Design thinking: cognitive style, general theory, management product

One term covers three incompatible claims. Kimbell (2011) separates them. Design thinking is a cognitive style, a general theory of design, or a resource for organisations. The first two concern what designing is. The third concerns what a method can do for the firm that buys it.

This unit, the second of the ten, argues that the first two accounts survive scrutiny. They are contestable, and they still bear evidence, because they describe a practice we can point to. The third was never validated. It travelled because it was packaged as a process, not because it was shown to work. The previous unit asked what a method settles; this one asks what a named method has shown.

One name, three incompatible claims

Kimbell (2011) traces the term to research on how designers work, and to its adoption by management educators and consultancies. She then presses three objections. The cognitive-style and general-theory accounts rest on a dualism between thinking and acting. A generalised design thinking ignores how varied and historically situated designers' practices are. All three accounts privilege the designer as the main agent. Her alternative is to study the situated routines of designers and of those who engage with what they make (Kimbell, 2011).

Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla and Cetinkaya (2013) find five distinct discourses of designerly thinking, each with different epistemological roots. They also find a management discourse with three origins. That discourse is less academically anchored, and it seldom cites the designerly work. A term with five scholarly senses and one popular sense is not one construct. Brown (2008) states the popular sense at full strength. He presents thinking like a designer as a way to transform how a firm develops products, services, processes and even strategy. The piece is a manifesto, and it reports no evaluation.

The designerly accounts survive as a claim about a describable move

Dorst (2011) distinguishes two forms of abduction. In the first form, the working principle and the value are known, and only the object is in question. In the second form, only the value is known. Both the object and its principles must then be produced, and that is where conceptual design sits. Framing and frame creation are the core practices that answer the second form (Dorst, 2011). That is a claim about a describable move, and a describable move can be examined.

Kimbell's objection lands on the packaging rather than on the move. If design practice is situated and material, a study of it must concern particular designers in particular settings. It cannot be a claim about a shared interior style. The defensible version of the first account is not that designers think alike. It is that they do something identifiable (Kimbell, 2011; Dorst, 2011). Brown (2008) packages that practice as a method of universal reach, and that is where the argument about evidence begins.

The method travelled because it was packaged as a process

Nussbaum (2011), an advocate at Business Week, announced that the decade of design thinking was ending. He writes that companies welcomed it because it arrived in a format they already trusted:

By packaging creativity within a process format, designers were able to expand their engagement, impact, and sales inside the corporate world. Companies were comfortable and welcoming to Design Thinking because it was packaged as a process.

He adds that firms turned the process into a linear, gated, by-the-book methodology whose best result was incremental change. He reports that practitioners in the consultancies now acknowledge the success rate for the process was "low, very low" (Nussbaum, 2011). He records separately that IDEO's Tim Brown shared his diagnosis: a process trick was being asked to produce organisational change. No data accompany the claim. It nonetheless locates the commercial version's origin in packaging, and not in a research finding.

The outcome evidence measures reported practice, not an assigned method

Micheli and colleagues (2019) made the most systematic attempt to fix the construct. They derived ten principal attributes and eight tools and methods. They validated them by card sorting and cluster analysis. They report substantial disagreement between promoters and critics about attributes, applicability and outcomes. They warn that the polysemous construct is threatened by collapse (Micheli, Wilner, Bhatti, Mura and Beverland, 2019).

Nakata and Hwang (2020) surveyed innovation managers. They report that design thinking comprises six interrelated mindsets and actions. They also report that it strengthens new product and service performance, and that the effect is robust across levels of market turbulence. They call it one of the first confirmatory studies. The qualification is what it measures. It measures managers' reports of the practice alongside reported performance. It does not measure an intervention with an assigned method.

Liedtka (2015) supplies the mechanism the survey cannot. She proposes that design thinking improves outcomes by reducing individual cognitive biases.

Two field studies show the benefits depending on who is using the method. Seidel and Fixson (2013) analysed fourteen cases of novice multidisciplinary teams across concept generation and selection. Formal methods helped in selection as well as generation. More brainstorming sessions corresponded to lower performance. Team reflexivity helped generation while it hindered selection (Seidel and Fixson, 2013). Carlgren, Rauth and Elmquist (2016) interviewed people in six large organisations. They derived five themes: user focus, problem framing, visualisation, experimentation and diversity. Their framework holds the concept as an idea and as its enactment at once. The gap between the two is where the method quietly changes meaning (Carlgren, Rauth and Elmquist, 2016). The enactment took named forms in the six organisations they interviewed. Teams opened a problem with how-might-we questions. Some ran painstorming, in which a group brainstorms the problems users might experience rather than the solutions they might want.

The influence also runs the other way. Elsbach and Stigliani (2018) found design thinking and organisational culture shaping each other.

Contested question: does the method produce the outcomes it promises?

The first position holds that the method works and that the evidence is now quantitative. Its strongest statement is Nakata and Hwang (2020), whose survey finds the effect robust across market turbulence. Liedtka (2015) supplies the mechanism of bias reduction. On this reading the method is a tested instrument, and the remaining work is normal science.

The second position holds that the outcome evidence is too weak to carry the claim. Micheli and colleagues (2019) find promoters and critics disagreeing about applicability and outcomes, while the construct verges on collapse. Verganti, Dell'Era and Swan (2021) argue that the diffusion of design thinking in practice ran far ahead of its theory. They argue that whether, why and when it contributes to innovation remains unknown. On this reading the survey measures what a self-selected population believes about a practice it chose to adopt, in firms that could resource it.

What would settle it is a longitudinal study with a comparison group that did not adopt the method, an outcome measure fixed before the intervention, and a measure of how faithfully the method was enacted. Carlgren and colleagues (2016) supply the reason for the last requirement. Seidel and Fixson (2013) supply the reason for the second requirement.

A second disagreement sits underneath. Iskander (2018) argues that design thinking is conservative and preserves the status quo. It optimises existing systems rather than questioning the power that produced them. The commercial account instead treats it as a neutral instrument that any organisation can aim at any problem (Brown, 2008). Settling this would need comparative evidence about who gains, and neither side supplies it.

The two positions rest on different evidence. The supportive side rests on one cross-sectional survey of innovation managers, which measures reported practice alongside reported performance, and on propositions about bias reduction rather than a measured effect. The critical side rests on a systematic review and an editorial, strong on the construct and silent on the size of an effect. No trial here assigns a method to one group and withholds it from another. Until one exists, the designer should name the phase and the expected outcome before adopting the method, because Seidel and Fixson (2013) find the effect changing sign between generation and selection, and should record how faithfully the method was enacted, since Carlgren and colleagues (2016) find two firms reporting one method while doing different things. The strongest objection to the unit's thesis is that managerial practice is rarely validated by a comparison-group trial, so the absence of one may say nothing about this method.

Where the argument is heading

Named work points to a narrower and more conditional claim. Verganti and colleagues (2021) treat the paradigm as contingent on a context of digital technologies in direct contact with users. They expect the next context, of multiple stakeholders and undefined problems, to require systemic rather than user-centred practice, and reflective rather than ideative practice. Mayer and Schwemmle (2024) screened 1,035 publications and included 69 articles. They sorted the explanations for design thinking's impact into four mechanisms across four levels. They find those explanations scattered and inadequately grounded. The direction is away from one method and towards a mechanism, a level and a context.

The sources this unit rests on

• Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture. doi:10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 Kimbell traces design thinking from research on how designers work to its adoption by management educators and consultancies, and separates three claims: a cognitive style, a general theory of design, and a resource for organisations. It is an interpretive review that measures nothing.
• Johansson-Skoldberg, U., Woodilla, J. and Cetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/caim.12023 Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla and Cetinkaya review the design thinking discourse and find five traditions of designerly thinking beside a management version with weaker roots. It is a critical review of texts, and it shows a term with five scholarly senses is not one construct.
• Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review 86(6), 84-92. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking Brown sets out design thinking for a management audience as a discipline designers can apply to products, services, organisations and social problems, illustrated with IDEO projects. It is a practitioner manifesto, not a study, and it reports no evaluation or outcome data.
• Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design thinking is a failed experiment. So what is next? Fast Company. https://web.archive.org/web/20191213081705/https://www.fastcompany.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next Nussbaum, a former advocate, announces that the decade of design thinking is over, arguing that packaging creativity as a process let companies turn it into a linear, gated methodology with a very low success rate. It is a trade press column with no data.
• Iskander, N. (2018). Design thinking is fundamentally conservative and preserves the status quo. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/09/design-thinking-is-fundamentally-conservative-and-preserves-the-status-quo Iskander argues that design thinking is fundamentally conservative and preserves the status quo, because it optimises existing systems rather than questioning the power that produced them. The piece is a management press argument with cases, and it offers no comparative evidence.
• Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M. and Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/jpim.12466 Micheli and colleagues systematically reviewed the design thinking literature and synthesised ten principal attributes and eight tools, validated by card sorting and cluster analysis. They report substantial disagreement between promoters and critics, and find the outcome evidence weak.
• Dorst, K. (2011). The core of design thinking and its application. Design Studies. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Dorst distinguishes two forms of abduction and argues that the harder form, in which only the value is known, is answered by framing and frame creation. The paper is conceptual with case material, and it gives the unit a claim about a describable move, not a study.
• Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/jpim.12163 Liedtka proposes that design thinking improves innovation outcomes by reducing cognitive biases such as projection and egocentric empathy, illustrated with practitioner cases. It is conceptual, and it advances propositions about a causal mechanism rather than measured effects.
• Carlgren, L., Rauth, I. and Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: the concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/caim.12153 Carlgren, Rauth and Elmquist interviewed people in six large organisations and derived five themes, user focus, problem framing, visualisation, experimentation and diversity, holding concept and enactment together. It shows one method enacted differently in different firms. Six organisations limit its reach.
• Seidel, V. P. and Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: the application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/jpim.12061 Seidel and Fixson analysed fourteen cases of novice multidisciplinary teams across concept generation and selection. Formal methods helped in selection, more brainstorming accompanied lower performance, and reflexivity helped generation while hindering selection. It is observational evidence that transfer depends on the team. It is observational, so weak on cause.
• Elsbach, K. D. and Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organisational culture: a review and framework for future research. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206317744252 Elsbach and Stigliani review design thinking research and argue the approach works best when infused into an organisation's culture, noting that most early studies examined tools rather than culture. It is a review and framework, and its influence claim is untested.
• Nakata, C. and Hwang, J. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: composition, consequence, and contingency. Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.038 Nakata and Hwang surveyed innovation managers and modelled design thinking as composition, consequence and contingency, finding six mindsets and an association with innovation performance robust across market turbulence. It measures reported practice alongside reported performance.
• Verganti, R., Dell'Era, C. and Swan, K. S. (2021). Design thinking: critical analysis and future evolution. Journal of Product Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/jpim.12610 Verganti, Dell'Era and Swan analyse design thinking's evolution and argue its diffusion in practice ran far ahead of its theoretical grounding, so whether, why and when it contributes to innovation remains unknown. It is a conceptual analysis with case illustration.
• Mayer, S. and Schwemmle, M. (2024). The impact of design thinking and its underlying theoretical mechanisms: a review of the literature. Creativity and Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/caim.12626 Mayer and Schwemmle systematically reviewed 1,035 publications and included 69 articles, sorting the explanations for design thinking's impact into four mechanisms across four levels. It is a systematic literature review, and it finds those explanations scattered and inadequately grounded. It measures no effect.