1

02

2
ay,
K
ac

n M
Mega

DESIGN THINKING vs design thinking

Victoria University of Wellington

School of Architecture and Design
Master of Design Innovation, 2021
CONTENTS Important terms and concepts......................................................................................................... 3

Figures...............................................................................................................................................4

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ 5

Treaty of Waitangi Statement........................................................................................................... 7

Motivation......................................................................................................................................... 7

Abstract.............................................................................................................................................8

Positionality Statement..................................................................................................................9
Limitations.....................................................................................................................................9

Chapter One..................................................................................................................................... 11

1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 11
1.2 Outputs....................................................................................................................................15
1.3 Chapter overviews....................................................................................................................17

Chapter Two.....................................................................................................................................19

Literature Review and Historical Overview...................................................................................19

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................19
2.2 The Historic Debates – A Sneak Peak......................................................................................19
2:3 Defining design thinking........................................................................................................20
2.4 Design and Science.................................................................................................................24
2.5 Design Thinking - A Ubiquitous Term..................................................................................... 26

Chapter Three.................................................................................................................................. 29

3.1 Comparisons............................................................................................................................ 29
3.2 The Commodification of Design Thinking...............................................................................31
3.3 Everyone is a Designer - Really?.............................................................................................. 38
3.4 Short courses, Workshops and Classes................................................................................... 41
3.5 Design is an ‘Attitude’.............................................................................................................43

Chapter Four....................................................................................................................................47

4.1 Design Thinking: Industry Interviews......................................................................................48

Synthesis of Interview Insights.....................................................................................................54
4.2 Covid-19 – Our Most Recent Wicked Problem....................................................................... 59

1
CONTENTS 4.3 New Zealand, Leading The Way............................................................................................. 60

Chapter Five..................................................................................................................................... 63

5.1 Experiencing Other Examples of Design Thinking.................................................................. 63

Engaging In the Use of Design Thinking Globally........................................................................64
5.2 Summary................................................................................................................................. 67
Positive Shifts Within Design........................................................................................................ 67
5.3 Privilege, Power + Positionality...............................................................................................68
5. 4 Towards My Creative Outputs...............................................................................................70

Reference List.............................................................................................................................. 76

Appendix..................................................................................................................................... 85
a. Affinity Mapping.................................................................................................................. 85
b. Interview Guide....................................................................................................................86
c. Research Timeline and Activities......................................................................................... 87

2
Terms & Concepts Design thinking: A creative problem-solving approach drawing on a designer’s skill
and aptitude.
Co-design: Designing with multiple stakeholders throughout the entire design
process, ensuring diverse involvement and participation is inclusive and valued.
Wicked problem: A problem that is unclear, difficult to solve and has no single answer.
Service designer: Designs solutions and experiences by organizing and planning
within a current set of conditions to improve the quality of the service for the user.
Strategic designer: Uses design principles and decision-making processes to create
innovation and growth opportunities within organizations.
Euro-centric culture: A cultural phenomenon that views the histories and cultures of
non-Western societies from a European or Western perspective
Micro credentials: Certification-style qualifications that individuals choose to study
to improve a skill found in a particular industry area. They are often short and carried
out online.
Digital inclusion: The ability of individuals and groups to access and use information
and communication technologies.
Affinity mapping: A business and experience design tool used to organize ideas, data
and themes.
Non-Government Organization (NGO): A non-profit group that runs independently
from any government.
Google Ngram: Is a search engine that documents and creates charts for how many
times certain words appear in books that are printed between the year 1500 and 2008.

Throughout this research both academic articles and non-academic articles will
be critically reviewed and valued alike, noting that non-academic blogs, websites,
and articles are written, published in ‘real-time’, and offer a ‘current and accessible’
perspective to this research.

3
Figures Figure 1: Design Thinking Framework by Megan MacKay.

Figure 2: Google NGRAM ‘Design Thinking’.

Figure 3: ‘Not Just For Designers’ Card Deck & ‘Teleology of Design Thinking’ By
Megan Mackay.

Figure 4: ‘Not Just For Designer’s’ Card Deck in Use By Megan MacKay.

Figure 5: Human Centered Design: A brief History and Influencers by Damien Rammal.

Figure 6: ‘The Process of Design Squiggle’ by Damien Newman.

Figure 7: The confused CEO’s Guide to 21st Century Organizations by The Business
Illustrator.

Figure 8: Design Thinking Process ‘Expectation vs Reality’ by Pablo Stanley.

Figure 9: ‘Framing’ Bubble Diagram by Megan MacKay.

Figure 10: The Fundamentals of Design Thinking by Beetroot IT Company.

Figure 11: ‘Design Attitude’ Cognitive Skills Diagram by Megan MacKay.

Figure 12: ‘Not Just For Designer’s’ Card Deck by Megan MacKay.

Figure 13: ‘Thoughts For Change bubble’ diagram by Megan MacKay.

Figure 14: Google NGRAM ‘Maintenance’.

Figure 15: Google NGRAM ‘Innovation’.

Figure 16: The ‘Real’ Design Squiggle by Megan MacKay.

4
Acknowledgments

I would firstly like to express immense gratitude to my academic

supervisor, Head of School, School of Design Innovation, Nan O’Sullivan,
for her exceptional support and friendship over the entirety of this
study. Your encouraging and continuous belief in me has shaped me into
the designer I am today. I am grateful for your time, humour, expertise
and contributions to this research.

To all participants and interviewees, thank you for taking the time to
share your knowledge and experiences with me, enriching this research.

I would like to thank my parents, David MacKay and Maree MacKay for
your ongoing financial and emotional support allowing me to further my
education. I am grateful for everything.

Also, an important thanks to my sister, guide, and mentor, Jessie

MacKay, for your constant advice, time, and knowledge. You are my
biggest role model.

To Tom Calder, my partner in crime, I couldn’t have done it without you.

Lastly, to the friendships of fellow students who walked the journey with
me.

5
6
Treaty of Waitangi Statement

“Tāwhaitia te ara o te tika, te pono me te aroha. Follow the path of integrity, respect
and compassion”. This well-known whakatauaki (proverb) author unknown speaks to the
values that inspired this research. With design now espousing both human and planet
centric approaches to its practice it has become clear throughout my process that it would
be remiss not to acknowledge, appreciate and respect te ao Māori as a pivotal influence
in enabling that. Although not where this research began, I have come to realise the
collaborative, interconnected, holistic approach afforded design through mātauranga
Māori and tikanga Māori when working with others for the betterment of ‘Spaceship
Earth.’ Importantly, I have also learned that much of the work to be done to enable design
to integrate what mātauranga Māori offers the future of design, must be led by Māori. An
important component of my role, as a Pākeha designer, is to step aside, make space and
engage meaningfully with this knowledge; always supporting its integration through my
own practice.

Motivation

In 2019 I attended a Design Thinking workshop that sparked a curiosity in me. The
workshop was run by an established and well-respected design consultancy in Wellington,
with other participants being mostly students from outside of the design discipline. It was
here that rather alarmingly I learnt that anyone, could learn to ‘think like a designer’ and
‘solve complex issues’ using design processes or knowledge. Perhaps most alarmingly, this
was achievable all within a four-hour workshop. This confused me! I had spent my entire
undergraduate degree deciphering complex world issues and attaining critical design skills
and tools only to realise others think it only takes just a moment to enable these capabilities.
The skills I believed I attained in my Bachelor of Design Innovations included design
thinking. This knowledge enabled me to address, through design, some of the ‘wicked
problems’ now inherent in our complex world and being addressed by the design discipline.
The workshop I attended was based on a formula style, using simplistic and codified design
processes. The consultancy purported the workshop as ‘all that was needed to address
complex systems or strategic change’. The realisation that this was a common expectation
of ‘The Design Thinking Workshop’ led me to investigate the contrasts and commonalities
between how design practitioners use design thinking and what businesses consider design
thinking to be within corporate or organisational contexts. My experience within The
Design Thinking Workshop that I attended has initiated several questions and, to be frank,
doubts, around what is being sold or portrayed to non-designers, and likely some design
students, as design-thinking and what contemporary design practice understands and
articulates design thinking to be.

7
As a young designer seeking a career path in a world that seems both expansive and
blinkered in its thinking, I want to clarify for myself and other emergent designers (and
clients) how ‘design thinking,’ as a process for enabling positive change within complex
‘wicked problems,’ can be used and implemented effectively and authentically.

Abstract

This research offers a comparison of the different uses of design thinking and investigates
how design thinking is used within business models and compares this to the discipline
of design’s practice of design thinking. It aims to clarify both the intended use of design
thinking as conceived in the mid-20th century, and the current employment of design
thinking which this research proposes has lost its way somewhat. This research also
considers how the historic and contemporary models compare to each other and what
roles and responsibilities design thinking has today. This research also recognises my
own epiphany of how indigenous values can enable design and design thinking’s ability to
contribute to positive impacts and innovations in the 21st century.

This study questions the now ubiquitous term ‘Design Thinking’ and asserts there is a misuse
and confusion surrounding what could more accurately be described as a ‘coined moniker’
that is used interchangeably and unchallenged in both business and design practice. Initially
grounded in a desire to define the differing practice or practices of Design Thinking/
design thinking, considered in one scenario as a noun, the ‘codified workshop’, the other
scenario, as a verb, and as a part of a designer’s mindset and method; this research aims to
elucidate conceptions and misconceptions about design thinking. It also offers a broadened
understanding of design thinking, borne of Design Science by design theorists active in the
20th century.

This study begins by using traditional qualitative research methods to undertake a historic
inquiry. This is recorded chronologically but importantly this content is considered in
relationship to its varied contexts. Having established the content and the contexts of the
investigation the next steps involve participatory research methods in which interviews are
undertaken with several design practitioners, discovering themes through affinity mapping
exercises (Naylor, 2019 & Appendix A). Following this, the identification of both peer-
reviewed and more topical open access discussions, podcasts and postings are included to
establish the status quo of design thinking discourse and practice in the 21st century. The
final phase of this research is a reflective conclusion in which the research is synthesised into
a personal dialogue that introduces one of the most important findings of this study: the
relevance of mātauranga Māori (Maori Knowledge) to the process and implementation of
design thinking moving forward.

8
The result of the analysis and synthesis of this information is several design teaching tools
that elucidate the ‘historic trajectory to date’ of design thinking and a clarification of the
lexicon used by the discipline, tools employed, key terms projected and the voices speaking
for and to design thinking. The purpose of these tools is to better project the complexity of
the practice and enable emergent designers to have a better knowledge base to critique,
grow, and benefit from the efficacy of design thinking within both design praxis and
alongside corporate organisations, not-for-profits, start-ups, and charities alike.

Positionality Statement

To understand my personal positionality for this research and selection for participant
interviewees, key social identities were identified.
In relation to this research, it is recognized, I am a 23-year-old female, European Pakeha
from Aotearoa, New Zealand. Having undertaken university education, I have gained an
undergraduate degree in design for social innovation and marketing. These social identity
factors are shaped and influenced from the society we live in and can change how we
conduct research and how others perceive us. Research, although meant to be neutral,
is not completely possible as previous experiences and perceptions create biases and
assumptions that influence the way we research, including:

- Participant selection
- Selecting and choosing sources and information
- Decisions of how the research has been gathered and presented

Understanding positionality is important in design thinking as it is often used to solve

problems for humanitarian crisis, minority groups and societies and positioning will ensure
you have considered these internal and external implications.

Limitations

The study conducted had some limitations which should be taken into consideration when
analysing the research. Although this research was successful in speaking to diverse range
of professionals and educators it also recognises the small pool of interviewees does not
represent all people, cultures or areas and users of design thinking and there would need
to be more extensive and conduct larger quantities of interviews to conclude the ideas of
this research further. Unfortunately word limitation and time constraints affect this. Also,
limiting to this research is that every human being carries biases and assumptions, and the
scope and conclusions to this research are from the researchers perspective.

9
10
1
Chapter One
1.1 Introduction

This research is a comparative study between how Design Thinking is used within business
models as opposed to the discipline’s practice of design thinking and I believe this to be a
very poignant and well-timed investigation. The study specifically addresses the question
of how these two modes of operation might be re-calibrated to better align or differentiate
themselves as having roles to play in facing the social, cultural, and environmental
challenges of the 21st century. Driving this research, is what I see as a misuse, but also
confusion surrounding ‘Design Thinking’. As a now ubiquitous term, it filters through the
lexicons of both business and design disciplines and practices unchallenged (Hernandez-
Ramirez, 2018). As an example, a course offered in Design Thinking in an institution in New
Zealand describes the course as “Design Thinking is offered as a minor by the Design School;
however, it is targeted at non-design students, many from the Bachelor of Business in the
Faculty Economics and Law” (personal communication, May 31, 2021). The commodified and
codified version, being Design Thinking (the noun), has been popularised by both agencies
and academia alike. IDEO (Innovation Design Engineering Organization) and Stanford
University’s D-School are case in point (IDEO, 2021; D. School, 2021). Design Thinking, the
noun, has been adopted by many organizations around the world and in New Zealand, for
the sole purpose of inciting innovation to build business and create profit. With designers
considered the arbiters of the design thinking space, the impact the commercialized version
of Design Thinking may poorly reflect on the discipline of design.

DEFINE PROTOTYPE

EMPATHIZE IDEATE TEST

Figure 1: Design Thinking Framework inspired by IDEO and [Link] models. MacKay, 2021.

It is well established by practitioners and academics alike that design thinking is a powerful
tool for inspiring, facilitating and managing change. The opportunities design thinking
offers to the unravelling of environmental and social challenges are overt. Prompted by
the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of design thinking frameworks and workshops were
more in demand than ever, and the use of online collaboration tools also skyrocketed in
response to the restrictions placed on collaborative work by COVID-19. The habitual and

11
 unquestioned reliance on these tools and the methodologies, was one of the catalysts for
this investigation, and I am excited to undertake this task.

Design Thinking

1800
8 1820
8 1840
8 1860
8 1880
8 1900
9 1920
9 1940
9 1960
9 1980
9 2000
0

Figure 2: Google NGRAM - using the term ‘Design Thinking’

Our first Google Ngram shows the staggering rise in the term ‘design thinking’ since 1991,
and the time IDEO was founded.

This research takes a deep dive into the history of design thinking as a model; shaped
and expressed by the highly respected Nigel Cross and Richard Buchannan who wrote
seminal works introducing design thinking in the mid to late 20th century. Informing the
contemporary contexts of this research are interviews conducted with academics whose
research focuses on design thinking, business professionals who employ design thinking
strategies, more generalist design practitioners, and Design Thinking facilitators. These
interviews were undertaken to gauge relevant and current findings of how business and
design practice use and view design thinking. These interviews also create space for new
ideas and solutions to be considered. Building on my own capacity to determine an output
or solution to aid the renewed appreciation or enhanced appreciation that this research
seeks around what design thinking in the 21st century could or perhaps should look like in
response to these findings.

This map (Figure 5) has been designed by a senior multidisciplinary creative, Daniel Rammal.
His work has strong focus on communication and human-centred service design. With a
background in marketing, Rammal seeks to address the development timeline of human
centred design as well as design thinking to see relationships and links between them for
use by professionals, particularly in business.

12
 13

Figure 5: Human centred design: a brief history and major influencers by Daniel Rammal.
14
Rammal suggests that business professionals and design thinking are a great partnership,
both focusing on human centred solutions. This research would assert that the connection
between people focused or empathetic approaches are not always among the business use
of design thinking – it needs to be the intention of the work for this to occur. The details
and milestones highlighted by Rammal, showing the successful moments in time for design
thinking and the major influences it has had over its lifetime.

1.2 Outputs

My own research showed me there was no design thinking history available or a dictionary
of terms. Although in recent weeks as I approach completion – the conversation about
design thinking, its beginnings, and its current uses is rife on professional platforms like
LinkedIn. This study has as a creative output, designed and curated a digital timeline
to illuminate the historic trajectory of design thinking, and collated a Design Thinking
Alphabet to unwrap the contemporary lexicon of design thinking. This thesis concludes
with a reflective discussion in Chapter Five as this discussion is not over and next steps need
exploration.

As an emergent designer, seeking a pathway in a world that seems both expansive and
blinkered in its thinking about the future, I want to clarify for myself and my fellow emergent
designers what changes to the practice of ‘design thinking,’ will enable design practice,
moving forward, to contribute to positive social change.

Figure 3: ‘Not Just For Designers’ card deck & ‘Teleology of Design Thinking’
platform Mackay, 2021

15
Figure 4: ‘Not Just for Designers’ deck in use. Mackay, 2021.

See link to creative timeline here: [Link]

92d0-2aea63273c3f-2080/?fullscreen&hints=off

16
1.3 Chapter Overviews
Chapter One

Acts as an introduction to the research topic. It outlines the two major comparisons for this
study, design thinking in education and design thinking in business. This chapter outlines
what this research sees as an ‘unchallenged’ issue of design thinking within these spaces.

Chapter Two

Although a literature review, this chapter is importantly also a historical overview of design
thinking’s practitioners, researchers, and users bringing to surface the key voices for
establishing design thinking as a discipline.

Chapter Three

This chapter questions what, if any, compatibility exists between design thinking as inspired
by Buchanan and Cross and the current commercialized models utilised by the corporate
sector. This chapter will identify the distinctions between design thinking as a human and
planet centric approach introduced as a part of the disciplines’ pedagogy to that of the
commercial model that is often described as formulaic and commercially motivated.

Chapter Four

Building on Chapter Three, Chapter Four offers insight by undertaking industry interviews
with participants who share their experiences and knowledge of design thinking within their
field or study. These interviews elucidate how design thinking is currently being used and
understood. The interviewees also discuss how design thinking is or could be projected and
drawn upon to solve societal issues and wider complexities such as wicked problems. The
interview guide can be found in Appendix B.

Chapter Five

Chapter Five begins to expose my reflective journey and discusses my own experiences of
design thinking from two perspectives. One is as a part of an online design thinking class
held at Parsons, The New School, and the other as a part of an interdisciplinary global team
within the World Design Organisation. This chapter also reflects on how power, positionality
and privilege can impact design thinking. This reflection draws upon future possibilities and
next steps for this research, my response to, and hopes beyond this research.

17
18
2
Chapter Two

Literature Review and Historical Overview

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reveals the seminal voices in the establishment of design thinking and directs
its narrative towards the contemporary understandings (or lack of) design thinking in
the 21st century. Throughout the larger context of this thesis other voices are represented
through ongoing references to journal articles, podcasts, and opinions from more public
forum platforms, like Medium and LinkedIn, and the authors and protagonists who
disseminate their opinions via these.

To begin, within design’s history ‘new ways of seeing’ was a concept developed by
educational reformist and social critic John Ruskin (1819 – 1900). Along with his colleagues
Gottfried Semper (1803 - 1879) and Henry Cole (1808 – 1882) Ruskin campaigned for social
issues as part of the British educational reforms in the mid to late nineteenth century. Their
work formed educational strategies using ideas of ‘good design’ to develop equitable and
accessible pathways to knowledge. Their work, paralleled by other reformists in Europe,
fed into Bauhaus (1919 – 1935) ideology which, as we know, had a phenomenal impact on
design by way of rethinking; processes, practices, social and sustainable design and uses
of technology. Ruskin’s vision was for everyone to understand design and equally enjoy it.
This historic recollection, told through the lens of a traditional Eurocentric narrative is well
documented, as is the before and after of the Bauhaus. This chapter offers an abridged view
of historic design debates leading to the less illuminated historic narrative of the mid-20th
century; the discourse of Richard Buckminster-Fuller, Victor Papanek, Richard Buchannan
and Nigel Cross. This literature review then draws a line under these and unpacks the next
group of designers to challenge design from within its ranks (much like the Bauhaüsler)
to question design’s contribution to the planet. Papanek, an industrial designer himself,
specifically criticized industrial design when he stated, “There are professions more harmful
than industrial design, but only a very few of them” (Papanek 1972, p. 14). In response, it
seems opportune to take another look at what design and its thinking is contributing or
failing to contribute in the 21st century. The research timeline and activities can be found in
Appendix C.

2.2 The Historic Debates – A Sneak Peak

Historical writings enable insights and learnings of what has worked, or not, before. As
with most wars, World War II triggered new and more efficient ways of achieving the mass
manufacture of weapons. These historical moments evidence the first times scientists

19
worked alongside engineers and designers and illustrates (sadly via a very destructive
context) the vast progress for product design, technological advancement, and systems
thinking. Although the effects of war are devastating, lessons were learnt around the
benefits of combining research, technology, product, and user testing – albeit carried out
without a title or disciplinary recognition of the process.

The desire to introduce a scientific or technological lens is attributed to the Bauhaus.

This research is not going to test or challenge that. Accepting that narrative, German
architect and the founder of the Bauhaus School, Walter Gropius’s 1923 manifesto signaled
a shift from collaborations of art and design to one of a marriage between design and
technology. Bauhaus Master László Moholy-Nagy (1885-1946) is seen as one of the more
prolific supporters of this, but as we will discover, his battle like Fuller and Papanek’s
would not be won or even understood in his lifetime. There were a number of polarizing
debates throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s that contributed to the inclusion of scientific
methodologies into design and becoming popularized by the ‘Design Methods Movement’
(1944-1967). This movement had other agendas, one of which was to ratify design as a
part of academia. Christopher Alexander, a widely influential British-American architect
and design theorist, was highly critical of the merger of design and science stating in his
‘Architectural Theory of Organic Design’, “Scientists try to identify the components of
existing structures, designers try to shape the components of new structures” (Cross, 1993,
p.18; Fuller 1969). As an ‘organic designer’, Alexander was rejecting the rigidity of science
and the strict processes associated. He sought freedom of choice. It is important to note
that Alexander was not the only barrier. Impeding the design science argument was the
fact that there was little evidence of the implementation of science methods on the design
disciplines or practices (Cross, 2000). Design Science as a term was brought into the
spotlight by Buckminster Fuller, as a rational and methodological approach to design. Today
it is argued that not all designers were satisfied with this approach, including Donald Schon
(1930 – 1997) a philosopher and professor in Urban Planning at the MIT (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology). Schon developed the concept of reflective practice and
contributed to the theory of Organizational Learning that goes against science and design.
Schon shared a more familiar view that; design has “messy and problematic situations”
(Schon, 1983 & Cross, 2001). This research suggests but does not establish that there may
be an interesting link here between messy solutions and wicked problems. Research for
another day perhaps.

2:3 Defining design thinking

This research reluctantly acknowledges that there is currently no singular definition

of design thinking. This investigation does, however, produce a definitive historic

20
trajectory and unwraps it to assist in the determination of a possible future pathway for the
methodology. Unconvering broad understandings of design thinking, not the inclusion
of a collection of mindsets, methods and design activities to frame and facilitate problem
solving, using human-centered design approaches. These date back to before the term
‘design thinking’ was unilaterally adopted or appropriated to this process. Peter Rowe uses
the term ‘Design Thinking’ prolifically in his 1987 book ‘Design Thinking’ and was one of
the earliest users of the term. Following this, we see the term referenced within all facets of
design, business, and education (Rowe, 1987). This literature review acts as both a catalogue
of seminal texts and contemporary discourse while also framing and illustrating the
historic trajectory of design thinking and those who have contributed to its introduction,
maturation, and importantly its mutation. This research argues that the clarification of this
knowledge brings design to a critical ‘breaking point’ that requires analysis and synthesis to
enable the proposal of next moves or changes.

Design thinking is not a recent manifestation or simply another design tool. This chapter
recognizes design theorists Richard Buchannan and Nigel Cross (1942) as the instigators of
the term and practice. Design thinking was introduced as an important new component
of design; aiding both its capacity and commitment to contribute to the evolution of
humankind and the planet we inhabit. In his pioneering work, ‘Design Research and the
New Learning’, Buchannan offered insight into design thinking by saying, “One of its great
strengths is that we have not settled on a single definition. Fields in which a definition is
now settled on, tend to be lethargic, dying, or dead fields, where inquiry no longer provides
challenges to what is accepted as truth” (Buchannan, 2001, p.8).

A collection of various definitions over time show design thinking’s

inconsistencies..

“ ..new liberal art of design thinking is turning to the modality of impossibility.

It points, for example, toward the impossibility of rigid boundaries
between industrial design, engineering, and marketing. It points toward
the impossibility of relying on any one of the sciences (natural, social, or
humanistic) for adequate solutions to what are the inherently wicked problems
of design thinking. Finally, it points toward something that is often forgotten,

”
that what many people call ‘impossible’ may actually only be a limitation of
imagination that can be overcome by better design thinking
(Richard Buchanan, 1992).

21
“ It means stepping back from the immediate issue and taking a broader look. It

”
requires systems thinking: realizing that any problem is part of larger whole,
and that the solution is likely to require understanding the entire system
(Norman, 2010).

“ ”
Design thinking is to have a bias toward action and empathy toward who you
are designing for… to not have a fear of failure
(Roth, 2020).

“ Design thinking is synthetic. Out of the often-disparate demands presented

by sub-units’ requirements, a coherent overall design must emerge. Design
thinking is abductive in nature. It is primarily concerned with the process of
visualizing what might be, some desired future state and creating a blueprint
for realizing that intention. Design thinking is opportunistic: the designer
seeks new and emergent possibilities. Design thinking is dialectical. The
designer lives at the intersection of often-conflicting demands – recognizing

”
the constraints of today’s materials and the uncertainties that cannot be
defined away, while envisioning tomorrow’s possibilities
(Leidtka, 2000).

“ Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from

”
the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of
technology, and the requirement for business success
(Brown, 2019).

22
Design thinking as a methodology dates back to the late twentieth century, where Richard
Buchannan in ‘Wicked Problems in Design thinking’ outlined design’s capabilities and
capacities to impact change (Buchannan, 1992). He proffered design thinking as “a new
liberal art of technological culture” and challenged design to be applied to a variety of
problems (Buchannan, 1992, p.5).

“Design Thinking is not thinking directed toward a technological ‘quick fix’ in

hardware but toward new integrations of signs, things, actions, and environments
that address the concrete needs and values of human beings in diverse
circumstances” (Buchannan, 1992, p.21).

Similarly, Nigel Cross in his seminal text, ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design discipline
vs design science,’ highlighted the coalescence of design and science, discussing
and demonstrating the benefits of a science-informed approach to design that could
contribute to the mitigation of complex issues (Cross, 2001). Their separate but comparable
recognition of a methodological process that highlighted design’s ability to address more
than mass production or communication, but to unravel complexity was widely celebrated
across the globe and multiple disciplines. Both these works continue to offer insight to both
complexity and systems thinking theories that contribute significantly to contemporary
attempts to mitigate large scale and often global issues.

Juxtaposed to design thinking as purported by Buchannan and Cross is the business

or corporate adaptation of design thinking as a design tool or workshop using design
tools. This model is demonstrated in workshops and micro-credentials developed in the
21st century to promote and disseminate ‘Design Thinking’ for its capacity to promote
organisational, strategic and systems innovation. Large corporations such as Apple and
Microsoft have used models of design thinking that prioritise production efficiency and
fiscal proficiency describing it as Design Thinking. Clarifying this model Martin, a large-
scale organisational strategy advisor and author, described Design Thinking as the next
competitive advantage, in his article ‘The Design of Business’. Martin stated its benefits
as “value coming from a competitive advantage with the aim to drive monetary gain and
business growth” (Martin, 2009). But the blatant commodification of the capacity and
capability of the design profession’s skills into a codified set of rules, has led to calls for a
renewed critique and a realignment and reclarification of the discipline’s understandings
of design thinking by design researchers, academics, and practitioners. One of this study’s
interviewees is an Associate Professor from a highly ranked (QS World Rankings) design
school in the United States. They noted that it had only been the past few years that many
design institutes had started to challenge the commodified practices and the codified
frameworks saying that these “provide easy answers to complex questions, that’s why they

23
are so tempting to organizations” (personal communication, February 24, 2021).

In their seminal texts, and as a part of or in association to, the design scientists vanguard
of the mid-20th century, Nigel Cross (1942), Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895–1983) and
Victor Papanek (1927–1998) sought to unveil the challenges facing design practitioners
and the discipline at large. Much of what they said went unheard at the time, but as these
challenges still exist or have become urgent in the 21st century, their voices are reclaimed by
the vanguard of designers and academics seeking to have a positive impact on the discipline
and the planet in the 21st century. These include Enzo Manzini, with the DESIS Network
(Design for Social Innovation Towards Sustainability), Arturo Escobar, and Professors Terry
Irwin, Gideon Kossoff, and Cameron Tonkinwise within Transition Design; all offering
provocations and pathways to large scale positive change (DESIS Network, 2020 & Irwin,
2015). These designers and researchers have developed and transitioned design from John
Ruskin’s nineteenth century reformist ideal of ‘new ways of seeing’ through the design
scientists ‘new ways of doing’ onto the twenty first century models of ‘new ways of being’
as discussed by Irwin and O’Sullivan (Irwin, 2015 & O’Sullivan, 2017). In Fuller’s 1969 work,
‘Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth Towards Utopia or Oblivion’, he highlighted the
need for sustainable practices (Fuller, 1969). His science fiction styled ideas have resurfaced
in recent years along with Papanek’s 1971 ‘Design for the Real World’ and both continue to
influence modern-day thinking. Fuller used the metaphor of a ‘Spaceship’ to describe Earth
and to emphasize the notion that the whole of the planet’s population needed to work
together to gain collaborative understandings of limited resources (Fuller, 1969). Fuller’s
idea is that it should be everyone or no one to join everyone together in the task of change,
not just leave it to governments or organisations to fix (Fuller, 1969).

2.4 Design and Science

Intersecting again in the 21st Century

“Scientists try to identify the components of existing structures, designers try to

shape the components of new structures” (Alexander, 1964, p. 97).

This research makes a rather significant leap in time at this point. This is done to solidify
the relevance of protagonists like Buckminster Fuller and Herbert Simon (1916 – 2001).
Simon was an American economist, political scientist and cognitive psychologist, who
developed the Bounded Rationality model which advocates the idea that humans are
only partially rational. Both Fuller and Simon highlighted the differences between design
and science, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both. Both men attempted to
strengthen both disciplines through the integration of them into each other’s realms. Cross
recognized the link between design and science in 1982 suggesting, “The 40-year cycle

24
in these concerns appears to be coming around again, we might expect to see the re-
emergence of science-design concerns in the 2000’s” (Cross, 1982, p. 95).

Herbert Simon had highlighted the distinctions between science and design and labelled
the processes of bringing these together in his book ‘Sciences of the Artificial’ (1968).
Simon’s work around human problem solving created a readable version of what we
understand as the design process (Simon, 1968). Christopher Jones is quoted in Cross’s
‘Designerly Ways of Knowing’ as saying “I reacted against design methods. I dislike the
machine language, the behaviourism, the continual attempt to fix the whole of life into a
logical framework” (Cross, 2001, p.50).

Fuller had named the 1960’s the ‘Design Science Decade’ due to his belief that the human
and environmental issues being faced at the time were not able to be mitigated by politics
and economics alone (Cross, 2001). During the recent and ongoing global event of the
COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing creative solutions and design’s strategic thinking
methods gaining higher use and recognition. In New Zealand, the use of intentionally
designed and strategic communications to the public has been a critical component
throughout COVID-19 and contained highly complex, often confronting information.
At its heart, it calls for calm, collaborative, and compassionate human behaviour. The
Instagram feed ‘Design Emergency’ celebrated the New Zealand Unite Against COVID-19
communication campaign that was commissioned by the New Zealand Government and
designed by the Wellington creative agency, Clemenger BBDO (Batten, Barton, Durstine,
and Osborn). ‘Design Emergency’ is hosted by Paola Antonelli, author, curator and Director
of Research & Development at The Museum of Modern Art, New York City and Alice
Rawsthorn, design critic and author of Hello World: Where Design Meets Life (2013) and
Design is an Attitude (Rawsthorn, 2018). Both Antonelli and Rawsthorn complimented the
cohesiveness, comprehensiveness, and creativity of both the content and strategic roll out
of the Unite Against COVID-19 campaign (Rawsthorn & Antonelli, 2020).

25
The Squiggle

A discussion about design thinking would not be complete without an acknowledgment of

Damien Newman’s 2006 illustration ‘The Squiggle’ which Newman suggests represents how
the design process looks. It begins, he believes, as complex, unclear, and messy. But then
as you begin to define the issue it straightens out and points towards a single outcome or
solution.

Noise / Uncertainty / Patterns / Insights Clarity / Focus

Research & Synthesis Concept / Prototype Design

Figure 6: The Process of Design Squiggle by Damien Newman.

Newman drew it after being tasked with explaining (within a short time frame) the
complexity of design to a client (a non-designer). The image seems to have stuck!

2.5 Design Thinking - A ubiquitous term

‘Design thinking’ is not a new idea or term. It has also become widely used, although likely
not understood, outside of the discipline of design by non-designers. This chapter has
clarified that the concept of viewing problems through design emerged in the late 1970s in
association with new approaches in design education, with the Bauhaus being considered as
the most radical if not impactful. Chapter Two also noted that Nigel Cross’s ‘Designerly Ways
of Knowing’ (1982), and Richard Buchanan’s ‘Wicked Problems in Design Thinking’ (1992) cast
a bright light on design thinking as a ‘new way of doing’ design and how this could impact
positive change. The discussion also established that design thinking has in recent decades
been co-opted for use in business practices (Cross 1982; Buchannan, 1992). Buchannan was
aware of the different ways that design could have a wide and positive influence on many
disciples and practices, suggesting there is “no single definition of design, or branches
of professionalized practice such as industrial or graphic design, adequately covers the

26
diversity of ideas and methods gathered together under the label” (Buchannan, 1992,
p.1). Buchanan understood design as varied and complex just as we now understand it in
research and practice today. Buchannan also appreciated that design was a powerful way
to form connections and meanings to uncover understandings between disciplines and
practices (Buchannan, 1992).

Victor Papanek’s seminal text, ‘Design for the Real World’ addresses what he describes as
real-world problems and the importance of the consideration of humanity and the planet’s
health (Papanek, 1925). His discoveries brought ‘new ways of thinking’ to the design process
by evaluating the relationship between the designer and the user. Papanek’s belief “all men
are designers” (excuse the lack of gender diversity) proports that anyone is capable of being
creative (Papanek, 1925, p 3; Goodreads, 2020). The book’s relevance to the coined moniker
‘design thinking’ stems from the idea that we need to question our actions and understand
who we are designing for (with, if talking about this in the present) and how the end user
and wider global contexts are affected by designerly actions. Importantly, Papanek asserted
that design needs to be motivated by good intentions and values and carry meaning, and
NOT just be aesthetically beautiful or simply on trend.

The ideals of Fuller, Buchanan, Cross and Papanek’s thinking have been adopted and
developed by the DESIS Network and Transition Design; both 21st century provocations
for sustainable and sustaining positive change. Arturo Escobar’s ‘Designs for the Pluriverse’
also extends Papanek’s ideology of ‘new ways of being’ to the planet centric approach
that the growing numbers of 21st century design theorists, researchers, educators, and
practitioners are attempting to introduce and employ in the field of design. As their ideals
continue to gather momentum, their importance and relevance to this study, especially as
it drills down to the use of design thinking within design practice in Aotearoa New Zealand,
becomes even more evident. New Zealand is in a unique position to lead design’s next
shifts because it is a part of a bi-cultural nation and a multi-cultural society and as Escobar
stresses autonomous design should be developed alongside place-based and collaborative
approaches (Arturo, 2018).

“Such design attends to questions of environment, experience, and politics

while focusing on the production of human experience based on the radical
interdependence of all beings” (Escobar, p. 142, 2018).

27
28
3
Chapter Three
3.1 Comparisons

Following on from the literature review and responding to the shifts within the use of
both the term design thinking and the practice of design thinking over the last decade,
this research now reviews the discourse around current uses of design thinking by
designers and non-designers. This chapter questions what, if any, synergy there is between
design thinking as envisioned by Buchanan and Cross when they described it as a critical
component of design education and as a result praxis, and the current commercialized
models so extensively utilised by the corporate sector. Building on this, comparisons
between the pedagogical models of design thinking within tertiary design education
and that of the commercial and formulaic workshop will be undertaken. This chapter will
identify the distinctions between design thinking as a human and planet centric approach
introduced as a part of the disciplines’ pedagogy to that of the commercial model that I
suggest is often overly formulaic and overtly commercially motivated. By creating better
clarity, new ways for design education to distinguish itself from or attach itself to the
commercial model can be identified. The aim of this approach is to better understand
where, when, how and by using what tools can design thinking be redressed to enhance
the discipline’s ability to impact positive change and as a result impact its use within the
corporate sectors as well as Not for Profit Organisations (NPOs) and Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs).

In 1984 Papanek promoted the need for design education to teach new methods and
processes. He suggested design education should be based on learning skills, nourishing
talents, and understanding concepts and theories that inform the discipline of ways and
means to ensure it aquires a solid foundation to build a philosophy from (Papanek, 1984).
Papanek’s beliefs, now seen as being ahead of their time, still resonate within the discipline.
Papanek stated “the skills we teach are often related to a process and the working methods
of an age that has ended” (Papanek, 1984, p. 285). With the severity and urgency of the
issues and challenges facing the world today it is imperative that design ensures its methods
and methodologies remain relevant to the problems that need solving.

Central to this research has been the elucidation of current perceptions and understandings
of design thinking in the varying contexts it is taught and/or used in. The issue this research
addresses is the flood of codified and formulaic models of design thinking frameworks
pervading business and management, without consideration of the diverse environments
and agendas of business models, scale, or issues to be mitigated or addressed (Dune,
2018). This research establishes that design thinking has been widely, perhaps universally
adopted beyond the design discipline and into both public and private sectors within New

29
Zealand and the international arena. Needing little introduction for their contributions to
design thinking (actually Design Thinking) and its use beyond the discipline are IDEO, and
Standford University’s D. School. Despite the success and wide dissemination of both IDEO
and [Link] teachings, more recently the design community is speaking out and critically
analyzing their models to differentiate the business models of design thinking from the
designer’s use of it. IDEO has also most recently been very publicly dressed down on social
media for its duplicity in claiming one thing and delivering another (Aye, 2020). This rather
damming assertion will be unwrapped further in Chapter Five, as a part of the reflection.

One of the most alarming findings unwrapped throughout this study was that the credibility
or relevance of the design profession has also suffered in response to the commodified
versions of Design Thinking used in the corporate or public sectors. Chapter Two laid out
the initiation and historic trajectory of design thinking. This chapter unpacks occasionally
the emergent critique of what in general terms non-designers think design thinking to be
and the employment of design thinking to address environmental and social issues, in line
with Fuller, Papanek, Cross, and Buchanan’s aims for it. Standing in the way of this original
intent, this research claims is the codification and commodification of design thinking has
made it less about social and environmental impact and more about fiscal innovation and
surety. Chapter Four addresses the nuances of the financial aspects – with interviewees
saying, “it is only a detail in this story, even NGOs need money to provide the services they
do” (personal communication, December 17, 2020).

The current disagreement lies in that the version of design thinking, offered within and by
the discipline of design, and built on Cross’, and Buchanan’s ideals that promote a holistic,
human- centered, planet-centric, and collaborative approach. Differing drastically from the
highly energized, fast-paced corporative workshop model that promotes Design Thinking
as the way and the means to gain innovation and efficiency with profit being the ultimate
goal. The argument around could or should they be the same, is for another day. But by
distinguishing design’s model of design thinking as a disciplinary tool for change, this
research aims to clearly define the differences between the divergent models of Design
Thinking and design thinking. This study claims these are distinct models and both design
and business should appreciate the differences to gain the best results from the processes
they employ. The result of the analysis and synthesis of this information is a design teaching
tool that elucidates the historic trajectory (to date) of design thinking and a clarification
of the lexicon used by the discipline. The purpose of these tools is to better project the
complexity of the practice and enable emergent designers to have a better knowledge base
to critique, grow, and benefit from the efficacy of design thinking within both design praxis
and alongside corporate organisations, not-for-profits, start-ups, and charities alike. Also,
to understand the specific lexicon used, its limitations and mutations along the way and

30
30
thoughts for its future.

Figure 7: The confused CEO’s guide to 21st century Organizations by Virpi Oinonen, 2019,
The Business Illustrator.

This visualization taken from the ‘Business Illustrator’ goes a long way to support storytelling
as a powerful way of communicating how business and corporations take on innovation
methodologies and design thinking cultures without understanding what they are, what
they can do and why they are relevant to their development. The ‘Business Illustrator’ helps
to promote new ways of thinking and doing in organizations and uses illustration to explain
them. Oinonen’s full comics are a great example of this being done well (Oinonen, 2019).

3.2 The Divergence of the Design Thinking Models and Aims: In

Business, Education and Design Practice

“Design thinking was developed, adapted and implemented as a fixed model. The
unfortunate consequence is that working with this approach has itself become the
goal of innovation, rather than any social outcome” (Prehn, 2018).

The first example offered is a local one, and it highlights the short sightedness in a
corporate/public sector context of how design thinking should be used. MindLab,
was, until its closure in 2018, a contemporary postgraduate institute offering a suite of
NZQA accredited qualifications and the oldest government innovation lab. It supported
design thinking in the public sector and is, this research argues, one example of how
misunderstandings around the aims and objectives of design thinking throughout its own

31
31
corporate/public sector evolution have diminished its capacity to impact change. MindLab’s
mandate was to encourage and inspire organizations to create methods of innovation and
solve problems. Thomas Prehn made the decision to not promote the commodified Design
Thinking methods as he considered them to be, “utilitarian and easily applicable, and they
don’t help usher in a sustainable change to how organisations work” (Prehn, 2018). Instead,
Prehn suggested design thinking models should “strive to leave a cultural dent in everything
you do, by challenging inherited assumptions and behaviours, and using the power of
example to prove impossible wrong” (Prehn, 2018). In his 2018 article, ‘Design Thinking or
Design Sinking’, Prehn claims the connection of design thinking to social change is minimal
– do a google search there are numerous images of frameworks but few connecting these
to social change. Go on, google ‘design thinking images’ and see what you get.

The alignment between Prehn’s assertions and the concern of this research becomes clear
in his statement, “with lightning speed design thinking became the funky pocket square
of C-suites (executive level managers) in corporate hierarchies worldwide” (Prehn, 2018).
Another sad example is that New Zealand’s own Service Innovation Lab (SIL) was closed
down in 2020. The irony? SIL packaged their work into a toolkit for non-designers to use in
the design of innovative change (The Service Innovation Lab, 2020) and made themselves
(the designers or arbiters of design thinking) redundant. Again, Prehn spoke out saying,
“innovation should never revolve around process and methodology. Innovation is a mental
capacity, a mindset of relevance, meaning, and value creation… embracing that learning
comes from experiments, from curiosity and courage... These are all individual, human traits
that must be made to flow in the organisation’s bloodstream as unconsidered behaviour: as
habits” (Prehn, 2018).

“This misunderstanding of design as a technique rather than a discipline also

generates team conflicts. As a result, attempts to apply the newly acquired (and
relatively shallow) design thinking skills often fail in application unless an experienced
design practitioner serves as guide” (Meyer & Norman, 2020, p.20).

Design thinking includes numerous tools; ethnographic research, empathetic approaches,

collaboration, diversity of participants and the defining of complex problems, and is now
being used in both corporate and social sectors around the world (Liedka, 2018). The rapid
growth and reliance on design thinking, with its own recipe for appropriation within the
corporate sector makes it crucial that a contemporary definition, or multiple definitions
are established. This establishment would help to acknowledge the variance of uses within
a similarly variant number of contexts and enable recalibrations where needed or, as this
research argues, draw design thinking back in line with the needs of the 21st century.

32
Dr. Lesley-Ann Noel, Associate Director for Design Thinking for Social Impact is an Afro-
Caribbean designer, focusing on critical emancipatory design thinking. Noel suggests
that we should be framing opportunities around positive feelings and experiences, rather
than just problematizing everything (Noel, 2020). Noel also promotes design thinking as
a creative problem-solving approach and an important tool to use in education. Noel’s
scholarship looks at design thinking through a critical lens in Trinidad and Tobago. Noel’s
studies have included students as young as nine years old to engage and develop skills
involved around critical thinking, empathy building and practical engagement skills, all
through using design thinking to help marginalised people have a voice in major social
issues that impact them and they can have an impact on (Noel, 2018). The results from the
three-week observed workshop undertaken in a primary school in Trinidad and Tobago,
found that these skills, including creating through design, were crucial in the children’s
cognitive and social development and ensured long term benefits even at an under
resourced school (Noel, 2018). Noel also designed a set of cards called the Critical Alphabet
(Noel, 2021) that clarify the lexicon of her work and those in the social impact space. Rob
Peart, an experienced designer and writer, also describes designers as more than just
problem solvers, suggesting “It’s certainly not as simple as problem solving. Yes, that’s one
thing designers do, but so do butchers and bakers and candlestick makers” (Peart, 2017).

Within design education, the perimeters for teaching design thinking are wholly different
to that of a business context. Don Norman, author of ‘The Design of Everyday Things’
suggests the way design thinking is taught within education caters for infinite time frames
and no financial stress or time constraints. Often this means there is more time to learn the
crucial design thinking steps and carry them out fully. But in the real world, he suggests
design projects that can accommodate this approach are a luxury (Norman, 2013). Norman’s
concerns highlight the challenges facing the next generations of designers as they manage
the ongoing balancing act of ideologies with practicalities and the limitations of real-world
projects with time constraints and budgetary limitations (Norman, 2013).

Lee Vinsel is a critic of the commercialized models of Design Thinking and author of
‘Innovation Delusion: How our obsession with the new has disrupted the work that
matters most’, one of the newer voices in this discourse. He has a polemic approach to the
discussions, he asserts, as does this research, that design thinking as a tool is now less about
social change and more about innovation within business for monetary gains (Vinsel, 2017).
Critics of the design thinking model used within the business workshop model often state,
“current models of design thinking are little more than another jargon-filled management
fad driven by commercialization” (Rodrigo, 2018, p.1; Vinsel, 2017). This research argues that
the shift identified by Rodrigo et al, is working in opposition to what design institutions and
academics are introducing as a tool for addressing social and complex issues.

33
The Bryan Lawson and Kees Dorst’s 2009 book, ‘Design Expertise’ challenges the idea that
‘everyone is a designer’. Lawson and Dorst undertake to discover and uncover what they
see as the required skills and abilities to be a designer and the education needed to engage
natural human cognitive abilities in their design process. They suggest that learning these or
from this, skills can be identified to better equip the next generation of designers (Lawson
& Dorst, p.10, 2009). Lawson and Dorst believe design is complex and addictive but that
designing remains one of the least understood of all our cognitive powers and most difficult
to teach” (Lawson & Dorst, p.10, 2009).

The Commodification of Design Thinking

Figure 8: Design Thinking process ‘Expectation vs Reality’ by Pablo Stanley

Pablo Stanley, a comic illustrator/designer, and the co-founder of ‘Blush’ uses his skill and
humour to create relatable works for creatives. Stanley often points out what he sees as the
truth about human centered design. The illustration above, designed as a moving gif, is one
that fits this research.

Vinsel and Rodrigo Hernandez-Ramirez, author of ‘On Design Thinking, Bullshit, and
Innovation’ both claim current commercialized models of design thinking distort and
mystify the role of design in problem solving processes (Ramirez, 2018; Vinsel, 2020).
They argue that the commodified model of design thinking used by corporations focuses
on simple and linear frameworks with the use of buzzwords and corporate jargon for
the benefit of non-designer’s understanding. Vinsel believes design thinking is only
successful when used as a model of education, claiming the problem lies with “the business
consultants who give TED Talks - out there selling it. It’s all anti-intellectual. That’s the

34
problem. Architecture and design are profoundly intellectual. But for these people, it’s not a
form of critical thought; it’s a form of salesmanship” (Vinsel, 2018).

Pentagram designer, Natasha Jen is an ardent critic of the commercialised and codified
model of design thinking, claiming it is used predominantly by non-designers for non-
designers. Jen is highly critical of the commodified versions and discusses these model as:

“non-designers codifying a design processes into a prescriptive, step-by-step

approach to creative problem solving, that they falsely claim that it can be delivered
by anyone to any problem” (Jen, 2017, min 4:14).

Ramirez, Vinsel and Jen all highlight the tensions in the different uses of design thinking,
especially when Design Thinking is asked to prove, through tangible results like, artefacts
or data, how and why the methodology is successful (Ramírez, 2018, p.3; Nussbaum, 2011).
Parson’s School of Design academic and editor of Business Week, Bruce Nussbaum,
discusses design thinking (the codified workshop model) as being flawed. However,
he believes design thinking, as a development of Buchannan and Cross’ work, has had
major impacts on the work of design by enabling the discipline to move away from
aesthetics and outputs by opening it up to the wide variety of challenges facing humanity
that have social implications (Nussbaum, 2011). In contrast to Nussbaum’s views, his
Parson colleague, Associate Professor Fry, takes another view. The contrasts of ideology
are discussed in Chapter Four. Nigel Cross noted in his 1982 book ‘Designerly Ways of
Knowing’, that “knowledge about design is certainly not exclusive to design professionals”
(Cross, 1982, p.20). It is apparent from the critiques offered that the use of design thinking
has undergone significant changes from the model initiated by Papanek, Fuller, Buchannan,
and Cross, over sixty years ago and further developed by Schon and Jones in recent years.
Also apparent is the growing mistrust from within the discipline of design of this codified
version.

Schon, like the 19th and early 20th century education and design reformists before him
(namely Ruskin, Johannes Itten and John Dewey) espoused that doing and thinking in
conjunction with each other are critical to the design process because they each set
boundaries for each other (Schon, 2010). Schon described that the design framing process
typically happens in four steps which are very similar to the five design thinking steps;
empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test. The framing steps Schon references are
shown in Figure 9:

35
Figure 9: Framing Bubble Diagram by Megan MacKay, 2021.

Design has expanded, changed, and adapted over time. From its roots in artifacts to
now, in which design plays a significant role in many disciplines including technological
advancement and business. The way design and designers work has also changed. Hands on
studios were the norm, but in 2020 that was changed forever. Remote working and global
collaborations are the new norms. Designers continue to undertake the role of problem
solver, but they are now tackling social and global issues using multiple online skills and
tools as well as working in multiple time zones.

To enable design graduates to undertake design roles in large organisations (full of non-
designers), this research asserts that there should be a more cohesive and public facing
understanding of what ‘design thinking’ is and what designers can contribute to achieving
this in the 21st century. The shift that has broadened design’s focuses on societal issues
and wicked problems should be recognised. According to Norman and Meyer (2018) all
design disciplines can confidently claim the ability to solve problems but are often reluctant
to name it ‘design thinking’. One obstacle to this is the “lack of designers in high-level
positions within organizations and government” (Meyer & Norman, 2018, p.14).

Well-known leader in the use of design thinking and chair of IDEO Tim Brown, recently
noted the linear style of the process he and the IDEO team themselves have commodified
and developed into a step-by-step process, “The approach, once used primarily in product
design, is now infusing corporate culture, creating a commodification that critics and

36
design professionals are trying to minimize” (Kolko, 2015, p.1). There is no lack of researchers
and critics happy to weigh in on the discussion. Professor of Social Innovation, Kees Dorst
asserted, “confusion has now reached a crisis point, with eminent design researchers
rallying against using the term ‘Design Thinking’ at all, vocally pronouncing its death”
(Dorst, 2011, p.531,).

Creative Director, Lillian Esory, both teaches and practices design thinking and although
a supporter of the practice she has in recent years spoken about design thinking as
being abused by the creation of what she refers to as to many ‘under-baked’ courses and
workshops. Ersoy described the use of design thinking as an on-trend approach that is
being mass produced and copied by many people with little knowledge of what it really
is and what potential it has. Aligning herself to Kolko’s view, Esory asserts that “Design
Thinking is a methodology that sells innovation and mind-blowing discoveries, but the truth
is that we are training designers and non-designers to be happy with half-ass work that uses
a lot of time and money” (Ersoy, 2018). Ersoy believes our knowledge is limited to what we
know at the point of a workshop or brainstorming session, and this can be restricting to
the outcomes of a design problem (Ersoy, 2018). In Chapter Four, Principal Interview Three
also discusses the impact of this believing that “the creative co-design client workshops
are deliberately not branded as design thinking to ensure there is no backlash” (personal
communication, February 19, 2021).

“Design Thinking has encouraged the democratization of design where a

solo creative is often mixed in with employees and clients that have very little
experience with design in a fast-paced and multi-tasking environment… we are
creating environments that deteriorate a creative’s skills when we should be
enhancing the practice of critical problem solving, combined with imagination and
elegant execution through design, implementation and testing” (Ersoy, 2018).

Instead of a fast-paced workshop environment Ersoy believes a successful solution takes

“time, deep flow and a dedicated team of creatives constantly pushing each other” (Ersoy,
2018). Interviewee Two, noted in Chapter Four also agrees that a slowing down of the
process is needed. Interviewee Two currently teaches at the tertiary level in ‘Design Thinking
within Sustainability’ and believes design thinking and critical thinking skills require a solid
foundation learnt as a part of a design education that enable further growth throughout a
designer’s years of practice, real life experience and on-going education. Ersoy also states
this saying ‘testing, iteration and exploration are vital components to create a sense of
meaning’ (Ersoy, 2018).

37
3.3 Everyone is a Designer - Really?

Design thinking is now being included within many different contexts. In academia it is
being slowly unpacked In research. Supplementing this discussion are blogs and online
forums written about design thinking by users, consultancies, creative agencies, and
business alike. A lot of the time, these opinions are seeded in the commercial uses of design
thinking. Social media discussions, advertisements and micro-credentials have contributed
to a rise in the exposure of design thinking, and the use of it with many practitioners gaining
online qualifications or doing short Design Thinking courses online believing that they now
share designers’ capabilities, skills and knowledge. Herbert Simon, author of “Sciences of
the Artificial”, says that everyone designs who “devises courses of action aimed at changing
existing situations into preferred ones” (Simon, 1969). However, he notes that we need to
educate people, so they appreciate the different ways design thinking is used, especially
when addressing social challenges. Adding some more complexity to the debate, writer and
designer Rachel Hawley also asserts that ‘everyone is a designer’. Hawley recently wrote
in the ‘Real Life’ magazine, “Design is not an art form, or a mindset, or a politics, or a trap
door: it is a tool, and in order to use it effectively, you have to believe in something beyond
it” (Hawley, 2021). This comment aligns with Herbert Simon who argues for design’s power
even among disciplines like business, law, education, medicine, that historically are not well-
known for acknowledging the relevance of designers to their core operations (Simon, 1988).
William Moggridge, co-founder of IDEO, also agrees that everyone designs, and could use
design thinking. Moggridge suspects both designers and non-designers can benefit from
using design thinking for innovation and hopes “that its use continues to expand and be
more universally understood, so that eventually every leader knows how to use design and
design thinking for innovation and better results” (Moggridge, 2010).

The word ‘design’ is currently encompassing other terms and titles such as user experience
design, service design, media design, strategic design, design analysts and many, many
more. The Oxford dictionary clarifies a designer as “a person who plans the look or workings
of something prior to being made, preparing drawings or plans” (Oxford Dictionary, 2020).
This definition can be closely related to the creation of artefacts, however, this is now
changing. Due to the many changes and developments in technology, social and economic
environments and recognition of wicked problems, the discipline of design is moving
away from traditional modes of thinking and designing. Allan Chochinov, Chair of the
School of Visual Arts and co-founder of Core 77 stated “design is no longer in the artefacts
business. It’s in the consequences business” (Chochinov, 2004, p.1). Interdisciplinarity is
now considered a vital component of design practice especially when focusing on human
needs but when we are constantly changing and applying it to other disciplines and
organisations we are essentially re-shaping what a designer has been understood as in the

38
past and addressing a new kind of role. Researchers are stating “Design Thinking may seem
like a god send for creatively solving issues in a new way, but as we apply this to many other
professions and practices we are inevitably changing and re-shaping the role of a designer
as we know it” (Szasz, 2015).

What do (Real) Designers Really Do or Really Need to Know?

“Strip the word ‘design’ away and then try to explain design otherwise. Everything
becomes clearer. The alternative words do wonders. Many ‘graphic designers’ are
either artists or corporate branding agents. Most ‘design thinkers’ are neoliberal
business consultants” (@michhham, 2021).

It is well established that a core concept of design is creating ‘experiences’ for human
consumption. Some designers and researchers argue “the sector is now unrecognisable as a
result of role re-definition, process reinvention, and ongoing evolution” (Furniss, 2016, p.14).
Perhaps, the new role of a designer is the coalescence of diverse disciplines and knowledge
and facilitating collaboration to enable human-centric approaches, thinking and solutions.
Are designers now just the ‘glue’ in these scenarios? Cross states that, “Designers produce
novel unexpected solutions, tolerate uncertainty, work with incomplete information, apply
imagination and constructive forethought to practical problems, and use drawings and
other modelling media as a means of problem solving (Cross, 1990, p.75). It is clear that
Cross supports the argument that the role of a designer which was and remains a complex
one. Kolko also highlights the downside to designers running and teaching Design Thinking
workshops or seminars saying that in addition to unwrapping design thinking they are
also charged with teaching it when they may have little experience teaching. They may be
experts in the field of design thinking, but not in education (Kolko, 2017).

Lesley-Anne Noel points to nine factors in her work and as a part of these highlights how
bias, positionality and race are now being discussed as a part of the design process. Noel
suggests the need to factor in what we bring by way of lived experience to the table as
designers, whether it be race, age, gender, beliefs, or power. Noel, in her manifesto,
wishes to, “Create design education, research and practice that is anti-racist, and also
plural, pluriversal and anti-hegemonic” (Noel, 2020). To equip students to effectively apply
themselves to 21st century design issues, along with Noel this research asserts that open,
awkward, and challenging discussions are required. As noted by the then Head of Design
at Auckland University, Professor Deb Polson, in ‘Design Assembly Field Guide 2020: A
multidisciplinary exploration of New Zealand’s post-COVID design practice’, “the world
needs people who can effectively apply themselves to many industries and problems, and
designers have the expertise to effectively lead these interdisciplinary teams…” (Polson &

39
Baron, 2020, p.146). Even ‘plain old designers’ are starting to feel the pressure educate other
disciplines. The role of a designer is not only to design; increasingly it has become that of
a facilitator, tour guide to the discipline, and promotional expert to expose clients to the
benefits and value of various forms of design methodology. As Kolko suggests in his book
‘How I Teach’, “It’s not enough to do great design work and unveil it to an audience. Instead,
our role is to teach other stakeholders about what it is we do and why we do it” (Kolko,
2017).

Bryan Lawson and Dorst, assert in their book ‘Design Expertise’, “expertise consists of the
characteristics, skills and knowledge that distinguishes experts from novices in any field.
This expertise can consist of a range of learned skills and often demonstrates a range of
personal attributes too” (Dorst & Lawson, p.82, 2009). It is evident that design thinking
(whatever you believe it to be) is in hot demand in the 21st century. The general perception
of it as having the capacity to contribute to the models of care or problem-solving that are
required to address globally scaled concerns has also led to design thinking taking on a
life of its own. This life is administered by designers but undertaken outside the discipline
of design, “some of these (design) activities have been professionalised in the design
disciplines in ways that could be valuable for other fields” (Dorst, 2011, p.525).

“The problem itself is situated in a world where rules and regulations, government
policy, and economics can all influence the output, and we work with lots of people
who help us negotiate these murky areas. We like to think of designers as being
invisible, but in reality, we’re often the most visible node in a complex network of
decision makers working to create an end product. Seems a bit greedy to claim all
of that for ourselves” (Peart, 2017).

Design theorist Ken Friedman is renowned for promoting the need for a shift in paradigm
within design. In ‘Design Education Today’ (Friedman, 2019) Friedman discusses that as
a result of the increase in both number and complexity of social, cultural and ecological
issues and over the 21st century, reforms are required within design education. These shifts
would need to enable future generation of designers with broader, more holistic skills that
can better equip design and designers to contribute meaningfully to the positive solutions
sought. Written in the 2021 book ‘Design Struggles’ by Nan O’Sullivan promotes, “The goal
of our endeavours is to enable a new generation of designers with a nuanced appreciation
and respect for the connectivity and that have the skills and courage to engage empathy,
care, respect, reciprocity, and autonomy as strategies to design with” (O’Sullivan, 2021,
p.252).

40
Norman argued that traditonal design education now needs to re-look at and rebuild the
disciplines’ objectives, aims and skills to ensure its relevance but also ratify its inherent skills
in tackling the complexities held in both the problems and solutions faced. Norman is widely
critical of the universality of western design pedagogy. Norman argues that it has ignored or
avoided many new technological, cognitive and analytic skills in favour of a more profitable
model (Meyer & Norman, 2020). Professor Lucy Kimbell, and author of ‘Re-Thinking
Design Thinking’, addresses what she considered some of the challenges design thinking
faces and its shortfalls. Kimbell states one of the more significant issues being that the
teaching of design thinking is not necessarily unified across all universities, organizations
and institutions. Kimbell argues that the ‘user-centred’ approach to design, considered an
important aspect within design thinking, is being overlooked by many curriculums (Kimbell,
2011).

“We teach students how to engage in user research, prototyping,

conceptualization, business and technology analysis, but often the ability to attain
information from these different processes and fuse it together to create a concept
is left for the student to figure out.” (Moller, 2017, p. 1).

It becomes apparent quickly in this chapter that there is unrest between and inside factions
of clients, users, facilitators, and designers around what design thinking is, should be,
and shouldn’t be. ‘Design Thinking’ deliverables that sit at the heart of this disagreement,
are the Short Course, Workshop and Seminar classes. This brings the research full circle
– as it was in a Short Course, facilitated by non-designers working in a large-scale profit
driven organisation, that I first encountered professional understandings and uses of and
for design thinking. This research identifies these as being a major contributor to the
misinformation and misuse of what design thinking (as initiated by Cross and Buchanan and
still affirmed in the practices of Norman, Friedman, Dorst, Kolko and Noel to name only a
few of the vanguard) is considered to be, or what it needs to be, within the discipline.

3.4 Short courses, Workshops and Classes

Many designers and design theorists critique the Design Thinking micro-credential
courses and workshops offered by non-design organisations and consider these offerings
as a negative trend. The criticism focuses on these micro-credentials as been developed
as ‘good earners’, not good learning opportunities and this sits uncomfortably within
the discipline of design. The opinion is that courses do not align with the aims of design
practice which strives to prioritise human and planet centric approaches and solutions to
the complex social, cultural and ecological problems the discipline engages with. Author
and practicing designer Joanna Hawley critiques how design thinking has morphed via the

41
41
popularized IDEO model into a magic bullet model and argues that if organisations invested
the same amount of time and money it does to solving product innovation into serious
issues, such as poverty, we would be in a much better space (Kimbell, 2011). Hawley stated,
“by the time critics began pointing out that this approach simultaneously rarefied common
sense and oversimplified actual design expertise, teaching people to think like designers
it had already become a massive industry, flush with the cash of business schools and
corporations” (Hawley, 2021). Hawley assures us that it is not too late to see changes in this
space. This research aims to promote this change by adding to the discussion surrounding
the uses of design thinking and enabling more cohesive and more visible appreciations for
human-centred practices moving forward. As the interviews point to, in Chapter Four, the
discussion is not one of what is right and wrong. A number of those interviewed noted that
financial gains are a strategic goal to the facilitation of social and environmental work. A
shared belief was that it is difficult to engage design thinking without considering what gains
it holds for an organisation, and this included financial security.

Non-traditional design programs such as workshops and short courses are now very
common. The damage comes in the oversimplification and codification of what many
designers and theorists agree is complex work. Jack Roberts, Chief Executive of StoryLab
and Narrative Design and Parsons faculty member notes that removing the complexity
of understanding and homogenising design thinking removes the opportunity for more
people to engage meaningfully with design. Roberts stated in Meg Miller, design writer
and editors article, “The more design both broadens and specializes, it relies on diversity in
terms of backgrounds, modes of thought, and skill, and this is for the better” (Miller, 2019).

Figure 10: Beetroot IT Company Design Thinking Illustrations.

Criticising the homogenous design thinking model are Beetroot IT Company. These
illustrations portray design thinking as a more complex discipline than many short courses
could suggest (Beetroot, 2018).

42
3.5 Design is an ‘Attitude’

I first came across the term ‘Design as an Attitude’ when I read respected design critic
and author Alice Rawsthorn’s 2020 book ‘Design as an Attitude’. Rawsthorn highlights her
inspiration as drawn from Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, a Master at the Bauhaus School. Rawsthorn’s
book inspired by Moholy-Nagy’s ‘Vision and Notion’ book, in which he stated, “design
is not a profession, but an attitude” (Moholy-Nagy, 1974). Rawsthorn distinguishes the
designer as ‘expert’ describing a designer as, someone who has resilience and an attitude
for resourcefulness and understanding of relationships between society and their design.
Design as an attitude has also been discussed by management scholars Richard Bolland and
Fred Collopy. They also assert that the linear frameworks embraced as a universal model of
design thinking, like the double diamond that is taught in commerce, are not enough to
illustrate the complexity of designing or design in the 21st century (Shaping Chaos, 2021).
Bollard and Collopy argue that a design attitude differs greatly from a decision attitude by
not having “a default representation of the problem being faced”. They assert that a design
attitude instead “questions the way the problem is represented” (Bolland & Callopy, 2004,
p.9).

Mariana Amatullo, Vice Provost for Global Executive Education and Online Strategic
Initiatives at Parsons The New School, refers to this mindset as a ‘liquid state’, explaining that
designers are more tolerant to ambiguity and able to feel comfortable in a malleable ‘liquid
state’. A liquid state means there is no answer straight away, instead the focus is on possible
alternatives, just as Bolland and Collopy discuss. Amatullo also suggests that the complexity
of design, still an ongoing discussion, now takes form in the speculative and futuristic design
space as “there are ways to push being in the imagination space and creating the ability to
imagine what does not yet exist” (Amatullo, 2018).

The interviews carried out and analysed in Chapter Four highlight that many of the
graduating students hired as design consultants are selected on account of their ability to
think critically and creatively. These are for the most part students who study design. Having
a design attitude often enables a more open-minded approach to problem solving and
according to Amatullo, this requires a specific set of cognitive skills that include:

43
Figure 11: ‘Design Attitude’ Cognitive Skills Diagram by Megan MacKay

Many of these skills are considered components of design thinking, however, we still
need to harness a curious attitude when using design thinking in practice. According to
Professors Allision Butler and Michael Roberto, design thinking methods do not come
naturally suggesting, “Design thinking is an unnatural act that challenges the human brain to
work in ways that run counter to routine patterns of thinking” (Butler & Roberto, 2018, p.45).
This aligns with Amatullo’s argument that it is “hard to innovate when we have a mental
model that frames our thinking and doesn’t allow us to explore” (Amatullo, 2021). Butler and
Roberto, whose expertise in cognition and management argue that design thinking requires
you to consciously put assumptions, biases, and beliefs aside, which is a significant challenge
for most people (Butler & Roberto, 2018). Their experience has led them to understand
what they consider to be traps that highlight why some cannot engage with or appreciate
design thinking. For example, “the framing of a problem can cause narrow solutions and
prototyping can cause resistance to feedback” (Butler & Roberto, 2018). From observations
conducted within this research, that included design tutorial and design thinking workshop
observations, it was concluded that a lot of the reticence to engage in design comes from
a level discomfort for thinking outside the box and sharing ideas (personal communication
March 22nd, 2021).

At this stage of this investigation and highly influenced by the voices of Amatullo and
Rawsthorn, a conclusion could be considered. This might be that the process of design
thinking requires a design attitude and a willingness for cognitive growth. It is this that
defines who the users and benefactors of design thinking can be, not so much the labels of

44
designers and non-designers. That discussion will be unwrapped in Chapter Five.

‘Managing as Designing’, written by Boland & Callopy discusses managers should

act more as designers as well as being decision makers, “A design attitude fosters
an acceptance of, and a comfort with a problem-solving process that remain
liquid and open, celebrating new alternatives as it strives to develop a best design
solution” (Boland & Callopy, 2004, p.10).

Rawsthorn believes design is an ‘Agent of Change’ that can help us uncover, shape and
make sense of the world around us and as a result turn it into opportunity and advantage.
(Rawsthorn, 2018). Rawsthorn shares the example of design as an attitude in comparison
with the recent ocean clean-up project by an 18 year old student in the Netherlands, Boyan
Slat. The system, which many scientists and designers were weary of any viable outcome,
was designed to clean up ocean rubbish then distribute it on land and for responsible
recycling. This brought the problem closer to home, allowing earth’s inhabitants to see how
much damage has been caused. This project responded to the on-going environmental
issue and is a good example of how design as an attitude could be seen as a way forward
as we “urgently need designs power as an agent of change” (Rawsthorn, 2018). Designers
are increasingly needing to prove themselves and the practice within these new terrains
(Rawsthorn, 2018).

According to Rawsthorn, the pressing issues that designers, ‘could and should be tackling’
are famines in Africa, imbalances in wealth, prejudice, environmental issues, cyber-attacks,
social injustice, and advancements in technology (Rawsthorn, 2018). If an issue, which
it almost inherently always does, involves people, then Rawsthorn also promotes that
empathetic and socially conscious design methods must be addressed and understood with
care and distinction.

Figure 12: ‘Not Just For Designers’ card deck by Megan MacKay
45
46
4
Chapter Four
4.1 Design Thinking: Industry Interviews

Who are the Participants?

The industry interviewees were identified at the initial stages of this study and interviews
conducted throughout the development of this thesis. Undertaking these interviews
offered valuable insights into current discussions, uses and understandings of design
thinking within a range of business tertiary design institutes and organizations. Quite
striking was the lack of historic grounding for many of the interviewees currently using
design thinking in their practice or actually facilitating design thinking for others. Their
knowledge of the practice was gained from workshops, seminars, and micro-credentials
offered by a variety of organisation whose reputations also vary. The only interviewee to
have a comprehensive appreciation of the history of design thinking was Principal Interview
Four, which was as a result of their PhD research in Design and Fine Arts.

Purposeful sampling was used to select participants for empathetic interviews (Patton,
2002). The key themes were recognized by using affinity mapping (a way to organize
and gather qualitative data). After identifying the interviewees experiences, uses and
interactions with design thinking they were placed in two interview groups; Principal
Interview group, that had theoretical and academic insights in parallel with design
experience and the Secondary Interview group that had undertaken tertiary design
education and experience of the design industry. This required selecting individuals that
were experienced or considered knowledgeable regarding design and design thinking.
For this research, interviewees were also grouped according to a variety of professions.
Using industry standards these included academia, service design, strategic design, design
consultancy, change management, experience design and workshop facilitators (Cresswell;
Plano Clark, 2011). Ethical approval was gained from The Human Ethics Committee (HEC) to
carry out this research (Appendix D).

47
 Industry Interviews

Principle Interview 1
Strategic Designer and Consultant.
Education: Bachelor of Architecture

“It was like I was being struck with lightning.

Human-centred approaches are the way it
should always be done with all things”
(personal communication, December 17,
2020).
Strategic Designer

Having had experience in both consultancy firms and not-for profit sectors, Principal
Interview 1 reiterated the importance of ethnographic research during the foundational
stages of the design thinking process. As a student, she had undertaken an architectural
degree but was always aware of her passion for people and the potential impact of design
on lives. Principal Interview 1 discovered human-centered design in later years having
undertaken a mini-master class in design thinking but believes she learnt the bulk of her
knowledge of design thinking by just doing it. Her practice was and is guided by many of the
principles delivered as a part of [Link] styled workshop, and this approach continues to
impact her practice. After nearly 10 years of experience and facilitating workshops Principal
Interview 1 discovered getting non-designers and designers to dive right in, getting out
of their comfort zones as a part of the activities and experiences offered was the key to
opening minds and growing mindsets.

Principal Interview 2

Service Designer.
Education: Bachelor of Visual
Communication Design

“I’m fascinated with exploring how design

processes can be used in high level and
government organizations to aid in solving
complex social issues and engage our
communities – especially our young people
– in developing and actioning solutions
towards real, meaningful change”
(Personal communication, 20 January 2021).
SERVICE Designer

48
As a service designer in the New Zealand Justice department, Principal Interview 2 also
identifying as she/her, shares her experiences of undertaking a tertiary design education
and then moving into the government sector. The career experiences gained at the outset
of her career gave her consulting experience, but also exposed her passion for engaging
design for social good, and particularly for people and families in New Zealand. Principal
Interview 2 currently uses design thinking to tackle a wide range of problems in the justice
system here in Aotearoa. The wide range of skills needed in this area range from graphic
design, spatial, environmental, service, User Experience (UX) and User Interface (UI) as well
as using co-design approaches and an ability to coalesce outsourced business and people
into a collaborative team. Principal Interview 2 brings a fresh and current perspective to the
use of design thinking in the industry.

Principal interview 3

Experience Designer and Design Researcher.

Education: Bachelor of Design Innovation,
majoring in Design for Social Innovation.

“I went from feeling like I was at the bottom

of the heap, least regarded, not listened to,
compared with now where designers are
valued. I draw inspiration and pull things
I need from design thinking but I’d never
experience designer / researcher brand myself as a design thinker”
(personal communication, February 19,
2021).

A passionate experience designer with five years of industry knowledge shared her
experiences after attending the Culture and Context program at Victoria University
of Wellington, now known as Social Innovation Design. The critical thinking skills she
learnt within the program allowed her to transition into her career. She began her career
as a capsule designer in the tech industry with her design skills and human-centered
approaches. Now, in a creative agency, she is surrounded by like-minded designers and
believes a human focus has an important role within any design process as it focuses on how
the users understand and use the product, service, or system.

49
 Principal Interview 4

Senior design and strategic thinking

academic, strategy and curriculum
consultant and PhD candidate.
Education: Bachelor of Fine Arts, Masters of
Fine Arts, PhD in progress.

“We’re not all design academics, which

is not the be all and end all. But, we are
easy to identify because we are enabled to
discuss and research the work as opposed to
SENIOR Designer AND ACADEMIC
industry where ‘just getting the work done
and trying not to use the wrong terms is a
priority”
(Personal communication, February 24,
2021).

An interview with a design academic, practitioner, educator, and consultant with over
25 years’ experience in the fields of design shared his experiences with design thinking.
His wealth of knowledge, the principles and methodologies he uses and prioritises in
his practice are testament to his commitment to teaching and researching in multiple
disciplines; not just design. Principal Interview 4, (he/him), started off his career with a
Bachelors and a Masters of Fine Arts gained from different Universities around the world.
His first experiences were in a conventional tertiary teaching practice where he focused
principally on graphic design, motion graphics, digital design, design history and design
theory. Now, halfway through a PhD which redresses Design Thinking, he is narrowing down
on particular facets of the practice and the generative stages of the design thinking process.

50
 Principle Interview 5

Maori Design Lecturer, Academic and

Fashion Designer.
Education: Bachelor of Fashion Design,
postgrad research, Masters of Creative
Technologies and recently PhD in
Fashion.
(personal communication, June 22,
2021).

“I believe centering a Te Ao Maori

worldview in any design thinking would be
a preferred situation, applying the agency
will require a For Māori-By-Māori approach
where appropriate protocols are taken
to understand the worldview in practice.
mAORI DESIGN LECTURER
AND FASHION DESIGNER I think, de-conditioning the idea where
design thinking isn’t leading initiatives, it
is Te Ao Māori that leads this, and design
thinking plays a role alongside a Māori
worldview. This would suit better, and it
almost resonates a treaty partnership of
Māori Ideas and Non-Māori Ideas”

Principle interview 5 has extensive knowledge in the field of fashion, design and Māoritanga.
His experiences as an educator ensures students are given the correct tools to understand
the role they play in society ensuring they can place themselves within complex world
issues. This conversation unwrapped the importance of how and when Kaupapa Māori
principles should and could be used within design thinking.

Secondary Interviews

The interviewees in this group speak more holistically about the practice and their
experiences. These qualitative commentaries are highly valued in this research, and in
human centered approaches.

51
 Secondary Interviewee 1

Facilitator, Consultant.
Education: Bachelor of Law
(Personal communication, February 17, 2021)

“The real challenge comes after the

executive gives the green light for their
organisation to start using Design Thinking.
Currently the use of design thinking
requires permission, and if not given, or due
to budget or staffing shortfalls or restraints,
it does not proceed. You need an innovation
pipeline, where problems within an
organisation are validated and prioritised,
solutions are designed, tested, and created
and the impacts measured. This requires
CHANGE CONSULTANT/ FACILITATOR
teams and money”

This participant (she/her) first learnt of design thinking from a Design Thinking Workshop
that ran over a period of three days. Her view is from a non-design background and
her industry experience is in consulting as a part of a creative agency. Of interest to this
research, Secondary Interviewee 1 is now facilitating Design Thinking Workshops herself.
Her viewpoint is that you don’t need a design background to become an expert in design
thinking. She has gained valuable experiences through consulting and helping clients
manage change.

Secondary Interviewee 2

Educator.
Education: Bachelor of Design Innovation,
majoring in Design for Social Innovation
(Personal communication, March 3, 2021).

“I believe critical thinking is learned by

connecting education and lived experience,
mine and others, and trying to understand
or rationalize these in the different design
Design thinking educator projects we undertake as students”

52
Having completed a Bachelor of Design innovation in Design for Social Innovation
Secondary Interviewee 2 is currently a teaching assistant in an undergraduate pan –
university course offered by the design faculty in Design Thinking for Sustainability.
Secondary Interviewee 2 as a graduate provides an important perspective having graduated
from a design institute and worked with a Not-for-Profit consultancy as well as some
industry experience.

Secondary Interviewees 3

Not for Profit CEO that also mentors

students as a part of the organisation’s
commitments to its community.
Education: Bachelor of Law
(personal communication March 22nd,
2021).

“Design thinking enables our Not for Profit

organization to meet the diverse needs
of our clients, while allowing our student
Not for profit ceo consultants to utilize and unlock their
innovation and creativity”

Interviewee 3 (she/her) is one half of a Co-CEO role for a Not for Profit student led
consultancy in Wellington. Her experiences discuss how design thinking can prepare and
inform students to participate in social impact projects in their communities. With the
support of outsourced consultancies, the organisation runs an introductory intensive
Design Thinking Workshop, in which the students gain a limited and very basic appreciation
of design thinking skills, collaboration techniques and of course no design thinking course is
complete without the double diamond. It is such organisations, attempting to do such good
work in the community that this research seeks to encourage towards a re-think of design
thinking and the methods taught.

53
 Secondary Interviewee 4

Illustrator/Design Researcher/ Educator

Education: Bachelor of Design: Graphic
Design Auckland University of Technology.
(Personal communication, April 22, 2021)  
“My experience at design school was
eye-opening. I came to understand how
important the lived experience is for design
thinking and research. Understanding
human beings and how we behave/think/
operate as individuals and collective groups
Illustrator / design is fascinating. It’s at the heart of good
researcher / educator design”

Secondary Interviewee 4, (She/Her) shared realistic advice about what attributes are
needed to produce effective design thinkers in today’s design industry and the importance
of critical thinking and curiosity. Her experience as an educator, graphic designer and
as a digital illustrator cast a light on how COVID-19 affected the way we work and design,
creating opportunities for a different way of thinking and working with and about design.

Synthesis of Interview Insights

Summarizing some of the points gleaned from the interviews conducted as a part of
this research, the current uses of design thinking within corporate and organizational
environments shift from workshop models that highlight design thinking as a ‘mindset’ to
team sessions that introduce and demonstrate design thinking as a tool and a methodology.
To clarify what similarities and differences exist between the approaches used to discuss
and implement design thinking, a variety of designers and social impact practitioners
were interviewed. Several benefits that design thinking brings larger organizations were
identified by the interviewees as being:

- To understand your user on a deep level, and to connect and empathise with them.
(Note the word ‘empathise’ was the interviewees terminology).
- The use of design thinking to enable innovative ideas and planning strategies.
-Design thinking as a tool for collaboration between workplace teams and clients.
- To understand and break down complex issues and problems.
- To help clients understand the design process.

54
 - To encourage creativity and ideas.
- To help teams communicate and share ideas.
- To teach the basic processes of design to non-designers.

Undertaking an online search of design thinking workshop offerings, the main benefits
offered to you if you acquired this knowledge were similar to the aims and experiences of
the interviewees. There was also a main focus on efficiency, organizational growth and profit
which means that design thinking is not always aligned with what is understood as a part of a
design mindset and method. The benefits noted in the workshop offerings were listed as:

- Design thinking to help drive profit and sales.

- Design thinking to drive business growth.
- Selling innovation and toolkits for innovation.
- Requirements for business success.
- Professionals reaching new audiences.
- Targeting CEOs and business leaders.

The benefits of design thinking noted by interviewees with experience in the

educational space were:

- A helpful tool for collaboration.

- One of many methodologies used in design, but should be used with others.
- Critical thinking skills.
- A framework to loosely guide you.
- An explanation of why certain parts of a project might be confusing or
challenging – and how to unpack them.
- A tool for communication among diverse and multidisciplinary teams.

The use of design thinking in the corporate sector has grown exponentially in recent years
with many businesses placing importance on strategic and critical thinking processes
to solve a variety of complex issues and problems. According to Principal Interview 1,
“Great things are happening within the corporate sector with design thinking” (Personal
communication, December 17, 2020).

Designers note feeling protective over who can claim the title ‘Designer’, as many without
the skillsets or knowledge understood to define a designer, that are usually gained
though design education and experiences, use the term. Principal Interview 1, a strategic
designer is less protective and suggests “if we really want the world to change we can’t
claim that knowledge for ourselves in design and protect it” (Personal communication,

55
December 17, 2020). She suggests that design should be more democratic and engage more
collaboratively and inclusively around innovation and creative abilities.

The interviews also highlighted that in New Zealand there is an urgent need for
organisations and design practitioners to better address their responsibilities to the Treaty
of Waitangi. Acting as partners to the Treaty is critical to undertaking culturally responsible
work in, and by, the design industry. According to Principal Interview 3 an appreciation
of te ao Māori (the worldview of Māori), tikanga Māori (Māori values) and mātauranga
Maori (Māori knowledge) is emerging as a critical consideration within (but not limited
to) strategic design, systems design, service design, UX design and social design. As an
experienced designer Principle Interview 3, does not specifically address design thinking in
her work or client workshops. She believes that design thinking having been formed from
a Euro-centric model is not an appropriate model to be used in New Zealand, as it is first
and foremost a bi-cultural nation and secondly a multicultural society. The Euro-centricity
of design thinking and its universal model makes it, in her opinion not an appropriate
framework to draw from in a country that needs a process that is tailored to including
indigenous knowledge. “We must respect and embed our indigenous roots and our Māori
tanga” (Personal communication, December 17, 2020) . An example of an organization
drawing on, supporting, and encouraging a New Zealand tailored approach is IDIA
(Indigenous Design and Innovation Aotearoa). IDIA say, “we use an indigenous worldview
to create solutions for a variety of clients facing commercial, social, or environmental issues
and challenges” (IDIA, 2021).

Principal Interview 4, was clear throughout the interview that, “one of the biggest tasks
that faces the design thinking process is to be asking the right questions and to be framing
the questions properly” (personal communication, 24 February 2021). Framing can be
defined as an “activity that involves selectively viewing the design situation in a particular
way (‘seeing as…’) for a period or phase of activity” (Lawson & Dorst, 2009, p.50). This is
supported by Moller who argues that framing helps designers recognize new perspectives,
changes to contexts and clear shifts in direction. Moller stated, “framing is a natural part of
the designer’s ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection on-action’ and a key characteristic of the
design process” (Moller, 2017). Principal Interview 4 stated that “Often, institutes, academies
or universities don’t spend as much time on framing in projects or teaching framing in
courses because as a discipline design is traditionally too focused and/or eager to solve the
problem and produce the output” (Personal communication, 24 February 2021).

Principal Interview 4 was unimpressed with some organisations mis-use of design thinking
and designers, which was reflected on an incident in his design course. He stated “We did
a design project with a large organisation in our studio course. We didn’t charge them as it

56
was a learning experience for all. At the end of the day-long session, the executives excused
themselves, saying they could do it themselves. They said they could follow our process,
buy some books and teach it to themselves – maybe that’s New Yorkers for you – maybe
it’s more common than that” (personal communication, 24 February 2021). This example
raises a number of concerns. The first is the sharing of high quality discipline knowledge
with participants about design thinking only to have it poorly replicated. Principal Interview
3 described the micro-credential courses offered widely to businesses as having “various
degrees of bullshit in them” (personal communication, February 19, 2021).

Beyond the comments offered by the interviewees are the broader global conversations
that are also highly critical of the lack of regulation or criteria around the use of design
thinking by non-designers or those with skewed priorities that differentiate it from the aims
and objectives designers believe the discipline of design thinking brings to their work. This
conversation leads directly to considerations of power, positionality and designer’s control
of design’s knowledge. Hawley suggests “input and feedback are only so meaningful when
control over the actual decision-making — which could and should be placed in the hands
of the community — is still wielded by the (so-called) designers, whose field of possibility is
shaped by the interests of the powerful companies and organizations that fund their work”
(Hawley, 2021).

As Principal Interview 3 highlighted, aligning with Boland and Callopy’s quote, “Designers
relish the lack of predetermined outcomes” (Boland & Callopy, 2004, p.9; personal
communication March 22nd, 2021). This research has sought to guide a distinction between
the corporate and educational use of design thinking and enabled a clearer understanding
that as a powerful tool for change, design thinking needs to regain its mantle. Hobcraft
suggests “It (design) needs to break free of the magic ‘black box’ and evolve into its promise
of being increasingly important to use, open and transparent in what it can achieve, and
its limitations. It is to balance this out and point to the need to be integrated with other
skills, capabilities, and methodologies that tackle real, often complex problems within
organizations” (Hobcraft, 2017). A view who agrees with this, is design educator and
Interviewee 5, who helps students to unwrap who they are to ensure their own capabilities
and strengths are known before tackling complex world problems which can often feel
daunting. He ensures there are “small steps, closer to home” that can make big impacts and
“It’s really understanding who they are and where they come from because this is where
their design tools to come in to tackle complex issues” (personal communication, June 22,
2021).

These examples uncover what this research argues is a need for more surety around
the opportunities and values held in design thinking for the design discipline and its

57
clients. They also highlight how design thinking is employed and deployed and the need
to establish clear distinctions between design thinking and ‘other non-design - design
thinking models’ that contain diametrically opposing or highly diminished versions of the
aims and objectives of design thinking. Many designers agree that design thinking cannot
be replicated by someone after attending one workshop or even a week’s worth of them. A
repeated response from interviewees and the current discourse uncovered as a part of this
research is that design thinking has been badly impacted by the increased use of it by non-
designers and is now described as a danger because of the “proliferation of introductory
(and relatively shallow) workshops, seminars, and courses on design thinking which
trivializes the process and the required skillsets that are involved, leading to much confusion
and inappropriate usage”(Meyer & Norman, 2020). It was my hunch that this was the case
that first motivated this investigation and on the one hand I am glad my hunch has been
confirmed – but on the other hand - saddened.

Long after the interviews for this research were conducted, there were uncanny similarities
to the comments made by the interviewees of this research and those noted in the ‘Design
Thinking’ book by Plattner, Meinel and Leifer (2011). Just as this research also concluded,
“the interviewees did not convey a common understanding of design thinking. They
specified differing process models and named differing methods as crucial elements of the
design process” (Plattner et al., 2011, p.82). Similarly, this research could not conclude one
common understanding, but some reoccurring themes such as communication, teamwork,
and multidisciplinary teams did pop up. The interviewees in this research project each spoke
of design thinking spanning micro-credential courses, workshops and different sources and
influences like Harvard’s [Link] and IDEO; all learning about design thinking differently,
signaling a lack of consistency in the industry. A major commonality from both the Plattner
et al study and this research was the need to frame and re-assess the importance of the
problem the designer or non-designer is trying to solve and that teams need to re-consider
what the initial design challenges are. Another commonality was the need for diverse
teams. As stated by Plattner et al, “Obviously there is no common set of beliefs (yet)
associated with design thinking. Rather, there are differing lines of debate as well as differing
practices” (Plattner et al., 2011, p.83). It appears not much has changed in this space, as
my interviews conclude very similar information. Papanek would likely agree, somewhat
demoralized I imagine, as he wrote more than 40 years ago “there is very little in the way of
critical thinking about things like privilege, power, or politics” (Kreis et al., 2018, p.201). My
reflection delves more deeply into the impact of privilege, power, or politics and also the
inspired responses of Principal interviewee 3 that speak to bi-culturalism in New Zealand and
its impact on design and design thinking (and hopefully designers).

58
 “What design is, largely, is white and male – overwhelmingly so – and it continues
to pursue us to this day. The power dynamics are structurally unequal and
extremely skewed” (Kreis et al., 2018, p.201).

4.2 Covid-19 – our most recent wicked problem

“Design is such a ubiquitous force, rooted in every aspect of our lives. As soon as
the pandemic hit, my instinct was to investigate it through design, and as tragic as
the pandemic has been, it also became an extraordinary platform for design, and
made clear how resourceful, courageous, gutsy, public-spirited, and empathetic
designers could be” (Rawsthorn, 2020).

Paul Hobcraft is an innovation advocate. He sees a shift happening in 21st century design.
Hobcraft sees design as no longer about single products for customers but as now facing
new challenges and a need “to create better systems adapted to a world of connected
citizens, unpredictability and digital disruption” (Hobcraft, 2017). The interconnectivity
of te ao Māori comes to mind. Hobcraft questions the term of ‘design thinking’ as it is
becoming a competitive and loaded word and he believes it will take quite some time
before design thinking’s position from past, present, and future is truly understood and
uncovered. The re-defining of the term could help the area move forward (Hobcraft, 2017).
Particularly within the past 10 years the term ‘wicked problem’ has become a term designers
are increasingly familiar with. According to Rittel and Webber, wicked problems don’t
have one single answer, they are complex and have many causes which is why we often
see environmental issues, healthcare, education, hunger and poverty deemed as ‘wicked’
(Harvard Business Review, 2020; Rowe, 1987). Conventional and traditional problem solving
approaches to these issues are becoming less favourable as the extent of these issues are
uncovered, which is why the creative field of design can enable new ideas, ways of thinking
and creative solutions to aid these wicked problems. Jennifer Riel, professor and employee
at IDEO, describes wicked problems as “deeply ambiguous” (Martin, 2009, p. 94). Designers
and scholars such as Richard Buchannan have used design thinking approaches and framing
since 1992 for issues deemed as, but not yet defined or described, as wicked problems.
These ideas were drawn from Rittel and considered a design theorist’s way of addressing
large complex social issues that did not have a clear linear process and easy solutions (Stony
Brook University, 2020).

Wicked problems are a challenge to all of mankind, not just designers. However, because
organizations are now looking to new ways of solving complex issues, they are adopting
methods, tools and frameworks like design thinking from design (Dorst, 2019). Design is
no longer just about just creating artefacts or products, it is about harbouring a designer’s

59
relationship with societies and cultures, understanding that design is malleable and
collaborative. The shift that the 21st century is facing in design “…should not be read as a
linear story in which a single new design paradigm has replaced the old - many forms of
design co-exist today. Design is branching out, each challenge leading to a new limb on the
tree of design disciplines” (Dorst, 2019, p.118).

4.3 New Zealand, leading the way

As a result of COVID-19, and in an attempt to disseminate clear and concise and correct
information New Zealand designers have been called upon by the Government. The
success of the ‘Unite Against COVID-19’ campaign designed by Clemenger BBDO has been
acknowledged globally (Clemenger BBDO, 2020). There have also been demands on design
thinking over the past year to consider, sped up by the global impact of the pandemic
amplifying the call for a re-consideration. Perhaps reframing of how design thinking is
defined and used across public and private entities and what role design education needs to
play in future proofing the integrity, capabilities and capacity of design thinking to impact
complex problems.

In 1985 The New York Times reported “Designers call themselves the invisible industry.
Many companies either don’t use designers or use them in frivolous ways. Designers
tend to agree that most products on the market are ghastly or adorned with meaningless
decoration and could use their helping hand” (The New York Times, 1985). Now with the
help of academics and designers like Allan Chochinov, Professor Mariana Amatullo, Paola
Antonelli, and Alice Rawsthorn, both designers and users of design are realizing the more
socially impactful contributions design can have. Institutions such as the World Design
Organization and leading design faculties, such as Parson’s School of Design and the
Transition Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon, led by Professor Terry Irwin and here in New
Zealand at Victoria University of Wellington School of Design Innovation are leading the way
in helping design embrace their roles and responsibilities in addressing wicked problems.
As Charles Eames famously said, “Beyond the age of information comes the age of choices”
(Rawsthorn, 2018, p. 97). This research asserts design and designers need to choose more
wisely and redefine itself and themselves to reflect this.

The global pandemic, COVID-19, continues to impact the world and how humanity works
and lives (World Health Organization, 2020). Researchers and designers are now promoting
the use of design thinking and how it can be beneficial to the mitigation of world crises
and emergencies like COVID-19, that threaten humanity (Cankurtaran & Beverland, 2020).
Design thinking, already a prolific tool used by corporations to promote new ways of
thinking and doing is now, this research suggests, a likely tool in enabling answers to

60
more complex and globally scaled issues. This research also suggests that comments like
“innovation is now recognized as the single most important ingredient in any modern
economy” (Kelley, 2005) made by Tom Kelley, partner of IDEO, do not serve the shift
in practice sought . The comment continues to align design to economics – not social,
environmental, cultural or political issues. Rawsthorn discusses design as “design is not a
panacea to any of these issues, but by working in an intelligent, thoughtful and responsible
way, with relevant specialists from other fields, designers could make a major impact in
trying to rebuild our lives for the better” (Rawsthorn, 2020).

We hold great responsibilities as designers as we are able to influence situations and make
changes regarding social innovation. This research has highlighted the popularity of design
thinking in education and business. In Aotearoa we are seeing a rise of design thinking
used among government agencies who deal with our people, cultures and societies. This
research highlights the concern of popularized methods such as design thinking and in
Aotearoa, as designers we need to ensure its used with respect and reciprocity. To design
with, not for is one step that speaks to this, and one I will carry throughout my career as a
human-centered designer. This research began with a euro-centric lens of design thinking,
as this is what I personally experienced. It is paramount to understand design thinking in a
global context because this is where the major euro-centric models and frameworks have
been influenced from, it is only once this is done, that we can help decipher what Aotearoa
needs, and break away from the commodified models that have little relevance for our
people, or as stated earlier, their people.

61
62
5
Chapter Five

5.1 Experiencing Other Examples of Design Thinking to Enrich my

Knowledge of its Use

Highlighted as a part of the transitions called for within the discipline of design and its now
‘trademarked’ thinking is that ‘design thinking’ is stuck between two models. Their greatest
polarity, this research asserts, is at one end an outmoded model that props up capitalist and
corporate structures, and at the other end a group of emergent models and provocations.
This, led by the design profession and many of its new interdisciplinary partners that
consider how design and designers can contribute, facilitate and lead action. This will enable
a move towards positive, inclusive, sustaining, and sustainable futures in which individuals
and collectives can thrive. Giving me some much-needed confidence to undertake this
research was Alan Chochinov. Chochinov is a renowned design critic, founder of Core 77
and Chair of the School of Visual Arts MFA, Products of Design and has stated on numerous
occasions and global platforms, that, “Design is no longer in the business of artefacts. It is
in the business of consequences” (Chochinov, 2011). His 2007 ‘Manifesto of a 1000 Words’ is
predicated on this and if not technically a component of the design thinking process – his
words certainly offer thinking about how, what, where and why we undertake and share
design (Chochinov, 2007).

As we look and hope towards a horizon of a post-COVID existence there is now an

immediate need to reconsider what design thinking is and what it is actually used to
achieve. The design thinking space and its offerings needs, this research argues, analysing
and recalibrating. Not surprisingly Harvard Business School are offering ‘Design Thinking’
courses called ‘What’s next? Design Thinking for a Post COVID World’. This reflection
questions, has Harvard seen an immediate market opportunity? Or perhaps they seek to
ensure design thinking plays an important role in the solutions required to the complex
issues and inequities the pandemic has exposed. Sadly, my research to date and presented
throughout this thesis leads me to assume the former. There are organisations that consider
design thinking as a tool for positive social, cultural, environment and economic change,
and my experiences with this organisation have impacted my outlook and hope for the
future of design thinking.

Engaging In the Use of Design Thinking Globally

About half way through this research I was invited to apply to the World Design Organisation
(WDO) to be considered for inclusion in the Young Designers Circle. The School of Design
Innovation is a member of the WDO led by my supervisor Nan O’Sullivan. I was elected and

63
joined seventeen other young designers from around the globe ‘at the table’.
As a member of the WDO’s Young Designers Circle, I was able to experience being a
member of a global team and to re-consider how design and its thinking, tools, skills and
knowledge might be used to discover, among one of the wicked problems, what diversity
might look like for woman in design across the design industry. As an initial step, the team
designed an online survey to be sent out to all the countries that the team represented.
The experience of a global team brought challenges of its own. Time zones and language
posed a few challenges, but this experience has taught me the power of collaboration and
wider appreciation of design thinking in a collaborative and inclusive context. Contributing
to my ability to engage in the global team was another opportunity offered to me during
my studies to join a course at Parsons, The New School in New York to discover how to
communicate, manage, contribute and enable others to contribute to creative projects
across global contexts. Both this and the WDO experience enabled this reflection to be
undertaken with a practice based, but a new, broader, more holistic, and future focused
lens.

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but
those who cannot learn, unlearn and re-learn” (Toffler, n.d).

Engaging In the Design Thinking Education in the United States

Parsons, The New School, An Online Experience

Parsons, The New School in New York is ranked third on the renowned QS World Ranking
scale globally, and number one in the United States. The opportunity to partake as a student
through an independent study at Victoria University of Wellington in the ‘Managing Creative
Projects and Dispersed Teams’ 2020 fall class, run online by Professor Aaron Fry, proved to
be very insightful and meshed well alongside this research. The course considered practical
applications of design thinking to create and maintain successful projects with global client
and teams. Design thinking has the ability to “facilitate an environment in which teams and
clients can have different, sometimes difficult conversations which can be a challenge but
can equip teams with methods and mindsets to overcome and combat these challenges”
(The New School Parsons, 2021). This experience served me well in conjunction with the
WDO team I was involved with. The time spent in this online class with a global collective,
across eight weeks, gave valuable first-hand experience into online collaboration and design
thinking in education. It was also very informative to this research by enabling me to see and
hear how another university is approaching the challenge of teaching design thinking.

64
My Observations:

- Clear expectations of zoom etiquette, ensuring cameras were always on, creating
strong engagement and encouraging more authentic engagement and conversation.

- Diversity of people and professions with different cultures and backgrounds enriched
the process and the outcomes.

- Clarity of expectations and concerns created a safe place to share experiences and
opinions.

- The environment and learnings encouraged us all to embrace the unknown and always
be curious.

- The interest in New Zealand as ‘literally being on the other side of the globe’ and very
small yet very visible in the discipline of design built my confidence to contribute to the
collaborations.

Tools used during the online class:

Zoom, Slack, Teams, Google docs, Whatsapp, Mural, Miro, many of which I used for the first
time as a part of this class.

A key learning: The power of non-verbal communication

“All we are is the sum total of our influence on others” (Navarrow, 2020).
According to Joe Navarrow, who is a leading expert on body language, discusses how we are
constantly making choices based on our cultures, peer pressure and personal preferences
(Navarrow, 2020). Navarrow states that this posturing is more powerful than words.
Online communications limit non-verbal signs and cues so participants have a reciprocal
responsibility to both remain focused and present a compassionate composure when
listening but to also consider how and when we speak. These skills are also needed in human
centred design. Reflecting on this, I would suggest moving forward, the development of
new understandings of how we demonstrate non-verbal communication and the difference
between face-to-face and online discussions will play a role in how we undertake design
thinking as a process, as well as the workshops that are offered.

65
Reflection after the course:

- A variety of design tools and methodologies should be used in conjunction with design
thinking principle and practices.

- Design thinking can help facilitate and enhance collaborations and discussions between
groups with differences and challenges.

- Design thinking alone will not fix all problems.

- Understanding where design thinking comes from, who uses it and major influences on
the practices is important for its effective use.

- Designers appreciate that there may not be an immediate answer and this is a valuable
skill in enabling ongoing momentum towards change.

- Communication is vital to a well resolved project particularly when it is solely online.

Listening is a powerful and effective tool in collaboration.

Balancing one’s emotions and actions is not always taught in design education, yet their
balance is vital to the creative process. To demonstrate this, the Meta Skills test by Marty
Neumeier was presented as a discussion topic within this class and a recommendation would
be to take the test yourself and find out what your personal creative style is.

Parsons Associate Professor and Vice Provost for Global Executive Education and Online
Strategic Initiatives Mariana Amatullo, discusses in her ‘Shaping Chaos’ podcast series
about ‘navigating complexity’. Fueled by the massive changes that COVID-19 sprung
on the institution, Amatullo explains that “as an educator, you open yourself up to be in
vulnerable situations, you have to make a lot of sensemaking and deal with uncertainty”
and COVID-19 unleashed many complexities and decisions that had to be made promptly to
move online and change the way courses are taught and delivered (Shaping Chaos, 2021).
As designers we may not be able to look to known tools and methods to approach this level
of uncertainty, with something as rapid as COVID-19, as it cannot be prepared for, making
the status quo ineffective. There is a need for “ingenuity, creativity and resilience” (Shaping
Chaos, 2021). Amatullo explains part of the key shifts she implemented was going away from
the well-known ideals of a ‘hero designer’ or ‘western design’ models of individualism or
modernist views, positioning and enabling designers to act as mediators, leaders, facilitators
of design and design thinking while co-working and designing with and alongside other
colleagues from non-design backgrounds too (Amatullo, 2021).

66
5.2 Summary

It is clear that design as a discipline and design practitioners in the 21st century find
themselves as part of interdisciplinary teams and being asked to address many complex
issues that affect society, culture and the environments inhabited by both humans and non-
humans. In response to the issues design and its practitioners are engaging in, its pedagogy
is also under scrutiny. Meyer and Norman suggest that although design and designers are
both proven assets to problem solving, it would be beneficial if design education was taught
with a more common and aspirational set of principles that can be built upon, and advanced
beyond pedagogy and within practice (Meyer & Norman, 2018). Clare Swallow, founder of
a design thinking led consultancy Mulberry St, believes it is not organizational innovation
teams that will help businesses succeed through the challenges they face; it is teaching and
preparing employees to engage design thinking through human-centred frameworks that
ensure there is an entire culture change and re-framing of problems to prioritise people and
place (SunLive, 2021).

These words sparked an epiphany for me that enabled me the clarity to see what New
Zealand, as a bi-cultural nation can contribute to this shift and the recalibration or
definition of design thinking more in line with what Principle Interviewee 5 so eloquently
introduced to this research; te ao Maori (Maori worldview), mātauranga Maori (maori
knowledge). I will reflect more deeply on that later in this chapter.

On a more pragmatic note, writer and educator Katherine Burd from the University of
Pennsylvania, along with a number of the principle and secondary interviewees that
contributed to this study, noted that key changes needed to be made to minimize the harm
to and confusion around design thinking. As an educator, Burd’s concerns are for changes
that could be made in order to allow for more cohesion and complexity in the teaching of
design thinking as a design tool.

Positive Shifts Within Design, Already Recognised

Female Voice in Design

Throughout this research it has become apparent that some of the issues have begun to
be addressed. The first, obvious in the historic study was the lack of women’s voices and
opinions in the early developments of design thinking. According to ethical UX researcher
and consultant Max Masure “The design field is still predominantly cisgender, white, and
male. I can see events and school programs with topics like ‘Designing for Happiness’ while
we are still leaving a lot of users out of critical services” (Masure, 2021).

67
The majority of notable moments in design thinking were attributed to men. More positively
more females voices are being recognised in the design space now. It is apparent that men
have been attributed with creating, shaping and sharing design thinking with business and
education, however, as Laura Bolt, writer and design editor, states “The history of design
has been written by both women and men, but there have been times when it was
difficult to see where women have had a seat at the table” (Bolt, 2020).
Until the Bauhaus existed, German woman who wanted to gain skills or a career in design
had to be taught it at home (Slessor, 2018). The Bauhaus founder, Walter Gropius (1883-
1969) did state the school would ensure “no difference between the beautiful and the
strong sex” however the beautiful sex’s studio selections were limited to; ceramics, weaving
and toy making (Slessor, 2018). Until the 20th century, only very few women could work as
professional designers (Gotthardt, 2017). By the 21st century women were becoming more
influential in design and numbers are growing but issues surrounding prejudices, sexism,
unfair gender pay and the struggle of balancing professional and personal responsibilities
are still extant. The 2019 AIGA Design census reported that the design industry was
comprised of about 50% woman but the number in leadership positions was slight (Design
Research and Insights, 2019).

Jessica Walsh, an influential American graphic designer and illustrator recently created a
non-profit group ‘Ladies, Wine & Design’. This is a platform based in New York to empower
woman and non-binary creatives around the world as she noticed top down approaches
were leading to fewer opportunities for women (Bolt, 2020). In 2018, ‘Ladies, Wine &
Design’ came to Wellington New Zealand where discussions about business, design and
life balances were held. According to Walsh, the technological advancements are creating
an opening in the industry where more creatives can enter the design field. Social media
and cheaper tools allow for a lower barrier to entry and the flexibility to work from
home. According to Walsh these changes “have all helped to democratize who can
become a designer or who can receive recognition and work” (Ladies, Wine & Design,
2020). This research recognizes other female leaders in this industry in the second half of
the digital timeline.

5.3 Privilege, Power + Positionality

As design has expanded its skills to engage social, cultural and environmental issues and
work in interdisciplinary teams, it has become clearer that the discipline’s responsibilities
now include recognizing and understanding the impact of privilege and power. Privilege
is understood as a special right or advantage. Designers are challenged to rethink the
ways they position themselves when undertaking design to change exsisting solutions.
According to George Aye, co-founder and director of innovation at Greater Good Studio,

68
“Most designers know not to outright regard themselves as ‘saviours’, but there’s still an
unarticulated sense that innovation is being bestowed onto needy communities by the
largesse of the designer (Aye, 2017).

Design thinking is often used by designers who are working ‘with’ Not for Profits
organisations or marginalized groups of people. Identity architect John Johnston, who
was impacted after doing design thinking led projects in Madagascar, suggests “Design
thinking is a privileged way of thinking and just like other privileges, we must find a way to
make it accessible to everyone. If everyone in the world were equipped with methods to
solve the problems that are most important to them, I truly believe our world would begin
to look very different” (Johnson, 2019). Amy Collier, an experienced educator and designer
working in community-based organizations and universities, addresses design justice and
complexity in education. Collier asserts that although perhaps not the case for all design
thinking users, design thinking is most often facilitated by privileged white people. Collier
argues that designers, “Impose post-it notes solutions on our community’s problems.
Beyond obscuring or under-recognizing structural inequities at the heart of problems, and
beyond not requiring problem-solving enthusiasts to see their own privilege, it may create
new problematic power dynamics rather than helping address the liberatory needs of
populations oppressed by structural inequities” (Collier, 2017).

Familiar to this research’s industry interviewees is the design thinking ‘How Might We’
(HMW) game, used as a tool to spark ideas and create new ways of answering problems.
Tricia Wang, global tech ethnographer, alludes to the negative impacts a game like this can
have on our designs. Wang says “I’ve seen HMW used to hide biases and assumptions.
Worse, I’ve seen it exacerbate the lack of diversity on design teams and within
corporations at large” (Wang, 2021). This game, using ‘we’ as the people using the game,
therefore creating strategies and designs that benefit only the designers themselves.

“It (the ‘How Might We’ tool) allows designers to remain the bright center of
their own universes and ignore real-world, real human experiences that deserve
more than a flippant call-to-discussion. HMW has become weaponized not
because it was a weapon to begin with, but because people have found ways to
use it as a shortcut to feign interest in users” (Wang, 2021).

69
Figure 13: ‘Thoughts For Change’ Bubble diagram by Megan MacKay.

5.4 Towards My Creative Outputs

Lee Vinsel, author of ‘The Innovation Delusion’, and a vocal critic of the current model of
design thinking being used in business asserts that innovation, often models through design
thinking promotes negative results. He asks why business focuses so much on growth
and an ‘obsession’ to innovate, when in fact “it is causing us to waste money and do less
innovating” (Vinsel, 2020). Instead, Vinsel suggests focusing on creating a ‘maintenance
mindset’ and argues that care and maintenance have been overshadowed by this immense
need to grow, innovate, and design new things without consideration of how we will ‘keep
up’ with the changes. Vinsel acknowledges design thinking as an important tool but also as
importantly in this quote, he relegates it to a communication tool saying, “processes like
design thinking can be helpful to get people to talk to each other” (Vinsel, 2020). Vinsel’s
book defines ‘innovation speak’ versus ‘actual innovation’ and aligns with a common theme
bought up in interviews that design jargon is often misleading and confusing in a more
corporate setting. Vinsel states “the cost of innovation speak are high, and we need to stop
treating innovation as an implicit good rather than a means to an end” suggesting we need
to instead focus on creating healthy cultures that promote care and maintenance (Vinsel,
2020). This sets a higher status for people carrying out these tasks, instead of adding to
the glamourous innovative, new solution focused corporates using design jargon and

70
 ‘innovation speak’ without much follow through. Again, the ideals and aspirations offered by
Principal Interview 5 come to mind achieving this through cultural values. An example of his,
points to new innovation campuses for universities around the world with no proof of being
any more profitable or innovative. Maintenance has always been a factor within our lives,
dating much further back than this research begins – yet we are talking about it less, and
only focusing on innovating and creating the ‘new’ (Russel & Vinsel, 2018).

Maintenance

1860
8 1880
8 1900
9 1920
9 1940
9 1960
9 1980
9 2000
0
Figure 14: Google NGRAM ‘Maintenance’

The Ngram above, show a steady use of the word ‘maintenance’, however it has dropped off
since 2000, yet ‘innovation’ (Figure 15) has only risen supporting Vinsel’s, and this research’s
argument.

This research undertook extensive reading as well as the interviews and identified the
specific jargon, and terminologies used within design thinking, human centered or
participatory practices, workshops or online seminars. These, considered fundamental to
design thinking practice and are either unclear or unknown. Therefore, I have in response
designed a deck of sixty design cards. Named ‘Not just for Designers’, they are available
on the ‘Teleology of Design Thinking’ online platform that I also designed to assist in the
clarification of the historic trajectory and developments of design thinking over the last
half-century. Both outputs recognise the challenges and changes that have taken place over
the this time frame and respond to what this research has identified as ‘asked for or needed’
in the teaching and use of design thinking moving forward. These also include recognition
of gender inclusion and new considerations of positionality and privilege. These outputs are

71
 just first steps – but I believe important ones.

Vinsel suggests, adopting this mindset will lead to more profit and better environmental
outcomes (Vinsel, 2020).

Innovation

1860
8 1880
8 1900
9 1920
9 1940
9 1960
9 1980
9 2000
0
Figure 15: Google NGRAM ‘Innovation’

5.5 Where Are We Now and What Are the Next Steps For Design
Thinking?

Katherine Burd points directly to privilege as a concern for design thinking. Burd highlights
that the use of, or access to design thinking is a privilege in itself and without consideration of
this, designers can default to a “hero role; positioning themselves as the rescuer” (Burd, 2020).
Dr Lesley Anne-Noel, Associate Director for Design Thinking for Social Impact, and Professor of
Practice at the Taylor Centre for Social Innovation and Design Thinking at Tulane University,
also addresses this concern when she states, “No amount of interviews, observations, or
whimsically named exercises can replace a diverse team and allow a white person to design
for a black person or a person of colour, or for a man to design for a woman” (Noel, 2021). This
quote expresses the absolute need for representation and co-stewardship when designing
with others. Burd also asserts that there is a growing critique that many design thinking
practitioners lack empathy and whose skills are ill-suited to the task. Principle Interview 2 also
noted their experience with design thinking workshops highlighted that facilitators lacked
formal design education and that appropriate or comprehensive training was not always
provided; causing a very diluted and sometimes incorrect model of design thinking being
both promoted and demonstrated (personal communication, January, 2021). Important

72
to this research and what I now find myself reflecting on, like Noel, is, “I keep wondering
what does a relevant design curriculum look like for students who are not rich, white, male,
American, or European” (Noel, 2020).

So What Might That Next Step Be?

I started this thesis asking where, when and why did design thinking emerge. I went on to
ask what does it look like now, and how, with this knowledge can this research contribute
to the development of a model of design thinking that better parallels the issues we face as
citizens of this world. A broad sweep of the literature highlighted a gap, with my inability to
discover a consolidated historic narrative that illustrated the development of design thinking.
In response I developed two design aides (not tools); the first a digital timeline that pinpoints
critical moments, milestones and roadblocks in that story and identifies the aims and
objectives of the initiators of design thinking; Buchannan, Cross and Papanek. Secondly, an
alphabet of words, ‘Not Just for Designers’, card deck, that hopes to bridge the divide that
one has grown to expect when jargon and new lexicons are introduced to a discipline. This,
I believe offers a sound starting point for design and the education it offers to appreciate
what design thinking has/can/should contribute to the wicked problems facing the planet
and the language, tools and jargon that define and describe the practices.

Design is, in essence, making things better, on purpose, and aims to improve by remaking
our surroundings and experiences, but more recently changes and expansions to design’s
scope of inquiry requires designers to design ‘for’ and ‘with’ other people. This makes the
process much more complex. Dr Noel reflects on design thinking as, “not as a set of boxes
to be ticked, but as a universe of different ways of thinking and knowing” (Noel, 2020).
Noel breaks out of the hexagons and double diamonds so ingrained in design thinking and,
although discussed towards the end of this research Noel’s practice asks what this research
sees as a key question, “Who are you in relation to the people you are working with and
solving for?” (Noel, 2020).

Although the designed outcomes are in fact ‘outputs’ in nature, both of the elements have
been formed and worked upon throughout the entirety of this research portfolio. The cards
and platform have been reflected upon, shared, tested and considered throughout. This
research highlights a gap, which still remains, as there is no place to consider or compare the
ideas and differences design thinking has in different situations, as this research projects.
Therefore, the platform along with the cards helps to raise awareness, share knowledge, and
to create space for this reflection and learning to take place.
The deck of cards purposely remains open-ended to allow methods, terminology and
frameworks to be added to the deck over time. The cards selected for this study have been

73
chosen by my own observations and discussions with interviewees. The display box was
made by my father and I to represent the idea that this could be evolved and expanded into
weaving, recycling, up-cycling depending on the user and how they would like to keep their
deck of cards. Accessibility has been considered and a digital version of the cards can be
accessed too. In future I could see expansion into picture cards, cards with brail and perhaps
speaking cards to engage and reach as many designers as possible. An idea to have these
cards in Te reo Māori would also be welcomed, however within the scope of this project and
my own positionality this cannot be done by myself alone.

The style of this platform is a play on what can be found in largely American, euro-centric
large design corporations. Often bright and friendly in colour. As previously stated, to find
this style, you only need to google ‘design thinking’. The platform is also open-ended and
would welcome other designers, educators and professionals to expand on and add to the
trajectory that has been defined. The platform is a high quality mock idea, that has been
prototyped using adobe XD. This allows for a user to experience the platform but it is not live.
The platform has been lightly user tested, ensuring the experience is playful, engaging and
informative. The platform is a space to connect and share materials, podcasts and talks.

So, who am I in relation to the people I am working with and solving for?

Inspired by Noel’s practice and words that acknowledge “a universe of different ways of
thinking and knowing” (Noel 2021), I am now circling back to the beginning of this thesis.
One of the first acknowledgements I made at the outset of this research was to the Te Tiriti
o Waitangi at which time I positioned myself as Pākeha (a white New Zealander) within the
context of New Zealand, a bi-cultural nation and multicultural society. My interview with
Primary Interviewee 5, a Māori designer was pivotal. Having noted early in this research that
design now espouses both human and planet centric approaches to its practice, it became
overtly obvious having spoken with Primary Interviewee 5 the relevance and aspirations
available to enrich and enable design thinking and design practice models though te ao
Māori (a worldview of interconnections between people and place). This knowledge offers
the definition of compassionate, inclusive, equitable and sustainable design through the
way designers think and do design. In the 2020 book ‘We are Not Users: Dialogues, Diversity
and Design’ the authors agree, “Designing needs to be reclaimed as a field of practice where
people are the focus, where different perspectives can come together and shape the world”
(Subrahmanian et al., 2020, p.7).

74
 “We do not need new processes, we do not need new tools. We need new voices,
we need new perspectives, and we need new leadership. To continue as we are is
just bad design” (Weaver, 2020).

Questions Reseach Growing

Confusion Linking Learning
Unknown People Unlearning
Curiosity Carification Reflecting

Figure 16: The ‘Real’ Design Squiggle by Megan MacKay

This squiggle, a personal version of Damien Newman’s famous illustration, demonstrates

the process of this design research. The beginning of my journey was confusing and full of
questions, as they were discovered the craziness relaxed. However, nearing the end of this
journey, I am met again with the possibilities of design, the messiness of the process, more
questions and more learning to do as I reflect on my experience. I guess, that’s just the
nature of design.

Design thinking, I have come to realise needs to be a collaborative, interconnected, holistic

approach, and as Noel stated, not a set of tick boxes or standardised diagrams (Noel,
2020). Reflecting on the values, and the worldview described by Principle Interview 5 who
highlighted the benefits of designing with an authentic appreciation for mātauranga Māori
(Māori knowledge) and tikanga Māori (Māori values). This view uncovers the processes
design and designers engage with to establish who we are in relation to the people we are
working with and solving for, fundamentally impacting design for the better. Imperative
to this shift in practice is the capacity of designers to step away from the ‘hero’ or ‘expert’
moniker to enable the agency of others (rangatiratanga) and in doing so place the framing
of both problems and solutions in the hands of those whose lives are and will be impacted.
I have also learned an important component of my role, as a Pākeha designer, working in
New Zealand, is to step aside and make space for those with this knowledge to integrate

75
it in ways they see as meaningful. This is not by any means a passing of the baton with no
responsibility on my part to contribute to change. Understanding that the development of
‘better practice’ is a shared experience and a shared responsibility (whanaungatanga) of all
those who engage with it is an important point. My role as a fledgling designer is to engage
meaningfully and respectfully with this knowledge; learning more about it; its language,
values and worldview and support its integration and the inclusion of ‘those with this
knowledge’ in my own future practice.

This research has elucidated the polemic instances and understandings of what design
thinking has become over the last fifty years. It has looked at this through a lens that asked
what design thinking has to offer the world if we are willing to challenge our interpretations
of what design thinking was, is and can be. People, not just designers have been designing
forever, and respecting diversity within, and as a fundamental component of a model of
design thinking that enables all cultures to thrive, we can, this research believes, deliver
compelling progress.

76
Reference List

AIGA The professional association for design. (2019). Design research and insights. https://
[Link]/design/design-research-insights

Alexander, C. (1964). A pattern language. Oxford University press.

Amatullo, M. (Guest). (2021). Mariana Amatullo on Social Innovation and maintaining a

Design Attitude [Audio podcast episode]. Shaping chaos; Thereforth.
[Link]
tion-and-maintaining-a-Design-Attitude-et87v6

Butler, A & Roberto, M. (2018). When Cognition Interferes with Innovation: Overcom-
ing Cognitive Obstacles to Design Thinking, Research-Technology Manage-
ment, 61(4), 45-51.

Aye, G. (2021). Surviving IDEO. [Link]

ing-ideo-4568d51bcfb6

Beetroot IT Company. (2021). Design Thinking Illustrations. [Link]

Boland, R. & Callopy, F. (2004). Managing as Designing. Stanford Business Books.

Bolt, L. (2020). Woman make up over half of the design industry so why are there
so few at the top? Eye on Design. [Link]
make-up-more-than-half-of-the-design-industry-but-how-do-they-get-to-
the-top/

Brown, T. (2017). Learn from failure. Design kits. [Link]

Buchannan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues. The MIT Press.

Buchannan, R. (2001). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3-23.

Buchannan, R. (2019). Systems Thinking and Design Thinking: The Search for Principles in
the World We Are Making. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innova-
tion, 6(4), 567-568.

Buckminster Fuller, R. (1969). Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth Towards Utopia or

77
 Oblivion. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

Camillus, J. (2008). Strategy as a business problem. Harvard business review. [Link]

org/2008/05/strategy-as-a-wicked-problem

Cankurtaran, P., & Beverland, M. (2020). Using design thinking to respond to crises: B2B
lessons from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial marketing management, 88,
255-260.

Champagne, M. (2021). [Strip the word ‘design’ away and then try to explain design other-
wise. Everything becomes clearer. The alternative words do wonders]. Twitter.
[Link]

Chochinov, A. (2007). 1000 Words: A manifesto for sustainability in design. Core 77.
[Link] De-
sign

Clemmenger BBDO. UNITE Against covid-19. [Link]

Cresswell, J.W., & Plano, C. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research. 2nd
Sage.

Cross, N. (1993). A History of Design Methodology. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science. Design
Issues, 17(3), 49-55.

Cross, N. (2011). Understanding how designers think and work. Berg Publishers.
Design Assembly. The Home of New Zealand Graphic Design since 2009. [Link]
[Link]/

DESIS Network. Design for social innovation and sustainability (DESIS) Network. (2020).
DESIS Network. [Link]
lombia/

[Link]. (2021). Supporting Governments Digital Transformation. [Link]

[Link]/

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of design thinking and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-

78
 532.

D. School. (2021). Get Started with design thinking. D. School [Link]

edu/resources/getting-started-with-design-thinking

Dunne, D. (2018). Implementing design thinking in organizations: an exploratory study.

Journal of Organization Design, 7(16), 1-16.

Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse. Duke University press.

Esory, L. (2018). Why design thinking is failing and what we should be doing differently.
UX Collective.

Friedman, K. (2019). Design Education today – Challenges, opportunities, failures.

Academia.
[Link]
es_Opportunities_Failures

Furniss, L. (2016). What does it mean to be a designer today? Design week.

[Link] de-
signer-today/

Fuller, R.B. (1969) Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. Lars Muller Publishers.

Fuller, R, B. (1969). Utopia or Oblivion: The prospects for humanity. Lars Muller Publishers.

Google NGRAMS. (2021) ‘Design Thinking’, ‘Maintenance’, ‘Innovation’. [Link]

[Link]/ngrams

Gotthardt, A. (2017). The Women of the Bauhaus School. Artsy. [Link]

ticle/artsy-editorial-women-bauhaus-school

Hawley, R (2021). Middle management: design thinking is not apolitical, its centrism in
disguise. Real Life. [Link]

Hobcraft, P. (2017). The limitations, criticisms and pathways for design thinking. Paul4in-
novating. [Link]
new-pathways-for-design-thinking-part-two/

79
IDEO. (2021). IDEO Design Thinking. [Link]

IDIA. (2021). Indigenous design and innovation Aotearoa. [Link]

Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study,
and Research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229-246.

Jen, N. (Author). (2017). Design Thinking is Bullshit [Video File]. Design Indaba. https://
[Link]/watch?v=V8gjDsW3lsY

Kelley, T. (2005). The 10 faces of innovation. Penguin Random House Canada. [Link]
[Link]/books/91122/the-ten-faces-of-innovation-by-tom-kelley-
with-jonathan-littman/9780385512077/excerpt

Kimbell, L. (2011). Re-thinking design thinking. Part 1. Design and culture, 3(3), 285-306

Kolko, J. (2015). Design Thinking Comes of Age. Organizational Culture. [Link]

org/2015/09/design-thinking-comes-of-age

Kolko, J. (2017). The Divisiveness of Design Thinking. Interactions, 25, 28-34.

Kolko, J. (2017). How I teach: Reflecting on 15 years in the design education. [Link]
[Link]/00_introduction.php

Kries, M., Klein, A., Clarke, A., Papanek, V. (2018). Victor Papanek: The Politics of Design.
Vitra Design Museum.

Ladies, Wine, and a bit of design. (2020). A conversation series with Jessica Walsh. https://
[Link]/wellington/

Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. Architectural Press.

Leidka, J. (2018). Exploring the impact of design thinking in action. Darden Working Paper
Series. [Link]
[Link]

Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive
advantage. Harvard Business Press.

80
Masure, M. (2021). Wake the fu*ck up. And start designing for all – interview with Max
Masure. Design Wanted. [Link]

McKercher, K, A. (2020). Co-Design and Power – Social Design Sydney. [Link]

[Link]/watch?v=8ajpS6RCBoo&t=243s

Meyer, M. & Norman, D. (2020). Changing Design Education for the 21st century. The jour-
nal of design, economics, and innovation, 6(1), 13-49.

Miller, M. (2019). Design Census. As the industry moves more toward specialization, edu-
cation follows suit. AIGA Eye on Design. [Link]
cation-is-moving-toward-specialization-can-colleges-keep-up/

Miller, M. (2019). Are traditional design degrees still relevant? Fast Company. [Link]
[Link]/90419644/are-traditional-design-degrees-still-relevant

Moggridge, B. (2010). Design Thinking, Dear Don.. Core 77. [Link]

posts/17042/design-thinking-dear-don-17042

Moholy-Nagy, L. (1974). Vision in Notion. Paul Theobald and Co.

Moller, L. (2017). The characteristics of a successful framing process. International confer-

ence on engineering and product design education.

Naylor, Z. (2019). How to create an affinity diagram for UX Research. Zack Naylor. https://
[Link]/how-to-create-an-affinity-diagram-for-ux-research-cd-
c08489952d

Navarro, J. (Guest). (2020). The power of non-verbal communication [Video file]. Amara.
[Link]

Newman, D. (2021). The Process of Design Squiggle. Damien Newman.

[Link]

Noel, L. (2017). Imperatives for Design Education in Places Other Than Europe or North
America!: Conversations Across Cultures in Art & Design Education in Times of
Change. De Gruyter.

81
Noel, L. (2018). Decolonizing Design Thinking. The conversation factory. [Link]
[Link]/podcast/decolonizing-design-thinking-with-dr-lesley-ann-noel

Noel, L. (2020). Re-centring Design Education. Design for America. [Link]

[Link]/2020/10/22/recentering-design-education-with-lesley-ann-noel/

Noel, L. (2020). Lesley-Ann Noel, PH.D. Taylor. [Link]

ley-ann-noel/

Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.

Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design thinking is a failed experiment, So what’s next? Fast Company.
[Link]
whats next

O’Sullivan, N. C. (2017). Navigating Design History with a More Culturally Calibrated Com-
pass. Journal of New Zealand Art, Media and Design History, 1(3), 103-117.

Oxford Dictionary. (2020). Oxford English dictionary. [Link]

Papanek, V. J. (1984). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Patton ,M, Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Sage Publications;
Thousand Oaks, CA:

Peart, R. (2017). Why design in not problem solving + Design Thinking isn’t always the
answer. Eiga – Eye on Design. [Link]
problem-solving-design-thinking-isnt-always-the-answer/

Phillips, N. (2020). Field Guide 2020: covid responses and you. Design Assembly. https://
[Link]/2020/06/04/field-guide-covid-response-and-you/

Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking - Understand – Improve – Apply.
Springer.

Prehn, T. (2018). Thomas Prehns Innovation Diary. Design thinking or design sinking?

82
 Apolitical. [Link]
ry-design-sinking

Rawsthorn, A. (2018). Alice Rawsthorn: Design as an Attitude. JRP Ringier Today.

Rawsthorn, A. (2020). Mark Dalton on helping people navigate a pandemic through de-
sign. Wallpaper* [Link]
people-through-pandemic-by-design

Ramirez, R. (2018). On Design Thinking, Bullshit, and innovation. Journal of science and
technology of the arts, 10(3), 2-57.

Rammal, D. (2019). Why is Human Centred design and marketing a match made in heaven.
[Link]
a-match-made-in-heaven-bedf2bea182b

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

Russell, A., Vinsel, L. (2018). After Innovation, Turn to Maintenance. Technology and Cul-
ture. 59. 1-25.

Shon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basics
Books. Harper Collins publishers.

Shon, D. (2001). Donald Shon’s philosophy of design and design education. Kluwer aca-
demic publishers.

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

Simon, H. (1988). The Science of Design: Creating the Artificial. Design Issues, 4(1/2), 67-82.

Slessor, C. (2018). Bauhaus histories tend to be disproportionality dominated by male pro-

tagonists. De Zeen. [Link]
ine-slessor-opinion/

Stanley, P. (2019). Designer first world problems. A collection of random comics about
design, introversion and sandwiches. The design team. [Link]
designer-first-world-problems-861e53c8ecf7

83
Stony Brook University. (2020). What’s a wicked problem? [Link]
commcms/wicked-problem/about/What-is-a-wicked-problem

Subrahmanian, E., Reich, Y., Krishnan, S. (2020). We Are Not Users Dialogues, Diversity,
and Design. The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England.

Swallow, C. (2021). Design thinking to help grow business. Sun Live.

[Link]

Oinonen, V. (2021). Complexity and policy making – cartoon. The Business Illustrator.
[Link]
mary/

Oinonen, V. (2019). The confused CEO’s guide to 21st century organizations.

The Business Illustrator. [Link]
fused-ceos-guide-to-21st-century-organisations-crowdfunding-campaign/

O’Sullivan, N. (2021). Do the Mahi, Reap the Rewards. Working Towards the Integration of
Indigenous Knowledge within Design Education. Design Struggles. Intersecting
Histories, Pedagogies and Perspectives, 243–257.

The Service Innovation Lab. (2020). About the Service Innovation Lab. [Link]
[Link]/about/

The New School Parsons. (2021). Parsons School of Design. [Link]

parsons/

Toffler, A. (2002). Embracing the need to ‘learn and re-learn’. A 21st century education
requires a new kind of literacy. Standford Magazine. [Link]
tents/embracing-the-need-to-learn-and-relearn

Vinsel, L. (2017). Design Thinking is Kind of Like Syphilis – it’s contagious and rots your
brains. Noteworthy – The Journal Blog. [Link]
ing-is-kind-of-like-syphilis-its-contagious-and-rots-your-brains-842ed078af29

Vinsel, L. (2018). The Design Thinking Movement is Absurd. [Link]

com/the-design-thinking-movement-is-absurd-83df815b92ea

Vinsel, L. & Russell, L. (2020). Innovation Delusion: How our obsession with the new has

84
Appendix
A. Affinity Mapping

85
B. Interview Guide
Can you please tell me a bit about your study and career pathways and what led you to your
current practice?

Do you re-call when and how you were first introduced to design thinking?

What do you perceive the role of a design thinking expert to be? Can you tell me about this?

How has design thinking helped to influence or change your work?

What do you enjoy most about working in the field of (design, co-design, user-experience
design, design research)?

What have you learnt from your experiences in or with the field of design?

From that experience, what advice would you give to yourself starting out?

Can you talk me through any projects that may illustrate design thinking or design thinking
principles in use?

Are you familiar with the five-step design thinking process? If so, what are your views or
experiences with or of that specific process?

Have you attended a design thinking workshop before? What role did you play?
(Facilitator, observer, participant, guest).

Can you give me an example of where you feel design has had a largescale impact – perhaps
even global?

What does the statement ‘everyone can be a designer’ mean or say to you?

How would you explain design thinking to a non-designer?

Do you think the role of a designer has changed in recent years and if so, how?

Do you perceive design thinking as business model and design thinking’s teachings within
education differently? How?

Do you believe in designing ‘with’ and not ‘for’, if so, how do you ensure this in each project?

What is something important you feel designers should be aware of when promoting and
using design thinking?

What are your most used tools for collaboration? Has collaboration changed for you
post-covid?

What differences, if any are there in the uses of or delivery of Design Thinking between
perhaps a Not-for-Profit organization and a corporation?

86
86
 C. Research Timeline + Activities

Critically review design thinking framework

2020 Writing + Research Four month progress report

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Covid-19 Resilience Research Design Background Colloquium Organize and carry
plan. Thinking, Research. presentation and out interviews
Ethics approval. micro-credentials Annotated feedback. with selected
Proposal approval. and workshops. bibliography. participants.
Parson’s School of
World Design Problem Working literature design online class Interview One:
Organization, definition. review. start. (8 weeks) Strategic Designer.
Young Designers Introduction.
Member. Idenitfy possible Literature Review. Emapthetic
participants for Compare historic Methodology. Interview
Research design interviews. design thinking technique.
thinking history Draft interview use with Compare design
and influences. guides. contemporary use. thinking’s use in
educational with
commercial use.

Critically review design thinking framework

2021 Review, Edit, Future

JUN JUL AUG

Future of this Review + Revise. Presentation and
research. Checked by Marking.
supervisor.
My future in
deisgn thinking. Portfolio
Submission Due.
Conclusions and
reflections. Exhibition of work
and presentation.
Screen recording
and photos of July 12th Final date
creative elements.

87
 Critically review design thinking framework

2021 Eight month progress report Insights, Outcomes, reflection

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY

Drafting major interview three: Produce a deck of Follow up User testing of
influences and Experience design thinking interview two. website and
milestones for Designer. cards. alterations.
design thinking. Follow up
Interview four: Follow up interview Seven. Photograph
Interview Two: Design Educator interviews on Design Thinking
Service Designer. and Consultant. selected few. Compare and cards/ website in
contrast findings. use.
See how Design Interview five : Interview Six:
Thinking is used in Innovation Design Thinking ‘The Business of Body of writing
government. Specialist. Educator. Design Today’ and start to
Post-Covid-19 conclude
Produce Affinity Interview Seven: panel discussion information.
interactive mapping of Not for profit with Design
timeline and interview themes. CEO’S. Assembly. Contact designers
website. Synthesis. and illustrators for
Body of writing. Code all interviews use of work.
Current design appropriately. Keep up to date
thinking articles, with social media Interview 8: Maori
websites + and design worldview in
marketing. thinking current Design Thinking
discussions.

88