<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
So what is<\/em> Design Thinking (DT)?<\/strong><\/h3>\n[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
Searching for \u201cDesign Thinking\u201d on Google, we get 32,700,000 hits. But you don\u2019t need to see more than the first few results to get the gist.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Although there are quite a few definitions, the majority are based on the following five steps: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test.<\/p>\nAnd indeed, it\u2019s not surprising then to see that these five steps are the core of Design Thinking. According to the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford<\/a>, the birthplace of this innovation methodology, this is how the steps are defined:<\/p>\n[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_position_1=”top_left” background_repeat_1=”no-repeat” background_position_2=”top_left” background_repeat_2=”no-repeat” custom_margin=”||0px|” custom_padding=”||0px|” padding_bottom_1=”0px” padding_bottom_2=”0px”][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
\n- Empathize:\u00a0<\/strong>In the first step, you \u201cview the users and their behavior in the context of their lives.\u201d You \u201cengage\u201d with the users and \u201cexperience what they experience.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Define:\u00a0<\/strong>In the second step, you \u201cunpack and synthesize your empathy findings into compelling needs and insights.\u201d Based on a deep understanding of the user, you come up with an \u201can actionable problem statement.\u201d That is, we clearly define what we wish to create.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.0.65″ src=”https:\/\/www.sitsite.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/DT.jpg” show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” sticky=”off” align=”left” always_center_on_mobile=”on” border_style=”solid” force_fullwidth=”off” alt=”Design Thinking Innovation methodology” animation=”off” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_position_1=”top_left” background_repeat_1=”no-repeat” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_top_1=”0px”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]<\/p>\n
\n- Ideate:\u00a0<\/strong>Now it is time to ideate and \u201cgenerate radical design alternatives.\u201d Similar to brainstorming, the goal is both a \u201clarge quantity of ideas and a diversity among those ideas.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Prototype:\u00a0<\/strong>Prototyping means \u201cgetting ideas and explorations out of your head and into the physical world.\u201d The idea is to perceive and interact with your idea. In the beginning of a project, prototyping goes \u201crough and rapid\u201d and later becomes more detailed with your progress.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Test:\u00a0<\/strong>The fifth step includes testing your prototypes and getting feedback about your solutions. This is a chance to \u201crefine your solutions to make them better and continue to learn about your users.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
Two Tough Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\n <\/p>\n
These five steps constitute the basic formula of the Design Thinking innovation methodology. Due to its apparent simplicity and clarity, the method is extremely appealing. It’s no wonder then that Design Thinking has become such a buzzword, so much so that it is often used as a synonym for innovation.<\/p>\n
However, two essential questions arise:<\/p>\n
\n- Do users of DT compare it to alternative innovation methodologies and find it superior? Or is it selected for merely being the only game in town? We claim that the latter is the case, i.e. DT is more placebo than remedy.<\/li>\n
- Let’s assume then that DT is fun, easy to use, and provides useful customer insights. However, is it effective for changing the way people think and helping them generate new ideas? As we explain below, the answer is negative: DT is not designed to help create novel concepts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To the first question, here is our recommendation.\u00a0One must not compare Design Thinking to a complete lack of systematic methodology. Rather, one should consider other innovation methodologies and evaluate DT in relation to them.<\/strong><\/p>\n[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
Does Design Thinking Have a Flawed Core?<\/strong><\/h2>\n <\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
Empathize: Engage with users and view their contextual behavior.<\/p>\n
Define: Come up with insights and understand the user.<\/p>\n
Ideate: Brainstorm, get a large number of ideas.<\/p>\n
Prototype: Perceive and interact with your idea.<\/p>\n
Test: Test and get feedback, refine to make better.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.0.65″ src=”https:\/\/www.sitsite.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/DT1.jpg” show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” sticky=”off” align=”left” always_center_on_mobile=”on” border_style=”solid” force_fullwidth=”off” animation=”off” alt=”innovation methodology design thinking” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
Reviewing the five steps in this innovation methodology, it is immediately obvious that the central element, the core of the entire process, is the middle step: Ideate. At the end of the day, the entire point of the exercise is to think of new <\/em>things, right? So, what does Design Thinking tell us we should do in order to generate new ideas?<\/p>\nWe\u2019ve collected plenty of useful insights in the first two stages of the process, and we have everything we need to develop great ideas except for one thing: a method to come up with the ideas. <\/em>Behind all of the Design Thinking hype, there is a disappointing reality that Design Thinking\u2019s ‘method’ for generating ideas is (not-so) good-old brainstorming.<\/p>\n[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
The Weak Link in this Innovation Methodology<\/strong><\/h3>\n <\/p>\n
Of the five steps, the ideation phase is the only one where ideas are actually generated. The instructions are simple: Brainstorm. Try to think unconventionally. There is no bad idea.<\/p>\n
But as is repeatedly established, brainstorming is not<\/strong> an effective way to generate ideas<\/a>. Much is written about this topic by us and\u00a0many others<\/a>, so here we just mention three of the most common arguments:<\/p>\n\n- Participants in BS sessions are encouraged to freely say what comes to mind, eliminating critical filters. As a result, sessions end with a large number of ideas. Of these ideas, very often, none turn out to have any practical value. In addition, those participants who could have raised objections in real time are (by definition) strongly encouraged not to do so.<\/li>\n
- Participants are instructed to associate freely. This means there is no mechanism to overcome functional fixedness<\/a>, a natural bias of human thinking. This also happens to be the strongest barrier to creativity and innovation.<\/li>\n
- Group dynamics, such as\u00a0groupthink<\/a> and social insecurity, are well researched. They have consistently shown to inherently inhibit the creation of truly radical ideas in the absence of a structured mechanism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n
With such a flawed core, DT cannot be an effective approach to innovation or innovation methodology. We, at SIT, are of course partial, since the very essence and entire trajectory of our past 22 years includes designing and refining a powerful alternative to brainstorming. And, indeed, we propose today a combination of the useful elements of Design Thinking paired with a powerful and effective method to generate ideas.<\/p>\n
We promise to come back with more on this topic. Meanwhile, we invite you to share with us your experience using DT versus other innovation methodologies.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Why stop there?<\/strong> <\/em>Continue reading and learn how to\u00a0incentivize innovation in your company.<\/a><\/p>\n[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
My First Impression of Design Thinking A few…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":934,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"
A few years ago, I had the chance to take part in a Design Thinking workshop. The first impression: the room was a mix between an atelier and a day-care facility for children. My initial thought: This is going to be fun!<\/p>
Our task was simple \u2013 we split into groups of two, and we needed to design a new wallet for our partner. First, I interviewed my partner. Then, I came up with a variety of different wallet models, which I then presented to him. Based on his feedback, I built a prototype of my best idea and consulted with him again. My result was an impressive and futuristic wallet \u2013 a piece of advanced technology \u2013 and indeed, the process had indeed been enjoyable.<\/p>
Like most people that apply this innovative method, I enjoyed the process. The wider question, however, is: How useful is Design Thinking for generating ideas?<\/strong><\/p>\u00a0<\/p>
What is<\/em> Design Thinking (DT)?<\/strong><\/h3>\u00a0<\/p>
![\"Innovation](\"https:\/\/www.sitsite.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/DT-pic-2-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>
Searching for \u201cDesign Thinking\u201d on Google, we get 32,700,000 hits. But you don\u2019t need to see more than the first few results to get the gist.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Although there are a quite a few definitions, the vast majority are based on the following five steps: Empathize, Define, Ideate,\u00a0 Prototype, Test.<\/p>And indeed, it\u2019s not surprising to see that these five steps are the core of Design Thinking. According to the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford<\/a>, the birthplace of this innovation methodology, this is how the steps are defined:<\/p>- Empathize <\/strong><\/li><\/ul>
In the first step, you \u201cview the users and their behavior in the context of their lives.\u201d You \u201cengage\u201d with the users and \u201cexperience what they experience.\u201d<\/p>
- Define<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>
In the second step, you \u201cunpack and synthesize your empathy findings into compelling needs and insights.\u201d Based on a deep understanding of the user, you come up with an \u201can actionable problem statement.\u201d That is, we clearly define what we wish to create.<\/p>
- Ideate<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>
Now it is time to ideate and \u201cgenerate radical design alternatives.\u201d Similar to brainstorming, the goal is both a \u201clarge quantity of ideas and a diversity among those ideas.\u201d<\/p>
- Prototype<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>
Prototyping means \u201cgetting ideas and explorations out of your head and into the physical world.\u201d The idea is to create a possibility to perceive and interact with your idea. In the beginning of a project, prototyping goes \u201crough and rapid,\u201d and later becomes more detailed with your progress.<\/p>
- Test <\/strong><\/li><\/ul>
The fifth step includes testing your prototypes and getting feedback on your solutions. This is a chance to \u201crefine your solutions to make them better and continue to learn about your users.\u201d<\/p>
\u00a0<\/p>
Two Tough Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\u00a0<\/p>
These five steps constitute the basic formula of the Design Thinking innovation methodology. Due to its apparent simplicity and clarity, the method is extremely appealing. It's no wonder then that Design Thinking has become such a buzzword, so much so that it is often used as a synonym to innovation.<\/p>
However, two essential questions arise:<\/p>
- Do users of DT compare it to alternative innovation methodologies and find it superior, or is it selected for being the only game in town? We claim that the latter is the case, i.e. DT is more placebo than remedy.<\/li>
- Let's assume then that DT is fun, easy to use, and provides useful customer insights. However, is it effective for changing the way people think and helping them generate new ideas? As we explain below, the answer is negative: DT is not designed to help create novel concepts.<\/li><\/ul>
To the first question, here is our recommendation: One must not compare Design Thinking to a complete lack of systematic methodology. Rather, one should consider other innovation methodologies and evaluate DT in relation to them.<\/strong><\/p>\u00a0<\/p>
Does Design Thinking Have a Flawed Core?<\/strong><\/h4>- Empathize: Engage with users and view their contextual behavior<\/li>
- Define: Come up with insights and understanding of user<\/li>
- Ideate: Brainstorm, get a large quantity of ideas<\/li>
- Prototype: Perceive and interact with your idea<\/li>
- Test: Test and get feedback, refine to make better<\/li><\/ol>
Reviewing the five steps in this innovation methodology, it is immediately obvious that the central element, the core of the entire process is the middle step: Ideate. At the end of the day, the entire point of the exercise is to think of new <\/em>things, right? So, what does Design Thinking tell us we should do in order to generate new ideas?<\/p>We\u2019ve collected plenty of useful insights in the first two stages of the process, and we have everything we need to develop great ideas except for one thing: a method to come up with the ideas. <\/em>Behind all of the Design Thinking hype, there is a disappointing reality that Design Thinking\u2019s 'method' for generating ideas is (not-so) good-old brainstorming.<\/p>\u00a0<\/p>
The Weak Link in this Innovation Methodology<\/strong><\/h4>Of the five steps, the ideation phase is the only one where ideas are actually generated. The instructions are simple: Brainstorm. Try to think unconventionally. There is no bad idea.<\/p>
But as has been repeatedly established, brainstorming is not<\/strong> an effective way to generate ideas<\/a>. Much has been written about this topic by us and by many others<\/a>, so here we just mention three of the most common arguments:<\/p>Participants in BS sessions are encouraged to freely say what comes to mind, eliminating critical filters. As a result, sessions end with\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0a large quantity of ideas, of which, very often, none turn out to have any practical value. In addition, those participants who could\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0have raised objections in real time, are (by definition) strongly encouraged not to do so.<\/p>
Participants are instructed to associate freely, which means that there is no mechanism to overcome functional fixedness<\/a>, a natural\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0bias of human thinking. This also happens to be the strongest barrier to creativity and innovation.<\/p>
And indeed, it\u2019s not surprising then to see that these five steps are the core of Design Thinking. According to the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford<\/a>, the birthplace of this innovation methodology, this is how the steps are defined:<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_position_1=”top_left” background_repeat_1=”no-repeat” background_position_2=”top_left” background_repeat_2=”no-repeat” custom_margin=”||0px|” custom_padding=”||0px|” padding_bottom_1=”0px” padding_bottom_2=”0px”][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.0.65″ src=”https:\/\/www.sitsite.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/DT.jpg” show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” sticky=”off” align=”left” always_center_on_mobile=”on” border_style=”solid” force_fullwidth=”off” alt=”Design Thinking Innovation methodology” animation=”off” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_position_1=”top_left” background_repeat_1=”no-repeat” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” padding_top_1=”0px”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These five steps constitute the basic formula of the Design Thinking innovation methodology. Due to its apparent simplicity and clarity, the method is extremely appealing. It’s no wonder then that Design Thinking has become such a buzzword, so much so that it is often used as a synonym for innovation.<\/p>\n However, two essential questions arise:<\/p>\n To the first question, here is our recommendation.\u00a0One must not compare Design Thinking to a complete lack of systematic methodology. Rather, one should consider other innovation methodologies and evaluate DT in relation to them.<\/strong><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n Empathize: Engage with users and view their contextual behavior.<\/p>\n Define: Come up with insights and understand the user.<\/p>\n Ideate: Brainstorm, get a large number of ideas.<\/p>\n Prototype: Perceive and interact with your idea.<\/p>\n Test: Test and get feedback, refine to make better.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image _builder_version=”3.0.65″ src=”https:\/\/www.sitsite.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/DT1.jpg” show_in_lightbox=”off” url_new_window=”off” use_overlay=”off” sticky=”off” align=”left” always_center_on_mobile=”on” border_style=”solid” force_fullwidth=”off” animation=”off” alt=”innovation methodology design thinking” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n Reviewing the five steps in this innovation methodology, it is immediately obvious that the central element, the core of the entire process, is the middle step: Ideate. At the end of the day, the entire point of the exercise is to think of new <\/em>things, right? So, what does Design Thinking tell us we should do in order to generate new ideas?<\/p>\n We\u2019ve collected plenty of useful insights in the first two stages of the process, and we have everything we need to develop great ideas except for one thing: a method to come up with the ideas. <\/em>Behind all of the Design Thinking hype, there is a disappointing reality that Design Thinking\u2019s ‘method’ for generating ideas is (not-so) good-old brainstorming.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Of the five steps, the ideation phase is the only one where ideas are actually generated. The instructions are simple: Brainstorm. Try to think unconventionally. There is no bad idea.<\/p>\n But as is repeatedly established, brainstorming is not<\/strong> an effective way to generate ideas<\/a>. Much is written about this topic by us and\u00a0many others<\/a>, so here we just mention three of the most common arguments:<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\n With such a flawed core, DT cannot be an effective approach to innovation or innovation methodology. We, at SIT, are of course partial, since the very essence and entire trajectory of our past 22 years includes designing and refining a powerful alternative to brainstorming. And, indeed, we propose today a combination of the useful elements of Design Thinking paired with a powerful and effective method to generate ideas.<\/p>\n We promise to come back with more on this topic. Meanwhile, we invite you to share with us your experience using DT versus other innovation methodologies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Why stop there?<\/strong> <\/em>Continue reading and learn how to\u00a0incentivize innovation in your company.<\/a><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.65″ \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" My First Impression of Design Thinking A few…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":934,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" A few years ago, I had the chance to take part in a Design Thinking workshop. The first impression: the room was a mix between an atelier and a day-care facility for children. My initial thought: This is going to be fun!<\/p> Our task was simple \u2013 we split into groups of two, and we needed to design a new wallet for our partner. First, I interviewed my partner. Then, I came up with a variety of different wallet models, which I then presented to him. Based on his feedback, I built a prototype of my best idea and consulted with him again. My result was an impressive and futuristic wallet \u2013 a piece of advanced technology \u2013 and indeed, the process had indeed been enjoyable.<\/p> Like most people that apply this innovative method, I enjoyed the process. The wider question, however, is: How useful is Design Thinking for generating ideas?<\/strong><\/p> \u00a0<\/p> \u00a0<\/p> Searching for \u201cDesign Thinking\u201d on Google, we get 32,700,000 hits. But you don\u2019t need to see more than the first few results to get the gist.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Although there are a quite a few definitions, the vast majority are based on the following five steps: Empathize, Define, Ideate,\u00a0 Prototype, Test.<\/p> And indeed, it\u2019s not surprising to see that these five steps are the core of Design Thinking. According to the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford<\/a>, the birthplace of this innovation methodology, this is how the steps are defined:<\/p> In the first step, you \u201cview the users and their behavior in the context of their lives.\u201d You \u201cengage\u201d with the users and \u201cexperience what they experience.\u201d<\/p> In the second step, you \u201cunpack and synthesize your empathy findings into compelling needs and insights.\u201d Based on a deep understanding of the user, you come up with an \u201can actionable problem statement.\u201d That is, we clearly define what we wish to create.<\/p> Now it is time to ideate and \u201cgenerate radical design alternatives.\u201d Similar to brainstorming, the goal is both a \u201clarge quantity of ideas and a diversity among those ideas.\u201d<\/p> Prototyping means \u201cgetting ideas and explorations out of your head and into the physical world.\u201d The idea is to create a possibility to perceive and interact with your idea. In the beginning of a project, prototyping goes \u201crough and rapid,\u201d and later becomes more detailed with your progress.<\/p> The fifth step includes testing your prototypes and getting feedback on your solutions. This is a chance to \u201crefine your solutions to make them better and continue to learn about your users.\u201d<\/p> \u00a0<\/p> \u00a0<\/p> These five steps constitute the basic formula of the Design Thinking innovation methodology. Due to its apparent simplicity and clarity, the method is extremely appealing. It's no wonder then that Design Thinking has become such a buzzword, so much so that it is often used as a synonym to innovation.<\/p> However, two essential questions arise:<\/p> To the first question, here is our recommendation: One must not compare Design Thinking to a complete lack of systematic methodology. Rather, one should consider other innovation methodologies and evaluate DT in relation to them.<\/strong><\/p> \u00a0<\/p> Reviewing the five steps in this innovation methodology, it is immediately obvious that the central element, the core of the entire process is the middle step: Ideate. At the end of the day, the entire point of the exercise is to think of new <\/em>things, right? So, what does Design Thinking tell us we should do in order to generate new ideas?<\/p> We\u2019ve collected plenty of useful insights in the first two stages of the process, and we have everything we need to develop great ideas except for one thing: a method to come up with the ideas. <\/em>Behind all of the Design Thinking hype, there is a disappointing reality that Design Thinking\u2019s 'method' for generating ideas is (not-so) good-old brainstorming.<\/p> \u00a0<\/p> Of the five steps, the ideation phase is the only one where ideas are actually generated. The instructions are simple: Brainstorm. Try to think unconventionally. There is no bad idea.<\/p> But as has been repeatedly established, brainstorming is not<\/strong> an effective way to generate ideas<\/a>. Much has been written about this topic by us and by many others<\/a>, so here we just mention three of the most common arguments:<\/p> Participants in BS sessions are encouraged to freely say what comes to mind, eliminating critical filters. As a result, sessions end with\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0a large quantity of ideas, of which, very often, none turn out to have any practical value. In addition, those participants who could\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0have raised objections in real time, are (by definition) strongly encouraged not to do so.<\/p> Participants are instructed to associate freely, which means that there is no mechanism to overcome functional fixedness<\/a>, a natural\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0bias of human thinking. This also happens to be the strongest barrier to creativity and innovation.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Two Tough Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Does Design Thinking Have a Flawed Core?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Weak Link in this Innovation Methodology<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
What is<\/em> Design Thinking (DT)?<\/strong><\/h3>
<\/p>Two Tough Questions<\/strong><\/h3>
Does Design Thinking Have a Flawed Core?<\/strong><\/h4>
The Weak Link in this Innovation Methodology<\/strong><\/h4>