Design thinking

Design Thinking refers to the methods and processes for investigating ill-defined problems, acquiring information, analyzing knowledge, and positing solutions in the design and planning fields. As a style of thinking, it is generally considered the ability to combine empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to analyze and fit solutions to the context. While design thinking has become part of the popular lexicon in contemporary design and engineering practice, as well as business and management, its broader use in describing a particular style of creative thinking-in-action is having an increasing influence on twenty-first century education across disciplines. In this respect, it is similar to systems thinking in naming a particular approach to understanding and solving problems.

Currently, there is a momentum to create awareness about design thinking among designers and other professions by teaching design thinking in higher education. The premise is that by knowing about the process and the methods that designers use to ideate, and by understanding how designers approach problems to try and solve them, individuals and businesses will be better able to connect with and invigorate their ideation processes in order to take innovation to a higher level. The hope is to create a competitive advantage in today’s global economy.

Origins of the Term

(For a detailed evolution, see History, below)

While in retrospect much design activity of the 20th century (and earlier) can be considered "design thinking," the term first emerged prominently in the 1980s with the rise of human-centered design. The notion of design as a "way of thinking" can be traced in the sciences to Herbert Simon's 1969 book The Sciences of the Artificial,^[1] and more specifically in design engineering to Robert McKim's 1973 book Experiences in Visual Thinking.^[2] Rolf Faste expanded McKim's work in the 80s and 90s in his teaching at Stanford,^[3][4] defining and popularizing the idea of "design thinking"^[5] as a way of creative action that was adapted for business purposes by IDEO through his colleague David M. Kelley^[6]. Peter Rowe's 1987 book Design Thinking was the first noteworthy usage of the term in the literature on design,^[7] providing a systematic account of problem solving procedures used by architects and urban planners. The 1992 article by Richard Buchanan titled "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking"^[8] expressed a broader view of design thinking that has been highly influential with regard to addressing intractable human concerns through design. Today there is considerable academic and business interest in understanding design thinking and design cognition^[9], including an ongoing series of symposia on research in design thinking.^[10]

Solution-Based Thinking

Design thinking is a methodology for practical, creative resolution of problems or issues that looks for an improved future result. In this regard it is a form of solution-based, or solution-focused thinking that starts with the goal or what is meant to be achieved instead of starting with a certain problem. Then, by focusing on the present and the future, the parameters of the problem and the resolutions are explored, simultaneously. This type of thinking most often happens in the built environment, also referred to as the artificial environment (as in artifacts).^[11]

This differs from the scientific method which starts with defining all the parameters of the problem in order to define the solution. Rather, the design way of problem solving starts with a solution in order to start to define enough of the parameters to optimize the path to the goal. The solution, then, is actually the starting point.

For example, a client might come to an architect’s firm after having seen one of the houses they built. Having bought the perfect piece of land, the client may ask for the same “perfect” house. The architect then has a solution as a starting point to flesh out the many parameters (of site slope, facing, views, familial needs, future needs, etc.) in order to create new resolutions within the original scope for the considerations of this new client, new site, needs, wants, codes, etc.^[12]

Bryan Lawson Architects vs. Engineers, 1979

In 1972, psychologist, architect and design researcher Bryan Lawson created an empirical study to understand the difference between problem-based solvers and solution-based solvers. He took two groups of students – final year students in architecture and post-graduate science students – and asked them to create one-story structures from a set of colored blocks. The perimeter of the building was to optimize either the red or the blue color, however, there were unspecified rules governing the placement and relationship of some of the blocks.

Lawson found that:

The scientists adopted a technique of trying out a series of designs which used as many different blocks and combinations of blocks as possible as quickly as possible. Thus they tried to maximize the information available to them about the allowed combinations. If they could discover the rule governing which combinations of blocks were allowed they could then search for an arrangement which would optimize the required color around the design. By contrast, the architects selected their blocks in order to achieve the appropriately colored perimeter. If this proved not to be an acceptable combination, then the next most favorably colored block combination would be substituted and so on until an acceptable solution was discovered.^[13]

Nigel Cross concludes from Lawson’s studies that scientific problem solving is done by analysis, while designers problem solve through synthesis.^[11]

Analysis versus Synthesis

The terms analysis and synthesis come from (classical) Greek and mean literally "to loosen up" and "to put together" respectively. In general, analysis is defined as the procedure by which we break down an intellectual or substantial whole into parts or components. Synthesis is defined as the opposite procedure: to combine separate elements or components in order to form a coherent whole. However, analysis and synthesis, as scientific methods, always go hand in hand; they complement one another. Every synthesis is built upon the results of a preceding analysis, and every analysis requires a subsequent synthesis in order to verify and correct its results. ^[14]

This is not to say that Design Thinking does not use analysis to inform the final solution, however the approach of a Design Thinker in terms of problem solving is from a the perspective of the end goal. The architects in The Blocks Experiment worked the problem from creating coherent wholes to find the optimum solution rather than breaking the problem down into its parts as in the engineers’ approach.

Divergent Thinking versus Convergent Thinking

Design Thinkers also use divergent thinking and convergent thinking to explore many possible solutions. Divergent thinking is the ability to offer different, unique or variant ideas adherent to one theme while convergent thinking is the ability to find the “correct” solution to the given problem. Design thinking encourages divergent thinking to ideate many solutions (possible or impossible) and then uses convergent thinking to prefer and realize the best resolution.

Design Thinking as a Process for Problem-Solving

Unlike analytical thinking, design thinking is a creative process based around the "building up" of ideas. There are no judgments early on in design thinking. This eliminates the fear of failure and encourages maximum input and participation in the ideation and prototype phases. Outside the box thinking is encouraged in these earlier processes since this can often lead to creative solutions.

An example of a design thinking process could have seven stages: define, research, ideate, prototype, choose, implement, and learn. Within these seven steps, problems can be framed, the right questions can be asked, more ideas can be created, and the best answers can be chosen. The steps aren't linear; they can occur simultaneously and can be repeated.

Define

• Decide what issue you are trying to resolve.
• Agree on who the audience is.
• Prioritize this project in terms of urgency.
• Determine what will make this project successful.
• Establish a glossary of terms.

Research

• Review the history of the issue; remember any existing obstacles.
• Collect examples of other attempts to solve the same issue.
• Note the project supporters, investors, and critics.
• Talk to your end-users, that brings you the most fruitful ideas for later design.
• Take into account thought leaders' opinions.

Ideation

• Identify the needs and motivations of your end-users.
• Generate as many ideas as possible to serve these identified needs.
• Log your brainstorming session.
• Do not judge or debate ideas.
• During brainstorming, have one conversation at a time.

Prototype

• Combine, expand, and refine ideas.
• Create multiple drafts.
• Seek feedback from a diverse group of people, include your end users.
• Present a selection of ideas to the client.
• Reserve judgment and maintain neutrality.
• Create and present actual working prototype(s)

Objectives

• Review the objective.
• Set aside emotion and ownership of ideas.
• Avoid consensus thinking.
• Remember: the most practical solution isn't always the best.
• Select the powerful ideas.

Implement

• Make task descriptions.
• Plan tasks.
• Determine resources.
• Assign tasks.
• Execute.
• Deliver to client.

Learn

• Gather feedback from the consumer.
• Determine if the solution met its goals.
• Discuss what could be improved.
• Measure success; collect data.
• Document.

Although design is always subject to personal taste, design thinkers share a common set of values that drive innovation: these values are mainly creativity, ambidextrous thinking,^[4] teamwork, end-user focus, curiosity.

Attributes of Design Thinking

Wicked Problems

Design Thinking is a solution-based approach to solving problems, and is especially useful when addressing what design thinkers refer to as Wicked Problems. Wicked problems are wicked in the sense that they are ill-defined or tricky, not wicked in the sense of malicious.^[15] For ill-defined problems, both the problem and the solution are unknown at the outset of the problem-solving exercise. This is as opposed to “tame” or “well-defined” problems where the problem is clear, and the solution is available through some technical knowledge.^[16]

For wicked problems, the general thrust of the problem may be clear, however considerable time and effort is spent in order to clarify the requirements. A large part of the problem solving activity, then, consists of problem definition and problem shaping.^[7]

The A-Ha Moment

The A-Ha Moment is the moment where there is suddenly a clear forward path.^[17] It is the point in the cycle where synthesis and divergent thinking, analysis and convergent thinking, and the nature of the problem all come together and an appropriate resolution has been captured. Prior to this point, the process seems nebulous, hazy and inexact. At this point, the path forward is so obvious that in retrospect it seems odd that it took so long to recognize it. After this point, the focus becomes more and more clear as the final product is constructed.^[18]

The A-Ha Moment is usually described as a gut feeling. As designers move from novice to expert in their field, the exact point where the A-Ha Moment occurs is increasingly recognizable. This happens through the practice of actual doing and the reflection upon their personal design process.

Resistance, Fear and The Devil’s Advocate

For Design Thinking, there are several players who can stop the process. These enemies of Design Thinking are Fear, Resistance and the Devil’s Advocate. These enemies distract from design thinking by stopping creative production by use of unconstructive negativity.

Fear keeps a designer from the actual doing of using their methods and process to achieve goals. Both are internal psychological hesitations that can distract the designer from creating or focusing on solutions by shifting the focus, instead, to doubts of self-worth, anxieties of “will it be good enough,” or procrastinations.^[19]

Resistance can be encountered through internal psychological disruptions. Resistance stops design thinking by confusing the goal with all sorts of other things that need to be done first. Resistance shifts the focus from solutions and ways to get to those solutions to anything other than realization.^[20] Resistance can also be encountered through other people. Donald Schön talks about the resistance of students towards their professors and the resistance of professors towards students in the learning process.^[21]

The Devil’s Advocate is that one person who never has anything productive to say, but immediately knows and voices exactly why every initially proposed solution will not work. This personality goes further than critical thinking and analysis into negative criticism. This person has the ability to kill projects by shifting the focus from potential solutions to hypercritical problems that might not even matter in the end. The goal of this person is to stop any further ideation towards a solution, and ought to be banned from the room.^[22]

Methods and Process

Design methods and design process are often used interchangeably, but there is a significant difference between the two.

Design Methods are all the techniques, rules or ways of doing things that are employed by a design discipline. Some of these methods for Design Thinking include creating user profiles, looking at and understanding other designer’s solutions, creating prototypes or study models, mind-mapping, asking the five-whys to get to a crux of the problem, site-analysis, etc.

Design Process is the way in which the methods come together through a series of actions, events or steps. There is no solitary process that can define Design Thinking. There are as many different design processes as there are designers multiplied by design problems.

Many of the early Design Processes stemmed from Soft Systems Methodology in the 1960’s. Koberg and Bagnall’s wrote The All New Universal Traveller in 1972 and showcase a circular seven-step process to problem-solving; although they also proposed that these seven steps could be done lineally or in feed-back loops.^[23] Stanford’s D. School came up with an updated seven step process in 2007.^[24] In between there has been many different proposed design processes including a three-step simplified triangular process (or the six-part, less simplified pyramid) by Bryan Lawson^[13] or any of the processes documented in Hugh Dubberly’s e-book How Do You Design: A compendium of models.^[25]

Differences from Science and Humanities

Although many design fields have been put in a category somewhere between Science and the Arts and Humanities, it can be seen as its own distinct way of understanding the world based on a culture of solution-based problem solving, problem shaping, synthesis, and appropriateness in the built environment.

One of the first Design Science theorists, John Chris Jones, postulated that design is different than the arts, sciences and mathematics in the 1970s. In response to the question ‘is designing an art, a science or a form of mathematics’ he says:

The main point of difference is that of timing. Both artists and scientists operate on the physical world as it exists in the present (whether it is real or symbolic), while mathematicians operate on abstract relationships that are independent of historical time. Designers, on the other hand, are forever bound to treat as real that which exists only in an imagined future and have to specify ways in which the foreseen thing can be made to exist.^[26]

Design can be seen at its own culture in education with its own methodologies and ways of thinking that can be systematically taught in both K-12 and higher education. Nigel Cross sets out to show the differences between the humanities, the sciences, and design in his paper Designerly Ways of Knowing. He shows that:

The phenomenon of study in each culture is

• in the sciences: the natural world
• in the humanities: human experience
• in design: the artificial world

The appropriate methods in each culture are

• in the sciences: controlled experiment, classification, analysis
• in the humanities: analogy, metaphor, evaluation
• in design: modeling, pattern-forming, synthesis

The values of each culture are

• in the sciences: objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for ‘truth’
• in the humanities: subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for ‘justice’
• in design: practicality, ingenuity, empathy , and a concern for ‘appropriateness’^[11]

The Language of Design

Designers communicate in a visual^[27] or an object language^[11]. Symbols, signs, and metaphors are used through the medium of sketching, diagrams and technical drawings to translate abstract requirements into concrete objects. The way designers communicate, then, is through understanding this way of coding design requirements in order to produce built products.^[28]

Design Thinking in Business

Design Thinking has two common interpretations in the business world:

1. Designers bringing their methods into business - by either taking part themselves in business process, or training business people to use design methods.
2. Designers achieving innovative outputs, for example: 'the iPod is a great example of design thinking.'

The first has been described by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, at a TED lecture^[29], though his blog^[30] also considers an element of the second.

In organization and management theory, design thinking forms part of the Architecture/Design/Anthropology (A/D/A) paradigm, which characterizes innovative, human-centered enterprises. This paradigm also focuses on a collaborative and iterative style of work and an abductive mode of thinking, compared to practices associated with the more traditional Mathematics/Economics/Psychology (M/E/P) management paradigm. ^[31]

Companies that integrate the principles of design thinking in their innovation processes often share a certain mindset or are striving to cultivate a more creative and human-centred company culture.

History

-1960	The origins of new design methods in the 1960s lay further back in the application of novel, ‘scientific’ methods to the pressing problems of the 2nd World War from which came operational research methods and management decision-making techniques, and in the development of creativity techniques in the 1950s.
1960s	The beginnings of computer programs for problem solving, the so-called soft-systems approach. The 1960s marked a desire to “scientize” design through use of the computer science soft-systems approach.
1962	The First ‘Conference on Design Methods,’ London, UK. The first design methods or methodology books start appearing: Asimow (1962)[32], Alexander (1964)[33], Archer (1965)[34], Jones (1970)[35]. The first creativity books Gordon (1961)[36], Osborn (1963)[37].
1965	Bruce Archer, professor of Design Research at the Royal College of Art states – “The most fundamental challenge to conventional ideas on design has been the growing advocacy of systematic methods of problem solving, borrowed from computer techniques and management theory, for the assessment of design problems and the development of design solutions.”[38]
1969	Herbert Simon notable for his research in artificial intelligence and cognitive sciences establishes a “Science of Design” which would be “a body of intellectually tough, analytic, partly formalizable, partly empirical, teachable doctrine about the design process.”[39] Visual psychologist Rudolf Arnheim publishes his book "Visual Thinking," inspiring the teaching of Robert McKim in the design program at Stanford University. The class McKim creates, "ME101: Visual Thinking," is still taught today.
1970s	Notable for the rejection of design methodology by many, including some of the early pioneers. Christopher Alexander, architect and theorist wrote – “I’ve disassociated myself from the field. There is so little in what is called ‘design methods’ that has anything useful to say about how to design buildings that I never even read the literature anymore. I would say forget it, forget the whole thing.”[40] John Chris Jones, designer and design thinking theorist stated - “In the 1970s I reacted against design methods. I dislike the machine language, the behaviourism, the continual attempt to fix the whole of life into a logical framework.”[41]
1973	Robert McKim publishes Experiences in Visual Thinking.[2] One important theme in the book is the idea of "Express, Test, Cycle" (or ETC) as an iterative backbone for design process. Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber write Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning showing that design and planning problems are Wicked Problems as opposed to the tame problems of science. Horst Rittel also proposes that the developments of the 1960s had been only ‘first generation’ methods (which naturally, with hindsight, seemed a bit simplistic, but nonetheless had been a necessary beginning) and that a new second generation was beginning to emerge.”[42] This suggestion was clever, because it let the methodologists escape from their commitment to inadequate ‘first generation’ methods, and it opened a vista of an endless future of generation upon generation of new methods.[43]
1979	Bruce Archer starts off the next decade’s inquiry into designerly ways of knowing stating – “There exists a designerly way of thinking and communicating that is both different from scientific and scholarly ways of thinking and communicating, and as powerful as scientific and scholarly methods of inquiry when applied to its own kinds of problems.”[44]
1980s	Engineering design methodology of the systematic variety developed strongly, the International Conferences on Engineering Design (ICED) forms. Early engineering developments were especially strong in Germany and Japan. Series of books on engineering designs starts to form: Hubka (1982)[45], Pahl and Beitz (1984)[46], French (1985)[47], Cross (1989)[48], and Pugh (1991)[49]. Series of Design Journals starts to form: Design Studies in 1979, Design Issues appeared in 1984, and Research in Engineering Design in 1989. Other important developments include: the publications of the Design Methods Group and the continuing series of conferences of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA). The national Science Foundation initiative on design theory and methods led to substantial growth in engineering design methodology in the late-1980s. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) launched its series of conferences on Design Theory and Methodology. The 1980’s also sees the rise of human-centered design and the rise of design-centered business management.
1980	Bryan Lawson, professor of architecture at University of Sheffield, pens the seminal text How Designers Think[50] about design cognition.
1981	Nigel Cross, Professor of Design Studies and Editor of Design Studies Journal writes Designerly Ways of Knowing showing Design as its own culture to be taught in schools by contrasting it with Science culture and Arts and Humanities culture. This is based on the idea that “There are things to know, ways of knowing them and ways of finding out about them that is unique to the design fields.”[11]
1983	Donald Schön, professor and theorist in organizational learning, pens his seminal text Educating the Reflective Practicioner in which he sought to establish “an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which [design and other] practitioners bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict.”[51]
1986	The business management strategy Six Sigma emerges as a way to streamline the design process for quality control and profit.
1987	Peter Rowe, professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, pens Design Thinking[7] the first significant usage of the term “Design Thinking” in literature.
1988	Rolf Faste, director of the design program at Stanford, creates "Ambidextrous Thinking," a required class for graduate product design majors that extends McKim's process of visual thinking to design as a whole-body "way of doing."[4]
1990s	Ideas of organizational learning and creating nimble businesses come to the forefront.
1991	IDEO combines from three industrial design companies. They are one of the first design companies to showcase their design process, which draws heavily on the Stanford curriculum. The firm was the subject on ABC’s Nightline in 1999 in an episode called “The Deep Dive.”[52]
1992	Richard Buchanan's article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking"[8] is published.
1995	Ikujiro Nonaka writes The Knowledge-Creating Company[53] on how to transfer knowledge from expert to novice within a business based on the work of Michael Polanyi’s tacit versus explicit knowledge.
2000s	The 2000’s have seen a boom in design thinking as the term becomes a buzzword in business. There is a rise of books written for the business sector about how to create a more design-focused workplace where innovation can thrive: Florida (2002)[54], Pink (2006)[55], Martin (2007)[56], Gladwell (2008)[57], Brown (2009)[58], Lockwood (2010)[59]. This shift of design thinking away from the design fields and into the business sector sparks a debate about the hijacking and exploitation of design thinking.
2000	The Rotman School of Management develops a new model for business education based on Dean Roger Martin’s use of integrative thinking for solving wicked problems.
2005	The Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (or the d.school) forms at Stanford.

Further Reading

Cross, Nigel. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Boston: Birkhauser Verlag AG, 2007.

Faste, Rolf, "The Human Challenge in Engineering Design." International Journal of Engineering Education, vol 17, 2001.

Kelly, Tom. Ten Faces of Innovation. London: Profile, 2006.

Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York, NY: Allworth, 2010.

Martin, Roger L. The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2007.

Nelson, George. How to See: a Guide to Reading Our Man-made Environment. San Francisco, CA: Design Within Reach, 2006.

Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.

Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69.

Schön, Donald. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1987.

See also

• Service Design
• Creativity techniques
• Design management
• Design methods
• Universal design
• Human centered design
• User experience
• Problem solving
• Creative Problem Solving Process
• Lateral thinking
• Metadesign
• Systems thinking
• Wicked problem

Portals

• Portal:thinking

Lists

• List of thought processes
• List of creative thought processes

Notes and references

1. ^ Simon, Herbert (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
2. ^ ^{a b} McKim, Robert (1973). Experiences in Visual Thinking. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. 
3. ^ Faste, Rolf, Bernard Roth and Douglass J. Wilde, “Integrating Creativity into the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum”, Cary A. Fisher, Ed., ASME Resource Guide to Innovation in Engineering Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993
4. ^ ^{a b c} Faste, Rolf, “Ambidextrous Thinking”, Innovations in Mechanical Engineering Curricula for the 1990s, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 1994
5. ^ Patnaik, Dev, "Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid Thinking", Fast Company, August 25, 2009. “...design thinking is any process that applies the methods of industrial designers to problems beyond how a product should look. My mentor at Stanford, Rolf Faste, did more than anyone to define the term and express the unique role that designers could play in making pretty much everything.”
6. ^ Brown, Tim. "The Making of a Design Thinker." Metropolis Oct. 2009: 60-62. Pg60: “David Kelley... said that every time someone came to ask him about design, he found himself inserting the word thinking to explain what it is that designers do. The term design thinking stuck.”
7. ^ ^{a b c} Rowe, G. Peter (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262680677. 
8. ^ ^{a b} Buchanan, Richard, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking," Design Issues, vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992.
9. ^ Cross, N (2011) Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work, Berg, Oxford and New York.
10. ^ "Design Thinking Research Symposia". Open University. http://design.open.ac.uk/cross/DesignThinkingResearchSymposia.htm. Retrieved 2008-02-18. 
11. ^ ^{a b c d e} Cross, Nigel. "Designerly Ways of Knowing." Design Studies 3.4 (1982): 221-27.
12. ^ Mann, Thorbjoern. The Fog Island Argument. Xlibris Corporation, 2007.
13. ^ ^{a b} Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980
14. ^ Tom Ritchey. “Analysis and Synthesis: On Scientific Method - Based on a Study by Bernhard Riemann.” Systems Research 8.4 (1991): 21-41. http://www.swemorph.com/pdf/anaeng-r.pdf`
15. ^ Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69. http://www.metu.edu.tr/~baykan/arch467/Rittel%2BWebber%2BDilemmas.pdf
16. ^ Beinecke, Richard. “Leadership for Wicked Problems.” The Innovation Journal 14.1 (2009): 1-17.
17. ^ Saloner, Garth. “Innovation: A Leadership Essential.” Biz Ed 2011: 26-30. http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/packages/PDF/Innovation.GarthSaloner.pdf
18. ^ Cross, Nigel. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer, 2006.
19. ^ Bayles, David, and Ted Orland. Art & Fear: Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking. Santa Barbara, CA: Capra, 1993.
20. ^ Pressfield, Steven. The War of Art: Break through the Blocks and Win Your Inner Creative Battles. New York: Warner, 2002.
21. ^ Schön, Donald A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
22. ^ Kelley, Tom, and Jonathan Littman. The Ten Faces of Innovation. London: Profile, 2006.
23. ^ Koberg, Don, and Jim Bagnall. The All New Universal Traveller: a Soft-systems Guide To: Creativity, Problem-solving and the Process of Reaching Goals. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann, 1981.
24. ^ D.school: Institute of Design at Stanford. Web. 15 Aug. 2011. <http://dschool.stanford.edu/>. <http://www.designthinkingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Design-thinking-process.png>
25. ^ Dubberly, Hugh. How Do You Design: A Compendium of Models. <http://www.dubberly.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ddo_designprocess.pdf>
26. ^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Method Vol 4. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.
27. ^ Wong, Wiccus. Principles of Two-dimensional Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972.
28. ^ Leborg, Christian. Visual Grammar. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006.
29. ^ Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think big (YouTube). TED. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAinLaT42xY. 
30. ^ http://designthinking.ideo.com/
31. ^ Jones, Andrew (2008). The Innovation Acid Test. Axminster: Triarchy Press. p. 20. 
32. ^ Asimow, Morris. Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
33. ^ Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964.
34. ^ Archer, L. Bruce. Systematic Method for Designers. Council of Industrial Design, H.M.S.O., 1965.
35. ^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970.
36. ^ Gordon, William J. J. Synectics, the Development of Creative Capacity. New York: Harper, 1961
37. ^ Osborn, Alex F. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Scribner, 1963.
38. ^ Archer, L. Bruce. Systematic Method for Designers. Council of Industrial Design, H.M.S.O., 1965.
39. ^ Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: M.I.T., 1969.
40. ^ Alexander, Christopher. "The State of the Art in Design Methods." DMG Newsletter 5:3 (1971): 3-7.
41. ^ Jones, John Christopher. "How My Thoughts about Design Methods Have Changed during the Years." Design Methods and Theories 11.1 (1977): 45-62.
42. ^ Rittel, H., 1984, “Second-Generation Design Methods.” Developments in Design Methodology. N. Cross (Editor), John Wiley & Sons, UK pp. 317-327.
43. ^ Cross, Nigel. "Forty Years of Design Research." Design Studies 28 (2007): 1-4.
44. ^ Archer, L. Bruce. "Whatever Became of Design Methodology?" Design Studies 1.1 (1979): 17-20.
45. ^ Hubka, Vladimir, and W. E. Eder. Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982.
46. ^ Beitz, Wolfgang, Ken M. Wallace, and Gerhard Pahl. Engineering Design. London: Design Council, 1984.
47. ^ French, M. J. Conceptual Design for Engineers. London: Design Council, 1985.
48. ^ Cross, Nigel. Engineering Design Methods. England: Wiley, 1989.
49. ^ Pugh, Stuart. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1991.
50. ^ Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980.
51. ^ Schön, Donald A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic, 1983.
52. ^ Koppel, Ted. "The Deep Dive." Nightline. Prod. Roone Arledge. ABC. 1999. Television.
53. ^ Nonaka, Ikujirō, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford UP, 1995.
54. ^ Florida, Richard L. The Rise of the Creative Class: and How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic, 2002.
55. ^ Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.
56. ^ Martin, Roger L. The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2007.
57. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: the Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and, 2008.
58. ^ Brown, Tim, and Barry Kātz. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business, 2009.
59. ^ Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York, NY: Allworth, 2010.