^
1
^
James Intriligator 6/12/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Interesting piece with some very nice ideas. One issue I would like to raise is around the whole concept (brand?) of “Design Thinking”. I have always contended that “design thinking is just GOOD thinking”. For example, when asked to design a new product (eg dishwasher), or service (eg banking system), or experience (eg hospital admissions) it seems pretty obvious that one should involve end-users. So, “user-centered” or “design-thinking” approaches could, perhaps, best be seen as rigorous and systematic/synthetic approaches based on a deeper understanding/appreciation of relevant data/issues/perspectives. With that (long ramble) as background, I guess I would question your statement (near the very end): “structured reason is not enough”… I believe that flexible and creative/expansive structured reason IS enough. Of course, it has to be careful not to succumb to the strict boundaries and sometimes narrow thinking/tools of uni-disciplinary approaches and conventional wisdom. But, it’s all about the structured reason baby! With that and a little dash of creativity, metaphor, innovation, and communication you are set to succeed. 😃
^
1
^
Dale Percival 6/14/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Isn’t part of the focus of design thinking to work in the white space between the black spots of specific disciplines? The end-users, in this case don’t necessarily exist yet.