Design Thinking

An integral part of the Design Thinking process is the definition of a meaningful and actionable problem statement, which the design thinker will focus on solving. This is perhaps the most challenging part of the Design Thinking process, as the definition of a problem (also called a design challenge) will require you to synthesise your observations about your users from the first stage in the Design Thinking process, which is called the Empathise stage.

We can — and should — use prototyping as part of various stages of Design Thinking. You can use prototyping as an ideation method, as it allows you, as well as users, to explore alternative solutions. This is possible because prototypes are physical representations of your solutions, and thus prototyping allows you to think by doing. Adopting a ‘thinking by doing’ mindset is extremely helpful in letting you derive more value from researching, defining, ideating, and testing.Some of the purposes that prototypes fulfil are:Exploring and ExperimentationYou can use prototypes to explore problems, ideas, and opportunities within a specific area of focus and test out the impact of incremental or radical changes.Learning and UnderstandingUse prototypes in order to better understand the dynamics of a problem, product, or system by physically engaging with them and picking apart what makes them work or fail.Engaging, Testing, and ExperiencingUse prototyping to engage with end users or stakeholders, in ways that reveal deeper insight and more valuable experiences, to inform design decisions going forward.Inspiring and MotivatingUse prototypes to sell new ideas, motivate buy-in from internal or external stakeholders, or inspire markets toward radical new ways of thinking and doing.

The fidelity of a prototype refers to its level of completeness and detail. The degree of completeness of the prototypes you build depends on the stage of progress; these include the following:Low fidelity – low cost, rough and quick to buildMedium fidelity – slightly more detailed, still rough but closer to the solutionHigh fidelity – much closer to final, very detailed and much more time-consumingThis represents a scale of completeness or closeness to the final product, which differs depending on the type of solutions and needs of the situation. Prototypes can also have different parts with varying levels of fidelity. For example, you can build a prototype with high visual fidelity but with low functional fidelity — which would be useful if you were testing the visual aspects, rather than functional aspects, of the prototype. The main aspects, which are the focus of the prototype, should receive more focus and, ideally, higher fidelity.

About URUTURUT is designed for usability testing for products or interfaces. That means it measures how satisfied (or not satisfied) a user is with the interface and operability of the product.The idea is that participants will work through a task (or tasks) in their usual environment without the need for a moderator to be present. These tasks are presented to the user via an online platform.Data is captured from URUT in one of two ways. The first is via click-stream and in this instance URUT often resembles a survey and captures quantitative data for researchers. The second is via video and will provide a more qualitative insight into user behavior.Click-stream offers fast data capture and easy analysis but video offers deeper insight into user behavior. It is possible to combine the two approaches but the tests need careful design to benefit from this approach.Author/Copyright holder: Frits Ahlefeldt-Laurvig. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0It’s definitely easier to involve a user in Unmoderated Remote Usability Testing than it is to get them involved in lab moderated testing.When Should I Use URUT Rather than Moderated Testing?A lot depends on the needs of your usability tests but some of the more common scenarios include:Competitor benchmarking. URUT makes it easy to examine two different products and capture enough data to make informed decisions based on the differences discovered.Budget constraints. URUT is cheaper than moderated testing – if you don’t have the money for the latter the former may be a better approach.Tight deadlines. If you need the data in a hurry it’s much faster to set up URUT than moderated testing.Geographical constraints. If you want to test a global (or widely-dispersed) audience then URUT is likely to be easier and cheaper to implement (by far) than moderated testing.In the wild data. If the customer’s environment has a large influence over use then moderated testing is probably not the way to go.Large sample sizes. Without the need for moderation – automated remote testing can be scaled to deliver statistically significant data from the user base. Though it’s worth remembering that Steve Krug, the usability expert says; “Testing one user is 100 percent better than testing none.”Author/Copyright holder: Cosmocatalano. Copyright terms and licence: CC0 1.0When you’re trying to save money – don’t forget the quality triangle for good project results.Considerations for Running URUTThere are many considerations to developing and running URUT for your products and some will be specific to your own needs but there are some general considerations for URUT too:Prior to URUTAs with all forms of research; you need to be clear about the objectives or your research and what questions you expect to answer with the research. You can work with stakeholders to develop this understanding.ParticipantsYou’re also going to need to work out how to get people to take part in the study; your options include:E-mail. If you have a list of customer e-mail addresses you can e-mail them to ask them to take part.Pop-ups. If your customers are on your website; you can use a pop-up to redirect them to the study. The advantage of this approach is that you’re likely to get a very representative sample but the disadvantage is that it may distract them from shopping or other more valuable business activity.Accessing pre-built testing databases. You can pay to access other people’s testing databases if you don’t have your own. These resources can often be targeted quite specifically to ensure representative audiences.Social media. There’s nothing wrong with asking for volunteers on your social media channels either (if they’re active enough).Author/Copyright holder: Jason Howie. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY 2.0Assuming you have a large following on social media, it can be a great way to get participants involved in your URUT.You may also need to offer participants an incentive to take part. The less involved the participant is with the product/service – the more of an incentive it usually takes to get them on board.Task DesignYou’ll need to be very clear about the tasks that participants are expected to complete. You must offer enough detail that they can do this without assistance (and you may need dummy data to supply them with too – such as credit card data for a mock purchase).Keep instructions as simple and minimal as possible and always include a call-to-action when necessary.Survey QuestionsYou can also include survey questions in an URUT exercise:Closed questions following each task can help measure how participants are feeling about the usability of that task.Questions can be used at the end of the exercise to get a more general impression of the exercise.Questions can also be used to derive demographic data.Questions can also be used to test comprehension of content.Author/Copyright holder: JayWalsh. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY-SA 3.0Survey questions can provide additional insight into emotions or even unrelated topic areas during URUT. Wikipedia uses surveys, as seen here, to gauge how its editors feel about their work.Delivery of the URUT ToolMake sure that the tool is easy to access and to get to grips with without any support. You don’t want to introduce barriers to entry for participants.PilotsIt can be very useful to test an URUT with a small number of participants and then evolve the URUT before launching it with a large audience.SupportYou should offer some telephone or e-mail support to participants for both the URUT exercise and if they have any questions after it has been completed.AnalysisOnce the URUT is complete – you need to analyze the data collected. You can apply any qualitative or quantitative technique that you require to get a clear understanding of results. It can be useful to define some headline metrics and measure these first to give quick results back to stakeholders.

There is no definitive formula for a wicked problem.Wicked problems have no stopping rule, as in there’s no way to know your solution is final.Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, they can only be good-or-bad.There is no immediate test of a solution to a wicked problem.Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.Wicked problems do not have a set number of potential solutions.Every wicked problem is essentially unique.Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.There is always more than one explanation for a wicked problem because the explanations vary greatly depending on the individual perspective.The planner/designer has no right to be wrong and must be fully responsible for their actions.

When confronted with a challenging situation, we tend to want to be spontaneous in our reactions. The instinctive mentality is that we should strike, and strike fast, if we want to solve a challenging problem. We tend to pinpoint obvious superficial factors and attack them directly, without reviewing subtle and perhaps more influential factors. We might individually attack symptoms of problems, when the more appropriate solution would be to understand the situation as a group before attempting to apply a solution. Similarly, any one problem may comprise a tangled complex of sub-problems; striking at one of these may ‘seem’ to solve it, but doing so may have deep-reaching effects that can complicate tangent sub-problems and make the whole thing even more problematic. This impulsive urge to jump into a problem and quickly solve it can be a stumbling block in your project, because a truly useful and impactful solution requires a deep, empathic understanding of the problem. Consequently, it takes insight and restraint to overcome this impulse. While it feels good to be doing something about a problem, remember that “doing something” doesn’t have to mean taking a potentially brash action. The danger here is to mistake careful analysis for wasting time, as it seems to be far less proactive-looking and lacks the glory of a good, quick strike back that shows the problem solver can think on his feet.Indeed, the very first reaction is rarely the most appropriate in problem solving, unless the problem is so familiar and frequent that one has become an expert in patching it quickly. Its reoccurrence may, however, indicate that the root has not been addressed — but that is another issue. Regarding being impulsive and diving in too soon, it prevents us from taking a bigger-picture view, from gaining deeper insight and from understanding how others view and experience the same problem.Best practice: In order to solve a complex, wicked problem, you and your team need to resist the urge to react impulsively — whether it’s to solve the obvious, superficial factors quickly, or to develop the very first idea into a full product directly — and learn to dive deep and develop a holistic understanding of the problem, before starting to ideate the possible solutions to it.

At times, we can be our own worst enemies when it comes to working in teams trying to solve problems. If we're focused on ourselves, showing off, on egos and asserting ourselves over others, we will most likely run into issues. Not only will there almost definitely be conflicts within the team, we will also tend to fall in love with our own ideas and refuse to accept it when tests indicate that the solution is not working with the target users.Solving problems with others requires a sincere desire to achieve the objectives together. It requires a degree of humility and excellent people skills as well. When individuals are more interested in asserting themselves over others, flexing their authority, experience or creative muscles and proving a personal point, the group will suffer and the solutions or ideas that are being forced through may not be the most appropriate. Someone’s vanity will therefore dilute the team’s effectiveness.Best practice: The most successful problem-solving spaces provide room for each player or actor to present his/her views, thoughts, feelings and experiences, thereby allowing a more holistic approach to solving the problem. There should be no room for egos in an innovative design project.As you may have noticed, the word “holistic” has popped up quite a few times already — and will likely appear many more times in any Design Thinking article you read. That’s because it’s one of the core aspects of the Design Thinking mindset. It's one of the words you should definitely stick up on the wall close to your thinking and working space if you want to apply Design Thinking. HOLISTIC!

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in a dysfunctional or irrational decision-making outcome. When working in groups, we find in many cases that people will agree with group decisions due to self-confidence issues, a kind of group peer pressure, or fear of having an opposing view rejected. But groupthink does not only occur due to negative reasoning. It may result from the desire towards a more cohesive group dynamic by avoiding conflict or controversy. Individuals consider expressing loyalty to the group to require avoiding views which may be out of sync with what the group has achieved consensus on.Groupthink is especially dangerous when it comes to a Design Thinking project, where the team is focused on creating an innovative solution to combat a tricky problem. In Design Thinking, it is crucial to iterate and to base your decisions on user testing and understanding; with groupthink, your team might suppress dissenting viewpoints and be less critical when evaluating ideas.Best practice: In order to avoid this scenario, team managers need to create a safe and playful space for individuals to express themselves, throw ideas out there, and not feel targeted. No-one must be allowed to dominate while ideas are being brainstormed. The right mentality must be adopted at the beginning of the project, where critiques of ideas are never made personal (and should never feel personal). Of course, during later stages where ideas are evaluated and chosen for their appropriateness, a more critical approach should be taken rather than adopting a conforming mindset.

As the saying goes, “to the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”We approach problems based on the toolset which we feel most comfortable with and most skilled at. Engineers, doctors, teachers, developers, and politicians may all have tendencies to want to exercise their core skills or experience within their own field. This may not be the correct approach to solve a specific problem, and it may not be a means to achieve the desired objective, especially when the problem has multiple influencing factors which require, wait for it, Holistic thinking. At times, we need to look outside of our core tendencies, skills and experiences and approach the problem on its own level of need.We tend to try to solve problems which appear similar to previously solved problems, using the same methods even though simpler or more optimal solutions may exist. It's part of how the human brain works in following familiar patterns, thereby reducing cognitive load. But when embarking on a Design Thinking project, it is important to abandon our tendencies to follow patterns, because the way the brain tries to help us reduce cognitive load is the very same one in which it inhibits our ability to think outside of the box!Best practice: Creating cross-disciplinary teams will help solve this issue, as there will be many men with different kinds of hammers looking for different kinds of nails. It’s of course crucial that the team leader illuminates to all team members that all skills and mindsets are equally important so as to avoid power struggles. In this context the manager’s skills and ideas are as important as the newly employed designer’s are. Likewise, the web designer’s, architect’s, and developer’s skills and ideas are equally important in a Design Thinking process.

We need to be sure we are diagnosing problems correctly, as treating symptoms may — as in the case of illnesses — not result in a cure but only temporary relief. In some cases, prescribing the incorrect medication to tackle a symptom may even cause a deepening of the root illness. As part of any human-centred design approach, digging deep into human experience uncovers more about the problems we face than if we only scrutinised things on a superficial level.Best practice: It is when we immerse ourselves in all the factors that influence a situation that we gain a deeper understanding of the way forward. We need to be vigilant, fully focused and aware of the obstacles which could derail our progress while keeping our focus squarely on the destination.

Since the disruptions in human development caused by the Industrial Revolution, analysts have been strategizing ways of streamlining just about every business, production and economic process imaginable with the aim of extracting the maximum benefit from the least amount of time and resources. While this may have had some degree of success on the level of productivity and efficiency, the recipe to that much-needed innovation within all sectors has been somewhat of a conundrum. This is where Design Thinking steps in with a bold new human-centred approach at radically changing how we go about exploring problems and finding solutions to those problems, helping us break out of the old moulds we've become stuck in, so as to take a fresh look at the world around us.Besides the ongoing struggles between the analytical and creative worlds, other factors have dramatically disrupted the way we see, understand, experience, and interpret the world around us. Technology is developing at such a rapid pace that job descriptions can barely keep up, let alone entire industries. Consumers demand much more now that they are constantly switched on, always informed, and obsessively sharing everything with their networks.

In order to remain relevant, companies and organisations are also fighting a battle for attention on an unprecedented level. Besides the constant scrutiny and accountability, information overload is also reaching its peak. People are increasingly seeking out those products, services, and organisations that they personally connect with on a meaningful level. Many people are selecting the few options that speak directly to their human needs and experiences. This has driven Human-Centred Design and Design Thinking approaches of all types to mushroom in the last few years. Approaches to business and social innovation are increasingly looking for alternatives to the old models of adding value, by focusing on human needs and experience as primary motivating factors.Innovative solutions need to be found that can keep up with massive disruptions affecting Human Resources, Energy, Sustainability, Education, Economic Constraints, Political Instability—these large, systemic and complex problems with capital letters—and a whole plethora of other challenges which existing strategic and management practices and processes are unable to pick apart.

Idris Mootee, CEO of Idea Couture and a leading expert on applied Design Thinking in large-scale strategy innovation, wrote his book Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation about the implementation of Design Thinking methodology within business. The book outlines a number of disruptions in the business environment, including new consumer behaviour and expectations, forcing companies to rethink their every move.“This disruption has not been so kind to businesses operating by the rules of the old model. We don't have to watch their ads anymore. We don't believe their marketing hype anymore. We don't want to eat their junk ingredients anymore. We don't have to buy from their stores anymore. And we don't want the best of them to just be profit machines anymore. We want more, when we want it, how we want it, and at the price we want it.” – Idris MooteeIdris Mootee uses the analogy of the study of weather systems, where it was determined that even the slightest changes in atmospheric conditions may have dramatically varying results in the way weather patterns developed. The current climate of rapid change and upheaval is even more difficult to forecast for the future. We are unable to see what lies around the next corner, let alone months or years down the line. This means we need a completely new and dynamic approach to innovation and strategic planning: something less rigid that can quickly and easily adapt to the varying conditions we find ourselves in and those dramatic changes which lie around the next corner.The abilities to understand and act on changes rapidly in our environments and changes in human behaviour are becoming crucial skills we are still developing and refining. Design Thinking offers a means for grappling with all this change in a more human-centric manner. In order to embrace Design Thinking and innovation, we need to ensure that we have the right mindsets, collaborative teams, and conducive environments.

Aristotle, student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great, knew a great deal about life, the universe and everything... and more than a fair deal about putting together stories.Aristotle’s seven elements of good storytelling will help us empathise with the people we design for by asking the right questions. Asking the right questions will help us understand and tell the most essential stories about our users’ needs, motivations, and problems. Although initially written to describe the elements of good theatre (novels had not yet been invented yet), Aristotle’s writings on theatre are nonetheless widely used in general storytelling. Aristotle’s points can also show us how storytelling can help increase empathy in a Design Thinking project.

“The engaging perspective is rooted in the ability of stories to produce involvement and insight. Through an understanding of characters and stories, it is possible to create a vivid and realistic description of fictitious people. The purpose of the engaging perspective is to move from designers seeing the user as a stereotype with whom they are unable to identify and whose life they cannot envision, to designers actively involving themselves in the lives of the personas. The other persona perspectives are criticized for causing a risk of stereotypical descriptions by not looking at the whole person, but instead focusing only on behavior.” – Lene NielsenEngaging personas can incorporate both goal and role-directed personas, as well as the more traditional rounded personas. These engaging personas are designed so that the designers who use them can become more engaged with them. The idea is to create a 3D rendering of a user through the use of personas. The more people engage with the persona and see them as ’real’, the more likely they will be to consider them during the process design and want to serve them with the best product. These personas examine the emotions of the user, their psychology, backgrounds and make them relevant to the task in hand. The perspective emphasises how stories can engage and bring the personas to life. One of the advocates for this perspective is Lene Nielsen.One of the main difficulties of the persona method is getting participants to use it (Browne, 2011). In a short while, we’ll let you in on Lene Nielsen’s model, which sets out to cover this problem though a 10‑step process of creating an engaging persona.1. Collect data. Collect as much knowledge about the users as possible. Perform high-quality user research of actual users in your target user group. In Design Thinking, the research phase is the first phase, also known as the Empathise phase.2. Form a hypothesis. Based upon your initial research, you will form a general idea of the various users within the focus area of the project, including the ways users differ from one another – For instance, you can use Affinity Diagrams and Empathy Maps.3. Everyone accepts the hypothesis. The goal is to support or reject the first hypothesis about the differences between the users. You can do this by confronting project participants with the hypothesis and comparing it to existing knowledge.4. Establish a number. You will decide upon the final number of personas, which it makes sense to create. Most often, you would want to create more than one persona for each product or service, but you should always choose just one persona as your primary focus.5. Describe the personas. The purpose of working with personas is to be able to develop solutions, products and services based upon the needs and goals of your users. Be sure to describe personas in a such way so as to express enough understanding and empathy to understand the users.You should include details about the user’s education, lifestyle, interests, values, goals, needs, limitations, desires, attitudes, and patterns of behaviour.Add a few fictional personal details to make the persona a realistic character.Give each of your personas a name.Create 1–2-pages of descriptions for each persona.6. Prepare situations or scenarios for your personas. This engaging persona method is directed at creating scenarios that describe solutions. For this purpose, you should describe a number of specific situations that could trigger use of the product or service you are designing. In other words, situations are the basis of a scenario. You can give each of your personas life by creating scenarios that feature them in the role of a user. Scenarios usually start by placing the persona in a specific context with a problem they want to or have to solve.7. Obtain acceptance from the organisation. It is a common thread throughout all 10 steps that the goal of the method is to involve the project participants. As such, as many team members as possible should participate in the development of the personas, and it is important to obtain the acceptance and recognition of the participants of the various steps. In order to achieve this, you can choose between two strategies: You can ask the participants for their opinion, or you can let them participate actively in the process.8. Disseminate knowledge. In order for the participants to use the method, the persona descriptions should be disseminated to all. It is important to decide early on how you want to disseminate this knowledge to those who have not participated directly in the process, to future new employees, and to possible external partners. The dissemination of knowledge also includes how the project participants will be given access to the underlying data.9. Everyone prepares scenarios. Personas have no value in themselves, until the persona becomes part of a scenario – the story about how the persona uses a future product – it does not have real value.10. Make ongoing adjustments. The last step is the future life of the persona descriptions. You should revise the descriptions on a regular basis. New information and new aspects may affect the descriptions. Sometimes you would need to rewrite the existing persona descriptions, add new personas, or eliminate outdated personas.