Design thinking

Design thinking has a history extending from the 1950s and '60s, with roots in the study of design cognition and design methods. It has also been referred to as "designerly ways of knowing, thinking and acting"Cross, Nigel (2001). "Designerly ways of knowing". Design Studies. 3(4): 221–27. and as "designerly thinking".Johansson‐Sköldberg, Ulla; Woodilla, Jill; Çetinkaya, Mehves (2013). "Design thinking: past, present and possible futures". Creativity and Innovation Management. 22 (2). Many of the key concepts and aspects of design thinking have been identified through studies, across different design domains, of design cognition and design activity in both laboratory and natural contexts.Visser, W. (2006). The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cross, Nigel.2001, Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and other Empirical Studies of Design Activity, in C. Eastman, M. McCracken and W. Newstatter (eds.) Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 79–103. {{ISBN|0 08 043868 7}}

The term design thinking has been used to refer to a specific cognitive style (thinking like a designer), a general theory of design (a way of understanding how designers work), and a set of pedagogical resources (through which organisations or inexperienced designers can learn to approach complex problems in a designerly way).{{cite journal |last1=Kimbell |first1=Lucy |title=Rethinking design thinking: Part I |journal=Design and Culture |date=November 2011 |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=285–306 |doi=10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 |s2cid=145069798 |url=http://www.designstudiesforum.org/journal-articles/rethinking-design-thinking-part-i-2/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111202012515/http://www.designstudiesforum.org/journal-articles/rethinking-design-thinking-part-i-2/ |archive-date=2011-12-02 |url-status=dead|url-access=subscription }} See also: {{cite journal |last=Kimbell |first=Lucy |date=July 2012 |title=Rethinking design thinking: Part II |journal=Design and Culture |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=129–148 |doi=10.2752/175470812X13281948975413|s2cid=218836897 }}{{cite journal |last1=Kelly |first1=Nick |last2=Gero |first2=John |date=2021 |journal=Design Science |volume=7 |page=e8 |doi=10.1017/dsj.2021.7 |title=Design thinking and computational thinking: a dual process model for addressing design problems|s2cid=233317330 |doi-access=free }} The different uses have given rise to some confusion in the use of the term.{{cite journal |last1=Micheli |first1=Pietro |last2=Wilner |first2=Sarah |last3=Hussain |first3=Sabeen |last4=Mura |first4=Matteo |last5=Beverland |first5=Michael |title=Doing Design Thinking: Conceptual Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda |journal=Journal of Product Innovation Management |date=2019 |volume=36 |issue=2|pages=124–148 |doi=10.1111/jpim.12466 |hdl=11585/672901 |s2cid=149543762 |hdl-access=free }}

An iterative, non-linear process, design thinking includes activities such as context analysis, user testing, problem finding and framing, ideation and solution generating, creative thinking, sketching and drawing, prototyping, and evaluating.

Core features of design thinking include the abilities to:

• deal with different types of design problems, especially ill-defined and 'wicked' problems
• adopt solution-focused strategies
• use abductive and productive reasoning
• employ non-verbal, graphic/spatial modelling media, for example, sketching and prototyping.Cross, N. (1990) "The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability", Design Studies, 11: 127–140.

{{See also|Participatory design|Problem structuring methods}}

Designing deals with design problems that can be categorized on a spectrum of types of problems from well-defined problems to ill-defined ones to problems that are wickedly difficult.{{rp|39}} In the 2010s, the category of super wicked global problems emerged as well.{{cite journal |last1=Crowley |first1=Kate |last2=Head |first2=Brian W. |date=December 2017 |title=The enduring challenge of 'wicked problems': revisiting Rittel and Webber |journal=Policy Sciences |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=539–547 |doi=10.1007/s11077-017-9302-4 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320883976}} Wicked problems have features such as no definitive formulation, no true/false solution, and a wide discrepancy between differing perspectives on the situation.{{cite journal |last1=Matthews |first1=Ben |last2=Doherty |first2=Skye |last3=Worthy |first3=Peter |last4=Reid |first4=Janine |date=2022 |title=Design thinking, wicked problems and institutioning change: a case study |journal=CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=177–193 |doi=10.1080/15710882.2022.2034885 |url=https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:2ef02a2/Codesign-WorkCover-PostPrint.pdf}} Horst Rittel introduced the term in the context of design and planning, and with Melvin Webber contrasted this problem type with well-defined or "tame" cases where the problem is clear and the solution available through applying rules or technical knowledge.{{cite journal |last1=Rittel |first1=Horst W. J. |author-link=Horst Rittel |last2=Webber |first2=Melvin M. |author-link2=Melvin M. Webber |date=June 1973 |title=Dilemmas in a general theory of planning |journal=Policy Sciences |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=155–169 |doi=10.1007/BF01405730 |url=http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/ellendo/rittel/rittel-dilemma.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151224031746/http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/ellendo/rittel/rittel-dilemma.pdf |archive-date=2015-12-24 |url-status=dead}} Rittel contrasted a formal rationalistic "first generation" of design methods in the 1950s and 1960s against the need for a participatory and informally argumentative "second generation" of design methods for the 1970s and beyond that would be more adequate for the complexity of wicked problems.

Rather than accept the problem as given, designers explore the given problem and its context and may re-interpret or restructure the given problem in order to reach a particular framing of the problem that suggests a route to a solution.Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic, 1983.Dorst, K. (2011) "The Core of Design Thinking and its Application", Design Studies, 32, 521–532.

In empirical studies of three-dimensional problem solving, Bryan Lawson found architects employed solution-focused cognitive strategies, distinct from the problem-focused strategies of scientists.Lawson, Bryan. 1979. "Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design". Ergonomics, 22, 59–68 Nigel Cross suggests that "Designers tend to use solution conjectures as the means of developing their understanding of the problem".{{cite journal |last1=Cross |first1=Nigel |title=Expertise in Design: an overview |journal=Design Studies |date=2004 |volume=25 |issue=5 |pages=427–441|doi=10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002 |citeseerx=10.1.1.371.3450 }}

In the creation of new design proposals, designers have to infer possible solutions from the available problem information, their experience, and the use of non-deductive modes of thinking such as the use of analogies. This has been interpreted as a form of Peirce's abductive reasoning, called innovative abduction.March, L.J. (1984) "The Logic of Design" in The Architecture of Form, Cambridge University Press, UK.Roozenburg, N. (1993) "On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design", Design Studies, 14 (1): 4–18.Kolko, J. (2010) "Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: Drivers of Design Synthesis", Design Issues, vol. 26, 15–28.

In the process of designing, the designer's attention typically oscillates between their understanding of the problematic context and their ideas for a solution in a process of co-evolution of problem and solution.{{cite journal |last1=Dorst |first1=Kees |last2=Cross |first2=Nigel |title=Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution |journal=Design Studies |date=2001 |volume=22 |issue=5 |pages=425–437 |doi=10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6|url=http://oro.open.ac.uk/3278/1/Creativity_-_coevolution.pdf }}{{cite journal |last1=Wiltschnig |first1=Stefan |last2=Christensen |first2=Bo |last3=Ball |first3=Linden |title=Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design |journal=Design Studies |date=2013 |volume=34 |issue=5 |pages=515–542|doi=10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.002 }} New solution ideas can lead to a deeper or alternative understanding of the problematic context, which in turn triggers more solution ideas.

Conventionally, designers communicate mostly in visual or object languages to translate abstract requirements into concrete objects.Cross, Nigel. "Designerly Ways of Knowing". Design Studies 3.4 (1982): 221–27. These 'languages' include traditional sketches and drawings but also extend to computer models and physical prototypes. The use of representations and models is closely associated with features of design thinking such as the generation and exploration of tentative solution concepts, the identification of what needs to be known about the developing concept, and the recognition of emergent features and properties within the representations.Cross, N. 1999. "Natural Intelligence in Design", Design Studies, 20, 25–39.Suwa, M., Gero, J. and Purcell, T. 2000. "Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: Important vehicles for a design process". Design Studies, 21, 539–567.

{{See also|Design methods|Design process}}

File:DesignThinking.ogv

A five-phase description of the design innovation process is offered by Plattner, Meinel, and Leifer as: (re)defining the problem, needfinding and benchmarking, ideating, building, and testing.{{cite book |editor1-last=Plattner |editor1-first=Hasso |editor1-link=Hasso Plattner |editor2-last=Meinel |editor2-first=Christoph |editor3-last=Leifer |editor3-first=Larry J. |date=2011 |title=Design thinking: understand, improve, apply |series=Understanding innovation |location=Berlin; Heidelberg |publisher=Springer-Verlag |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=LAbIwOwHz1MC&pg=PR14 xiv–xvi] |isbn=978-3-642-13756-3 |oclc=898322632 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0}} Plattner, Meinel, and Leifer state: "While the stages are simple enough, the adaptive expertise required to choose the right inflection points and appropriate next stage is a high order intellectual activity that requires practice and is learnable."

The process may also be thought of as a system of overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps: inspiration, ideation, and implementation.Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, June 2008. Projects may loop back through inspiration, ideation, and implementation more than once as the team refines its ideas and explores new directions.Brown, T. Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Generally, the design innovation process starts with the inspiration phase: observing how things and people work in the real world and noticing problems or opportunities. These problem formulations can be documented in a brief which includes constraints that gives the project team a framework from which to begin, benchmarks by which they can measure progress, and a set of objectives to be realized, such as price point, available technology, and market segment.

{{See also|Empathic design}}

In their book Creative Confidence, Tom and David Kelley note the importance of empathy with clients, users, and customers as a basis for innovative design.Kelley, D. and Kelley, T. (2015) Creative Confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. HarperCollins, USA.{{Cite web | url=https://www.creativeconfidence.com/chapters/chapter-1 | title=Chapter 1: Flip | Creative Confidence by Tom & David Kelley | access-date=2018-12-08 | archive-date=2019-03-29 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190329150225/https://www.creativeconfidence.com/chapters/chapter-1 | url-status=dead }} Designers approach user research with the goal of understanding their wants and needs, what might make their life easier and more enjoyable and how technology can be useful for them. Empathic design transcends physical ergonomics to include understanding the psychological and emotional needs of people—the way they do things, why and how they think and feel about the world, and what is meaningful to them.

Ideation is idea generation. The process is characterized by the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking, typical of design thinking process.

To achieve divergent thinking, it may be important to have a diverse group of people involved in the process. Design teams typically begin with a structured brainstorming process of "thinking outside the box". Convergent thinking, on the other hand, aims for zooming and focusing on the different proposals to select the best choice, which permits continuation of the design thinking process to achieve the final goals.

After collecting and sorting many ideas, a team goes through a process of pattern finding and synthesis in which it has to translate ideas into insights that can lead to solutions or opportunities for change. These might be either visions of new product offerings, or choices among various ways of creating new experiences.

The third space of the design thinking innovation process is implementation, when the best ideas generated during ideation are turned into something concrete.

At the core of the implementation process is prototyping: turning ideas into actual products and services that are then tested, evaluated, iterated, and refined. A prototype, or even a rough mock-up helps to gather feedback and improve the idea. Prototypes can speed up the process of innovation because they allow quick identification of strengths and weaknesses of proposed solutions, and can prompt new ideas.

In the 2000s and 2010s there was a significant growth of interest in applying design thinking across a range of diverse applications—for example as a catalyst for gaining competitive advantage within businessBrown, Tim. "Design Thinking". Harvard Business Review, June 2008, pp. 85–92. or for improving education,Razzouk, R. and Shute, V. (2012) "What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important?" Review of Educational Research, 82, 330–348 but doubts around design thinking as a panacea for innovation have been expressed by some critics (see {{slink||Criticisms}}).Kolko, J. "The divisiveness of design thinking". ACM Interactions, May–June, 2018: https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/may-june-2018/the-divisiveness-of-design-thinking

{{See also|Strategic design}}

Historically, designers tended to be involved only in the later parts of the process of new product development, focusing their attention on the aesthetics and functionality of products. Many businesses and other organisations now realise the utility of embedding design as a productive asset throughout organisational policies and practices, and design thinking has been used to help many different types of business and social organisations to be more constructive and innovative.Brown, Tim, and Barry Kātz. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business, 2009. Designers bring their methods into business either by taking part themselves from the earliest stages of product and service development processesMyerson, Jeremy. IDEO: Masters of Innovation. New York: Laurence King, 2001. or by training others to use design methods and to build innovative thinking capabilities within organisations.{{Cite video | people=Brown, Tim | title=Tim Brown urges designers to think big | medium=YouTube |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAinLaT42xY |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211222/UAinLaT42xY |archive-date=2021-12-22 |url-status=live|publisher=TED | date=2009}}{{cbignore}}

{{See also|Design-based learning}}

All forms of professional design education can be assumed to be developing design thinking in students, even if only implicitly, but design thinking is also now explicitly taught in general as well as professional education, across all sectors of education. Design as a subject was introduced into secondary schools' educational curricula in the UK in the 1970s, gradually replacing and/or developing from some of the traditional art and craft subjects, and increasingly linked with technology studies. This development sparked related research studies in both education and design.Archer L. B. et al. (1979) "Design in General Education". London: The Royal College of Art.Owen-Jackson, G. (ed.) (2002) "Teaching Design and Technology in Secondary Schools", London: Routledge Falmer.

In the primary/secondary K–12 education sector, design thinking is used to enhance learning and promote creative thinking, teamwork, and student responsibility for learning.Darling-Hammond, L., B. Barron et al. (2008) Powerful Learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. Jossey-Bass, USA. A design-based approach to teaching and learning has been developed more widely throughout education.Laurillard, D. (2012) Teaching as a Design Science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge, UK.Bower, M. (2017) Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning, Chapter 6: "Design Thinking and Learning Design". Emerald Publishing, UK.Ishida, T. (2017) Interdisciplinary Education for Design Innovation. Computer 50(5), 44–52.

New courses in design thinking have also been introduced at the university level, especially when linked with business and innovation studies. A notable early course of this type was introduced at Stanford University in 2003, the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, known as the d.school. Design thinking can now be seen in International Baccalaureate schools across the world,[https://blogs.ibo.org/blog/2019/12/11/incorporating-design-thinking-in-the-pyp/ IB World Magazine, October 2017] and in Maker Education organizations.{{Cite web |url=https://cultivative.org/blog/2019/7/10/learn-steamheads-design-teaching-process |title=Cultivative Non-Profit Blog 2019 |access-date=2020-05-05 |archive-date=2020-02-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200222081352/http://www.cultivative.org/blog/2019/7/10/learn-steamheads-design-teaching-process |url-status=dead }}{{Cite web |url=https://lookingsideways.net/category/hello-shenzhen/ |title=Looking Sideways podcast, episode 6 |access-date=2020-05-05 |archive-date=2022-01-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220114190124/http://lookingsideways.net/category/hello-shenzhen/ |url-status=dead }}

Design thinking has been central to user-centered design and human-centered design—the dominant methods of designing human-computer interfaces—for over 40 years.{{cite book |last1=Norman |first1=Donald A. |editor1-first=Donald A |editor1-last=Norman |editor2-first=Stephen W |editor2-last=Draper |title=User Centered System Design |publisher=Taylor & Francis |date=1 January 1986 |doi=10.1201/b15703 |language=en|isbn=9781482229639 }} Design thinking is also central to recent conceptions of software development in general.{{cite journal |last1=Ralph |first1=Paul |title=The Sensemaking-Coevolution-Implementation Theory of software design |journal=Science of Computer Programming |date=April 2015 |volume=101 |pages=21–41 |doi=10.1016/j.scico.2014.11.007|arxiv=1302.4061 |s2cid=6154223 }}

Some of the diverse and popularized applications of design thinking, particularly in the business/innovation fields, have been criticized for promoting a very restricted interpretation of design skills and abilities. Lucy Kimbell accused business applications of design thinking of "de-politicizing managerial practice" through an "undertheorized" conception of design thinking. Lee Vinsel suggested that popular purveyors of design consulting "as a reform for all of higher education" misuse ideas from the fields that they purport to borrow from, and devalue discipline-specific expertise, giving students "'creative confidence' without actual capabilities".{{Cite web |last=Vinsel |first=Lee |date=May 21, 2018 |title=Design Thinking is a Boondoggle |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/design-thinking-is-a-boondoggle/ |website=Chronicle of Higher Education}}

Natasha Iskander criticized a certain conception of design thinking for reaffirming "the privileged role of the designer" at the expense of the communities that the designer serves, and argued that the concept of "empathy" employed in some formulations of design thinking ignores critical reflection on the way identity and power shape empathetic identification. She claimed that promoting simplified versions of design thinking "makes it hard to solve challenges that are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty—like climate change—where doing things the way we always have done them is a sure recipe for disaster".{{Cite journal |last=Iskander |first=Natasha |date=September 5, 2018 |title=Design Thinking Is Fundamentally Conservative and Preserves the Status Quo |url=https://hbr.org/2018/09/design-thinking-is-fundamentally-conservative-and-preserves-the-status-quo |journal=Harvard Business Review}} Similarly, Rebecca Ackermann said that radical broadening of design thinking elevated the designer into "a kind of spiritual medium" whose claimed empathy skills could be allowed to supersede context-specific expertise within professional domains, and suggested that "many big problems are rooted in centuries of dark history, too deeply entrenched to be obliterated with a touch of design thinking's magic wand".{{Cite web |last=Ackermann |first=Rebecca |date=February 9, 2023 |title=Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong? |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/09/1067821/design-thinking-retrospective-what-went-wrong/ |access-date=2024-03-09 |website=MIT Technology Review |language=en}}

Drawing on psychological studies of creativity from the 1940s, such as Max Wertheimer's "Productive Thinking" (1945), new creativity techniques in the 1950s and design methods in the 1960s led to the idea of design thinking as a particular approach to creatively solving problems. Among the first authors to write about design thinking were John E. Arnold in "Creative Engineering" (1959) and L. Bruce Archer in "Systematic Method for Designers" (1963–64).

In his book "Creative Engineering" (1959) Arnold distinguishes four areas of creative thinking:{{cite book|last=Arnold|first=J.E.|title=Creative Engineering: Promoting Innovation by Thinking Differently. Edited With an Introduction and Biographical Essay by William J. Clancey|publisher=Stanford Digital Repository|year=2016|orig-year=1959|url=https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:jb100vs5745/Creative%20Engineering%20-%20John%20E.%20Arnold.pdf |access-date=September 23, 2018}} (1) novel functionality, i.e. solutions that satisfy a novel need or solutions that satisfy an old need in an entirely new way, (2) higher performance levels of a solution, (3) lower production costs or (4) increased salability.{{Citation|last1=von Thienen|first1=J.P.A.|last2=Clancey|first2=W.J.|last3=Corazza|first3=G.E.|last4=Meinel|first4=C.|title=Design thinking research. Making distinctions: Collaboration versus cooperation|place=Cham|publisher=Springer|series=Understanding Innovation|year=2017|chapter=Theoretical foundations of design thinking. Part I: John E. Arnold's creative thinking theories|editor-last=Plattner|editor-first=H.|editor2-last=Meinel|editor2-first=C.|editor3-last=Leifer|editor3-first=L.|pages=13–40}} Arnold recommended a balanced approach—product developers should seek opportunities in all four areas of design thinking: "It is rather interesting to look over the developmental history of any product or family of products and try to classify the changes into one of the four areas ... Your group, too, might have gotten into a rut and is inadvertently doing all of your design thinking in one area and is missing good bets in other areas."

Although L. Bruce Archer's "Systematic Method for Designers" (1963–64) was concerned primarily with a systematic process of designing, it also expressed a need to broaden the scope of conventional design: "Ways have had to be found to incorporate knowledge of ergonomics, cybernetics, marketing and management science into design thinking". Archer was also developing the relationship of design thinking with management: "The time is rapidly approaching when design decision making and management decision making techniques will have so much in common that the one will become no more than the extension of the other".Archer, L. Bruce. "Design Management" Management Decision 1.4 (1967): 47–51.

Arnold initiated a long history of design thinking at Stanford University, extending through many others such as Robert McKim{{cite book|title=Experiences in Visual Thinking|last=McKim|first=Robert|publisher=Brooks/Cole Publishing Co|year=1973}} and Rolfe Faste,Faste, Rolf, Bernard Roth and Douglass J. Wilde, [http://fastefoundation.org/publications/integrating_creativity_into_the_ME_curriculum.pdf "Integrating Creativity into the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum"], Cary A. Fisher, Ed., ASME Resource Guide to Innovation in Engineering Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993Faste, Rolf, [http://fastefoundation.org/publications/ambidextrous_thinking.pdf "Ambidextrous Thinking"], Innovations in Mechanical Engineering Curricula for the 1990s, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 1994 who taught "design thinking as a method of creative action",Patnaik, Dev, [http://www.fastcompany.com/1338960/forget-design-thinking-and-try-hybrid-thinking "Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid Thinking"], Fast Company, August 25, 2009. "... design thinking is any process that applies the methods of industrial designers to problems beyond how a product should look. My mentor at Stanford, Rolf Faste, did more than anyone to define the term and express the unique role that designers could play in making pretty much everything." and continuing with the shift from creative engineering to innovation management in the 2000s.{{cite journal |last1=Auernhammer |first1=Jan |last2=Roth |first2=Bernard |title=The Origin and Evolution of Stanford University's Design Thinking: From Product Design to Design Thinking in Innovation Management |journal=Journal of Product Innovation Management |date=2021 |volume=38 |issue=6 |pages=623–644 |doi=10.1111/jpim.12594|doi-access=free }} Design thinking was adapted for business purposes by Faste's Stanford colleague David M. Kelley, who founded the design consultancy IDEO in 1991.Brown, Tim. "The Making of a Design Thinker". Metropolis Oct. 2009: 60–62. p. 60: "David Kelley ... said that every time someone came to ask him about design, he found himself inserting the word thinking to explain what it is that designers do. The term design thinking stuck."

Bryan Lawson's 1980 book How Designers Think, primarily addressing design in architecture, began a process of generalising the concept of design thinking.Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980 A 1982 article by Nigel Cross, "Designerly Ways of Knowing", established some of the intrinsic qualities and abilities of design thinking that also made it relevant in general education and thus for wider audiences. Peter G. Rowe's 1987 book Design Thinking, which described methods and approaches used by architects and urban planners, was a significant early usage of the term in the design research literature.{{cite book|title=Design Thinking|last=Rowe|first=Peter G.|author-link=Peter G. Rowe|publisher=MIT Press|year=1987|isbn=978-0-262-68067-7|oclc=13425957|location=Cambridge, MA|url=https://archive.org/details/designthinking0000pete|url-access=registration}} An international series of research symposia in design thinking began at Delft University of Technology in 1991.Cross, N., Dorst, K. and N., Roozenburg (eds.) (1992) Research in Design Thinking, Delft University Press.Cross, N. (2018) A Brief History of the Design Thinking Research Symposium Series, Design Studies vol 57, 160–164. Richard Buchanan's 1992 article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking" expressed a broader view of design thinking as addressing intractable human concerns through design,Buchanan, Richard, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking," Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992. reprising ideas that Rittel and Webber developed in the early 1970s.

{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}

{{Div col|colwidth=}}

• Creativity techniques
• Lateral thinking
• Reflective practice
• Systems thinking
• User experience

;Lists

• List of thought processes
• List of creative thought processes

{{Div col end}}

{{Reflist|35em|refs=

L. Bruce Archer's "Systematic Method for Designers" first appeared as a series of articles in [https://archive.org/details/pub_design Design magazine]:

• {{cite magazine |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=April 1963 |title=Systematic method for designers, part one: aesthetics and logic |magazine=Design |issue=172 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-04_172/page/46 46–49] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-04_172/page/46 |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite magazine |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=June 1963 |title=Systematic method for designers, part two: design and system |magazine=Design |issue=174 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-06_174/page/70 70–73] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-06_174/page/70 |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite magazine |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=August 1963 |title=Systematic method for designers, part three: getting the brief |magazine=Design |issue=176 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-08_176/page/52 52–57] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-08_176/page/52 |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite magazine |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=November 1963 |title=Systematic method for designers, part four: examining the evidence |magazine=Design |issue=179 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-11_179/page/68 68–72] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1963-11_179/page/68 |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite magazine |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=January 1964 |title=Systematic method for designers, part five: the creative leap |magazine=Design |issue=181 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-01_181/page/50 50–52] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-01_181/page/50 |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite magazine |last=Hall |first=Walter |date=March 1964 |title=Letter: Plain speaking? |magazine=Design |issue=183 |page=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-03_183/page/n68 59] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-03_183/page/n68 |url-access=registration}} A letter to the editor complaining about obfuscatory language in passages of Archer's latest part.
• {{cite magazine |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=May 1964 |title=Systematic method for designers, part six: the donkey work |magazine=Design |issue=185 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-05_185/page/n65 60–63] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-05_185/page/n65 |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite magazine |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=August 1964 |title=Systematic method for designers, part seven: the final steps |magazine=Design |issue=188 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-08_188/page/56 56–59] |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_design_1964-08_188/page/56 |url-access=registration}}

A reprint of the whole series with additional material was published as a short book: {{cite book |last=Archer |first=L. Bruce |date=1965 |title=Systematic Method for Designers |location=London |publisher=Council of Industrial Design |oclc=2108433}}

}}

• Brooks, Frederick. The Design of Design. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education, 2010.
• Cross, Nigel (ed.). Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester, UK; New York: Wiley, 1984.
• Curedale, Robert. Design Thinking Process and Methods. 5th Edition. Design Community College Press, CA, 2019 {{ISBN|978-1940805450}}
• Kelly, Tom. Ten Faces of Innovation. London: Profile, 2006.
• Lawson, Bryan. Design in Mind. Oxford, UK: Butterworth, 1994.
• Lewrick, Michael, Patrick Link, Larry Leifer. The Design Thinking Playbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2018.
• Liedtka, Jeanne. Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit For Managers. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. {{ISBN|0-231-15838-6}}
• Liedtka, Jeanne. Solving Problems with Design Thinking: Ten Stories of What Works. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. {{ISBN|0-231-16356-8}}
• Lupton, Ellen. Graphic Design Thinking: Beyond Brainstorming. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011. {{ISBN|978-1-56898-760-6}}.
• Martin, Roger L. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009.
• Mootee, Idris. Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013.
• Nelson, George. How to See: a Guide to Reading Our Man-made Environment. San Francisco, CA: Design Within Reach, 2006.
• Schön, Donald. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

{{Design}}

Category:Design