problem solving and design thinking

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Design Thinking, Essential Problem Solving 101- It’s More Than Scientific

The term “ Design Thinking ” dates back to the 1987 book by Peter Rowe; “Design Thinking.” In that book he describes the way that architects and urban planners would approach design problems. However, the idea that there was a specific pattern of problem solving in “design thought” came much earlier in Herbert A Simon’s book, “The Science of the Artificial” which was published in 1969. The concept was popularized in the early 1990s by Richard Buchanan in his article “ Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”.

Ralph Caplan, the design consultant, sums up the need for design thinking with; “Thinking about design is hard, but not thinking about it can be disastrous.”

Author/Copyright holder: Christine Prefontaine. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY-SA 2.0

A simple overview of design thinking as a problem solving process.

Problem-Solving and Two Schools of Thought

Design thinking is concerned with solving problems through design. The idea being that the future output of the process will provide a better answer than the one already available or if nothing is available – something entirely new.

It is an unconstrained methodology where it is possible that the designer (or design team) will work on many possible solutions at once. It enables designers to consider the problem in many different ways and speculate on both the past and future of the problem too.

This is in contrast to the scientific method of problem solving which requires a highly-defined problem which focuses on delivering a single solution.

This difference was first noted by Brian Lawson, a psychologist, in 1972. He conducted an experiment in which scientists and architects were asked to build a structure from colored blocks. He provided some basic rules for the project and observed how they approached it. The scientists looked to move through a simple series of solutions based on the outcome and entire rule set. The architects, in contrast, simply focused on the desired end-state and then tested to see if the solution they had found met the rules.

This led to the idea that scientists solve problems by a process of analysis, whilst designers solve problems by synthesis. However, later evidence suggests that designers apply both forms of problem solving to attain “design thinking”.

They do this via a process of divergent thinking . A designer will examine as many possible solutions at the beginning of a process as they can think of – then they will apply the scientific side ( convergent thinking ) to narrow these solutions down to the best output.

Design thinking can be as simple or as complex as the business and users require. This IDEO process can be seen as a 3 part process or a 9 part process .

The Design Thinking Process

Design thinking is essentially a process which moves from problem to solution via some clear intermediate points. The classic approach, as proposed by Herbert A Simon, is offered here:

• Definition – where the problem is defined as best as possible prior to solving it
• Research – where the designers examine as much data as they feel necessary to be able to fully contribute to the problem solving process
• Ideation – where the designer commences creating possible solutions without examining their practicality until a large number of solutions has been proposed. Once this is done, impractical solutions are eliminated or played with until they become practical.
• Prototyping – where the best ideas are simulated in some means so that their value can be explored with users
• Choosing – where the best idea is selected from the multiple prototypes
• Implementing – where that idea is built and delivered as a product
• Testing – where the product is tested with the user in order to ensure that it solves the original problem in an effective manner

There are many other design thinking processes outlined in literature – most of which are a truncated version of the above process combining or skipping stages.

Here we see a more complex interpretation of the design thinking process and how it fits into the larger business sphere.

The Principles of Design Thinking

In the book, Design thinking: Understand, Improve Apply, Plattner and Meinel offer four underlying principles for design thinking:

• Human – all design is of a social nature
• Ambiguity – design thinking preserves and embraces ambiguity
• Re-design – all design processes are in fact re-design of existing processes
• Tangibility – the design process to make something tangible will facilitate communication of that design

It is also worth noting that design thinking functions independently of the design methods employed in any given design process. Design methods are the tools employed (such as interviews, user research , prototypes, etc.) and the assumption is that there are many paths that may be used (e.g. different sets of methods applied) to reach the same “best” result.

Visuals and Design Thinking

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that design thinking is not about graphic design per se. However, designers are often used to communicating their thinking visually and drawings, sketches, prototypes, etc. are often used to convey the ideas created within a design thinking process.

In fact, ideas which are hard to express easily in words are often given shape in the form of visual metaphors. Design thinking thus easily incorporates abstract thought processes – something that scientific thinking may find more challenging to accommodate.

Visual representations of how those involved in the design process might be thinking about a problem.

The Take Away

Design thinking is a process by which designers approach problem solving. It incorporates analytical, synthetic, divergent and convergent thinking to create a wide number of potential solutions and then narrow these down to a “best fit” solution. There are many ways to use a design thinking process to incorporate different methodologies to still reach the same end point. Designers must solve problems in order to add value through design.

Richard Buchanan’s original article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking," was published in Design Issues , vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992.

Peter Rowe’s book from 1987 Design Thinking was published byCambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-68067-7.

Herbert A Simon’s book from 1969 The Sciences of the Artificial . Was published by Cambridge: MIT Press.

Plattner, Hasso; Meinel, Christoph; Leifer, Larry J., eds. (2011). Design thinking: understand, improve, apply . Understanding innovation . Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. pp. xiv–xvi.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0. ISBN 3642137563.

This fascinating case study looks at how IBM plans to bring design thinking to large scale businesses - http://www.wired.com/2016/01/ibms-got-a-plan-to-bring-design-thinking-to-big-business/

See how Pepsi’s CEO, Indra Nooyi, implemented design thinking in her organization - https://hbr.org/2015/09/how-indra-nooyi-turned-design-thinking-into-strategy

Harvard Business Review examines design thinking and how it translates into action here - https://hbr.org/2015/09/design-for-action

Hero Image: Author/Copyright holder: Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY-SA 4.0

Creativity: Methods to Design Better Products and Services

Get Weekly Design Insights

Topics in this article, what you should read next, what is design thinking and why is it so popular.

• 1.6k shares

Personas – A Simple Introduction

• 1.5k shares

Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results

• 1.3k shares

What is Ideation – and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions

• 1.2k shares

Stage 3 in the Design Thinking Process: Ideate

• 4 years ago

Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype

• 3 years ago

Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights

Stage 1 in the Design Thinking Process: Empathise with Your Users

Empathy Map – Why and How to Use It

What Is Empathy and Why Is It So Important in Design Thinking?

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this article , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share the knowledge!

Share this content on:

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this article.

New to UX Design? We’re giving you a free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

Startup tactics: How and when to hire technical talent

Robots could give humans ‘superpowers’

Can generative AI provide trusted financial advice?

Credit: Mimi Phan

Ideas Made to Matter

Design thinking, explained

Rebecca Linke

Sep 14, 2017

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills.The approach has been around for decades, but it only started gaining traction outside of the design community after the 2008 Harvard Business Review article [subscription required] titled “Design Thinking” by Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO.

Since then, the design thinking process has been applied to developing new products and services, and to a whole range of problems, from creating a business model for selling solar panels in Africa to the operation of Airbnb .

At a high level, the steps involved in the design thinking process are simple: first, fully understand the problem; second, explore a wide range of possible solutions; third, iterate extensively through prototyping and testing; and finally, implement through the customary deployment mechanisms. 

The skills associated with these steps help people apply creativity to effectively solve real-world problems better than they otherwise would. They can be readily learned, but take effort. For instance, when trying to understand a problem, setting aside your own preconceptions is vital, but it’s hard.

Creative brainstorming is necessary for developing possible solutions, but many people don’t do it particularly well. And throughout the process it is critical to engage in modeling, analysis, prototyping, and testing, and to really learn from these many iterations.

Once you master the skills central to the design thinking approach, they can be applied to solve problems in daily life and any industry.

Here’s what you need to know to get started.

Understand the problem 

The first step in design thinking is to understand the problem you are trying to solve before searching for solutions. Sometimes, the problem you need to address is not the one you originally set out to tackle.

“Most people don’t make much of an effort to explore the problem space before exploring the solution space,” said MIT Sloan professor Steve Eppinger. The mistake they make is to try and empathize, connecting the stated problem only to their own experiences. This falsely leads to the belief that you completely understand the situation. But the actual problem is always broader, more nuanced, or different than people originally assume.

Take the example of a meal delivery service in Holstebro, Denmark. When a team first began looking at the problem of poor nutrition and malnourishment among the elderly in the city, many of whom received meals from the service, it thought that simply updating the menu options would be a sufficient solution. But after closer observation, the team realized the scope of the problem was much larger , and that they would need to redesign the entire experience, not only for those receiving the meals, but for those preparing the meals as well. While the company changed almost everything about itself, including rebranding as The Good Kitchen, the most important change the company made when rethinking its business model was shifting how employees viewed themselves and their work. That, in turn, helped them create better meals (which were also drastically changed), yielding happier, better nourished customers.

Involve users

Imagine you are designing a new walker for rehabilitation patients and the elderly, but you have never used one. Could you fully understand what customers need? Certainly not, if you haven’t extensively observed and spoken with real customers. There is a reason that design thinking is often referred to as human-centered design.

“You have to immerse yourself in the problem,” Eppinger said.

How do you start to understand how to build a better walker? When a team from MIT’s Integrated Design and Management program together with the design firm Altitude took on that task, they met with walker users to interview them, observe them, and understand their experiences.  

“We center the design process on human beings by understanding their needs at the beginning, and then include them throughout the development and testing process,” Eppinger said.

Central to the design thinking process is prototyping and testing (more on that later) which allows designers to try, to fail, and to learn what works. Testing also involves customers, and that continued involvement provides essential user feedback on potential designs and use cases. If the MIT-Altitude team studying walkers had ended user involvement after its initial interviews, it would likely have ended up with a walker that didn’t work very well for customers. 

It is also important to interview and understand other stakeholders, like people selling the product, or those who are supporting the users throughout the product life cycle.

The second phase of design thinking is developing solutions to the problem (which you now fully understand). This begins with what most people know as brainstorming.

Hold nothing back during brainstorming sessions — except criticism. Infeasible ideas can generate useful solutions, but you’d never get there if you shoot down every impractical idea from the start.

“One of the key principles of brainstorming is to suspend judgment,” Eppinger said. “When we're exploring the solution space, we first broaden the search and generate lots of possibilities, including the wild and crazy ideas. Of course, the only way we're going to build on the wild and crazy ideas is if we consider them in the first place.”

That doesn’t mean you never judge the ideas, Eppinger said. That part comes later, in downselection. “But if we want 100 ideas to choose from, we can’t be very critical.”

In the case of The Good Kitchen, the kitchen employees were given new uniforms. Why? Uniforms don’t directly affect the competence of the cooks or the taste of the food.

But during interviews conducted with kitchen employees, designers realized that morale was low, in part because employees were bored preparing the same dishes over and over again, in part because they felt that others had a poor perception of them. The new, chef-style uniforms gave the cooks a greater sense of pride. It was only part of the solution, but if the idea had been rejected outright, or perhaps not even suggested, the company would have missed an important aspect of the solution.

Prototype and test. Repeat.

You’ve defined the problem. You’ve spoken to customers. You’ve brainstormed, come up with all sorts of ideas, and worked with your team to boil those ideas down to the ones you think may actually solve the problem you’ve defined.

“We don’t develop a good solution just by thinking about a list of ideas, bullet points and rough sketches,” Eppinger said. “We explore potential solutions through modeling and prototyping. We design, we build, we test, and repeat — this design iteration process is absolutely critical to effective design thinking.”

Repeating this loop of prototyping, testing, and gathering user feedback is crucial for making sure the design is right — that is, it works for customers, you can build it, and you can support it.

“After several iterations, we might get something that works, we validate it with real customers, and we often find that what we thought was a great solution is actually only just OK. But then we can make it a lot better through even just a few more iterations,” Eppinger said.

Implementation

The goal of all the steps that come before this is to have the best possible solution before you move into implementing the design. Your team will spend most of its time, its money, and its energy on this stage.

“Implementation involves detailed design, training, tooling, and ramping up. It is a huge amount of effort, so get it right before you expend that effort,” said Eppinger.

Design thinking isn’t just for “things.” If you are only applying the approach to physical products, you aren’t getting the most out of it. Design thinking can be applied to any problem that needs a creative solution. When Eppinger ran into a primary school educator who told him design thinking was big in his school, Eppinger thought he meant that they were teaching students the tenets of design thinking.

“It turns out they meant they were using design thinking in running their operations and improving the school programs. It’s being applied everywhere these days,” Eppinger said.

In another example from the education field, Peruvian entrepreneur Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor hired design consulting firm IDEO to redesign every aspect of the learning experience in a network of schools in Peru. The ultimate goal? To elevate Peru’s middle class.

As you’d expect, many large corporations have also adopted design thinking. IBM has adopted it at a company-wide level, training many of its nearly 400,000 employees in design thinking principles .

What can design thinking do for your business?

The impact of all the buzz around design thinking today is that people are realizing that “anybody who has a challenge that needs creative problem solving could benefit from this approach,” Eppinger said. That means that managers can use it, not only to design a new product or service, “but anytime they’ve got a challenge, a problem to solve.”

Applying design thinking techniques to business problems can help executives across industries rethink their product offerings, grow their markets, offer greater value to customers, or innovate and stay relevant. “I don’t know industries that can’t use design thinking,” said Eppinger.

Ready to go deeper?

Read “ The Designful Company ” by Marty Neumeier, a book that focuses on how businesses can benefit from design thinking, and “ Product Design and Development ,” co-authored by Eppinger, to better understand the detailed methods.

Register for an MIT Sloan Executive Education course:

Systematic Innovation of Products, Processes, and Services , a five-day course taught by Eppinger and other MIT professors.

• Leadership by Design: Innovation Process and Culture , a two-day course taught by MIT Integrated Design and Management director Matthew Kressy.
• Managing Complex Technical Projects , a two-day course taught by Eppinger.
• Apply for M astering Design Thinking , a 3-month online certificate course taught by Eppinger and MIT Sloan senior lecturers Renée Richardson Gosline and David Robertson.

Steve Eppinger is a professor of management science and innovation at MIT Sloan. He holds the General Motors Leaders for Global Operations Chair and has a PhD from MIT in engineering. He is the faculty co-director of MIT's System Design and Management program and Integrated Design and Management program, both master’s degrees joint between the MIT Sloan and Engineering schools. His research focuses on product development and technical project management, and has been applied to improving complex engineering processes in many industries.

Read next: 10 agile ideas worth sharing

Related Articles

.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:42px;color:#F5F4F3;}@media (max-width: 1120px){.css-s5s6ko{margin-right:12px;}} Join us: Learn how to build a trusted AI strategy to support your company's intelligent transformation, featuring Forrester .css-1ixh9fn{display:inline-block;}@media (max-width: 480px){.css-1ixh9fn{display:block;margin-top:12px;}} .css-1uaoevr-heading-6{font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-1uaoevr-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} .css-ora5nu-heading-6{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:flex-start;justify-content:flex-start;color:#0D0E10;-webkit-transition:all 0.3s;transition:all 0.3s;position:relative;font-size:16px;line-height:28px;padding:0;font-size:14px;line-height:24px;font-weight:500;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;color:#F5F4F3;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{border-bottom:0;color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover path{fill:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div{border-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover div:before{border-left-color:#CD4848;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active{border-bottom:0;background-color:#EBE8E8;color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active path{fill:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div{border-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:active div:before{border-left-color:#0D0E10;}.css-ora5nu-heading-6:hover{color:#F5F4F3;} Register now .css-1k6cidy{width:11px;height:11px;margin-left:8px;}.css-1k6cidy path{fill:currentColor;}

• Project planning |
• How to solve problems using the design ...

How to solve problems using the design thinking process

The design thinking process is a problem-solving design methodology that helps you develop solutions in a human-focused way. Initially designed at Stanford’s d.school, the five stage design thinking method can help solve ambiguous questions, or more open-ended problems. Learn how these five steps can help your team create innovative solutions to complex problems.

As humans, we’re approached with problems every single day. But how often do we come up with solutions to everyday problems that put the needs of individual humans first?

This is how the design thinking process started.

What is the design thinking process?

The design thinking process is a problem-solving design methodology that helps you tackle complex problems by framing the issue in a human-centric way. The design thinking process works especially well for problems that are not clearly defined or have a more ambiguous goal.

One of the first individuals to write about design thinking was John E. Arnold, a mechanical engineering professor at Stanford. Arnold wrote about four major areas of design thinking in his book, “Creative Engineering” in 1959. His work was later taught at Stanford’s Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design (also known as d.school), a design institute that pioneered the design thinking process. 

This eventually led Nobel Prize laureate Herbert Simon to outline one of the first iterations of the design thinking process in his 1969 book, “The Sciences of the Artificial.” While there are many different variations of design thinking, “The Sciences of the Artificial” is often credited as the basis. 

Anatomy of Work Special Report: How to spot—and overcome—the most crucial enterprise challenges

Learn how enterprises can improve processes and productivity, no matter how complex your organization is. With fewer redundancies, leaders and their teams can hit goals faster.

A non-linear design thinking approach

Design thinking is not a linear process. It’s important to understand that each stage of the process can (and should) inform the other steps. For example, when you’re going through user testing, you may learn about a new problem that didn’t come up during any of the previous stages. You may learn more about your target personas during the final testing phase, or discover that your initial problem statement can actually help solve even more problems, so you need to redefine the statement to include those as well. 

Why use the design thinking process

The design thinking process is not the most intuitive way to solve a problem, but the results that come from it are worth the effort. Here are a few other reasons why implementing the design thinking process for your team is worth it.

Focus on problem solving

As human beings, we often don’t go out of our way to find problems. Since there’s always an abundance of problems to solve, we’re used to solving problems as they occur. The design thinking process forces you to look at problems from many different points of view. 

The design thinking process requires focusing on human needs and behaviors, and how to create a solution to match those needs. This focus on problem solving can help your design team come up with creative solutions for complex problems. 

Encourages collaboration and teamwork

The design thinking process cannot happen in a silo. It requires many different viewpoints from designers, future customers, and other stakeholders . Brainstorming sessions and collaboration are the backbone of the design thinking process.

Foster innovation

The design thinking process focuses on finding creative solutions that cater to human needs. This means your team is looking to find creative solutions for hyper specific and complex problems. If they’re solving unique problems, then the solutions they’re creating must be equally unique.

The iterative process of the design thinking process means that the innovation doesn’t have to end—your team can continue to update the usability of your product to ensure that your target audience’s problems are effectively solved. 

The 5 stages of design thinking

Currently, one of the more popular models of design thinking is the model proposed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design (or d.school) at Stanford. The main reason for its popularity is because of the success this process had in successful companies like Google, Apple, Toyota, and Nike. Here are the five steps designated by the d.school model that have helped many companies succeed.

1. Empathize stage

The first stage of the design thinking process is to look at the problem you’re trying to solve in an empathetic manner. To get an accurate representation of how the problem affects people, actively look for people who encountered this problem previously. Asking them how they would have liked to have the issue resolved is a good place to start, especially because of the human-centric nature of the design thinking process. 

Empathy is an incredibly important aspect of the design thinking process.  The design thinking process requires the designers to put aside any assumptions and unconscious biases they may have about the situation and put themselves in someone else’s shoes. 

For example, if your team is looking to fix the employee onboarding process at your company, you may interview recent new hires to see how their onboarding experience went. Another option is to have a more tenured team member go through the onboarding process so they can experience exactly what a new hire experiences.

2. Define stage

Sometimes a designer will encounter a situation when there’s a general issue, but not a specific problem that needs to be solved. One way to help designers clearly define and outline a problem is to create human-centric problem statements. 

A problem statement helps frame a problem in a way that provides relevant context in an easy to comprehend way. The main goal of a problem statement is to guide designers working on possible solutions for this problem. A problem statement frames the problem in a way that easily highlights the gap between the current state of things and the end goal. 

Tip: Problem statements are best framed as a need for a specific individual. The more specific you are with your problem statement, the better designers can create a human-centric solution to the problem. 

Examples of good problem statements:

We need to decrease the number of clicks a potential customer takes to go through the sign-up process.

We need to decrease the new subscriber unsubscribe rate by 10%. 

We need to increase the Android app adoption rate by 20%.

3. Ideate stage

This is the stage where designers create potential solutions to solve the problem outlined in the problem statement. Use brainstorming techniques with your team to identify the human-centric solution to the problem defined in step two. 

Here are a few brainstorming strategies you can use with your team to come up with a solution:

Standard brainstorm session: Your team gathers together and verbally discusses different ideas out loud.

Brainwrite: Everyone writes their ideas down on a piece of paper or a sticky note and each team member puts their ideas up on the whiteboard. 

Worst possible idea: The inverse of your end goal. Your team produces the most goofy idea so nobody will look silly. This takes out the rigidity of other brainstorming techniques. This technique also helps you identify areas that you can improve upon in your actual solution by looking at the worst parts of an absurd solution. 

It’s important that you don’t discount any ideas during the ideation phase of brainstorming. You want to have as many potential solutions as possible, as new ideas can help trigger even better ideas. Sometimes the most creative solution to a problem is the combination of many different ideas put together.

4. Prototype stage

During the prototype phase, you and your team design a few different variations of inexpensive or scaled down versions of the potential solution to the problem. Having different versions of the prototype gives your team opportunities to test out the solution and make any refinements. 

Prototypes are often tested by other designers, team members outside of the initial design department, and trusted customers or members of the target audience. Having multiple versions of the product gives your team the opportunity to tweak and refine the design before testing with real users. During this process, it’s important to document the testers using the end product. This will give you valuable information as to what parts of the solution are good, and which require more changes.

After testing different prototypes out with teasers, your team should have different solutions for how your product can be improved. The testing and prototyping phase is an iterative process—so much so that it’s possible that some design projects never end.

After designers take the time to test, reiterate, and redesign new products, they may find new problems, different solutions, and gain an overall better understanding of the end-user. The design thinking framework is flexible and non-linear, so it’s totally normal for the process itself to influence the end design. 

Tips for incorporating the design thinking process into your team

If you want your team to start using the design thinking process, but you’re unsure of how to start, here are a few tips to help you out. 

Start small: Similar to how you would test a prototype on a small group of people, you want to test out the design thinking process with a smaller team to see how your team functions. Give this test team some small projects to work on so you can see how this team reacts. If it works out, you can slowly start rolling this process out to other teams.

Incorporate cross-functional team members : The design thinking process works best when your team members collaborate and brainstorm together. Identify who your designer’s key stakeholders are and ensure they’re included in the small test team. 

Organize work in a collaborative project management software : Keep important design project documents such as user research, wireframes, and brainstorms in a collaborative tool like Asana . This way, team members will have one central source of truth for anything relating to the project they’re working on.

Foster collaborative design thinking with Asana

The design thinking process works best when your team works collaboratively. You don’t want something as simple as miscommunication to hinder your projects. Instead, compile all of the information your team needs about a design project in one place with Asana. 

Related resources

Unmanaged business goals don’t work. Here’s what does.

How Asana uses work management to drive product development

How Asana uses work management to streamline project intake processes

How Asana uses work management for smoother creative production

What is design thinking?

Design and conquer: in years past, the word “design” might have conjured images of expensive handbags or glossy coffee table books. Now, your mind might go straight to business. Design and design thinking are buzzing in the business community more than ever. Until now, design has focused largely on how something looks; these days, it’s a dynamic idea used to describe how organizations can adjust their problem-solving approaches to respond to rapidly changing environments—and create maximum impact and shareholder value. Design is a journey and a destination. Design thinking is a core way of starting the journey and arriving at the right destination at the right time.

Simply put, “design thinking is a methodology that we use to solve complex problems , and it’s a way of using systemic reasoning and intuition to explore ideal future states,” says McKinsey partner Jennifer Kilian. Design thinking, she continues, is “the single biggest competitive advantage that you can have, if your customers are loyal to you—because if you solve for their needs first, you’ll always win.”

Get to know and directly engage with senior McKinsey experts on design thinking

Tjark Freundt is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Hamburg office, Tomas Nauclér is a senior partner in the Stockholm office, Daniel Swan is a senior partner in the Stamford office, Warren Teichner is a senior partner in the New York office, Bill Wiseman is a senior partner in the Seattle office, and Kai Vollhardt is a senior partner in the Munich office.

And good design is good business. Kilian’s claim is backed up with data: McKinsey Design’s 2018 Business value of design report  found that the best design performers increase their revenues  and investor returns at nearly twice the rate of their industry competitors. What’s more, over a ten-year period, design-led companies outperformed  the S&P 500 by 219 percent.

As you may have guessed by now, design thinking goes way beyond just the way something looks. And incorporating design thinking into your business is more than just creating a design studio and hiring designers. Design thinking means fundamentally changing how you develop your products, services, and, indeed, your organization itself.

Read on for a deep dive into the theory and practice of design thinking.

Learn more about McKinsey’s Design Practice , and check out McKinsey’s latest Business value of design report here .

How do companies build a design-driven company culture?

There’s more to succeeding in business than developing a great product or service that generates a financial return. Empathy and purpose are core business needs. Design thinking means putting customers, employees, and the planet at the center of problem solving.

McKinsey’s Design Practice has learned that design-led organizations start with design-driven cultures. Here are four steps  to building success through the power of design:

Understand your audience. Design-driven companies go beyond asking what customers and employees want, to truly understanding why they want it. Frequently, design-driven companies will turn to cultural anthropologists and ethnographers to drill down into how their customers use and experience products, including what motivates them and what turns them away.

Makeup retailer Sephora provides an example. When marketing leaders actually watched  shoppers using the Sephora website, they realized customers would frequently go to YouTube to watch videos of people using products before making a purchase. Using this information, the cosmetics retailer developed its own line of demonstration videos, keeping shoppers on the site and therefore more likely to make a purchase.

• Bring design to the executive table. This leader can be a chief design officer, a chief digital officer, or a chief marketing officer. Overall, this executive should be the best advocate for the company’s customers and employees, bringing the point of view of the people, the planet, and the company’s purpose into strategic business decisions. The design lead should also build bridges between multiple functions and stakeholders, bringing various groups into the design iteration process.
• Design in real time. To understand how and why people—both customers and employees—use processes, products, or services, organizations should develop a three-pronged design-thinking model that combines design, business strategy, and technology. This approach allows business leaders to spot trends, cocreate using feedback and data, prototype, validate, and build governance models for ongoing investment.

Act quickly. Good design depends on agility. That means getting a product to users quickly, then iterating based on customer feedback. In a design-driven culture, companies aren’t afraid to release products that aren’t quite perfect. Designers know there is no end to the design process. The power of design, instead, lies in the ability to adopt and adapt as needs change. When designers are embedded within teams, they are uniquely positioned to gather and digest feedback, which can lead to unexpected revelations. Ultimately, this approach creates more impactful and profitable results than following a prescribed path.

Consider Instagram. Having launched an initial product in 2010, Instagram’s founders paid attention to what the most popular features were: image sharing, commenting, and liking. They relaunched with a stripped-down version a few months later, resulting in 100,000 downloads in less than a week and over two million users in under two months —all without any strategic promotion.

Learn more about McKinsey’s Design Practice .

What’s the relationship between user-centered design and design thinking?

Both processes are design led. And they both emphasize listening to and deeply understanding users and continually gathering and implementing feedback to develop, refine, and improve a service.

Where they are different is scale. User-centered design focuses on improving a specific product or service . Design thinking takes a broader view  as a way to creatively address complex problems—whether for a start-up, a large organization, or society as a whole.

User-centered design is great for developing a fantastic product or service. In the past, a company could coast on a superior process or product for years before competitors caught up. But now, as digitization drives more frequent and faster disruptions, users demand a dynamic mix of product and service. Emphasis has shifted firmly away  from features and functions toward purpose, lifestyle, and simplicity of use.

Introducing McKinsey Explainers : Direct answers to complex questions

McKinsey analysis has found that some industries—such as telecommunications, automotive, and consumer product companies— have already made strides toward combining product and service into a unified customer experience . Read on for concrete examples of how companies have applied design thinking to offer innovative—and lucrative—customer experiences.

Learn more about our Operations Practice .

What is the design-thinking process?

McKinsey analysis has shown that the design-thinking approach creates more value  than conventional approaches. The right design at the right price point spurs sustainability and resilience in a demonstrable way—a key driver of growth.

According to McKinsey’s Design  Practice, there are two key steps to the design-thinking process:

• Developing an understanding of behavior and needs that goes beyond what people are doing right now to what they will need in the future and how to deliver that. The best way to develop this understanding is to spend time with people.
• “Concepting,” iterating, and testing . First start with pen and paper, sketching out concepts. Then quickly put these into rough prototypes—with an emphasis on quickly. Get feedback, refine, and test again. As American chemist Linus Pauling said : “The way to get good ideas is to get lots of ideas and throw the bad ones away.”

What is D4VG versus DTV?

For more than a decade, manufacturers have used a design-to-value (DTV) model  to design and release products that have the features needed to be competitive at a low cost. During this time, DTV efforts were groundbreaking because they were based on data rather than experience. They also reached across functions, in contrast to the typical value-engineering approach.

The principles of DTV have evolved into design for value and growth (D4VG), a new way of creating products that provide exceptional customer experiences while driving both value and growth. Done right, D4VG efforts generate products with the features, form, and functionality that turn users into loyal fans .

D4VG products can cost more to build, but they can ultimately raise margins by delivering on a clear understanding of a product’s core brand attributes, insights into people’s motivations, and design thinking.

Learn more about our Consumer Packaged Goods Practice .

What is design for sustainability?

As consumers, companies, and regulators shift toward increased sustainability, design processes are coming under even more scrutiny. The challenge is that carbon-efficient production processes tend to be more complex and can require more carbon-intensive materials. The good news is that an increased focus on design for sustainability (DFS), especially at the research and development stage , can help mitigate some of these inefficiencies and ultimately create even more sustainable products.

For example, the transition from internal-combustion engines to electric-propulsion vehicles  has highlighted emissions-intensive automobile production processes. One study found that around 20 percent of the carbon generated by a diesel vehicle comes from its production . If the vehicle ran on only renewable energy, production emissions would account for 85 percent of the total. With more sustainable design, electric-vehicle (EV) manufacturers stand to reduce the lifetime emissions of their products significantly.

To achieve design for sustainability at scale, companies can address three interrelated elements at the R&D stage:

• rethinking the way their products use resources, adapting them to changing regulations, adopting principles of circularity, and making use of customer insights
• understanding and tracking emissions and cost impact of design decisions in support of sustainability goals
• fostering the right mindsets and capabilities to integrate sustainability into every product and design decision

What is ‘skinny design’?

Skinny design is a less theoretical aspect of design thinking. It’s a method whereby consumer goods companies reassess the overall box size of products by reducing the total cubic volume of the package. According to McKinsey analysis , this can improve overall business performance in the following ways:

• Top-line growth of 4 to 5 percent through improvements in shelf and warehouse holding power. The ability to fit more stock into warehouses ultimately translates to growth.
• Bottom-line growth of more than 10 percent . Packing more product into containers and trucks creates the largest savings. Other cost reductions can come from designing packaging to minimize the labor required and facilitate automation.
• Sustainability improvements associated with reductions in carbon emissions through less diesel fuel burned per unit. Material choices can also confer improvements to the overall footprint.

Read more about skinny design and how it can help maximize the volume of consumer products that make it onto shelves.

Learn more about McKinsey’s Operations Practice .

How can a company become a top design performer?

The average person’s standard for design is higher than ever. Good design is no longer just a nice-to-have for a company. Customers now have extremely high expectations for design, whether it’s customer service, instant access to information, or clever products that are also aesthetically relevant in the current culture.

McKinsey tracked the design practices of 300 publicly listed companies  over a five-year period in multiple countries. Advanced regression analysis of more than two million pieces of financial data and more than 100,000 design actions revealed 12 actions most correlated to improved financial performance. These were then clustered into the following four themes:

• Analytical leadership . For the best financial performers, design is a top management issue , and design performance is assessed with the same rigor these companies use to approach revenue and cost. The companies with the top financial returns have combined design and business leadership through bold, design-centric visions. These include a commitment to maintain a baseline level of customer understanding among all executives. The CEO of one of the world’s largest banks, for example, spends one day a month with the bank’s clients and encourages all members of the company’s C-suite to do the same.
• Cross-functional talent . Top-performing companies make user-centric design everyone’s responsibility, not a siloed function. Companies whose designers are embedded within cross-functional teams have better overall business performance . Further, the alignment of design metrics with functional business metrics (such as financial performance, user adoption rates, and satisfaction results) is also correlated to better business performance.
• Design with people, not for people . Design flourishes best, according to our research, in environments that encourage learning, testing, and iterating with users . These practices increase the odds of creating breakthrough products and services, while at the same time reducing the risk of costly missteps.
• User experience (UX) . Top-quartile companies embrace the full user experience  by taking a broad-based view of where design can make a difference. Design approaches like mapping customer journeys can lead to more inclusive and sustainable solutions.

What are some real-world examples of how design thinking can improve efficiency and user experience?

Understanding the theory of design thinking is one thing. Seeing it work in practice is something else. Here are some examples of how elegant design created value for customers, a company, and shareholders:

• Stockholm’s international airport, Arlanda, used design thinking to address its air-traffic-control problem. The goal was to create a system that would make air traffic safer and more effective. By understanding the tasks and challenges of the air-traffic controllers, then collaboratively working on prototypes and iterating based on feedback, a working group was able to design a new departure-sequencing tool  that helped air-traffic controllers do their jobs better. The new system greatly reduced the amount of time planes spent between leaving the terminal and being in the air, which in turn helped reduce fuel consumption.
• When Tesla creates its electric vehicles , the company closely considers not only aesthetics but also the overall driving experience .
• The consumer electronics industry has a long history of dramatic evolutions lead by design thinking. Since Apple debuted the iPhone in 2007, for example, each new generation has seen additional features, new customers, and lower costs—all driven by design-led value creation .

Learn more about our Consumer Packaged Goods  and Sustainability  Practices.

For a more in-depth exploration of these topics, see McKinsey’s Agile Organizations collection. Learn more about our Design Practice —and check out design-thinking-related job opportunities if you’re interested in working at McKinsey.

Articles referenced:

• “ Skinny design: Smaller is better ,” April 26, 2022, Dave Fedewa , Daniel Swan , Warren Teichner , and Bill Wiseman
• “ Product sustainability: Back to the drawing board ,” February 7, 2022, Stephan Fuchs, Stephan Mohr , Malin Orebäck, and Jan Rys
• “ Emerging from COVID-19: Australians embrace their values ,” May 11, 2020, Lloyd Colling, Rod Farmer , Jenny Child, Dan Feldman, and Jean-Baptiste Coumau
• “ The business value of design ,” McKinsey Quarterly , October 25, 2018, Benedict Sheppard , Hugo Sarrazin, Garen Kouyoumjian, and Fabricio Dore
• “ More than a feeling: Ten design practices to deliver business value ,” December 8, 2017, Benedict Sheppard , John Edson, and Garen Kouyoumjian
• “ Creating value through sustainable design ,” July 25, 2017, Sara Andersson, David Crafoord, and Tomas Nauclér
• “ The expanding role of design in creating an end-to-end customer experience ,” June 6, 2017, Raffaele Breschi, Tjark Freundt , Malin Orebäck, and Kai Vollhardt
• “ Design for value and growth in a new world ,” April 13, 2017, Ankur Agrawal , Mark Dziersk, Dave Subburaj, and Kieran West
• “ The power of design thinking ,” March 1, 2016, Jennifer Kilian , Hugo Sarrazin, and Barr Seitz
• “ Building a design-driven culture ,” September 1, 2015, Jennifer Kilian , Hugo Sarrazin, and Hyo Yeon

Want to know more about design thinking?

Related articles.

Skinny design: Smaller is better

The business value of design

More than a feeling: Ten design practices to deliver business value

• Josh Singer
• Jun 24, 2021

The Rise Of Design Thinking As A Problem Solving Strategy

• 18 min read
• UX , Design , Product Strategy
• Share on Twitter ,  LinkedIn

About The Author

Josh Singer is a UX Designer and former Math Editor at Renaissance Learning , where he has worked on products and written content for educators and students … More about Josh ↬

Email Newsletter

Weekly tips on front-end & UX . Trusted by 200,000+ folks.

Having spent the last 20 years in the world of educational technology working on products for educators and students, I have learned to understand teachers and administrators as designers themselves, who use a wide set of tools and techniques to craft learning experiences for students. I have come to believe that by extending this model and framing all users as designers, we are able to mine our own experiences to gain a deeper empathy for their struggles. In doing so, we can develop strategies to set our user-designers up to successfully deal with change and uncertainty.

If you are a designer, or if you have worked with designers any time in the last decade, you are probably familiar with the term “design thinking.” Typically, design thinking is represented by a series of steps that looks something like this:

There are many variations of this diagram, reflective of the multitude of ways that the process can be implemented. It is typically a months-long undertaking that begins with empathy: we get to know a group of people by immersing ourselves in a specific context to understand their tasks, pain points, and motivations. From there, we take stock of our observations, looking for patterns, themes, and opportunities, solidifying the definition of the problem we wish to solve. Then, we iteratively ideate, prototype, and test solutions until we arrive at one we like (or until we run out of time).

Ultimately, the whole process boils down to a simple purpose: to solve a problem. This is not a new purpose, of course, and not unique to those of us with “Designer” in our job titles. In fact, while design thinking is not exactly the same as the scientific method we learned in school, it bears an uncanny resemblance:

By placing design thinking within this lineage, we equate the designer with the scientist, the one responsible for facilitating the discovery and delivery of the solution.

At its best, design thinking is highly collaborative. It brings together people from across the organization and often from outside of it, so that a diverse group, including those whose voices are not usually heard, can participate. It centers the needs and emotions of those we hope to serve. Hopefully, it pulls us out of our own experiences and biases, opening us up to new ways of thinking and shining a light on new perspectives. At its worst, when design thinking is dogmatically followed or cynically applied, it becomes a means of gatekeeping, imposing a rigid structure and set of rules that leave little room for approaches to design that do not conform to an exclusionary set of cultural standards.

Its relative merits, faults, and occasional high-profile critiques notwithstanding, design thinking has become orthodoxy in the world of software development, where not using it feels tantamount to malpractice. No UX Designer’s portfolio is complete without a well-lit photo capturing a group of eager problem solvers in the midst of the “Define” step, huddled together, gazing thoughtfully at a wall covered in colorful sticky notes . My colleagues and I use it frequently, sticky notes and all, as we work on products in EdTech.

Like “lean,” the design thinking methodology has quickly spread beyond the software industry into the wider world. Today you can find it in elementary schools , in nonprofits , and at the center of innovation labs housed in local governments .

Amidst all of the hoopla, it is easy to overlook a central assumption of design thinking, which seems almost too obvious to mention: the existence of a solution . The process rests on the premise that, once the steps have been carried out, the state of the problem changes from ‘unsolved’ to ‘solved.’ While this problem-solution framework is undeniably effective, it is also incomplete. If we zoom out , we can see the limits of our power as designers, and then we can consider what those limits mean for how we approach our work.

Chaos And The Limits Of Problem Solving

An unchecked belief in our ability to methodically solve big problems can lead to some pretty grandiose ideas. In his book, Chaos: Making a New Science , James Gleick describes a period in the 1950s and ’60s when, as computing and satellite technologies continued to advance, a large, international group of scientists embarked on a project that, in hindsight, sounds absurd. Their goal was not only to accurately predict, but also to control the weather:

“There was an idea that human society would free itself from weather’s turmoil and become its master instead of its victim. Geodesic domes would cover cornfields. Airplanes would seed the clouds. Scientists would learn how to make rain and how to stop it.” — “Chaos: Making a New Science,” James Gleick

It is easy to scoff at their hubris now, but at the time it was a natural result of an ever-heightening faith that, with science, no problem is too big to solve. What those scientists did not account for is a phenomenon commonly known as the butterfly effect, which is now a central pillar of the field of chaos theory. The butterfly effect describes the inherent volatility that arises in complex and interconnected systems. It gets its name from a famous illustration of the principle: a butterfly flapping its wings and creating tiny disturbances in the air around it on one side of the globe today can cause a hurricane tomorrow on the other. Studies have shown that the butterfly effect impacts everything in society from politics and the economy to trends in fashion .

Our Chaotic Systems

If we accept that, like the climate, the social systems in which we design and build solutions are complex and unpredictable, a tension becomes apparent. Design thinking exists in a context that is chaotic and unpredictable by nature, and yet the act of predicting is central. By prototyping and testing , we are essentially gathering evidence about what the outcome of our design will be, and whether it will effectively solve the problem we have defined. The process ends when we feel confident in our prediction and happy with the result.

I want to take pains to point out again that this approach is not wrong! We should trust the process to confirm that our designs are useful and usable in the immediate sense. At the same time, whenever we deliver a solution, we are like the butterfly flapping its wings, contributing (along with countless others) to a constant stream of change. So while the short-term result is often predictable, the longer-term outlook for the system as a whole, and for how long our solution will hold as the system changes, is unknowable.

Impermanence

As we use design thinking to solve problems, how do we deal with the fact that our solutions are built to address conditions that will change in ways we can’t plan for?

One basic thing we can do is to maintain awareness of the impermanence of our work, recognizing that it was built to meet the needs of a specific moment in time . It is more akin to a tree fort constructed in the woods than to a castle fortress made from stone. While the castle may take years to build and last for centuries, impervious to the weather while protecting its inhabitants from all of the chaos that exists outside its walls, the tree fort, even if well-designed and constructed, is directly connected to and at the mercy of its environment. While a tree fort may shelter us from the rain, we do not build it with the expectation that it will last forever, only with the hope that it will serve us well while it’s here. Hopefully, through the experience of building it, we continue to learn and improve.

The fact that our work is impermanent does not diminish its importance, nor does it give us the license to be sloppy. It means that the ability to quickly and consistently adapt and evolve without sacrificing functional or aesthetic quality is core to the job, which is one reason why design systems , which provide consistent and high-quality reusable patterns and components, are crucial.

Designing For User-Designers

A more fundamental way to deal with the impermanence of our work is to rethink our self-image as designers. If we identify only as problem solvers, then our work becomes obsolete quickly and suddenly as conditions change, while in the meantime our users must wait helplessly to be rescued with the next solution. In reality, our users are compelled to adapt and design their own solutions, using whatever tools they have at their disposal. In effect, they are their own designers, and so our task shifts from delivering full, fixed solutions to providing our user-designers with useful and usable tools specific to their needs .

In thinking from this perspective, we can gain empathy for our users by understanding our place as equals on a continuum, each of us relying on others, just as others rely on us.

Key Principles To Center The Needs Of User-Designers

Below are some things to consider when designing for user-designers. In the spirit of the user-designer continuum and of finding the universal in the specific, in the examples below I draw on my experience from both sides of the relationship. First, from my work as a designer in the EdTech space, in which educators rely on people like me to produce tools that enable them to design learning experiences for students. Second, as a user of the products, I rely on them in my daily UX work.

1. Don’t Lock In The Value

It is crucial to have a clear understanding of why someone would use your product in the first place, and then make sure not to get in the way. While there is a temptation to keep that value contained so that users must remain in your product to reap all of the benefits, we should resist that mindset.

Remember that your product is likely just one tool in a larger set, and our users rely on their tools to be compatible with each other as they design their own coherent, holistic solutions. Whereas the designer-as-problem-solver is inclined to build a self-contained solution, jealously locking value within their product, the designer-for-designers facilitates the free flow of information and continuity of task completion between tools however our user-designers choose to use them. By sharing the value, not only do we elevate its source, we give our users full use of their toolbox.

An Example As A Designer Of EdTech Products:

In student assessment applications, like in many other types of applications, the core value is the data. In other words, the fundamental reason schools administer assessments is to learn about student achievement and growth. Once that data is captured, there are all sorts of ways we can then use it to make intelligent, research-based recommendations around tasks like setting student goals, creating instructional groups, and assigning practice. To be clear, we do try very hard to support all of it in our products, often by using design thinking. Ultimately, though, it all starts with the data.

In practice, teachers often have a number of options to choose from when completing their tasks, and they have their own valid reasons for their preferences. Anything from state requirements to school policy to personal working style may dictate their approach to, say, student goal setting. If — out of a desire to keep people in our product — we make it extra difficult for teachers to use data from our assessments to set goals outside of our product (say, in a spreadsheet), then instead of increasing our value, we have added inconvenience and frustration. The lesson, in this case, is not to lock up the data! Ironically, by hoarding it, we make it less valuable. By providing educators with easy and flexible ways to get it out, we unlock its power.

An Example As A User Of Design Tools:

I tend to switch between tools as I go through the design thinking process based on the core value each tool provides. All of these tools are equally essential to the process, and I count on them to work together as I move between phases so that I don’t have to build from scratch at every step. For example, the core value I get from Sketch is mostly in the “Ideation” phase, in that it allows me to brainstorm quickly and freely so that I can try out multiple ideas in a short amount of time. By making it easy for me to bring ideas from that product into a more heavy-duty prototyping application like Axure , instead of locking them inside, Sketch saves me time and frustration and increases my attachment to it. If, for competitive reasons, those tools ceased to cooperate, I would be much more likely to drop one or both.

2. Use Established Patterns

It is always important to remember Jakob’s Law , which states simply that users spend more time on other sites than they spend on yours. If they are accustomed to engaging with information or accomplishing a task a certain way and you ask them to do it differently, they will not view it as an exciting opportunity to learn something new. They will be resentful. Scaling the learning curve is usually painful and frustrating. While it is possible to improve or even replace established patterns, it’s a very tall order . In a world full of unpredictability, consistent and predictable patterns among tools create harmony between experiences.

By following conventions around data visualization in a given domain, we make it easy for users to switch and compare between sources. In the context of education, it is common to display student progress in a graph of test scores over time, with the score scale represented on the vertical axis and the timeline along the horizontal axis. In other words, a scatter plot or line graph, often with one or two more dimensions represented, maybe by color or dot size. Through repeated, consistent exposure, even the most data-phobic teachers can easily and immediately interpret this data visualization and craft a narrative around it.

You could hold a sketching activity during the “Ideate” phase of design thinking in which you brainstorm dozens of other ways to present the same information. Some of those ideas would undoubtedly be interesting and cool, and might even surface new and useful insights. This would be a worthwhile activity! In all likelihood, though, the best decision would not be to replace the accepted pattern. While it can be useful to explore other approaches, ultimately the most benefit is usually derived from using patterns that people already understand and are used to across a variety of products and contexts.

In my role, I often need to quickly learn new UX software, either to facilitate collaboration with designers from outside of my organization or when my team decides to adopt something new. When that happens, I rely heavily on established patterns of visual language to quickly get from the learning phase to the productive phase. Where there is consistency, there is relief and understanding. Where there is a divergence for no clear reason, there is frustration. If a product team decided to rethink the standard alignment palette, for example, in the name of innovation, it would almost certainly make the product more difficult to adopt while failing to provide any benefit.

3. Build For Flexibility

As an expert in your given domain, you might have strong, research-based positions on how certain tasks should be done, and a healthy desire to build those best practices into your product. If you have built up trust with your users, then adding guidance and guardrails directly into the workflow can be powerful. Remember, though, that it is only guidance. The user-designer knows when those best practices apply and when they should be ignored. While we should generally avoid overwhelming our users with choices , we should strive for flexibility whenever possible.

An Example As A Designer Of EdTech Products

Many EdTech products provide mechanisms for setting student learning goals. Generally, teachers appreciate being given recommendations and smart defaults when completing this task, knowing that there is a rich body of research that can help determine a reasonable range of expectations for a given student based on their historical performance and the larger data set from their peers. Providing that guidance in a simple, understandable format is generally beneficial and appreciated. But, we as designers are removed from the individual students and circumstances, as well as the ever-changing needs and requirements driving educators’ goal-setting decisions. We can build recommendations into the happy path and make enacting them as painless as possible, but the user needs an easy way to edit our guidance or to reject it altogether.

The ability to create a library of reusable objects in most UX applications has made them orders of magnitude more efficient. Knowing that I can pull in a pre-made, properly-branded UI element as needed, rather than creating one from scratch, is a major benefit. Often, in the “Ideate” phase of design thinking, I can use these pre-made components in their fully generic form simply to communicate the main idea and hierarchy of a layout. But, when it’s time to fill in the details for high-fidelity prototyping and testing, the ability to override the default text and styling, or even detach the object from its library and make more drastic changes, may become necessary. Having the flexibility to start quickly and then progressively customize lets me adapt rapidly as conditions change, and helps make moving between the design thinking steps quick and easy.

4. Help Your User-Designers Build Empathy For Their Users

When thinking about our users as designers, one key question is: who are they designing for? In many cases, they are designing solutions for themselves, and so their designer-selves naturally empathize with and understand the problems of their user-selves. In other cases, though, they are designing for another group of people altogether. In those situations, we can look for ways to help them think like designers and develop empathy for their users.

For educators, the users are the students. One way to help them center the needs of their audience when they design experiences is to follow the standards of Universal Design for Learning , equipping educators to provide instructional material with multiple means of engagement (i.e., use a variety of strategies to drive motivation for learning), multiple means of representation (i.e., accommodate students’ different learning styles and backgrounds), and multiple means of action and expression (i.e., support different ways for students to interact with instructional material and demonstrate learning). These guidelines open up approaches to learning and nudge users to remember that all of the ways their audience engages with practice and instruction must be supported.

Anything a tool can do to encourage design decisions that center accessibility is hugely helpful, in that it reminds us to consider those who face the most barriers to using our products. While some commonly-used UX tools do include functionality for creating alt-text for images, setting a tab order for keyboard navigation, and enabling responsive layouts for devices of various sizes, there is an opportunity for these tools to do much more. I would love to see built-in accessibility checks that would help us identify potential issues as early in the process as possible.

Hopefully, by applying the core principles of unlocking value, leveraging established patterns, understanding the individual’s need for flexibility , and facilitating empathy in our product design, we can help set our users up to adapt to unforeseen changes. By treating our users as designers in their own right, not only do we recognize and account for the complexity and unpredictability of their environment, we also start to see them as equals.

While those of us with the word “Designer” in our official job title do have a specific and necessary role, we are not gods, handing down solutions from on high, but fellow strugglers trying to navigate a complex, dynamic, stormy world. Nobody can control the weather , but we can make great galoshes, raincoats, and umbrellas.

Further Reading

• If you’re interested in diving into the fascinating world of chaos theory, James Gleick’s book Chaos: Making a New Science , which I quoted in this article, is a wonderful place to start.
• Jon Kolko wrote a great piece in 2015 on the emergence of design thinking in business, in which he describes its main principles and benefits. In a subsequent article from 2017, he considers the growing backlash as organizations have stumbled and taken shortcuts when attempting to put theory into practice, and what the lasting impact may be. An important takeaway here is that, in treating everyone as a designer, we run the risk of downplaying the importance of the professional Designer’s specific skill set. We should recognize that, while it is useful to think of teachers (or any of our users) as designers, the day-to-day tools, methods, and goals are entirely different.
• In the article Making Sense in the Data Economy , Hugh Dubberly and Paul Pangaro describe the emerging challenges and complexities of the designer’s role in moving from the manufacture of physical products to the big data frontier. With this change, the focus shifts from designing finished products (solutions) to maintaining complex and dynamic platforms, and the concept of “meta-design” — designing the systems in which others operate — emerges.
• To keep exploring the ever-evolving strategies of designing for designers, search Smashing Magazine and your other favorite UX resources for ideas on interoperability, consistency, flexibility, and accessibility!

Smashing Newsletter

Tips on front-end & UX, delivered weekly in your inbox. Just the things you can actually use.

Front-End & UX Workshops, Online

With practical takeaways, live sessions, video recordings and a friendly Q&A.

TypeScript in 50 Lessons

Everything TypeScript, with code walkthroughs and examples. And other printed books.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

Over 96% of participants from the September 2023 cohort rate their course good or excellent

Creativity, Problem Solving and Design Thinking

Boost your creative skills and creative confidence with a structured approach to idea generation, exploration and development.

This course equals 48 hours of CPD time

8 hours per week

Tutor guided

Certificate of Achievement

Evidence your learning with a Certificate of Achievement from the University of Cambridge on successful completion.

22 April 2024

03 June 2024

15 April 2024

Book a place

Discover more about this course from the expert(s) behind it

Course overview

Creative problem solving is increasingly recognised as the most sought-after skill in business. This is true across a wide range of industries, and across both private and public sectors. Entrepreneurs, employees, managers, and leaders are all required to find valuable opportunities, generate and develop new ideas and then trial and implement innovative solutions. These processes can be modelled on design activities, where key stakeholders are identified and designed for through processes of research, ideation and prototyping. This is all equally applicable to the development of strategies, products, processes and a variety of socio-technical systems.

This course will help you to learn about the role of creativity in problem solving, and the application of design thinking to different business tasks. You will discover the characteristics of difficult problems, the thinking skills that are used to address them and the various biases that need to be overcome. Through the course content and activities, you will recognise and develop your creative skills, gaining confidence in them and in your capacity to develop them further. This applies not just to individual work, but also to group work, where diverse perspectives and skills can be leveraged.

The course offers an excellent opportunity for professional development, whether you are looking to advance in your current role or change roles or sectors. Through the course, you will apply a structured process to identifying problems and generating wide-ranging solution ideas before selecting and developing one (or more) for communication and implementation. You will have the opportunity to practice these skills in various course-specific scenarios, and also to a project that is relevant to your own professional context. The course is highly interactive, and you will be encouraged, through individual and collaborative work, to apply and manage a selection of evidence-based creative approaches.

This course is certified by the United Kingdom CPD Certification Service, and may be applicable to individuals who are members of, or are associated with, UK-based professional bodies. The course has an estimated 48 hours of learning.

Note: should you wish to claim CPD activity, the onus is upon you. Cambridge Advance Online accept no responsibility, and cannot be held responsible, for the claiming or validation of hours or points.

What will I learn?

By the end of the course, you will have a broad understanding of the application of creative approaches, processes and tools, including how to:

• articulate the components of creative work, and the skills (and biases) that are involved
• apply creative processes and tools yourself
• manage the application of creative processes and tools by others
• develop confidence in your creative skills, and in your ability to improve those skills
• represent your own creative skills and experiences, and promote and elicit those of others.

Who is this course for?

• Those interested in improving how they think and act creatively, moving past learned behaviour to reach new and effective solutions.
• Professionals working in business development, transformation, or strategy who are seeking a structured and innovative approach to solving problems.
• Individuals facing novel problems in the workplace, who need to challenge conventions to develop original solutions and pitch these to stakeholders.

Course delivery

Our certificated courses reflect the Cambridge experience and values, with low student to tutor ratios and academically rigorous standards. Our learning model is designed to help you advance your skills and specialise in emerging areas that address global challenges. We will help you build your network through an engaging and impactful learning journey that encourages collaboration. Courses are delivered in weekly modules, allowing you to plan your time effectively. The assessment criteria will be presented to you at the start of the course, so you can approach your studies with confidence and motivation, knowing what is expected of you and how to meet those expectations. 

Throughout your online learning experience, you will have access to your course tutor, who will help facilitate your learning and provide you with support and guidance during your studies. You can interact with your tutor through a range of media, such as live sessions, discussion forums, email or canvas messaging. 

Each course includes a balance of:

• interactive learning and real-world application so you can directly apply what you’re learning to your own context
• diverse teaching methods to enhance learning outcomes which will be delivered via learning activities such as University of Cambridge academic led videos, quizzes and group work
• optional live sessions (1 hour) with University of Cambridge academics and tutors to deepen your understanding of the week's material. These sessions may include an informal Q&A, a short lecture or a breakout activity that builds on the content introduced that week. All sessions are recorded and made available to stream so you can catch up whenever suits you
• guided critical thinking via our reflective workbook so you can collect, structure and summarise information and your thoughts as you progress through the course. 

What will I get on completion?

University of cambridge course lead.

Professor Nathan Crilly

Course dates.

22 Apr - 03 Jun

Places available

Enrol by 15 Apr

Requirements

Level of knowledge.

• a level of spoken and written English sufficient to allow you to participate and succeed in the course (we recommend that you have an English Language level equivalent to an IELTS score of 7, as outlined in section 5 of our  Terms of Purchase (Opens in a new window) )

Materials & equipment

• sufficient internet speed and stability for video streaming (2 Mbps up/down)
• please see our recommendations on web browsers (Opens in a new window)

What our learners are saying

Professor Crilly is truly world-class. His videos were informative and concise, and he was present, warm and engaging for all the live sessions. He made himself exceptionally available for questions and support and I couldn't be more grateful for his instruction.

The delivery of this course has been spectacular in content, presentation and delivery…I have no hesitation recommending it to anyone interested in the subject.

As well as an overall understanding of creative, problem-solving and design thinking processes, the course has provided very well-constructed opportunities to consolidate knowledge and understanding about those processes in practice, alongside other course members.

Let’s keep in touch

Sign up here to receive news and updates about Cambridge Advance Online courses from us and relevant university departments.

Your privacy is important to us. View our Privacy notice (Opens in a new window) for more information. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy (Opens in a new window) and Terms of Service (Opens in a new window) apply.

Live Virtual Programs

Learn from our esteemed faculty in a rich, interactive digital environment, and equip yourself for a new, dynamic business landscape.

Saved Programs 0

Explore group and custom solutions

Accelerate your growth: build an outcome-based partnership between Kellogg and your organization.

Center for Nonprofit Management

In this era of dramatic social and economic change, nonprofit leaders are being challenged as never before — and the need for leadership development has never been greater.

Gain the Kellogg edge

A distinctive cross-disciplinary approach puts the Kellogg advantage to work for you.

• Executive Programs
• Online Programs
• C-Suite Programs
• Executive Scholar Certificate
• Request A Brochure
• Find a Program
• Our Partnership Philosophy
• Design Process & Team
• Association & Specialty Programs
• Academic Partners
• Group Registrations
• Inquiry Form
• Our approach
• Nonprofit Custom Programs
• Equity Essentials
• Nonprofit Management Essentials
• Join Mailing List
• The Kellogg Advantage
• Our Learning Environment
• Our Faculty
• Thought Leadership
• Participant Perspectives
• Alumni Benefits
• Subscribe to Newsletter
• Executive Education
• Individual Programs

Design Thinking: A Toolkit for Breakthrough Innovation

Kellogg Executive Education’s Design Thinking: A Toolkit for Breakthrough Innovation program offers participants a powerful framework for recognizing opportunities, generating and testing new ideas, and realizing new solutions.

Through a combination of interactive sessions, guest lectures, and demonstrations, Kellogg School of Management professor and IDEO designer David Schonthal will take you on an experiential learning journey that covers the entire arc of the design process from inspiration to implementation — and every step in between. Regardless of your role or industry, you will walk away from the program equipped with the tools and techniques to apply this design approach to a wide array of products, services, interfaces, and interactions.

• DOWNLOAD A BROCHURE

Who Should Attend

• Product or service managers seeking an innovative, consumer-oriented strategy that minimizes the risk of bringing a new product to market by developing deep insights, rapid prototyping, and designing thoughtful experiments
• Designers who want to address people’s need (both stated and unstated) through creative thought processes and advance their careers with a hands-on certificate program
• Consultants who want to offer clients far more differentiated and disruptive solutions using a step-by-step method of problem solving and integrated design thinking approaches
• C-suite professionals, heads of business, and entrepreneurs who recognize that gaining an edge and increasing market share require re-imagining their businesses from the bottom up and wish to make design thinking an inherent philosophy in their organizations
• Individuals or teams that are developing transformational business models and searching for new ways to bring offerings to the market with lower risk and strong customer focus

Key Benefits

• Learn to apply design thinking fundamentals to ensure that a solution is desirable from a human point of view and aligns with what is technologically feasible and economically viable
• Develop an in-depth understanding of the full design process from inspiration to implementation and learn to transform an idea into an innovative product or service
• Gain hands-on experience with key methods and tools including Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) framework for customer discovery, synthesis, ideation, prototyping, and storytelling to create and communicate offerings that address customer needs
• Learn how design thinking is used to conceive innovative business models and forecast trends and developments
• Discover how design thinking can nurture your individual creativity, help you overcome resistance to new ideas, and provide advantages such as reduced time-to-market, lower costs, and increased market share
• Implement design thinking as a rigorous, human-centered approach to creative problem solving that can be leveraged across a spectrum of functions, industries, and organizations

Program Content

Module 1: Introduction to Design Thinking

Survey the fundamentals of design thinking and learn how they apply to solving business problems.

• Define the concept of design thinking
• Apply its principles to catalyze innovation
• Demonstrate how the process helps professionals solve challenging business problems
• Challenge assumptions using a rigorous, human-center approach to creative problem solving

Module 2: The Power of Why

Examine the functional, social, and emotional needs of users and stakeholders, and explore the connection between those needs and the decision-making process.

• Apply the JTBD method of interviewing to yield powerful insights into consumer needs and behaviors
• Zero in on the moment of struggle that underlies a customer’s decision to “purchase” a product, service, or experience
• Identify the push and pull factors that influence your customers’ decisions
• Understand the timeline of events in the decision-making process, and target your messaging effectively

Module 3: Translating Observations to Insights

Transform observations into meaningful insights that fuel innovation, using the process of synthesis.

• Externalize your data using the power of storytelling
• Identify common themes in your data to better understand your customers’ desired progress

Module 4: Reframing Opportunities and Generating Ideas

Learn how to generate novel ideas using insights captured during synthesis.

• Employ ideation as a generative process for developing design principles
• Apply the techniques of reframing and group brainstorming to develop actionable ideas and articulate business challenges
• Reframe questions to promote revolutionary innovation
• Follow the rules of brainstorming to support effective ideation

Module 5: Making Ideas Real

Discuss methods for prototyping ideas and testing their underlying assumptions.

• Implement prototyping to learn, communicate, and validate
• Apply the concepts and tools to develop a solution for your business
• Discuss techniques for executing and testing ideas, including sketches, mock-ups, videos, and storyboards
• Challenge assumptions about when, how, and why to prototype

Module 6: Overcoming Resistance to New Ideas and Change

New ideas frequently encounter resistance, often from the very people they are meant to help. Use the principles of friction theory to recognize and address factors that hinder the customer journey.

• Explain why consumers are often reluctant to adopt new ideas
• Use a friction map to identify bottlenecks
• Align remedies with forces of friction to overcome resistance

Module 7: Nontraditional Domains for Design Thinking

See how design thinking is making a difference in unexpected ways.

• Anticipate trends and development in the field
• Hear guest lecturers from a variety of firms and industries reflect on future trends to inspire your journey to innovation

Module 8: Designing Communications that Moves People

Apply creative techniques to design ways of communicating that are as unique as your ideas.

• Use visualization, storytelling, and design fiction to bring your ideas to life
• Leverage communications strategies to promote innovation and overcome resistance to new ideas
• Discuss the role of media and technology in communications design
• Build compelling stories using a narrative structure that comprises an emotional and a business arc

David Schonthal - Academic Director; Clinical Professor of Strategy; Director of Entrepreneurship Programs at Kellogg; Faculty Director of Zell Fellows Program; Director of the Levy Institute for Entrepreneurial Practice

What is the program about?

Design Thinking will allow you to view opportunity through a different lens; a nontraditional one that focuses on human needs. Ideas that are born from the process of design thinking ensure that outcomes meet three criteria: they are desirable, feasible, and viable—and in doing so, these outcomes create an enduring competitive advantage.

What is the learning experience?

Your learning experience will consist of frameworks delivered via video lectures, live webinars, real world examples and case studies, application of frameworks through weekly activities, customized assignments and quizzes, discussion boards, and faculty engagement.

What is the program format?

The program consists of 8 modules delivered over 8 weeks online. Learners can expect to dedicate 4-6 hours per week to watch videos, complete assignments and participate in discussions.

Could a learner choose to opt out of some topics?

No. This is an online program in which a topic module is introduced each week and the learner is expected to watch the video lectures, participate in the optional live webinars, complete the exercises/activities and take the mastery quiz at the end of each week to progress to the subsequent week’s topic.

How much time is allocated to complete assignments?

The due date for submitting assignments is typically within 7 days of the module opening, but can be as long as 14 days, depending on the scope of the assignment. However, learners may request deadline extensions to accommodate for business and personal conflicts that may arise during the program timeframe. Reach out to the program leader to discuss any challenges you may have in completing assignments.

Can participation in this program be counted as credit toward a degree, either at Kellogg, Northwestern University or another academic institution?

No. Executive Education offers only non-degree programs and each participant receives a certificate of completion at the end of the program. This certificate does not count as credit toward a degree. In addition, at this time, our online programs do not count as credit toward a Kellogg Executive Scholar Certificate.

Does the program offer community engagement for learners?

Yes, participants can create a profile, connect and collaborate with peers, and interact with academic/industry experts such as program leaders and teaching assistants. Office hours will be held during the program and all participants are welcome to join in with questions or to discuss assignments.

What are the requirements for accessing the program?

Participants will need the following to access the The Art and Science of Innovation program:

• Valid email address
• Computing device connected to the internet (Mac/PC/laptop, tablet or smartphone)
• The latest version of your preferred browser to access our learning platform (Chrome and Firefox are preferred for accessing Canvas)
• Microsoft Office and PDF viewer to access content such as documents, spreadsheets, presentations, PDF files, and transcripts
• Additional software and resources may be required for certain programs – this will be communicated upon registration and/or at the beginning of the program
• PLEASE NOTE: Google, Vimeo and YouTube may be utilized in the program delivery

Does the program offer a certificate?

Yes. Participants will receive a digital certificate of completion from Kellogg following a successful conclusion to the program. Since this program is graded as a pass or fail, participants must receive an 80% to pass and obtain the certificate. This digital certificate can be shared with colleagues and posted on LinkedIn. (PLEASE NOTE: We do not provide reports of assessments, or “transcripts,” since this is a non-degree program.)

Who is Emeritus and what is their relationship with Kellogg Executive Education?

Kellogg Executive Education is partnering with Emeritus Institute of Management, an online education provider, to develop and deliver this program. By working with Emeritus, we are able to provide broader access to Executive Education, beyond our on-campus offerings, in a collaborative and engaging format that is consistent with Kellogg’s standard of quality.

Additional questions?

Please contact us by calling 847-467-6018 or email us at [email protected] .

Related Programs

Product Strategy: Develop and Manage Successful Products

Growth & Innovation

Leading and sustaining a culture of innovation, other pages in online programs:, pages in executive education.

• Custom Solutions
• Nonprofit Management
• The Kellogg Experience
• Subscribe to our Newsletter
• Kellogg Faculty Blogs
• Read Kellogg Insight

Kellogg School of Management

A Systems View Across Time and Space

• Open access
• Published: 13 April 2023

Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and needfinding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems

• Rahmin Bender-Salazar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5783-6314 1  

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship volume  12 , Article number:  24 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

4 Citations

Metrics details

Organizations in a wide array of fields and disciplines are increasingly using design thinking as an innovative process to create products or services that address wicked problems in their industries. Design thinking, a method of creative and collaborative problem solving originating in the tactics of designers, is a product design and development process that is, more and more, being used as a tool to move innovation forward and structure creation processes in diverse disciplines, from product development to food creation to social science research. Increasingly design thinking has become popular beyond the confines of creative and design disciplines and into the realm of wicked problems in social and ecological systems. While design thinking has many forms and applications, this study uses a refined version built upon the key themes of inspiration, ideation, and implementation as defined by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO (2009), and situates it within the social science discipline—namely, systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research. Through a distilled design structure this flexible methodology combines insights from organizational development, social psychology, systems theory, and design research. By embedding learning and reflective practices into the structure of design thinking, a hybrid model of design thinking emerges that is a more effective tool for framing, setting in context, and solving these types of problems within teams.

From large private companies to small NGOs, academic institutions, and government entities, all are striving to learn about and create innovative services, products, and experiences that address the problems the relevant stakeholders in their industries face. Design thinking, a methodology for problem solving that has its origins in designers’ approaches, tactics, and needs to make this multi-disciplinary process explicit (Gregory, 1966 ), has increasingly emerged in recent decades as a powerful method to drive the innovation process in the pursuit of improvement. Design thinking, as described by the emerging management and innovation scholar Michael Luchs, is “…a creative problem-solving approach—or, more completely, a systematic and collaborative approach for identifying and creatively solving problems” ( 2015 , p. 1). Design thinking’s holistic approach to stakeholders and systems, coupled with its participatory nature, has made it an approachable technique to use beyond the fields of art, architecture, engineering, and technology that traditionally have design disciplines. The theories and practice of design thinking have grown in popularity and have been more heavily used in the academic discourses on management and in the business industry over the past several decades. Thus, this discipline has emerged as a problem solving tool beyond the traditional confines of design (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013 ).

This leads to the following research question: to what extent does the application of design thinking, tasked with addressing wicked problems, represent an effective means for team problem setting and problem solving in organizations?

To fully grasp the concepts discussed in this proposal, it is helpful to clarify a few definitions before proceeding. Wicked problems: these are difficult and challenging problems, which appear in all fields and organizations; the most complex, multifaceted, and intractable problems with systemic impact are referred to as wicked problems (Churchman, 1967 ; Rittel & Webber, 1973 ; Roberts, 2000 ). Organizations: This term is defined as “social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific goals” (Etzioni, 1964 , p. 3) and, in this study, they are defined as seeking to solve problems through the creation of a new product or service. Design thinking: The definition of design thinking in this study can be simply understood as the use of methods and research practices to solve problems that are traditionally not in the fields of design, architecture, or engineering.

A brief history of design thinking

Design thinking was evangelized and popularized by IDEO beginning in the early 1990s (Brown, 2009 ); however, it existed in the academic discourse much earlier in various forms. To understand the current and evolving use of design thinking, a historical review of this process is beneficial. Specifically, it is essential to examine the early work examining designers’ practice and research, occurring in the latter half of the twentieth century, by the parents of modern design thought: Lawson ( 1980 ), Rowe ( 1987 ), Archer ( 1979 ), and Cross ( 1991 ).

An initial push to make a more rigorous discipline out of design thinking sprang from what Michael Barry and Sarah Beckman—current researchers exploring learning in design thinking—refer to as “…a need to make design thinking explicit and a need to embrace the many disciplines that are engaged in some way with design” (Beckman & Barry, 2007 , p. 26). The movement towards an explicit design method began in the 1960s, which would later be referred to as the first generation, and the subsequent movement in the 1970s and 1980s, known as the second generation (Rittell, 1984 ). This second generation of design thought began to emphasize the social aspects of design, by including active participants in the process (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ).

As described by Archer, “there exists a designerly way of thinking and communication that is both different from scientific and scholarly methods of enquiry when applied to its own kinds of problems” (Archer, 1979 , p. 18). This assertion from Archer accents not only the thinking aspect but the unique way of communicating used by designers applying the design thinking method towards problem solving. Similar to this, Cross explains that the design thought process is a research practice and a way of processing information, described as “designerly ways of knowing” ( 2001 ), that is an independent methodology with rich theory and should not be dependent on social science theory ( 2007 ). These two scholars lay the groundwork for design thinking to emerge as a distinct discipline for tackling problems in a myriad of disciplines.

In addition, Rowe outlined a systematic design process to problem solving that emphasized the role of the designer to address the needs of the client ( 1987 ). He described this user-centered process as design thinking, which was one of the earliest uses of the term. In Rowe’s design thinking process, a designer intervenes in a client organization; interprets the evidence gathered through quantitative and qualitative investigation; and makes an effort to address the challenges presented in the form of a product or service. In Lawson’s work, the process of design thinking, though not explicitly called that, is explored as a process that utilizes experimentation and information gathering tactics to tailor products ( 1980 ). Lawson’s definition predates Rowe’s use of the term of design thinking but similarly focuses on the designer’s expert role in assessing the needs of a client and testing possible solutions. This process is a tool that designers can masterfully use, informed by their expertise and designerly ways of knowing (Cross, 2001 ), to ultimately solve challenges that often fall into the definition of wicked problems. Rowe and Lawson focus on the intrinsically unique features of design thinking, with an emphasis on how the use of data gathering and testing make it an ideal tool for finding appropriate and optimal solutions.

These foundations of design thinking led us to Tim Brown’s definition of three overlapping, sometimes non-sequential elements—inspiration, ideation, and implementation—as outlined in Change by Design ( 2009 ) and popularized by IDEO. This simple structure serves as the foundation in which to organize the foundational theories for the proposed method in this article. This definition of design thinking is informed by the work of Lawson ( 1980 ), Rowe ( 1987 ), Archer ( 1979 ), and Cross ( 1991 , 2001 ). This foundational design method is broadly defined as the three key elements can be repeated, can overlap, and can be non-sequential (Brown & Wyatt, 2010 ).

Design thinking adapted towards addressing wicked problems

For this exploration of design thinking’s effect and innovative potential in addressing wicked problems, it is essential to understand the corresponding academic discourse and how it has evolved with design thinking. The theory was first described in an editorial by management theorist Churchman ( 1967 ) as a reaction to the term, first coined by Horst Rittel. The article was an exploration of these difficult, virtually unsolvable problems in the management science discourse and responsibility of society and academia to accept their intractability and find innovation solutions to live with them (Churchman, 1967 ). This first formal definition of the concept was further expanded with more defined parameters with the article of Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973 as uniquely complex problems. Rittel and Webber’s ( 1973 ) work framed wicked problems within the context of social policy planning, where problems are often not clear, and contrasted that with problems in mathematics and chess, where there are clear cut solutions. As stated by modern theorists Brian Head and Wei-Ning Xiang, “…the ubiquity of wicked problems is the norm, and present in almost every pressing issue area that matters to human society today…” ( 2016 , p. 1). This description describes the growing relevance and prevalence of wicked problems on human systems and how it has grown in importance from its inception.

Herbert Simon, a pioneer in design research and artificial intelligence, wanted to use a design approach, in the vein of the one described above, as a unique discipline, to tackle “ill-structured problems,” which he described as problems with undefined characteristics ( 1969 ). Simon described his approach to design as a means of “…devising artifacts to attain goals…” (Simon, 1969 , p. 114), which continued a trend of describing design as a solution making and transformative process. This interpretation of design thinking continued to gain momentum amongst theorists and practitioners throughout the twentieth century, which resulted in design thinking as a methodology becoming synonymous with problem solving, especially as a multidisciplinary practice for framing wicked problems (Buchanan, 1992 ). Design thinking as a method to solve problems outside the creative domain began with Herbert Simon, who applied design methodologies to science and his field of artificial intelligence ( 1969 ). This movement of applying the design thinking discipline to fields not traditionally associated with design continued with the product development process used by IDEO, know as Human Centered Design or HCD (Brown, 2008 ; IDEO, 2011 ). The degree of client participation and at which stages of the process vary between methods, but they agree on a key area of design thinking—that the client or product user is the primary focus.

As design thinking moves beyond the traditional creative sphere and enters the realm of addressing wicked problems across a wide spectrum of topics, the discipline is enriched by the rigorous research practices that the social sciences have to offer. The stand-alone discipline of design thinking explored in this article integrates some of the social science methodologies to effectively adapt to the new terrain of designing for social systems. Specifically, this discipline is informed by systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969 ; Dentoni et al., 2023 ; Meadows, 2008 ; Senge, 1996 ), organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ; Kolb, 1984 ; Senge, 1990 ) and action research (Lewin, 1946 ).

Design and systems

Systems are an essential element to implementing a design thinking process that addresses wicked problems, because they allow the designer to see a more expansive view of the problem. To understand how to design a specific product or service, the designer often analyzes the various systems that are involved, such as social, technological, ecological, or political systems. By understanding the inner workings of these systems and collaborating with relevant stakeholders, a designer can co-create a product or service that acts as a targeted intervention to improve the system. This perspective has its origins in general systems theory, formulated by biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy ( 1969 ), which expands the understanding of systems beyond science and analyzes all systems in an intricate, open, and holistic manner. The majority of design thinking approaches are human-centric perspectives on general systems theory in that they focus not only on the systems involved with a specific intervention but also on how the different systems interact with each other. Though most design thinking processes are human-centered, they are not exclusively focused on social systems, because the ecological and built environment are also considered. Expanding on this viewpoint is organisimic theory (Goldstein, 1995 ), which emphasizes human interconnectedness—that humans are intrinsically and inextricably intertwined with the natural environment and the ecological systems therein. In addition, Barry Commoner, in his work The Closing Circle , further stated that everything in living systems is connected to each other and what has an effect on one affects all (Commoner, 1971 ). These ideas inform systems thinking (Dentoni et al., 2023 ; Senge, 1996 ), which is an application of systems theory to interpret the intertwined and dynamic interactions among multiple interdependent elements to inform possible interventions. This approach to interconnected systems informs the design thinking approach through the very foundation of the process—placing the human at the center of the research and looking at all the ways this individual connects with the product, service, or system.

Design thinking to stimulate learning

The principles of design thinking are human-centered, that is, the results are specifically tailored to the end-user, and are created using a process of collaboration, active engagement, and reflection (IDEO, 2011 ). This process can be further explained using the double loop learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ), which informs how reflective practice foundationally builds on learning. Double loop learning involves single loop learning—repeated attempts to address the same issue with the same method—while additionally engaging in reflective practice to learn from past performance and emphasize repeat attempts to refine approaches (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ).

David Kolb, a scholar in learning science, similarly, outlines an experiential learning model ( 1984 ) rooted in social psychology, which focuses on concrete action, learning from experience, reflection, and experimentation. This theory involves an axis of learning with the y -axis containing two opposing methods of processing experience and an x -axis of opposing methods of transforming experience. This axis of learning can be seen in Fig.  1 , and display experience processing in learning from a spectrum of concrete examples as one extreme and abstract conceptualization of ideas as the opposition. The processing of information is similarly balanced that with two opposing methods of transforming experience (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ; Kolb, 1984 ). The two diametrically opposed information transformation processes include reflective observation on one end and active experimentation on the other (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ). In simple terms, the process as seen in Fig.  1 shows two forces of learning that of processing reality and transforming it within each there is a tangible and intangible component. The work of Kolb, Argrys, and Schön increase the potential to learn from the design thinking process with rapid prototyping practice—reacting and changing the product, system, or service based on reflective practices and adapting based on those reflections. Rapid prototyping is influenced by social learning models, which emphasize interaction in learning and the importance of experimentation with both thought and action.

Kolb Learning model as adapted from Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ), Kolb ( 1984 ) and Kolb and Kolb ( 2005 )

Charles Owen, a design academic from the Illinois Institute of Technology who has advocated for design as an engine for innovation ( 2006a ), builds on the prototyping practice from Kolb, Argrys, and Schön. Owen theorized that the design process has discernable phases that, while often not in order, generally begin with the analytic research stage and end with the synthetic experimentation and creation stage (Owen, 1993). This innovation model begins with creating ideas and concepts from research and then applying them to experiments for testing. When used through the lens of learning, this proposed process, as illustrated in Fig.  2 , begins to take shape as a non-sequential, innovative method to interpret and address complex problems. This process is illustrated in the work of Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ) who combined the elements of Owen ( 2006b ) in a simple vestige of two axes and four quadrants. In this prescribed and infinitely repeatable process, concrete analysis brings about observable research that can then be applied to abstract analysis, that is, frameworks and theories. Finally, this leads to abstract synthesis, which is the creation of ideas that can be clearly synthesized to become concrete solutions.

Innovation process as adapted from Beckman and Barry ( 2007 )

Using design thinking in concert with action research

Design thinking, as described by Owen, seeks to form knowledge through action (1997), which is similar in style and approach to Action Research (Lewin, 1946 ) in the social sciences. Action research was first created for researchers to take a participatory and active role in their studies to mold and guide their experience (Lewin, 1946 ), which echoes the role of the designer in a design thinking process. The designer or researcher needs to take account of their subjects and make observations, which is a traditional research paradigm while also understanding their impact as a participant in the process. In addition, reflective practice (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ) is a means to review and learn from past experience, and with this tool, a designer or researcher is able to build on observations of the research subject or client and create the best solutions for them. A similar approach to the use of knowledge aggregated from observations and reflective practice, is the needfinding model, which is an exploration of addressing the needs of a particular subject and working to create a solution tailored to solve this problem for them (Faste, 1987 ). Needfinding in design thinking does not occur as a sequential step after reflection and observation, but rather as a method to guide both of those processes to address the needs of the intended client or product user. Similarly, in action research, needfinding is necessary for the researcher to undertake to gain context of motivations of organizations and individuals involved. In action research, the subject and researchers are all participants and collaborators in the change process and its essential to understand their needs in this context, which parallels the collaborative and solution creating work of a designer.

Schön described design, in its traditional form, as a tacit process with designers’ knowledge that is difficult to transfer or explain ( 1983 ). This situates designers as having specific expertise that is difficult for those without the professional know-how to comprehend or utilize. Design thinking seeks to clarify the discipline of design into a process more akin to implicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takechi, 1995 ), allowing design expertise to be disseminated to a larger audience, including both the designer and the client or product user. This implies that the interaction between the designer and the client is a reciprocal transaction or a communication between interacting components and systems (Germain, 1991 ; Luhmann, 1995 ). This interactive method represents the action research process, where both parties contribute to the creation process, with the designer leading the exercise. The change desired in the design thinking process, rather than research study, is an output in the form of a product or service made in collaboration with the client.

This approach to learning is common within design in that it is meant to create the ideal solution through experimentation, iteration, and continually learning from both. Using participatory action research, that is focusing on rapid learning, repetition of the practice-driven design thinking framework, and reflection, is essential for innovating and solving wicked problems (Argyris & Schön, 1991 ; Lewin, 1946 ).

Innovating through design thinking

Innovation, described as the “core renewal process” in an organization purposed with creating new products and services (Bessant et al., 2005 ), is the mechanism for addressing wicked problems. To innovate effectively to remain competitive, organizations have increasingly turned to the application of design thinking as a process for product development in recent decades (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013 ; Lockwood, 2010 ). Design thinking-driven problem solving is a powerful and disruptive method that creates innovative products and services that seek to address these types of problems across diverse fields.

This article uses a foundational approach to design thinking-driven problem solving, which is, in essence, a flexible framework that does not adhere to a strict structure. Rather, it is able to ebb and flow within the design challenge and cater to the relevant stakeholders. As stated by Sydney Gregory in the seminal work The Design Method , “[the] design method is a pattern of behavior employed in inventing things…which do not yet exist. Science is analytic; design is constructive” ( 1966 , p. 6). Design, in this context, is used as an engine of product, system, and service creation that addresses individuals’ needs and challenges.

The design thinking process explained above can be considered an innovation process (Brown & Wyatt, 2010 ) and has a social learning component (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ). More specifically, this process can be defined as a problem setting method (Schön, 1983 ). Problem setting, as explained by design cognition scholar Willemien Visser is “…the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, and the means that may be chose[n]” ( 2010 , p. 4). Problem setting is the first step towards innovation and tackling a wicked problem. By defining the problem and understanding all of the pieces that interact with it, one can begin to address, but not necessarily solve a wicked problem. To understand how to use design thinking as a method within this innovative problem setting process, one must understand the context of the current design thinking discourse.

Towards a refined design thinking model

Organizations are consistently looking for innovative ways to advance their products, profits, and goals, and design thinking, though not clearly defined, has emerged as a driving force to meet these challenges. Despite the varying definitions (Brown, 2008 ; Dorst, 2006 , 2010 ; Kimbell, 2015 ), there are enough similarities that describe the key elements of design thinking that bring it in line with other design and social science research methodologies. By combining a few of the fundamental elements into a hybrid model of design thinking, it can be used as a powerful tool to address wicked problems that organizations face. This method, as illustrated in Fig.  3 , brings together the elements of Charles Owen’s map of innovation ( 1998 , 2006a , 2006b ), Kolb’s experiential learning ( 1984 ), and Tim Brown’s three signature elements of the design thinking process ( 2009 ).

Hybrid model of design thinking, which is a design process workaround with design thinking and innovation adapted from the work of Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ), Brown ( 2008 , 2009 ), Brown and Wyatt ( 2010 ), Brown and Katz ( 2011 )

The components of inspiration, ideation, and implementation (Brown, 2009 ) serve as the foundation of this hybrid model. Using Brown’s simplified construction could be interpreted as embracing the recent, popular versions of design thinking as a third or independent discipline. However, its approachable three-pronged structure provides a categorical separation between steps and meshes well with Owen’s concepts of innovation—the interplay of analysis and synthesis with abstract and concrete ( 1998 , 2006a , 2006b ). This powerful combination creates a streamlined and flexible framework, where innovation can occur in a non-sequential order, dictated by the needs of the problem. Interestingly, Archer foresaw this hybrid approach when he stated, “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” ( 1967 , p. 51). Archer’s foresight in the above hybrid design approach is in line with his third-way ( 1979 ) thought process but differs in that this design discipline works in concert with social science instead of wholly separate from it. Using this innovative hybrid design thinking model, wicked problems can be quickly identified and addressed, with an outlook towards finding specific solutions to fit users’ needs.

Research design

Building on the theoretical model, based on the literature review above, a case study was undertaken to better understand the model in practice. The case study used a participatory design thinking exercise with a cohort of students enrolled in an applied entrepreneurial Masters-level course at Wageningen University. This course was targeted at students interested in entrepreneurship and circular economy, and worked with eight student teams that were developing business ideas using renewable materials in garment production. Disruptive innovation—a product, service, or approach that fundamentally upends the status quo of an industry or field (Christensen, 1997 )—serves as a lens in this case study to analyze the effect of design thinking on problem solving and concept development of the student teams’ entrepreneurial ventures The course was focused on circular economic systems, which seeks to reuse resources in a closed, infinitely repeatable loop, which is in contrast to traditional linear economic models that use finite resources and create waste (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017 ). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a leader in applying the circular transition, define the concept as the following:

A circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces the “end-of-life” concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems, and, within this, business models. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012, p. 7)

Circular economy seeks to reduce humanity’s impact on the environment and climate by decreasing waste and using resources more efficiently, thus attempting to solve the wicked problem of negative human impact on the environment.

Creating a baseline

Participants in the study came from two types of academic backgrounds: a science-based one, and one rooted in the social sciences. There was an observable difference between each group in their ability to learn and apply design thinking. Students from a science-based background, such as environmental science or biochemistry, were able to learn and use design thinking concepts with greater ease than those with a social science, humanities, or management studies background. This noticeable difference may be attributable to the science-based students’ ability to mix and match frameworks as needed to find solutions to complex problems. For example, in physics, students have been taught to use one formula for one situation with its own set of variables, and another formula for another situation with a second set of variables. In other words, the situation dictates what tools are used. Similarly, in the hybrid model of design thinking, which the students were exposed to, specific elements are only applied in certain circumstances and situations. Thus, as design thinking contains elements of the scientific method, this may have resonated more with the science-based students’ usual ways of learning and applying methods.

The overall purpose of creating a baseline was to see what portion of the design thinking concepts had permeated in participants’ minds and how they described those concepts. As such, I used what participants shared as their interpretation or impression of design thinking in their own words. In many cases their descriptions were of a concept without the use of the concept name (e.g., prototype, ideation), and I compared these explanations with the concepts used in the hybrid model of design thinking in an effort to make connections where possible. The students displayed their knowledge of design thinking during the interviews and through the course by describing important elements of the process, namely, creating prototypes, building on failed attempts, and repeated reflection on the implementation of their ideas. To establish a baseline, it was not necessary for participants to use the exact names or descriptions of the design thinking concepts, as the real test of whether they understood these concepts and could apply them would be uncovered during the design thinking in action (DTiA) section of data collection.

This qualitative methods study, informed by design thinking, was conducted in three phases: Phase 1 consisted of an ethnographic observational study and Phase 2 consisted of a series of six interviews (see Table 1 ) with past participants to assess their knowledge of and ability to apply design thinking to a real world problem.

The purpose of these two phases was to collectively gather data to understand the relationship between design thinking and problem solving in a team. Specifically, the data from the two phases seeks to answer to what extent design thinking represents an effective method for team problem setting and problem solving of wicked problems in organizations. Once collected, the data was codified (see Table 2 ) into four major themes: (1) the interviewee’s personal motivation in life and vocational goals; (2) their professed knowledge in the aspects, uses, and approaches of design thinking; (3) the interviewee’s application of design thinking in a scenario; and (4) their assessment of the effectiveness of design thinking.

The research findings examine the research question, “To what extent does the application of design thinking, tasked with addressing wicked problems, represent an effective means for team problem setting and problem solving in organizations?" To answer this question, I used the four themes outlined above to conduct the data analysis, and the interpretation of the data will continue to follow these themes. For the interpretation, I split the four overarching themes into two categories. The first category incorporates the first two themes (personal motivation and knowledge of design thinking) and acts as a baseline to gauge, where the individual is academically and what design thinking concepts they have retained. This is useful information, because it paints a clearer picture of the participants’ individual characteristics, which I then paired with the second category of themes to understand whether these characteristics play a role in the participants’ application of design thinking to solve a wicked problem. The richest set of data comes from the second category. The latter two themes (application of design thinking and perceived effectiveness) are included in this second category as a way to analyze DTiA through role-playing scenarios, which gives insight into the participants’ practical knowledge and application of the hybrid design thinking model used for this experiment.

This DTiA exercise revealed three key features of the hybrid model, which combines behavioral science and traditional design methods to create a flexible and foundational model for addressing wicked problems. Three key aspects within the hybrid model that were particularly apparent in this second category were “problem setting”, “needfinding”, and “double-loop learning”. First, interviewees successfully applied problem setting by outlining all the necessary information that would be required to solve an assignment—in this case, the hypothetical scenario of working with Apple to improve the iPhone’s falling market share. Interviewees correctly prioritized the following: (1) setting up a component team to tackle the issue; (2) collecting data on competitors to compare best practices; (3) understanding the needs of potential and past customers; and (4) creating a process to experiment and iterate on failures. These priorities exemplify the hybrid model’s three central elements and how organizational learning, needfinding, and problem setting are key to the success of the model in addressing wicked problems. What’s more, the interviewees were able to link ecological systems, such as environmental value chains and social systems while looking at both consumers and stakeholders to put the question into context. Second, participants used needfinding to distinguish what aspects of the real world problem were most important to take into consideration when evaluating possible solutions. These aspects focused mostly on the needs of human and ecological systems that were involved with the problem. Third, participants used double-loop learning to test possible solutions to the problems they faced and made iterative changes based on the positive or negative results. Specifically, the interviewees showed how they questioned all of the parameters of the prompt and laid a plan for testing, retesting, and iteration of ideas.

This study’s findings suggest that the hybrid model of design thinking is an effective framework for addressing wicked problems. Namely, participants were able to recall various terms, such as “prototyping” and “ideation” when defining this hybrid model. Furthermore, they displayed implicit knowledge by successfully using aspects of the model, including “double-loop learning,” “iteration,” and “reflective practices,” to find solutions during the DTiA exercise. For example, Interviewee C specifically defined “prototyping” as “a method to create quick test solutions that can then be iterated upon and improved with future versions towards a suitable solution.” Being an explicit definition of this design thinking concept, it is clear that Interviewee C understood and retained the information learned during the course. By contrast, Interviewee A did not identify “prototyping” by name but displayed use of the concept during the role-playing exercise.

The course participants used design thinking in the formulation of their entrepreneurial ventures, which were created to address the wicked problem of environmental sustainability. Two groups of participants in particular, Epsilon and Zeta, used design thinking to address very specific problems they identified within environmental sustainability, which are outlined below.

Epsilon team’s use of the hybrid design thinking method

Epsilon’s innovative solution was developed in response to the lack of incubation spaces for sustainable entrepreneurs in Wageningen, Netherlands—that is, workspaces and offices, where like-minded entrepreneurs can work and have access to investors and experts to grow their businesses. The team focused on Wageningen specifically, because they had the most experience in this city, as students at the local university and as entrepreneurs who had attempted a previous venture here already. Note that this was the team’s second venture attempt for this study. They first explored how to grow a mushroom skin, related to the “living skin” research project, so that they could experiment with different types of coating to make the material waterproof. They planned to sell the waterproof coating to companies to make durable clothing, bags, or car interiors. Through experimentation and the prototyping process, the team tried to grow mushrooms but faced challenges with a lack of expertise and a space to grow the fungi. The team expressed frustration about these obstacles and through reflection realized that getting expert assistance and finding a space to experiment were essential to their success as a venture; however, perhaps, these were problems they could address. As such, the team shifted their focus to a new venture, which was to find an innovative solution to the lack of incubation spaces in Wageningen.

The team researched and tested their new venture concept of creating an organic, sustainably, and locally sourced café that is an office space for ventures in the city, has a network of experts to help entrepreneurs, and offers a location for entrepreneurs to sell and test their products and services. With this shift, the team then went to collect data and surveyed people around the city and the results showed that there was, in fact, demand from residents and sustainable entrepreneurs for this type of space and that Wageningen did not currently have any locations that met these entrepreneurs’ needs. Specifically, they found that a co-working space and having access to experts are actually crucial for entrepreneurs in the early stages of their ventures, because it allows them to test their ideas and learn from others as they iterate on better solutions. Similarly, the team itself was able to learn from the failure and challenges of their first venture attempt, which inspired them to address that problem directly with a different venture. Epsilon’s venture evolved to become a café, store, and incubation space for entrepreneurs in Wageningen that sought to create products or services that are environmentally sustainable and have closed-loop, circular waste streams. Their final venture concept included a plan for further development, testing, and iteration to continue learning as they grow and improve their products.

This team’s journey from one venture to another provides an exemplary use of the hybrid design thinking model. This shift embodies Argyris and Schön’s definition of double-loop learning, the students not only explored their original question related to their venture but also if it was the right question in itself. Argyris and Schön ( 1978 ) described the concept with the following metaphor:

Single loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to perform this task, because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and, therefore, take corrective action. If the thermostat could question itself about whether it should be set at 68 degrees, it would be capable not only of detecting error but of questioning the underlying policies and goals as well as its own program. That is a second and more comprehensive inquiry; hence it might be called double loop learning. (pp. 2–3)

I shared the metaphor above with the students during the beginning of the course, and this group exemplified double-loop learning in the selection and refinement of their venture. Team Epsilon showed their understanding of the context of a venture and how that can change the very nature of a proposed solution as it was for them, when they shifted the problem they focused on. Furthermore, their reaction to changing circumstance can be interpreted as the team displaying Schön’s ( 1983 ) concept of “reflection-in-action” (p. 79). The team struggled with their concept and made changes that ebbed and flowed with the challenges they faced, which in Schön’s definition would be part of the designer’s reflective “conversation with the situation.” Their use of double-loop learning in regard to building on lessons learned and changing approaches based on feedback led them to their new venture and guided how they continued to iterate and improve that new venture. Furthermore, they expertly displayed problem setting and understanding the context of a venture and how that can change the very nature of a proposed solution as it was for them, when they shifted their problem. The final project from this team was well thought out, fit to context and was an exemplary use of the hybrid model.

Zeta team’s use of the hybrid design thinking method

The Zeta team faced very different challenges in creating their venture. The team members, who came from diverse backgrounds and had varying interests and skillsets, came up with a plethora of ideas and had a difficult time choosing one idea to move forward with. The ideation and brainstorming process was not decisive or iterative, and the students expressed their frustration as the process rolled on without a clear venture in sight. The team worried that they had fallen behind and would not have enough time to complete all aspects of the project. With design thinking coaching by the researcher, the team was encouraged to refocus their efforts to think about any problem, not necessarily related to environmental sustainability, and see how they could collectively address it. Once they had decided on a problem, they could then begin introducing aspects related to reducing waste streams and circular economy in an organic way that would connect the problem they chose to the bigger, wicked problem of environmental sustainability.

The team used needfinding to find the requirements of the problem and then utilized framing and reframing to make their venture work in that context. This venture’s process exemplifies frame innovation, coined by Dorst ( 2015 ), which he describes as a “key entrepreneurial activity” (p. 149). The team shifted frames, from seeing their venture as a means to solve an aspect of environmental sustainability, to solving a real-world problem that can be connected to environmental sustainability. The Zeta team went through further consultation and began discussing one team member’s proposed problem based on her experience working with the United Nations (UN) on disaster recovery in Latin America. She described the problem of people needing quick housing when a disaster strikes; the logistic challenges of getting temporary, single use housing into the disaster area; and the waste the homes leave once they are no longer used. This discussion led the group to connect this issue to the “living skin” fungi material to create temporary housing that could be lighter weight, biodegradable, and reusable. This idea connects the problem posed within the problem of environmental sustainability, which was their task. Furthermore, this shift exemplifies an understanding of systems thinking and interconnectedness of social and ecological systems. Once the initial concept was developed, they began to refine the idea using team members’ expertise working in international development and aid as well as environmental sustainability. They then turned to the questions of how to make this into a venture and who would be their target audience. This process led them to brainstorm how they could balance the needs of potential clients (disaster response organizations), potential users (disaster victims), and the natural environment (ecological footprint). The team conducted surveys and found that potential clients would be interested in cost and scale of the potential solution, while potential users would be most interested in comfort and durability. Those considerations were then balanced with creating the minimalist ecological footprint and having a viable business model so the venture would thrive. They made two crucial decisions at this juncture: first, they decided not to manufacture the material but to source it from a third party, and second, they decided to structure their venture as a non-profit focused on the UN and disaster recovery agencies.

Using the design thinking concepts of rapid prototyping and reflection they were able to quickly figure out which ideas were working and abandon those that were not, which ultimately led to a venture they described as “living houses.” This iterative process they embodied shows the power of using design thinking for concept refinement. The team’s final venture concept was a not-for-profit organization that sourced biodegradable and reusable materials to create light-weight, temporary housing to be sold to NGOs, governments, and public international institutions for disaster victims around the globe. Their plan included next steps for further testing and iteration to improve the product and business model. In both cases, the Epsilon and Zeta teams used the hybrid design thinking model to problem set and problem solve as they set up and executed their ventures. This clearly helps address the central research question of the study by showing the utility of design thinking as tool for addressing wicked problems both in the internal venture creation process and the problem the venture sought to address, environmental sustainability.

Connecting team’s use of design thinking hybrid method to interview data

While these team examples provide evidence to support the positive impact of design thinking on problem setting and solving for wicked problems, the most interesting results came from the Phase 3 interviews that took place 1 year after completion of the course. During these interviews the participants were tasked with using the hybrid design thinking model in a theoretical applied scenario. Through these participant interviews, I was able to explore which features of design thinking they had internalized and how they might apply those to a real world problem. As explained in the following discussion, the participants’ ability to use design thinking concepts implicitly and explicitly over a year later shows that the concepts were adopted as a modus operandi, at least in part. As shown in the matrix in Fig.  4 , the participants all showed a high ability to apply the competencies regardless of their ability to define them as. In addition, the participants who did not recall the definitions were able apply the competencies to a higher level of specificity and knowledge than two out of the three interviewees that could.

Matrix showing interviewees’ ability to define ( x -axis) and apply ( y -axis) on key design thinking competencie s

In the scenario with the interview, participants were tasked with describing the steps they would take to tackle the problem of declining market share of the iPhone. Without being specifically prompted, all interviewees included some form of waste reduction and environmental sustainability into their action plan in the scenario. Some causation for the inclusion of these environmental themes could be the students’ backgrounds, their association with the course’s focus on this particular wicked problem, and/or a general growing awareness of the global climate crisis. That said, their ability to connect a problem to a deeper, wicked problem demonstrates their use of the competencies of system thinking and problem setting from the hybrid design thinking model. They were able to place a practical task within a wider context and connect it with wicked problems involved, such as climate change and electronic waste.

Much like in the case of the Zeta team described above, any seemingly unrelated problem can be used as a gateway to begin discerning the mechanics needed to address a specific, wicked problem, which will lead to creating experimental solutions that can be further tested. Furthermore, the participants were able to identify, in name or description, the three core elements of the hybrid design thinking model—inspiration, ideation, and implementation—and delineate corresponding activities for each while also explicitly and implicitly describing design thinking’s approach to solving wicked problems. The participants’ perception of and demonstrated application of design thinking elements in their problem solving procedure in the interview sheds light on the effectiveness of design thinking as a problem setting and solving tool. This suggests that the participants embraced design thinking, specifically the three-pronged hybrid model that melds design methodologies and behavioral science, as a useful process for problem solving. More important than the interviewees identification of the steps of the model, was their application of problem setting and problem solving strategies that follow the three main elements of design thinking. Participants were able to show the use of brainstorming (inspiration), prototyping (ideation), and iteration (implementation) in various ways and interchangeably. This nimble and engrained use of the concept shows its effectiveness as a problem setting and problem solving tool as well as its impact on users.

Connecting findings to the existing literature

This study was informed by a literature review which examined the history, theories, and application of design thinking in addressing wicked problems. In this study, design thinking is considered a “third discipline” or independent area of study that applies behavioral science and design methodologies to a proposed hybrid model. This hybrid design thinking model strengthens typical design methodologies by including (1) systems thinking, taking into account interconnectedness of ecological and social systems; (2) organizational learning, using double-loop learning, reflective practice, and iterative prototyping; and (3) elements of action research, such as collaborative and cyclical feedback with designer and client. This integrated process is particularly pertinent when working on problems beyond traditional design, for it lends a structural framework to behavioral science research using the three phases of ideation, prototyping, and implementation. In the hybrid design thinking model, behavioral and organizational considerations are not merely optional, but rather an essential element that works in congress with design methodologies.

As outlined above, the findings of this study are in line with the literature and research that indicate that design thinking is a potent tool for addressing wicked problems. By their nature, wicked problems are intractable and complex, so when testing ways to solve them effectively the method must be able to adapt with that nature. Specifically, this research suggests that design thinking represents an innovative process uniquely equipped to address wicked problems through its use of “problem setting.” That is, the effective use of needfinding—looking for solutions for relevant stakeholders—and double-loop learning—applying iterative knowledge and testing assumptions while doing. Although the participants in this study represent a very small treatment group in a specific educational setting focused on tackling environmental wicked problems, there is potential to test this experiment more broadly in educational settings focused on a variety of wicked problems.

Implications for future research

There are four overarching implications that result from this study that academic researchers and practitioners should take into consideration when exploring how to use design thinking as an effective method to address wicked problems. First, future research should conduct experiments using design thinking to address wicked problems that occur within other thematic areas, such as gender inequality, wealth distribution, employment with new technologies, and religious tensions, among others. Second, future research should test a variety of team compositions and study settings beyond that of a university. For example, team members could be part of a research institution, corporation, government, or NGO, and studies could be conducted within those organizations or across disciplines. Third, future research should explore what other aspects of design thinking are effective and learn why they are or are not successful in tackling wicked problems. Fourth, future research should test the hybrid design thinking model’s effectiveness using other forms of design thinking as a control. Finally, beyond academia there are implications of this study for professional practice. Gleanings from this study and use of the hybrid model in the field can occur immediately if used as an adaptable and editable tool for problem solving. This can be used in NGO’s, governments, universities and companies working on wicked problems in their work.

Limitations

This was a qualitative methods study that included a participatory design exercise focused on students enrolled in an entrepreneurship and circular economy course, where they were tasked to use design thinking as a method for creating innovative solutions to the wicked problem of environmental sustainability. While designed to examine how effective design thinking is for setting and solving wicked problems for teams, there is a clear limitation of its application on settings outside education, such as in business and practices outside of academia. Although the course was hands-on, involved the creation of a nonprofit or for-profit business, and was team-based, it still took place in an educational setting rather than in the open marketplace. In addition, this study unfolded in a European context and specifically within the Netherlands, which limits its scope further. As stated earlier, there are wider implications for this data beyond being held in an academic setting that influence the results and potential uses of design thinking. As stated above, future studies should be conducted with teams outside of academia who are tackling different wicked problems other than environmental sustainability. Different results could occur in different settings and problems and future research can explore those possibilities.

Beyond the components of the research, this study had limitations with time, as it had to be carried out during a specific semester and was dependent on student availability. In addition, due to university considerations, including the time needed for proposal review and IRB approvals, there were delays in conducting the interviews which were originally set for May 2018, but were carried out in December 2018 and January 2019. However, this allowed for a shift in focus of looking at how the knowledge and practice of design thinking remained implicitly and explicitly in the interviewees’ problem solving practices. A final limitation is that this study was a doctoral dissertation, which means it had a limited budget and a specific time period in which it was required to be completed.

Final thoughts

Analysis of designers’ thinking and doing has been explored for over a half century, and design thinking, in particular, has evolved over the last three decades from a process only used by designers to more expansive use. Along with the expanded use of design thinking is the rightful criticism, skepticism, and curiosity with the approach, which can offer an opportunity for further refinement and transdisciplinary use. This evolution has expanded design thinking from traditionally creative fields to help create products to practical, ergonomic and aesthetic standards to being used by governments, social policy researchers, non-governmental organizations, and many more to solve societal problems and the most difficult among them, wicked problems. The hybrid design thinking model strengthens design methodologies with systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research, which can help deepen and inform the design methods when working on problems beyond traditional design. IDEO’s popularized design thinking process with the three elements of inspiration, ideation, and implementation provides a structure that can be used as a basis to add insights and tactics from social sciences—namely, systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research—and designer’s methods more broadly. Systems thinking offers an opportunity for teams to zoom out and have a macro view of the dynamic, interconnected elements of the wicked problem they seek to address through iterative solutions and reflection. Organizational learning offers a posture of learning which can strengthen the iteration, testing, and reflection processes in design thinking. Finally, action research informed practice with design thinking enables teams to be active participants, researchers, and designers in finding possible solutions to wicked problems. Design thinking when applied to solving problems in an entrepreneurial education setting will add to the effectiveness and innovative nature of the solutions created. Through creative brainstorming, experimentation and reflection being integrated into the creation of entrepreneurial solutions to wicked problems there is great potential ramifications beyond educational settings, such as industry, government, and civil society.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials used in the research are available through the ProQuest dissertation database as part of graduation requirements for the PhD at Fielding Graduate University.

Abbreviations

Design thinking in action

Institutional Review Board

Archer, L. B. (1967). Design management. Decision, 1 (4), 47–51.

Google Scholar  

Archer, L. B. (1979). Whatever became of design methodology? Design Studies, 1 , 17–20.

Article   Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective . Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared: a commentary. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), SAGE focus editions: Participatory action research (pp. 85–96). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985383

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50 (1), 25–56.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications (Rev. Ed) . George Braziller.

Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation, 25 (12), 1366–1376.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review., 86 (6), 84–92.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation . Harper Business.

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 , 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review., 12 , 31–35.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5–21.

Christensen, CM. (1997).  The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail . Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 978-0-87584-585-2

Churchman, C. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14 (4), B141–B142.

Commoner, B. (1971). The closing circle: Nature, man, and technology . Random House Knopf.

Cross, N. (1991). Research in design thinking . Delft University of Technology.

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17 (3), 49–55.

Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing (p. 16). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Dentoni, D., Cucchi, C., Roglic, M., Lubberink, R., Bender-Salazar, R., & Manyise, T. (2023). Systems thinking, mapping and change in food and agriculture. Bio-Based and Applied Economics. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-13930

Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues., 22 , 4–17.

Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (131–139). Sydney University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. The MIT Press . https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10096.001.0001

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations . Prentice-Hall.

Faste, R. A. (1987). Perceiving needs. SAE Journal, Society of Automotive Engineers., 871534 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4271/871534

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143 , 757–768.

Germain, C. B. (1991). Human behavior in the social environment: An ecological view . Columbia University Press.

Goldstein, K. (1995). The organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man . Zone Books.

Gregory, S. A. (1966). Design and the design method. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The design Method. Plenum Press.

Head, B., & Xiang, W.-N. (2016). Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: More awareness, greater acceptance, and better adaptation. Landscape and Urban Planning., 110 (2013), 1–4.

IDEO. (2011). Human centered design toolkit , 200.

IDEO. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/about

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22 (2), 121–146.

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3 (3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . PrenticeHall.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/40214287?refreqid=search-gateway:69b4159ab026cceba348641bddd445b6

Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified . Burlington: Elsevier Ltd.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34–46.

Lockwood, T. (2010). Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and BrandValue . New York, NY: Allworth Press.

Luchs, M. G. (2015). A Brief introduction to design thinking. In M. G. Luchs, K. S. Swan, & A. Griffin (Eds.), Design thinking (pp. 1–11). Hoboken: Wiley.

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems . Stanford University Press.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer . Chelsea Green Publishing.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company . Oxford University Press.

Owen, C. L. (1998). Design research: Building the knowledge base. Design Studies, 19 (1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00030-6

Owen CL. (2006a) Design thinking: Driving innovation. The Business Process Management Institute BPMI.org . September 2006a

Owen, C. L. (2006b). Design thinking—notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 1 (2), 16–27.

Rittel, H. (1984). Second-generation design methods. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 317–327). Wiley.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1 (1), 1–19.

Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking . The MIT Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . Doubleday.

Senge, P. (1996). Systems thinking. Executive Excellence, 13 (1), 15.

Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial . MIT Press.

Visser, W. (2010). Schön: Design as a reflective practice. Collection, 2 , 21–25.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Wageningen University & Research and Fielding Graduate University for the opportunity to conduct this research in an entrepreneurial classroom setting. Ethical Approval through institutional review board (IRB) is detailed in Appendix B . This work was completed as part of doctoral research of Rahmin Bender (-Salazar) conducted for the Fielding Graduate University and at Wageningen University & Research and published with ProQuest as part of graduation requirements.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Rahmin Bender-Salazar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rahmin Bender-Salazar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Interview Protocol—November 2018

[To open the conversation a bit of small talk and catching up with the former student, what they have been up to and what do they have planned next and this lines up to the informal questions below (in no particular order).]

Welcome and thank you for this time and to explore some of these concepts with you and get your perspective. Now that you have completed the Design Thinking course, I would like to explore with you whether, in your future career, you would consider design thinking as a way for teams to tackle difficult problems, and any ideas you may have on the subject. This is not designed in any way to test your knowledge about design thinking, or to reflect on how you did in class. I would simply like to understand whether, with what you’ve learned, you feel that design thinking is a good way to tackle tough problems, and how you would go about doing that.

Questions to warm up and understand context—5 ~ min

What is your major/main subject of study?

How do you want to use your education and what do you want to do as your vocation?

Design thinking and problem solving—40 min

[The purpose of the first question is to begin to brush on problem setting and begging the design thinking process, the parameters and elements. The goal is to solicit data from participants through storytelling and their thoughts on the topic.]

Can you tell me a story about your experience with design thinking in the class that you thought was memorable?

Are there other examples of things that struck you about design thinking?

What is it about the design thinking approach that you like the most?

Is there anything that you don’t like, or would do differently?

Let’s do some role playing. Let’s say, tomorrow you get hired by Apple to be the head of their new development team. They have a serious problem: the iPhone has reached a saturation point. You are tasked to come up with an entirely new set of functions that will totally reinvent the iPhone. How would you go about doing that, if you were using the design thinking approach? If you can, break it down using the three-phase hybrid model we discussed: Ideation-Prototyping-Implementation.

Is there anything about design thinking you feel you need to know more about, before you could confidently begin to use it?

Wrap up—10–15 min

So in sum, do you think design thinking a good method to produce disruptive innovation, or would you use other methods?

Does design thinking need to be adapted to the fast pace of disruptive change today?

Appendix B: Ethical Approval for Research—April 2018

1) IRB Approval Information

Name: Rahmin Bender.

IRB#: 17–1107

Title: Applying Design Thinking and Practice to team projects seeking to create regenerative and sustainable products to address the wicked problem of sustainable garments

Faculty: Fredrick Steier.

Type: Title Change and General Revisions.

2) Study Summary

The dissertation project seeks to explore through participatory action research, how the application of design methods to address wicked problems represents a disruptive innovation in the process of solution creation and if so or not, to what extent. The disruptive innovation is framed within the context of the Netherlands, the public University education system and the field of sustainable fashion and garment production. The specific context of this study will be at Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands working with student teams creating business ideas, using design thinking and aligned methods, with the renewable materials in garment production. The forty Masters students in a circular economy course will be split into eight teams that will work with designers using these materials to create business and product concepts using design thinking processes facilitated by me.

3) Revision Checklist

I. Change title to: Applying design thinking to entrepreneurial learning spaces purposed with addressing wicked problems.

Title changed to emphasize more on the application of design thinking on the learn space and how it addresses the wicked problem, rather than focusing more and more on the

II. Change question 2 element (c) from “(c) how design process impacts team dynamics of product creation team” to (c) how design process impacts the co-creation of the entrepreneurial learning space.

Question changed to focus additionally on how using the design process not only impacts the outputs of the course but the course itself.

III. Change question 3’s following elements.

Change this bullet: “World Café held after the course to accumulate data and feedback from participants and put into context with the notes.”

New Text: Changed to Design Charrette held after the course to accumulate data, feedback and put notes into context through a participatory designing of future iterations of the course.

Change this bullet: “Depending on IRB is performed data collection will be focused on the World Café portion that will be held in January post course and the course and work will be looked at historically.”

New text: IRB includes data from the course that ended in the end of 2017 as well as data from the participatory design workshop titled a design charrette occurring in 25 April 2017.

Add the following bullet

Design-based Research informed by action research and design thinking will serve as the research method for analyzing the historic data from the course and data collected in the design charrette to address the research questions posed.

The above changes are made to reflect a change from a World Café method to a more intimate design charrette. This change was made because of difficulty getting a large enough participation for a World Café to work, ideally 20 or more people. The design charrette will use the same research element but be in a smaller setting, which will allow for more interaction. Finally, the addition of design-based research to emphasize the element of the entrepreneurial learning space and how that was actively formed and influenced by the use of design methods.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bender-Salazar, R. Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and needfinding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems. J Innov Entrep 12 , 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00291-2

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2022

Accepted : 05 April 2023

Published : 13 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00291-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Design thinking
• Problem setting
• Design process
• Wicked problems
• Systems thinking
• Organizational learning
• Needfinding

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

A Community Of Over 800,000

Agile and Design Thinking — How Can They Go Well Together?

• April 25, 2023

Agile and Design Thinking are, as buzzwords, commonplace in today’s corporate world. But what happens when an organization must blend the two, especially when it is on a larger scale? The two did not originate from the same source, but they are both essential to help companies move forward.

Agile is a project management and software development approach that emerged in response to the rigid, inflexible waterfall model. Agile aims to provide organizations with a more responsive and effective approach to development. The Manifesto for Agile Software Development came out of a meeting between seventeen software developers in 2001.

Besides the challenges that Agile’s aimed at solving, there’s another one that organizations face: how to ensure that they are focusing on the right things that provide value? The team may learn Agile to build quickly and effectively, but if they don’t build the right solution to the right problems, they fail.

When asked how it helps organizations to build value by focusing on the right solutions, Agile sticks to its guns and explains this will be achieved through iterative and incremental development, customer collaboration, continuous delivery, and adaptability. In reality, that’s too vague. Many an Agile team build first and test second, thinking they can improve the solutions as they go, which builds up risk and may damage the customer relationship before gaps are filled and problems with the first release get fixed. For customer collaboration, Agile fails to provide tangible strategies, approaches and methodology. Teams that have not sufficiently co-created and collaborated with stakeholders including customers before will not learn how to do it by beating Agile into their heads.

This is where Design Thinking comes in. Design Thinking helps organizations identify the right, most potential challenges to solve and ideate and test solutions to address those problems. Unlike Agile, which came from the frustrations and challenges caused by waterfall project management, Design Thinking came from the frustrations and challenges of ineffective innovation.

How can we successfully blend Design Thinking and Agile? It takes more than just a desire to do so. While they share a similar mindset of collaboration and communication, each has a distinct perspective. Design Thinking wants to understand why a challenge exists and what could be under it, and how it drives human behavior. Agile wants to understand how to build a solution and what resources are required to provide value.

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)  is intended to guide enterprises in scaling lean and agile practices. In 2019 when SAFe 5.0 was introduced, it added mentions of Design Thinking and customer centricity.  With the recent release of SAFe 6.0 , the question of how to effectively integrate customer-centricity into Agile methodology remains unresolved.

Design Thinkers approach problem-solving by breaking it down into two distinct stages: the ‘problem space’ and the ‘solution space’. This involves taking time to redefine and sharpen the problem so that the solutions developed are real and validated. To represent these two spaces, a common approach is to use the ‘Double Diamond’ model. The first diamond involves zooming out and gaining a deep understanding of the customer, their context, and their needs (diverging), before formulating a clear and delineated problem statement (converging). In the second diamond, the focus shifts to the solution space where ideation and testing of different solutions take place (diverging) before selecting the best solution (converging) in the end.

The Double Diamond design thinking process (Adopted from the Design Council)  Source

SAFe incorporates the principles of Design Thinking’s second diamond, the ‘solution space’, such as iterating, paper prototyping, and seeking customer feedback as quickly as possible, by merging it with  the continuous exploration cycle . The continuous exploration cycle is a critical component of the SAFe methodology, beginning with the identification of business opportunities from various sources, including customer feedback, market research, or internal stakeholders. Herein lies one key difference between SAFe and Design Thinking — the latter always emphasizes the significance of understanding human behavior and customer goals as a starting point. In contrast, if the organization solely relies on input from internal stakeholders to determine viable business opportunities, it may overlook the critical customer perspective at a crucial stage of continuous exploration.

The remaining critical steps of the continuous exploration cycle involve detailed exploration and evaluation of identified business opportunities using specific criteria. Once a viable opportunity is identified, a business case is defined, and the project moves through review and approval to execution. These steps have significant overlap with the double-diamond approach of Design Thinking. However, in practice, many organizations lack historical knowledge and awareness of design principles, leading to potential risks. These risks can include business opportunities being pushed through without a thorough discovery process into the needs and challenges of customers, employees, and other end-users. Additionally, many organizations lack an understanding of effective brainstorming and prototyping methodologies, and their evaluation criteria may lack a strong focus on end-user/customer perspectives.

To successfully merge Agile and Design Thinking, we must first understand that Design Thinking is also Agile in its iterative, co-creative, and collaborative approach. Agile is not just about moving quickly, but about moving nimbly and accurately. Applying too strict of a cadence and speed to the process of trying to build the right thing right could have adverse effects. Design Thinking doesn’t fight Agile at its core, nor does it hit the brakes for the sake of it. It allows the company and team to dig deeper, reflect, take a step back, and conduct additional research to make sense of the bigger picture.

In conclusion, while Agile and Design Thinking may not have started out together, they can work together seamlessly. Organizations that can blend both approaches effectively will benefit from the flexibility, collaboration, and customer focus that they bring.

If you work in an organization that defines itself as Agile and you want to get started on Design Thinking but don’t yet have a great understanding of it at the top, a good step to try at the teams’ level can be Design Sprints. It’s known to many organizations, yet still new to others. A Design Sprint is a specific activity where a cross-functional team gets together to collaborate fast but with intention. In a Design Sprint, you get to share and understand the context and develop and test ideas. The team starts with a big problem and ends up with a clear direction, which can be used to generate the user stories and tasks to feed the backlog for Agile. Design doesn’t start and end in the Design Sprint, but running a Design Sprint can help you ensure you follow the principles of Design Thinking albeit in a condensed shape.

Photo by  UX Indonesia  on  Unsplash

• Agile and Iterative Process , Conversational Design , Design , Design Theory

Karri Ojanen , A design leader with over 25 years of international experience, Karri began his journey in Finland and has since lent his expertise in UX and Service Design to organizations in the Middle East, the United States, and Canada. Currently, Karri serves as a Design Coach at Sun Life, helping bridge the gap between design aspirations and practical implementation. He also instructs UX and Service Design programs at the University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Studies.

• The article explores how organizations can merge Agile and Design Thinking to create a more flexible, collaborative, and customer-focused approach to problem-solving.
• The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) incorporates Design Thinking principles into the Agile continuous exploration cycle, but it also has some key differences.
• To successfully blend Agile and Design Thinking, organizations must recognize that Design Thinking is also Agile in its iterative, co-creative, and collaborative approach, and applying too strict of a cadence and speed to the process could be counterproductive.

Related Articles

How conversational ai is shaping the future of ux .

• Artificial Intelligence , Conversational Design , Defining AI , Generative AI , New and Emerging Technologies , Technology for the Common Good

Since personal computing’s inception in the 80s, we’ve shifted from command-line to graphical user interfaces. The recent advent of conversational AI has reversed the ‘locus of control’: computers can now understand and respond in natural language. It’s shaping the future of UX.

• The article discusses the transformative impact of conversational AI on UX design, emphasizing the need for user-centric approaches and the emerging societal changes driven by AI technology.

Share this link

• January 25, 2024

Designing for Privacy in an Increasingly Public World

• Design , Privacy and Data Security

As consumers’ privacy concerns continue to grow, so should our attention to addressing privacy issues as user experience designers.

• The article delves into the rising importance of addressing privacy concerns in user experience design, offering insights and best practices for designers and emphasizing the role of client cooperation in safeguarding user privacy.
• February 15, 2024

Unveiling the Influence of Cognitive Biases on Design Decision-Making

• Design , Human factors , Psychology and Human Behavior

Navigating the Creative Landscape.

• The article explores the influence of cognitive biases on design decision-making, outlining various types of biases and offering strategies for mitigating their impact to foster inclusivity and objectivity in design processes.
• February 27, 2024

Did you know UX Magazine hosts the most popular podcast about conversational AI?

Join 740,000 designers, thinkers, and doers.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. check our privacy policy and.

101+ Design Thinking Project Ideas for Engineering Students

Design Thinking is a problem-solving approach that focuses on understanding user needs, generating ideas, and prototyping solutions in a creative and iterative manner.

In engineering education, Design Thinking is crucial as it fosters innovation, encourages interdisciplinary collaboration, and prepares students to tackle real-world challenges with empathy and creativity.

Design Thinking projects offer engineering students the opportunity to apply theoretical knowledge in practical contexts, develop critical thinking skills, and cultivate a mindset of innovation and adaptability.

In this blog, we will explain a variety of Design thinking project ideas for engineering students, aiming to inspire creativity, enhance technical skills, and foster a problem-solving mindset that aligns with the demands of modern industries.

What is Design Thinking?

Table of Contents

Design Thinking is a problem-solving methodology that emphasizes understanding the needs of users, generating creative solutions, and rapidly prototyping and testing ideas. 

It’s a human-centered approach that encourages empathy with users to uncover insights and design solutions that truly meet their needs. 

Design Thinking typically involves a series of iterative steps, including empathizing with users, defining the problem, ideating potential solutions, prototyping concepts, and testing them with users for feedback. 

It’s widely used in various fields, from product design and innovation to business strategy and social impact initiatives, to address complex problems and drive innovation.

Why are Design Thinking Project Ideas Important for Engineering Students?

Design Thinking project ideas for engineering students are important for several reasons:

Real-world application

Design Thinking projects provide students with opportunities to apply engineering principles in real-world contexts. By working on projects that address practical problems or challenges, students gain hands-on experience and develop a deeper understanding of how engineering concepts can be used to create tangible solutions.

Interdisciplinary skills

Design Thinking encourages interdisciplinary collaboration by involving diverse perspectives and skill sets in the problem-solving process. Engineering students working on Design Thinking projects often collaborate with individuals from other disciplines such as design, business, or psychology, which helps them develop skills in communication, teamwork, and empathy.

Innovation and creativity 

Design Thinking fosters innovation and creativity by encouraging students to think outside the box and explore unconventional solutions to problems. Through brainstorming, ideation, and prototyping, students learn to generate and evaluate a wide range of ideas, leading to innovative solutions that may not have been considered otherwise.

User-centered design

Design Thinking emphasizes empathy with users and a deep understanding of their needs and preferences. By incorporating user feedback and testing prototypes with target users, engineering students learn to design solutions that are user-centered and aligned with user needs, preferences, and behaviors.

Problem-solving skills 

Design Thinking projects help engineering students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills by challenging them to identify, define, and analyze complex problems, as well as to develop and implement effective solutions. Through iterative experimentation and refinement, students learn to adapt and iterate their solutions based on feedback and changing requirements.

List Best Design Thinking Project Ideas for Engineering Students

Design thinking is a valuable approach for engineering students to develop innovative solutions to real-world problems. Here are some design thinking project ideas for engineering students:

Sustainable Energy Solutions

• Design a portable solar-powered charger for electronic devices.
• Develop a system for harnessing wind energy in urban environments.
• Create an energy-efficient lighting system for public spaces.
• Design a low-cost, sustainable heating solution for homes.
• Develop a bicycle-powered generator for off-grid communities.
• Design a water turbine system for generating electricity from rivers or streams.
• Create a solar-powered irrigation system for small-scale farmers.
• Develop a smart grid system for optimizing energy distribution in cities.
• Design a sustainable transportation system for a densely populated city.
• Create a waste-to-energy conversion system for converting organic waste into biofuel.

Urban Infrastructure

• Design a vertical garden system for urban buildings.
• Develop a smart parking solution to reduce traffic congestion.
• Create a modular housing system for affordable urban housing.
• Design a public transportation app to improve the commuter experience.
• Develop a flood detection and warning system for low-lying areas.
• Design a waste management system to promote recycling and reduce landfill waste.
• Create a pedestrian-friendly street design for urban revitalization projects.
• Develop a smart street lighting system that adjusts brightness based on pedestrian traffic.
• Design a green roof system to improve urban air quality and reduce the heat island effect.
• Create a community bike-sharing program to promote sustainable transportation.

Healthcare and Assistive Technology

• Design a wearable device for monitoring vital signs in real-time.
• Develop a smartphone app for managing chronic diseases and medication reminders.
• Create a low-cost prosthetic limb using 3D printing technology.
• Design a smart pill dispenser for elderly patients.
• Develop a telemedicine platform for remote consultations and diagnosis.
• Create a wheelchair-accessible transportation service for people with disabilities.
• Design a home monitoring system for seniors living alone.
• Develop a braille learning tool for visually impaired students.
• Create a voice-controlled assistive device for individuals with limited mobility.
• Design a sensory-friendly environment for children with autism.

Environmental Conservation

• Develop a water purification system for rural communities.
• Design a biodegradable packaging solution for reducing plastic waste.
• Create an urban rooftop garden for promoting biodiversity.
• Develop a wildlife tracking app to monitor endangered species.
• Design a community composting program to reduce organic waste.
• Create a plastic waste recycling machine for local communities.
• Develop a low-cost water filtration system for disaster relief efforts.
• Design an educational campaign to raise awareness about environmental conservation.
• Create a mobile app for reporting and cleaning up litter in public spaces.
• Develop a sustainable agriculture initiative for small-scale farmers.

Educational Technology

• Design a gamified learning platform for teaching STEM subjects.
• Develop a virtual reality (VR) simulation for science experiments.
• Create an interactive e-book platform for personalized learning.
• Design a coding curriculum for elementary school students.
• Develop a language learning app with AI-powered speech recognition.
• Create a digital library platform for accessing educational resources remotely.
• Design a robotics kit for teaching programming concepts to children.
• Develop a peer-to-peer tutoring platform for students in underserved communities.
• Create an adaptive learning platform for students with different learning styles.
• Design a mobile app for practicing math skills through interactive games.

Transportation and Mobility

• Develop an autonomous drone delivery system for urban areas.
• Design a carpooling app for reducing traffic congestion.
• Create a bicycle-sharing program for suburban communities.
• Develop a hyperloop transportation system for long-distance travel.
• Design a smart traffic management system using IoT sensors .
• Develop a ride-sharing platform for electric scooters.
• Create a mobile app for real-time public transportation tracking.
• Design a self-driving shuttle service for university campuses.
• Develop a car-sharing program for electric vehicles.
• Create a pedestrian-friendly transportation plan for downtown areas.

Product Design and Innovation

• Design a multi-functional backpack for outdoor enthusiasts.
• Develop a portable water purification device for hikers and campers.
• Create a sustainable fashion line using eco-friendly materials.
• Design a modular furniture system for small living spaces.
• Develop a smart home automation system for energy efficiency.
• Create a compact kitchen appliance for tiny houses.
• Design a customizable smartphone case with integrated tools.
• Develop a wearable device for monitoring environmental pollution.
• Create a home gardening kit for urban dwellers.
• Design a solar-powered cooking stove for off-grid communities.

Social Impact and Community Development

• Develop a mobile app for connecting volunteers with local community projects.
• Design a community garden initiative to promote food security.
• Create a microfinance platform for supporting small businesses in underserved areas.
• Develop a peer-to-peer support network for individuals facing mental health challenges.
• Design a disaster preparedness plan for vulnerable communities.
• Create an online platform for connecting refugees with job opportunities.
• Develop a recycling incentive program to encourage environmental stewardship.
• Design a community-based healthcare clinic for underserved populations.
• Create a financial literacy program for low-income families.
• Develop a mentorship program for at-risk youth.

Accessibility and Inclusion

• Design a universal design toolkit for creating accessible spaces.
• Develop a mobile app for navigating wheelchair-accessible routes in cities.
• Create an inclusive playground design for children of all abilities.
• Design a sensory-friendly restaurant experience for individuals with autism.
• Develop a sign language translation app for communication accessibility.
• Create an assistive technology device for individuals with hearing impairments.
• Design an inclusive workspace environment for employees with disabilities.
• Create a voice-controlled smart home system for individuals with mobility limitations.
• Design a wearable device for monitoring and alerting caregivers of elderly individuals.
• Design a digital accessibility audit tool for businesses and organizations to evaluate and improve the accessibility of their websites and digital content for users with disabilities.

Disaster Relief and Emergency Response

• Develop a mobile app for coordinating volunteer efforts during natural disasters.
• Design an emergency shelter system for displaced populations.
• Create a disaster response communication platform for first responders.
• Develop a low-cost water purification system for disaster relief efforts.
• Design a portable medical clinic for providing healthcare in remote areas.
• Create an emergency evacuation plan for coastal communities at risk of flooding.
• Develop a drone-based search and rescue system for locating missing persons in disaster areas.
• Design an emergency preparedness training program for schools and communities.
• Create a mobile app for crowdsourcing real-time disaster information and resources.
• Develop a modular emergency response kit for disaster relief organizations.
• Design a community resilience program to mitigate the impact of natural disasters and build long-term preparedness.

These project ideas cover a wide range of areas, offering engineering students ample opportunities to apply Design Thinking principles and address pressing challenges in society.

How to Get Started Design Thinking Project Idea?

Getting started with a design thinking project idea involves several key steps:

• Identify the problem: Begin by understanding the problem you want to solve or the opportunity you want to explore. This could involve observing users, conducting interviews, or analyzing data.
• Define the user needs: Gain empathy by putting yourself in the shoes of the users affected by the problem. Define their needs, desires, and pain points to inform your solution.
• Generate ideas: Brainstorm potential solutions without judgment. Encourage creativity and explore a wide range of possibilities.
• Prototype solutions: Create quick, low-fidelity prototypes to visualize and test your ideas. This could involve sketches, mock-ups, or physical models.
• Test and iterate: Gather feedback from users through testing and refine your solutions based on their input. Iterate on your designs until you find the most effective solution.

Tips for Engineering Students to Execute Design Thinking Projects Successfully

Executing design thinking projects successfully requires a combination of creativity, empathy, critical thinking, and collaboration. Here are some tips for engineering students to execute design thinking projects effectively:

Embrace empathy

Understand the needs and perspectives of your users deeply to design solutions that truly meet their requirements.

Foster collaboration

Engage with teammates, experts, and stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to leverage different perspectives and expertise.

Iterate rapidly

Don’t be afraid to prototype and test multiple solutions quickly. Embrace failure as a learning opportunity and iterate based on feedback.

Stay open-minded 

Be willing to explore unconventional ideas and solutions. Avoid getting stuck in the first solution that comes to mind.

Prioritize user feedback

Regularly test your prototypes with users and incorporate their feedback into your designs. This ensures your solutions remain user-centered.

Keep it simple

Focus on simplicity and usability in your designs. Avoid unnecessary complexity that could confuse or overwhelm users.

Think holistically

Consider the broader implications of your designs, including environmental, social, and ethical factors.

Document your process

Keep detailed records of your design process, including research findings, sketches, prototypes, and test results. This helps you track your progress and learn from your experiences.

Be adaptable

Be prepared to pivot your design direction based on new insights or changing project requirements.

Enjoy the journey

Design Thinking projects can be challenging but also incredibly rewarding. Embrace the process, stay curious, and enjoy the journey of innovation and discovery.

Final Thoughts

Design Thinking project ideas for engineering students offer invaluable opportunities to apply their skills in innovative and meaningful ways. 

By embracing empathy, collaboration, and iterative problem-solving, students can develop practical solutions that address real-world challenges. 

These projects not only enhance technical proficiency but also cultivate essential skills such as creativity, adaptability, and empathy. 

Through hands-on experiences, students gain a deeper understanding of user needs and societal issues, preparing them to become future leaders in engineering and beyond. 

As they embark on their careers, the lessons learned from Design Thinking projects will continue to inspire and guide them toward creating a positive impact and driving meaningful change in the world.

1. What skills do engineering students gain from design thinking projects?

Design thinking projects help students develop critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration skills.

2. How can engineering students apply design thinking in their academic studies?

Engineering students can apply design thinking principles to their coursework, research projects, and extracurricular activities to develop innovative solutions to real-world problems.

Related Posts

Science Fair Project Ideas For 6th Graders

When it comes to Science Fair Project Ideas For 6th Graders, the possibilities are endless! These projects not only help students develop essential skills, such…

Java Project Ideas for Beginners

Java is one of the most popular programming languages. It is used for many applications, from laptops to data centers, gaming consoles, scientific supercomputers, and…

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Stepping into Design Thinking

By Sewvandi Wickramasinghe

What is Design Thinking?

Design Thinking is a continuous process in which we try to understand the user, keep an open mind, and reframe issues in order to come up with new methods and answers that may not be obvious at first.

Design thinking is  human-centered , which means it considers how people interact with a product or service rather than how someone else or an organization believes they will interact with it. It is a problem-solving method centered on solutions. It is both a style of thinking and functioning as well as a set of practical techniques.

Why Design Thinking?

Its goal is to meet a certain human requirement.

• Once those pain areas are discovered, design thinking may lead to solutions.

Deals with vague or difficult-to-define situations.

• Consumers frequently don’t understand or can’t articulate the problem they’re trying to solve. Consumers frequently have no idea what problem they are trying to solve or are unable to articulate it. However, with careful observation, one may discover problems based on what they see in real customer behavior rather than working off of their own assumptions about the consumer.

This leads to more creative solutions.

• Design thinking can help bring to light some of these previously unseen pain areas that would otherwise go unnoticed. Taking a step-by-step approach to solving those difficulties frequently results in non-obvious, creative solutions.

Organizations function more quickly and efficiently as a result of this.

• Design thinking advocates building prototypes and then testing them to determine how successful they are, rather than studying an issue for a long period without coming up with a solution.

5 stages of the design-thinking process

A five-stage framework guides design thinking.

1) Empathize 2) Define 3) Ideate 4) Prototype 5) Test

It’s worth noting that the five phases, stages, or modes aren’t usually in order. They don’t have to happen in any particular order, and they can frequently happen in parallel and recur repeatedly.

1) Empathize

The designer watches customers in this initial step to acquire a better knowledge of how they interact with or are influenced by a product or issue. The assumptions must be made with empathy, which includes refraining from passing judgement and without imposing previous assumptions about the requirements of the customer.

Observing with compassion is effective because it can reveal difficulties that the customer was unaware of or couldn’t express themselves. It’s now much easier to comprehend the human needs for which you’re designing and developing.

You use your observations from the first stage to identify the problem you’re seeking to address in this second step. Consider the challenges your customers face, what they consistently battle with, and what you’ve learned from how they’re impacted by the problem. You’ll be able to identify the problem they’re dealing with once you’ve integrated your results.

The next stage is to come up with solutions to the problem you’ve identified. These brainstorming sessions can be done in a group, in a corporate environment that fosters creativity and cooperation, in an innovation program, or they can be done alone.

The essential thing is to come up with a variety of diverse concepts. You’ll come up with a couple ideas to move on with at the end of this procedure.

4) Prototype

This is the stage where concepts are transformed into practical solutions. Prototypes aren’t supposed to be flawless. The purpose of a prototype is to quickly create a tangible form of a concept in order to test how well it is received by customers.

This is the stage of testing where you get feedback on your work. You’ll probably have to return to one or more of the previous stages after the fifth step is completed.

Maybe the testing revealed that you need to create a new prototype, in which case you’d go back to the fourth stage. Or it might be that you’ve misunderstood the customer’s requirements. If that’s the case, you’ll have to restart the procedure from the beginning.

Design Thinking ‘Outside the Box’

Design Thinking is frequently referred to as “thinking beyond the box.”

One aspect of outside-the-box thinking involves falsifying previous assumptions in order to establish whether or not they are correct. The solution-generation method will assist us in producing ideas that represent the actual limits and aspects of an issue once we have questioned and explored its conditions.

Design Thinking assists us in doing appropriate research, prototyping, and testing our goods and services in order to discover new methods to improve the product, service, and design.

Design Thinking is Accessible to All

Design thinking isn’t only for designers, it’s also for creative employees, freelancers, and executives who want to incorporate design thinking into every level of an organization, product, or service to create new business and societal options.

You can visit  www.axonect.com   to know more about its Axonect Product Suite respectively.

Circular Design Guide

The Circular Design Guide

Now is the most exhilarating time to be an innovator, why, what's changed.

The scale of what we’re designing has shifted from products, to companies, to economic systems. Who we’re designing for has expanded from a solitary user to an intimately connected web of people, spanning the globe.

New tools such as artificial intelligence, the internet of things, and biomimicry mean our design ambitions are limited only by our imagination. Meanwhile, creativity has never been more important. The global economy is stuttering and disruptive technologies challenge established business models.

The next big thing in design is circular

A radical, restorative, regenerative approach to business.

A new mind-set for business is emerging. It’s worth around a trillion dollars, will drive innovation in tomorrow’s companies, and reshape every part of our lives.

What if you could redesign everything?

What would you do differently?

You might be questioning the health of our organisations, social systems, and business models. With good reason: companies are currently deeply rooted in a linear approach to growth - make, use, dispose.

The design thinking approach that underpins this guide allows you to explore new ways to create sustainable, resilient, long-lasting value in the circular economy – giving you the creative confidence to redesign the world around you.

The shift is already in motion

Packaging from ‘mushroom plastic’: Ecovative

Ecovative makes fully compostable packaging products made from mushroom roots or ‘mycelium’ branded...

Offering multiple benefits for multiple electronic products

Bundles designs technology to offer products on a pay-per-use basis.

Redesigning medium-life bulky products from scratch: Niaga

Niaga®️ has developed three circular design principles which underpin the development of production...

Bringing printing as a service to the home

HP’s Instant Ink is an IoT enabled subscription model for individuals and small businesses that...

Closing the loop on single-use food packaging: BioPak

Packaging made from renewable plant-based materials.

So, roll up your sleeves and get started

Run a workshop

Run a workshop with these workshop packages and resources. It’s free and easy to get started.

Explore methods

Explore methods that help you understand, define, make, and release circular innovations.

Read a story

Read a story about pioneers in circular design and how they applied the concept to their own...

The Circular Design Guide is a collaboration between the  Ellen MacArthur Foundation  and  IDEO .

Acknowledgements

The Circular Design Guide has been co-created with participation from more than 400 people, through the contribution of ideas to the testing of resources, in an iterative and inclusive design thinking process.

Advisory board

Bob Adams, Researcher and Author, Design for Sustainability

Tim Brown, CEO IDEO

Peter Childs, Head, Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London

Gayle DeBruyn, Associate Professor, KCAD

Leif Huff, Executive Design Director,  IDEO

Andrew Morlet, CEO, Ellen MacArthur Foundation

Gavin Warner, Director Sustainable Business, Unilever

Lead Philanthropic Partner

Schmidt Family Foundation

Philanthropic Partner

Contributing organisations

Ashridge Executive Education Hult

Biomimicry 3.8

Cradle to Cradle

Cranfield University

National Institute of Design

Northumbria University

Rochester Institute of Technology

Royal College of Art

University of Bradford

University of Exeter

University of the Arts London

News and updates from The Ellen MacArthur Foundation

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation works to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. We develop and promote the idea of a circular economy, and work with business, academia, policymakers, and institutions to mobilise systems solutions at scale, globally.

Charity Registration No.: 1130306

OSCR Registration No.: SC043120

Company No.: 6897785

Ellen MacArthur Foundation ANBI RSIN nummer: 8257 45 925

• Link to EMF LinkedIn page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF Twitter page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF YouTube page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF Instagram page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF Medium page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF TikTok page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF threads page. Opens in a new tab.

The work of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation is supported by our Strategic Partners and Partners.

• Link to EMF Facebook page. Opens in a new tab.

Main Navigation

• Accept offer and enrol
• Current Students

Personalise your experience

Did you mean..., diploma of arts and social sciences, art/science collaboration wins waterhouse natural science art prize, unit of study crtv1002 create: innovate: change (2025).

Future students: T: 1800 626 481 E: Email your enquiry here

Current students: Contact: Faculty of Business, Law and Arts

Students studying at an education collaboration: Please contact your relevant institution

updated - DO NOT REMOVE THIS LINE 6:07 AM on Tue, 9 April

Show me unit information for year

Unit snapshot.

UG Coursework Unit

Credit points

Faculty & college.

Faculty of Business, Law and Arts

Unit description

Introduces students to six important skills needed for contemporary society: innovative problem solving; creativity; analytic thinking; collaboration; effective communication and ethics (action and accountability). By utilising curiosity and engagement, this unit introduces students to the concepts and practices of creative and innovative thinking through collaboration and problem solving. This unit will unpack the skills and strategies needed, through collaboration and co-design with other students, to solve real-world problems in innovative and creative ways. These methods and fluencies include a range of conceptual approaches, as well as communication strategies, to explore and reconsider the context in which we learn, work and create change.  

Unit content

These topics will be covered:

• Collaborative approaches to strategic thinking and innovative problem solving.
• Introduction to Design Thinking.
• Multidisciplinary approach to change strategies.
• Develop and implement strategies to enhance personal creativity and innovation. 
• Strategies for critical appraisal and self assessment. 
• Communication, planning and evaluation.

Availabilities

2025 unit offering information will be available in November 2024

Learning outcomes

Unit Learning Outcomes express learning achievement in terms of what a student should know, understand and be able to do on completion of a unit. These outcomes are aligned with the graduate attributes . The unit learning outcomes and graduate attributes are also the basis of evaluating prior learning.

On completion of this unit, students should be able to:

demonstrate an understanding of the concepts of creative, lateral and innovative thinking

apply collaborative methods and approaches to project-based problems

develop, test and evaluate original proposals in response to project-based problems

create a communication strategy for working across a range of topics

Fee information

Commonwealth Supported courses For information regarding Student Contribution Amounts please visit the Student Contribution Amounts .

Fee paying courses For postgraduate or undergraduate full-fee paying courses please check Domestic Postgraduate Fees OR Domestic Undergraduate Fees .

International

Please check the international course and fee list to determine the relevant fees.

Courses that offer this unit

Undergraduate certificate in community welfare (2024), diploma of health (2024), diploma of health (2025), diploma of arts (2025), associate degree of creative writing (2024), associate degree of creative writing (2025), bachelor of contemporary music (2024), bachelor of contemporary music (2025), bachelor of digital media (2024), bachelor of digital media (2025), bachelor of arts (2024), bachelor of arts (2025), bachelor of art and design (2025), bachelor of art and design (2024), bachelor of community welfare (2024), bachelor of community welfare (2025), bachelor of social work (2025), bachelor of social work (2024), bachelor of social work (honours) (2024), bachelor of social work (honours) (2025), career start (study abroad) (2024), career start (study abroad) (2025), any questions we'd love to help.