Natasha Jen: Design Thinking is Bullsh*t
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 мар 2018
- If Google Image search is your sole barometer, “design thinking uses just one tool: 3M Post-Its,” says Pentagram partner Natasha Jen. “Why did we end up with a single medium? Charles and Ray Eames worked in a complete lack of Post-It stickies. They learned by doing.” In her provocative 99U talk, Jen lobbies for the “Crit” over the “Post-It” when it comes to moving design forward.
About 99U
99U brings you the best of the creative world through the lens of design and the people and work who are shaping it.
My understanding is that she wants to say that more people nowadays focus on the formula instead the real content. Design thinking can be the "formula" to help people to come up great design. However people reply on the "formula" instead of trying to make great design,. It becomes inflexible. Maybe sometimes some design projects don't need the full 5 steps ...I think Design thinking its self is not bad , Good or bad is not depending on itself but depending on how people use it.
Great approach to overcome our cognitive bias. Instead of immediately looking on her flawed arguments. You are trying to understand her motivation and looking for truth in her point of view.
@@LuisArteaga007 Except there is no formula in design thinking, there's only a general process which can be adapted depending on the situation. I will not look for truth in her point of view, because it's not only her arguments that are flawed, it's her entire point of view. By the way, she ditched her own principle of "crit" when she decided to talk about design thinking in such a superficial manner.
Design thinking as a body of knowledge is an attempt to chronologically itemize something that designers do in 'Brownian' fashion.
DT is valid in that it studies and documents processes that are naturally internalized to a designer.
It in itself is not a process but a study of processes and this is why people attempting to use it as is to develop products soon get stuck and abandon it.
DT can help novices Play catch up where professionals are hired to generate results in a certain field because the design process is naturally a very convoluted, and having a knowledge of DT doesn't impart the dexterity of mind needed to turn ideas into things.
very true, its subjective to the brief or problem statement you working with and can be customized for desired results
Olá, Jeanie Lin Boa tarde tem vídeo novo no nosso canal. Não perca!
I think the main and almost the only problem is that design done well really only has two steps: 1. solve that problem and 2. make it easy. we've added a third step which is 3. do it entirely in visually driven software programs.
very few designers do physical labor or really have any connection with the physicality of the products they are designing. they aren't designing things with materials in mind and rarely just pick up stuff and mash product together until they comprehend why there is a problem in the first place. design is physical and we've made it almost entirely cerebral. that's why some of the best solutions usually come from people who sit and pick at bones in the spaces where the problem exists. they come from the bottom-up. it's honestly why some of the best designers who make the most useful products have very little artistic skills. What comes to mind almost immediately is Seymour Cray, father of supercomputing. His designs and strategic way of thinking has led almost entirely to our current AI moment. I know people who worked with him and have seen his personal papers and heard local tales. He was an oddball, but onto something new. Because he lived in a farming community and was driven by materials.
"If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use: two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?" is one of his famous quotes lmao.
he was driven almost entirely by removing the tedium from physical labor. and that is primarily because he did, in fact, do the physical labor.
we've eliminated the part of "solve problems" and replaced it with "replace things that were functional and pretty with newer, prettier things" and given ourselves tools that will always lead to cutting recognizable and entertaining elements out of older designs because we approach it entirely from the point of view of a staged photographic image. it's a cycle that is going to perpetuate itself because it must.
even typing these thoughts into words have reduced their potency. reading it here will strip the meaning from the knowledge I am trying to convey. that's the way youtube is set up, and it will behave that way because it must.
now, instead... imagine that I take you into the middle of a freshly plowed field. it smells like cow poop after a rainstorm. I hold my finger in the air and we try to guess the wind direction and speed. I set up a wind sock. it's orange. I set out a ruler. we make small guesses from that.
Now imagine that you are a wind surfer. You have learned to read the wind with your body, innately understand it's effects. you are more attuned to the physicality of the weather because you have learned to manipulate and interpret the wind with your shoulders and back. you could probably stand out there and tell me things even the best tools (windsock and ruler and maybe a gyroscope) could never, ever tell me. your physical understanding of the world is a data machine far more potent than these visual tools. I probably wouldn't be able to understand your description properly, because you would tell me with the vernacular of a surfer. but I would try. you could design a better tool for surfing the wind just by the way it feels, and you wouldn't need a windsock.
we've gone so holistic and data driven that we've forgotten how to feel the wind properly to understand it.
it's worth noting that Seymour Cray was a windsurfer and one of his first projects when his machines were functional was measuring the weather and the wind in particular.
meanwhile we never leave the house. our eyeballs are a great shortcut for understanding the world, but our eyeballs are why we have beautiful things that break easily, beautiful clothes that shred in a few months, beautiful ads that sell no products, beautiful phones that spend most of their lifecycle with cracked screens. beautiful white boards covered in beautiful post-its. clickable links and beautifully formatted articles with no substance. beautiful data. beautiful, beautiful data. beautiful watches to read our heart rates, beautiful food in beautiful packages with no real nutritional value. beautiful fonts to say meaningless words.
what is a font to a blind person. what is a story with a beginning and an end but nothing to say. we speak in shorthand.
our designs meddle with the surface of the world instead of becoming a meaningful fixture within it and really that's cultural
A designer that doesn't like Design Thinking... of course!! Design Thinking is more about business strategy and less about the design of things. The very idea that everyone can use a participatory, non-linear, prototype-driven and research-led approach to solving problems many or even most of which extend well beyond the typical relm of most designers is perhaps challenging or even threatening. But your title grabs attention and sparks consideration. Thanks for your thought provoking presentation, Natasha.
Natasha, I am now 52....I have 26 years working to learn and practice..'best practice' using design thinking... I always felt something was missing using this restrictive step guide design thinking approach. I love David Kelly's enthusiasm and his ability to 'equalise' status in a corporate workshop setting. However...many companies still fixate on on steps, hierarchy and 3m (lol), your speach is such a brilliant shout out. I still believe in empathy as it encourages collaboration and for us to (as you so rightly say) all surround ourselves with evidence... brilliant speech thankyou x
So is the issue in the hierarchical culture at your business trying to undermine the very tool they are trying to implement? (I'm imagining a cartoon of a digger, with a fat cat in the cabin with "hierarchy" writtenacrosshis chest, digging up its own foundations.)
One of the things about design thinking, as it should be utilised, is that it starts with the realisation that we don't yet know what the real problem is, and gives a way to begin to find out what it is. As Drucker said, "there is nothing more dangerous than a manager coming up with the right solution to the wrong problem."
I understand that being a real designer is difficult since with the introduction of Design Thinking now everyone is "doing Design" - not just the *real* Designers. Dear Natasha - DT was implemented because, after 20 years of accountants, controllers, financial wizards running large corporations focus has been lost regarding the end user. DT is the answer to that. It has nothing to do with designers - nor does anyone believe that the guy in the post department is now on the same level as the top designer - just because he spent 2 hours creating user stories.
So true!
"...nor does anyone believe..." You would be surprised what my former Product Manager believed after he read couple articles on Medium. Design still has - and perhaps even more so today - the aura of "well it's just a matter of picking nice colours and copying something I've seen elsewhere...".
It is good Design Thinking empowers people that OUGHT to focus on end users more, but it really seems it stops many of them somewhere right after the beginning of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
I was an art director, I know this type of critique and ivory tower thinking - the designer as creative genius, because I was there myself. We would create work that was only validated by the client or each other and put out into the world after which we wait for the response from the public. There is nothing wrong with this because art direction and graphic design serve an entirely different purpose from say UX or industrial design.
Why she thinks she can speak on design thinking is beyond me. I can only assume it is because it has the word design in it? Design thinking, serves an entirely different purpose from the work that is done work done at Pentagram. A printed poster or book does not include user engagement that changes of the state product itself or requires input and output. It's closer to art which is perfectly fine, just different from a user interface for example.
Pentagram does awesome work but this kind of approach, the 'lone intuitive designer genius' serves little purpose in tech. I made the shift to design thinking because I'm doing completely different work now as a UX engineer. Sure, you don't want Pentagram to go out and validate their unique work because they don't design to solve business problems and user needs in the same way - they are paid to be the sole creative voice.
Last few points, design thinking is not linear (at all); it IS evidence based (she spoke about surrounding herself with evidence, although I don't know what that means to her) and I don't understand why she thinks design thinking is this neat process or why that would be a relevant criticism? She sounds like an aristocrat fearing a burgeoning middle class: 'How very dare they use the word design!'.
She is showing such a myopic view here. Design thinking involves graphic design yes, but it also involves so many other outcomes...By the time she gets a job for a brochure or a website, or whatever tangible thing she's working on, there have been so many other design decisions made (by professional designers or not...) This brings that classic joke to mind. "Q: How many designers does it take to screw in a lightbulb. A: Does it have to be a lightbulb?" That's where our value to our clients comes in, asking those hard questions.
Design thinking is very linear.
If you've actually been a designer like you say and you've internalized design Thinking for what it is then you'll recognise that it is just a study and chronological depictions of how a designer's mind operates. An actual designers mind is a beehive and most things are reverse engineered.
The fact is, because you're migrating to a new sphere of operation, you need to learn the linear models of creation in that sphere but as you grow and handle complex issues for clients with unique needs, your mind will kick into typical designer overdrive and all that fancy DT will be long forgotten.
DT is a linear relationship whereas the actual mental design process is haphazard and needs be for people who are natural born designers.
You are a complete oxymoron
I think you miss the point that Design Thinking is being used as an universal method in companies to teach non-designers how to think like designers in reality. The problem is, this is facilitated on a very short and superficial scales, as a workshop or a course at best, giving the participants false impression they know what the design work is about or that they have mastered the complete design process.
Design Thinking as a methodology is not bad. It is the problem how it's being sold. It leaves thousands of people right after the start of the Dunning-Kruger curve. It is literally the same thing as with any youtube tutorial where anyone thinks they can suddenly cook, sing or fly a plane. Any marketing or sales person attending the workshop suddenly feels like they know how to design things.
It is incredible people fail to see this can not work with almost any other profession, but somehow the entire design knowledge can be compressed into 6 steps over a weekend workshop. Don't be surprised when you - as a UX engineer - get stuck in a loop of constantly explaining basic arguments to people who gain the feeling they know how to design things better because they have attended one of these workshops. Sure, I might have had bad experience, but you can hardly argue with Dunning-Kruger.
DT has good parts to it for sure, but it also promotes half-assed outputs and frustrates the very people who are responsible for those outputs - designers. In the long run, it will be the end user who will suffer from this.
@@ngreat4390 Design Thinking is not linear! I have been a designer and also Design Engineer for decades. There is a lot of iteration and back and forth in the Design Process. Btw I am also an Industrial Design professor and a UX professor. I don’t know what you have designed but I’ve designed cameras for Polaroid, brace for Johnson & Johnson, Burn in Sockets for TI , and many other products that use Design Thinking and The Engineering Design Process (Both are nearly the same except sometimes some engineers skip the empathy stage of DT because Industrial Design or Human Factors will cover it instead)
Yeah, I don't really think she is necessarily attacking Design Thinking. The big take way from this video for me is how it became a thing that is superficial. Everybody will use it because it is a trend. It is one possibility, but not the only way to achieve or evaluate results and goals. It can be useful in some cases but who said you can't either adapt or go other ways.
Yes. It should be a no brainer for getting where you need but might end up becoming a ritual from which you have to repeat meaninless steps named with fancy corporate words
BAM!
Learn about design thinking, then bend the process or break it to suit your needs.
Wow this was extremely hard to sit through. It was crystal clear in more ways than one that Natasha Jen had no idea what design thinking even was or how it is intended to be used. She repeatedly described it as a "hexagonal five step linear process," which, as many design thinkers know, is blatantly wrong. In fact, she even included a photo in her slide of "Google images that pop up when you search design thinking" which explicitly demonstrates the nonlinearity aspect of the design process (arrows bouncing back to each stage to highlight the iterative nature of the process). Thus, her argument that design thinking does not incorporate criticism, or "crit" as she calls it, at every step is completely invalid. A good design process will understand the user by gaining feedback, or criticism, from the user. The designer will then define the problem based on that feedback and begin ideating, often with the user. Then, the designer will move onto designing a prototype to test it with the user to obtain feedback. Clearly, if done correctly, design thinking does involve criticism and feedback at every step. Natasha wraps up her talk by claiming that "design just becomes this box that you want to check off." Clearly, her company is approaching design and design thinking from the wrong angle if this is what she truly believes. While I do agree with her that many companies can improve upon this, and that design thinkers deserve a spot at the table, the entire point of design thinking is to embed it into the roots of the company and the mindsets of the employees so it is always factoring into every decision, not just design decisions.Lastly, she uses the example of Steve Jobs' office and how "he applied his own form of design thinking, which was intuition, by focusing on people's needs rather than business needs." This made me chuckle because she is perfectly describing design thinking (designing for people rather than the needs of a business) and its potential benefits (Steve Jobs' amazingly successful products), yet continues to use it as an argument as to why design thinking is bullsh*t. Overall, I think Natasha Jen brought up some great points: the importance of iteration, criticism and feedback in the design process, the use of many mediums and tools to carry out this process, and the implementation of this process in non-design fields. However, what I don't think she realizes is that she is describing crucial parts of the design thinking process. In a way, I think she actually believes the opposite of the title of her talk.
Well said. Great comment. Shame more ppl didn’t see it. Thank you!
I agree wholeheartedly very well said I couldn't have said it better myself
True she thinks from her own personal experience at places ,she worked as visual designer
i 100% agree, if she would just zoom in on one of those images she cited as proof of her point and see how it shows design thinking as a messy and non linear process.
Agree, Natasha is 100% wrong. no idea about design thinking, she is stuck in the realm of "graphic designers". This is what happens when people with 0% of knowledge do "Research in Google" -> Hey Google is a "search" engine, Is NOT a Research Engine.
From personal experience, I've seen that strictly following design thinking methodologies as a process, tends to foster an environment where people are talking about ideas (AKA writing thing on sticky notes and rough napkin sketches) but are not in the process of thinking through the process of making things (the example of the architect studio with the foam prototypes). Both forms of thinking are valuable, but DT tends to miss out on the thinking through making approach. It makes sense that business execs. would gravitate towards and more easily understand the methods they can accomplish themselves.
Many design fields like architecture, graphic design, and industrial design tend to focus more on learning through making. This is much less prevalent in digital and UX design industries. I think this is one of the reasons digital design feels so homogeneous right now.
I only see opportunities to bolster UX processes from the criticisms that Natasha Jen makes here. This talk is crit 101. The fact that so many are struggling to deal with criticism perfectly exemplifies the industries inexperience with it.
Absolutely true. Many people from different industries come here to say that they disagree with Jen's point. I understand their insecurity, but DT is like opposite of creating something new or, as she suggested, boxed creativity.
Can relate so well to the criticism point. People forget we all want to make the best thing for the person that uses it and not for the ego of the one who designed it. I think jaque frescos ideas on creativity are spot on and free you from the pressure of being the 'artist'. You're just putting ideas together.
I'm more of a traditional graphic designer, if you will, so I know what she's trying to say, but personally, I think the presentation is full of logical fallacies and I walked away with the impression that she's not aware of how design thinking isn't linear, if she understands it at all. I wonder if she had anyone crit her presentation beforehand.
I agree with her that intuition, etc. are just as important, but to assume that it excludes or invalidates those things simply because it's not an explicitly stated step, that's not a very valid argument.
"Crit" is the baked-in driving force behind each of those stages. Otherwise, where's the need to prototype, ideate, or test come from? If there's anything that makes design thinking superior to other design approachs, it would be the reinforcement that "you are not the user," and outline the requirement to solicit "crit" from not just fellow designers or even stakeholders/clients, but the actual users, from start to finish.
Design thinking definitely isn't perfect, but it's perfect for the time when more and more engineers began to delve into the world of designing experiences rather than just features for digital products.
Lee Sean Huang also has a great response Natasha's view: soundcloud.com/leeseanh/yes-design-thinking-is-bs
I was hoping that this talk would give me insight into the problem with design thinking, such as Henry Ford did with "If I asked the customer what they wanted, they would just tell me 'a faster horse.' " Instead I got a talk that fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the testing phase of design thinking. All her criticisms (criticism, iteration, evidence, immersion) can be found to be active in that stage.
We over think "design" - at the end of the day, its PROBLEM SOLVING like the majority of human endeavors. Whether you use a napkin, a notebook, or a laptop is irrelevant...it's the outcome and the results that matter.
Natasha, thank you so much for your thought provoking presentation. From a "designers" standpoint I think I get your point. However I believe there is real value in enabling and empowering non-designers with creative tools and mindset to solve business challenges. In my mind this is more about Business Straetgy and less to do with actual "design" of things. For example what does an organization design "look" like? Or how might we think about applying AI to our business or our service model? Maybe these aren't typical design problems but to simply write off Design Thinking because it's not typical to what "designers" use misses the point I think. Additionally when you say the 5 step process is linear I think that's not exactly right - typically we use and recommend it as a non linear approach with the main point being iterative improvements with customer or people centricity. Design Thinking as a methodolgy extends well beyond "designers" and the typical design fields they are engaged in. Lastly Crit is handled by ethnographic methods such as Think aloud Testing or the Rose, Thorn, Bud activity. There are others of course. The title of your presentation does help give the topic thoughtful attention. Thanks again for your thought provoking presentation!
I
I
The first time
I
I
am a
I
I
oo
I
am a
o and
I
I 9
IL
o
I
I learned more from reading your comment than from this lady who seems threatened by anyone outside of her field calling themselves a designer. Thank YOU
design thinking is such overacademized bullshit!
I study software development, and In my first two semesters of uni I was forced to courses about it. I find that most principles and ideas in design thinking are ususally common sense, but then describing with academic lingo, so that normal people would'nt be able to understand
I think it’s really about who is teaching it right? Having a bad geography teacher doesn’t make it “academic BS” ;)
1. Design thinking goes beyond Design in the aesthetic sense- it is more of a philosophy and mindset for dealing with complex problems creatively
2. Design thinking is iterative (contrary to Her claims). You can move the subsequent steps back to the prior steps for clarity
3. Post-it is not a design thinking tool, just a material used while employing tools like Persona Building and Brainstorming - just like a whiteboard
4. Crit- is the same as testing phase of design thinking
5. Her example of Steve Jobs doesnt work because in describing Jobs approach she was describing the human-centered focus of design thinking. Ideo (Design Thinkers) have worked with apple to design some of apples most iconic products such as the mouse
6. Design thinking encourages us to surround ourselves with the evidence Contrary to Her claims)- The very first step in the process- empathy- is built upon getting unbiased evidence
7. Creative ability is not the same thing as artistic ability
8.Even though She is a Graphic Designer, She really doesn't understand Design Thinking
9. I wish I was in that audience :)
Design thinking is broad, and the approach can be used for any kind of design, such as UI Design, UX Design, System Design, or the design of any process, etc. I think people miss the point because they think of "design" only in terms of how things look instead of how they work. In short, people use design thinking in different ways depending on the situation. The way a graphic designer approaches design thinking may be different from the way a product designer approaches it.
There's no clear definition of what design thinking is, if it can't be defined then how can it be understood.
@@dextermafa3901 I am not sure I quite I agree with your assertion. Even "subjects" with a longer History, like Strategy don't have a clear universal definition.
Yet , like DT, There are clear definitions with recurring and overlapping themes. As well as similar processes that can be understood.
She did understand Design Thinking and hate it
I am a visual designer who values the use of design thinking to develop ideas quickly. A process can be valuable if understood because ideas don't only come from designers, they can come from anyone. Everyone brings their knowledge, biases, experiences, ideas into the discussion in an open and nonjudgmental manner to come up with a solution (conversion), and then branch out (diversion) from there. The method will push you to step outside your comfort zone resulting in results that are even better than expected. To see the potential of Design thinking, I think it must be experienced rather than read about or studied. This isn't only applicable to visual design; it applies to everything.
Dude, you won't get a time to experience/apply the design thinking process in your project. As a visual designer, you'll be asked to follow a particular pattern by the stakeholders of the company including product, Dev, Business & Design Lead... You can do usability testing (test) after launching the product but you will not aware about the correct problem statement until you launch the product. It's Create > Measure > Learn > Iterate
i disagree. but it is important people challenge the status quo of how things are done. so, natasha, do your thing, prove the world wrong!
Wanna see simple use design thinking? Try to see this videos
Its one of the best and simple for beginner
ruclips.net/video/EZx0hEzuKyY/видео.html
Really it is simple.
Just discussed there
it was "Restless reinvention" in Design Thinking
The Dunning-Kruger curve pretty much proves the world wrong on this topic. You cannot turn non-designers into designers - let alone good ones - by running few workshops. It does not work with pilots, drummers, chefs, ice-hockey players, programmers....why do people think it works with design/ers?
Thanks for this Jen. The take away - "There is no design thinking without the crit. Surround your self with the evidence"
"Real designers surround themselves with evidence" Thank you for blowing my mind.
I define Design Thinking as taking and idea(problem) through a designed process to get to a desired outcome(or solution). Companies and studios can have different ways of doing it.The design thinking field provides us tools to use that may get us where we want, by no means the only tools you can use but tools non the less. Tesla didn't even have to model to come up with his inventions (all within his vivid imagination) Non the less he also had a process.
The testing stage usually includes critique. It is also important to correct the speaker, no one has ever said DT is a linear process.
If as a design professional, you accept that "you are not your user" then having a Crit, which is getting subjective opinions from a group of opinionated designers is better than getting feedback from the users early and often, then you might be someone who is afraid to give up being an over-controlling-know-it-al-design-dictator.
Pretty cool, pretty thought provoking. I think a lot of this stuff is and was born out of the pain of describing a messy and intuitive process to others. Codifying, as she described, for those who can’t even speak a language that we ourselves do not fully understand.
For me, we still have messy divergent ways of thinking but it has walls and boundaries to some degree. Perhaps the critique is about how tightly constructing these walls are. Are they too tightly squeezed by the design-thinking method?
In reality, there are time and financial pressures that the designer must navigate in communication with others.
Great presentation ! Design Thinking is for premium only. In an optimization or efficiency world you can't follow DT steps. The best DT is evolution which works only in real life.
I agree with some of the comments below - while it is obvious that Ms. Jen has done her research, she is not a practitioner of Design Thinking, otherwise she would have understood that the Crit is part of the prototyping process. Design doesn't discriminate - it either works or it doesn't. In the Prototyping phase, the critique of the results or methods is an important part of the process to determine weak spots and areas that can be improved now or in the future. Always has been.
Practitioners of Design Thinking understand this (like IDEO), whereas the general public do not and only look at the linear aspects of diagrams (like the hexagons) or think that the chaos of Post-its represents real Design Thinking. It doesn't.
I can understand where she is coming from. Because these days, many people coming from IT background with no design knowledge are "latching" on with all these buzzwords, by calling themselves as UX design team leads and such when they are just doing visual screens and interactive animations.
Design thinking was not really bullshit in the past, it just needs refinement and those who aren't trained in design should not coined themselves as one in the spectrum of design. BTW, Charles and Ray Eames are the designers of the famous and iconic Eames lounge chair.
Industrial Design aside, "Design Thinking" has been latched onto by IT and corporations who have finally woken to the reality that coders and developers ARE NOT DESIGNERS. If this is what it takes for the recent and new found appreciation for true designers, then we all win.
Was in class and they where presenting this topic, did a Google search in class and second suggestions was this... Had no cracking in class 🤣🤣
I’ll agree that design thinking is maybe not the most effective design solution, because it’s not supposed to be. However, design thinking is meant as a business solution. You need to zoom out. If you want a good design, you should get a designer, but if you want a chance at revolutionizing a business, that’s where design thinking helps. Not all solutions are a hit, but it’s an effort. She doesn’t understand what “prototype” is. Her definition of crit doesn’t apply here when prototypes are meant to be made quickly for user testing. User testing is “crit” here but she’s stuck in her box of understanding. It’s like me saying dinner = rice just because i grew up in an asian family and this is my reality and then telling those who don’t eat rice that what they eat is not really dinner. It’s like calling andy warhol a fake because he used commercial ways to create art. And what better “crit” is there than an actual response, like if you don’t like the product, users will walk away. No “i think” or any ambivalent phrases thrown around the room, it’s “i will use it” or “i won’t” by actions taken. That knowledge is far more valuable in my opinion. I hope more ppl try to challenge it because it’s healthy to have debates.
Those bastards at Pentagram... what they need is one proper team building weekend to empathize, define, ideate, prototype and frickin' test the solution for the new sticky note color, damnit!
I’m a fan of Design Thinking since reading Tom Kelley in ‘97...
Honestly, I’ve been in situations where it actually doesn’t work or is sabotaged from effectiveness solely based on the forceful nature or strong personalities of influential players, (i.e. money spenders). That’s my criticism...
However, I don’t agree with most of the assertions here. In fact, some of the arguments point to Design Thinking as already being embedded in creative process like the web portal example.
Hey, the methodology of Design Thinking is basically a series of defining steps that have essentially been used since the dawn of the wheel and this clip reaffirms that in my opinion. The list of precepts just help keep us from forgetting one or two of them.
I think we can add the element of crit and proving does it solves the problem at every stage of design thinking rather than completely eleminating the "hexagon" ^-^
Interesting talk.. but I gotta admit I learnt more from reading the comments than the actual video🤔
I get that it is a buzz word that can be inappropriately applied, but it is unfortunate that Natasha didn't use Design Thinking to prepare this talk. She may have found examples where it really helps people, who are not doing design work on a daily basis, to come up with innovative solutions to actual problems. If she used what she calls Crit, which seems to be an inherent part of Design Thinking, she could have also improved the design (logic) of her presentation. I have seen Design Thinking engage people in solving challenging issues. Admittedly, if you apply it to "What colour we should paint the walls?" types of issues, it will likely be a waste of time.
I agree. It is a mindset, not a method - which is what agencies are selling these days. This is what naturally one should think. A ton of Visual UI Artists who want to be in product / ux design and don't have the required expertise hide behind the veil of design thinking. They fool employers and trivialize ux designers job.
2:26 "Very linear particular methodology..."
This title is clickbait. The basis of your argument sounds more like a personal preference (opinion) rather than a well-based hypothesis. A good argument would include how the points you made are causing issues and the proof to back it up (or a least a reference) else it's simply nitpicking. Critiques are already included in the process and how Google fetches images is unimportant. I agree that not all problems require Design Thinking but they can use it. The framework is best for complex problems. Solutions created by Design Thinking can seem obvious and effortless because that's what GOOD design is and good design is human-centered like Desing Thinking. Thank you for your talk and the opportunity to criticize it, the history of Design Thinking was informative.
Well, designers don't need design thinking because the process of getting a good design carried out by designers itself is design thinking without having to call it design thinking. The term design thinking emerged to explain to non-designers how a designer thinks. The five steps in design thinking seem neat and linear, but in fact, the iterations in each step make the whole process very chaotic. This is what non-designers need to prepare, because for designers, this is how they create great design works. As a designer I think you should also explain this part, Natasha :-)
Everyone's a 'designer' now. Which, philosophically, means no one is. Design Thinking is an attempt to codify a simplified, replicable suite of processes to democratise the BASELINE for designing things by everyone. These are a minuscule fraction of the many internal and external processes an experienced and disciplined Traditional Designer goes through to do their job.
DT still has yet to compliment Traditional Design in many ways because of human error i.e. threatened ego, stubbornness, narcissism etc (on both sides of the equation). The bottom line is perception still is reality and Design Thinking is where the corporate perception is at with the checkbook for a lot of things right now.
I see this evolving in 5 years to welcome Traditional Design back into the fold once businesses realise Design Thinking practitioners fall horribly short in key areas like Trad Designers did in others, inclusive rather than the elusive exclusivity of talent. DT industries are a great place for those who couldn't find a home in Traditional Design to flourish in though. Room for everyone!
You can see it this way (exaggerated for effect): Trad Design is Individual Exceptionalism and Design Thinking is Socialist Pragmatism. I'm a fan of both and can't wait for the merger, call me a Design Liberalist.
Highly inspired by Natasha Jen. Critics play an important role in Design and are not always required to follow the Design thinking process. We are professionals and have grown up watching the industry from IE6 to Chrome, Small screen Desktop (800 x 600px) to large screens Imac's(1920px x 1080px), and Small screens phones (320px resolution) to (475px) widescreen sizes of mobile phone. Multiple years of consistent experience taught us how to define design guidelines, what the audience want, and how to achieve business requirements.
Spoken like a true artist, not a designer. Any "buzzword" that gets a designer a seat at the table, helping to make meaningful decisions that evoke change, sign me up.
I get where she's coming from as a B Arch that's now doing UX design. A lot of UX designers dont know squat about design
Buen día. Cuantos profesionales viven del Design thinking? en mi opinión la metodología ya se encuentra implícita en las interacciones pre existentes de las diferentes industrias; si pretendes hacer de ella un proceso consciente, bastará con enfatizar algunos puntos, sin necesidad de hacerlo tangible ni documentar el proceso mental para llegar a los mismos o a mejores resultados incluso. Detrás de esta metodología (Así como de otras "novedades"), existe una estructura de marketing que alimenta consultores, capacitaciones, implementaciones, etc.
I love it. Design thinking. It helps you but not to be as the strict way to design a thing.
Dear Mrs Jen, thank you very much for this clear presentation , explanation and rectification on what is design thinking, what is intuition, and what is not design thinking, and how is the environment of a design thinker and what value creation is extracted from critics .
Still, I would use the 5 steps process, perhaps named differently, and for example use such as RCA + 5 why along with others as a framework to help me sell a problem solving solution…
And n the real life , these 5 steps may takes years in some problems resolution attempts for a successful sustainable impact and not a rapid process as promoted by many consultants , as the way the something meaningful and not a quick fix, which I doubt … although I would still use the 5 steps framework as a process to interact with all the stakeholders who may concerned in one way or another with my project endeavors.
Kind regards,
Joel
taking about criticism after every step of design process, it happens in design firms, teams and among designers and who know the design process well and have done a lot using it, design process imo is just a frame work and is very subjective to the brief
She is an artist. She isn't a designer, she doesn't look at and fall in love with problems to solve. She has no empathy for the people, she loves beauty, evidence and critical view. She is focused on the 'word' DESIGN as a method that others force as a process, but it's messy, humans are messy and you must love the mess and not have 'graphic' design perfection to deeply understand and think through solving problems for people. The flippant remark about the painting on the wall was glossed over that 90% of kids were sedated because they were terrified, this took looking at the fear of children rather than focus on the people with the money and MRI analystst focused on perfect results. It's about SOLVING THE RIGHT PROBLEMS FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Yes the method is over used and less understood by 'GRAPHIC DESIGNERS' like her.
She is an award winning 'designer'. google her up.
.
................... not everyone has the liberty of critic....
.
a nice explanation video
- BRAVE
.
She is right...there is a fundamental problem in the approach to Design Thinking. It just an aspect of society demanding a process or manual, sometimes (most of the times) problem solving is not linear. She is right in saying that most of what Design thinking is intuitive.
Design Thinking is not linear. It's a repeating circle of iteration in many forms with many tools.
True!! What she is concerned about the idea is too rigid. Sometimes (most of the times) great designs come from spontaneous and doing hands on design, rather getting bogged down in a complex process. I think this is what she is driving at. Steve Jobs is a good case in point!!
a repetition of LINEAR CYCLES.
@@supersmart671 That's her own misconception by building her statement over images found on Google.
Kudos Natasha! As someone who became an "entrepreneur" in the 90s before the term became synonymous with anyone in business these days, I applaud your video. While there is no easy, facile way of creating businesses, trial and error is really what it's all about. That's how it was and really how it still remains. But I will say that some of the practices are valid to incorporate
If "Design Thinking" is so easy to apply that any professional can start 'designing', then ...
- What are designers for? (be an industrial designer, graphic designer, fashion designer, etc.)
- What is the true target audience of "Design Thinking?
- What is its true purpose?
- Aren't there other more effective design methods? Why are they not used?
If anyone can take the trouble to explain it to me, I will be very grateful.
don't waste your time its just a "tool" to assure client, - what could probably go wrong? you are in the team
Well i believe in Artistry and creativity while designing
its true you don't need Steps adn Hexagons when it is basic Human Intuition.
Nowadays its all about Adding more features, more features... and following some processes.. and naming them as Big words
I am non-conventional basically..
I think it all boils down to a Dunning-Kruger effect. Or more precisely the fact, that the "Design Thinking" package is sold in chunks large just about right to stop the pupil right after the start of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Design Thinking itself is a good thing. But the idea that "anyone can be a designer" in "six easy steps" or in a "weekend workshop" is absolutely false. Yes, anyone can be a designer or pilot or drummer....a shitty one.
im happy I watched this video because now I know if people like her can get to that place, I can too.
In design thinking we have always critics after research (definition of problems), after ideation (crit by business brief e.g.) and before prototyping to choose few ones. Iterations after prototyping and even during testing is also common. Good design process is never linear. Design thinking isn't the only one miracle for design but barely approach and one of many parallel design management methods. Moreover design thinking is a method that can be used not only for product but also for business modelling to create holistic solutions and startegical cohesion.
I might add that the Eames did apply design thinking--at the time it was design process. And sticky notes were not invented then! I'm surprised that Charles and Ray did not think to invent them since they support flexible criticism.
Design thinking as buzzword is a fair critique of the current popularized D School approach. I do think however, Natasha Jen's point does not seem to understand the "design thinking" process in its entirety with regards to the "crit" process. Her talk presupposes that after a design thinking exercise somehow a product or service is never exposed to professional and expert evaluation and critique to see if it is a viable solution for whatever the problem was in the first place. Graphic design, brand identity, and marketing campaigns all seek to solve a problem for their clients and I am sure some level of design thinking goes into solving those visual problems as well, albeit in perhaps a different manifestation and approach. As a graduate of two different fine art programs I can say from my personal experience that the "crit" is not always productive or useful outside of making the artist/designer second guess their existence and desire to make anything at all. At its best, a crit helps the artist/designer question what they are making and why, which is essentially an internal "Design Thinking" process. At the end of the day Natasha is making a Zero Sum argument where there needn't be one.
Thanl you all very much
Wonder when Steve Jobs create Apple product, what tools he's using for every successful project?
Song at the opening?
I'm confused.. are you saying design thinking is bullshit or the fact that people without proper experience, using it to solve problems is bullshit?
4:13 she made herself appear very uninformed and maybe she was. First, DT is not suitable in every situation. Second, DT is subject to her so-called “crit” in the testing phase through feedbacks from end users. Third, it’s an iterative process. If the prototype is not responsive to the real human needs, one can always go back to previous steps and do things better. This lady is a big joke.
I only can say a graphic designer listen to the business owner and do the job but a UX/Design Thinker is only called when the users study is needed. And that is the difference between both.
My take on what I just heard here is that Natasha doesn't understand what the Design Thinking process to business really means and entails. Criticism (feedback) is a fundamental premise in design thinking when one tests the hypothesis to certain assumptions. Secondly, the aim is to anticipate an outcome - again the complete opposite of what she said. Finally, it focuses on the user needs - the outcome that she wrongly suggested was missing in the process - rather than the business needs (also something she suggested occurs in the design thinking process). Fair to say, this video is Bullsh*t :)
Dear Natasha,
My intuition tells me that you have mistaken the difference between graphic design and design thinking. I know that intuitively. Since intuition as per your argument is the key and by no means subjective, I must be correct when I say that you are confused. I'm glad that we agree.
Why use any kind of methodology to arrive at an objective truth when you can sit at your messy desk and use intuition to solve all the problems in the world.
Thank you for opening my eyes. You've done a great service to all messy desks!
Sincerely,
Hashan
I feel that the title of the talk throws this off. I don’t see any reason to call out “design thinking.” It means something different to everybody and I don’t see it as a definite thing. It evolves and changes based on the project or situation. She makes great points about the design process though
So she knows and understands Design Thinking only from the images found on Google and not by practice? :P
I think the loop (ideate, prototype, test) involves crit by default.
Having cartoons on a medical room's wall isn't obvious? :'D
This clearly looks to me as a publicity stunt, and I think she suceeded...Cheers!
Precisely. The original idea for that cartoon on the wall thing was from David Kelley and Ideo. They turned the MRI process into an adventure and it reduced the amount of sedation needed for children’s MRIs significantly. Also, design thinking is a marvelous tool for bringing non-design focused clients along in the process. Simply the fact that it is building buzz opens up a discussion where before, it was only assumptions of ‘do your magic.’ If we want design to be seen as more than just window dressing... this is a path to accomplish that.
it's about the way you ideate and prototype. If you're blindly choosing ideas without questioning "does this work?" then, yes, design thinking as a method is ineffective. Companies may not need to go through the entire process for new features/new target markets, but inherent in the process of building or testing the prototype, one will get the evidence, either from users or from self-criticism, that will show if the idea does/doesn't work.
I think the point she was trying to make is that design is fast, messy, and iterative.
Hindsight is 20/20. The best solutions always seem simple and obvious. The challenge is how to get there. "Crit" is included in every step of the design thinking process, and the ultimate critique are the user tests and the ensuing iterations on improvement. Disappointing talk, I hoped to actually learn something new.
I completely agree with you.
While having a conversation is GOOD for mankind, having to use a title with "Bullxxxx" to get attention reflects lack of confidence... what we can't say to a 5 year old, should we use as part of dialogue?? ( if we are interested in dialogue) 🤔🤔🤔
I do agree, that, at times, it all seems a plot from 3M to sell more post-its
What a straight and true as well as entertaining speech ! Thx ;-)
Entertaining yes, accurate no.
Such a poor reasoning about why design thinking doesn't work. This seems like it's coming from someone who values the exclusivity of design and doesn't want to share. The point of design thinking is not to come up with design excellence, but to introduce design practices to non designers, empathize with users, co-create and find common ground and buy-in through design. The solution in Natasha Jens mind is apparently to leave the crit to designers. What a horrible idea!!!! Because, as a designer who has been in endless critiques, it's so obvious the power that hierarchy has. A VP, Principal or Creative director's opinion (sorry 'critique') will always cast a shadow over everyone else's. Also, does Pentagram do any user research? I highly doubt it, especially with something so subjective as visual or graphic design. What you should be focusing on instead of slamming design methodologies, are the merits of the framework and the things that are very much lacking in the typical design practice: empathy, user research, participatory research and design, co-creation, iteration. Your critique of why design thinking doesn't work is the reason i left my 'typical' designer day job- its an excuse for design egos to come out and showcase your biased opinions.
Critic happens in the testing stage. Especially, in the user-centric design realm. The feedback from the ultimate customers is what matters in design thinking in the business environment. The egs she gave are not convincing. For eg, MRI for kids was actually done by observing kids and then criticing thru actual testing. Yes we have all done design thinking even before it became a buzz word but the practice WAS design thinking
Nope, its a non-linear process. Are you suggesting that prototype based testing is less effective than crit? How about test a hypothesis through experimentation. Thankfully we have actually moved past self indulgent pondering critique by committee.
I would prefer if she didn't call herself a designer. She appears to miss the basic capability of empathy. Its about enabling everyone to initiate change, not fauning over design celebs (who all by the way used rigourous process) And post-it are the same a blue foam.
Design thinking also doesn't describe creative invention where no 'problem' exists. How, for instance, does the invention of motion pictures fit in this model?
Put on a kewel leather jacket and say obvious things = Brilliance!
Great talk. The point of misunderstanding below is that designers are not problem solvers, and there is no step-wise process to produce a design. It is iterative, it is cycles of trial, test, crit, all over the designed thing. Design occurs as opportunities for exploration are found, where interventions in systems or social landscapes can be made to achieve what is not yet achieved. Design is not reductive, it is discursive; it can go anywhere. Design thinking is not learned glibly by sticking post-it notes or making hexagon patterns, it takes time to engage with the field, to need or opportunity: investigation is the biggest part...take architecture as an example; design thinking there takes 6 years of study, then you are in a position to really learn to design....in a couple of decades you are then humming!
Well, she is trying to sound disrupting and genius. Plus I believe the girl doesn't quite get what Design Thinking is about. It could be really constraint if you are not trying to solve a problem but designing fancy typefaces (and charging a ton of money to snob clients).
Matías Fiori DT is just an attempt to replicate what designers and consultants do by giving people fancy degrees.
Every real designer knows that design is a mental exercise that doesn't follow a forward linear pattern but is largely haphazard; and that any successful product is reverse engineered from its selling points down to the components and functionalities etc...
crit = test if we fail the test we have to go back to prototype
Designers don't talk against the promotion of design thinking because its a step forward toward less crap being put out their mindlessly by people who have means and are entitled enough to. Design thinking ought to be a critical process in every step, and what I love is that it allows students to really question their desicions. I wonder why she skipped Victor Papanek from her historical timeline. In my experience, teaching children design thinking has allowed them to value the importance of process specially in a time an age where results seem to be immediate and the importance of learning from failure keeps being forgotten. I also think she needs to review how steve jobs was able to make apple succeed because there's enough material out there explaining how this was a result of a set of coordinated actions that were only carried out if certain market and tech conditions were met. and also f*k the 5 step hexagon process.
she miss up the different between design thinking and graphic design, design thinking could be very useful and applicable science for finding out a solution for any problem in any field, but graphic design is another creative process where you can get a new model, idea, or technology which consider as part of innovation
No.
Nowadays everyone from any background like engineering, architecture, etc. they came to the field of design. and they just talk about design, they don't even from an art background, without knowing art, for them this is the only entry point to the design called ux/ui shit. but when it comes to practicality they won't be able to craft or design. they don't even know how to design an icon. they are called super senior product designers themselves.
Regarding the MRI Scans for Children by GE.
Apparently, that was not quite obvious for the people who designed it. Unless someone else does it first, it's not that obvious.
You can check the video: ruclips.net/video/jajduxPD6H4/видео.html
This lady really needs to study more about Design Thinking. First of all, while being a step-by-step process, Design Thinking is non-linear. Then if you really want to lessen the importance of Design Thinking, you should use Design Sprint, which is practically a derivative of DT in a faster and more efficient way of running for lay people, it also requires a lot of post-its on the wall, which is a good thing and she just criticized.
It is good to have different point of views.
Unfortunately her whole argumentation is based on DT lack of "crit" and "evidence" without an indepth research. But I agree with her argument that you should use many methodologies (until you find the perfect fit for your team). DT is in my opinon not a one fits all solution.
By theory DT involves "crit" during the Ideation phase and Testing phase. By the way it is common sense as a professional to give constructive feedback (crit) to ensure the best possible outcome. So she is wrong regarding DT's lack of crit (at least in theory).
But she is right with the point regarding evidence. Apart from IDEO I do not know if DT could produce great products. IDEO is an outlier and even without DT I would assume they will be great. You could argue that DT only works with IDEO. It is not a method which you can apply succesfully in every situation / on every corporation.
As an analogy you can look at the software development methodologies. There is no one fits all solution. It depends on the team, corporate culture, project and so on.
I have to teach design thinking in Myp..the real strong student struggle due to the design thinking check box system used for grading... This really puts into words what I felt for a long time
Yeah if you describe design thinking as 'th epost it thing' and no criticism to exist in the methodology then she has never seen design thinking in play or good methodology. Its a problem that everyone thinks they can just put a few post its up, but thats not whats happening actually, so this talk is based on a very very narrow and flawed understanding what design thinking is. Its a shame when peopel on stage snark at teh LEGO or post it aspect, when they talk at an Adobe sponsored event. ;) I coudl have made the same commments back in the 90s when designers kept using photoshop filters to create new fonts. seeemingly just one tool is used. Which would have been a very bad generalisation. Plus psoits is not the medium, websites, apps, experiences of any kinds in both physical and digital space are the interconnected media and platforms designers are using, so I really dont get half of what Natasha is on about. Plus there are about as many circles in the search result, so , not really a thing either...
Hmm. As a drama teacher I learned that the process of getting a student performance-ready is as important as the performance itself, so yes, by all means critique, but I do agree with Tim on the test that obviously replaces the crit, but I SO wish we could have pseudonyms for both test and crit to make the terms a bit more "friendly". So I'm trying to get a grip on design thinking as a tool to enhance the classroom experience in a hyperlink sort of way, but still not sure how to build a tangible prototype. Any ideas?
Testing is a form of science and observation. Crit is someones personal biased opinion based in assumptions and no data.
before you can come out with some evidence for critic, you would still need to go through the thinking process. Thus the design thinking process is still valid, and she is too generalized to say that critic is not part of the DT process, iteration after testing has always been a process of DT.
This is very misleading. This lady picks up a Google search in order to state that design thinking has become a buzzword which does no more than offering a formula to make everyone believe that anyone can be a designer, and then goes on to assume there's no criticism in the process, that people blindly follow the steps. First of all, there's plenty of different methods for each step, and most of them imply criticism of what the team is doing. Second, just because post-its have become the standard representative image of design thinking on the web, doesn't mean design studios all over the world aren't filled with visual and physical references just as hers is. Third, none of her examples of supposedly intuitive solutions got any scrutiny whatsoever (so much for her demands for criticism...); and it's not just about finding the solutions, is about developing them and making them work. And, finally, what a misinterpretation of Steve Jobs's work calling it "intuitive design thinking", when if it actually followed design thinking's demand for criticism it would never have ended being aesthetics over usability as it did.
This does a disservice to everyone: to designers, because much of what they do is or should be informed by design thinking - which is more than a sequence of steps; and it does a disservice to everyone else because it doesn't try the least bit to enlighten people about what design thinking is supposed to be according to all those influential writers and designers she herself mentioned.
I agree 100%!
Natasha is the perfect example of how design has changed. Natasha works really hard to be on top of her hierarchy and "sell" her intuition to big advertisement and marketing departments..
And we needed that because we spent millions on magazine ads, big campaigns, and Super Bowl commercials, and we didn't know whether they worked or not until much later.. so a way to reduce risk was to hire a big creative mind.. the artist..
But we discover a new way to work, and to test, and to connect with the people we were seeking to serve... and start working for the business, not for the marketing department, creating products and focusing on problem-solving..
So Natasha found a nice goldy shiny shirt and a leather jacket to tell us how piss-off she was about it.. but it's ok.. there's space for everybody, and I do think Intuition is fundamental... but is not about "you" anymore, is about them.
This showcases the transition that design has when trow, from ego-driven to empathy-driven
Do you realize that she doesn't understand what is Design Thinking and who it is for?
Like "Crit" is replaced by testing. Testing unlike crit, Which means asks for criticism from users, people who actually matter. Not your peers or professors where only goal of criticism is to criticize without understanding or caring enough to understand. Something similar to what this one is doing here.
I am all for cynicism and criticism but only after you take enough efforts to understand. Not criticism to ride on the keyword to gain popularity.
I'd rather hear her talk on how she manages to charge clients $400/hr. Let's be real. Designers are a dime/dozen. All these comments show how competitive the business is because everyone thinks they have a better approach and / or theory to design. Whoopteefrikkindo.. Until you can figure out how to bag clients with $200k budgets to plunk down on 'visual identity' packages then you're doing it wrong.
Josh CousinsBrand the thing is, actual designers are adepts that don't speak about their processes. It's the academicians that dedicate their lives to studying these people and processes and to reward themselves with fancy degrees for something that someone else has internalized.
So DT is beautiful but it doesn't impart the mental dexterity needed to turn ideas into products except you're doing a very simplistic model. once complex problems show up, the real real real DT is engaged and it's not a frontal lobe activity...
I think there is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what Design Thinking is and when it should be used. No one said you need to use it for ever task and one of the first things you’re taught is that it is not a linear process.
engineering education now claims itself to be *design* engineering. it's ridiculous if you view it from the design community. and that might be the cause of corruption of this word. also as a former mechanical design engineer, the day-to-day work is nothing like the design process, more like chores.
Every significant idea exists in various forms, some good-useful-and some bad-useless. Real knowledge-insight-is difficult to acquire. Anyone trying to sell complex knowledge in a watered-down, quick-fix format, to sell books and workshops, is doing a disservice. "Design thinking" might exist in a sophisticated, useful form, but the phrase itself is too vague. It doesn't describe a specific thing. Neither does the term "design", really. "Design" means to have an idea to make something. But to be a real designer-with experience, knowledge, and skill-means a lot more than that. I think that is what Jen is saying. You can't read a book and follow a formula and get good design. If you could, computers could do it better.
Nice argument, but this is a designer thinking like a designer without any empathy for non-designers who might find design thinking a great tool to solve problems in their world. The design thinking is process is critical in the way it prototypes, tests and iterates until you get it right so not sure why she thinks 'Crit' is missing. All possibilities are explored under DT. Depends on where and when or what context it is applied. Can't dismiss it wholly.
Perhaps 3M benefited a lot from the marketing of design thinking 🤔
No offense. But if somebody is not a trained design thinker (for example, a graphic designer), please don't pretend you know design thinking. If I know how to play building blocks, it doesn't mean I know how to design architecture.Why design thinking is Bullsh*t? Because tons of design thinking practitioners only played with building blocks in their whole life. If they are going to tell me designing thinking is Bullsh*t, I will smile and think them as naive. If you want to be an expert, go to a legit school!
good stand up comedy show, laughed a lot. more episodes coming?
agree - WTF is design thinking - is this a thing? I talk to people to learn what they need and go from there - there's no graph to follow ... every job is different