Be confident in your choices
A year ago, my fellow student colleagues and I had to sign up for an elective course for the 2nd semester, and we could choose between Design Thinking or Data Science. The majority picked Data Science, even though I overheard some of them considering Design Thinking but then changing their minds at the last second. I was very sure and happy with my choice, and the elective should be picked based on a reflection on who you are. I am a social and service-minded person who can see meaning in the abstract. But I noticed some of my colleagues giving me a pity look as if it was a course chosen for “losers”. Perhaps that is why some students caved in and went with the popular course in Data Science. My article explains why it is an underappreciated field and how it can bring value.
A misunderstood discipline
Nigel Cross once said that design practice has a unique intellectual culture and should not be overshadowed by other disciplines like science or art. However, since it is a newer and less acclaimed inquiry than traditional practices, it can be challenging to argue for its case. It can be difficult for a designer to express verbally what the field offers. There is less trust and understanding of design practice due to a lack of literature. Therefore, the term “Design Thinking” can result in some individuals questioning its value. For others, it can be viewed as a smart trend that will fade out in a few years. It can be too abstract, subjective and “artsy” for some people to comprehend the meaning behind Design Thinking, which makes it difficult to understand its purpose. But if you, as a designer, break the approach down into simpler terms. Reading the works of Michael Gerhard Luchs gave me a simple explanation: “It is essentially a collaborative method that wants to solve a problem by designing a solution”. And sometimes, the traditional disciplines will not always have an approach depending on the wicket problem. The world is constantly changing, and this new design discipline results from new methods to tackle future issues. It is unsurprising since Design Thinking took inspiration from older disciplines and is now building upon them. For instance, the Empathize phase draws from psychology, and the Prototype phase can draw inspiration from software development.
My case during the elective
During the Design Thinking elective course, the case assigned to us was to develop a design solution for optimising The House of Practice and Innovation facilitation. It is a learning experience for the KP students who will become our future nurses, occupational therapists, etc., by providing an age simulation environment. We worked within the five stages of The Design Process framework, precisely the one from d.school at Stanford University. The process in this version consists of five stages: empathising, defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing. In that sense, when we followed the steps, it created a form of sensemaking since we collected different insights and data that gave us a better understanding of the improvements the institute was seeking.
Empathising with all stakeholders
My team and I wanted to create a solution for the primary users (consultants) and other stakeholders (KP students) since they have also influenced our design solution. Nelson & Stolterman explained it well: “The designer is responsible to more than just the client and must assume accountability for others who will be affected by any particular design activity”. The empathy methods I’ll mention here help explain why they were helpful for each stakeholder and us designers.
1. Consultant
We were introduced to their simulation environment on our day visiting The House of Practice and Innovation. The point of us stepping out of our classroom at Aalborg University and doing a walk-and-talk with the consultant was observing his daily life. “Empathise is about exploring the nature of the problem and understanding the users and their needs.”. It is why designers should, before meeting the users, remember to place themselves in a beginner’s mindset to eliminate judgment based on bias and past experiences. We interviewed one of the consultants, and to observe his natural environment, we used the Photo Safari method to collect data via images that tell a story from his point of view (POV). When interviewing and interacting with him, we used the Designs and Inquiry and Action method as inspiration for which questions to ask.
2. KP Students
At HPI, the KP students can try out the age simulation gear, which is supposed to give them a glimpse into the lives of their future patients, retired citizens. Empathy attempts to recreate the other’s distinctive perspective and how they view the issue. Its goal is to create mutual understanding. Wearing heavy-set gear, earmuffs and goggles with an orange tint limit their mobility, hearing, and sight. But in return, they can potentially gain more empathy for the elders by stepping in and out of their world. But it is also important to mention that a student wearing this gear set will not guarantee that they will gain empathy. Empathy techniques are exploratory, and therefore, there are no specific answers to whether this is entirely successful or what the outcome will be by trying it. The student’s EQ level also plays a part. Some students are more emotionally mature than others, and some may look at the simulation gear as “fun” and comical and are, therefore, missing the point due to a lack of willingness and limiting empathy horizontally. Likewise, it can also be demanding and exhausting for the students.
3. Designers
To meet empathy requirements could, for instance, be to “walk a mile in the user’s shoes”, and although we did not get to work a full day as a consultant, sometimes it is also about the willingness and capabilities to imagine what would be like to experience gains and pains throughout a day at the facility. Instead of sitting by his desk, we designers embodied the two components of empathy, affective and cognitive, to figure out the wicket problems we could address in the future. One way to better understand the consultant’s situation was through active listening and by adding examples to what he said to show that we can relate to his frustrations. Although being able to relate is termed as “sympathy”, by generating his stories and examples of everyday work life to examples of our own experiences (cognitive), it became easier to know what he is going through and by then being able to empathise with him. My group and I gained a cognitive comprehension of him by sensing his emotional state (affective).
What did I get out of the course?
This Design Thinking course has given me a toolbox to dig deeper into when using it in a work setting. It left out ideas that could have been used during the course case, but my team members and I chose other methods. For instance, the Service Blueprint could have been applied in the Ideate phase after interviewing the consultant. The blueprint could be helpful to get an overview of what the students can see of tasks being performed (front) and what the consultants do of tasks that are invisible to them (back). However, choosing the right tools is also a challenge that this course has helped me with. Being selective and judging a decision for the specific problem my team and I had to address was not easy but necessary, especially when it is in a multidisciplinary team that has to find a middle ground. My experience with this case proved the design disciplinary field is people-centric since there are so many stakeholders to consider. Suppose Design Thinking is meant to teach the designers external empathy. In that case, we must not be too quick to focus only on the consultants. Trying to empathise with the individuals in question during a case can be exhausting, and even that skill takes practice. This is what professionals in STEM fields may need to be made aware of. Still, while they perhaps do not have to understand their clients on that level where you step in and out of the user’s situation, it can give the designer a much broader perspective of people and the world we live in. Both scientific- and design fields bring value; it is just more challenging to articulate and present statistical numbers when arguing for design and coming back to find a middle ground in a team, which I mentioned earlier in this section. It is not only external empathy but also internal among your team members. Although my team members and I are all Information Studies students, we are still diverse. One of them is a software engineer, so she was good at looking at the prototype from a technical point of view. The other one has a background in marketing and communication. She knows how to sell and present a product. I have studied concept development, so ideas come quickly to me. It can generate different perspectives and strengthen one’s soft skills to work in a cross-disciplinary team.
Comments