All of us are smarter than any of us: The power of Design Thinking 

by Mallika Kauppinen and Valeria Mäkinen 

“All of us are smarter than any of us.” This simple phrase, often heard at IDEO, captures the heart of Design Thinking. Innovation today is not just a few “creative geniuses”. It is an effort of a multidisciplinary team coming together to solve complex problems by applying the three key powers: the right team, the right tools and asking the right questions.

WHAT DESIGN THINKING IS 

Design thinking is more than a way of “thinking”. It is a human-centred approach that combines creativity and structure. Brown and Katz (2019, 13-14) call it a “third way,” balancing analysis with intuition, empathy, and pattern recognition. Unlike rigid, step-by-step models, design thinking is an iterative process. Teams move back and forth from inspiration, ideation, to implementation, refining ideas as new ones emerge. (Brown & Katz (2019, 20-21).

Scholars distinguish between ‘designerly thinking’, which is based on the professional practices of designers, and ‘design thinking’, which is a simplified version that is used in management and organisations (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla &̧ Cetinkaya, 2013, 123-124). Buchanan (1992, 5, 15) defines Design Thinking as a liberal art that focuses on solving complex, or also called “wicked”, problems, and it additionally emphasises on users and adaptability. 

THE RIGHT TEAMS

No process works without the right people. The challenges organisations face today are too complex for any single expert. Successful innovation requires smart teams with diverse skills who work together (Brown & Katz, 26-27). Diversity is most effective when team members are T-shaped individuals.  They should have deep expertise in one area and a desire to collaborate with others. On the vertical axis, they bring specialised knowledge. On the horizontal axis, they contribute openness and adaptability. (McKinsey, 2021; Brown & Katz, 2019, 27).

McKinsey & Company, No date.  

THE RIGHT TOOLS

“Don’t think. Look.”, said Ludwig Wittgenstein, emphasising the value of turning our ideas into visuals, so that we could see problems differently. The right tools allow us to unleash productivity and visualise ideas at different stages of the Design Thinking process. Examples of the tools include interviews, observations, a journey map, as well as brainstorming with the use of Post-its. Drawing or building from Legos are prototyping methods, which should be quick, simple and affordable in the early stages, as recommended by Brown & Katz (2019, 96).  

The model below presents the tools aligned with the three spaces of innovation: Inspiration, Ideation and Innovation. 

Created by Mallika Kauppinen & Valeria Mäkinen, 25.9.2025

THE RIGHT QUESTIONS 

Because solving the wrong problem leads to misguided outcomes, investing effort in framing the right question is essential. The right questions are exploratory and human-centric, enabling a deeper understanding of the problem. Besides, it is to be developed across different stages of the Design Thinking process, along with tools. For instance, asking How might we is effective in defining a problem, whereas asking Why to uncover deeper insight. According to Brown and Katz (2019, 242), a “Why” question helps open the door to a more creative answer.                        

In summary, the Design Thinking power does not rely on a single individual skill. In other words, the essence of Design Thinking is creating an environment in which creativity can thrive. However, it is important to realise that reality is more complex. To solve these complex problems, we need diverse teams that are adaptable, equipped with the right methods and courageous to ask the right questions.

That is the real power of Design Thinking!

References: 
Brown, T. & Katz, B. 2019. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Revised and updated edition. New York: HarperBusiness. 

Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Article from Design Issues, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 5-21. Accessed 11 September 2025. https://web.mit.edu/jrankin/www/engin_as_lib_art/Design_thinking.pdf

Johansson-Sköldber, U., Woodilla, J. and Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Future. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 22, Nr. 2. 121-146. Accessed 11 September 2025. https://www.academia.edu/11617520/Design_Thinking_Past_Present_and_Possible_Futures 

McKinsey & Company. No date. Ops 4.0—The Human Factor: A class size of 1. Accessed 20 September 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/operations-blog/ops-40-the-human-factor-a-class-size-of-1  

Posted

in

, ,

by

valmkinen

Tags:

, , , ,

Comments

2 responses to “All of us are smarter than any of us: The power of Design Thinking ”

  1. Jutismita.Hazarika Avatar
    Jutismita.Hazarika

    Thanks for sharing this. This is an interesting and thoughtful reflection on design thinking as a culture of asking better questions and collective creativity. My experience of having a shared mindset at work has given me similar insights. The blog’s emphasis on “the right team, the right tools, and the right questions” and having a shared mindset are absolutely relevant. This aspect is more important than having technically perfect tools.

    When you mention “the right questions”, it is essential to frame them well to avoid the wrong problem. However, I wonder how often the questions are reformulated in practice. From our masterclass with Katja we learnt that the first “How might we…” question is a convenient starting point. However, the question should or could evolve when insights come in. I am curious to know your thoughts on this. Do design thinking frameworks allow enough flexibility for revisiting and reframing the questions? Sticking too rigidly to the original framing may cause us to miss the pivot.

    At the same time, I have experienced that when we reference tools like journey maps, prototyping with Legos, etc., the framework may become over-engineered. Overuse of tools or spending too much time on polishing the prototype is futile, in my opinion. Testing should be given more time so that it can be reiterated.

    It would be interesting to hear stories of instances from our peers when reframing a question has changed the whole trajectory of a project.

    Reply
  2. nayomasamarakkodiarachchige Avatar
    nayomasamarakkodiarachchige

    What a great and well-researched post, Mallika and Valeria! You have wonderfully illustrated the communal aspect of Design Thinking, shifting the attention from the individual “genius” to the strong interaction of team, tools, and questions. The main idea “All of us are smarter than any of us” is very well backed up all through the post. The way you presented the three major “powers” was very helpful indeed.

    There was specially concern regarding T-shaped people as the best members for the team. It is very important to have the combination of deep skills (the vertical stroke) with a cooperative and flexible mindset (the horizontal bar). A varied group of people is not sufficient; also, their different domains of knowledge must be connected through openness, which is a horizontal quality. This “openness” is that concept which could be the hardest but still the most decisive matter in the development of a multidisciplinary team into an innovation unit that has high performance. It makes sure that expert knowledge does not just get kept in one place but becomes a common resource shared and integrated throughout the problem space.

    Moreover, there is a difference between ‘designerly thinking’ and the simplified ‘design thinking’ which is used in management. This whole idea of designerly thinking is showing very professional and skilled ways to solve the toughest humane problems through the very human-centered and most adapting methods. When it comes to tools, I think it’s worth mentioning that constraints can also be a great ally in prototyping phase. You rightly pointed out that the early prototypes, such as one made out of Legos, should be quick and inexpensive. However, with a constraint of simple and low-fidelity materials, the whole concept that a team has can be forced to be simple; this could be the very act that hands out more creativity. What happens here is that the idea gets to be very concrete and it is also quite cheap to “fail” with it, thus shifting the focus of the team from the polishing process to pure learning.

    Finally, the section discussing The Right Questions is crucial. The questions such as “How might we…” and the probing “Why” are indeed the very engines of empathy and discovery in the whole process. We can even stress more that these questions are not simply posed to the user, but more often than not re-framed by the team after really listening to the user’s experiences and insights. The right question is frequently a joint revelation, and your remark about the necessity of constantly revising it through the different phases—Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation—is indeed correct! This guarantees that the group always addresses the user’s essential needs, not only their mentioned desires. Great post!

    Reply

Leave a comment