4 ms·

To everyone who thinks design thinking is just the obvious way to do things, I think you need something to contrast it with. In the same way that we cannot see

To everyone who thinks design thinking is just the obvious way to do things, I think you need something to contrast it with. In the same way that we cannot see anything innovative about "agile" without understanding the standard that was "waterfall." Suppose we wanted to come up with a new product in the "old days". Or you ask an unenlightened person to come up with a product. What might they do? Brainstorm, would be my first guess. You would brainstorm various products. So let's take the latest thought from @boredelonmusk: "Eye tracking software that engages turn signals automatically when the driver (who has no regard for other humans and shouldn’t legally be allowed to be on the road or really be part of any modern society) doesn’t." So there is an idea, and then maybe someone else will come up with another one and another. After that maybe we'll all vote on the best idea. After that someone start implementing an early version to test. So let's say they mount a helmet on a person and they try to get the eye tracker to work properly. Once they have that working, they will try to get it hooked up to the blinkers. Once the prototype is out, we'll see if we can mass produce it, and also start market testing. With "design thinking", you would not start with brainstorming "ideas". You would brainstorm problems to solve. (People not putting on their turn signals). Then you would go out and see if that really is a problem, and maybe interview people. If its not a problem, you would discard it without anyone voting on it. If you did discover its a problem, you would then test to see if people were interested in an eye tracker. You would do interviews and mockup a product to see if people would even bother to wear it. Its not "just" thinking. Its a particular habit (a "discipline") of thinking.

giancarlostoro 8y ago
> To everyone who thinks design thinking is just the obvious way to do things Things always seem obvious as someone explains them, but not when you're wondering what to do without prior experience or knowledge of what works. I have an idea of designs I like, I have no idea how to go through and replicate those designs necessarily and they may not be what my boss or the client wants. I've been led down paths of building awful designs by clients, but they're paying so... I just do what they say, till they realize what we realized long before the design was implemented (and trust me, no amount of telling them works).
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> In the same way that we cannot see anything innovative about "agile" without understanding the standard that was "waterfall." Yup. The most important thing to understand about "waterfall" that it was a strawman describing a hypothetical bad practice, created to contrast against better ways of managing projects. People who failed at reading comprehension ran off with this and started talking about waterfall as if it was a real thing everyone was doing. > With "design thinking", you would not start with brainstorming "ideas". You would brainstorm problems to solve. (People not putting on their turn signals). Then you would go out and see if that really is a problem, and maybe interview people. If its not a problem, you would discard it without anyone voting on it. This is barely "focus on problems to solve instead of particular solutions", and "verify the problem is actually a problem". Not following this is a trap everyone falls into more or less often, but alone that doesn't a design ideology make. We don't need the capitalized Design Thinking™ for this. I've been involved in Design Thinking workshops, and my take is this: like Agile™, it's a core of good concepts. Not new concepts, just concepts that a random person may follow, but not figure out to name them and consider them explicitly. That core has accrued a large layer of nonsense, Capitalized Phrases, and other trinkets that make it look Serious. Is there a value in this? Not in terms of applying it to solving your problems. But definitely in forcing common sense down the throat of a company. Managing your bosses is unfortunately a thing, and a Named, Serious Methodology is frequently a useful vector to sneak in some reason that would otherwise be shot down by management.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

> To everyone who thinks design thinking is just the obvious way to do things Things always seem obvious as someone explains them, but not when you're wondering what to do without prior experience or knowledge of what works. I have an idea of designs I like, I have no idea how to go through and replicate those designs necessarily and they may not be what my boss or the client wants. I've been led down paths of building awful designs by clients, but they're paying so... I just do what they say, till they realize what we realized long before the design was implemented (and trust me, no amount of telling them works).

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> In the same way that we cannot see anything innovative about "agile" without understanding the standard that was "waterfall." Yup. The most important thing to understand about "waterfall" that it was a strawman describing a hypothetical bad practice, created to contrast against better ways of managing projects. People who failed at reading comprehension ran off with this and started talking about waterfall as if it was a real thing everyone was doing. > With "design thinking", you would not start with brainstorming "ideas". You would brainstorm problems to solve. (People not putting on their turn signals). Then you would go out and see if that really is a problem, and maybe interview people. If its not a problem, you would discard it without anyone voting on it. This is barely "focus on problems to solve instead of particular solutions", and "verify the problem is actually a problem". Not following this is a trap everyone falls into more or less often, but alone that doesn't a design ideology make. We don't need the capitalized Design Thinking™ for this. I've been involved in Design Thinking workshops, and my take is this: like Agile™, it's a core of good concepts. Not new concepts, just concepts that a random person may follow, but not figure out to name them and consider them explicitly. That core has accrued a large layer of nonsense, Capitalized Phrases, and other trinkets that make it look Serious. Is there a value in this? Not in terms of applying it to solving your problems. But definitely in forcing common sense down the throat of a company. Managing your bosses is unfortunately a thing, and a Named, Serious Methodology is frequently a useful vector to sneak in some reason that would otherwise be shot down by management.