We Thought We Understood Design Thinking-Then Reality Hit

written by Ujeli Bhattarai & Bharat Gautam.

We were wondering how well Design Thinking can be learned in a classroom. Can hands on practice really prepare us for using it in the world? This question was on our mind during our two day Design Thinking workshop on 9-10 March. We got an introduction to the core phases of the design process. We worked in teams discussed ideas and reflected on what we were doing. We used methods that are commonly talked about in Design Thinking literature. We also saw a familiar problem: the gap between using Design Thinking in a classroom and using it in the real world.

Developing the Concept: “Find Yourself in Finland”

During the workshop our team created a service concept called “Find Yourself in Finland”. It was meant to help newcomers adapt to life in Finland. Our prototype included:

  • A two hour yoga and meditation session
  • A walk in nature
  • A home cooked Nepali meal
  • A short lesson in Finnish
  • A closing meditation

The concept was about wellbeing, cultural integration and community. All things that are really important in Finland. In the classroom the idea seemed to make sense and was meaningful. It seemed to meet the needs of newcomers.

Recognizing the Limitations of Classroom Design Thinking

When we looked at the concept more closely we saw some limitations. We had only talked to a real users we had not checked if our ideas were correct and we had not thought about operational or logistical problems. This is similar to what Jon Kolko said in 2015. He said that Design Thinking is often not implemented deeply.

Kolko said that organizations often use the tools of Design Thinking like brainstorming sessions and rapid prototyping without making the changes that are needed for real innovation. Our prototype was like this: it was a classroom exercise but it was not based on real user insights and feasibility considerations.

Connecting Theory to Practice: Insights from Tim Brown

Tim Browns article Design Thinking from 2008 helps us understand this issue. Brown said that empathy, experimentation and iteration are parts of Design Thinking. In the workshop we got to practice these elements a little. We did not get to test and refine our ideas like Brown said we should. Without user feedback our prototype was an idea, not based on evidence.

Brown also wrote a book called Change by Design, where he said that Design Thinking is a mindset that is based on curiosity, collaboration and being comfortable with uncertainty. He said that to innovate we need to keep learning and not follow a process. The workshop introduced us to these principles. It also showed us how hard they are to apply in the real world.

Bridging the Theory-Practice Gap

The difference between our classroom experience and what Kolko and Brown said shows why Design Thinking seems simple in theory but is complex in practice. In a classroom we have safety, structure and time limits which make the process seem manageable. But in the world we need:

  • To really engage with different users
  • To test and refine our ideas many times
  • To think about feasibility, resources and constraints
  • To have organizational support for experimentation

The workshop helped us see that to master Design Thinking we need to do more than just follow a process. We need to be okay with uncertainty question our assumptions. Keep learning.

The workshop was helpful in teaching us about Design Thinking tools and methods.. The most important thing we learned was about the limitations of our prototype. The difference between our classroom experience and what Kolko, Brown and Change by Design said helped us see why Design Thinking seems easy in theory but is harder in practice. To bridge this gap we need to not use the tools but also have the mindset, empathy and discipline to really use Design Thinking.

References

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking

Brown, T. (2009). Change, by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338394954_Tim_Brown_Change_by_Design_How_Design_Thinking_Transforms_Organizations_and_Inspires_Innovation_2009

Kolko, J. (2015). Design Thinking Comes of Age. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/09/design-thinking-comes-of-age

Images are created through the help of Microsoft Co-pilot

Posted

in

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by

bharatgautam844f5194b8

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “We Thought We Understood Design Thinking-Then Reality Hit”

  1. nirajadhikari Avatar
    nirajadhikari

    This is a very insightful and honest reflection on your design thinking experience. I really like how you highlight the gap between classroom learning and real-world application.it shows strong critical thinking.

    Your concept, “Find Yourself in Finland,” is a service designed to help newcomers adjust to life in Finland through activities like yoga and meditation, a nature walk, a home-cooked Nepali meal, a basic Finnish language introduction, and a closing reflection session. The focus on wellbeing, cultural connection, and community makes it both meaningful and relevant.

    I also appreciate your recognition of the limitations, particularly the lack of real user input and feasibility testing, which is an important realization.

    For improvement, you could strengthen your reflection by briefly explaining how you would test and improve the concept in a real-world setting :for example, by collecting feedback from newcomers, piloting a small session, and considering practical aspects like cost and organization.

    Overall, a thoughtful and well-balanced reflection. great work.

    Reply
  2. juneli dangol Avatar
    juneli dangol

    After reading your blog, I felt it was a reflection of honest and critical thinking. Even in the classroom, when we have completed our prototype, we often feel we are successful in our project, but in reality, it can be very different. As you showed with your “Finding Yourself in Finland” concept, classroom activity is often a hypothesis rather than a proven solution. You illustrate a sophisticated grasp of Jon Kolko’s warning: design thinking is often reduced to “theatrics”(post-it notes and brainstorming) without the deep emotional labor of real empathy.

    In the post, you correctly identify the gap in Brown’s Innovation Lenses: while your team members explored Desirability, the constraints of the two-day class naturally sidelined Feasibility and Viability. Mentioning that your prototype was an untested hypothesis rather than a final answer proves you went far away from simply following a “process” to adopting the “mindset” Brown advocates. You show how you believe that real- world innovation requires navigating uncertainty, and  user- testing is the valuable part you take away from the two-day learning.

    The most important takeaway from this class, as you mentioned in the blog, is that a prototype is a question, not an answer. I personally liked it and great work.

    Reply
  3. Sharada Bhandari Avatar
    Sharada Bhandari

    It is a good commentary on the weakness of a short workshop especially in respect to the theory – practice gap that you have identified. Although the Find Yourself in Finland idea is innovative, your post is right about a significant weakness of it, it was done in a vacuum. Even the most well intended ideas are at risk of being just theoretical without direct user testing and the iterative feedback of people to whom this service is to be delivered.

    Emphasizing that empathy is the core of Design Thinking, Tim Brown points out that empathy is not a joke, it is factual information collected by observing and interacting with a person. In your next version, it would be helpful to imagine how this prototype would evolve when it will come to the reality of user needs and the friction. What would the pain points of a newcomer change about your yoga or meal session? It will differ in showing in a secure classroom setting into the field where real innovation occurs.

    It is a good first step to realize that your prototype did not have these insights but actually, the real test is breaking those assumptions. I also look forward to seeing how you could use a more rigorous period of testing of your future design projects.

    Reply

Leave a comment