design thinking. what it is. why it is different. where it ......design thinking. what it is. why it...

Design Thinking. What It Is. Why It Is Different. Where It Has New Value.

Charles L. Owen

Institute of DesignILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Foun

ded

as th

e Ne

w Ba

uhau

s in

193

7, C

hica

go’s

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, II

Tis

a c

ente

r for

adv

ance

d st

udy

in h

uman

-cen

tere

d in

nova

tion.

Le

arn

mor

e: w

ww.id

.iit.e

du

October 21, 2005

2 Charles L. Owen Design Thinking. What It Is. Why It Is Different. Where It Has New Value.

A speech given at:

the International Conference on Design Research and Education for the Future

Conducted in conjunction with:

the Gwangju Design Biennale 2005 Light into Life

Sponsored by:ICSID; ICOGRADA; IFI; and, from the Republic of Korea:Government Information Agency; Ministry of Foreign Affairsand Trade; Ministry of National Defense; Ministry ofGovernment Administration and Home Affairs; Ministry ofCulture and Tourism; Ministry of Commerce, Industry andEnergy; Ministry of Information and Communication;Ministry of Construction and Transportation; Korea CustomsService; The Korean Culture and Arts Foundation; KoreaInstitute of Design Promotions; Korea Foundation of DesignAssociations; and the Korea Society of Design Studies.

18 October - 1 November, 2005

Keywords: policy making, planning, decision making, designthinking, policy design synthesis, design education

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

Desig

n Th

inking

. Wha

t It I

s. W

hy It

Is D

iffere

nt. W

here

It H

as N

ew V

alue.

/ Cha

rles

L. Ow

en /

Octob

er 2

1, 20

05

Charles L. Owen Design Thinking. What It Is. Why It Is Different. Where It Has New Value. 3

This paper is a keynote speechgiven October 21 at the Lifeand Design in the FutureConference held at the Gwang-ju Design Biennale 2005 inGwangju City, Korea. Figuresare the slides from the presen-tation.

Abstract

Problems induced by continuing population growth and its pres-sure on resources and environment have reached a stage whereserious concern must be given to the processes of decision makingbeing used by governmental and institutional leaders. Sciencethinking is frequently unheard or unheeded and design thinking isnot engaged at all.

Design thinking, as a complement to science thinking, em-bodies a wide range of creative characteristics as well as a numberof other special qualities of distinct value to decision makers. Inadvisory roles, properly prepared design professionals could makesubstantial contributions to a process now dominated by politicaland economic views. This paper examines the nature of designthinking as it differs from other ways of thinking. A model forcomparing fields is introduced and a number of characteristics ofcreative individuals in general and designers in particular are pre-sented.

Preparing designers for participation in policy planning will bea challenge for design education. Meeting the challenge willrequire new understanding, an extended range of design tools, andconcerted support from the design professions to demonstrate thevalue of design thinking to decision making at the highest levels.

Introduction

Figure 1 The Fundamental Problem: Population Growth

The Fundamental ProblemPopulation Growth

Populations continueto soar

•

It’s Not the People!

1950 – 2050:

•

world population rises2.5 – 9.1 billion

It’s the impact of the people on each otherand the environment!

20056.46 billion

Population (in billions)

Lessdevelopedcountries

More developed countries

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

10

8

6

4

2

0

Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects, The 2004 Revision.

The handiwork of humankind is finally beginning to impress itselfon the global environment and on us, its inhabitants. This shouldinspire us as design professionals to reconsider what we do, whoour clients are, and where we can best offer our expertise. In par-ticular, the decision processes of high-level decision makers are inneed of serious overhaul.

It is news to no one that current rates of resource consumptioncannot keep up with population growth as it exists (Figure 1).World population is virtually certain by 2050 to increase by half

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu

Oct

ober

21

, 20

05


Figure 2 Induced Problems: Resource Depletion

Induced ProblemsResources Depletion

Fixed amount of arable land

•

•Sources: (upper left) UNFPA/FAO Population Reports; (upper right) adapted from BBC diagram(Grainger and Garcia FAO Technical Paper 359); (lower left) World Resources Institute 2000;(lower right) M. King Hubbert and The Oil Depletion Resource Page

•

1995

1990

1980

1970

1961

0.35

Arable land per capitaGrowth of populationBillions, 1961 - 2050 Hectares, 1961 - 2050

Population and Arable Land in Developing Countries

0.12

0.180.20

0.23

0.27

0.32

4.404.02

3.25

2.622.10

8.21

Actual Projected

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

8

6

4

2

0

1995

1990

1980

1970

1961

2050

2050 20052005

Greater pressure onglobal fisheries

State of Major World Fisheries100

908070605040302010

01951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991

UndevelopedDeveloping

Fully developedDeclining

%

Resources of freshwater diminishing <0.3

0.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.80.8 - 0.90.9 - 1.0>=1.0

Water Stress IndicatorLow

High

No DischargeMajor River BasinsPetroleum produc-

tion peaking

The Hubbert Curve

2005

•

Food, water andenergy under pressure

Figure 3 Induced Problems: Global Warming

Induced ProblemsGlobal Warming

Climate and weatherpatterns altering

Intense LocalizedPrecipitation

Sustained Droughts

Sources: (upper left) Naples Florida Daily News USA; (upper right) Tomasz Cholewo, Kentucky USA;(lower left) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), Reuters, November 9, 2004; (lower right) Typhoon Imbudo, S. China Sea, July 23, 2003, NASA, Marshall Space Center

Ocean levels risingfaster than expected

Projected Changes in Sea Ice

TEMPERATURESWinters in Alaska,W. Canada and E.Russia warmed 3 -4°C over last 50years. Projected torise 4-7°C in next100.

GLOBAL THREATLong term, meltingof Greenland IceSheet could raiseworld’s oceans byabout 1 meter.

SEA ICEAt least half ofsummer sea iceprojected to melt by2100, intensifyingglobal warming.

Average Extent ofSeptember Sea Ice

Current

2010-30

2040-60

2070-90

Increased heat energyavailable for storms

•

•

•

•

Figure 4 Emerging Technologies: Sophisticated Tools

Emerging TechnologiesAutocatalyzed Development

Sophisticated tools foraction at fundamentallevels

Robotics for workwhere man cannot go

Biotechnology to offset theeffects of climate change

Nanotechnology to work withfundamental buildingblocks of nature

•

•

•Sources: (upper left) Robots clockwise from upper left: MSU Flip, Epson Flyer, European FuturesProject Swarm-bots , Cornell Walker, Stanford Cricket; (upper right) Biotechnology: Oklahoma StateUniversity, USA; (bottom) Nanotechnology: Computer Science & Mathematics, Oak Ridge NationalResearch Laboratory, USA

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu


again from its present 6.46 billion—with all thatmeans for our dwindling resources. Coupled withthat, it is at last clear that global warming is fact,and its growing control over Earth’s climate andweather systems will unpredictably complicateproblems already made serious by populationpressures (Figures 2 and 3).

The road ahead indeed seems dark, but thereis hope. A profusion of new technologies isemerging, many with potential to alleviate oreven eliminate the problems induced by popula-tion growth. As Jared Diamond points out1, tech-nologically complex societies autocatalyzetechnological growth, and the resulting develop-ment accelerates over time. We are, in effect, un-intentionally creating the highly sophisticatedtools (Figure 4) that may prevent the destructioninitiated with earlier created tools.

Policy PlanningDecision Making with Advice

Decision makers acton advice

Staff associatesStaff assistantsStrategic advisorsSpecialist expertsConcerned partiesConsultantsLobbyists..

DecisionMaker

Multiple Sources:•••••••

Figure 5 Decision Making: Policy Is Made with Advice

Key to the use or misuse of these technologiesare the decision processes employed by those inpower (Figure 5). History has shown that politi-cal decisions do not always favor the best inter-ests of all, and when critical factors includeinformation not easily understood by political de-cision makers, that information may be disre-garded or not even considered. My argument inrecent papers2 is that the stakes are now too highfor critical information to be unheard or ignored.

Science advisors have long been includedamong high-level governmental advisory staffs.How their advice is valued, however, has variedwith the problem context, and political interestshave almost always trumped scientific advice.More than ever before, scientific advice requiresserious consideration. And another kind of think-ing deserves equal attention.

Design thinking is in many ways the obverseof scientific thinking. Where the scientist sifts

facts to discover patterns and insights, the de-signer invents new patterns and concepts toaddress facts and possibilities. In a world withgrowing problems that desperately need under-standing and insight, there is also great need forideas that can blend that understanding andinsight in creative new solutions. Implicit in thisnotion is the belief that design thinking canmake special, valuable contributions to decisionmaking. In this paper, I will explore the natureof that kind of thinking, its value, and the differ-ences between design thinking and other ways ofthinking.

Finders, Makers and Applied Creativity

A sensitive observer might notice an interestingthing about creative people. They tend to workin two different ways (Figure 6).

Those who work in the first way, might bestbe called "finders". They exercise their creativitythrough discovery. Finders are driven to under-stand, to find explanations for phenomena notwell understood. In professional life, they usuallybecome scientists or scholars and are responsiblefor much of our progress in understanding our-selves and our surroundings.

Figure 6 The Two-Domain Creativity Model: Finders & Makers

Applied CreativityFinders/Makers

The two-domaincreativity model

Oriented towardAnalysis

Discovery•

Find

ers Makers

Analysis Synthesis

Dis

cove

ry

Invention

Invention• Oriented toward

Synthesis

Creative Domain

CreativeDomain

Those who work in the second way are"makers", equally creative, but in a differentway. They demonstrate their creativity throughinvention. Makers are driven to synthesize whatthey know in new constructions, arrangements,patterns, compositions and concepts that bringtangible, fresh expressions of what can be. Theybecome architects, engineers, artists—designers—and are responsible for the built environmentin which we live and work.

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu

Oct

ober

21

, 20

05


Figure 7 Map of Fields: Context and Process Differentiate Fields

DifferencesMap of Fields

Context:symbolic vs real

• Process:analytic vs synthetic

•

Context and processdifferentiate fields

Symbolic

Real

SyntheticAnalytic

SyntheticSymbolic

SyntheticReal

AnalyticSymbolic

AnalyticReal

Design Thinking vs Other Kinds of Thinking

Given the fundamental process differencesbetween how finders and makers think and work,it is reasonable to believe that other factorsmight similarly reveal differences among profes-sional fields and, therefore, help to define thenature of design thinking. One such factor is thecontent with which a field works. A conceptual"map" can be drawn to use both content andprocess factors (Figure 7).

Two axes define the map. Separating the mapinto left and right halves is an Analytic/Syntheticaxis that classifies fields by process—the waythey work. Fields on the left side of the axis aremore concerned with "finding" or discovering;fields on the right with "making" and inventing.A Symbolic/Real axis divides the map intohalves vertically, according to content or realmof activity. Fields in the upper half of the mapare more concerned with the abstract, symbolicworld and the institutions, policies and languagetools that enable people to manipulate informa-tion, communicate and live together. Fields inthe lower half are concerned with the real worldand the artifacts and systems necessary for man-aging the physical environment.

A sampling of fields illustrates how the mapdifferentiates (Figure 8). The five chosen arehighly recognizable with well defined disciplinesand well understood differences. Every field hascomponent elements in each of the four quad-rants. What distinguishes one field from anotheris the degree to which a field positions its"center of gravity" away from the center into thequadrants and the direction that positioningtakes. In Figure 8, fields close to the center are

Figure 8 Differences: Discrimination among Fields


Content:symbolic vs real

• Process:analytic vs synthetic

•

Sampling of fieldsshows differentiation

Symbolic

Real

SyntheticAnalytic

ArtLawScience

Medicine Design

SyntheticSymbolic

SyntheticReal

AnalyticSymbolic

AnalyticReal

more "generalized" with respect to the axes;fields away from the center are more "special-ized".

Science is farthest to the left as a field that isheavily analytic in its use of process. Its contentis also more symbolic than real in that subjectmatter is usually abstracted in its analyses. Thereare elements of science, however, that are syn-thetic in process (as, for example, in materialsscience or organic chemistry), and science candeal directly with unabstracted, real content, par-ticularly in the natural sciences.

Law, as a generalized field, is located higheron the map, concerned extensively with the sym-bolic content of institutions, policies and socialrelationships. It is also positioned more to theright, as a significant portion of its disciplinesare concerned with the creation of laws and theinstruments of social contract. Medicine, in con-trast, is sharply lower on the content axis, vitallyconcerned with the real problems of humanhealth. On the process scale, it is strongly analyt-ic; diagnostic processes are a primary focus ofmedicine. Art is high on the content axis, strong-ly symbolic, and almost evenly divided on theprocess scale, still more synthetic than analytic,but very much involved with interpretation of thehuman condition.

Design in this mapping is highly syntheticand strongly concerned with real world subjectmatter. Because disciplines of design deal withcommunications and symbolism, design has asymbolic component, and because design re-quires analysis to perform synthesis, there is ananalytic component—but design is a field rela-tively specialized, and specialized nearly oppo-sitely to science.

For almost any field, a case can be made formovement to the left or right based on the

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu


variety of detailed interests the field subsumes.Positioning is very subjective, but absolute posi-tioning is not what is important in this kind ofmapping. Relative positioning is. It provides ameans for comparing multi-field relationshipswith regard to the two important dimensions ofcontent and process.

Figure 9 Hierarchy: Fields Decompose to Disciplines/Subdisciplines


Decomposition: separated disciplineswith sharpened specialization

• Composition:merged discipline with leveled generalization

•

Mechanical Engineering

Symbolic

Real

SyntheticAnalytic

SyntheticSymbolic

SyntheticReal

AnalyticSymbolic

AnalyticReal

MechanicalEngineering

EngineeringScience

EngineeringDesign

Fields, of course, are just the tops of hierarchies,and the hierarchical nature of their subject matteropens a door to the examination of relationshipsamong elements at finer levels of detail (Figure9). Mechanical engineering, a subject at the dis-cipline level, is nicely centered between the ana-lytic and synthetic domains, but that is only truewhen it is considered as a whole. Engineeringscience, one of its sub-disciplines, would belocated much farther to the left; engineeringdesign would be on the right. Decomposingmathematics produces, among other subspecial-ties, applied mathematics, which is concernedmore generally with the real domain than ismathematics, the parent discipline. The complex-ity of most fields affords opportunities for suchleveling and sharpening through hierarchical ex-amination. Composition is a leveling process,lessening distinctions and moving more inclusiveconcepts, such as fields, toward the center of themap; decomposition is a sharpening process, re-vealing differences and dispersing more tightlydefined disciplines and sub-disciplines into thequadrants.

Movements of fields and disciplines throughtime and culture can also be tracked. Throughmuch of the last two thousand years, forexample, western sculptors rendered realisticsubjects for their clients, commemorating indi-viduals and events. Since the turn of the lastcentury, cultural trends in the arts have movedsculpture up and to the left on the map. Archi-

tecture in this century has moved up and downon the map as various movements have shiftedthe discipline’s focus of interest between sym-bolic and functional goals.

A field’s choice of subject matter and proce-dure distinguishes it from others. Design, as afield, clearly occupies a special place on themap, more complementary to science than anyother field in that, coupled with science, it fillsout the space most completely (Figure 10). Thesource of the complementation lies in deeplyrooted differences in ways of thinking. To under-stand the differences, it is useful to look at howknowledge is built and used in a field.

Figure 10 Differences: Design and Science are Complementary

DifferencesComplementary Fields

Science:Analytic/Symbolic

• Design:Synthetic/Real

•

Design and Scienceare stronglycomplementary

Symbolic

Real

SyntheticAnalytic

SyntheticSymbolic

SyntheticReal

AnalyticSymbolic

AnalyticReal

DesignMedicine

Law ArtScience

Together, they wellcover areas of decisionmaking concern

•

FoundationsIn any field, knowledge is generated and accu-mulated through action: the model is doingsomething and evaluating the results. In Figure11, the process is shown as a cycle in whichknowledge is used to produce works, and worksare evaluated to build knowledge. Knowledgeusing and knowledge building are both structuredprocesses controlled by channels that contain anddirect the production and evaluation processes.

Figure 11 Foundations: Knowledge Building; Knowledge Using

Channel

Channel

Works

knowledge building process

knowledge using process

Knowledge paradigm

FoundationsKnowledge Building and Using

Doing something: using knowledge tocreate works

• Judging results: evaluating works tobuild knowledge

•

Knowledge is gener-ated and accumulatedthrough action

Octob

er 2

1, 20

05


These channels are the systems of conventionsand rules under which a field and its disciplinesoperate. They embody the values and integratethe principles and measures that have evolved as"ways of doing and knowing" as the field hasmatured. They may borrow from or emulateaspects of other fields’ channels, but over time,they become custom tailored to a field as pro-ducts of its evolution.

The general model can be extended to onethat reflects the dual nature of fields and disci-plines suggested by the analytic/synthetic dimen-sion of the Map of Fields. In Figure 12, this isdone with an addition of realms of theory andpractice within which paradigms of inquiry andpractice operate3.

Figure 12 Foundations: Paradigms of Inquiry and Application

FoundationsKnowledge Building and Using

Knowledge is generatedby inquiry and application

• Realms of theoryand practice areseldom balanced in a field

•

The dual nature ofknowledge buildingand using

inquiry

paradigmmeasures measures

principlesprinciples

work

knowledge

proposal

Analytic Synthetic

knowled

ge build

ing

knowled

ge usin

g

knowledge building

knowledge using

applicationparadigm

R e a l m o f T h e o r y R e a l m o f P r a c t i c e

Discovery InventionF i n d i n g M a k i n g

Underlying knowledge building and knowledgeusing in any field are deep foundation layers thatdirect and inform higher levels all the way to thelevel of overt procedure. In order from most fun-damental to most directly operational, these canbe expressed as needs or goals, values andmeasures. Qualities that a field exhibits on thesurface and differences among fields can be bestunderstood by examining these foundations.

Figure 13 presents the foundation model dia-grammatically. At the most fundamental level, adriving force—a need/goal that must besatisfied—generates a field. For any well-definedfield this usually can be encapsulated in a word,the purpose for which the field evolved. For dis-ciplines, as the focused specialties of a field, it isfrequently a need felt strongly and seen purelyenough to enlist individuals in a career.

From a need or goal, values emerge to identi-fy the qualities important to fulfilling the need.The work of the field is evaluated in terms ofthese values. Both needs and values exist at anabstract level, providing reference and foundation

against which procedures at an operational levelcan be tested.

The third and fourth layers of the model takevalues into the domain of action. The third layer,still relatively abstract, is concerned with the in-terpretation of values into measures that guidethe creation of instruments to manage the pro-cesses of knowledge using and building. Meas-ures are conveniently conceptualized as scales.Because they include expressions for the descrip-tion of quality at high and low ends, and canhave intermediate descriptions as well, they forman ideal bridge from single-word notions ofvalue to evaluative dimensions. Most typically,measurement scales are bipolar with a "good"side and a "bad" side (e.g., true/false, right/wrong, works/doesn’t work, etc.), but they neednot be. Triangular and higher dimension scales(essentially maps) also work, but are less readilyapplied. Further, scales need not be continuousor even multi-stepped. True/false is perfectlyvalid as a binary yes/no proposition. And theyneed not be linear; whether steps are uniform orprogressively larger or smaller is not at issue—the issue is resolution in the measurement ofvalue.

Figure 13 Foundations: Fields Are Founded upon Values

FoundationsThe Value-based Structure of Fields

Need/Goal Values Measuresinquiry

paradigmmeasures measures


work

knowledge

proposal

knowled

ge build

ing

knowled

ge usin

g

knowledge building

knowledge using

application paradigm


Procedures

The value frameworks created by measures guidethe formation of operational methods for produc-ing and judging work. Methods, in turn, combineinto the familiar working procedures and pro-cesses that encode the knowledge of the disci-pline operationally for paradigms of bothapplication and inquiry.

Figure 14 uses the model to compare designwith the four previously introduced fields. Themeasures suggested are examples, by no means acomplete set.

Science is driven by the need forUnderstanding. To achieve this goal, it values

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu


Correctness, in the sense thattheories can be evaluated forwhether they are correct, asbest can be determined withcurrent data. It also valuesThoroughness because under-standing must be thorough toremove uncertainty. Testabilityis valued because closure de-mands that theories be testedand determined to be correct orincorrect. These values (andothers) find expression inmeasures that expand the es-sence of the value into toolsthat can be incorporated direct-ly or indirectly in frameworks,methods and procedures. Meas-ures such as True/False, Cor-rect/Incorrect, Complete/Incomplete, and Provable/ Un-provable exemplify these. Fig-ure 15 isolates them forScience from the diagram ofFigure 14.

Art, quite different in thiskind of analysis, derives fromthe need for Expression. Valuessuch as Insightfulness, Noveltyand Stimulation highlight im-portant aspects of expression asit is regarded today, and meas-ures such as Thought-provoking/ Banal, Fresh/Staleand Exciting/Boring particular-ize these for the criteria to beused in the production and crit-icism of art.

Law strives for Justice. Itsvalues, Fairness, Thoroughnessand Appropriateness,are con-cerns important to writing thelaw and ensuring that it isproperly used in support ofgood citizenship. Measuressuch as Just/Unjust, Right/Wrong, Complete/Incomplete,Appropriate/Inappropriate andFair/Unfair draw out the evalu-ations appropriate to the field.

Medicine shares much withscience, but has its own needfor being in maintaining,

Figure 14 Foundations: Values Determine Viewpoints

FoundationsThe Value Chain Expressed

Provable/

Field Need/Goal Values MeasuresScience

Art

Law

Medicine

Design

Understanding CorrectnessThoroughness

Testability

Expression InsightfulnessNovelty

Stimulation

Justice FairnessThoroughness

Appropriateness

Health CorrectnessEffectiveness

inquiry paradigmmeasures measures


work

knowledge

proposal

knowled

ge build

ing

knowled

ge usin

g

knowledge building

knowledge using



Form

True/FalseCorrect/Incorrect

Thought-provoking/

Fresh/StaleExciting/BoringJust/UnjustRight/WrongAppropriate/

Fair/Unfair

Complete/Incomplete

Unprovable

Banal

Inappropriate

Works/Doesn’t Work

Fits/Doesn’t FitElegant/InelegantBetter/Worse

AppropriatenessCultural Fit

Effectiveness

Procedures

Sustainable/Unsustainable/

Figure 15 Foundations: The Value Chain for Science

FoundationsThe Value Chain for Science

Provable/

Field Need/Goal Values MeasuresScience Understanding Correctness

ThoroughnessTestability



work

knowledge

proposal

knowled

ge build

ing

knowled

ge usin

g

knowledge building

knowledge using



True/FalseCorrect/IncorrectComplete/

Incomplete

Unprovable

Procedures

Figure 16 Foundations: The Value Chain for Design

FoundationsThe Value Chain for Design

Field Need/Goal Values Measures

Design



work

knowledge

proposal

knowled

ge build

ing

knowled

ge usin

g

knowledge building

knowledge using



Form

Fresh/Stale

Appropriate/Inappropriate

Works/Doesn’t Work

Fits/Doesn’t FitElegant/InelegantBetter/Worse

AppropriatenessCultural Fit

Effectiveness

Procedures

Sustainable/Unsustainable/

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu

Oct

ober

21

, 20

05


promoting and regenerating Health. Among itsvalues, Correctness is critical for diagnoses andprocedures, and Effectiveness, a value stronglyshared with design, is relevant when somethingis better than nothing. Measures include Cor-rect/Incorrect, Works/Doesn’t work and Better/Worse.

Design (Figure 16) exists because of the needfor Form. The form giver, in the broadest use ofthe term, creates order. Because the world ofdesign is the world of the artificial, the values ofdesign tend to be ones associated with humanneeds and environmental needs created by or re-sulting from human actions. Cultural Fit is asso-ciated with aesthetic issues; Appropriatenesstargets the wide range of physiological, cogni-tive, social and cultural human factors; and Ef-fectiveness gauges functionality and utility. ForCultural Fit, good measures are Fresh/Stale,Fits/Doesn’t Fit and Elegant/Inelegant; forAppropriateness, Appropriate/Inappropriate andWorks/Doesn’t Work (from the human factorsperspective) are helpful. From a utility perspec-tive, Works/Doesn’t Work, Sustainable/ Un-sustainable and Better/Worse measureEffectiveness.

Seen through the differences in underlyingvalues, differences among fields become clearerand more understandable. As a case in point, amajor difference between science and design liesin the difference between Correctness and Effec-tiveness as important measures of success. Cor-rect/Incorrect (or True/False) is appropriate for afield in which there can only be one "true"answer or correct explanation for an observedphenomenon. Better/Worse is appropriate for afield in which multiple solutions can be equallysuccessful because the conditions for judgmentare culturally based.

From all this, it is easier to see why a combi-nation of science thinking and design thinking isbetter than either alone as a source of advice.Either is valuable, but together they bring thebest of skeptical inquiry into balance with imagi-native application. Both are well served by cre-ative thinking. In preparation for a widerconsideration of design thinking, therefore, it istime to look at the general characteristics of thecreative thinker.

Characteristics of Creative Thinking

Despite great interest and considerable specula-tion over many years, the nature of creativity,what makes one person creative and another not,and the creative process itself, remain elusive.Nevertheless, a number of characteristics havebeen identified and these can be useful in con-templating the nature of creative thinking and, inparticular, creative design thinking as it is and aswe would like it to be.

Fabun’s ListIn a special issue of Kaiser Aluminum Newssome years ago, editor Don Fabun assembledcharacteristics of the creative individual culledfrom the observations of a number of thoughtfulwriters4. While they are not all-inclusive, theyprovide a good start for assembling a catalog(Figure 17):

Figure 17 Creative Characteristics: Don Fabun

CreativityFabun’s Characteristics of Creative Individuals

From observations of thoughtful authors (through 1968)

Sensitivity

Questioning attitude

Broad education

Asymmetical thinking

Personal courage

• Sustained curiosity

Time control

Dedication

Willingness to work

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Sensitivity. A propensity for greater aware-ness which makes a person more readily attunedto the subtleties of various sensations and im-pressions. Eric Fromm4 writes, "Creativity is theability to see (or be aware) and to respond".

• Questioning attitude. An inquisitiveness,probably imprinted in early home training thatencourages seeking new and original answers.

• Broad education. An approach to learninginstilled from a liberal education that puts apremium on questions rather than answers andrewards curiosity rather than rote learning andconformity.

• Asymmetrical thinking. The ability to findan original kind of order in disorder as opposedto symmetrical thinking that balances everythingout in some logical way. "The creative personali-ty is unique in that during the initial stages he

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu


prefers the chaotic and disorderly and tends toreject what has already been systematized".Ralph J. Hallman4

• Personal courage. A disregard for failurederived from a concern, not for what othersthink, but what one thinks of oneself. "Theyseemed to be less afraid of what other peoplewould say or demand or laugh at ... Perhapsmore important, however, was their lack of fearof their own insides, of their own impulses, emo-tions, thoughts". Abraham Maslow4

• Sustained curiosity. A capacity for childlikewonder carried into adult life that generates astyle of endless questioning, even of the mostpersonally cherished ideas. Eric Fromm4: "Chil-dren still have the capacity to be puzzled ... Butonce they are through the process of education,most people lose the capacity of wondering, ofbeing surprised. They feel that they ought toknow everything, and hence that it is a sign ofignorance to be surprised or puzzled by any-thing".

• Time control. Instead of being bound bytime, deadlines and schedules, creative individu-als use time as a resource—morning, noon andnight—years, decades—whatever it takes,unbound by the clock.

• Dedication. The unswerving desire to dosomething, whatever it may be and whatever theobstacles to doing it.

• Willingness to work. The willingness tocontinue to pursue a project endlessly, inworking hours and so-called free hours, overwhatever time might be required. RogerSessions4 said, "Inspiration, then, is the impulsewhich sets creation in movement; it is also theenergy which keeps it going".

Additions from ArietiIn 1976, psychiatrist Silvano Arieti thoroughlyreviewed what was known then about creativity5.From his study, several additional characteristicscan be included (Figure 18):

• Fluency of thinking. Word fluency, theability to produce words containing specifiedletters or combinations of letters; associationalfluency, the ability to produce synonyms forgiven words; expressional fluency, the ability tojuxtapose words to meet the requirements of sen-tence structure, and ideational fluency, the abilityto produce ideas to fulfill certain requirements—to offer solutions to problems.

Figure 18 Creative Characteristics: Arieti

CreativityArieti’s Characteristics of the Creative Individual

From a study of research available (through 1976)

Fluency of thinking

Flexibility

Originality

Redefinition

Elaboration

Tolerance for ambiguity

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Flexibility. The ability to abandon old waysof thinking and initiate different directions.

• Originality. The ability to produce uncom-mon responses and unconventional associations.

• Redefinition. The ability to reorganize whatwe know or see in new ways.

• Elaboration. The capacity to use two ormore abilities for the construction of a morecomplex object.

• Tolerance for ambiguity. The capacity toentertain conflicting concepts for periods of timewithout the need to resolve uncertainties.

Csikszentmihalyi’s PolaritiesMihaly Csikszentmihalyi, an anthropologist atthe University of Chicago, sees the creative indi-vidual in terms of "pairs of apparently antitheti-cal traits that are often both present in suchindividuals and integrated with each other in adialectical tension"6 (Figure 19).

Figure 19 Creative Characteristics: Csikszentmihalyi

CreativityCsikszentmihalyi’s Creative Characteristics

From a study of 91 noted individuals (1996)

Generalized libidinal energy / restraint

Convergent / divergent thinking

Playfulness / discipline

Fantasy / reality

Extroversion / introversion

• Humility / pride

Masculinity / femininity

Traditional conservatism / rebellious iconoclasm

Passion / objectivity

Suffering / enjoyment

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• Generalized libidinal energy and restraint."Without eros, it would be difficult to take lifeon with vigor; without restraint, the energy couldeasily dissipate."

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu

Oct

ober

21

, 20

05


• Convergent and divergent thinking. Diver-gent thinking to generate ideas; convergentthinking to tell a good one from a bad one.

• Playfulness and discipline—or irresponsi-bility and responsibility. Exploring ideas widelyand lightly, but surmounting obstacles and bring-ing ideas to completion with doggedness, endur-ance and perseverance.

• Fantasy and reality. Breaking away fromthe present without losing touch with the past;finding originality in which novelty is rooted inreality.

• Extroversion and introversion. Seeing andhearing people, exchanging ideas, and getting toknow other persons’ work to extend interaction;working alone to fully explore and master ab-stract concepts.

• Humility and pride. Humility in the aware-ness of those who worked before, the element ofluck involved with achievement, and the relativeunimportance of past achievements in compari-son with a focus on future projects; pride in theself-assurance associated with accomplishment.

• Masculinity and femininity. Psychologicalandrogyny enabling the best traits of bold, assert-ive masculinity to be combined with the besttraits of sensitive, aware femininity.

• Traditional conservatism and rebelliousiconoclasm. Being able to understand and appre-ciate a cultural domain and its rules, while at thesame time being willing to take risks to breakwith its traditions.

• Passion and objectivity. Passion in the at-tachment and dedication to the cause or work;objectivity in the ability to stand apart, detached,to evaluate quality impartially.

• Suffering and enjoyment. The heightenedhighs and lows that come with intense involve-ment and sensitivity, both to observed qualityand to what others think.

Csikszentmihalyi notes that these conflictingtraits are difficult to find in the same person, but"the novelty that survives to change a domain isusually the work of someone who can operate atboth ends of these polarities—and that is thekind of person we call creative".

Many of these characteristics, especiallyamong those listed by Csikszentmihalyi, are notqualities to be taught. At best these are naturalpersonality traits that can be recognized wherethey exist or noted in their absence, but many ofthe others can be developed or encouraged, andthis should be done overtly.

Characteristics of Design Thinking

Creativity is of major importance to designthinking, as it is to science thinking and thinkingin any field. But as is true for each field, charac-teristics other than creativity are also important.From personal experience, I would nominate fordesign thinking the following characteristics andways of working (Figures 20 and 21):

Figure 20 Design Thinking: Observed Characteristics

Design ThinkingCharacteristics

Observations from design education, research and practice

Conditioned inventiveness

Human-centered focus

Environment-centered concern

•

Tempered optimism

Ability to visualize

•

•

•

•

Bias for adaptivity•

Predisposition toward multifunctionality•

Figure 21 Design Thinking: Observed Characteristics

Design ThinkingCharacteristics

Observations from design education, research and practice

Systemic vision

Generalist view

Ability to use language as a tool

•

Facility for avoiding the necessity for choice

Affinity for team work

•

•

•

•

Self-governing practicality•

Ability to work systematically with qualitative information•

• Conditioned inventiveness. Creative think-ing for designers is directed toward inventing.Designers tend to be more interested in the"what" questions than the "whys" of interest tothe scientist. Design creativity, thus, comple-ments scientific creativity. Design creativity,however, must cover more than just invention.Design brings to invention a concern that what isproduced not only be inventive, but be so withinthe frameworks of human-centered andenvironment-centered measures governing the de-signer’s efforts.

• Human-centered focus. Science and, to aslightly lesser extent, technology have few built-in governors. That is to say, as in the arts, explo-ration proceeds where discoveries direct.

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu


Design, on the other hand, is client-directed.Design thinking must continually consider howwhat is being created will respond to the clients’needs.

• Environment-centered concern. In recentyears, design thinking has acquired a second,omnipresent and meta-level client: the environ-ment. Present-day thinking puts environmentalinterests at a level with human interests asprimary constraints on the design process. Sus-tainable design is one very noticeable result, Theultimate value of human- and environment-centeredness is a guarantee that the best interestsof humankind and environment will be consid-ered in any project.

• Ability to visualize. All designers work vi-sually. Designers can visualize ideas in a rangeof media, bringing a common view to conceptsotherwise imagined uniquely by everyone in adiscussion. Designers can reveal the whole ele-phant that the blind men can only partially andimperfectly conceive.

• Tempered optimism. It is difficult towork—and especially to work creatively—in apessimistic, critical mood. Designers are taughtto recognize this and to establish optimistic andproactive ways of working. Pronounced moodswings are not unusual among creative individu-als, but designers learn to control these to levelout both lows and highs in the interests ofprofessionalism—designers must be able to turnon enthusiasm on demand.

• Bias for adaptivity. In recent years, theemergence of adaptive processes in manufactur-ing and information technologies has greatly re-inforced a practice historically followed by somedesigners: the design of adaptive products able tofit their users’ needs uniquely. Design thinkingtoday has accepted that concept, approachingproblems with the view that, where possible, so-lutions should be adaptive—in production, to fitthe needs of users uniquely; throughout their use,to fit users’ evolving needs.

• Predisposition toward multifunctionality.Solutions to problems need not be mono-functional. Designers routinely look for multipledividends from solutions to problems. Thiswould seem to be an obvious way to proceed,but it is not so. In a recent issue of PopularScience magazine7, the cover story was six newtechnologies to stop global warming (Figure 22).The story reported proposals made by thescience community at a special invited meeting

with White House officials. All six science pro-posals were serious proposals for macro-engineering projects. Five of the six proposedsingle-minded means for relieving globalwarming—at considerable cost, and with no ad-ditional benefits. The sixth, as an extension of atechnology already used for increasing naturalgas production, had that benefit, but no other. Incontrast, the three macro design projects (Figure23) proposed in the Institute of Design’s prizewinning Project Phoenix (also reported inPopular Science 14 years earlier) all had majoreconomic benefits in addition to their globalwarming benefits8. Design thinking keeps the bigpicture in mind while focusing on specifics.

Figure 22 Science Thinking: Global Warming Proposals

Science ThinkingSingle Function Focus

Science proposals

•• Fertilize the ocean

Enhance clouds toreflect sunlightReflect sunlight with a mirror

•

POPULARsc enceScorched

Earth

Saving a

SpectacularTechnologies

to Halt GlobalWarming6

Space ShadesGovernment scientists

propose launchinggiant screens to scatter

incoming radiation

AUGUST 2005

•

•

•

Filter CO2 from the air

Turn CO2 to stone

Store CO2 underground

Figure 23 Design Thinking: Proposals for Global Warming

Design ThinkingMulti-Function Focus

Global warming proposalsthat create economic value

Photosynthesis at Sea

Desert RegreeningAir-supported domesRebuilt ecosystems

Mangrove islandsKelp beds Mollusc farms Source: http//:www.id.iit.edu/profile/gallery/project_phoenix/

Solar-Power Satellites10GW power beamed from space•

••

•••

• Systemic Vision. Design thinking is holistic.In the last forty years, roughly since the comput-er began to influence design thinking, designershave moved to considering problems morebroadly. Modern design treats problems assystem problems with opportunities for systemicsolutions involving mixes of hardware, software,procedures, policies, organizational concepts andwhatever else is necessary to create a holistic so-lution.

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu

Oct

ober

21

, 20

05


• View of the Generalist. Common wisdomtoday holds that the trend of expertise is togreater and greater specialization and, therefore,success will come more readily to those whochoose to specialize early and plan their trainingaccordingly. Design thinking, to the contrary, ishighly generalist in preparation and execution. Ina world of specialists, there is real need for thosewho can reach across disciplines to communicateand who can bring diverse experts together incoordinated effort. For inventive creativity, thewider the reach of the knowledge base, the morelikely the creative inspiration. A designer is aspecialist in the process of design, but a general-ist in as wide a range of content as possible.

• Ability to use language as a tool. Languageis usually thought of as means for communica-tion. For design thinking, it is also a tool. Visuallanguage is used diagrammatically to abstractconcepts, reveal and explain patterns, and simpli-fy complex phenomena to their fundamental es-sences. Mathematical language is used to explore"what if" questions where feasibility may be es-tablished by approximation—by calculations notexact, but close enough to support an idea orchange a line of reasoning. Verbal language isused in description where explanation goes handin hand with the creative process, forcing inven-tion where detail is lacking and expressing rela-tionships not obvious visually.

• Affinity for teamwork. Because designerswork for clients, it is natural that good interper-sonal skills become part of the professional setof tools they develop. An additional impetustoward teamwork has been a movement in theprofessions over the last forty years towardteam-based design, spurred by developments inindustry. Design thinking today is highly influ-enced by this, and designers routinely workclosely with other designers and experts fromother fields. On multi-discipline teams, designersare a highly valuable asset because of their char-acteristic abilities to generalize, communicateacross disciplines, work systematically with qual-itative information, and visualize concepts.

• Facility for avoiding the necessity ofchoice. The job of the decision maker is tochoose among alternative proposals, usually theproducts of different problem-solving approach-es. Design thinking takes the view that makingthat choice is a last resort. Before moving tochoice-making, the designer looks for ways to"have your cake and eat it too"—a seeming

paradox (exactly what you cannot do, as pointedout in the old English proverb). The optimistic,adaptive designer, however, searches the compet-ing alternatives for their essential characteristicsand finds ways to reformulate them in a newconfiguration. When this process is successful,the result is a solution that avoids the decisionand combines the best of both possible choices.

• Self-governing practicality. Design is afield in which inventiveness is prized. In veryfew fields is there the freedom to dream expect-ed in design. The best design thinkers understandthis and learn to govern flights of fantasy with alatent sense of the practical. The flight is to theouter reaches of what can be conceived; thetether is to ways that the conceivable might berealized. This is embedded in a style of thinkingthat explores freely in the foreground, whilemaintaining in the background a realistic apprais-al of costs that can be met and functionality thatcan be effected.

• Ability to work systematically with qualita-tive information. As design research has maturedand design methodology progressed, design pro-cesses with component methods and tools havebeen developed and refined. As one suchprocess, Structured Planning9 contains a tool-kitof methods for a complete range of planningtasks covering ways to find information, gain in-sights from it, organize it optimally for concep-tualization, evaluate results and communicate aplan to the public and follow-on teams in the de-velopment process. Methods such as this arequalitative information handling techniques ap-plicable to many kinds of conceptual problemswhere complex, system solutions are desirable.They are also usable by anyone working on aplanning team, enabling systematic aspects ofdesign thinking to be made accessible to all.

Design Education to Serve New Clients

The characteristics enumerated above are notthose normally listed in a catalog for a designcourse. These are special ways of designthinking, almost implicit in the nature of thedesign process. and usually taught tacitly intoday’s design education programs.

For most of the characteristics, this worksbecause design education programs are severalyears in length and directed toward a career indesign. There is ample opportunity to acquire the

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu


skills and nuances of design thinking, and a pre-disposition to do so exists on the part of studentsbecause they have chosen to become designers.For some of the characteristics, though, particu-larly those that have developed more recently,tacit assimilation is not enough, and more pro-gressive schools can be expected to instituteformal courses to teach them.

We can expect problems to appear, moreover,when the context is changed. Teaching designthinking, formally or tacitly, is one thing whenthe context is a traditional design career in in-dustry or a consulting office. It will be quiteanother when the context is institutional or gov-ernmental policy planning. And our problem isjust that: to train a new kind of student for thatnew context. To train students for roles as policydesign synthesis advisors, it will be necessary tocreate a new kind of design program.

Some of the factors (Figures 24 and 25) thatwill need to be considered are:

• How long should the program be? Can itbe taught in one, two or three years? Should itbe full-time or part-time—or either?

It is unlikely that a long program will be ac-ceptable. Just as business schools have craftedone and two year programs for executivesseeking MBA degrees, a program for policydesign synthesis will in all likelihood have to berelatively condensed and, perhaps, packaged inunusual time blocks and delivery means accessi-ble to potential students already working indesign or planning fields.

• Who are the best candidates for theprogram? Should candidates be recruited frominstitutional/governmental positions? Should ex-perienced senior designers be recruited?

It is not clear yet whether planners turneddesign thinkers or designers turned planningpractitioners would be better. The correlatedquestion whether senior designers or policy staffmembers would benefit more than young profes-sionals in either field is also open. Perhaps, anal-ogous programs for policy planning will beinstructive.

• What levels of experience and schoolingshould be required for entrance to the program?Must candidates have one or more designdegrees? What kind of experience is valuable?Should special experience be required?

Some level of experience will almost certain-ly be necessary and training in both design andplanning must be undertaken, either prior to

entry or during the period of education. Experi-ence can be built up through internships withinthe program, and varying degrees of foundationeducation can be offered as additional requiredstudies for deficient candidates who otherwisewould be highly qualified.

Figure 24 Education for Policy Design Synthesis: Considerations

Design EducationA Program for Policy Design Synthesis

Factors to be considered

How long should the program be? One year? Two years?Three years?

Who are the best candidates for the program? Shouldcandidates be recruited from institutions and govern-ment?

•

•

• What levels of experience and schooling should berequired for entrance to the program?

Figure 25 Education for Policy Design Synthesis: Considerations

Design EducationA Program for Policy Design Synthesis

Factors to be considered

What is the ideal mix of design tools and thinking withtools and thinking from other fields to best prepare students for their working environment?

What mix of academic and internship experience shouldbe planned?

•

•

• How should successful completion of the program bejudged?

• What is the ideal mix of design tools andthinking and tools and thinking from other fieldsto best prepare students for their working envi-ronment? What tools from the available designinventory are suitable? What modificationsshould be sought? What tools from other fieldscould be refined for this new use? What whollynew tools would be desirable?

Design research will have some new fields toprobe. Tools will have to cover at least threesectors of policy design synthesis. First, tools fordesign advisors to work with other planning ad-visors. These will probably be information han-dling tools, much like Structured Planning,where all can work together under guidance bysomeone trained in using the tools. Second, toolsfor design advisors to work for other planningadvisors. These will be tools that require moredesign expertise, but whose use is for crystalliz-

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu

Oct

ober

21

, 20

05


ing concepts visually for the planning group.Third, tools for design advisors to work awayfrom other planning advisors. These will proba-bly be tools for specialized design simulationand modeling work whose results will be impor-tant for the planning process, but whose work-ings require more specialized knowledge andtime use than is reasonable for team membersworking directly on the planning problem.

• What mix of academic and internship expe-rience should be planned? What form should theeducational process take? Should elements of theprogram be on-site at an institutional location?

Packaging of the program will be crucial toits success. If it achieves a high level of atten-tion at executive levels, many otherwise highlyeffective, but costly, forms of education maybecome possible. Very low student-to-teacherratios complemented with learning settings opti-mally suited to the education process are anexample. The mix of experiences and forms ofinvolvement should be planned for maximumeffect in minimum time to appeal to a potentialstudent population (and clients desiring to hirethem) in position to expect—and sponsor—thebest.

• How should successful completion of theprogram be judged? Course completion? Thesisor dissertation? License? Should examinersinclude internship advisors from relevant institu-tion?

The opportunity may be here for new formsof evaluation. Design thinking is almost neverevaluated well by testing, and almost all designis taught by "project-oriented" learning methods.Final research work as typified by theses anddissertations is probably also inappropriate forthe kind of program that most likely will evolvefor policy design synthesis. A project-like dem-onstration of proficiency that could take a rangeof possible forms might be an answer. Such ademonstration could involve other students andhave evaluators from both the university and theinstitution where the student is serving his or herinternship.

The task of creating a Policy Design Synthe-sis program will be difficult. Governmental andinstitutional organizations must be convinced thatpolicy design synthesis is a valuable addition tothe advisory skills they rely upon. For that, ourprofessional design societies can carry the cam-paign. New tools will have to be created to bringthe skills of design thinking to bear on policy

problems. For that, our design research institu-tions and university programs can lead the way.

The problem is greater than the capabilitiesof any single university. Cooperation will beessential—to convince leaders, to create tools,and to train students in numbers significant tohave impact—while there is still time.

Summary and Conclusions

The problems induced by a growing populationare becoming major with virtual certainty thattheir number and seriousness will increase(Figure 26). Global warming, as one of the latestmanifestations, adds levels of complication anduncertainty almost impossible to anticipate. Deci-sion making at the policy level must avail itselfof the best advice it can find to at once confrontdisasters on increasingly grander scales, andbenefit from the emergence of extremely power-ful new technologies.

Figure 26 Summary and Conclusions

Summary & ConclusionsAn Opportunity

Design thinking has new valueProblems and Opportunities are Becoming Formidable

Miracle technologies will contend with population-induced disasters

Science excels in analysis; design excels in synthesisThe Best Advice of Science and Design Must Be Heard

Design Thinking is DifferentDesign thinking is well matched to real-world problemsIts characteristics make it ideally complementary to science

•

•

•

••

•

Programs for Policy Design Synthesis Should Be InitiatedNew content, processes and ways of working must be evolvedInstitutional and governmental clients must be found and convinced

To interpret the problems and possibilities of im-pending changes, science thinking must be solic-ited and heard. To explore and conceptualizeways to proceed, design thinking must receiveequal attention. Among the many kinds of adviceavailable, the creative voices of discovery andinvention as embodied in the insights of scien-tists and the ideas of designers are critical.

Design thinking, less well known thanscience thinking, has characteristics of greatvalue to teams dealing with complex, ill-formedproblems. Together, the characteristics of designand science thinking form a set of complementa-ry thought processes able to add considerablestrength to the advisory task.

Providing design thinking in an advisory ca-pacity to governmental and institutional leaders

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu


will require an evolution in design education,design research and design professional activi-ties. For design education, new programs mustbe designed that bring the best of design think-ing into the new context of policy planning. Newcontent will be necessary; new processes must bedeveloped and taught; and new ways of workingwill have to be learned. It will be worth doing.

References

1. Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs and Steel.The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1999. In Chapter 13, Necessi-ty’s Mother. The evolution of technology,Diamond gives a vivid analysis of how techno-logical capability has appeared in our and othersocieties and why its growth is nonlinear andautocatalyzed.

2. Owen, Charles L. Responsible Design.Achieving Living Excellence: Implications, Warn-ings and a Call to Action. In eDesign2004. Pro-ceedings of the International Conference onEnvironmental Design for Living Excellence:Contemporary Issues and Solutions. ShahAlam, Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti TeknologiMARA, 2004; and Owen, Charles L. SocietalResponsibilities. Growing the Role of Design. InProceedings of the International Conferenceon Planning and Design. Creativity, Interac-tion and Sustainable Development. Tainan,Taiwan: National Cheng Kung University, 2005.Both papers are viewable as pdf documents athttp//:www.id.iit.edu.

3. Owen, Charles L. Design Research: Build-ing the Knowledge Base. Design Studies. [UK]

19, No. 1 (January 1998): 9-20. This paper isalso available at www.id.iit.edu.

4. Fabun, Don, ed. You and Creativity.Kaiser Aluminum News 25, No. 3 1968.

5. Arieti, Silvano. Creativity. The MagicSynthesis. New York: Basic Books, 1976. Arieticollects characteristics from the work of anumber of researchers in chapter 15.

6. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Creativity.Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and In-vention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers,Inc. 1996. In preparation for this book, Csiks-zentmihalyi interviewed 91 noted individuals, in-cluding 12 Nobel Prize winners.

7. Behar, Michael. Now You CO2 Now youDon’t. Popular Science 267, No. 2 (August2005): 52-58.

8. DiChristina, Mariette. Reversing theGreenhouse. Popular Science 239, No. 2(August 1991): 78-80. Also: Editors of PopularScience. Fourth Annual Best of What’s New. TheYear’s 100 Greatest Achievements in Scienceand Technology. Popular Science 239, No. 6(December 1991): 53-83. Project Phoenix wasnamed Grand Winner in the EnvironmentalTechnology category, one of 10 Grand awardsgiven. Versions of the original reports, ProjectPhoenix: Fire Replaced and Project Phoenix:Fire Reversed were reissued in 2004 with full-color illustrations at www.id.iit.edu/profile/ gallery/project_phoenix/.

9. Owen, Charles L. Design, AdvancedPlanning and Product Development. Thisgeneral explanation along with several otherpapers on the Structured Planning process and anumber of project reports and presentations canbe seen on the web site www.id.iit.edu.

Inst

itute

of D

esig

n, Il

linoi

s In

stitu

te o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

http:/

/www

.id.iit

.edu

Oct

ober

21

, 20

05

design thinking. what it is. why it is different. where it ......design thinking. what it is. why it...

Documents