1. Home
  2. »
  3. Creativity
  4. »
  5. Design thinking

Design thinking

Design thinking

Design thinking refers to creative strategies designers use during the process of designing. [1] Design thinking is also an approach that can be used to address issues of a more broadly defined nature, and more broadly within professional design practice and has been applied in business as well as social issues. [2] Design thinking in business uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what is a viable business strategy. [3]

Origins of the term

For more details on the history of the term, see History .

The concept of design as a “way of thinking” in the sciences can be traced to Herbert A. Simon ‘s 1969 book The Sciences of the Artificial , [4] and in design engineering to Robert McKim’ s 1973 book Experiences in Visual Thinking . [5] Bryan Lawson’s 1980 book How Designers Think , primarily addressing design in architecture, began a process of generalizing the concept of design thinking. [6] A 1982 article by Nigel Cross established some of the intrinsic qualities and abilities of design thinking that made it relevant in general education and thus for wider audiences. [7]Peter Rowe’s 1987 book Design Thinking , which describes methods and approaches used by architects and urban planners, was a significant early use of the term in the design research literature. [8] Rolf Faste expanded on McKim’s work at Stanford University in the 1980s and 1990s, [9] [10] teaching “design thinking as a method of creative action.” [11] Design thinking Was adapté for Business Purposes by Pomp’s Stanford colleague David M. Kelley , Who founded the design consultancy IDEO in 1991. [12] Richard Buchanan’s 1992 article “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”. [13]

Solution-based thinking

Design thinking is a method for practical, creative resolution of problems. It is a form of solution-based thinking with the intention of producing a constructive future result.

Comparative to the scientific method , which begins by stating a hypothesis and then, via a feedback mechanism, iteratively continues to form a model or theory, design thinking differs from that of the consideration of the emotional content of the situation. While feedback in the scientific method is generally obtained by observational observability with respect to observable / measurable facts, the authors also consider the consumer’s emotional state of the problem, as well as their stated needs, in discovering and developing solutions. There is growing interest in the application of design thinking in software engineering and healthcare innovation [14]. In scientific methods with a heavy emphasis on math or physics, the emotional elements are typically ignored. Design thinking identifies and investigates both aspects of the current situation and the situation. Because design thinking is iterative , intermediate “solutions” are potential starting points of alternative paths, allowing for the definition of the initial problem, in a process of co-evolution of problem and solution. [15]

Designers vs. Scientists

In 1979 Bryan Lawson published results from an empirical study to investigate the different problem-solving approaches of designers and scientists. He took two groups of students – final year students in architecture and post-graduate science students – and asked them to create one-layer structures from a set of colored blocks. The perimeter of the structure had to be red or blue color; However, there were some 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. They are trying to maximize the information available to them. If they could discover the rule governing which combinations of them, they would have been able to optimize the required color around the layout. [problem-focused] By contrast, the architects selected their blocks in order to achieve the appropriately colored perimeter. If this is not an acceptable combination, then the next most favorably colored block combination would have been found. [-focused solution]

-  Bryan Lawson, How Designers Think [6]

Nigel Cross concludes that Lawson ‘s studies suggest that scientists solve problem by analysis, while designers problem solve by synthesis. [7] Kelley and Brown argue that design thinking uses both analysis and synthesis. quote needed ]

Analysis and 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. Synthesis is de fi ned to the opposite procedure: to combine separate elements or components in order to form a coherent whole. However, analysis and synthesis, scientific methods, always go hand in hand; they complement one another. Each synthesis is built upon the results of a prior analysis, and each analysis requires a subsequent synthesis in order to verify and correct its results. [16]

Divergent thinking versus convergence thinking

The concept of divergent thinking is a way to ensure that many possible solutions are explored in the first instance, and then convergent thinking as a way to narrow these down to a final solution. Divergent thinking is the ability to be different. Design thinking encourages divergent thinking to think of many solutions (possible or impossible) and then uses convergent thinking.

Design thinking as a process for problem-solving

Exceptional analytical thinking, design thinking includes “building up” ideas, with few, or no, limits on breadth during a “brainstorming” phase. [17] The participants reduce the risk of failure in the participant (s) and encourage input and participation from a wide variety of sources in the ideation phases. The phrase ” thinking outside the box ” has been coined to describe one of the objectives of the brainstorming phase and is encouraged, since it can help in the discovery of hidden elements and ambiguities in the situation and the discovery of potentially faulty assumptions.

One version of the design thinking process has seven stages: define, research, ideate, prototype, choose, implement , and learn . [4] Within these seven steps, the problems can be asked, the ideas can be created, and the best answers can be chosen. The steps are not linear; can occur simultaneously and be repeated. Robert McKim’s phrase “Express-Test-Cycle” is a simple expression of the process. [5] An alternative five-phase description of the process is described by Christoph Meinel and Larry Leifer: (re) defining the problem, needfinding and benchmarking, ideating, building, testing . [18] Yet another way to look at it isShewhart’s “Plan-Do-Study-Act” PDSA cycle.

The design thinking method is a common set of traits, mainly: creativity, ambidextrous thinking, teamwork , user-centeredness ( empathy ), curiosity and optimism . [10] These traits are exemplified by design thinking methods in ” serious play “.

The path through these processes is not strictly circular. Meinel and Leifer state: “While the trainees are simple enough, the adaptive expertise is required to be appropriate and is appropriate.” [18]

Design thinking is also closely aligned with co-design , with a form of design thinking where stakeholders are involved with the product or service involved in the design process at each stage. This process has been shown to produce more innovative solutions than traditional perspectives of non-group based stakeholder consultation. [19]

Attributes of design thinking


Christoph Meinel and Larry Leifer, of the HPI-Stanford Design Thinking Program, for the successful implementation of design thinking: [18]

  • The human rule , which states that all of them are social in nature, and any social innovation will bring us back to the human-centric point of view.
  • The ambiguity rule, in which design thinkers must preserve ambiguity by experimenting with the limits of their knowledge and ability.
  • The re-design rule , where all design is re-design; this comes as a result of changing technology and social circumstances but previously solved, unchanged human needs.
  • The tangibility rule ; the concept that makes ideas tangible always facilitates communication and allows designers to treat prototypes as ‘communication media’.

Wicked problems

Design thinking is Especially Useful When Addressing what Horst Rittel Referred to as wicked problems , qui are ill-defined or tricky (as Opposed to wicked in the sense of malicious ). [20] With ill-defined problems, both the problem and the solution are unknown at the outset of the problem-solving exercise. This is the case of “tame” or “well-defined” problems where the problem is clear, and the solution is available through some technical knowledge. [21]

For a serious problem, the general thrust of the problem may be clear, but considerable time and effort is required. A large part of the problem solving activity, then, consists of problem definition and problem shaping . [22]

The “a-ha moment”

The “a-ha moment” is the moment when there is suddenly a clear forward path. [23] It is the point in the cycle where synthesis and divergent thinking, analysis and convergent thinking, and the nature of the problem has been captured. Prior to this point, the process may seem nebulous, hazy and inaccurate. At this point, the path is so obvious that it seems that it takes so long to recognize it. After this point, the focus becomes more clear and final product is constructed. [24]

Methods and process

Design methods and design processes are often used interchangeably, but there are significant differences between the two.

Design methods are techniques, rules, or ways of doing things that someone uses within a discipline. Methods of design thinking , interviewing , creating user profiles , looking at other existing solutions, creating prototypes , mind mapping , asking questions like the five whys , and situational analysis.

Because of design thinking, there are many different paths through the phases. This is a part of the reason design thinking that may seem to be “fuzzy” or “ambiguous” when compared to Cartesian methods of science and engineering.

Some early design processes stemmed from soft systems methodology in the 1960s. Koberg and Bagnall wrote The All New Universal Traveler in 1972 and presented a circular, seven-step process to problem-solving. These seven steps could be done linearly or in feedback loops. [25] Stanford’s d.school developed an updated seven step process in 2007. [26] Other expressions of design processes, including a three-step simplified triangular process (or the six-part, less simplified pyramid) by Bryan Lawson . [6] Hugh Dubberly’s free ebook How Do You Design: A Compendium of Models summarizes a large number of design processes. [27]

Thinking of different perspectives, empathizing with users, and addressing different stakeholders. quote needed ]

The use of visual analogy in design thinking and learning

Ill-defined problems often contain higher-order and obscure relationships. Design thinking can address these through the use of analogies . An understanding of the expected results, or lack of domain-related knowledge for the task, may be developed by correlating different internal representations, such as images, to develop an understanding of the obscure or ill-defined elements of the situation. The process involves several complex cognitive mechanisms, as well as many aspects of cognitive domain-visual, mathematical, auditory or tactile-requiring the use of multiple “languages”, like visual thinking .

Design thinking for social innovation

Social challenges require systemic solutions that are grounded in the customer’s or customer’s needs. Nonprofits are beginning to use the concept of social development, because it crosses the traditional boundaries between public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors. By working closely with the customers and consumers, design-thinking makes high-impact solutions to bubble up from below. [28]

The process of design thinking

Inspiration, ideation and implementation

As an approach, design thinking It is not only focused on creating products and services that are human centered, but the process itself is also deeply human. [28] The process is best thought of as a system of overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps: inspiration, ideation, and implementation. [29]Inspiration is the initial problem or opportunity that leads you to the finding of the solution; ideation is the core of the development process where the idea is better defined; and implementation is the final step where the solution comes in contact with the outer world. Projects may loop back through inspiration, ideation, and implementation more than once in the world. Therefore, design thinking can feel chaotic, but over the life of a project, participants come to see that the process makes sense and achieves results, even though its form differs from the linear, milestone-based processes that organizations typically undertake. [30] Empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test.[31] Within these steps, the problems can be asked, the ideas can be created, and the best answers can be chosen.

Space and empathy inspiration

Generally, the design process starts with the inspiration phase, in which the previous step is the definition of the brief. The brief is a set of mental constraints that gives the project team a framework for which they can measure progress, and a set of objectives to be realized-such as price point, available technology, and market segment. [30] Designers approach users with empathy, understanding what humans need or might need, what makes life easier and more enjoyable, what is technologically useful and more usable. It is not only about things that make them more understandable, but their physical and emotional needs, how they think about the world, and what is meaningful to them. [31]Conventional research methods, like focus groups and surveys, can be useful in the direction of incremental improvements, but those do not usually lead to breakthroughs because these techniques simply ask people what they want. Henry Ford said this when he said, “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said ‘a faster horse.’ and no one would have said a car. [30]

Ideation: Divergent thinking versus convergence thinking

Ideate is the mode of design in which you concentrate on idea generation. Mentally it represents a process of “going wide” in terms of concepts and outcomes. [31] The process is characterized by the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking. To achieve divergent thinking, it is important to have a diverse group of people involved in the process. Multidisciplinary people-architects who have studied psychology, artists with MBAs, or engineers with marketing experience. They’re people with the ability to collaborate across disciplines. [30]

Interdisciplinary teams typically move into a structured brainstorming process by “thinking outside the box”. During this process participants should not be judged and participants should take generative role. [32] Participants are encouraged to come up with new ideas and explore new alternatives. Good ideas of the beginning of the world. Each member of the team needs to possess the ability to make tangible contributions to the outcome, and to be empathic for people and for disciplines beyond their own. It tends to be expressed as openness, curiosity, optimism, a tendency toward learning through doing, and experimentation. [28]Convergent thinking, on the other hand, allowing for zooming and focusing on the best choice, which permits the continuation of the design thinking process to achieve the final goals. After collecting lots of ideas, a team goes through a process of synthesis in which it has to translate ideas into insights that can lead to solutions or opportunities for change. This approach helps multiply options to create choices and different insights about human behavior and define the direction of the process should go on. These might be visions of new product offerings, or different ways of creating interactive experience. [30] Once there are lots of ideas, the following step is the most uncomplicated solution.

Complexity and mindset conditions

More choices mean more complexity, which can affect the organization’s decisions to restrict choices in favor of the obvious and the incremental. Although this tendency may be more efficient in the short run, it tends to make an organization conservative and inflexible in the long run. [28] Divergent thinking is the road, not the obstacle, to innovation, and a way to diverge is to define a mindset of condition in which people are encouraged to produce lots of ideas. The most notable topics fall into three general features: open-minded collaboration, courage, and conviction. [33]Open minded refers to the concept of being open and accepting new ideas and contributions. Courage is also important because of a high risk of failure. It permits to face failure, element of high importance in order to improve in the right way. In addition, conviction is the mindset which permits to carry on a process or an idea even if there are constraints or obstacles.

Implementation and prototyping

The third space of the design thinking process is implementation, when the best ideas are created during the design process. [28] At the core of the implementation process is prototyping, which is then tested, iterated, and refined. A prototype helps to gather feedback and improve the idea. Prototypes speed up the process of innovation because they allow to understand strengths and weaknesses of new solutions. Prototyping is particularly important for products and services for the developing world, where the lack of infrastructure, retail chains, communication networks, literacy, and other essential parts of the system often make it difficult to design new products and services. [28]Prototyping, testing, “failing many times but quickly and cheaply in order to succeed” [34] are different methods to test solutions, but the earlier users can give feedback, adaptation of the solution to customer needs.

Differences from science and humanities

Although many design fields have been categorized as falling between science and the arts and humanities, they can be seen as their own distinct way of understanding the world, based on solution-based problem solving, problem shaping, synthesis, and appropriateness in the built environment .

One of the first design science theorists, Chris John Jones , postulated that was 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?” Jones responded:

The main point of difference is that of timing . Both artists and scientists operate in the present world , while mathematicians operate on abstract relationships that are independent of historical time . Designers, on the other hand, are forever bound to treat as they exist only in an imagined future and have to specify ways in which the foreseen thing can be made to exist.

-  John Chris Jones , Design Method [35]

Nigel Cross built on the early work of Bruce Archer to show the differences between the humanities, the sciences, and design in his paper “Designerly Ways of Knowing”. [7]He observed that in the sciences of the world, the methods being controlled, classification, and analysis. In this culture, objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for “truth” are most valued. In the humanities, analogy, metaphor, and evaluation as methods of study of the human experience. The values ​​of this culture include subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for “justice”. Design, however, concerns itself with the artificial world and uses modeling, pattern-forming, and synthesis to study it. In design, practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and a concern for “appropriateness” are the core values.

The languages ​​of design

Conventionally, designers mainly communicate in visual or object languages . [7] [36] 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. [37]

Design thinking in business

Design thinking has two common interpretations in the business world: citation needed ]

  1. Designers bringing their methods into business by taking care of themselves in business process
  2. Designers achieving innovative products or products (for example, the iPod )

The first interpretation has been described by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, at TED Reading, [38] though his blog [39] also considers the second interpretation.

The limits of the first kind of design thinking in business are also being explored. Not all problems yield to design thinking alone, where it can be a “temporary fix”. [40] Design thinking companies including IDEO and Sense Worldwideare responding to this by building business thinking capabilities. [41]

Tim Brown has argued that design thinking is now widely, but sporadically, used in business. He argues that competitive advantage comes from sustained use of design thinking, from becoming “masters of the art.” [42]

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 the more traditional mathematics / economics / psychology (M / E / P) management paradigm. [43]

A study by the London Business School found that for every dollar of sales in product design, profits rose by an average of 3 to 4 percent. [44]

Historically designers were only introduced in the last steps of product development, focusing their attention on improving the look and functionality of products, instead of looking for a high impact on the world and the society. Design is a tool of consumerism, more attractive, easier to use and more marketable. [45]In recent years, designers have developed a number of methods and tools to deliver products and services. Therefore, designers bring their methods to business by themselves in the earliest stages of business processes or training business people to use design methods and to build business thinking capabilities. Design thinking, the perfect balance between desirability, technical feasibility and economic viability helps organizations to be more innovative, better differentiate their brands, and bring their products to market faster. [45]

Design thinking in education

Designing it has been suggested for use in schools in a variety of curricular ways, [46] [47] [48] . [49]

Design thinking in education typically takes three forms: helping school administrators solve institution-based problems, aiding educators to develop more creative lesson plans, and generating design thinking skills in students.

There are currently many researchers exploring the intersection of design thinking and education. [50] The REDLab group, from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education, conducts research into design thinking in K-12, secondary, and post-secondary settings. [51] The Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program is a collaborative program between Stanford University and the Hasso Plattner Institute from Potsdam , Germany. [50] [52] The Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program’s mission is to “apply rigorous academic methods to understand how and why design thinking innovation works and fails.” [52]

SPJIMR , a top B-school in India, offers a roadmap to build design thinking in the organization and has implemented the approach across its different management programs.

In addition to enriching curriculum and expanding student perspectives, design thinking can also benefit educators. Researchers have proposed that design thinking can enable educators to integrate technology into the classroom. [53]

Design thinking as a viable curricular and systemic reform program is recognized by educators. “Much of today’s education system guides students towards finding the right answers to fill-in-the-blanks on standardized tests, as this kind of instruction facilitates streamlined assessments to measure success or failure … It is critical that, particularly in under-served This model of learning does not require any further education and is one of the most important tools in the world. [54]

Uses in K-12 education

In the K-12 arena, design thinking is used to promote creative thinking, teamwork, and student responsibility for learning. The nonprofit Tools at Schools aims to expose students, educators, and schools to design thinking. The organization does this by facilitating a relationship between a school and a manufacturing company. Over a minimum of six months, representatives of the manufacturing company teaches the principles of design and establishes the type of product to be designed. [55] The students collaborate to design a prototype that the manufacturer produces. [55] Once the prototype arrives, the students must promote the product and support the ideas that lead to its design. [55]

An example of the Tools at Schools is the redesign of school equipment by 8th grade students at The School at Columbia University . The students were divided into groups and asked to redesign a locker, chair, or a desk to better the needs of 21st century pupils. [56] The final students were exhibited at the International Contemporary Furniture Fair where they demonstrated their product to fair expectations and industry professionals. [56] Overall Tools at Schools not only introduces students to the design process, it exposes them to the design profession through their interactions with designers and manufacturers. [56]Since the students work together in groups, design thinking in education and collaborative learning.

Another organization that works with integrating design thinking for students is the corporation NoTosh. NoTosh has a design thinking school to teach instructors how to implement design thinking in their curriculum. One of the technical design thinking NoTosh adopted from the corporate world and applied to education is hexagonal thinking. Hexagonal thinking consists of gathering cut-outs in hexagon shapes and writing a concept or fact on each one. Students then connect the hexagon by laying related ideas or facts together. The visual representation of relationships helps students better conceptualize wicked problems. [57] Another concrete example of design thinking in action is NoTosh’s “Googleable vs. NonGoogleable Questions” exercise. [57]Brainstorm questions and questions about “Googleable and NonGoogleable.” [57] Students Research the Googleable Questions and Present Their Findings to the Class While NonGoogleable Questions Are Used to Create a Project. [57]

Stanford University Taking Design Thinking to Schools Initiative

Apart from profit corporations and corporations, research universities are also involved in the design of K-12 schools. Part of Stanford’s efforts to incorporate design thinking into education. The Stanford School of Education and the School of Education with K-12 Teachers in the Palo Alto area. [58] “Teachers and students engage in hands-on design challenges that focus on developing empathy, promoting a bias towards action, encouraging ideation, developing metacognitive awareness and fostering active problem solving.” [58]

Taking Design Thinking to Schools identifies the following design thinking thinking process:

  • Understand : students explore the topic through research and develop familiarity with the subject matter
  • Observe : this phase consists of students taking notes of their environment, which includes physical environments and human interactions; students gather more information about people’s actions and possible motivation through discussion
  • Point of view : students will be able to learn more about their ideas in the next phase
  • Ideate : this phase consists of students brainstorming ideas without criticism or inhibition. In this phase, the focus is on generating lots of ideas with an emphasis on creativity and the process.
  • Prototype : in this phase students create quick prototypes
  • Test : Students test their ideas in a repetitive fashion and determine which aspects of the design are effective and which could be improved. [58]

By employing this process, the Stanford team and Taking Design Thinking to Participating Schools collaborate to develop coursework that students will find engrossing and “hands-on.” [58] Thus, the program at Stanford combines design thinking for teachers who must create alternative curriculum and students who must complete the design thinking-based projects.

The K12 Lab at Stanford

The K12 Lab Network is a part of the Stanford University’s d.school and according to its website its mission is to “inspire and develop the creative confidence of educators and support edu innovators catalyzing new models for teaching and learning.” [59] The K12 Lab Network publishes a wiki with information on creating design challenges for K-12 schools. The wiki provides tools for thinking about design challenges. [60]

The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit

The Design Thinking for Educators was developed in 2011 by IDEO in partnership with the PreK-12 Independent School Riverdale Country School . [61] The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit that is currently available for the second version. [62] The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit is a comprehensive resource for educators to use, which includes a “walk-through of design thinking process complete with examples and a downloadable workbook”. [63]The toolkit has been used in academic research to aid the creation of an ” iPad learning Ecosystem”. [64]to help design a program to help young people in the transition from elementary to secondary school, [64] . [63]

Practical Guidelines for Design Thinking at Universities Without Particular Design Thinking Facilities (Design Thinking on a Shoestring Budget)

Design Thinking does not really require specialized facilities, tools, and environments. Design Thinking sessions in a higher education setting can also be conducted on a budget shoestring. Hand-on guidelines for the design of the university of the United States. [65] Media management education has been acting as a sample scenario for performing these types of Design Thinking sessions. [66]


AIGA has implemented a movement, DesignEd K12, to take design thinking to schools. This movement is guided by volunteers and is not a specific program to follow; concept design students and design thinkers. DesignEd K12 to motivate students to use design thinking to solve problems; to create a network where designers, students and educational professionals share best practices; to shape a recommended approach to teaching design; and to cultivate a passion for design among young people. [67]Across the nation, many of AIGA’s chapters are working with school districts. The programs range in scope; Some mentor students who have shown an interest in design, while other programs offer the opportunity to explore and design in the classroom. [67]

Uses in higher education

Design thinking is currently being taught in “workshops, supplemental training, courses, or degree programs” in over 60 universities and colleges. [68] Design thinking is used by colleges as a way to instruct students on the phases of design, and to help develop innovative solutions to existing problems. [68] The Stanford University d.school is a well-known design thinking program in higher education, with Stanford’s students of engineering, medicine, business, law, and education utilizing the d.school to develop innovative solutions to problems. [69] The University of Kentuckyalso has formalized instruction on design thinking through its dLab. The role of the student in the field of leadership is to increase the number of participants in the field of organizational design. [70] Radford University , located in Radford, Virginia, currently offers a Master of Fine Arts degree (MFA) degree in design thinking. [57] The MFA degree is a completely online degree that emphasizes design thinking, design history, design research, design management, and design doing. [71]

The Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School and the Maryland Institute College of Art began offering MBA / MA in leadership design in 2012. [72] Students simultaneously earn a master of arts degree in design leadership from an art school MBA from a research institution.

Obstacles to implementing design thinking in schools

The accountability to succeed on high-stakes standardized tests in K-12 environments prevents the implementation of design thinking curriculum. Educators feel that focusing on classics will be better prepared for their students. [54]Resistance to design thinking also about the appropriateness of applying design thinking to an educational setting. It has been argued that design thinking is best applied by professionals who know a field well. [73] Therefore, K-12 students who are limited by their reduced understanding of both the field and their developing intellectual capacities may not be best suited to design thinking activities. [73]

Another more subtle obstacle to design thinking in schools may believe in design thinking should remain in the midst of vanguard companies. [74] Other issues that may prevent the implementation of design thinking in schools may be lack of awareness of the field, educators’ uncertainty in implementing new approaches to teaching, and lack of institutional support.

Even for institutions that see the value of design thinking, there is the issue of implementing these new approaches to education successfully. Admittedly “creating an effective thinking and successful team learning experience is a sticky wicked problem.” [68]

Design thinking in teaching and learning through ICT

The integration of ICT in teaching and learning presents many challenges that go beyond issues dealing with technical implementation. Some researchers have already claimed the limited effects of ICT adoption in learning; [75] [76] [77] Considering the emphasis and the impact of ICT in formal learning settings, it is important to identify where the problems are. In this regard, some voices of the educational community focus on the methods used for integrating ICT in teaching and learning. [78] [79] In this sense, the adoption of design thinking is considered to be a promising strategy to develop holistic solutions.

Design thinking in teaching and learning through ICT can be considered as similar activities. First, it is important to acknowledge that the type of problems faced when adopting learning technologies are unique, ill-defined and not clear solutions. [80] [81] This definition corresponds to the term wicked problems used by the design community. [82] Secondly, similarly to what happens in design, the diversity of actors should be recognized. In this regard, collaboration between different stakeholders during the design process is another key issue that could contribute to develop more meaningful technologies for learning; [78] [79][83]

Design thinking has been outlined to a meaningful approach for facing wicked problems. [13] The adoption of a design mindset helps you understand that you need a lot of solutions. From this perspective, bringing design thinking and learning to design and development can make the most of holistic solutions in learning through ICT. [84]


Pre-1960 The origins of new design methods in the 1960s lay further Top back in the implementation of novel “scientific” methods to the pressing problems of World War II from qui cam operational research methods and management decision-making techniques, and in the development of creativity techniques of in the 1950s. Harold van Doren published Industrial Design – A Practical Guide to Product Design and Development , which includes discussions of design methods and practices, in 1940.
1960s The beginnings of computer programs for problem solving, the so-called soft-systems approach .The 1960s marked a desire to “scientize” design through the use of the computer science soft-systems approach. [85]
1962 The First Conference on Design Methods, London, UK.Books on methods and theories of design in different fields are published by Morris Asimow (1962) ( engineering ), [86] Christopher Alexander (1964) ( design patterns ), [87] L. Bruce Archer (1965) ( industrial design ), [88]and John Chris Jones (1970) ( architecture ). [89]

The first notable books on methods of creativity are published by William JJ Gordon (1961) [90] and Alex Faickney Osborn (1963). [91]

1965 L. Bruce Archer , Professor of Design Research at the Royal College of Art argues that design is not a craft-based skill but should be considered a knowledge-based discipline in its own right, with rigorous methodology and research incorporated into the design process “and states:” The most fundamental challenge to the concept of systematic advocacy of problem solving, the concept of systematic problem solving. [88] [92] Bruce Archer is arguably the first author of the term design thinking in his book “Systematic Method for Designers” London: Council of Industrial Design, HMSO
1969 Herbert A. Simon noted that it would be “a body of intellectually tough, analytic, partly formalizable, partly empirical, teachable doctrine about the design process.” [4]Visual psychologist Rudolf Arnheim publishes his book Visual Thinking , which inspires the teaching of ME101: Visual Thinking, by Robert McKim, in the School of Engineering at Stanford University . [5]
1970s Notable for the rejection of design methodology by many, some of the early pioneers.Christopher Alexander , architect and theorist, wrote: “I’ve got so much to do with the field of design. I would say forget it, forget the whole thing. ” [93]

John Chris Jones , designer and design thinker theorist, stated: “In the 1970s I reacted against design methods.” I dislike the machine language, the behavior, the continual attempt to fix the whole of life into a logical framework. [94]

1973 Robert McKim publishes Experiences in Visual Thinking , [5] which includes “Express, Test, Cycle” (ETC) as an iterative backbone for design processes.Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber write “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning” showing that design and planning problems are subject to “tame”, single discipline, problems of science.

Horst Rittel also proposed that the development of the 1960s had only been “first generation” methods (which naturally, with hindsight, seemed a bit simplistic, but not a prior beginning) and that a new second generation was beginning to emerge. [95] This suggestion was made because of the methodologies of their methods of inappropriate “first generation” methods, and they have opened up a new generation of methods. [96]

1979 L. Bruce Archer starts off the next decade’s inquiry into the concept of ways of knowing, stating: “There is a 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. ” [97] Bruce Archer is arguably the first one to use the term design thinking.”Design Studies”, the first research journal focusing on design processes begins publishing.
1980s Systemic engineering design methods are developed, particularly in Germany and Japan. The International Conferences on Engineering Design (ICED) is formed.A series of books on engineering design are published by Hubka (1982), [98] Pahl and Beitz (1984), [99] French (1985), [100] Nigel Cross (1989), [101] and Stuart Pugh (1991). ). [102]

The National Science Foundation’s initiative on design theory and methods for substantial growth in engineering design methods in the late-1980s. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) launched its series of conferences on design theory and methodology.

The 1980s also sees the rise of human-centered design and the rise of design-centered business management.

1980 Bryan Lawson, professor of architecture at the University of Sheffield , publishes How Designers Think About Cognition Design in the Context of Architecture and Urban Planning. [6]
1982 Nigel Cross , Professor of Design Studies and Editor of Design Studies Journal, Writes Designerly Ways of Knowing Showing Designs and Its Culture to Be Educated in Schools by Contrasting with Culture and Arts and Humanities Culture. This is based on the idea that “There are things to know, ways of knowing and ways of finding out that are specific to the design area.” [7]
1983 Donald Schön , professor and theorist in organizational learning , published The Reflective Practitioner in qui he Sought to establish “an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes that [design and other] Practitioners bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict. ” [103]
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 , publishes Design Thinking . [8]
1988 Rolf Faste , director of the design program at Stanford, creates “Ambidextrous Thinking”, a classy essay for graduate product design majors that extends McKim’s process of visual thinking to design as a “whole-body way of doing.” [10]
1990s Ideas of organizational learning and creating nimble businesses come to the forefront.
1991 The first symposium on Research in Thinking is held at Delft University, The Netherlands. [104]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 University curriculum. IIT Institute of Designestablishes the first PhD program Design in the United States [105]
1992 Richard Buchanan’s article “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking” is published. [13]Eugene S. Ferguson’s book Engineering and the Mind’s Eye is published.
1999 Pierre Sachse and Adrian Specker publish the book “Design Thinking” at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – ETH Zurich. [106]
21st Century The start of the 21st century brought to life in the business press. Books about how to create a more design-focused workplace Where innovation can thrive are written for the business sector by Richard Florida (2002),[107] Daniel Pink (2006), [108] Roger Martin (2007), [109] Malcolm Gladwell (2008), [110] Tim Brown (2009), [111] Thomas Lockwood (2010), [112] Vijay Kumar (2012), [113] Larry Keeley (2013), [114] and Kim Erwin (2014) .[115]This shift in design thinking and the business sector sparked a debate about hijacking and exploitation of design thinking. According to Bill Moggridge, co-founder of IDEO, in the end of 2000, Lavrans Løvlie, Ben Reason, and Chris Downs, joined forces to find a new business. design approach should be extended and adapted to the design of services. [116] This marked the beginning of the design consultancy firms movement worldwide.
2005 Stanford University ‘s d.school begins to teach engineering design students thinking as a formal method. [18]
2006 IIT Institute of Design introduces the first Master of Design / MBA dual degree program. [105]
2007 Hasso Plattner Institute for IT Systems Engineering in Potsdam , Germany establishes a design thinking program. [18]
2008 IIT Institute of Design launches Design Camp, first executive education program providing frameworks and tools for practicing innovation in a variety of industries. [117]
2015 Jenna Leonardo, Katie Kirsch, Rachel H. Chung, and Natalya Thakur from Stanford University ‘s School Founded Girls Driving for a Difference [118] to teach design thinking to young girls across the United States. [119]

See also

  • Creativity techniques
  • Design-based learning
  • Idea networking
  • Lateral thinking
  • Method engineering
  • Problem solving
  • Problem structuring methods
  • Reflective practice
  • sensemaking
  • Scenario thinking
  • Systems thinking
  • User experience
  • Portal: thinking
  • Portal: Design
  • List of thought processes
  • List of creative thought processes


  1. Jump up^ Visser, W. 2006, The cognitive artifacts of designing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Jump up^ Dorst, Kees (2012). Frame Innovation: Create new thinking by design . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN  978-0-262-32431-1 .
  3. Jump up^ Tim Brown. Thinking design. Harvard Business Review, June 2008.
  4. ^ Jump up to:c Simon, Herbert (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial . Cambridge: MIT Press.
  5. ^ Jump up to:d McKim, Robert (1973). Experiences in Visual Thinking . Brooks / Cole Publishing Co.
  6. ^ Jump up to:d Lawson, Bryan. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. London: Architectural, 1980
  7. ^ Jump up to:e Cross, Nigel. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies 3.4 (1982): 221-27.
  8. ^ Jump up to:b Rowe, Peter G. (1987). Thinking design . Cambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN  978-0-262-68067-7 .
  9. Jump up^ 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
  10. ^ Jump up to:c Faste, Rolf, “Ambidextrous Thinking” , Innovations in Mechanical Engineering Curricula for the 1990s , American Society of Mechanical Engineers, November 1994
  11. Jump up^ Patnaik, Dev,”Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid Thinking”,Fast Company, August 25, 2009. “… Any design thinking process is That Applies the methods of industrial designers to problems beyond how a product shoulds look. My Mentor at Stanford, Rolf Faste, did not make it easy. “
  12. Jump up^ Brown, Tim. “The Making of a Design Thinker.” MetropolisOct. 2009: 60-62. p. 60: “David Kelley … said that every time someone came to design, he found himself inserting the word thinking to explain what it is that the term design thinking stuck.”
  13. ^ Jump up to:c Buchanan, Richard, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking,” Design Issues , vol. 8, no. 2, Spring 1992.
  14. Jump up^ Carroll, Noel, and Ita Richardson. “Aligning healthcare innovation and software requirements through design thinking.” In IEEE / ACM International Workshop on Software Engineering in Healthcare Systems (SEHS), pp. 1-7. IEEE, 2016.
  15. Jump up^ Dorst, Kees; Cross, Nigel (2001). “Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution”. Design Studies . 22 (5): 425-437.
  16. Jump up^ Ritchey, Tom. “Analysis and Synthesis: On Scientific Method – Based on a Study by Bernhard Riemann – Systems Research 8.4 (1991): 21-41″ (PDF).
  17. Jump up^ Robson, Mike (2002) [1988]. “Brainstorming”. Problem-solving in groups(3rd ed.). Aldershot, Hampshire, UK; Burlington, VT: Gower. p. 41. ISBN  0-566-08467-8 . OCLC  50746638 .
  18. ^ Jump up to:e Plattner Hasso ; Meinel, Christoph; Leifer, Larry J., eds. (2011). Design thinking: understand, improve, apply . Understanding innovation. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag . pp. xiv-xvi . doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-642-13757-0 . ISBN  3-642-13756-3 . OCLC  898322632 .
  19. Jump up^ Mitchell, Val; Ross, Tracy; Sims, Ruth; Parker, Christopher J. (2015). “Empirical investigation of the impact of using co-design methods when generating proposals for sustainable travel solutions” . CoDesign . 12 (4): 205-220. doi : 10.1080 / 15710882.2015.1091894 .
  20. Jump up^ Rittel, Horst; Webber, Melvin. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,Policy Sciences 4.2 (1973): 155-69″ (PDF) .
  21. Jump up^ Beinecke, Richard. “Leadership for Wicked Problems.” The Innovation Journal14.1 (2009): 1-17.
  22. Jump up^ Rowe 1987, pages 40-41
  23. Jump up^ Saloner, Garth. “Innovation: A Leadership Essential Biz Ed 2011: 26-30″(PDF) .
  24. Jump up^ Cross, Nigel. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer, 2006.
  25. Jump up^ Koberg, Don, and Jim Bagnall. The All New Universal Traveler: A Soft-Systems Guide To: Creativity, Problem-solving and the Process of Reaching Goals. Los Altos, CA: Kaufmann, 1981.
  26. Jump up^ “Design thinking chart” . Designthinkingblog.com. October 2009 . Retrieved 11 March 2015 .
  27. Jump up^ Dubberly, Hugh. “How Do You Design: A Compendium of Models” .
  28. ^ Jump up to:f Brown, T. Wyatt, J. 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford social innovation review
  29. Jump up^ Brown, T. 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review.
  30. ^ Jump up to:e Brown, T. Wyatt, J. 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford social innovation review.
  31. ^ Jump up to:c An introduction to design thinking, dschool.stanford.edu.
  32. Jump up^ Kelley T. Littman J, 2005, The Ten Faces of Innovation
  33. Jump up^ Fraser, H. 2006. Turning design thinking in design doing, Rotman Magazine
  34. Jump up^ designandthinking, Mu Ming Tsai, 2012, Movie
  35. Jump up^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Method Vol 4.New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.
  36. Jump up^ Wong, Wiccus. Principles of Two-dimensional Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972.
  37. Jump up^ Leborg, Christian. Visual Grammar. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2006.
  38. Jump up^ Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think big (YouTube). TED.
  39. Jump up^ “Design Thinking” . ideo.com .
  40. Jump up^ “Why the d.school has its limits”, Stanford Daily
  41. Jump up^ “15 top MBA Employers IDEO”, Fortune Magazine June 05 2012
  42. Jump up^ “When Is Everyone’s Doing Design Thinking, Is It Still a Competitive Advantage?” . Harvard Business Review .
  43. Jump up^ Jones, Andrew (2008). The Innovation Acid Test . Axminster: Triarchy Press. p. 20.
  44. Jump up^ Howkins, John (2003). The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas . The Penguin Press. pp. 121-122.
  45. ^ Jump up to:b Brown, Tim (2009). Tim Brown urges designers to think big (YouTube). TED
  46. Jump up^ Leverenz, CS (2014). Design Thinking and the Wicked Problem of Teaching Writing. Computers & Composition, 33, 1-12. doi: 10.1016 / j.compcom.2014.07.001
  47. Jump up^ Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity Through “Maker” Experiences and Design Thinking in the Education of Librarians. Knowledge Quest, 42 (5), 58-61.
  48. Jump up^ Leinonen, T. & Durall, E. (2014). Design Thinking and Collaborative Learning. Pensamiento de Diseño Y Aprendizaje Colaborativo., 21 (42), 107-115. doi: 10.3916 / C42-2014-10
  49. Jump up^ Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Thinking Design and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research, 82 (3), 330-348. doi: 10.3102 / 0034654312457429
  50. ^ Jump up to:b “Research on Design Thinking” . stanford.edu .
  51. Jump up^ “REDlab- Research in Education & Design” . stanford.edu .
  52. ^ Jump up to:b “Overview – Hasso Plattner-Institute” . hpi.de .
  53. Jump up^ http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/tsai-cc.pdf
  54. ^ Jump up to:b http://web.stanford.edu/group/redlab/cgi-bin/materials/IJADE_Article.pdf
  55. ^ Jump up to:c Tools at Schools. “Tools at Schools – About” . tools-at-schools.com .
  56. ^ Jump up to:c Tools at Schools. “Tools at Schools” . tools-at-schools.com .
  57. ^ Jump up to:e “Design Thinking: Synthesis 1 – Hexagonal Thinking” . notosh.com .
  58. ^ Jump up to:d http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/taking-design/presentations/Taking-design-to-school.pdf
  59. Jump up^ “K12 Lab Network” . K12 Lab Network .
  60. Jump up^ “Creating Design Challenges” . stanford.edu .
  61. Jump up^ “Vialogues: Annette Diefenthaler, IDEO (Design Thinking & Education)” . Vialogues .
  62. Jump up^ “Toolkit” Design Thinking for Educators ” . designthinkingforeducators.com .
  63. ^ Jump up to:b Bradburn, FB (2013). Redesigning Our Role While Redesigning Our Libraries. Knowledge Quest, 42 (1), 52-57.
  64. ^ Jump up to:b Kernohan, K. (2012). The concept of an educational program for at-risk youth in transition from elementary school to secondary school: comparing the traditional problem-solving approach to the design thinking approach.
  65. Jump up^ Lugmayr, Artur (2011). “Applying” design thinking “as a method for teaching in media education”: 332. doi : 10.1145 / 2181037.2181100 .
  66. Jump up^ Lugmayr, Artur; Stockleben, Bjoern; Zou, Yaning; Anzenhofer, Sonja; Jalonen, Mika (2013). “Applying” Design Thinking “in the context of media management education”. Multimedia Tools and Applications . 71 (1): 119-157. doi : 10.1007 / s11042-013-1361-8 . ISSN  1380-7501 .
  67. ^ Jump up to:b “AIGA – Cultivating design thinking in kids” . AIGA – the professional association for design .
  68. ^ Jump up to:c Goldsman, S., Kabayandondo, Z., Royalty, A., Carroll, MP, & Roth, B. (2014). Student teams in search of design thinking. Thinking Research Design.
  69. Jump up^ “Our point of view” . d.school .
  70. Jump up^ “dLab :: The Lab” . uky.edu .
  71. Jump up^ “About the MFA in Design Thinking” . radford.edu .
  72. Jump up^ “MBA / MA in Leadership Design” . Johns Hopkins Carey Business School .
  73. ^ Jump up to:b “Why ‘Design Thinking’ Does not Work in Education – Online Learning Insights . ” Online Learning Insights .
  74. Jump up^ ” ‘ Design Thinking’ and Higher Education” . insidehighered.com .
  75. Jump up^ Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 813-834.
  76. Jump up^ Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S. Novak, T., Carey N. Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. (Publication No. 2007-4005). US: Institute of Education Sciences.
  77. Jump up^ Ross, SM, Smith, L. Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (2004) Using classroom observations and research as a formative assessment tool in educational reform: The school observation measure. In S. Hilberg and H. Waxman (Eds.) New Directions for Observational Research in Cultural and Linguistic Classrooms (pp. 144-173). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
  78. ^ Jump up to:b Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S. & Fischer, F. (2009). The Evolution of Research on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In N. Balacheff & al. (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Learning. Principles and Products (pp. 3-19). Netherlands: Springer.
  79. ^ Jump up to:b Bonsignore E. Ahn, J. et al. (2013). Embedding Participatory Design into Designs for Learning: An Untapped Interdisciplinary Resource? In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, Nathan & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, University of Wisconsin, Madison, June 15-19 (pp. 549-556). International Society of Learning Sciences.
  80. Jump up^ Mishra, P. & Koehler, MJ (2008). Introducing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1-16. New York.
  81. Jump up^ Leinonen, T. (2010). Designing Learning Tools – Methodological Insights. Ph.D. Aalto University School of Art and Design. Jyväskylä: Bookwell.
  82. Jump up^ Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155-169.
  83. Jump up^ Leinonen, T., Durall, E. (2014). Design Thinking and Collaborative Learning. In Revolution in Education? Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL). B. Rubia & M. Guitert (Eds.). Comunicar, 21 (42)
  84. Jump up^ Leinonen, T., Durall, E., Kuikkaniemi, K., Mikkonen, T., Nelimarkka, M., Syvänen, A. & Toikkanen, T. (2014). Design for Learning: Enhancing Participation in Learning through Design Thinking. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2014 (pp. 659-662). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  85. Jump up^ “A Brief History of Design Thinking: The Theory [P1]” . I think ∴ I design .
  86. Jump up^ Asimow, Morris. Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
  87. Jump up^ Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964.
  88. ^ Jump up to:b Archer, L. Bruce. Systematic Method for Designers. Council of Industrial Design, HMSO, 1965.
  89. Jump up^ Jones, John Christopher. Design Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970.
  90. Jump up^ Gordon, William JJSynectics, Development of Creative Capacity. New York: Harper, 1961
  91. Jump up^ Osborn, Alex F.Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York: Scribner, 1963.
  92. Jump up^ “L. Bruce Archer” . oxfordreference.com .
  93. Jump up^ Alexander, Christopher. “The State of the Art in Design Methods.” DMG Newsletter 5: 3 (1971): 3-7.
  94. Jump up^ Jones, John Christopher. “How My Thoughts About Design Methods Have Changed During the Years.” Design Methods and Theories11.1 (1977): 45-62.
  95. Jump up^ Rittel, H., 1984, “Second-Generation Design Methods.” Developments in Design Methodology. N. Cross (Editor), John Wiley & Sons, UK pp. 317-327.
  96. Jump up^ Cross, Nigel. “Forty Years of Design Research.” Design Studies 28 (2007): 1-4.
  97. Jump up^ Archer, L. Bruce. “Whatever Became of Design Methodology?” Design Studies1.1 (1979): 17-20.
  98. Jump up^ Hubka, Vladimir, and WE Eder. Principles of Engineering Design. London: Butterworth Scientific, 1982.
  99. Jump up^ Beitz, Wolfgang, Ken Wallace, and Gerhard Pahl. Engineering Design. London: Design Council, 1984.
  100. Jump up^ French, MJConceptual Design for Engineers. London: Design Council, 1985.
  101. Jump up^ Cross, Nigel. Engineering Design Methods. England: Wiley, 1989.
  102. Jump up^ Pugh, Stuart. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1991.
  103. Jump up^ Schön, Donald A.The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic, 1983.
  104. Jump up^ Cross, N., Dorst, K. and N., Roozenburg (eds.) (1992) Research in Design Thinking, Delft University Press.
  105. ^ Jump up to:b “The New Bauhaus continued today as IIT Institute of Design” . IIT Institute of Design-Beta website .
  106. Jump up^ Sachse, Pierre; Specker, Adrian:Design Thinking: Analysis und Unterstützung konstruktiver Entwurfstätigkeiten. Zurich: ETH vdf, 1999.
  107. Jump up^ Florida, Richard L.The Rise of the Creative Class: How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic, 2002.
  108. Jump up^ Pink, Daniel H.A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006.
  109. Jump up^ Martin, Roger L.The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2007.
  110. Jump up^ Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: the Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and, 2008.
  111. Jump up^ Brown, Tim, and Barry Kātz. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business, 2009.
  112. Jump up^ Lockwood, Thomas. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and Brand Value. New York, NY: Allworth, 2010.
  113. Jump up^ Kumar, Vijay. 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012.
  114. Jump up^ Keeley, Larry, Walter Helen, Ryan Pikkel, and Brian Quinn. Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013.
  115. Jump up^ Erwin, Kim. Communicating the New: Methods to Shape and Accelerate Innovation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2014.
  116. Jump up^ Moggridge, Bill. Designing Interactions. Chapter six. The MIT Press; 1 edition (October 1, 2007).
  117. Jump up^ “Design Camp” . IIT Institute of Design-Beta website .
  118. Jump up^ “Girls Driving for a Difference” . Girls Driving for a Difference .
  119. Jump up^ Cole, Samantha (March 3, 2015). “How four women in an RV plan to change young girls’ lives: this summer, four Stanford students will bring design-thinking workshops to middle-school girls at summer camps across the country . ” Fast Company . Retrieved 11 March 2015 .