Thinking, Design. A construct of (and for) change

What is it about?

Semantically speaking, design thinking is easily mis-used; resulting in potentially exclusive decisions, and unintentional steps backward. Contemporaneously, design philosophy has evolved; largely due to the need for flexibility in delivery of solutions for a rapidly moving market and clear methodology. A modern interpretation of the evolved discipline suggests a gradual cross-over of research and design (Holliday et al, 2014). This paradigm shift incorporates philosophical thinking and qualitative research standards of replicable methods, sampling, informed ethical conduct and robust evidence to inform the ‘art’. We propose that such a design construct is advantageous; not being instinctively nor egocentrically biased.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The traditional design-process can result in complex coded opportunities. Additionally, the balance of power to decode opportunity appears to have changed with a democratisation of design (IKEA, 2016). Democratic design whilst once associated with the analysis of Scandinavian workplaces, has transcended to the maker-marketplace; evident in the crowdsourcing of new products. Selection of designs and solutions is according to small scale investment preferences i.e. the maker produces the options that are most liked and consequently invested in, prior to reaching production variables and logistical expenses. It is showing that user interaction with designed prototypes can result in successful, market ready propositions. At the development end of a proposition, an increasing compatibility between designer, user and researcher is resulting in, and from, participatory methods that gather deep insights. Participatory Action Research (PAR) methods conceptualised since the 1940’s (Lewin et al, 1946 onwards) led to operational methods as a catalyst for change. Rapid evolution of methods, and application in 1960’s social change has led to Co-creation, encouraging wider participation with fuzzy-end problems (Sanders and Stappers, 2008) to seek mutually successful solutions. But participation is not the same as autonomy. Co-creation often requires facilitation, with interaction during a typically short time-frame. Consequently, unless responsibility to proceed with outcomes is established at the outset, propositions can remain conceptual (with lack of progression and disillusion for those involved). Co-creation can be a valuable tool with which to establish narrative, which can otherwise be difficult to express and is often poorly represented by static personas. A narrative can be expressed in a multitude of ways but a common favourite involves constructing experiential prototypes, (i.e. a room layout, poster or cardboard cut-out smartphones to illustrate interaction). The act of making something tangible introduces a sense of play, supported by the additional sense of relatedness of topic (Marhsall et al, 2014) being addressed with personal experience exemplars enable an individual to re-tell narrative and make it easier to understand the context which underpins the experience.

Perspectives