Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/256063152
22 41 156
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
This paper takes a critical look at the design thinking discourse, one that has different
meanings depending on its context. Within the managerial realm, design thinking has been
described as the best way to be creative and innovate, while within the design realm, design
thinking may be partly ignored and taken for granted, despite a long history of academic
development and debate. In the design area, we find five different discourses of ‘designerly
thinking’, or ways to describe what designers do in practice, that have distinctly different
epistemological roots. These different discourses do not stand in competition with each other
but could be developed in parallel. We also observe that the management discourse has three
distinct origins, but in general has a more superficial and popular character and is less
academically anchored than the designerly one. Also, the management design thinking dis-
course seldom refers to designerly thinking and thereby hinders cumulative knowledge con-
struction. We suggest further research to link the discourses.
how it has grown and what types of literature some sources from the literature base were
have been published, followed by the descrip- ignored as not directly related to our interests
tion and characteristics of the two main dis- and others were added because they were key
courses, the designerly and the management references for sources from our original list or
discourses of design thinking. We identify five written after our original search.
sub-discourses of the designerly thinking dis-
Identifying the Populations
course and three origins of the management
discourse, and critically review their content The literature base consists of 168 items, of
and contributions. Finally, we discuss relations which more than 80 per cent date from after
between the two discourses and suggest pos- the year 2000. It includes books (31), academic
sible research directions. refereed papers (48), professional/practitioner
articles (28), refereed conference papers (7),
magazines and newspaper articles (39) and
The Demographics of the Literature web blogs (15). The numbers gradually
increase by year, starting from Simon’s (1969)
In our previous work we observed two dis- foundational work about the nature of design,
tinct discourses on design thinking: one in the then design theorists’ publications beginning
design-based, scholarly literature, and the in the 1980s, becoming more numerous
other in the widely accessible business media around 1999, and reaching a high point in
(Johansson & Woodilla, 2010). In this article 2009. Management scholars first showed an
our research questions centre around relation- interest in links between business and design
ships between the two discourses and their in the mid-1980s, followed by scholars in other
sources: the types of literature, rather than the areas. The subject gathered popular media
specific content. We searched the literature attention starting around 2004 and peaked in
until we were satisfied and had reached the 2009. The development of the broad field is
level of saturation. shown in Figure 1. Here the literature is
We started with questions like, ‘What is the divided into three genres: (1) books (black
literature on design thinking? What are the column), (2) substantial articles in academic
discourse streams and relative strengths, and (peer-reviewed) and respected practitioner
What is different about the presentation in journals (dark grey column), and (3) short
the different media?’ We were interested in pieces in the business press and online media
uncovering trends, recognizing important (light grey column). Appendices A and B
authors to follow, and appreciating differences elaborate on the base literature list by catego-
in how the concept has been treated in the rizing the entries.
academic and non-academic press. We antici- Books provide an elaborated argument
pated that there would be different discussions where the author demonstrates proficiency in
about the use of design thinking in education the field. Some books are theory-driven (e.g.,
and empirical work with potentially different Simon, 1969): the early books tend to be of this
methodologies. We were also interested in nature due to the publication norms of the
uncovering what has been forgotten and field at the time. Other books present cases
themes that had potential for further and examples that elaborate and develop
development. theory (e.g., Rowe, 1987), or are ‘recipes’ for
Our initial scoping search using academic ‘how to do design thinking’ for practitioners
electronic databases, journals, book publish- (e.g., Leidtka & Ogilvie, 2011) or textbooks for
ers’ lists and informal methods such as Google students (e.g., Ambrose & Harris, 2010), with
Scholar cast light on the structure and differ- simplified arguments, diagrams and check-
ent streams in the overall discourse. We lists, but little theory development. Most
searched for ‘design thinking’, ‘design’ or recent books are of this nature.
‘thinking’ in the title, subject, abstract or key- Articles in scholarly or academic journals
words, and reviewed the findings with a and respected practitioner or professional
subject-matter expert. The resulting literature journals are the foundational ground for any
base provided the history of the development subject. We located articles that discussed the
of the design thinking discourse. Later, when development of the design discourse, exclud-
examining the character and structure of ing those with an industrial or computer engi-
various sub-discourses, we refined the list by neering technical focus because, as scholars in
selecting academic and practitioner journal ‘design management’, we were unprepared to
articles, and refereed conference papers avail- evaluate them appropriately. Not surprisingly,
able in the public domain that included most of the articles developing theory on
‘design thinking’ in the title, abstract or key- design thinking were in design journals, in
words, and books that were referenced fre- particular UK-based Design Studies and
quently in scholarly papers. For this article, US-based Design Issues. Some academic man-
agement journals included conceptual articles The Nature of the Two Discourses:
related to design thinking, while professional Designerly Thinking and
journal articles tended to be explanations
or case studies of successful practice. Two,
Design Thinking
Harvard Business Review and Design Manage- A simple way of discussing the discourse of
ment Review, deserve special mention: the design thinking is as two distinct discourses:
former for its prestige among US executives
and managers, and the latter for its long-
• One we call ‘designerly thinking’. This
standing focus on ‘demonstrating the strategic
refers to the academic construction of the
role of design in business’ (www.dmi.org).
professional designer’s practice (practical
Finally, a few scholarly conference papers were
skills and competence) and theoretical
included in our review to gauge trends in
reflections around how to interpret and
theory development; here our selection forms
characterize this non-verbal competence of
a convenient sample.
the designers. Designerly thinking links
Using the ‘trade’ and ‘popular’ literature,
theory and practice from a design perspec-
culled from magazines, the business press and
tive, and is accordingly rooted in the aca-
reputable online sources, is controversial as
demic field of design.
part of an academic literature review. We
• The other discourse is ‘design thinking’. We
included these sources to gain a sense of the
reserve this term for the discourse where
scope and timing of interest in the topic
design practice and competence are used
outside of academe and professional practice.
beyond the design context (including art
Determining the total number of contributions
and architecture), for and with people
in these areas is difficult, but the overall trend-
without a scholarly background in design,
line is revealing. The news media comment on
particularly in management. ‘Design think-
changes in firm strategy or personnel (e.g.,
ing’ then becomes a simplified version of
Birchall, 2008): the same event is likely to be
‘designerly thinking’ or a way of describing
taken up across several publications, effec-
a designer’s methods that is integrated into
tively ‘promoting’ the use of design thinking
an academic or practical management
in context. Magazines include interviews with
discourse.
‘experts’ on the topic (e.g., Tischler, 2009): the
interviewee is ‘newsworthy’ in some way or The Academic Discourses of
other, effectively establishing expertise in the
Designerly Thinking
field. Finally, many publications support
regular blogs by subject-matter experts (e.g., For the business world, design thinking might
Bruce Nussbaum at BusinessWeek, or Fred seem like a new concept from this side of the
Collopy at Fast Company): this is the space millennium, but within design research char-
where opinions are stated and viral news acteristics of designers’ work and practice
begins, such as the ‘hot news’ that ‘design have been discussed for at least 40 years, while
thinking is dead!’ the management discourse of design thinking
developed over the last decade is only slightly with his cognitive approach to decision
related to the earlier discourse. The designerly making and his often-quoted definition of
part of the discourse forms an academic design as ‘the transformation of existing con-
stream, with contributions from both design- ditions into preferred ones’ (Simon, 1996: 4),
ers and related disciplines (architecture, plan- he is a reference point for the academic writ-
ning, design history, etc.). The aim has been ings about design and design thinking. He is a
purely academic, either understanding for its foundational father of design research in the
own sake or for communicating such under- way Taylor was for management research.
standing to students. The consultancy genre What is striking about Simon’s view of
that is typical of the management discourse is ‘design thinking’ is that he distinguished
generally absent and normative elements are between activities that create something new
much more rare. The writing style with exces- and activities that deal with existing reality,
sive praise found in the management dis- but not between artistic creation and engineer-
course is absent. ing. The difference between designers’ and
Theoretical perspectives can be categorized engineers’ ways of thinking, something that is
into five sub-discourses, identified as having noticed and problematized in practice, there-
clear roots and a substantial academic follow- fore became a non-issue for Simon.
ing, with the foundational work(s) within Another issue is Simon’s epistemological
parentheses: platform. He was critical of positivistic
approaches both in economics and in design.
1. Design and designerly thinking as the crea- However, he created his argument within a
tion of artefacts (Simon, 1969). neo-positivistic and rationalistic realm in
2. Design and designerly thinking as a reflex- order to have the positivists understand that
ive practice (Schön, 1983). their arguments were incorrect. Maybe it is not
3. Design and designerly thinking as a surprising that the neo-Simon movement (e.g.,
problem-solving activity (Buchanan, 1992 Hatchuel, 2002; Hatchuel & Weill, 2003) origi-
based on Rittel and Webber, 1973). nated in engineering schools rather than from
4. Design and designerly thinking as a way of design management or design.
reasoning/making sense of things (Lawson,
2006 [1980]; Cross, 2006, 2011).
2. Design and Designerly Thinking as a
5. Design and designerly thinking as creation
Reflexive Practice
of meaning (Krippendorff, 2006).
Schön (1930–1997) was originally a philoso-
pher with pragmatism as his theoretical frame
1. Design and Designerly Thinking as the
of reference. He first focused on the logics of
Creation of Artefacts
inventions and later, with Argyris, turned to
Simon (1916–2001), winner of the 1978 Nobel organizational learning. The last 20 years of his
Prize in Economics for his critique of the opti- life were devoted to practice theory. In The
mizing model of rational decision making and Reflective Practitioner, Schön (1983) challenged
its replacement with the concept of bounded both researchers and practitioners to recon-
rationality, earned an international reputation sider the role of technical knowledge versus
as a founder of artificial intelligence. His ‘artistry’ in developing professional excel-
research extended from computer science to lence. The book can be read in many ways,
cognitive psychology, business administration such as from an organizational competence
and economics, with design becoming an perspective or from a practice perspective
interest in his later years. Simon understood (e.g., Schön & Wiggins, 1992). From a design
‘design’ to encompass all conscious activities thinking perspective, it is a critique of Simon’s
to create artefacts, and thereby differentiated cognitive perspective. At a time when there
it from natural science, social science and was a big division made between positivism
humanities – but not from engineering. His and hermeneutics, Simon, with his analytical
main concern was about research – what con- reasoning, was close to positivism, while
stitutes the character of design research? His Schön, with his philosophical pragmatism,
point of departure was that design is about was close to hermeneutics. In contrast to
creation, while other sciences deal with what Simon, Schön constructed a picture of the
already exists. What, then, is research about designer through a practice-based focus on the
creation? His seminal work, The Sciences of the relation between creation and reflection-upon-
Artificial, was an answer to that question, and a the-creation that allows for constantly
legitimization of an experimental approach to improved competence and re-creation. Such
design research in academia. reflection, which Schön found in the work of
As far as we know, Simon himself never both architects and psychoanalysts, became
used the term ‘design thinking’. However, understood as the core of design work. This
reflection was not something that was sepa- should dominate and the manner in which they
rated from the practice as such, but was under- should’ (p. 228). The notion of placements in
stood as part of the practice. response to worked problems dissolves the
Schön also considered management prac- boundaries between modernist and postmod-
tice, and noted that managers are well aware of ernist design thinking.
the important areas of practice that fall outside Buchanan’s process perspective is con-
of technical rationality. While managers deal cerned with gaining a deeper understanding
with decisions under uncertainty through of design thinking in an increasingly complex
intuition, they build up an essentially unana- technological culture, so there can be commu-
lysable capacity for problem solving through nication among all participants engaged in the
long and varied practice rather than through process of design. He suggests four distinct
studying theory or techniques. Managers areas of design thinking as places of interven-
reflect-in-action, but they seldom reflect on tions where problems and solutions could be
their reflection-in-action. reconsidered: (1) symbolic and visual commu-
Differences between Simon and Schön’s nications (or graphic design), (2) material
views of design have been discussed fre- objects (or industrial design), (3) activities and
quently (Bousbaci, 2008; Dorst, 1997). In our organizational services (or service design), (4)
view, Simon created an objective framework complex systems or environments for living,
for the field of design, while Schön fleshed it working, playing and learning (or interaction
out with descriptions of designers in practice. design).
Their writings, therefore, belong to quite dif-
ferent worlds from an epistemological point of
view.
4. Design and Designerly Thinking as a
Practice-Based Activity and Way of Making
Sense of Things
3. Design and Designerly Thinking as a
Lawson and Cross, who both trained as archi-
Problem-Solving Activity
tects, each described and reflected on practical
Buchanan’s (1992) article about ‘wicked prob- cases of designers thinking and working. Their
lems’ in design has become a foundational ref- interests spanned many years: Lawson’s book,
erence not only for the discourse about design How Designers Think: The Design Process
thinking, but also for the whole design area. Demystified, has had four revisions since 1980,
Buchanan presented designers’ professional and Cross’s research included design thinking
way of thinking as a matter of dealing with workshops at Delft University of Technology
wicked problems, a class of social systems in 1991, continued with a series of articles on
problems with a fundamental indeterminacy ‘designerly ways of knowing’ (see Cross, 2006)
without a single solution and where much and, recently, his book Design Thinking (2011).
creativity is needed to find solutions. Cross works from ethnographic research to
Buchanan was the first to really take a reveal what designers do during the activity of
designerly perspective on design thinking, designing, while Lawson draws on the psy-
building on Rittel and Webber’s (1973) wicked chology of creative design processes to turn
problem approach as an alternative to the his research knowledge into forms designers
accepted step-by-step model of the design can use.
process with its two distinct phases: an ana- Lawson and Cross could be seen as part of
lytic step of problem definition, followed by a the reflexive tradition started by Schön.
synthetic sequence of problem solution. Bucha- However, their texts are within a different
nan introduced the concept of placements to discourse: they are practice-based through
describe the process of contextualization. presenting examples rather than taking a
Placements are ‘tools’ for intuitively or delib- philosophical perspective. Both Lawson and
erately shaping a design situation, identifying Cross use abductive processes to make sense
the views of all participants, the issues of of and generalize from observations, and
concern, and the intervention that becomes a hence find patterns that are grounded in prac-
working hypothesis for exploration and devel- tical experience and can be described through
opment, thereby letting the problem formula- practical examples. Ultimately each scholar
tion and solution go hand in hand rather than suggests a ‘model’ of the design process:
as sequential steps. As Wylant (2010) notes, Lawson in a number of process-driven steps
design thinking is the discipline of cycling that attempt to describe the complex proc-
through many contextual exercises of place- esses of designing (2005: 289–301), and Cross
ments to understand ‘how sense can be made in a recursive representation of the design
of something and given this, the designer is strategy followed by creative designers
then in a position to choose which contexts (2011: 78).
These various ways of working with design practices that readers may wish to try for
in the management area connect to three dif- themselves.
ferent origins of the design thinking discourse:
2. Design Thinking as a Way to Approach
1. Design thinking as design company IDEO’s
Indeterminate Organizational Problems, and a
way of working with design and innovation
Necessary Skill for Practising Managers
(Kelley, 2001, 2005; Brown, 2008, 2009).
2. Design thinking as a way to approach inde- A closely related, yet very different discourse
terminate organizational problems, and a emanates from Roger Martin, Dean of the
necessary skill for practising managers (Dunne Rotman School of Business at the University of
& Martin, 2006; Martin, 2009). Toronto and a strategy consultant with a long-
3. Design thinking as part of management theory term interest in the cognitive processes of suc-
(Boland & Collopy, 2004a). cessful executives and their need for more
than analytical thinking (Martin, 2007b).
Working with IDEO led Martin to use the
1. Design Thinking as Design Company IDEO’s
concept of design thinking to reconceptualize
Way of Working with Design and Innovation
his earlier models (Martin, 2009), and promote
Stories of IDEO’s way of working successfully teaching how to do design thinking to man-
with product development innovations told by agement students (Dunne & Martin, 2006).
Tom Kelley, the founder’s brother and general Martin placed his arguments within the
manager (Kelley, 2001) and the various context of management, using examples of
persona and roles played by members of the company successes, and returned to these
design teams (Kelley, 2005) introduced the same companies to illustrate his model of ‘the
company’s work to a broader audience than knowledge funnel’ and the need to use both
their local network. The books provided the right and left halves of the brain. His
‘lessons in creativity’ starting from the particu- message gained widespread acceptance
lar, then generalized to IDEO’s point of view, a among practising managers, who from there
‘design practice’ perspective using their ‘secret became curious about design thinking. Design
formula’ of a blend of methodologies, work thinking in this discourse, as an ongoing cycle
culture and infrastructure. The CEO, Tim of generating ideas (abduction), predicting
Brown, labelled the concept as ‘design think- consequences (deduction), testing, and gener-
ing’, detailing steps in the process (2008), and alizing (induction), became a way to approach
providing stories to help everyone use IDEO’s indeterminate organizational problems, a nec-
methods, particularly business people and essary skill for practising managers familiar
social innovators (Brown & Wyatt, 2007). with cognitively grounded arguments, and
While Brown’s stories are compelling, there hence a necessary component of management
is no published theoretical framework other education. At the same time, for all its clarity
than his description of the circular process. welcomed by managers, Martin’s argument
Naturally there are links between the IDEO has been stripped of the ‘messiness’ of a
discourse of design thinking and the design- designer’s approach, and thereby separated
erly discourses described earlier, even if they from connections with IDEO.
are not explicitly spelled out in references. Dunne and Martin (2006) brought the
Members of IDEO are all inspired by design- notion of teaching design thinking into the
ers’ work processes that are the grounds for Academy of Management, while the business
the five designerly discourses, even if they are press highlighted design-based, interdiscipli-
not all trained as professional designers (on nary programs (Wong, 2009). Similarly to the
the contrary, ‘pure’ designers are in the minor- theoretical discourse, the education streams
ity at the company). Maybe it is the experience have remained separate (Melles, Howard
of designers and non-designers working with & Thompson-Whiteside, 2012), with design
the design process that inspired Brown to thinking within design-based education
suggest that, ‘everybody could do it’ just by drawing on Schön (Oxman, 1999, 2004), or
following the steps. Simon for engineering applications (Dym
While no formal links exist between Palo et al., 2005), and management-based offerings
Alto-headquartered IDEO and Boston-based being concerned with pedagogical founda-
Design Management Institute (DMI), many tions (cf., Wang & Wang, 2011).
articles published by DMI (cf., Lockwood, As a result of Martin’s wide reach as a
2009, 2010) communicate the same intention, speaker and author, design thinking has been
to make the practices of designers accessible promoted as a useful process in different
and meaningful to managers. Most often disciplines, including library administration
without theoretical grounding, at best they (Bell, 2008), in hospitals (Uehira & Kay, 2009),
provide insightful anecdotes or lists of best legal practice management (Szabo, 2010), and
HR (Birchall-Spencer, 2010). In the manage- management’ based on the work of the confer-
ment area he has influenced work in strategy ence. Yet there seem to be no traces of this new
(Fraser, 2007) and organizational change and vocabulary reported in business or academic
development (Sato et al., 2010), and has texts, maybe because the sources of individual
inspired the creation of a design thinking concepts come from different epistemological
toolkit for managers (Leidtka & Ogilvie, 2011), orientations.
although these authors later comment that for The legacy of this opportunity to reflect on
best results designers should lead the process ‘managing as designing’ is difficult to assess. It
(Leidtka & Ogilvie, 2012). may be inferred as one impetus for special
journal issues relating design or designing to
organization science or development (e.g.,
3. Design Thinking as Part of
Dunbar & Starbuck, 2006; Bate, 2007; Jelinek,
Management Theory
Romme & Boland, 2008). Also academic con-
A third use of the term ‘design thinking’ ema- ferences have provided calls or opportunities
nates from Richard Boland and Frank Collopy, for scholarly conversations connecting design-
who are academic researchers and professors ing with managing, for example, the Academy
in management information systems. Their of Management 2011 Professional Develop-
inspiration came from architect Frank Gehry’s ment Workshop ‘Creating Design Thinkers’,
way of working on the new building for the Cambridge Academic Design Management
Weatherhead School of Management in Cleve- Conference 2011, or the theme of the European
land, and subsequently captured in a book of Group for Organization Studies 2011 Collo-
essays by scholars invited to a workshop to quium ‘Design!?’ Maybe a more robust aca-
celebrate the opening of the building and demic conversation on ‘design thinking’
reflect on ways managers are designers as well within the management realm will emerge
and decision makers (Boland & Collopy, with time.
2004b). Boland and Collopy interchangeably
use the concept ‘design thinking’ and ‘the Comparison of the Three Management
design attitude’ (expectations and orientations
Discourses of Design Thinking
one brings to a design project; 2004b: 9),
thereby pointing less towards design as a way The management discourses of design think-
of working or a work process with distinct ing can be compared as in Table 2.
characteristics (as stressed in the IDEO Other frameworks exist that synthesize the
version) and more towards cognitive charac- area ‘design thinking’. Following a literature
teristics (similar to Martin). Previously in review concentrating mainly on the practice-
organization and management theory, design based literatures, Hassi and Laakso (2011) con-
had been considered at the organizational cluded that the concept of design thinking in
level (cf., Romme, 2003). the management discourse consists of three
Boland and Collopy credit Simon with elements: (1) a set of practices, (2) cognitive
developing a theory of the design attitude for approaches and (3) mindsets. Rylander (2009)
managers, and subsequently distinguish this compares the two discourses of ‘design think-
from a decision attitude. If there is a common ing’ and ‘knowledge work’ and considers
foundation for the various essays, it may be ‘design thinking’ as practical knowledge,
found in Simon’s notion of design projects as open-ended problems, a social identity of cel-
‘the urge to change an existing state of affairs ebrating creativity, and visual forms of domi-
into a more preferred one’ (2004b: 10). nant sensemaking modes. These statements
However, most of the contributors to this make the dominant management discourse of
more theoretical but yet quite diverse dis- ‘knowledge work’ appear purely cognitive
course stream are world-renowned scholars and lacking ‘embodied knowledge’ that is so
who use the design situation as an application important to designers. Kimbell’s (2011) criti-
of their own frameworks of thinking and theo- cal review of the entire literature found three
rizing. Boland (2004) himself looks upon different ways of describing design thinking:
organizations in general and states that man- (1) as a cognitive style of individual designers
aging is very similar to designing in more engaged in problem solving, (2) as a general
general characteristics: like art, it is all but a theory of design as a field or discipline focused
rational process. on taming wicked problems, and (3) as an
One insightful comment highlights the organizational resource for businesses and
extent to which we are limited by our vocabu- other organizations in need of innovation. She
laries, quoting Cooperrider, ‘words are fateful proposes attending to the situated, embodied
– words make worlds’ (Boland & Collopy, routines of designers and offers a useful way
2004c: 266), hence they conclude the book with to rethink design thinking. Any of these
suggestions for a new ‘design vocabulary for frameworks can be the starting point for
Volume 22
Number 2
2013
Table 2. Comparison of the Three Management Discourses of Design Thinking
IDEO design company Company managers IDEO success cases Grounded in experience Kelley: How ‘we’ (IDEO) do
(Tom Kelley & (potential customers) (written for managers) rather than research design thinking
Tim Brown) Connections to innovation Brown: how anyone can use
research design thinking
Roger Martin Educators (academics & Success cases from production Grounded in cognitive science How successful production
consultants) Company companies used to illustrate & management science companies do design
managers theory development Builds on planning theories thinking
(managerial thinking) (‘wicked problems’) How ‘any’ company
(manager/individual) can
do design thinking
Richard Boland & Academic researchers & Short essays where established Grounded in individual Design thinking as analogy
Fred Collopy educators (management) scholars apply researchers’ own & alternative
their theoretical perspective theoretical perspectives
to the design area Inspired by Gehry’s
architectural practice or
contact with design
designerly thinking discourse. Looking at the directions depending on the theoretical tradi-
whole design process as a matter of meaning tion of the author.
creation provides new perspectives on both When it comes to links between the design
design and innovation (Verganti, 2009; Jahnke, and management discourses (‘designerly
2012). We therefore would welcome studies of thinking’ and ‘design thinking’) there are few
designers’ meaning creation in the practice of links between them. Out of the three manage-
innovation from a designerly point of view. ment discourses, two (IDEO and Martin) are
Example 3. The design thinking discourses linked to design practice by IDEO – but do not
build upon a notion that managers’ ways of refer to academic research within design (even
thinking and problem solving are different if there must be some connections because
from designers. At the same time, Boland and both IDEO’s founder and design research
colleagues maintain that managers are quite come from similar experiences in industrial
capable of using designers’ ways of reasoning design education). Within the design dis-
as well: a statement that assumes that the dif- courses, we have located a single reference to
ferences are complex and probably inherit the managerial discourse of design thinking –
some ambiguity and paradox. As a way to as a ‘business model’ (Piotrowski, 2011).
investigate both differences and similarities,
the whole design thinking area would gain The Designerly Ways of Thinking
from close ethnographic research that could The five different discourses with different
replace descriptive anecdotes and build up an epistemological underpinnings that we refer
academic body of knowledge. One possibility to collectively as a ‘designerly way of thinking’
could be situations similar to that at Intuit, as each have both forerunners and followers that
described by Martin (2011), but using an eth- exist as parallel tracks. Anyone wishing to
nographic approach and an analysis frame- make an academic contribution therefore
work that draws from the tradition described needs to have this pluralistic perspective in
by Cross (cf., Cross, 1999). The objective of mind, because without recognizing the plural-
such a stream of research would be to attempt ity and identifying the specific perspective, it
to understand what is happening naturally in is impossible to make an academic contribu-
the setting, and to interpret the data gathered tion. Academic knowledge always needs to
in a systematic way to see what implications take earlier knowledge into consideration, and
could be formed from the data. to build upon a similar epistemology (this
holds even for a critique that takes distance
from a specific discourse). From an academic
perspective, this plurality in discourses within
Concluding Reflections designerly ways of thinking is not a sign of
weakness but rather a sign of maturity.
As social constructionists we regard an
approach that begins with the question, ‘What The Management Discourse of
is design thinking?’ as an essentialist trap. We
‘Design Thinking’
do not believe that there is a unique meaning
of ‘design thinking’, and accordingly we The management discourse of ‘design think-
should not look for one. Instead, we look for ing’ is united as a fad, yet there is far from a
where and how the concept is used in different single meaning. Rather, the concept of design
situations, both theoretical and practical, and thinking seems to consist of different streams
what meaning is given to the concept. In this that are united only because they are not ana-
article we have identified multiple discourses lytical. Perhaps those designers and design
with distinctly different meanings and researchers who are not comfortable with the
assumptions given to the concept ‘design concept ‘design thinking’ associate it with a
thinking’: five scholarly discourses grounded more cognitive approach and a distinction
within the design research area, and three dis- between thinking and doing. Conversely,
courses within the managerial area, of which management practitioners like the concept
two are grounded in management research ‘design thinking’ because it gives a label to
and one in design practice. something that is needed within management,
The five designerly discourses are all aware but unless it is articulated, it remains under-
of the others, being followers, alternatives or in valued. The normative descriptions are written
clear opposition to each other. There is also with industrial leaders as the target group.
some awareness between the three identified Though it is understandable that many people
management discourses: Martin links to would like a clear-cut definition of design
IDEO, the Boland and Collopy-inspired dis- thinking, such a quest for unity is counterpro-
courses have common ground in Simon, ductive for the academic development of the
with interpretations that spread in different area that we believe it deserves.
Acknowledgements designing/thinking-about-design-thinking
[accessed on 15 July 2011].
The authors would like to thank the Special Cooper, R., Junginger, S. and Lockwood, T. (2009)
Issue Guest Editor and two anonymous Design Thinking and Design Management: A
Research and Practice Perspective. Design Man-
reviewers for their constructive comments that agement Review, 20, 46–55.
greatly improved our paper. Cross, N. (1999) Design Research: A Disciplined
Conversation. Design Issues, 15, 5–10.
Cross, N. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing.
References Springer Verlag, London.
Cross, N. (2011) Design Thinking. Berg, Oxford.
Ambrose, G. and Harris, P. (2010) Basics Design 08: Dell’Era, C. and Bellini, E. (2009) How Can Product
Design Thinking. AVA Publishing, Lausanne. Semiotics be Embedded in Product Technologies?
Bate, P. (2007) Bringing the Design Sciences to The Case of the Italian Wine Industry. Journal of
Organization Development and Change Manage- International Product Management, 13, 411–39.
ment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, Dorst, K. (1997) Describing Design: A Comparison of
8–11. Paradigms. Delft Institute of Technology, Delft.
Bell, S. (2008) Design Thinking: A Design Approach Dunbar, R. and Starbuck, W. (2006) Learning to
to the Delivery of Outstanding Service Can Help Design Organizations and Learning from Design-
Put the User Experience First. American Libraries, ing Them. Organization Science, 17, 171–8.
39, 44–9. Dunne, D. and Martin, R. (2006) Design Thinking
Birchall, J. (2008) Proctor and Gamble Hires Design and How it will Change Management Education.
Outsider. Financial Times, 21 May [WWW docu- Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5,
ment]. URL http://ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ 512–23.
386b4fle-2761-11dd-b7cb- Dym, C., Agigino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D. and Leifer, L.
00077b07658.html#axzz1ST9GTonY [accessed on (2005) Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching
18 July 2011]. and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94,
Birchall-Spencer, M. (2010) Companies that Employ 103–20.
Design Thinking will Tap into Innovations, Lon- Feldman, J. and Boult, J. (2005) Third-Generation
gevity and Competitive Advantage, says Roger Design Consultancies: Designing Culture for
Martin. HR Professional, 27, 51–7. Innovation. Design Management Review, 16, 40–7.
Boland, R. (2004) Design in the Punctuation of Man- Fraser, H. (2007) The Practice of Breakthrough Strat-
agement Action. In Boland, R. and Collopy, F. egies by Design. Journal of Business Strategy, 28,
(eds.), Managing as Designing. Stanford Univer- 66–74.
sity Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 106–12. Galle, P. and Kovács, L. (1996) Replication Protocol
Boland, R. and Collopy, F. (eds.) (2004a) Managing Analysis: A Method for the Study of Real-World
as Designing, Stanford University Press, Stanford, Design Thinking. Design Studies, 17, 181–200.
CA. Hackman, J. (1989) Groups that Work: [and those that
Boland, R. and Collopy, F. (2004b) Design matters don’t]: Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork.
for management. In Boland, R. and Collopy, F. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
(eds.), Managing as Designing. Stanford Univer- Hassi, L. and Laakso, M. (2011) Conceptions of
sity Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 3–18. Design Thinking in the Management Discourse.
Boland, R. and Collopy, F. (2004c) Toward a Design European Academy of Design Biannual Confer-
Vocabulary for Management. In Boland, R. and ence, Porto, Portugal.
Collopy, F. (eds.), Managing as Designing. Stan- Hatchuel, A. (2002) Towards Design Theory and
ford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 265–88. Expandable Rationality: The Unfinished Program
Bousbaci, R. (2008) ‘Models of Man’ in Design of Herbert Simon. Journal of Management and Gov-
Thinking: The ‘Bounded Rationality’ Episode. ernance, 5, 260–73.
Design Issues, 24, 38–52. Hatchuel, A. and Weill, B. (2003) A New Approach
Brown, T. (2008) Design Thinking. Harvard Business of Innovatve Design: An Introduction to C-K
Review, 86, 84–92. Theory. International Conference of Engineering
Brown, T. (2009) Change by Design: How Design Design, Stockholm, Sweden.
Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Ho, C. (2001) Some Phenomena of Problem Decom-
Innovation. HarperCollins, New York. position Startegy for Design Thinking: Differ-
Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2007) Design Thinking for ences between Novices and Experts. Design
Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Studies, 22, 27–45.
Review, Winter, 30–5. Holloway, M. (2009) How Tangible is your Strategy?
Bruce, M. and Bessant, J. (2002) Design in Business: How Design Thinking can Turn your Strategy
Strategic Innovation through Design. Prentice-Hall, into Reality. Journal of Business Strategy, 30,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 57–69.
Buchanan, R. (1992) Wicked Problems in Design Jahnke, M. (2012) Revisiting Design as a Herme-
Thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5–21. neutic Practice: An Investigation of Paul Ricoeur’s
Camillus, J. (2008) Strategy as a Wicked Problem. Critical Hermeneutics. Design Issues, 28, 20–30.
Harvard Business Review, 86, 98–106. Jahnke, M. and Hansson, L. (2010) Innovation of
Collopy, F. (2009) Thinking about ‘Design Thinking’ Meaning through Design: An Analysis of a
[WWW document]. URL http://www.fast Gender Bending Design Process. Design Research
company.com/blog/fred-collopy/manage- Journal, 2, 25–32.
Jelinek, M., Romme, G. and Boland, R. (2008) Intro- Martin, R. (2009) The Design of Business: Why Design
duction to the Special Issue: Organization Studies Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage.
as a Science for Design: Creating Collaborative Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Artifacts and Research. Organization Studies, 29, Martin, R. (2011) The Innnovation Catalysts. Harvard
317–29. Business Review, 89, 82–7.
Johansson, U. and Woodilla, J. (2009) Creating a McCullagh, K. (2006) Strategy for the Real World.
Synergistic Dialogue among Design Thinking, Design Management Review, 17, 48–55.
Strategy and Innovation. Design Research Journal, Melles, G., Howard, Z. and Thompson-Whiteside, S.
2, 29–33. (2012) Teaching Design Thinking: Expanding
Johansson, U. and Woodilla, J. (2010) How to Avoid Horizons in Design Education. Procedia – Social
Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater: An and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 162–6.
Ironic Perspective on Design Thinking. European Nussbaum, B. (2011) Design Thinking is a Failed
Group for Organization Studies Colloquium, Experiment. So What’s Next? [WWW document].
Lisbon, Portugal. URL http://fastcodesign.com/1663558/beyond-
Junginger, S. (2007) Learning to Design: Giving design-thinking [accessed on 15 July 2011].
Purpose to Heart, Hand and Mind. Journal of Busi- Olson, E., Cooper, R. and Slater, R. (1998) Design
ness Strategy, 28, 59–65. Strategy and Competitive Advantage. Business
Kelley, T. (2001) The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Horizons, 41, 55–61.
Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Oxman, R. (1999) Educating the Designerly Thinker.
Firm. Doubleday, New York. Design Studies, 20, 105–22.
Kelley, T. (2005) The Ten Faces of Innovation. Random Oxman, R. (2004) Think-Maps: Teaching Design
House, New York. Thinking in Design Education. Design Studies, 25,
Kimbell, L. (2011) Rethinking Design Thinking: Part 63–91.
I. Design and Culture, 3, 285–306. Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. (1999) Knowing ‘What’ is
Kotler, P. and Rath, G. (1984) Design – a Powerful not Enough: Turning Knowledge into Action.
but Neglected Strategic Tool. Journal of Business Califorinia Management Review, 42, 83–108.
Strategy, 5, 16–21. Piotrowski, C. (2011) Problem Solving and Critical
Krippendorff, K. (2006) The Semantic Turn: A New Thinking for Designers. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Foundation for Design. Taylor and Francis, Boca Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973) Dilemmas in a
Raton, FL. General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 5,
Lawson, B. (2006 [1980]) How Designers Think: The 155–69.
Design Process Demyistfied, 4th edn. Architectual Romme, G. (2003) Making a Difference: Organiza-
Press, Oxford. tion as Design. Organization Sciences, 14, 558–73.
Leong, B. and Clark, H. (2003) Culture-Based Rowe, P. (1987) Design Thinking. MIT Press, Cam-
Knowledge towards New Design Thinking and bridge, MA.
Practice – A Dialogue. Design Issues, 19, 48–58. Rylander, A. (2009) Design Thinking as Knowledge
Leidtka, J. (2000) In Defense of Strategy as Design. Work: Epistemological Foundations and Practical
California Management Review, 42, 8–30. Implications. Design Management Journal, 4, 7–19.
Leidtka, J. (2010) Business Strategy and Design: Can Sato, S., Lucente, S., Meyer, D. and Mrazek, D.
this Marriage be Saved? Design Management (2010) Design Thinking to make Organization
Review, 21, 6–11. Change and Development more Responsive.
Leidtka, J. and Ogilvie, T. (2011) Designing for Design Management Review, 21, 44–52.
Growth: A Design Thinking Toolkit for Managers. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Pro-
Columbia University Press, New York. fessionals Think in Action. Basic Books, Cambridge,
Leidtka, J. and Ogilvie, T. (2012) Helping MA.
Business Managers Discover their Appetite for Schön, D. and Wiggins, G. (1992) Kinds of Seeing in
Design Thinking. Design Management Review, 23, Designing. Creativity and Innovation Management,
6–13. 1, 68–74.
Liu, Y.-T. (1996) Is Designing One Search or Two? Simon, H. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial, 1st edn.
A Model of Design Thinking involving Symbol- MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
ism and Connectionism. Design Studies, 17, Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd
435–49. edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lockwood, T. (2009) Frameworks of Design Think- Stempfle, J. (2002) Thinking in Design Teams – An
ing (Editor Introduction). Design Management Analysis of Team Communication. Design Studies,
Journal, 4, 3. 23, 473–96.
Lockwood, T. (ed.) (2010) Design Thinking: Integrat- Stevens, J. and Moultrie, J. (2011) Aligning Strategy
ing Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand and Design Perspectives: A Framework of
Value. Allworth Press, New York. Design’s Strategic Contributions. The Design
Louridas, P. (1999) Design as Bricolage: Anthropol- Journal, 14, 475–500.
ogy Meets Design Thinking. Design Studies, 20, Szabo, M. (2010) Design Thinking in Legal Practice
517–35. Management. Design Management Review, 21,
Martin, R. (2007a) Design and Business, Why Can’t 44–6.
We Be Friends? Journal of Business Strategy, 28, Tischler, L. (2009) Ideo’s David Kelley on ‘Design
6–12. Thinking’ [WWW document]. URL http://www.
Martin, R. (2007b) The Opposable Mind: How Success- fastcompany.com/magazine/132/a-designer-
ful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. takes-on-his-biggestchallenge-ever.html
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. [accessed on 15 July 2011].
DESIGNERLY THINKING
Appendix A. Continued
DESIGNERLY THINKING
Appendix A. Continued
DESIGNERLY THINKING
Appendix A. Continued
DESIGNERLY THINKING
DESIGN THINKING
Appendix A. Continued
DESIGN THINKING
Appendix A. Continued
DESIGN THINKING
Appendix A. Continued
DESIGN THINKING
Appendix A. Continued
Appendix A. Continued