More terminology gripes: “design thinking”

My [against t-shaped people](http://ryskamp.org/brain/creativity/against-tshaped-people) post really helped me blow off some steam, so here goes again. “Design thinking” needs to die–as a term.

The problem is not with the concept, which is great and deserves even more attention. The problem is with the term–it’s overreaching (common with concepts coming from “designers”) and doesn’t describe the real benefits of the process.

I can’t say this enough–everyone “designs”. Whether it’s a powerpoint presentation or the Bilbao Guggenheim, to create anything you have to “design” it. It can be done consciously or unconsciously, alone or by teams, well or poorly, and using a variety of processes.

So for one small, aesthetically-gifted and uniquely-educated group to say that *they* have defined the kind of thinking singularly associated with “design” is ridiculous. Certainly there are processes that lead to prettier products, more usable interfaces, more unique outcomes–but none that can claim to be “the way” one designs things.

“Design” is more than just broad–it’s already been corrupted. To most people “design” means style, or external form. There is certainly an effort by the “stylists” who are currently well-identified with the term “design” to broaden their influence in the boardroom and the marketplace, but they are not alone in that quest, and will certainly not be the defining role in the utopian workplace to come. The association may have come from IDEO’s popularization of the processes, since they are still best known as a “product design” company–though they currently avoid that stigma as much as possible. Unfortunately they tend to be the biggest promoters of the term “design thinking” as well, perhaps in a bid to co-opt their legacy image for this broader strategic direction.

“Thinking” is another problematic word. Ironically, the practices “design thinking” refers to are much *less* about thinking than the ones they hope to eclipse. Instead, they promote getting out of your own head, observing people in natural situations, prototyping solutions, and testing and refining them. “Design doing” would be more accurate.

The worst part of the term is that it fails to truly explain what the people using it want to promote. [Witness](http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/10/design_vs_desig_1.html) the confusion around recent posts by Bruce Nussbaum, who can’t seem to define what design really is, yet won’t shut up about it. It represents a tremendous lost opportunity to communicate the true activities represented.

Ok, it’s time to put up or shut up. What might be better terms for “design thinking”? Well, ideally we wouldn’t need to obfuscate the real activities at all. I’d rather popularize “human-centered research”, “real-world observation”, “early prototyping”, “rapid iteration” and other things people can actually *do*. No company is going to throw their entire process away and start another wholesale, but they might–and should–experiment with a few new processes. Who knows, maybe they’ll catch on.

I really don’t want a blanket term, but if people want an intellectual shortcut to describe the changes as a whole, I’d want to change the entire term. My best idea? “People process”, to describe a set of activities focused on people–all of them–connected to your product or company. “What’s your people process?” “That company should improve their people process.”

See, I told you blanket terms were bad.

So perhaps the search continues. But, “design community”–unfortunately, you know who you are–can we in the meantime stop using the obnoxious and vague “design thinking” and actually talk about what we’re doing? It’s really cool stuff, and it’s proving its worth daily–we don’t have to hide behind codenames any longer.