3 ms·

I did not really understand why they use the term 'Design Thinking.' The article did not make it clear to me why they use the product development framework for

I did not really understand why they use the term 'Design Thinking.' The article did not make it clear to me why they use the product development framework for social problem-solving. Personally, I like data-driven design. As in: ask a designer why, and you know why this is good or bad design. The 'why' should be linked to real data and decisions based on them.

gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
>Stanford University's d.school begins to teach design thinking as a generalisable approach to technical and social innovation. From wikipedia. It's like "Foundation Models", they successfully branded the concept but nobody cites them anymore
- exiguus 1y ago
  Thx for the hint. I found a introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford [1]. I worked before with the IBM Design Thinking Field Guide [2]. That offers some hands-on examples to work with users and stakeholders. Now, when i think about this, you may use Design Thinking to solve social-problems. With all the benefits and issues (like feature creep) you have in software engineering. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554... [2] https://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/spring18/cs130/hw/IBM-Design-Thinking-Field-Guide-v3.4.pdf https://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/spring18/cs130/hw/IBM-Design...
- sgt101 1y ago
  It had a big moment in about 2015 where it (Design Thinking) was touted as a way of focusing software/product development on "real needs". This created an industry of designers and workshops and a lot of C-1 executive enthusiasm. I think it failed for two reasons, first off is the fact that technical and financial fundamentals are like gravity - there's no arguing with them. Secondly, COVID came and all the workshops went away. I haven't seen any big push to resurrect it, and I suspect it's been quietly parked by all those who had bet their careers on it and then identified an off ramp during the pandemic.

gsf_emergency_2 1y ago

>Stanford University's d.school begins to teach design thinking as a generalisable approach to technical and social innovation. From wikipedia. It's like "Foundation Models", they successfully branded the concept but nobody cites them anymore

exiguus 1y ago
Thx for the hint. I found a introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford [1]. I worked before with the IBM Design Thinking Field Guide [2]. That offers some hands-on examples to work with users and stakeholders. Now, when i think about this, you may use Design Thinking to solve social-problems. With all the benefits and issues (like feature creep) you have in software engineering. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554... [2] https://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/spring18/cs130/hw/IBM-Design-Thinking-Field-Guide-v3.4.pdf https://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/spring18/cs130/hw/IBM-Design...
sgt101 1y ago
It had a big moment in about 2015 where it (Design Thinking) was touted as a way of focusing software/product development on "real needs". This created an industry of designers and workshops and a lot of C-1 executive enthusiasm. I think it failed for two reasons, first off is the fact that technical and financial fundamentals are like gravity - there's no arguing with them. Secondly, COVID came and all the workshops went away. I haven't seen any big push to resurrect it, and I suspect it's been quietly parked by all those who had bet their careers on it and then identified an off ramp during the pandemic.