Design Thinking for Non-Design Communities of Practice Robyn Ann Richardson Submitted in ...

118 Pages·2013·7.41 MB·English

Design Thinking for Non-Design Communities of Practice
Robyn Ann Richardson
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
Master of Fine Arts in Design Management
at
The Savannah College of Art and Design
© May 2013, Robyn Ann Richardson
The author hereby grants SCAD permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper
and electronic thesis copies of the document in whole or part in any medium now known
or hereafter created.
Signature of Author and Date _______________________________________________
Robert Bau, M.B.A. / /
Committee Chair sign date
Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness, M.F.A. / /
Committee Member sign date
Tara Pearsall, Ph.D / /
Committee Member sign date
Design Thinking for Non-Design Communities of Practice
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Design Management
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts
in Design Management in Savannah College of Art and Design
By
Robyn Ann Richardson
Savannah, GA
May 2013
This work is dedicated to:
Joyce, Doug, Wendy, Lory, Lucy, and Mabel,
Granny and Grandad,
my entire wonderful family of human beans,
and you.
***
The author would like to thank her committee for their guidance and support,

Robert Bau
Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness
and
Tara Pearsall
you have all been an excellent team of sherpas.
Table of Contents
Table of Figures 1
Abstract 2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 3 - 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12 - 55
Chapter 3: Research Methodologies 56 - 61
Chapter 4: Research and Findings 62 - 87
Chapter 5: Analysis 88 - 101
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Future Studies 102 - 106
Epilogue 107 - 109
Bibliography 110 - 114
Table of Figures
Figure 1a 3
Figure 1b 4
Figure 1c 6
Figure 2 14
Figure 2a 17
Figure 2b 18
Fibure 2c 19
Figure 2d 21
Figure 2e 22
Figure 2f 28
Figure 2g 34
Figure 2h 36
Figure 2j 42
Figure 4a 62
Figure 4b 64
Figure 4c 66
Figure 4d 67
Figure 4e 67
Figure 4f 69
Figure 4g 77
Figure 4h 78
Figure 4i 79
Figure 4j 81
Figure 4k 82
Figure 4l 83
Figure 4m 84
Figure 4n 85
Figure 4o 85
Figure 4p 87
Figure 5a 89
Figure 5b 91
Figure 5c 93
Figure 5d 94
1
Design Thinking for Non-Design Communities of Practice
Robyn Ann Richardson
May 2013
This thesis examines the adoption of design thinking methods by non-design communities of
practice. As design management focuses on the coordination of design activities across fields
and disciplines, the design manager conducting the research sought to discover methods
and practices that could be used to assist with adoption and application of design thinking
methods with a group of non-designers. The design manager provides several solutions for
the non-design community of practice, which may potentially assist other designers when
introducing and implementing design thinking methods across diverse groups.
2
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Design is dominating our current culture. The design process, when played out on popular
television programs for reworking gardens or interiors of the homes of ordinary people, shows
how magically their lives can be re-interpreted and enhanced by a designer (Lawson 2004, 8). For
highly-acclaimed shows like The Lifetime Network’s Project Runway, an energetic bespoke tailor
can be transformed from aspirational individual to newly christened fashion darling in one succinct
season of programming. But design extends beyond fashion and interior renovations. Design is an
expansive multi-disciplinary domain split into specialized fields of graphics, fashion, architecture,
sound, and products, just to name a few. The physical manifestation of a designers’ labor is easiest
to consume as an end product—a fashion garment, a poster, a building, a stereo, or an appliance—
yet, there remains a paradox of the understanding that the general public has of what designers are,
what they do and what they know, because design is both everyday and yet special (Lawson 2004,
7). Companies, businesses, and a myriad of other professions are clamoring to leverage design as
an advantage in the marketplace. (Martin 2009b) The popularized phrase coined to describe the
design process and its practices is known as design thinking; yet, trying to understand what it is,
how it works and what it produces is a massively confusing endeavour. Figure 1a
FIGURE 1a
Design
Thinking
DESIGN BUSINESS OTHER
Design Thinking literature is authored by individuals
from different fields, often intended for a similar
There is no comprehensive
target audience. Sometimes these are “collections” of
guide to design thinking
reflections of different people from within the field,
to date.
again, adding another layer of complexity to an already
convoluted pool of work.
3
In order to understand this phenomenal term, the thesis begins with a seemingly simple question—
what is design thinking and how does it work—and shows that procuring the answer is strikingly
complex. There is no one unifying theory that explains: what design thinking is, how it works, why
it is useful, or what it produces. This is partly because the term is being used by gurus of design,
business, and management—each leveraging design thinking for different purposes and general
outcomes; and new authors from different backgrounds increases daily.
As varying communities of practice (Wenger 1999) appropriate the term and use it within context
of their disciplines and fields, the language, tools, and processes of design thinking is adapted to fit
these contexts. Moreover, the majority of the literature about design thinking is aimed at designers
or business managers (Dorst 2006, 6). So understanding what design thinking is becomes a difficult
task, as there are so many different authors using different terms to explain similar processes and
practices. This makes for plenty of confusion among those who wish to use or even understand
design thinking. Not only would someone from outside a design or business field need to translate
the terms into their own practice, but they would also have to determine how these practices would
apply or fit within their culture. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity has yet to be overcome, as the
literature review demonstrates this exact confusion in regards to terminology, process, and practices
(Figure 1b) by comparing different design authors and their approaches to design theory. This will
be exemplified in chapter 2, where a comparison of texts examines varying generalizations, and
overviews, revealing an inconsistency across authors, even from within the discipline of design.
FIGURE 1b Design Thinking is adapted by
practitioners from different communities
of practice, who often change the
nomenclature of language, tools, and
T T
L L processes of design thinking.
P T P
L
P
This is causing confusion amongst
readers who are eager to understand and
DESIGNERS BUSINESS
apply design thinking.
GURUS
4
Thus, attempting to define design thinking reveals a second dilemma. The literature about design
thinking is aimed at a design and business population, but champions of design thinking claim it
can be used in any field; yet, the majority of examples found in the research focus on communities
of practice which use design thinking for creating commercial products and services. (In some
cases, design thinking is aimed at educators to affect instruction or curriculum, but the author
does not include these.) Where are the examples of non-design communities of practice using
design thinking? This author could not find documentation explaining how a non-design-based
community of practice (Wenger 1999, 6) can understand, apply, and adopt design thinking into its
cultural practice because so much of the literature is targeted towards commercial realms.
Also, the projected outcome of what design thinking delivers seems to be most broadly categorized
under the buzz-word of “innovation.” But other disciplines such as service design and approaches
such as co-design (cooperative design) can be said to produce “innovation” as well, which could
again lead the reader to wonder if these processes are the same as design thinking since they
seem to produce the same loosely defined result. While service design and co-design are relatively
well documented and more widely practiced throughout the UK and in Europe, there is a dearth
of such studies here in the U.S. Moreover, UK and Europe are home to thought leaders (John
Thackara, Ezio Manzini) who are shaping dialogues about the application and impact of design in
culture, and burgeoning design firms (Thinkpublic, Snook-Design) that are using design thinking
methods, but whose works are better known under the labels of service and co-design. It seems
that design thinking, service design, and co-design are closely related cousins, but without clearly
distinguishing features. Those eager to embrace a new approach may be again confused at the
overlapping similarities and find frustration with authors who claim that design thinking can
produce innovation, provide a competitive advantage, meet user needs, create innovative social
products and services, or any combination thereof. This point is illustrated in Figure 1c.
5
FIGURE 1c
INNOVATION Each group leverages
design thinking differently,
claiming to produce various
$ $ $ $
(yet seemingly related)
outcomes. This ads a third
layer of complexity when
trying to understand what
meet ) design thinking is, how it
user works, and what it produces.
needs
DESIGN
BUSINESS
INNOVATION
Social
OTHER
Why design thinking?
Research shows there is a growing need for non-designers to understand the design process because
they are increasingly interacting with designers and influencing the factors which affect design
decisions. As non-designers interact with designers, it is helpful to have a shared understanding
amongst the group so as to facilitate dialogue and group interaction. When carried out professionally,
design is most often a social activity; it involves teams of designers, specialist consultants and
of course clients and other interested parties... design must be one of the most interdisciplinary of
subjects (Lawson 2004, x).
As interest in the design process flourishes, and designers increasingly work alongside other
specialists, there is a demand for non-designers to understand and even adopt design methods
to enhance their knowledge and abilities (Jones 1992; Best 2010, 9). CEOs, small businesses,
government agencies, educational institutions and a multitude of other groups are interested in
leveraging the design process to enhance their own offerings and meet their users’ needs. After
reading a few books on the subject, or visiting a design consultancy, some feel acquiring a design
6