How Designers See and How They Critically Think - Case Study Example

 Introduction Design thinking is the analytical and creative process that includes an individual in particular opportunities to create experiment, gather feedback, prototype models, and redesign. To be successful in the current globally competitive and technological world requires one to develop and use a different skill than was needed in the past days. Design thinking is one of the skills required. Further, it is more accessible and is viewed as a central activity of engineering. Many scholars have argued that engineering and other programs should graduate students who can design solutions that are effective to meet social needs. Just like problem solving, design is a ubiquitous and natural human activity. The beginning of the design process is where dissatisfaction and needs with the current state summed with determination that an action must be taken to solve a particular problem. Scientist from the scattered parts of the world acts as designers in their careers not knowing that they are participating in the design process (Frisendal, 2012). Design thinking has also gained attention in the setting of business. The reason behind the increased attention is that the design of services and products is a great component of business competitiveness. Most well known companies have indeed committed themselves to being design leaders. Though design thinking has recently become an important part of engineering fields, design, and business, it can bring positive effects to the 21st century education across many disciplines. The positive impacts can be since it involves creative thinking in delivering solutions to problems (Menges, 2011). In academic environments students are expected to read critically, think and reason in a logic manner and solve problems that are complex. Therefore, to help students succeed in the digital, interconnected world, educators should provide pupils with systems thinking, design thinking, and teamwork skills. In doing so, it will help them nature their skills of problem solving and prepare them for higher education and career (Ingle 2013). In many fields, knowledge is accumulated and generated through action. Thus, knowledge is utilized to produce work, and work is evaluated to produce knowledge. People who are creative usually work in two different ways. They can work as makers or finders. Finders show their creativity through discovery while makers, though are equally creative they are driven to synthesize what they are aware of in concepts, compositions, constructions, arrangements and patterns. Using the fundamental process, differences between how makers and finders work and think will help define the nature of design thinking. An example of such a factor is the content within which a field works (Stickdorn, Scchneider, and Andrews, 2011). Content: Symbolic Vs Real. Process: Analytic Vs Synthetic. Figure 1, Conceptual representation of content and process factors (Stickdorn, Scchneider, and Andrews, 2011). The two axes define the diagram. The analytic and the synthetic axes classify fields by process in the way they work. On the left side of the axes, the areas are more concerned with discovering or finding. On the right side, the fields are concerned with inventing and making. Fields on the upper half of the diagram, divided vertically by the symbolic and real axes, are more concerned with the symbolic, abstract world. They are also concerned with the policies, institutions and tools of language that enable people to communicate, manipulate information and live together. The lower half fields are with the real world, systems and the artefacts necessary for managing the physical environment (Stickdorn, Scchneider, and Andrews, 2011). From the division, there are four quadrants. The first quadrant is the analytical/symbolic which entails fields like science that are heavily analytic in the use of process, and their content is more symbolic than real. Therefore, it is usually abstracted in its analyzes. The synthetic/symbolic is the second quadrant. It includes fields that are extensively concerned with synthetic process and symbolic content. The third quadrant is the analytical/real which is concerned with reality on the content scale and strongly analytic on the process level. For example, a disciple like a medicine falls in the quadrant simply because it is highly concerned with real problems of human health and the processes of diagnostic are its primary focus. The fourth quadrant is the synthetic/real that entails fields such a design which involves actual contents and synthesis methods (Stickdorn, Scchneider, and Andrews, 2011). In the diagram, the design falls in the fourth quadrant simply because it is actively concerned with subject matters of the real world, and it is highly synthetic. However, the disciplines of design are much concerned with symbolism and communication. Design has a symbolic component since it requires an analysis to perform synthesis, and there is also an analytical element (Stickdorn, Scchneider, and Andrews, 2011). Each of the four quadrants is imperative in education since students are required to develop higher order thinking skills. They should be able to synthesize, analyze, innovate, and eventually be ready to deal with the problems of the real world. Design can be like a relationship between logic and two interdependent spaces with different structure: The space of knowledge (K) and the space of concepts (C). The space K includes all the knowledge setup for designers, while area C involves concepts that are neither true nor false. About an object in K, design goes on in an organized manner to group the sets in C until they become a set of K. Therefore, design is a reasoning activity that begins with a concept of an object. It is not known and tries to expand the concept into new knowledge or other ideas (Stickdorn, Scchneider, and Andrews, 2011). In deeper understanding, design thinking is how designers see and how they critically think. It is an interactive and iterative process where designers; 1. See what some representation of concepts or ideas of solving problems do involve. 2. Evaluate the relationships between the ideas to solve problems. 3. View what has been assessed in as informing further design efforts (Rowe, 1987) Usually, Designing starts with a diagrammatic vision that is eventually graduated to more complex graphic representations by adding more detail. The diagrams that influences the reflection of the designer, self-critique and dialog which serves the purpose of testing and representing the intent of the designer. In simple terms, diagrams act as bridge for thinking and solving problems (Liedtka, King, and Bennett, 2013). Characteristics of a Design thinker Although the design thinking nature and the thing that makes one person, a design thinker and another on not a design thinker still remain elusive. Various scholars have tried to identify a number of characteristics that can be useful in explaining how a design thinker approaches issues and thinks. The features are also helpful in an attempt to understand the nature of design thinking. The table indicates the summary of a features design thinker characteristics (Moote, 2013). Characteristics Description Ability to visualize Designers work visually in that they depict ideas Environment centred and human concern Designers should consider environmental interests at a certain level with human interests. They should all the time also consider if what is being created will respond to the needs of human beings. Predisposition towards mulfunctionality Designers should find many different solutions to a problem and position the picture of the problem in mind at the same time focusing on its specifics. Systematic vision Designers should face problems as system problems that have opportunities for solutions that are systematic. They should do that by involving different concepts and procedures to create a solution that is holistic. Ability for teamwork Designers need to come up with interpersonal skills that will help them to work well with other people by communicating across all disciplines. Ability to use language as a tool Designers should have the capability of verbally explaining their creative process thus forcing invention especially where there is lack of detail. Also expressing relationships which are not obvious visually, for example the creative process should go hand in hand with the explanation. Avoiding the necessity of choice Designers are required to search competing alternatives before proceeding decision making or choice making. They should look for ways to come up with new configurations. By doing so it will lead to a solution that combines best possible choices and avoids decision. Figure 2, Characteristics of a design thinker (Moote, 2013). Processes in Design thinking The process of design is characterized by being explanatory, iterative, and sometimes chaotic. It commences with specifications that are abstract and ends with the description of the product while refining the specifications of the product. Design goes through cycles of mutual adjustments between solutions and specifications until an end solution is (Moote, 2013). During the design process, designers engage in different several cognitive processes. There are three processes required in design thinking. They are; preparation, assimilation, and strategic control. Firstly in the development process, designers need to be aware of what is important and what to focus on. During this process, the constraints and specifications of the problem, visualization, reinterpretation of ideas, reformulation of the problem and others do arise. Secondly, the process of assimilation entails making sense of the solution proposed. In addition, it includes the making sense of observations and data coming from prototype experiments. Thirdly, in the process of strategic control, designers must come up with many decisions over the course of a design. For example, they should come up with decisions on how to set up priorities, which idea to adopt next and which constraints need to be relaxed (Moote, 2013). Individual scholars examined some theories about what teams of design do while designing. They looked at the cognitive theories of human decision-making, theories of creativity and problem solving. The essential elements of design thinking that many authors saw as cognitive operations were exploration, comparison, generation, and selection. Research and generation widen the space of a problem while comparison and selection do narrow the scope of the problem. Widening a problem paves the way for solutions to be generated and examined in relations to the anticipated goal. On the other hand, narrowing a problem involves comparing two or more ideas. Finally, selecting a solution based on relevant and accurate criteria for the goal. The elements represent a model that can be used to understand the thinking of designers while working as a team. Designers working as a team in groups need to communicate what they are thinking and thus demonstrating their fundamental thinking processes (Moote, 2013). The model was applied by researchers to three mechanical engineering teams comprising of six students each. The teams were supposed to design a mechanical concept for an optical device that was to project images of celestial objects. During the one-day working period, the students interacted with a stimulated customer at three fixed points in time. There was a recording of the team’s communication. Results after the task confirmed that the teams spent only 10% of their time on understanding the goal and the rest 90% on planning the solution. The figure below shows the design thinking competency model. . Figure 3, the decision thinking competency model (Moote, 2013). The design thinking competency model is necessary for diagnostic and assessment purposes. Once the essential skills and knowledge have been noted then activities and tasks can be established in line with the variables f the model. Such approaches can help to raise the awareness of students concerning proper processes of design and eventually boost their interest in dealing with real life complex problems. Activities could be conceived in a manner that demands students to come up with solutions, get support for their growing design thinking skills and the feedback on the feasibility of various solutions. Those responsible for providing education can help the students in developing these skills. It can be achieved by providing the students with multiple opportunities to create prototypes, try different ideas, reflect on their learning, collaborate with others, and repeat the cycle while improving each time. (Moote, 2013). Conclusion Improving the design thinking of students by having them use methods and processes that designers use to ideate and assist them experience how designers approach problems and solve them, they will be ready to face problems. Design thinking is more than a skill to be, but rather it is a way of thinking that can enhance the nature of schooling (Plattner, Meinel, and Leifer, 2012). Reference List Frisendal, T. (2012). Design thinking business analysis: business concept mapping applied. Berlin, Springer. Ingle, B. R. (2013). Design Thinking for Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses Putting the Power of Design to Work. New York, Apress L.P. . Liedtka, J., King, A., and Bennett, K. B. (2013). Solving problems with design thinking 10 stories of what works. New York, Columbia University Press. . Menges, A. (2011). Computational design thinking. Chichester, Wiley. Moote, I. (2013). Design thinking for strategic innovation: what they can’t teach you at business or design school. Hoboken, N.J., John Wiley. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., and Leifer, L. J. (2012). Design thinking research: measuring performance in context. Heidelberg, Springer. Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press. Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., and Andrews, K. (2011). This is service design thinking: basics, tools, cases. Appendix 1 The students got a clear understanding of the definition of the design thinking concept. Some commented that they were ready to face the problems of the real world. After they had an opportunity in the tasks during the seminar to create, experiment, gather feedback, prototype models and redesign they were ready to face complex situations. Read More