What Is Good Design Thinking?

Design Thinking is a mindset and methodology centered around understanding and addressing people's needs.

Design Thinking is a mindset and methodology centered around understanding and addressing people's needs. Its people-centred approach emphasizes the importance of grasping the experiences and requirements of individuals. Good Design Thinking is achieved when we consistently apply these people-centred principles of empathy from the very beginning of the process. The initial phase is especially crucial, as it lays the foundation for everything that follows. By thoroughly exploring user needs, thoughts, feelings, and motivations, we set the stage for successful iterative development, teamwork, and collaborative problem-solving. Therefore, maintaining a people-centric focus throughout the entire Design Thinking journey is essential.

“Good Design Thinking is achieved when we consistently apply the people-centred principles of empathy from the very beginning of the process.

 Singapore's Prime Minister emphasizing that “good Design Thinking was the key reason for Singapore’s successful journey from third world to first.”

The Concept of “Good” in Design Thinking

The use of the word “Good” in the context of Design Thinking often refers to the quality and effectiveness of applying this methodology. It implies that there are standards or best practices that should be adhered to for Design Thinking to be truly effective. This notion arises because:

1. Human-Centered Focus: At the heart of Design Thinking lies the importance of empathy and truly grasping the needs of users. Achieving this effectively demands sincere dedication and a talent for connecting with users, precisely identifying problems, brainstorming innovative solutions, creating prototypes, and conducting iterative testing. It involves employing suitable qualitative research techniques and the capability to interpret the intricate qualitative data collected during the research process. This understanding is essential for attaining successful outcomes in Design Thinking.

   
   

2. Process Integrity: The methodology involves specific stages—empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. Each stage must be executed properly for the process to yield meaningful results. Skipping steps or not fully engaging with each phase can lead to sub-optimal outcomes.

   
   

3. Outcome-Oriented: Good Design Thinking leads to innovative solutions that are not only creative but also practical and implementable. It aims at creating products or services that significantly improve user experience or solve critical problems effectively.

Challenges in Proper Implementation

Many people do not execute Design Thinking properly due to several reasons:

1. Lack of Appropriate Research Expertise: The field is currently facing a shortage of Design Thinking practitioners who possess a strong foundation in research methodologies, particularly in qualitative research. Professionals with this specialised knowledge can navigate the common challenges associated with focus group discussions and effectively conduct qualitative analyses. They will understand when to apply different qualitative research techniques, ensuring that the insights gathered are both relevant and actionable.

   
   

2. Incorrect Application Sequence of Research Methods: Many organizations tend to favor quantitative surveys for understanding user needs, largely because they are more familiar with this approach. However, to genuinely capture the complexities of user experiences, it is essential to incorporate qualitative research methods through empathy studies. These qualitative methods allow for a deeper investigation into user sentiments, while quantitative surveys excel at assessing and tracking predefined metrics. The most effective strategy is to initiate the process with qualitative empathy studies to identify user needs and challenges. After gathering these valuable insights, companies can then develop quantitative surveys to evaluate and track the identified themes over time.

   
   

3. Inappropriate Use of Research Methods:

   • Many organizations view Focus Group Discussions as an essential tool in the Design Thinking process, but this belief can be misleading. These discussions often suffer from various biases and analytical challenges that hinder their effectiveness in revealing genuine insights into individual users' needs, challenges, and experiences. Participants tend to engage in a group dialogue, sharing opinions with one another rather than focusing on their personal needs and experiences, which limits the depth of understanding regarding their true motivations and future behaviours. Such issues frequently stem from group dynamics and inadequate moderation, which can compromise the objectivity of the findings. Consequently, this method does not align with the core people-centric principles of Design Thinking, ultimately leading to missed opportunities for meaningful engagement.

     
     

   • Numerous if not almost all organizations continue to depend on quantitative surveys to fulfil the role of exploratory qualitative research. While quantitative surveys excel at measuring and tracking specific variables over time, they often constrain respondents to a predetermined set of questions that reflect the organization's priorities, rather than allowing them to express what is genuinely important to them. This approach falls short of a truly people-centric principle in Design Thinking and ultimately misses the mark.

     
     

4. Analytical Complexities of Interviews: A frequently employed research method is the use of interviews, which proves to be effective only when practitioners possess the necessary training to conduct thematic analysis on extensive datasets of verbal responses. Interview transcripts are fundamentally unstructured, comprising text that exhibits significant variability in both content and context. It requires a skilled researcher to systematically analyse this unstructured data and to derive accurate conclusions from it.

   
   

5. Superficial Understanding: Some practitioners may have a superficial understanding of the methodology and fail to delve deeply into each stage of the process.

   
   

6. Lack of Training: Proper training is crucial for effective implementation. Without adequate training or guidance from experienced facilitators, teams might struggle with applying the principles correctly. Here we recommend engaging trainers whom are well-trained in the curriculum and methodologies of Rotman Designworks.

   
   

7. Misapplication: There can be a tendency to treat Design Thinking as a one-size-fits-all solution without adapting it to specific contexts or challenges.

   
   

8. Commercialization Issues: As noted by critics like Natasha Jen and others mentioned in discussions about IDEO and Stanford’s d.school, there is sometimes an over-commercialization of Design Thinking courses and workshops which may prioritize profit over genuine learning.

   
   

9. Trapped by Conventional Mindset:

• Risk Aversion in Business Decisions: Another common issue is risk aversion within business environments. Even when design thinking generates innovative ideas, these ideas often get watered down or dismissed because businesses are afraid they won’t achieve sufficient ROI (Return on Investment). For instance, a tech company might develop a revolutionary new gadget with immense potential but decide not to bring it to market due to fears it won’t sell enough units to justify the investment. This cautious approach stifles creativity and limits the scope of innovation.

  
  

• Packaging Design Thinking as a Product Design thinking has increasingly been packaged as a standardized process or product, which can limit its effectiveness. When design thinking is taught as a rigid curriculum or sold as a set formula by consultants, it loses its flexibility and adaptability—key components for fostering true innovation. For example, universities and consulting firms offer courses and workshops that teach design thinking as a step-by-step process. While this makes the concept accessible, it also risks turning it into a checkbox exercise rather than an open-ended exploration of creative solutions.

Conclusion

In summary, Good Design Thinking underscores the importance of adhering to best practices and truly putting human needs at the centre of new development or problem-solving efforts. It highlights that while many may attempt to apply this methodology; achieving truly effective results requires a deep understanding, proper training, and meticulous execution.