2

Dieter Rams’ glasses as captured by Annie Lebowitz in 2008. Dieter Rams, a well known member of the design community swore by these glasses as the one true symbol of his designer identity. The glasses will be entered into the Design Hall of fame this month in Switzerland.

3

A GRAPHIC DESIGNER IS ACOMMUNICATOR: SOMEONEWHO TAKES IDEAS ANDGIVES THEM VISUAL FORMSO THAT OTHERS CANUNDERSTAND THEM. THE DESIGNER USESIMAGERY,SYMBOLS, TYPE,COLOR, & MATERIAL

Graphic designers perform this service on behalf of a

company or other organization to help that entity get

its message out to its audience and, in so doing, evoke

a particular response. Graphic design, as an industry, is

a cousin to advertising, both of which were born from

the tumultuous period of the Industrial Revolution of

the late 1700s and early 1800s, when the working class-

finding itself with time on its hands and money to spend

in the pursuit of comfort-began to look for stuff to buy

and things to do. Graphic design and advertising share

one particular goal-to inform the public about goods,

services, events, or ideas that someone believes will be

important to them; but graphic design parts company

with advertising when it comes to ultimate purpose. Once

advertising informs its audience about some product

or event, it cajoles the audience into spending money.

Graphic design, however, simply seeks to clarify the mes-

sage and craft it into an emotional experience. Granted,

graphic design often is used by advertising as a tool to

help sell goods and services; but the designing of mes-

sages is, at its core, its own endeavor altogether.

This purpose is what differentiates graphic design from

other disciplines in the visual arts-a purpose defined by

a client and manifested by a designer, rather than a pur-

pose generated from within the designer. True, the fine

arts patron historically was often a client to the great

painters, but, up until the nineteenth century, artistic

creation was understood to be intrinsically a service in-

dustry. It wasn’t until the 1830s that the mystique of the

bohemian painter as “expresser of self” arose and, even

more recently-since the mid 1970s-the idea of the graphic

designer as “author.”

WHAT IS GRAPHIC DESIGN?

A graphic designer assimilates verbal concepts and gives

them form. A designer organizes the resulting form into a

tangible, navigable experience. The quality of the expe-

rience is dependent on the designer’s skill and sensibil-

ity in creating or selecting forms with which to manifest

concepts, or messages. A designer is responsible for the

intellectually and emotional vitality of the experience

he or she visits upon the audience for such messages.

The designer’s task is to elevate the experience of the

message above the banality of literal transmission and

the confusing self-indulgent egoism of mere eye-candy of

self fulfillment-although these might be important to the

designer. Beauty is a function, after all, of any relevant

visual message. Just as prose can be dull and straightfor-

ward or well edited and lyrical, so too can a utilitarian

object be designed to be more than just simply what it is.

Some time around 1932, Adolf Loos, the noted Viennese

architect, said, “There is a great difference between an urn

and a chamber pot, and in this difference there is leeway for

culture.” That’s a lot of leeway. Designing is a discipline

that integrates an enormous amount of knowledge and

skill with intuition, but it’s more than just the various

aspects that go into it: understanding the fundamentals

of form and composition; applying those fundamentals

to evoke emotion and signify higher-order concepts; ma-

nipulating color messages; understanding semiotics and

the relationship between difference kinds of visual signs;

controlling the pacing of material and informational hi-

erarchy; integrating type and image for unified, coherent

messaging; and planning the fabrication of the work and

ensuring its physical quality as an object, whether it’s

printed, animated on screen, or built.

THE DESIGNER USES IMAGERY, SYMBOLS, TYPE, COLOR, & MATERIAL TO

REPRESENT THE IDEAS THAT MUST BE CONVEYED & TO ORGANIZE THEM INTO A UNIFIED MESSAGE

4

Designer Briefcase, as designed by Tim Brown for Bruce Nussbaum in celebration of his first published article about Design Thinking on the Bloomberg Business website.

5

THE METHODOLOGY COMMONLY REFERRED TOAS DESIGN THINKING IS APROVEN & REPEATABLEPROBLEM SOLVINGPROTOCOL THAT ANYBUSINESS OR PROFESSIONCAN EMPLOY TO ACHIEVEEXTRAORDINARY RESULTS

DESIGN THINKING... WHAT IS THAT?I have this image of Allen Samuels permanently emblazoned

on my brain. This goes back to college. With his usual amaz-

ing energy and unrestrained passion, this deeply passion-

ate design professor is explaining to us why the process of

design that we are learning is so important. Any profession,

he suggests with conviction, medicine, law, choreography

or politics can benefit by employing design thinking and

achieve better results. Although we all heard and believed

then what he was saying, it has taken a great while for the

potential of his words to find purchase in a business envi-

ronment willing to accept his hypothesis.

Although Design is most often used to describe an object

or end result, Design in its most effective form is a pro-

cess, an action, a verb not a noun. A protocol for solving

problems and discovering new opportunities. Techniques

and tools differ and their effectiveness are arguable but

the core of the process stays the same. It’s taken years

of slogging through Design = high style to bring us full

circle to the simple truth about design thinking. That it

is a most powerful tool and when used effectively, can be

the foundation for driving a brand or business forward.

Basically Design thinking consists of four key elements.

DESIGN THINKING SAVES LIVES

1 DEFINE THE PROBLEMSounds simple but doing it right is perhaps the most im-

portant of all the four stages. Another way to say it is

defining the right problem to solve. Design thinking re-

quires a team or business to always question the brief,

the problem to be solved. To participate in defining the

opportunity and to revise the opportunity before embark-

ing on its creation and execution. Participation usually

involves immersion and the intense cross examination of

the filters that have been employed in defining a problem.

In design thinking observation takes center stage. Obser-

vation can discern what people really do as opposed to

what you are told that they do. Getting out of the cube

and involving oneself in the process,product,shopping

experience or operating theater is fundamental. No one’s

life was ever changed by a PowerPoint presentation.

Design thinking in problem definition also requires cross

functional insight into each problem by varied perspec-

tives as well as constant and relentless questioning, like

that of a small child, Why?, Why? Why? Until finally the

simple answers are behind you and the true issues are re-

vealed. Finally, defining the problem via design thinking

requires the suspension of judgment in defining the prob-

QUESTION; HOW MANY DESIGNERS WILL IT TAKE TO SCREW IN A LIGHT BULB?

ANSWER; WHY A LIGHT BULB?

6

lem statement. What we say can be very different to what

we mean. The right words are important. It’s not “design

a chair”, it’s…”create a way to suspend a person”. The goal

of the definition stage is to target the right problem to

solve, and then to frame the problem in a way that invites

creative solutions.

Question; How many designers will it take to screw in a

light bulb?

Answer; Why a light bulb?

2 CREATE & CONSIDER MANY OPTIONSEven the most talented teams and businesses sometimes

fall into the trap of solving a problem the same way ev-

ery time. Especially when successful results are produced

and time is short. Design thinking requires that no mat-

ter how obvious the solution may seem, many solutions

be created for consideration. And created in a way that

allows them to be judged equally as possible answers.

Looking at a problem from more than one perspective

always yields richer results.

Many times we are not aware of the filters we may be bur-

dened with when we create answers to problems. In this

stage opportunites appear. The trick is to recognize them

as opportunities. Multiple perspectives and teamwork are

crucial. Design thinking suggests that better answers hap-

pen when 5 people work on a problem for a day, than one

person for five days. Designers have an advantage in the

use of 2D and 3 dimensional tools to demonstrate solutions

and new ideas—tools which are almost always far more ef-

fective to demonstrate what is meant, than words.

3 REFINE SELECTED DIRECTIONSA handful of promising results need to be embrace and

nurtured. Given a chance to grow protected from the evil

idea-killers of previous experience. Even the strongest of

new ideas can be fragile in their infancy. Design think-

ing allows their potential to be realized by creating an

environment conducive to growth and experimentation,

and the making of mistakes in order to achieve out of the

ordinary results. At this stage many times options will

need to be combined and smaller ideas integrated into

the selected schemes that make it through. Which brings

us to stage 3.5.

3.5 REPEAT (OPTIONAL)Design thinking may require looping steps 2 and 3 until

the right answers surface.

4 PICK THE WINNER, EXECUTEAt this point enough road has been traveled to insure

success. It’s the time to commit resources to achieve the

early objectives. The byproduct of the process is often

other unique ideas and strategies that are tangential to

the initial objective as defined. Prototypes of solutions

are created in earnest, and testing becomes more critical

and intense. At the end of stage 4 the problem is solved

or the opportunity is fully uncovered.

While of late, there has been quite a lot of discussion

regarding what Design thinking is and how businesses can

leverage it, as suggested in the introduction to this piece

this is not a new or unproven idea.

From Wikipedia: Herbert Simon, in the “Sciences of

the Artificial” (MIT Press, 1969) has defined “design” as

the “transformation of existing conditions into preferred

ones” (p. 55). Design thinking is, then, always linked to

an improved future. Unlike critical thinking, which is

a process of analysis and is associated with the ‘break-

ing down’ of ideas, design thinking is a creative process

based around the ‘building up’ of ideas. There are no

judgments in design thinking. This eliminates the fear

of failure and encourages maximum input and participa-

tion. Wild ideas are welcome, since these often lead to

the most creative solutions. Everyone is a designer, and

design thinking is a way to apply design methodologies

to any of life’s situations.

Simon goes on to describe a seven step process: Define,

Research, Ideate, Prototype, Choose, Implement, Learn.

Whether the protocol is outlined in a seven, four or even

three stage process, see—shape—build, it all comes from

the same place a proven method that always delivers. And

it doesn’t matter what opportunity or problem is put into

the front end of the process.

The end result of this simple yet highly effective protocol

can be a better mousetrap, symphony, or dry cleaning

service. Implied in design thinking is an objective view

and a warm embrace of risk and new ideas.

That said, the outline above is a structure and while it

may seem counter intuitive, structure can be one of the

key elements to enhancing creativity in problem solving.

Design legend Charles Eames once famously said: “design

depends largely on constraints”. This is very true; some-

times you need to draw the box in order to know what to

break out of. After that, the manner in which options are

considered, ideas are refined and selections are executed

are the key.

Design thinking describes a repeatable process employing

unique and creative techniques which yield guaranteed

results—usually results that exceed initial expectations.

Extraordinary results that leapfrog the expected.

7

DESIGN THINKING IS A PROVEN AND REPEATABLE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROTOCOL.

DESIGN THINKING DESCRIBES A REPEATABLE PROCESS EMPLOYING UNIQUE & CREATIVE

TECHNIQUES WHICH YIELD GUARANTEED RESULTS—USUALLY RESULTS THAT EXCEED INITIAL

EXPECTATIONS. EXTRAORDINARY RESULTS THAT LEAPFROG THE EXPECTED. THIS IS WHY IT IS SUCH

AN ATTRACTIVE, DYNAMIC & IMPORTANT METHODOLOGY FOR BUSINESSES TO EMBRACE TODAY.

8

Dieter Rams reacting to the death of Design Thinking as captured by Ivring Penn, 2011.

9

KEVIN MCCULLAGH OFBRITISH PRODUCT STRATEGYCONSULTANCY, PLANORGANIZED A TWO-DAYEVENT FOR EXECUTIVES TOWRAP THEIR HEADS AROUNDTHE CONCEPT OF DESIGNTHINKING—AND, INPARTICULAR, TO THINKABOUT HOW THEY MIGHT GOABOUT IMPLEMENTING IT

Kevin invited me along to give an overview of some of the

things I’ve been thinking recently. “Don’t hold back,” he

advised. So I came up with a talk entitled, “Design Think-

ing Won’t Save You” which aimed to outline what design

thinking is *not* in order to help attendees figure out a

practical way forward. Here’s an edited version of what

I said: Ladies and gentlemen, let me break this to you

gently. Design Thinking, the topic we’re here to analyze

and discuss and get to grips with so you can go back and

instantly transform your businesses, is not the answer.

Now before you throw down your coffee cups and storm

out in disgust, let me explain that I’m not here to write

off design thinking. Really, I’m not. In fact, I’ve been

a keen observer of the evolution of the discipline for a

number of years now and I’m still curious to watch where

it goes and how it continues to evolve as its influence

spreads throughout industries and around the world. So

to be clearer, I suppose I should say that design thinking

won’t save you, but it really might help:

First, some context: Until July of 2010, I was the edi-

tor of innovation and design at Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

Before that, I’d worked consistently in design journalism

both here in New York and in London. The reason that I

wanted to join BusinessWeek in the first place was pre-

DESIGN THINKING ISN’T A MIRACLE CURE, BUT HERE’S HOW IT HELPS

cisely because it struck me as being the one place that

had its eye on both camps, on the creative industries and

on the business world writ large. And it struck me that

it’s at this nexus and intersection that the thriving busi-

nesses of the future will be built.

I joined the magazine back in 2006, which was a time

when design thinking was really beginning to take hold as

a concept. My old boss, Bruce Nussbaum, emerged as its

eloquent champion while the likes of Roger Martin from

Rotman, IDEO’s Tim Brown, my new boss Larry Keeley and

even the odd executive (AG Lafley of Procter and Gamble

comes to mind) were widely quoted espousing its virtues.

Eager onlookers were left baffled about replicating this

success. Still, in the years that have followed, something

of a problem emerged. For all the gushing success stories

that we and others wrote, most were often focused on

one small project executed at the periphery of a mul-

tinational organization. When we stopped and looked,

it seemed like executives had issues rolling out design

thinking more widely throughout the firm. And much of

this stemmed from the fact that there was no consensus

on a definition of design thinking, let alone agreement

as to who’s responsible for it, who actually executes it or

how it might be implemented at scale.

LADIES & GENTLEMEN, LET ME BREAK THIS TO YOU GENTLY. DESIGN THINKING, THE TOPIC

WE’RE HERE TO ANALYZE & DISCUSS & GET TO GRIPS WITH SO YOU CAN GO BACK &

INSTANTLY TRANSFORM YOUR BUSINESSES, IS NOT THE ANSWER.

10 And we’d be wise to note that there’s a reason that com-

panies such as Procter & Gamble and General Electric

were held up time and again as being the poster chil-

dren of this new discipline. Smartly, they had defined it

according to their own terms, executing initiatives that

were appropriate to their own internal cultures. And that

often left eager onlookers somewhat baffled as to how to

replicate their success.

This is something that I think you need to think very

carefully about as you look to implement design thinking

within your company. Coming up with ways to implement

this philosophy and process throughout your organiza-

tion, developing the ways to motivate and engage your

employees along with the metrics to ensure that you have

a sense of the real value of your achievements are all crit-

ical issues that need to be considered, carefully, upfront.

Designers often bristle when the term design thinking

comes up in conversation. It’s kind of counterintuitive,

right? But here’s why: Having been initially overjoyed

that the C-suite was finally paying attention to design,

designers suddenly became terrified that they were ac-

tually being beaten to the punch by business wolves in

designer clothing. Design thinking captures the qualities

that drew designers to the field. Suddenly, designers had

a problem on their hands. Don Norman, formerly of Apple,

once commented that “design thinking is a term that needs

to die.” Designer Peter Merholz of Bay Area firm Adap-

tive Path wrote scornfully: “Design thinking is trotted out

as a salve for businesses who need help with innovation.”

He didn’t mean this as a compliment. Instead, his point

was that those extolling the virtues of design thinking

are at best misguided, at worst likely to inflict dangerous

harm on the company at large, over-promising and under-

delivering and in the process screwing up the delicate

business of design itself.

So let’s be very clear. Design thinking neither negates nor

replaces the need for smart designers doing the work that

they’ve been doing forever. Packaging still needs to be

thoughtfully created. Branding and marketing programs

still need to be brilliantly executed. Products still need

to be artfully designed to be appropriate for the modern

world. When it comes to digital experiences, for instance,

design is really the driving force that will determine

whether a product lives or dies in the marketplace.

Design thinking is different. It captures many of the qual-

ities that cause designers to choose to make a career in

their field, yes. And designers can most certainly play a

key part in facilitating and expediting it. But it’s not a

replacement for the important, difficult job of design that

exists elsewhere in the organization.

The value of multi-disciplinary thinking is one that many

have touched upon in recent years. That includes the T-

shaped thinkers championed by Bill Moggridge at IDEO,

and the I-with-a-serif-shaped thinker introduced by Mi-

crosoft Research’s Bill Buxton, right through to the col-

laboration across departments, functions and disciplines

that constitutes genuine cross disciplinary activity. This,

I believe, is the way that innovation will emerge in our

fiendishly complex times.

Just as design thinking does not replace the need for de-

sign specialists, nor does it magically appear out of some

black box. Design thinking isn’t fairy dust. It’s a tool to

be used appropriately. It might help to illuminate an an-

swer but it is not the answer in and of itself.

Instead, it turns up insights galore, and there is real

value and skill to be had from synthesizing the messy,

chaotic, confusing and often contradictory intellect of

experts gathered from different fields to tackle a particu-

larly thorny problem. That’s all part of design thinking.

And designing an organizational structure in which this

kind of cross-fertilization of ideas can take place effec-

tively is tremendously challenging, particularly within

large organizations where systems and departments have

become entrenched over the years.

You need to be prepared to rethink how you think about

projects, about who gets involved and when, about no

less than how you do things. The way that you approach

innovation itself will probably need to change. This might

seem like a massive undertaking, but if you’re after genu-

ine disruption more than incremental improvement, these

kinds of measures are the only way to get the results that

you need.

Design thinking is not a panacea. It is a process, just as

Six Sigma is a process. Both have their place in the modern

enterprise. The quest for efficiency hasn’t gone away and

in fact, in our economically straitened times, it’s sensible

to search for ever more rigorous savings anywhere you can.

But design thinking can live alongside efficiency measures,

as a smart investment in innovation that will help the com-

pany remain viable as the future becomes the present.

Somehow, for a time there it seemed like executives

thought that if they bought into a program of design

thinking then all their problems would be solved. And we

should be honest, many designers were quite happy to

perpetuate this myth and bask in their new status. Then

the economy tanked and as Kevin wrote in a really bril-

liant article published on Core77, “Many who had talked

their way into high-flying positions were left gliding…

Greater exposure to senior management’s interrogation had

left many… well, exposed. The design thinkers had been

drinking too much of their own Kool-Aid.”

The disconnect between the design department, the

D-suite, if you will, and the C-suite is still pretty pro-

nounced in most organizations. Designers who are look-

ing to take a more strategic role in the organization, who

should really be the figures one would think of to drive

these initiatives, need to ensure that they are well versed

in the language of business. It’s totally reasonable for

their nervous executive counterparts to want to under-

stand an investment in regular terms. Fuzziness is not a

friend here. And yet, as I’ll get into in a moment, some-

THE DESIGN THINKERS HAD BEEN DRINKING TOO MUCH OF THEIR OWN KOOL-AIDIT CAPTURES MANY OF THE QUALITIES THAT CAUSE DESIGNERS TO CHOOSE TO MAKE A CAREER IN THEIR FIELD, YES. & DESIGNERS CAN MOST CERTAINLY PLAY A KEY PART IN FACILITATING

& EXPEDITING IT. BUT IT’S NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE IMPORTANT, DIFFICULT JOB OF DESIGN THAT EXISTS ELSEWHERE IN THE ORGANIZATION.

1 1

THE DESIGN THINKERS HAD BEEN DRINKING TOO MUCH OF THEIR OWN KOOL-AID

times there’s no way to overcome that fuzziness. Leaps of

faith are necessary. But designers should do everything

they can to demonstrate that they have an understand-

ing of what they’re asking, and put in place measure-

ments and metrics that are appropriate and that can show

they’re not completely out of touch with the business of

the business, even if they can’t fully guarantee that a bet

will pay off.

Designers were quite happy to bask in their new status.

The two worlds of design and business still need to learn

to meet half way. Think of an organization in which de-

sign plays a central, driving role, and there’s really only

one major cliché of an example to use: Apple. But what

Apple has in Steve Jobs is what every organization look-

ing to embrace design as a genuine differentiating factor

needs: a business expert who is able to act as a whole-

hearted champion of the value of design. In other words,

Jobs has been utterly convinced that consumers will be

prepared to pay a premium for Apple’s products, and so

he’s given the design department the responsibility to

make sure that every part of every one of those products

doesn’t disappoint.

He is also notorious for his pickiness. I’ve talked with

Apple designers who say he would scrap a project late in

the game in order to make sure something is exactly as he

thinks it should be. Now I don’t know about you, but how

often does a project come back and it’s not quite how you

wanted it but it’s okay and it’s really too late to make the

changes to make it great and so you go with it? I know I’m

guilty of doing that. Jobs doesn’t countenance that ap-

proach. And he’s set up processes to ensure that problems

are caught, early, and the designers have enough time to

get back to the drawing board if necessary. This commit-

ment to excellence has helped turn Apple into the world’s

most valuable technology company.

Note too Jobs’ approach to customer research: “It isn’t the

consumers’ job to know what they want.” Jobs is comfort-

able hanging out in the world of the unknown, and this

confidence allows him to take risks and make intuitive

bets that for the past decade or so have paid off every

time. And he’s instilled this spirit in his team. New com-

pany leader Tim Cook is renowned for the creative way in

which he worked on supplier issues.

So now we get into something of a problem of terminol-

ogy, because more than likely, Steve Jobs doesn’t consider

Apple’s approach to be “design thinking”. Yet he’s the con-

summate example of one who’s built an organization on its

promise. This approach of risk taking, of relying on intu-

ition and experience rather than on the “facts” provided

by spreadsheets and data, is anathema to most analysis-

influenced C-suite members. But you need this kind of

champion if design thinking is to gain traction and pay off.

I once heard a discussion between the current director of

the Cooper-Hewitt museum, Bill Moggridge, and Hewlett

Packard’s VP of Design, Sam Lucente. Sam was talking

about how design thinking had helped him and his team

to redevelop the design of one particular product that

had done badly in the marketplace in order to produce a

later, more successful version. The way he told the story,

design thinking meant that this couldn’t be seen as a fail-

ure, because every moment had been one of wonder and

learning. My interpretation was initially a little less po-

etic, that in fact design thinking no more guarantees the

success in the marketplace of a product than any other

tool or technique.

But actually, reframing failure in terms of learning is not

just a kooky, quirky thing to do. In and of itself, it’s per-

haps a useful exercise. By taking the pressure off design

thinking and not expecting it to be the bright and shiny

savior of the world, those trying out its techniques will be

empowered to use it to its greatest advantage, to help in-

troduce new techniques, to give new perspectives, to out-

line new ways of thinking or develop new entries to market.

Reframing failure in terms of learning is not just a kooky

and quirky. In fact, I would argue, beware the snakeoil

salesmen who promise you’ll never take another wrong step

again if you buy into design thinking. While some execu-

tives have been running their businesses according to its

principles for years now, the formal discipline is still pretty

new, and individual companies really have to figure out how

it can work for them. There’s no plug and play system you

can simply install and roll out. Instead, you have to be pre-

pared to be flexible and agile in your own thinking. You’ll

likely have to question and rethink internal processes. For

there to be a chance of success, you’re going to have to

ascertain what metrics you want to use to judge whether

a program has been successful or not. And you’re going to

have to figure out how to allocate resources to make sure

that an initiative even has a chance of taking off.

I know some of you are familiar with the work and think-

ing of Doblin’s Larry Keeley, with whom I’m working now.

For a long time, Larry has been at the forefront of the

movement to transform the discipline of innovation from

a fuzzy, fluffy activity into a much more rigorous science.

His thinking in that arena holds for design thinking too.

It’s time to move beyond the either/or discussions so of-

ten entertained within organizations. This isn’t about left

brain vs right brain. This is about the need for analysis and

synthesis. Both are critically important, from data analyt-

ics to complexity management to iteration and rapid pro-

totyping. But even with all of this, there’s never going to

be a way to 100% guarantee success. The goal here is to be

able to act with eyes wide open, to have a clear intent in

mind and to have systems in place that allow you to reward

success and quickly move on from disappointment—and to

make sure that your organization learns from those mis-

takes and thus does not repeat them.

IT CAPTURES MANY OF THE QUALITIES THAT CAUSE DESIGNERS TO CHOOSE TO MAKE A CAREER IN THEIR FIELD, YES. & DESIGNERS CAN MOST CERTAINLY PLAY A KEY PART IN FACILITATING

& EXPEDITING IT. BUT IT’S NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE IMPORTANT, DIFFICULT JOB OF DESIGN THAT EXISTS ELSEWHERE IN THE ORGANIZATION.