Talk:Design thinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Needs attention 2 Academic legitimacy 3 Design without constraints? 4 Cleanup

[edit] Needs attention

Google seems to report this as a current management fad of some sort, but the article needs a good workout. Cites, etc. Coren 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Design thinking is a mind set that should be explained in detail in the wikipedia. It is something along the lines with innovator, or designer.

This article should be removed or simply become a topic under design. Otherwise, it is just a buzz word and should be labeled as such.

++++++

This is hardly a fad or buzzword. The current entry does not by any means represent the significance of the term.

We're planning an event in DFW and would like to get the entry cleaned up to synthesize the key elements of the concept for the event.

This is a term that has the potential to bring together different dimensions of design by helping to discover common threads -- and truly elevate design to the strategic role that it can play in fundamentally changing business.

General references here: http://del.icio.us/iknovate/DesignThinking

Start with two Roger Martin references, an interview: http://trex.id.iit.edu/events/strategyconference/2006/perspectives_martin.php

and a journal issue dedicated to Business Design (see his editorial and the first article): http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/pdf/rotman_mgmt_winter03.pdf

A clear distinctive element of design thinking is abductive reasoning: http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~wirth/inferenc.htm

Iknovate 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic legitimacy

The content of this article is very limited (primarily someone's personal take on design thinking), but I've added a comment and a link about ongoing academic research in design thinking. So it's not just a 'current management fad'! Nigel Cross

Seems like just a relabeling for promotional purposes. --Ronz 17:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design without constraints?

This sounds like designing without constraints. I don't know if you can call that design. It sounds more like imagining. Oicumayberight 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

While the article might be better off deleted/merged, if someone wants to take a stab at cleanup: the lead is much too long vs the size of the article, the ref should be at the bottom, the stages/steps should be referenced and made encyclopedic or otherwise removed. --Ronz 16:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've (drastically) edited down the introduction. The Simon quote allowed the following 'Design thinking is, then, . . .', which doesn't stand as an opening sentence in its own right. I've deleted the material about 'boiling down' problems, etc. because design thinking (as practised by designers) doesn't proceed from 'understand problem' to 'propose solution' - problem and solution co-evolve. The rest of the article still needs a lot of work! It's another example of a patchy, personal 'essay' rather than an encyclopedia entry. Nigel Cross 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)