: The designer is considered as

design thinker when he/she is capable of dealing with the constraints of
the usual design projects. Here the approach is very close to the
rationalistic approach assuming that the designer is able to cope with all
the often quoted characteristics of the nature of design problems, which
make designing complex and difficult, such as: ill-defined, not one best
way etc. (Simon, 1973) that all requires particular attention. These
characteristics are not specifically pointed at; it is more like the designer
can move forward throughout the process without being deterred by these
potential bottlenecks. Brown explains:
In contrast to the champions of scientific management at the beginning of
the last century, design thinkers know that there is no one best way to move
through the process the reason for the iterative, non-linear nature of the
journey is not that design thinkers are disorganized or undisciplined but that
design thinking is fundamentally an exploratory process; (Brown 2009, p.
17).

And further:
The best designers match necessity to utility, constraint to possibility, and
need to demand. These design thinkers rely on rigorous observations of how
we use spaces and the objects and services that occupy them; they discover
patterns where others see complexity and confusion; they synthesize new
ideas from seemingly disparate fragments; and they convert problems into
opportunities. (Dust jacket, back panel)

According to this description, the capabilities of the designer as design

thinker do guarantee a successful process and product. The design thinker
has taken the role of a general problem solver and manager who in case
that the designer is promoted into the right environment will deliver
innovative results. According to Brown (2009) designers who embrace
design thinking, follow many methodological approaches and act in a way
that may be considered as best practice. Obviously, Brown does not
present a realistic descriptive approach but draws an idealistic picture,
which is not supported by empirical investigations so far. Instead it has
been repeatedly found that practicing designers do not typically follow
methodological procedures (Badke-Schaub et al. 2005; Birkhofer et al.
2005).

2.2 Design thinking in business and management

Design and design thinking are not tasks only for designers but an
inherent requirement for business and management leaders:
Design is now too important to be left to designers. (Brown 2009, p.37)

Brown argues that design thinking should be written into the DNA of
any company. However, Brown is unclear about how managers would
or should establish design thinking. While Brown describes examples
of recommended methods, such as brainstorming, prototyping and
visual thinking as means to arrive at innovative solutions; he does not
explain which methods should (or should not) be used and adapted in
which situations. Ultimately, he is vague on explanations how these
methods can be applied in the managerial and business context?
Further explanations of how design thinking as business strategy can
conquer the world are given by Martin (2009) in his book on The
Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive
Advantage:
"Design thinking is the form of thought that enables movement along the
knowledge funnel, and the firms that master it will gain an inexhaustible,
long-term business advantage. The advantage, which emerges from the
design-thinking firms' unwavering focus on the creative design of systems,
will eventually extend to the wider world. From these firms will emerge the
breakthroughs that move the world forward [because] design-thinking firms
stand apart in their willingness to engage in the task of continuously
redesigning their business."

2.3 Design thinking as roadmap to improve society

The vision of the new design thinking approach is the change by
design, explained by Brown (2009, p.115) as follows:
 Design has the power to enrich our lives by engaging our emotions through
image, form, texture, color, sound, and smell. The intrinsically human-
centered nature of design thinking points to the next step: we can use our
empathy and understanding of people to design experiences that create
opportunities for active engagement and participation.

Evidently, Brown claims here for a better world through engaging our
emotions. However, it is more than questionable why and in how far the
use of emotions will lead to better products. Whenever emotions are
involved in society, hardly any positive consequences can be drawn from
that. Yes, emotions enrich our life but they do not make it easier.

The other aspect of emotions Brown refers to is related to empathy. He

states that empathy of the designer leads to designing better products.
However, there is no proof for this assumption. In fact, as empathy is
always biased by a persons own perceptions, experiences and mental
models, we should instead ask the question: How can we support the
young, right-handed, western designer to design user-centered products,
systems and services without using his empathy? Given the fact that users
themselves sometimes do not know what they want or need (Leonard and
Rayport, 1997), in such situations the designers empathy would lead to a
dead end, anyhow.

In summary, we can state that Browns (2009) new design thinking

approach presents a prescriptive or even idealistic view, which is
ultimately formulated at a rather low resolution level. The instructions are
not empirically nor theoretically supported; they are a generalization of
his own experiences packed in a kind of popularized management
problem solving approach. Taken Change by Design as pars pro toto
dsign thinking ends up being used to cover a broad range of meanings
transferred into the management discourse, propagating such theory as
the successful approach to disruptive innovation. It is a prescriptive
conglomeration stressing the relevance of different activities, such as
collaboration, exploring and integrating options, low-fidelity prototyping
and interpretation.

In his column Design Thinking: A Useful Myth? Don Norman (2010)

calls this new approach a myth which is nonsense, but like all myths, it
has a certain ring of plausibility although lacking any evidence. The
broad acceptance of this notion of design thinking, especially in industry,
seems to stem from its fashionable format and the hero-function
ascribed to the designer. However, the emerging breadth of the construct
has led to a dilution of the concept. Although some of the proposed
suggestions may be convincing in terms of grandmothers wisdom, the
approach does not put forward any kind of empirical investigation or
evaluation of the premises. There is no intention to better understand the
underlying cognitive processes that the traditional design thinking
approach stands for. Consequently, without any consensual
conceptualisation and operationalization of what constituents the
approach consists of, the scientific value of the concept of design thinking
is meaningless. The practical impact on design as profession might be
positive as long as the expectations can be fulfilled by the designer.

3. Design Thinking: the traditional approach

In this part we focus on the main characteristics of the traditional design
thinking research approach and discuss also some of the limitations and
shortcomings deriving from it. The issue design thinking received
substantial attention as consequence of the first Design Thinking
Research Symposium in Delft taken place at the TU Delft, Netherlands, in
1991. Quoting the organisers of the DTRS in the description of the history
of the Design Thinking Research Symposia looking back to the first
workshop in 1991, it is perhaps difficult to recall just how little research in
design thinking was going on then, compared with today.
(http://design.open.ac.uk/dtrs7/dtrs7_dtrs_history.htm)

Many workshops, workgroups at conferences, symposia etc. were initiated

and are still continued with different focus but all pursuing the main
emphasis on the research of questions such as: How do designers solve
design problems? What exactly is the thinking process designers pursue
during their design activities? How can thinking processes that guarantee
innovation best be taught and how can they be supported in daily
practice?
Of course, the very general issue about how human thinking works
involves a variety of sub-issues and thus a huge diversity of research
approaches to fill in the puzzle with new insights. Here we do not intend
to provide an overview of the valuable research which has been done but
rather want to ask the critical question where we are now.

3.1 Explaining the non-observable

What is thinking? What are thinking processes? Following the thinking
process from the input information to the individual response (see Figure
1) it is obvious that the internal world of the designer, where thinking
takes place, is hidden; thus we can only observe those parts where we gain
access to from the external world. The consequence is that only the
product, the outcome or (in our case) the designers behavior itself can be
feasibly observed. Furthermore, we can define indicators of inner
components and processes, which we classify as part of the thinking
process steering the exchange between internal and external world.

External world Internal world External world

I I
n n
f memory f
response
o o
situation

knowledge
focus of attention

r learning
r
m m
a reasoning a
t thinking t
i i
o o
n n
motivation
Figure 1. Thinking as an internal information process.

If, for example, a person solves a mathematical equation, we can describe

the mathematical problem and its characteristics as input situation.
Subsequently, we can observe the response and the solved equation.
Therefore, we are in a position to conclude that the person has the
relevant knowledge to solve this kind of mathematical problem. This is of
course easier to observe compared to complex processes where reasoning
procedures and al kinds of different information processes run which have
no observable materialization but are represented and stay in the brain for
further use. Obviously the latter one is much more difficult to research.
3.2 Defining the non-definable
As pointed out in the beginning of this paper, it is of major importance to
define the area of interest to make clear what part(s) of the concept(s) we
are talking about. There are several ways to come up with a definition.
One possibility is to describe the essentials of the concept as a list of
characteristic elements. We have done so and identified creativity, visual
thinking, reasoning and expertise as characteristics of design thinking.
These characteristics are based on thinking processes such as:
information search and generation, mental imagery, assessment and
evaluation, structuring and learning (Goldschmidt and Badke-Schaub, in
this volume). However, there is also a downside to a definition which
consists of a list of constituents - a list is always incomplete and often non-
exclusive. As the list can never be complete and mostly entails elements at
different levels of granularity, the choice of elements and the resolution
stage is, to a certain extent, arbitrary and thus this kind of definition is not
satisfying.
Another way to define a concept is a model-based definition. Figure 2
depicts a model of the sequential process of design thinking. The design
process starts with the representation of the problem, which at first is
answered by the internal search for an applicable routine. In case there is
a routine available, this will be implemented and, if it is successful, the
task is accomplished. If there is no routine available, the designer tries to
remember similar cases from the past. However, if this does not provide
any ideas on how to approach the situation, the next step is to generate a
new idea or solution to the problem. If this is not successful, the problem
might be reframed and the process starts anew. This is an iterative process
where the different loops can be investigated separately and the single
steps detailed.
Figure 2. A basic model of the process of design thinking.

The advantage of such a model-based definition is the highly concrete if-

then description, which makes empirical evaluation of the assumed
relationships feasible. The disadvantage though, is the inherent
assumption that the underlying concept is homogeneous. However,
designing is a rather complex concept, which consists of more dimensions
on several levels.

In summary, there are no consensual attempts to define design thinking

or to explore to what extent it constitutes processes different from other
activities, situations or disciplines questions that have been seriously
asked and investigated only by a few authors, for example Visser (2009).

3.3 Fragmenting design thinking into isolated sub-issues

Design thinking is a complex behavior within a complex context and as
such - comparable with complex problems it is hardly decomposable
into independent sub-problems (see Figure 3). On the other hand, it is not
feasible to think of a research approach that is prepared to assess and
analyze data in a setting with all influencing variables, which are not
properly defined yet. Moreover, research on design thinking has been
carried out by different disciplines, each one not necessarily taking into
account the broader picture. Researchers in cognitive psychology, for
example, have a different interest in design thinking compared to computer
scientists. The latter follow their own discipline-specific goals, as researchers
from engineering or architectural disciplines do. Thus, there is both a need
to integrate the various results from different disciplines as well as to
encompass the several facets of the concept in order to achieve progress in
research.

Obviously, design thinking research covers a broad interdisciplinary field

with research questions at different resolution levels. Views on designing
can differ depending on general concepts, such as new product
development and product life-cycle approaches, with specific
technological challenges making design thinking unique. Therefore, it is
necessary to be aware of the broad range of characteristics which are to be
taken into account for different design situations. For example, there is a
significant amount of empirical evidence showing that experienced and
novice designers work in different ways; in the same way, also the other
fields of variables such as project context or the customer consist of
further parameters which need to be taken into account.

Figure 3. Processes and stakeholders influence design thinking.

Research therefore should provide a description of the specific situation in

terms of parameters, as well as an indication of their importance. An
example can be seen in Figure 4, where a less typical design situation with
clear goals is presented. There are many variables involved in this
situation, but these are not interconnected. The designer has enough
capacities to cope with the problem in a situation that is not risky. Many
stakeholders are involved and there is continuous feedback available. A
situation showing this type of pattern seems to need most consideration of
the social aspect, the involved stakeholders. Of course, other patterns of
variables would show a different picture. Ultimately, this would probably
lead to dissimilar assumptions, with a need to assess variables with
reference to the design process.

Figure 4. Describing design situations by parameters and importance.

4. Concluding remarks
In the past decades, we have seen the emergence of a design research
community. Within this community a research culture has been
established, producing a broad range of results on various issues of design
thinking. However, the whole picture is still not convincing because
there is no such thing as a whole integrated picture. The knowledge
gained appears to be fragmented, without obvious approaches to arrive at
a moment of consolidation.

This situation is described in an analysis by Dorst (2008), as a period

prior to a revolution according to Kuhns (1962) concept of paradigm shift.
Dorst argues that after forty years of design research, there has been an
increase in the number of anomalies regarding core assumptions. Such
assumptions have not been properly addressed. Furthermore, they have
been mostly ignored by the design research community, because there is a
general feeling that their normal way of working is under threat, and
this makes them acutely uncomfortable.

Furthermore, the research development of the traditional design thinking

approach is losing its innovative forces. Current research topics, as well as
research methods, are mainly following and repeating topics and methods
of the last decades - thus missing a shift of focus and new enthusiasm. We
will briefly stress three issues which should be re-considered:

I. Major (or solely) emphasis on cognition which role do motivation

and emotion play during design thinking?
In accordance with Brown (2009), we would like to state that emotion is a
topic which has yet to gain more attention. Emphasis should be placed on
emotion as part of the designers thinking process. Why is there a need for
research on design thinking in addition to the cognitive level? Designing is
an activity comprising thinking processes, such as: generating solutions,
evaluating information, visualizing representations and developing
strategies, while learning and building up experience. These processes are
modified and moderated by emotions. For example, if a person gets angry
in a specific situation, his/her cognitions will change, his/her behavior
will be affected and so will the outcome. The same is true for the social
context which also has an impact on the designers motivation, cognition
and emotion. Thus, designing is more than a cognitive process. Designing
is also dealing with uncertainty, affecting thinking processes in different
ways. The motivation to explore new situations, and to take risks while
thinking in new ways, is different amongst people. Evidently, broader
access to the designer as human being is necessary. Whilst, design
thinking is a cognitive process, the actual behavior is determined by
cognitive, motivational and emotional processes. Emotions are driven by
the cognitive appraisal of relevant events, internal or external, enabling
people to respond appropriately to these events (Scherer, 2005).
Additionally, within the field of emotions further topics, such as
preferences or attitudes, are to be mentioned as these may have an impact
on the design thinking process.
II. Focus on design teams - what is the design team: interdisciplinary,
geographically dispersed and cultural divers - where is the individual
designer?
Designing is an individual activity but it takes place in a social context
(Bucchiarelli, 1994), where the characteristics of a team play an important
role. During the last decade, the focus on design teams has been
increased. However, research on designing in teams is still very scattered
and existing results are not really comparable. Sometimes the teams
investigated are set up in an ad hoc manner, some are project teams,
others are in geographically dispersed context, or composed of different
disciplines, and so forth. The comparability of these results must be
questioned and a structure of the variety of research results is needed.
Furthermore, cognitive processes steering the individual design activities
will be modified in the group context. In such cases, different processes
take place on how individual mental models develop in a team context
(Badke-Schaub et al. 2007) and how they influence the teams process.
Here, empirical research is needed, but also a theoretical underpinning of
these processes is still missing.

III. Design thinking research methods: is there more than case studies
and protocol analysis?
Empirical studies are important for developing and evaluating theories.
There are different approaches to execute empirical studies and the one
that is chosen should match with the research question(s). That means:
the more explorative the research question, the more appropriate it is a
qualitative research approach. Unfortunately, most of the research in the
field of design thinking seems to be explorative, with a lack of scientific
rigor in terms of data assessment, analysis and interpretation. Protocol
analysis, often referred to as a valid method for safeguarding the quality of
the research, is not necessarily the only and best way to arrive at
meaningful data, and by no means is a guarantee for quality. Also, the
field setting itself does not necessarily deliver valid results compared to
laboratory studies, due to the fact that it is very difficult to capture data
without all kind of interferences. A further understanding of designers
thinking processes is important, if we are to be prepared to deal with
future challenges in education and in design practice.
The new concept design thinking as business strategy comes along as a
kind of re-definition of the concept without reference to the existing
traditional design thinking concept. Visionary ideas, such as formulated in
the new design thinking approach, might help to widen the view and look
at designing in different ways. Therefore, a better defined approach
should provide a kind of a process model of designing as innovation and
transformation process where, how and when the designer will be
involved, how are the tasks of the designers framed compared to the
marketing people, etc. There seem to be first attempts developing more
elaborated strategies which provide guidelines for managers suggesting
how to cultivate creative equity proactively within their organization
(Person & Schoormans, 2010).

Obviously, there are more issues in design thinking research which need
to be addressed in the following years, because it is essential to enhance
progress and knowledge to scientifically support the designer.

References
Badke-Schaub, P. Lloyd, P., van der Lugt, R., Roozenburg, N. (2005).
Human-centered Design Methodology. Proceedings of Design Research in
the Netherlands 2005, Design Systems, Eindhoven, pp 23-32.

Badke-Schaub, P., Neumann, A., Lauche, K. and Mohammed, S. (2007).

Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design
collaboration? CoDesign 3, pp 5-20.

Birkhofer, H., Jnsch, J. and Kloberdanz, H. (2005). An extensive and

detailed view of the application of design methods and methodology in
industry. Proceedings of the ICED International Conference on Engineering
Design, Melbourne.

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, June 2008.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms

Organizations and Inspires Innovation, Harper Business, NY.

Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design
Studies 29 (1), pp 4-11.

Kesselring, F. (1954). Technische Kompositionslehre. Springer, Berlin.

Pahl, G., Beitz, W. (1984). Engineering Design. Springer, Berlin.

Leonard, D. and Rayport, J. F. (1997) Spark Innovation Through Empathic

Design. Harvard Business Review, 102-113.

Lockwood T. (ed.) (2009) Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer

Experience, and Brand Value. Design Management Institute, Allworth Press,
NY.

Martin, R.L. (2009) The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next
Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.

Norman, D. (2010). Design Thinking. A useful myth? Core77, 16 th June 2010.

http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.
asp

Osborn, A. F. (1952). Wake up your mind: 101 ways to develop

creativeness. New York: Scribners.

Person, O. and Schoormans, J. (2010). Cultivating creative equity in

Scandinavian design brands. Design Issues, 26, 4, 49-57.

Scherer, K.R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured?
Social Science Information 44(4), pp 695-729.

Simon, H. (1973). The structure of ill-defined problems. Artificial Intelligence 4,

3-4, 181-201.

Verganti, R. (2009). Design Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of

Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean, Harvard Business
School, Cambridge, MA.

Visser, W, (2009). Design: one, but in different forms. Design Studies 30, 187-
223.

Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.