Design thinking – There are no one-size-fits-all solutions

Reflection by Nikhil Agarwal, Heini Hutinen and Sahan Ganegama

Design thinking has emerged as a dynamic, multifaceted approach to problem-solving, blending creativity, user-centered insights, and structured methodologies to foster innovation. Reflecting on the literature and discussions surrounding design thinking, several key insights arise, highlighting both the potential and complexities of this approach.

A Shift from traditional Problem- Solving 

At the heart of design thinking is empathy, a principle that challenges traditional problem-solving methods by shifting focus from the technical or business-centric lens to a human-centered approach. This reflects a broader trend in design thinking: the move from problem-solving as a purely cognitive process to one that is deeply experiential and relational (Kimbell, L 2012). 

Image from blog

Reflecting on the “Define” phase, it becomes evident that the articulation of the problem itself is a critical, often overlooked part of design thinking. This synthesis of data and emotional understanding offers a balanced view of the challenges, avoiding overly simplistic solutions (Kimbell, L 2012). 

Thinking through doing

The “Ideate” phase reveals the playful yet serious nature of design thinking. It invites divergent thinking, where quantity is prioritised over immediate quality, pushing the boundaries of what is possible. It is here where creativity thrives, fuelled by diverse perspectives and the freedom to explore “wild” ideas. Design thinking’s emphasis on ideation highlights an openness to innovation that is often constrained in more traditional fields like engineering or management, where logical, linear thinking prevails (Kimbell, L 2012). 

Prototyping, as represented in the design thinking process, is an iterative and highly experimental phase that values action over extended deliberation. Reflecting on this, it is clear how crucial it is to “think by doing”. Prototyping in design thinking is not just about validating an idea, it is about discovering new insights and reshaping concepts in response to real-world feedback (Brown, T 2009). 

Image in 9gag

Testing, the final stage of the design thinking process, reinforces the non-linearity of the methodology. This iterative loop of learning, adjusting, and retesting is a powerful reminder that solutions are rarely perfect from the outset. They evolve, driven by real-world interaction and iterative refinement (Brown, T 2009). 

Cognitive versus practice-based approach 

Looking at the broader adoption of design thinking beyond traditional design fields, the reflections bring up a few concerns. While design thinking offers valuable tools and methods, there is a risk of generalising it as a one-size-fits-all solution to any problem. Design thinking, when abstracted from the environments and institutions in which it originated, can become oversimplified, losing the richness of its practical applications, and falling short of its transformative potential. (Kimbell, L 2011). 

Image from linkedin

It seems clear that as an emerging field, there is still no clear definition for design thinking, and its critical study has only just begun. As such, the discipline, and the shift from the design of objects into the design of complex systems, processes, and services, might “sit uncomfortably between academic and professional boundaries” (Kimbell, 2011).

In summary, our reflections on design thinking point to its strengths as a flexible, user-centered, and innovative methodology. However, it also calls for caution in how broadly and universally it is applied. Design thinking’s real power lies in its ability to bring diverse perspectives together, engage deeply with human needs and iterate toward solutions that matter.

References

  • Brown, T. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
  • Marzavan, D. 2024. Design thinking [lecture material]. Held on 6 and 7 September 2024. Laurea University of Applied Sciences.
  • Kimbell, L. 2011. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 1. Design & Culture, Vol. 3 (3). 285-306.
  • Kimbell, L. 2012. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 2. Design & Culture, Vol. 4 (2). 129-148.

Posted

in

,

by

nikhilagarwal59738d6d07

Tags:

, , , ,

Comments

2 responses to “Design thinking – There are no one-size-fits-all solutions”

  1. Henna Kaarlela Avatar
    Henna Kaarlela

    Thank you, Nikhil, Heini, and Sahan, for sharing your thoughts on design thinking.

    I really enjoyed reading this reflection! One thing that stood out to me was the “Define” phase. It’s easy to overlook, but I agree it’s crucial to frame the problem correctly by combining data with an emotional understanding.

    I also appreciate your point about avoiding the idea that design thinking is a one-size fits all solution, it’s a great reminder that every problem requires its own unique approach. Nice writing overall!

    Reply
  2. showmenrudra1 Avatar
    showmenrudra1

    My thanks to Nikhil, Heini, and Sahan that you wrote on Design Thinking study, blog post presentation with images that attracted me, which was a meaningful viewpoint of Design Thinking. Let’s talk …

    You people discuss that encouraging originality and innovation requires the “Ideate” and “Prototype” stages. About creative freedom, which is frequently limited in more conventional problem-solving techniques, is made possible during the “Ideate” phase by producing a huge number of ideas without initially thinking about quality (Kimbell 2012). This receptivity to “wild” ideas can result in innovations that would not have been possible otherwise. Similar to this, Brown (2009) highlights that prototyping is a learning-by-doing process in which concepts change in response to feedback from the real world. Because design thinking is iterative, solutions are enhanced and refined as they are tried, increasing their efficacy. 

    Your discussion also points out that when design thinking is overly generalized or abstracted from its roots, its potential is risked. Author Kimbell (2011) states that overview may result from divorcing design thinking from its real-world application or from using it in contexts other than those for which it was created. This implied that although design thinking is useful, it should only be applied in situations that allow for the full expression of its iterative and human-centered characteristics. 

    Moreover, you people talked on the notion that design thinking is an approach that is flexible and adaptive; it should not be viewed as a panacea. Every problem needs a different strategy, and although design thinking is effective when applied to issues involving creativity and human behavior, it might not always be the most appropriate for technical, organized, or heavily regulated situations. For instance, a task like creating new medical equipment can call for less focus on divergent ideation or iterative prototyping and more technical know-how. Design thinking should therefore be used sparingly, where it can be most useful without simplifying the situation’s intricacies.

    I am concurring with that by emphasizing human needs and iterating solutions; design thinking provides a great deal of flexibility and has the ability to spur innovation. It is imperative to acknowledge its limitations and comprehend that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Applying design thinking to the appropriate issues and situations allows it to fully utilize its strengths in creativity, empathy, and iteration.

    Reply

Leave a comment