Wicked, entrapped designers
Most GenAI fails to put subjects in straitjacket - so it resorts to prison garb instead.
The methodology and application of design thinking (from hereon DT) have been misconstrued especially within the industrial design, engineering and marketing industries. The creation of working hypotheses entrap designers into solving problems that are inherently unsolvable. In the 25 years since Richard Buchanan’s article was published design thinking has gone from buzzword to becoming criticised for its hollow application.
I discuss Richard Buchanan’s 1992 seminal article entitled Wicked Problems in Design Thinking and Cameron Tonkinwise’s 2017 blog article Design Thinking Yet Again, Because Maybe It Could Actually Be Useful. Perhaps Even Necessary. Both authors are professors of design.
Design thinking
In the late 20th century scientists and designers started joining forces to try solve complex problems, but they have had difficulty understanding one another (Buchanan 1992,15). The role of design and design thinking was the result of the search to integrate “disciplines to complement the arts and sciences” (Buchanan 1992, 6). Without such integrative understanding “there is little hope of sensibly extending knowledge beyond the library, or laboratory in order to serve the purpose of enriching human life” (Buchanan 1992, 6).
Design combines theory and practice. Phenomenology’s purpose is to give us “insight into the new liberal arts of technological culture” and this is done through design thinking (Buchanan 1992, 6). DT is concerned with problems of the present.
Buchanan’s explanation of DT was mostly theoretical with little practical guidance on how to apply it. Should it be regarded as an applied version of scientific knowledge methods and principles? Buchanan claimed that if understood correctly will result in a better understanding of- and application of DT when one tries to solve problems. Unfortunately, Buchanan does not frame the application of DT in any form of social, cultural, and environmental context.
When a firm relies on DT to solve big problems the working hypothesis of that iterative product still has some form of economic or ideological motive. This motive has a highly probable impact on forcibly validating the hypothesis in order to capitalise.
Experimental thinking as a form of technology
In the 1929s, John Dewey described integrative thinking, and pointed to science as art because “ science is now the product of operations undertaking in conformity with a plan or project that has properties of a working hypothesis” (Dewey 1929). Stated nearly a century ago, the term art in this context meant experimental thinking.
Experimental thinking precedes science. Design and design thinking are inherently experimental. Buchanan states that “there is no area of contemporary life where design – the plan, project, or working hypothesis which constitutes the ‘intention of intentional operations - is not a significant factor in shaping human experiences (Buchanan 1992). However, discussions between designers and scientists were for the most part confusing. The concept of DT within the sciences was a such a novel thing, especially claiming that science relies on an “artistic” approach. Without clarity there is little hope of understanding the value of DT in “an increasingly complex technological culture (Buchanan 1992). Design thinking is an intentional operation – it shapes the human experience.
Places of invention
Simon Herbert, in his most prominent works The Sciences of the Artificial, wrote that the “proper study of mankind is the science of design” (Simon 1996). Buchanan lists signs, things, actions and thoughts as the four broad areas in which design is explored by designers, and calls them “places of invention”. These places are where “one discovers the dimensions of design thinking by a reconsideration of problems and solutions” (Buchanan 1992). They are interconnected and points to an objectivity in human experience, and they’re listed in an ascending order from confusing parts to orderly wholes. From the chaotic to the unifying. They have surprising consequences for innovation.
But innovation comes when these areas are repositioned to from new ideas and questions. This repositioning is inherit in deconstructionist architecture as a means to break old categories. In design, this repositioning led to communication theory and semiotics. Whereby Graphic Designers went from expressive artists to interpreters of messages. Design has evolved to emphasise rhetorical relationships, shifting the attention to the audience uncover meaning instead of being passive consumers of preformed messages. Design repositions the placements of signs, things, actions and thoughts. A systematic pattern of invention is at the heart of design thinking.
“Understanding the difference between category and placement is essential if design thinking is to be regarded as more than a series of creative accidents” (Buchanan 1992, 12).
Categories have fixed meanings that are accepted within the framework of a theory of philosophy. It serves as basis for analysing what already exists. Placements on the other hand generate new perception of that situation and new possibilities to be tested. It is what designers describe as the intuitive or serendipitous quality of their work. For designers, placements are primary and categories are secondary. Repositioning placements causes a redesign of a problem. However, Buchanan does not mention collective undertaking when repositioning placements to redesign a problem.
The positive impact of design thinking
Tonkinwise’s blog article acknowledges the positive impact of design thinking on professional design practice, particularly in emphasizing the social aspect of co-creation and persuading people about the value of design solutions. Design thinking has led to a shift in the perception of designing as a collective enterprise involving messy workshops with diverse participants, rather than solitary studio work mention by Buchanan. It has also highlighted the importance of designing as an extended process of persuasion, not only shaping materials but also convincing people of the value of design solutions.
Wicked Problems Theory of Design
Now, this is where it gets interesting. Buchanan explained how thinking like a designer can spark innovation. Here design’s definitions and varied methodologies are gathered under the theme of: the conception and planning of the artificial. This theme is shared between designers and scientists. The “Wicked problems” approach as well. It was formulated by Horst Rittel in the 1960s when he looked for an alternative to the linear model: problem definition(analytic) followed by problem solution(synthetic). The problem was that the actual sequence of design thinking and decision making is not a linear process, as well as the practice of analysing and synthesising problems. This linear model in design thinking is based on determinate problems which have definite conditions. Examples of definite conditions can be found within the industrial design, engineering and marketing industries. Matthew Wizinsky explores this in his book Design after Capitalism.
According to Rittel, all problems addressed by designers are wicked problems. These types of problems are a “class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values and where the ramifications in the while system are thoroughly confusing”(Churchman 1967). It points to a fundamental issue between determinacy and indeterminacy in design thinking.
The linear model is determinate, with defined conditions; whereas the wicked problems approach is indeterminate(not undetermined), with no definitive conditions(wicked). This indeterminate condition speaks to the universal scope of design’s subject matter. This is in sharp contrast to the existing subject matters in the industry as mentioned above, which are concerned with understanding principles, laws, rules, etc. Design thinking is, therefore, not scientific.
Rittel listed ten properties to support this claim.
Wicked problems have no definitive formulations, but every formulation of a wicked problem corresponds to the formulation of a solution.
Wicked problems have no stopping roles.
Solutions to wicked problems cannot be false or true only good or bad.
In solving wicked problems there is no exhaustive list of admissible operations.
For every wicked problem there is always more than one possible explanation, with explanations depending on the intellectual perspective of the designer.
Every wicked problem is a symptom of another, “higher level”, problem.
No formulation and solution of a wicked problem is a definitive test.
Solving a wicked problem is a “one-shot” operation, with no room for trial and error.
Every wicked problem is unique.
The wicked problem solver has no right to be wrong, they are fully responsible for their actions.
In practice, designers begin with what Rittel calls “quasi-subject matter”, subject matter that does not wait to be made determinate but specific and concrete. It presents a problem of its own because in product development product owners aim to make subject matter determinate, to turn them into working hypotheses. This is an attempt to take the wickedness out of the problem. It becomes the designer’s task to reposition placements to create a working hypothesis. It entraps them.
Critique of Contemporary Design Thinking
Tonkinwise criticises contemporary design thinking for its commercialisation and superficiality. It argues that design thinking has become a tool for large management consultancies to churn out money by repackaging business-as-usual practices. Moreover, design thinking has failed to deliver significant innovation or address complex societal problems effectively. Instead, it has often been used to distract from systemic issues and delegitimize existing institutions.
It becomes quite similar to the determinate subject matters in science. Design is an integrative disciple, establishing a principle of relevance when creating working hypotheses. It is a “science of the artificial”, as Herbert Simon calls it (Simon 1996). But Simon fails to capture the radical sense in which designers explore the essence of what the artificial may be in human experience.
Design is not merely about objects, and science have come to misconstrue design “as ‘applied’ versions of knowledge, methods and principles” (Buchanan 1992, 19). Scientists treat design as a “practical demonstration of the scientific principles of that subject matter. Moreover, “people continue to think of technology in terms products rather than its form as a discipline of systematic thinking”, regarding machines as something out of human control, threatening to enslave us (Buchanan 1992, 19).
Technology used to be a human activity, one of deliberation and argument. It moves toward and interplay of placements. Designer’s artefacts or things are examples of such argumentation. But the modes of argumentation have caused the industries of industrial design, engineering and marketing to become bitter opponents in the design enterprise. This is because industrial design stress what is possible while engineering stress what is necessary when marketing stresses what is contingent.
Reduce design’s complexity to capitalise
Tonkinwise emphasizes the diverse nature of designing, with different disciplines and qualities of design requiring unique approaches. He highlights the importance of recognizing the wide-ranging impact of design on everyday life and the need for comprehensive education and understanding of design processes. The author suggests that the current ignorance about design contributes to many societal challenges (wicked problems), and there is a need for better-informed stakeholders to aid the design process.
The differences in design modalities are complimentary ways of arguing reciprocal expressions of what conditions and shapes the ‘useful’ in human experience” (Buchanan 1992, 20). And in product development, for one, effective design depends on integrating these modes or lines of reasoning.
But it points to an impossibility of rigid boundaries between industrial design engineering and marketing. It is impossible to rely on anyone of the sciences for adequate solutions to what are inherently wicked problems of design thinking (Buchanan 1992,20). This limitation however may be overcome by better design thinking. Geared not toward better products but towards “new integrations of placements that address the concrete needs and values of human beings in diverse circumstances” (Buchanan 1992,20).
Unfortunately, design consultancies like IDEO have combined these aspects to characterize design as a process of innovation. However, this has led to a reductionist view of design thinking, focusing primarily on the ideation phase and overlooking the deeper complexities of design processes.
Challenges and Opportunities
Despite the shortcomings of contemporary design thinking, Tonkinwise sees potential for it to contribute to addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene. Design thinking could help societies better understand the agency and consequences of design decisions, leading to more responsible and sustainable futures. However, this requires a shift towards a more comprehensive understanding of design that goes beyond ideation and incorporates deeper insights into cultural, social, and environmental contexts.
Conclusion
The concept of design thinking highlights both its potential and limitations. Buchanan emphasizes design thinking as a unique approach to problem-solving, distinct from scientific methods. It thrives on "wicked problems" that lack clear solutions and demands a focus on "placements" and their repositioning to generate new possibilities. However, Tonkinwise critiques the commercialization of design thinking, arguing that it has become a tool for superficial innovation rather than tackling complex societal issues.
The future of design thinking lies in acknowledging its multifaceted nature. It requires a move away from reductionist approaches and simplistic formulas. By embracing the diverse disciplines and complexities of design, design thinking can evolve into a powerful tool for addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene. This necessitates a broader design education and a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, and environmental contexts that influence design decisions. Ultimately, design thinking has the potential to shape a more responsible and sustainable future, but only if it transcends its current limitations. Therefore, we should be highly critical of the intention of design thinking practices when solutions are required to solve wicked problems. Because, they may entrap those that want real systemic change and empower those that favour capitalism instead.
References
Buchanan, Richard. 1992 . “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”. Design Issues 8, no. 2 (1992): 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.
Cameron Tonkinwise, "Design Thinking Yet Again, Because Maybe It Could Actually Be Useful, Perhaps Even Necessary," Medium, May 20, 2017, https://medium.com/@camerontw/design-thinking-yet-again-because-maybe-it-could-actually-be-useful-perhaps-even-necessary-b20d004a3a6d.
Churchman, C. West. 1967. “Guest Editorial: Wicked Problems”. Management Science 14, no. 4, B141–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2628678.
Dewey, John. 1992. “Experience and Nature”. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Horst W. J. Rittel; Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”. Policy Sciences 4, no. 2:155–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4531523.
McKeon, R. 1972. “The transformation of the liberal arts in the Renaissance”. In Developments in the Early Renaissance(pp. 158–223). http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/id/272008
Simon, Herbert A.. 1996. “The Sciences of the Artificial”. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
