Design Thinking Myths Debunked

During one of the coronavirus lockdown days, an online topic in an innovation group I subscribe to sparked a lively, thought-provoking, and entertaining discussion. Experts of different backgrounds put forward their opinions for and against design thinking methodology while neutral spectators sat on the sidelines, enjoying the debate.

As a fervent believer of design thinking as a way to find creative solutions to challenges, I have witnessed its impact and magic on many occasions: "seeing is believing," as they say. For this piece, I decided to gather criticism directed at the methodology by the discussion's participants to respond to them and correct any misconceptions out there.

Before I begin, I would like to clarify that design thinking, like other methodologies, is a product of the human mind. Since humans are not perfect, it is undoubtedly subject to criticism and might need further development. I feel happy and engaged when I come across constructive criticism that would improve the methodology and it and make it more applicable.

The way this article works is I will highlight the myths then respond to them. Let's make a start:

1.        Design thinking's philosophy is weak and has no history or authenticity:

Design thinking philosophy wasn't created in one moment in time; it has slowly developed over the years through different schools of thought and fields of research and knowledge such as design, operations research, marketing research, customer experience management and psychology, etc. One of the most important artistic areas in this respect is design, where designers' thinking styles formed the main foundations for design thinking. The British Design Council expressed this in 2005 with its "Double Diamond" model, an adaptation of the Divergence-Convergence Model proposed by linguist Béla H. Bánáthy in 1996.

The Double Diamond model is a visual representation of the design process and has four steps (discover - define - build - present). It is very similar to the design thinking model and combines earlier innovation and design methodologies into one approach, including:

• Design-driven innovation 
• Empathy Design
• Participatory Design
• Visual thinking    

Design thinking was able to employ a package of existing tools, intelligently integrate them into the methodology's steps and stages and present them in a way that is easy to apply. For example:

• The brainstorming method developed by Alex Osborn in 1939, and published in his 1953 book Applied Imagination.
• Personality Tool (Persona) developed by Alan Cooper in 1983.
• The empathy map tool presented by Dave Gray in his book Game Storming, published in 2010.
• Customer Experience Map

What makes design thinking unique is that it can employ theories, tools, literature and methodologies of diverse scientific disciplines, reintroducing them in a simplified, interesting, systematic and applicable way (unlike previous more complex practices). This helped its rapid spread to business and educational environments.

2.        Design thinking is a linear process, and innovation cannot be linear:

We can say that a design thinking expert knows that it is not a linear process - i.e., there are no repeated stages, but there can be a continual movement back and forth between different stages. Design Thinking is an iterative process, the designer is allowed to move, return, and repeat steps as needed to achieve what is required from them. The process is continued and repeated until the best creative solution has been reached.

3.        As a designer, I observed that the methodology restricts my thinking:

The methodology is a step by step process that helps you reach a creative solution to a problem. In no way does it restrict creative thinking. Moreover, idea generation goes through two stages: First, divergent thinking where there are zero restrictions on ideas and their quality. Crazy and wild ideas are welcomed with open arms. The second stage is convergent thinking, where we wear three lenses to judge ideas. We want ideas that are applicable, financially feasible and that meet the user's needs. Some of these controls may have restrictions for some inventors. In any case, neither inventors nor anyone else is obliged to use design thinking, but if they're grappling with a complex problem, it will help a lot.

4.        The methodology isn't suitable in Saudi Arabia (or Arab societies in general) because of classism at work and the control of ideas by those in elevated positions:

In my opinion, this assumption shouldn't be generalized. Some people may believe the myth as a result of a bad experience. However, what we have seen and experienced is you can manage a brainstorming workshop effectively if you have the necessary tools, capabilities, an understanding of the rules, and a professional facilitator.

We have run hundreds of successful workshops. Senior state officials, high ranking military officials and others of lower ranks have attended. They abided by the rules, and although we faced some challenges, we overcame them every time.

The methodology's ability to bring stakeholders together to discuss challenges at the same table is one of its strengths. The simplicity and ease of its logic made it possible for a large number of individuals to participate. This enabled easy adoption of solutions as opposed to a scenario where a few individuals innovate behind closed doors and then find it difficult to convince others of the viability of their solutions.

5.        The methodology requires acceptance of ambiguity, and this is difficult in our societies:

To some extent, this is true. However, if you want to excel at finding creative solutions, you need a mindset that accepts ambiguity. We have found the results are positive, and the experience improves with practice and progressive development.

6.        The methodology doesn't work in Arab countries because it needs participants of diverse backgrounds and cultures. Most people in our countries have similar points of view:

There is no doubt scientific, cultural, and social diversity raises output quality and increases creativity. It is a known scientific fact that "perfect" doesn't have to be the enemy of "good." We believe our societies are developed, and our cultures are diversified, although not as much as those in the West. However, this doesn't mean we discard the methodology until we have greater diversity.

7.        We use other innovation methods and believe we don't need design thinking:

This is a beautiful thing, and we hope to share and publish these methods. It is not mandatory for anyone to use a specific methodology and the Design Thinking is not in competition with innovation processes. It is just another methodology to explore if you need to solve complex problems and enhance humans life.

8.        Design thinking is not a methodology for innovation at all:

To respond to this myth, we need to understand how innovation is defined. There are many different definitions, but the one I like most is that innovation is “implementing a new thing that has value.” From this simple definition, design thinking can undoubtedly lead to innovative solutions. It is a methodology for innovation and is part of the curriculum for postgraduate students who major in innovation at prestigious universities. It is recognized by professional societies that specialize in innovation. They understand its strength. Who says that IDEO, which is the standard-bearer of design thinking, did not develop innovations?

9.        To say that innovation is when people gather in a workshop for hours to come up with a solution is an oversimplification of innovation's meaning:

This is not a description of what happens with design thinking. Moreover, people sometimes confuse brainstorming workshops with design thinking methodology. Sometimes urgent challenges can be solved quickly within one to five days by using this methodology. However, developing creative solutions to complex challenges requires time and effort. How much depends on the difficulty and complexity of the challenge. In most cases, this cannot be done within one to two days.

In our programs, we solve challenges within weeks, and some challenges require several months. Tim Brown, the most famous design theorist today, told me that people in our area are usually in a hurry and want quick solutions, but innovation takes time.

10.      Some people are unable to tolerate repeated experimentation to arrive at a solution:

Yes, this is true, but it doesn't mean the method is flawed. It means the innovators lack something, perhaps patience. Testing, experimenting and modifying are the norm. I remember looking at a product at the annual IDEO Conference in San Francisco and noted that more than 150 prototypes were tried before the best solution was found.

11.      I tried design thinking on a problem and didn't find it useful:

There are many causes of failed outcomes. However, we must understand the nature of the problems in which design thinking's use is appropriate. By the way, humans are better able to solve problems than find them. This is because of our survival instinct. The issues that are appropriate for the use of design thinking are complex and are called Wicked Problems. They have neither a clear solution nor clear reasons and often relate to user behavior and not to technology.

What I have seen through my experience is that a large number of people fail to select the appropriate challenge. They choose a linear or pathogenic challenge (tame or linear problem). In other words, a challenge that doesn't require design thinking. We once had someone who wanted to install a device that can record court trial sessions. They wanted to implement the solution using design thinking. We respectfully declined their request because the problem was entirely a technical one.

12.      Design thinking requires constant experimentation to reach the final solution, and this costs money, time, and effort:

This myth implies a lack of understanding of the design thinking method related to constructing prototypes and experimenting with them. In design thinking, the focus is on building simple prototypes of the solution and quickly testing them with users, then repeating the process based on user feedback and opinions.

With design thinking, you fail quickly with the lowest costs. Therefore, overall, it saves a lot of time, money, and effort compared with other approaches that may require building a high-quality prototype prior to extensive testing.

Consequently, catastrophic failure is hardly surprising. Design thinking can avoid this and is another one of its strengths.

13.      Design thinking does not come up with creative ideas. It provides us with acceptable ideas since innovators will not stray far from their comfort zones:

This myth is easily refuted with the wealth of creative ideas out there that result from the application of design thinking. When we ideate, we encourage crazy and unfamiliar thoughts and concepts. The end result will not be an inapplicable, financially non-viable, or otherwise unacceptable solution. It will solve the problem. Who says the standard-bearer of design thinking, IDEO, did not generate innovations?

14.      Users of design thinking (or designers) define ideas that are suitable for a solution and might choose them for political purposes or what the strongest group dictates:

This was the assumption of someone writing in Harvard Business Review. The criticism may come from bad experience, but we cannot extrapolate this to the methodology's other applications. Moreover, intentions matter. Competing powers and political issues may affect any methodology, even in the greatest democratic countries. This is not a flaw of design thinking methodology. With it, we define the project's goal from the outset and the final solutions by which it is achieved, regardless of intentions.

15.      The methodology is not limited to a specific period. We do not know when we will finish. It could be after a week, two weeks, or even two years:

Design thinking methodology is characterized by the rapid modeling and testing of solutions. With innovation theories and approaches, it isn't easy to put a clock on when the best outcome may appear. However, design thinking methodologies ensure the best solution is reached as soon as possible, regardless of the problem. When that moment arrives is down to the problem's complexity and how the team works. Ultimately, we are sure we will develop a solution that solves the problem and meets the user's needs. Typically, the modeling and experimentation stage is the longest because of its importance.

A simple example of the methodology's strength is when the American ABC channel challenged IDEO to redesign a shopping cart within three days.

It should be noted that design thinking methodology is taught in the world's most prestigious universities and institutions. They include Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Hasso-Plattner, GIMI, and others. Design thinking is also widely used by some of the planet's largest and most successful companies, such as IBM, SAP, GE, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, and IDEO. A significant number of hospitals and major medical authorities are also adopting the methodology. Among them are Mayo Clinic and King Fahd Medical City in Saudi Arabia.

These organizations have trained tens of thousands of their employees on the methodology and provided them with numerous incentives. Each outfit boasts a wealth of design thinking success stories.

Perhaps one of design thinking's additional strengths is its flexibility. Several companies already highlighted in this piece have adapted and tweaked the methodology to suit their needs while preserving its spirit. One example is IBM. A study of the multinational's clients who used design thinking revealed that their return on investment was 301% within three years. This is undoubtedly a strong indication of the methodology's effectiveness.

There have been many innovations and creative solutions that have come about using design thinking. They have saved lives, built and developed institutions, and increased happiness. Here are just a few examples:

• The first Apple mouse, which was produced by IDEO.
• An incubator that has saved the lives of thousands of children in impoverished countries.
• An MRI machine that suits children and allows them to be scanned without the need for an anesthetic. Previously, 80% of children required full anesthesia.
• People with schizophrenia have been helped to integrate more with others.
• The next generation of navigation and entertainment systems for cars are being developed with design thinking.

Once, I met a design thinking specialist who worked in the largest design thinking agency in Europe. I asked him about finding creative solutions for the biggest car manufacturers in the world and other large companies. How do you ensure you will come up with creative solutions? He replied: "We believe in the design thinking methodology. Every time we follow it, we come up with innovative ideas. Although our clients have the right to reject them, 99% of the time, they accept our creative solutions because they meet their requirements and solve their problems."

It is worth noting that the United Nations has adopted design thinking methodology to deliver its Sustainable Development goals by 2030 because of its strength and ability to find creative solutions to the big challenges we face.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize again that design thinking, like all other methodologies, is subject to criticism and development. We are endeavoring to make it better and always ensure that we make the best use of its principles.

Written by: Basem Jaffal

Reviewed by: Usama Jan, Dr. Ammar Attar, Rana Bakhsh, Mohammad Al Hashmi, Thamer Alasseri