Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1
2 4 ATTRIBUTES OF DESIGN THINKING
The re-design rule, where all design is re-design; this Some early design processes stemmed from soft sys-
comes as a result of changing technology and social tems methodology in the 1960s. Koberg and Bagnall
circumstances but previously solved, unchanged human wrote The All New Universal Traveller in 1972 and pre-
needs. sented a circular, seven-step process to problem-solving.
The tangibility rule; the concept that making ideas tangi- These[23] seven steps could be done lineally or in feed-back
ble always facilitates communication and allows designers loops. Stanford’s d.school developed an updated seven
to treat prototypes as 'communication media'. step process in 2007.[24] Other expressions of design pro-
cesses have been proposed, including a three-step sim-
plified triangular process (or the six-part, less simplified
4.2 Wicked problems pyramid) by Bryan Lawson.[6] Hugh Dubberly’s free e-
book How Do You Design: A Compendium of Models
[25]
Design thinking is especially useful when addressing what summarizes a large number of design process models.
Horst Rittel referred to as wicked problems, which are Design thinking calls for considering the given user case
ill-defined or tricky (as opposed to wicked in the sense from various perspectives, empathizing with users, and
of malicious).[18] With ill-defined problems, both the addressing various stakeholders.
problem and the solution are unknown at the outset of
the problem-solving exercise. This is as opposed to
“tame” or “well-defined” problems where the problem is 4.5 The use of visual analogy in design
clear, and the solution is available through some technical thinking and learning
knowledge.[19]
For wicked problems, the general thrust of the problem Ill-defined problems often contain higher-order and ob-
may be clear, however considerable time and effort is scure relationships. Design thinking can address these
spent in order to clarify the requirements. A large part through the use of analogies. An understanding of the ex-
of the problem solving activity, then, consists of problem pected results, or lack of domain-related knowledge for
definition and problem shaping.[20] the task, may be developed by correlating different in-
ternal representations, such as images, to develop an un-
derstanding of the obscure or ill-defined elements of the
4.3 The “a-ha moment” situation. The process involves several complex cognitive
mechanisms, as the design task often has elements in mul-
The “a-ha moment” is the moment where there is sud- tiple cognitive domains—visual, mathematical, auditory
denly a clear forward path.[21] It is the point in the cycle or tactile—requiring the usage of multiple “languages”,
where synthesis and divergent thinking, analysis and con- like visual thinking.
vergent thinking, and the nature of the problem all come
together and an appropriate resolution has been captured.
Prior to this point, the process may seem nebulous, hazy 4.6 Design thinking for social innovation
and inexact. At this point, the path forward is so obvious
that in retrospect it seems odd that it took so long to rec- Social challenges require systemic solutions that are
ognize it. After this point, the focus becomes more and grounded in the client’s or customer’s needs. Nonprofits
more clear as the final product is constructed.[22] are beginning to use design thinking as well to develop
better solutions to social problems, because it crosses
the traditional boundaries between public, for-profit, and
4.4 Methods and process nonprofit sectors. By working closely with the clients and
consumers, design thinking allows high-impact solutions
Design methods and design process are often used inter- to bubble up from below rather than being imposed from
[26]
changeably, but there are significant differences between the top.
the two.
Design methods are techniques, rules, or ways of do-
ing things that someone uses within a design discipline. 5 The process of design thinking
Methods for design thinking include interviewing, creat-
ing user profiles, looking at other existing solutions, cre- 5.1 Inspiration, ideation and implementa-
ating prototypes, mind mapping, asking questions like the tion
five whys, and situational analysis.
Because of design thinking’s parallel nature, there are As an approach, design thinking taps into innate human
many different paths through the phases. This is part capacities but that are overlooked by more conventional
of the reason design thinking may seem to be “fuzzy” problem-solving practices. It does not only focus on cre-
or “ambiguous” when compared to more analytical, ating products and services that are human centered, but
Cartesian methods of science and engineering. the process itself is also deeply human.[26] The process is
4 5 THE PROCESS OF DESIGN THINKING
best thought of as a system of overlapping spaces rather have studied psychology, artists with MBAs, or engineers
than a sequence of orderly steps: inspiration, ideation, with marketing experience—often demonstrate this qual-
and implementation.[27] Inspiration is the initial problem ity. They're people with the capacity and the disposition
or opportunity that leads you to the finding of the so- for collaboration across disciplines.[28]
lution; ideation is the core of the development process Interdisciplinary teams typically move into a structured
where the idea is better defined; and implementation is brainstorming process by “thinking outside the box”.
the final step where the solution comes in contact with During this process own ideas and the other’s one have
the outer world. Projects may loop back through inspira- not to be judged and participants shouldn't take a non-
tion, ideation, and implementation more than once as the
generative role.[30] Instead, participants are encouraged
team refines its ideas and explores new directions. There- to come up with as many ideas as possible and to ex-
fore, design thinking can feel chaotic, but over the life of a
plore new alternatives. Good ideas naturally rise to the
project, participants come to see that the process makes top, whereas the bad ones drop off early on. Every mem-
sense and achieves results, even though its form differs
ber of the team needs to possess a depth of skill that al-
from the linear, milestone-based processes that organi- lows him or her to make tangible contributions to the out-
zations typically undertake.[28] Design thinking activities
come, and to be empathic for people and for disciplines
are carried on in different steps which are: empathize, beyond one’s own. It tends to be expressed as openness,
define, ideate, prototype and test.[29] Within these steps, curiosity, optimism, a tendency toward learning through
problems can be framed, the right questions can be asked, doing, and experimentation.[26] Convergent thinking, on
more ideas can be created, and the best answers can be the other hand, allow to zooming and focusing on the dif-
chosen. ferent proposals and to select the best choice, which per-
mits to continue the design thinking process to achieve
the final goals. After collecting lot of ideas, a team goes
5.2 Inspiration space and empathy stage through a process of synthesis in which it has to translate
what is been seen and is been headed into insights that
Generally, the design process starts with the inspiration can lead to solutions or opportunities for change. This
phase, in which the previous step is the definition of the approach helps multiply options to create choices and dif-
brief. The brief is a set of mental constraints that gives the ferent insights about human behavior and define in which
project team a framework from which to begin, bench- direction the process should go on. These might be ei-
marks by which they can measure progress, and a set ther visions of new product offerings, or choices among
of objectives to be realized—such as price point, avail- various ways of creating interactive experience.[28] Once
able technology, and market segment.[28] Designers ap- there are lot of ideas, the following step is to select the
proach users with empathy, understanding what humans most extreme one in order to find solutions that solve un-
need or might need, what makes life easier and more en- met needs.
joyable, what is technologically useful and more usable.
It is not only about making things more ergonomic but
about understanding people - the way they do things and
why, their physical and emotional needs, how they think
about the world, and what is meaningful to them.[29] Con-
ventional research methods, like focus groups and survey, 5.4 Complexity and mindset conditions
can be useful in pointing towards incremental improve-
ments, but those don't usually lead to breakthroughs be- More choices mean more complexity, which can affect
cause these techniques simply ask people what they want. organization’s decisions to restrict choices in favour of
Henry Ford understood this when he said, “If I'd asked the obvious and the incremental. Although this tendency
my customers what they wanted, they'd have said 'a faster may be more efficient in the short run, it tends to make
horse.” and no one would have said a car.[28] an organization conservative and inflexible in the long
run.[26] Divergent thinking is the route, not the obsta-
cle, to innovation, and a way to diverge is to define a
5.3 Ideation: Divergent thinking versus mindset of condition in which people are encouraged to
convergent thinking produce lots of ideas. The most notable themes fall into
three general traits: open-minded collaboration, courage,
Ideate is the mode of the design process in which you and conviction.[31] Open minded refers to the concept of
concentrate on idea generation. Mentally it represents being opened and accept new ideas and contributions.
a process of “going wide” in terms of concepts and Courage is also fundamental because innovative ideas are
outcomes.[29] The process is characterized by the alter- characterized by a high risk of failure. It permits to face
nation of divergent and convergent thinking, typical of failure, element of high importance in order to improve
design thinking process. To achieve divergent thinking, in the right way. In addition, conviction is the mindset
it is important to have a diverse group of people involved which permits to carry on a process or an idea even if
in the process. Multidisciplinary people—architects who there are constrains or obstacles.
6.1 The languages of design 5
5.5 Implementation and prototyping appropriate methods being controlled experiment, clas-
sification, and analysis. In this culture, objectivity, ra-
The third space of the design thinking process is imple- tionality, neutrality, and a concern for “truth” are most
mentation, when the best ideas generated during ideation valued. In the humanities, analogy, metaphor, and evalu-
are turned into a concrete, fully conceived action plan.[26] ation serve as methods of study of the human experience.
At the core of the implementation process is prototyping: The values of this culture include subjectivity, imagina-
turning ideas into actual products and services that are tion, commitment, and a concern for “justice”. Design,
then tested, iterated, and refined. A prototype helps to however, concerns itself with the artificial world and uses
gather feedbacks and improve the idea. Prototypes speed modeling, pattern-forming, and synthesis to study it. In
up the process of innovation because allow to understand design, practicality, ingenuitry, empathy, and a concern
strengths and weaknesses of new solutions. Prototyping is for “appropriateness” are the core values.
particularly important for products and services destined
for the developing world, where the lack of infrastruc-
ture, retail chains, communication networks, literacy, and 6.1 The languages of design
other essential pieces of the system often make it difficult
to design new products and services.[26] Prototyping, test- Conventionally, designers communicate mostly in visual
ing, “failing many times but quickly and cheaply in order or object languages.[7][34] Symbols, signs, and metaphors
to succeed” [32] are different existing methods to test so- are used through the medium of sketching, diagrams and
lutions, but the earlier users can give feedbacks, the lower technical drawings to translate abstract requirements into
are the costs for the organizations and higher is the level concrete objects. The way designers communicate, then,
of adaptation of the solution to customer needs. is through understanding this way of coding design re-
quirements in order to produce built products.[35]
A study by the London Business School found that for tors. “Much of today’s education system guides students
every percent of sales invested in product design, profits toward finding the correct answers to fill-in-the blanks on
rose by an average of 3 to 4 percent.[42] standardized tests, as this kind of instruction facilitates
Historically designers were only introduced in the last streamlined assessments to measure success or failure ...
steps of product development process, focusing their at- It is critical that, particularly in under-served schools this
tention on improving the look and functionality of prod- model of learning does not continue to prevail. Students
ucts, instead looking for a high impact on the world and need both the skills and the tools to participate in a so-
the society. Design was a tool of consumerism, able to ciety where problems are increasingly complex and nu-
anced understandings are vital.”[52]
make products more attractive, easier to use and more
marketable.[43] In recent years designers developed spe-
Uses in K-12 education
cific methods and tools to deliver products and services
and businesses are beginning to realize the necessity of In the K-12 arena, design thinking is used to promote
design as a competitive asset. Therefore, designers bring creative thinking, teamwork, and student responsibility
their methods into business by either taking part them- for learning. The nonprofit Tools at Schools aims to ex-
selves in the earliest stages of business processes or train- pose students, educators, and schools to design thinking.
ing business people to use design methods and to build The organization does this by facilitating a relationship
business thinking capabilities. Design thinking, as the between a school and a manufacturing company. Over a
perfect balance between desirability, technical feasibility minimum of six months, representatives from the manu-
and economic viability helps organizations to be more in- facturing company teach students the principles of design
novative, better differentiate their brands, and bring their and establish the kind of product to be designed.[53] The
products and services to market faster.[43] students collaborate to design a prototype that the manu-
facturer produces.[53] Once the prototype arrives, the stu-
dents must promote the product and support the ideas that
6.3 Design thinking in education lead to its design.[53]
Design thinking has been suggested for use in schools in An example of the Tools at Schools partnership is the
a variety of curricular ways,[44][45][46] as well as for re- redesign of school equipment by 8th grade students at
designing student spaces and school systems.[47] The School at Columbia University. The students were
divided into groups and asked to redesign a locker,
Design thinking in education typically takes three forms: chair, or a desk to better suit the needs of 21st cen-
helping school administrators solve institution-based tury pupils.[54] The students’ final products were displayed
problems, aiding educators to develop more creative les- at the International Contemporary Furniture Fair where
son plans, and engendering design thinking skills in stu- they demonstrated their product to fair attendees and in-
dents. dustry professionals.[54] Overall Tools at Schools not only
There are currently many researchers exploring the in- introduces students to the design process, it exposes them
tersection of design thinking and education.[48] The to the design profession through their interactions with
[54]
REDLab group, from Stanford University's Graduate designers and manufacturers. Since the students work
School of Education, conducts research into design think- together in groups, design thinking in education also en-
ing in K-12, secondary, and post-secondary settings.[49] courages collaborative learning.
The Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program Another organization that works with integrating design
is a collaborative program between Stanford Univer- thinking for students is the corporation NoTosh. No-
sity and the Hasso Plattner Institute from Potsdam, Tosh has a design thinking school to teach instructors
Germany.[48][50] The Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Re- how to implement design thinking into their curricu-
search Program’s mission is to “apply rigorous academic lum. One of the design thinking techniques NoTosh
methods to understand how and why design thinking in- adopted from the corporate world and applied to edu-
novation works and fails.”[50] cation is hexagonal thinking. Hexagonal thinking con-
SPJIMR, a top B-school in India, offers a road map to sists of gathering cut-outs in hexagon shapes and writ-
build design thinking culture in the organisation and has ing a concept or fact on each one. Students then con-
implemented the approach across its different manage- nect the hexagons by laying related ideas or facts together.
ment programs. The visual representation of relationships helps students
better conceptualize wicked problems.[55] Another con-
In addition to enriching curriculum and expanding stu- crete example of design thinking in action is NoTosh’s
dent perspectives, design thinking can also benefit ed- “Googleable vs NonGoogleable Questions” exercise.[55]
ucators. Researchers have proposed that design think- Given a specific topic, students brainstorm questions on
ing can enable educators to integrate technology into the that issue and divide their questions into “Googleable and
classroom.[51] NonGoogleable.”[55] Students research the Googleable
Design thinking as a viable curricular and systemic re- questions and present their findings to the class while the
form program is increasingly being recognized by educa- NonGoogleable questions are used to create a project.[55]
6.3 Design thinking in education 7
Stanford University’s Taking Design Thinking to to “inspire and develop the creative confidence of edu-
Schools Initiative cators and support edu innovators catalyzing new mod-
els for teaching and learning.”[57] The K12 Lab Network
publishes a wiki with information on creating design chal-
Apart from non profit entities and corporations, research
lenges for K-12 schools. The wiki provides tools for
universities are also involved in deploying design think-
thinking about design challenges as well as criteria for im-
ing curriculum to K-12 schools. Part of Stanford Univer-
plementing design challenges.[58]
sity's efforts to incorporate design thinking in education
into a hands-on setting is the Taking Design Thinking to
Schools initiative. The Stanford School of Education and The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit
d.school partner with K-12 teachers in the Palo Alto area
to discover ways to apply design thinking in an educa- The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit was devel-
tional setting.[56] “Teachers and students engage in hands- oped in 2011 by the design firm IDEO in partnership
on design challenges that focus on developing empathy, with the PreK-12 independent school Riverdale Coun-
[59]
promoting a bias towards action, encouraging ideation, try School. The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit
developing metacognitive awareness and fostering active that is currently offered to the public for free download
problem solving.”[56] is the second version.[60] The Design Thinking for Ed-
ucators toolkit is a comprehensive resource for educa-
Taking Design Thinking to Schools identifies the follow- tors to use, which includes a “walk-through of the design
ing design thinking process: thinking process complete with examples and a down-
loadable workbook”.[61] The toolkit has been used in aca-
• Understand: students explore the topic through re- demic research to aid in the creation of an "iPad learn-
search and develop familiarity with the subject mat- ing Ecosystem”.[62] to help design a program to aid at-
ter risk youth in the transition from elementary to secondary
school,[62] as well as to redesign libraries.[61]
• Observe: this phase consists of students taking note
of their environment, which includes physical sur- AIGA
roundings and human interactions; students gather
more information about peoples’ actions and possi-
AIGA has implemented a movement, DesignEd K12, to
ble motivation through discussion
take designing thinking to schools. This movement is
• Point of view: students consider alternate points of guided by volunteers and there is not a specific program to
views to better understand the problem and to in- follow; instead volunteer designers introduce students to
form their ideas in the next phase the design field and consequently, design thinking. De-
signEd K12 intends to motivate students to use design
• Ideate: this phase consists of students brainstorming thinking to solve problems; to create a network where de-
ideas without criticism or inhibition. In this phase, signers, students, and educational professionals share best
the focus is on generating lots of ideas with an em- practices; to shape a recommended approach to teaching
phasis on creativity and enjoying the process. design; and to cultivate a passion for design among young
people.[63] Across the nation, many of AIGA’s chapters
• Prototype: in this phase students create quick pro- are working with school districts. The programs range
totypes to investigate ideas generated during the in scope; some mentor students who have shown an in-
ideation phase terest in design, while other programs offer students the
• Test: students test their ideas in a repetitive fashion opportunity to explore design and participate in design
and determine which aspects of the design are ef- thinking projects within [63]
scheduled classed or through an
fective and which could be improved. [56] after-school activity.
has formalized instruction on design thinking through its learning;[71][72][73] Considering the emphasis and the in-
dLab. The dLab serves a multitude of functions from vestment that has been placed on the use of ICT in for-
helping schools resolve their issues with design think- mal learning settings (schools and higher education in-
ing to conducting empirical experiments on design think- stitutions) it is important to identify where the problems
ing to collaborating with outside organizations to provide are. In this regard, some voices of the educational com-
issues that plague their organization.[66] Radford Uni- munity focus on the methods used for integrating ICT in
versity, located in Radford, Virginia, currently offers a teaching and learning;.[74][75] In this sense, the adoption
Master of Fine Arts (MFA) degree in design thinking.[55] of a design thinking mindset is regarded as a promising
The MFA degree offered is a completely online degree strategy to develop holistic solutions.
that emphasizes design thinking, design history, design Design thinking in teaching and learning through ICT
research, design management, and design doing.[67]
can be considered as similar activities. First, it’s im-
The Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School and portant to acknowledge that the type of problems faced
the Maryland Institute College of Art began offering an by the educational community when adopting learn-
MBA/MA in design leadership in 2012.[68] Students si- ing technology are unique, ill-defined and do not have
multaneously earn a master of arts degree in design lead- clear solutions;.[76][77] This definition corresponds very
ership from an art school as well as an MBA from a re- well to the term wicked problems used by the de-
search institution. sign community.[78] Secondly, similarly to what happens
in design, the diversity of actors brings another layer
of complexity that should be recognized. In this re-
Obstacles to implementing design thinking in schools
gard, collaboration between different stakeholders dur-
ing the design process is another key issue that could
contribute to develop more meaningful technologies for
The accountability to succeed on high-stakes standard- learning;[74][75][79]
ized tests in K-12 environments prevents the implemen-
Design thinking has been outlined as a meaningful ap-
tation of design thinking curriculum. Educators feel that
proach for facing wicked problems.[13] The adoption of a
focusing on classic curriculum will better prepare their
design mindset helps understand that there can be many
students to perform well on these exams.[52] Resistance
solutions for a given situation and that any design requires
to design thinking also springs from concerns about the
testing. From this perspective, bringing design thinking
appropriateness of applying design thinking to an educa-
to learning design and design expertise to the develop-
tional setting. It has been argued that design thinking is
ment process of technological learning solutions can con-
best applied by professionals who know a field well.[69]
tribute to the creation of more holistic solutions in learn-
Therefore, K-12 students who are limited by their re-
ing through ICT.[80]
duced understanding of both the field and their still de-
veloping intellectual capacities may not be best suited to
design thinking activities.[69]
7 History
Another more subtle obstacle to design thinking in
schools may come from members of the academic com-
munity who believe design thinking should remain in the 8 See also
milieu of avant-garde companies.[70] Other issues that
may prevent the implementation of design thinking in • Creativity techniques
scholastic settings may be a lack of awareness of the field,
educators’ uncertainty in implementing new approaches • Design-based learning
to teaching, and lack of institutional support.
• Lateral thinking
Even for institutions that see the value of design thinking,
there is the issue of implementing these new approaches • Method engineering
to education successfully. Admittedly “creating an effec-
tive thinking and successful team learning experience is • Problem solving
a sticky wicked problem.”[64] • Problem structuring methods
• Reflective practice
6.4 Design thinking in teaching and learn-
• Scenario thinking
ing through ICT
• Systems thinking
The integration of ICT into teaching and learning
presents many challenges that go beyond issues dealing • User experience
with technical implementation. Some researchers have
already claimed the limited effects of ICT adoption in Portals
9
• Portal:thinking [14] Dorst, Kees; Cross, Nigel (2001). “Creativity in the de-
sign process: Co-evolution of problem-solution”. Design
• Portal:design Studies. 22 (5): 425–437.
9 References [17] Plattner, Hasso; Meinel, Christoph; Leifer, Larry J., eds.
(2011). Design thinking: understand, improve, apply. Un-
[1] Visser, W. 2006, The cognitive artifacts of designing, derstanding innovation. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Verlag. pp. xiv–xvi. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0.
ISBN 3-642-13756-3. OCLC 898322632.
[2] Dorst, Kees (2012). Frame Innovation: Create new think-
ing by design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0- [18] Rittel, Horst; Webber, Melvin. “Dilemmas in a General
262-32431-1. Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69”
(PDF).
[3] Tim Brown. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review,
june 2008. [19] Beinecke, Richard. “Leadership for Wicked Problems.”
The Innovation Journal 14.1 (2009): 1–17.
[4] Simon, Herbert (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial.
Cambridge: MIT Press. [20] Rowe 1987, pages 40–41
[5] McKim, Robert (1973). Experiences in Visual Thinking. [21] Saloner, Garth. “Innovation: A Leadership Essential Biz
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Ed 2011: 26-30” (PDF).
[6] Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Pro- [22] Cross, Nigel. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London:
cess Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980 Springer, 2006.
[7] Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design [23] Koberg, Don, and Jim Bagnall. The All New Universal
Studies 3.4 (1982): 221-27. Traveller: a Soft-systems Guide To: Creativity, Problem-
solving and the Process of Reaching Goals. Los Altos, CA:
[8] Rowe, G. Peter (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge: Kaufmann, 1981.
The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-68067-7.
[24] “Design thinking chart”. Designthinkingblog.com. Octo-
[9] Faste, Rolf, Bernard Roth and Douglass J. Wilde, ber 2009. Retrieved 11 March 2015.
“Integrating Creativity into the Mechanical Engineering
Curriculum”, Cary A. Fisher, Ed., ASME Resource Guide [25] Dubberly, Hugh. “How Do You Design: A Compendium
to Innovation in Engineering Design, American Society of of Models”.
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993
[26] Brown, T. Wyatt, J. 2010. Design thinking for social in-
[10] Faste, Rolf, “Ambidextrous Thinking”, Innovations in novation. Stanford social innovation review
Mechanical Engineering Curricula for the 1990s, Amer-
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 1994 [27] Brown, T. 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Re-
view.
[11] Patnaik, Dev, “Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid
Thinking”, Fast Company, August 25, 2009. "... design [28] Brown, T. Wyatt, J. 2010. Design thinking for social in-
thinking is any process that applies the methods of indus- novation. Stanford social innovation review.
trial designers to problems beyond how a product should
[29] An introduction to design thinking, dschool.stanford.edu.
look. My mentor at Stanford, Rolf Faste, did more than
anyone to define the term and express the unique role that [30] Kelley T. Littman J, 2005, The Ten Faces of Innovation
designers could play in making pretty much everything.”
[31] Fraser, H. 2006. Turning design thinking in design doing,
[12] Brown, Tim. “The Making of a Design Thinker.” Rotman Magazine
Metropolis Oct. 2009: 60–62. p. 60: “David Kelley ...
said that every time someone came to ask him about de- [32] designandthinking, Mu Ming Tsai,2012, Film
sign, he found himself inserting the word thinking to ex-
plain what it is that designers do. The term design thinking [33] Jones, John Christopher. Design Method Vol 4. New
stuck.” York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.
[13] Buchanan, Richard, “Wicked Problems in Design Think- [34] Wong, Wiccus. Principles of Two-dimensional Design.
ing,” Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972.
10 9 REFERENCES
[35] Leborg, Christian. Visual Grammar. New York: Prince- [58] “Creating Design Challenges”. stanford.edu.
ton Architectural, 2006.
[59] “Vialogues : Annette Diefenthaler, IDEO (Design Think-
[36] Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think ing & Education)". Vialogues.
big (YouTube). TED.
[60] “Toolkit « Design Thinking for Educators”. designthink-
[37] “Design Thinking”. ideo.com. ingforeducators.com.
[38] “Why the d.school has its limits”, Stanford Daily [61] Bradburn, F. B. (2013). Redesigning Our Role While Re-
designing Our Libraries. Knowledge Quest, 42(1), 52–57.
[39] “15 top MBA employers IDEO”, Fortune Magazine June
05 2012 [62] Kernohan, K. (2012). Designing an educational program
for at-risk youth in transition from elementary to sec-
[40] “When Everyone Is Doing Design Thinking, Is It Still a ondary school: comparing the traditional problem-solving
Competitive Advantage?". Harvard Business Review. approach to the design thinking approach.
[41] Jones, Andrew (2008). The Innovation Acid Test. Axmin- [63] “AIGA - Cultivating design thinking in kids”. AIGA - the
ster: Triarchy Press. p. 20. professional association for design.
[42] Howkins, John (2003). The Creative Economy: How Peo- [64] Goldsman, S., Kabayandondo, Z., Royalty, A., Carroll,
ple Make Money from Ideas. The Penguin Press. pp. 121– M. P., & Roth, B. (2014). Student teams in search of
122. design thinking. Design Thinking Research.
[43] Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think [65] “Our point of view”. d.school.
big (YouTube). TED
[66] “dLab :: The Lab”. uky.edu.
[44] Leverenz, C. S. (2014). Design Thinking and the Wicked
Problem of Teaching Writing. Computers & Composi- [67] “About the MFA in Design Thinking”. radford.edu.
tion, 33, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2014.07.001
[68] “MBA/MA in Design Leadership”. Johns Hopkins Carey
[45] Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity Through “Maker” Experi- Business School website.
ences and Design Thinking in the Education of Librarians.
Knowledge Quest, 42(5), 58–61. [69] “Why 'Design Thinking' Doesn't Work in Education - On-
line Learning Insights”. Online Learning Insights.
[46] Leinonen, T. & Durall, E. (2014). Design Thinking
and Collaborative Learning. Pensamiento de Diseño Y [70] "'Design Thinking' and Higher Education”. insidehigh-
Aprendizaje Colaborativo., 21(42), 107–115. doi:10. ered.com.
3916/C42-2014-10 [71] Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High
[47] Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is De- access and low use of technologies in high school class-
sign Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of rooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Edu-
Educational Research,82(3), 330–348. doi:10.3102/ cational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
0034654312457429 [72] Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T.,
[48] “Research on Design Thinking”. stanford.edu. Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness
of reading and mathematics software products: Findings
[49] “REDlab- Research in Education & Design”. stan- from the first student cohort. (Publication No. 2007–
ford.edu. 4005). US: Institute of Education Sciences.
[50] “Overview - Hasso-Plattner-Institut”. hpi.de. [73] Ross, S. M., Smith, L., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (2004)
Using classroom observations as a research and formative
[51] http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/tsai-cc.pdf evaluation tool in educational reform: The school obser-
vation measure. In S. Hilberg and H. Waxman (Eds.) New
[52] http://web.stanford.edu/group/redlab/cgi-bin/materials/ directions for observational research in culturally and lin-
IJADE_Article.pdf guistically diverse classrooms (pp. 144–173). Santa Cruz,
CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Ex-
[53] Tools at Schools. “Tools at Schools - About”. tools-at-
cellence.
schools.com.
[74] Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S. & Fischer, F. (2009). The
[54] Tools at Schools. “Tools at Schools”. tools-at-
Evolution of Research on Computer-Supported Col-
schools.com.
laborative Learning. In N. Balacheff & al. (Eds.),
[55] “Design Thinking: Synthesis 1 - Hexagonal Thinking”. Technology-Enhanced Learning. Principles and Products
notosh.com. (pp. 3–19). Netherlands: Springer.
[56] http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/taking-design/ [75] Bonsignore, E., Ahn, J. & al. (2013). Embedding Partic-
presentations/Taking-design-to-school.pdf ipatory Design into Designs for Learning: An Untapped
Interdisciplinary Resource? In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M.
[57] “K12 Lab Network”. K12 Lab Network. Nathan & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and
11
a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, [93] Archer, L. Bruce. “Whatever Became of Design Method-
and Scale. Paper presented at the 10th International Con- ology?" Design Studies 1.1 (1979): 17–20.
ference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, June 15–19 (pp. 549– [94] Hubka, Vladimir, and W. E. Eder. Principles of Engineer-
556). International Society of the Learning Sciences. ing Design. London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982.
[77] Leinonen, T. (2010). Designing Learning Tools – [97] Cross, Nigel. Engineering Design Methods. England: Wi-
Methodological Insights. Ph.D. Aalto University School ley, 1989.
of Art and Design. Jyväskylä: Bookwell.
[98] Pugh, Stuart. Total Design: Integrated Methods for
[78] Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham, England:
Theory of Planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Addison-Wesley Pub., 1991.
[79] Leinonen, T., Durall, E. (2014). Design Thinking and [99] Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Pro-
Collaborative Learning. In Revolution in Education? fessionals Think in Action. New York: Basic, 1983.
Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL). B. [100] “The New Bauhaus continues today as IIT Institute of De-
Rubia & M. Guitert (Eds.). Comunicar, 21(42) sign”. IIT Institute of Design—Beta website.
[80] Leinonen, T., Durall, E., Kuikkaniemi, K., Mikkonen, T., [101] Florida, Richard L. The Rise of the Creative Class: and
Nelimarkka, M., Syvänen, A. & Toikkanen, T. (2014). How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Ev-
Design for Learning: Enhancing Participation in Learn- eryday Life. New York, NY: Basic, 2002.
ing through Design Thinking. In Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and [102] Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers
Telecommunications 2014 (pp. 659–662). Chesapeake, Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.
VA: AACE. [103] Martin, Roger L. The Opposable Mind: How Successful
Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA:
[81] “A Brief History of Design Thinking: The theory [P1]".
Harvard Business School, 2007.
I think ∴ I design.
[104] Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: the Story of Success. New
[82] Asimow, Morris. Introduction to Design. Englewood York: Little, Brown and, 2008.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
[105] Brown, Tim, and Barry Kātz. Change by Design: How De-
[83] Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. sign Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires In-
Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964. novation. New York: Harper Business, 2009.
[84] Archer, L. Bruce. Systematic Method for Designers. [106] Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Inno-
Council of Industrial Design, H.M.S.O., 1965. vation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York,
NY: Allworth, 2010.
[85] Jones, John Christopher. Design Methods. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1970. [107] Kumar, Vijay. 101 Design Methods: A Structured
Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization.
[86] Gordon, William J. J. Synectics, the Development of Cre- Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012.
ative Capacity. New York: Harper, 1961
[108] Keeley, Larry, Helen Walter, Ryan Pikkel, and Brian
[87] Osborn, Alex F. Applied Imagination: Principles and Pro- Quinn. Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Build-
cedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Scribner, 1963. ing Breakthroughs. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013.
[88] “L. Bruce Archer”. oxfordreference.com. [109] Erwin, Kim. Communicating the New: Methods to Shape
and Accelerate Innovation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2014.
[89] Alexander, Christopher. “The State of the Art in Design
[110] Moggridge, Bill. Designing Interactions. Chapter six. The
Methods.” DMG Newsletter 5:3 (1971): 3–7.
MIT Press; 1 edition (October 1, 2007).
[90] Jones, John Christopher. “How My Thoughts about De- [111] “Design Camp”. IIT Institute of Design—Beta website.
sign Methods Have Changed during the Years.” Design
Methods and Theories 11.1 (1977): 45–62. [112] “Girls Driving for a Difference”. Girls Driving for a Dif-
ference.
[91] Rittel, H., 1984, “Second-Generation Design Methods.”
Developments in Design Methodology. N. Cross (Editor), [113] Cole, Samantha (3 March 2015). “How four women in an
John Wiley & Sons, UK pp. 317–327. RV plan to change young girls’ lives: this summer, four
Stanford students will bring design-thinking workshops to
[92] Cross, Nigel. “Forty Years of Design Research.” Design middle-school girls at summer camps across the country”.
Studies 28 (2007): 1–4. Fast Company. Retrieved 11 March 2015.
12 10 FURTHER READING
10 Further reading
• Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking: Understanding How
Designers Think and Work. Oxford UK and New
York: Berg, 2011.
11.2 Images
• File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work, based off of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk · contribs)
• File:DesignThinking.ogv Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/DesignThinking.ogv License: CC BY 3.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: Brettnewman
• File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The
Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the file, specifically: “Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).”