design thinking essay

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Design Thinking & Why Is It Important?

• 18 Jan 2022

In an age when innovation is key to business success and growth, you’ve likely come across the term “design thinking.” Perhaps you’ve heard it mentioned by a senior leader as something that needs to be utilized more, or maybe you’ve seen it on a prospective employee's resume.

While design thinking is an ideology based on designers’ workflows for mapping out stages of design, its purpose is to provide all professionals with a standardized innovation process to develop creative solutions to problems—design-related or not.

Why is design thinking needed? Innovation is defined as a product, process, service, or business model featuring two critical characteristics: novel and useful. Yet, there’s no use in creating something new and novel if people won’t use it. Design thinking offers innovation the upgrade it needs to inspire meaningful and impactful solutions.

But what is design thinking, and how does it benefit working professionals?

What Is Design Thinking?

Design thinking is a mindset and approach to problem-solving and innovation anchored around human-centered design . While it can be traced back centuries—and perhaps even longer—it gained traction in the modern business world after Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO, published an article about it in the Harvard Business Review .

Design thinking is different from other innovation and ideation processes in that it’s solution-based and user-centric rather than problem-based. This means it focuses on the solution to a problem instead of the problem itself.

For example, if a team is struggling with transitioning to remote work, the design thinking methodology encourages them to consider how to increase employee engagement rather than focus on the problem (decreasing productivity).

The essence of design thinking is human-centric and user-specific. It’s about the person behind the problem and solution, and requires asking questions such as “Who will be using this product?” and “How will this solution impact the user?”

The first, and arguably most important, step of design thinking is building empathy with users. By understanding the person affected by a problem, you can find a more impactful solution. On top of empathy, design thinking is centered on observing product interaction, drawing conclusions based on research, and ensuring the user remains the focus of the final implementation.

The Four Phases of Innovation

So, what does design thinking entail? There are many models of design thinking that range from three to seven steps.

In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase innovation framework. The phases venture from concrete to abstract thinking and back again as the process loops, reverses, and repeats. This is an important balance because abstract thinking increases the likelihood that an idea will be novel. It’s essential, however, to anchor abstract ideas in concrete thinking to ensure the solution is valid and useful.

Here are the four phases for effective innovation and, by extension, design thinking.

The first phase is about narrowing down the focus of the design thinking process. It involves identifying the problem statement to come up with the best outcome. This is done through observation and taking the time to determine the problem and the roadblocks that prevented a solution in the past.

Various tools and frameworks are available—and often needed—to make concrete observations about users and facts gathered through research. Regardless of which tools are implemented, the key is to observe without assumptions or biased expectations.

Once findings from your observations are collected, the next step is to shape insights by framing those observations. This is where you can venture into the abstract by reframing the problem in the form of a statement or question.

Once the problem statement or question has been solidified—not finalized—the next step is ideation. You can use a tool such as systematic inventive thinking (SIT) in this stage, which is useful for creating an innovative process that can be replicated in the future.

The goal is to ultimately overcome cognitive fixedness and devise new and innovative ideas that solve the problems you identified. Continue to actively avoid assumptions and keep the user at the forefront of your mind during ideation sessions.

The third phase involves developing concepts by critiquing a range of possible solutions. This includes multiple rounds of prototyping, testing, and experimenting to answer critical questions about a concept’s viability.

Remember: This step isn’t about perfection, but rather, experimenting with different ideas and seeing which parts work and which don’t.

4. Implement

The fourth and final phase, implementation, is when the entire process comes together. As an extension of the develop phase, implementation starts with testing, reflecting on results, reiterating, and testing again. This may require going back to a prior phase to iterate and refine until you find a successful solution. Such an approach is recommended because design thinking is often a nonlinear, iterative process.

In this phase, don’t forget to share results with stakeholders and reflect on the innovation management strategies implemented during the design thinking process. Learning from experience is an innovation process and design thinking project all its own.

Check out the video about the design thinking process below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

Why Design Thinking Skills Matter

The main value of design thinking is that it offers a defined process for innovation. While trial and error is a good way to test and experiment what works and what doesn’t, it’s often time-consuming, expensive, and ultimately ineffective. On the other hand, following the concrete steps of design thinking is an efficient way to develop new, innovative solutions.

On top of a clear, defined process that enables strategic innovation, design thinking can have immensely positive outcomes for your career—in terms of both advancement and salary.

As of December 2021, the most common occupations requiring design thinking skills were:

• Marketing managers
• Industrial engineers
• Graphic designers
• Software developers
• General and operations managers
• Management analysts
• Personal service managers
• Architectural and engineering managers
• Computer and information systems managers

In addition, jobs that require design thinking statistically have higher salaries. Take a marketing manager position, for example. The median annual salary is $107,900. Marketing manager job postings that require design thinking skills, however, have a median annual salary of $133,900—a 24 percent increase.

Overall, businesses are looking for talent with design thinking skills. As of November 2021, there were 29,648 job postings in the United States advertising design thinking as a necessary skill—a 153 percent increase from November 2020, and a 637 percent increase from November 2017.

As businesses continue to recognize the need for design thinking and innovation, they’ll likely create more demand for employees with those skills.

Learning Design Thinking

Design thinking is an extension of innovation that allows you to design solutions for end users with a single problem statement in mind. It not only imparts valuable skills but can help advance your career.

It’s also a collaborative endeavor that can only be mastered through practice with peers. As Datar says in the introduction to Design Thinking and Innovation : “Just as with learning how to swim, the best way to practice is to jump in and try.”

If you want to learn design thinking, take an active role in your education. Start polls, problem-solving exercises, and debates with peers to get a taste of the process. It’s also important to seek out diverse viewpoints to prepare yourself for the business world.

In addition, if you’re considering adding design thinking to your skill set, think about your goals and why you want to learn about it. What else might you need to be successful?

You might consider developing your communication, innovation, leadership, research, and management skills, as those are often listed alongside design thinking in job postings and professional profiles.

You may also notice skills like agile methodology, user experience, and prototyping in job postings, along with non-design skills, such as product management, strategic planning, and new product development.

Is Design Thinking Right for You?

There are many ways to approach problem-solving and innovation. Design thinking is just one of them. While it’s beneficial to learn how others have approached problems and evaluate if you have the same tools at your disposal, it can be more important to chart your own course to deliver what users and customers truly need.

You can also pursue an online course or workshop that dives deeper into design thinking methodology. This can be a practical path if you want to improve your design thinking skills or require a more collaborative environment.

Are you ready to develop your design thinking skills? Explore our online course Design Thinking and Innovation to discover how to leverage fundamental design thinking principles and innovative problem-solving tools to address business challenges.

About the Author

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

How can we preserve human ability in the age of machines?

Want to invest wisely? Check your prior beliefs at the door

The AI Playbook: 6 steps for launching predictive AI projects

Credit: Mimi Phan

Ideas Made to Matter

Design thinking, explained

Rebecca Linke

Sep 14, 2017

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills.The approach has been around for decades, but it only started gaining traction outside of the design community after the 2008 Harvard Business Review article [subscription required] titled “Design Thinking” by Tim Brown, CEO and president of design company IDEO.

Since then, the design thinking process has been applied to developing new products and services, and to a whole range of problems, from creating a business model for selling solar panels in Africa to the operation of Airbnb .

At a high level, the steps involved in the design thinking process are simple: first, fully understand the problem; second, explore a wide range of possible solutions; third, iterate extensively through prototyping and testing; and finally, implement through the customary deployment mechanisms. 

The skills associated with these steps help people apply creativity to effectively solve real-world problems better than they otherwise would. They can be readily learned, but take effort. For instance, when trying to understand a problem, setting aside your own preconceptions is vital, but it’s hard.

Creative brainstorming is necessary for developing possible solutions, but many people don’t do it particularly well. And throughout the process it is critical to engage in modeling, analysis, prototyping, and testing, and to really learn from these many iterations.

Once you master the skills central to the design thinking approach, they can be applied to solve problems in daily life and any industry.

Here’s what you need to know to get started.

Understand the problem 

The first step in design thinking is to understand the problem you are trying to solve before searching for solutions. Sometimes, the problem you need to address is not the one you originally set out to tackle.

“Most people don’t make much of an effort to explore the problem space before exploring the solution space,” said MIT Sloan professor Steve Eppinger. The mistake they make is to try and empathize, connecting the stated problem only to their own experiences. This falsely leads to the belief that you completely understand the situation. But the actual problem is always broader, more nuanced, or different than people originally assume.

Take the example of a meal delivery service in Holstebro, Denmark. When a team first began looking at the problem of poor nutrition and malnourishment among the elderly in the city, many of whom received meals from the service, it thought that simply updating the menu options would be a sufficient solution. But after closer observation, the team realized the scope of the problem was much larger , and that they would need to redesign the entire experience, not only for those receiving the meals, but for those preparing the meals as well. While the company changed almost everything about itself, including rebranding as The Good Kitchen, the most important change the company made when rethinking its business model was shifting how employees viewed themselves and their work. That, in turn, helped them create better meals (which were also drastically changed), yielding happier, better nourished customers.

Involve users

Imagine you are designing a new walker for rehabilitation patients and the elderly, but you have never used one. Could you fully understand what customers need? Certainly not, if you haven’t extensively observed and spoken with real customers. There is a reason that design thinking is often referred to as human-centered design.

“You have to immerse yourself in the problem,” Eppinger said.

How do you start to understand how to build a better walker? When a team from MIT’s Integrated Design and Management program together with the design firm Altitude took on that task, they met with walker users to interview them, observe them, and understand their experiences.  

“We center the design process on human beings by understanding their needs at the beginning, and then include them throughout the development and testing process,” Eppinger said.

Central to the design thinking process is prototyping and testing (more on that later) which allows designers to try, to fail, and to learn what works. Testing also involves customers, and that continued involvement provides essential user feedback on potential designs and use cases. If the MIT-Altitude team studying walkers had ended user involvement after its initial interviews, it would likely have ended up with a walker that didn’t work very well for customers. 

It is also important to interview and understand other stakeholders, like people selling the product, or those who are supporting the users throughout the product life cycle.

The second phase of design thinking is developing solutions to the problem (which you now fully understand). This begins with what most people know as brainstorming.

Hold nothing back during brainstorming sessions — except criticism. Infeasible ideas can generate useful solutions, but you’d never get there if you shoot down every impractical idea from the start.

“One of the key principles of brainstorming is to suspend judgment,” Eppinger said. “When we're exploring the solution space, we first broaden the search and generate lots of possibilities, including the wild and crazy ideas. Of course, the only way we're going to build on the wild and crazy ideas is if we consider them in the first place.”

That doesn’t mean you never judge the ideas, Eppinger said. That part comes later, in downselection. “But if we want 100 ideas to choose from, we can’t be very critical.”

In the case of The Good Kitchen, the kitchen employees were given new uniforms. Why? Uniforms don’t directly affect the competence of the cooks or the taste of the food.

But during interviews conducted with kitchen employees, designers realized that morale was low, in part because employees were bored preparing the same dishes over and over again, in part because they felt that others had a poor perception of them. The new, chef-style uniforms gave the cooks a greater sense of pride. It was only part of the solution, but if the idea had been rejected outright, or perhaps not even suggested, the company would have missed an important aspect of the solution.

Prototype and test. Repeat.

You’ve defined the problem. You’ve spoken to customers. You’ve brainstormed, come up with all sorts of ideas, and worked with your team to boil those ideas down to the ones you think may actually solve the problem you’ve defined.

“We don’t develop a good solution just by thinking about a list of ideas, bullet points and rough sketches,” Eppinger said. “We explore potential solutions through modeling and prototyping. We design, we build, we test, and repeat — this design iteration process is absolutely critical to effective design thinking.”

Repeating this loop of prototyping, testing, and gathering user feedback is crucial for making sure the design is right — that is, it works for customers, you can build it, and you can support it.

“After several iterations, we might get something that works, we validate it with real customers, and we often find that what we thought was a great solution is actually only just OK. But then we can make it a lot better through even just a few more iterations,” Eppinger said.

Implementation

The goal of all the steps that come before this is to have the best possible solution before you move into implementing the design. Your team will spend most of its time, its money, and its energy on this stage.

“Implementation involves detailed design, training, tooling, and ramping up. It is a huge amount of effort, so get it right before you expend that effort,” said Eppinger.

Design thinking isn’t just for “things.” If you are only applying the approach to physical products, you aren’t getting the most out of it. Design thinking can be applied to any problem that needs a creative solution. When Eppinger ran into a primary school educator who told him design thinking was big in his school, Eppinger thought he meant that they were teaching students the tenets of design thinking.

“It turns out they meant they were using design thinking in running their operations and improving the school programs. It’s being applied everywhere these days,” Eppinger said.

In another example from the education field, Peruvian entrepreneur Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor hired design consulting firm IDEO to redesign every aspect of the learning experience in a network of schools in Peru. The ultimate goal? To elevate Peru’s middle class.

As you’d expect, many large corporations have also adopted design thinking. IBM has adopted it at a company-wide level, training many of its nearly 400,000 employees in design thinking principles .

What can design thinking do for your business?

The impact of all the buzz around design thinking today is that people are realizing that “anybody who has a challenge that needs creative problem solving could benefit from this approach,” Eppinger said. That means that managers can use it, not only to design a new product or service, “but anytime they’ve got a challenge, a problem to solve.”

Applying design thinking techniques to business problems can help executives across industries rethink their product offerings, grow their markets, offer greater value to customers, or innovate and stay relevant. “I don’t know industries that can’t use design thinking,” said Eppinger.

Ready to go deeper?

Read “ The Designful Company ” by Marty Neumeier, a book that focuses on how businesses can benefit from design thinking, and “ Product Design and Development ,” co-authored by Eppinger, to better understand the detailed methods.

Register for an MIT Sloan Executive Education course:

Systematic Innovation of Products, Processes, and Services , a five-day course taught by Eppinger and other MIT professors.

• Leadership by Design: Innovation Process and Culture , a two-day course taught by MIT Integrated Design and Management director Matthew Kressy.
• Managing Complex Technical Projects , a two-day course taught by Eppinger.
• Apply for M astering Design Thinking , a 3-month online certificate course taught by Eppinger and MIT Sloan senior lecturers Renée Richardson Gosline and David Robertson.

Steve Eppinger is a professor of management science and innovation at MIT Sloan. He holds the General Motors Leaders for Global Operations Chair and has a PhD from MIT in engineering. He is the faculty co-director of MIT's System Design and Management program and Integrated Design and Management program, both master’s degrees joint between the MIT Sloan and Engineering schools. His research focuses on product development and technical project management, and has been applied to improving complex engineering processes in many industries.

Read next: 10 agile ideas worth sharing

Related Articles

What is design thinking?

Design and conquer: in years past, the word “design” might have conjured images of expensive handbags or glossy coffee table books. Now, your mind might go straight to business. Design and design thinking are buzzing in the business community more than ever. Until now, design has focused largely on how something looks; these days, it’s a dynamic idea used to describe how organizations can adjust their problem-solving approaches to respond to rapidly changing environments—and create maximum impact and shareholder value. Design is a journey and a destination. Design thinking is a core way of starting the journey and arriving at the right destination at the right time.

Simply put, “design thinking is a methodology that we use to solve complex problems , and it’s a way of using systemic reasoning and intuition to explore ideal future states,” says McKinsey partner Jennifer Kilian. Design thinking, she continues, is “the single biggest competitive advantage that you can have, if your customers are loyal to you—because if you solve for their needs first, you’ll always win.”

Get to know and directly engage with senior McKinsey experts on design thinking

Tjark Freundt is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Hamburg office, Tomas Nauclér is a senior partner in the Stockholm office, Daniel Swan is a senior partner in the Stamford office, Warren Teichner is a senior partner in the New York office, Bill Wiseman is a senior partner in the Seattle office, and Kai Vollhardt is a senior partner in the Munich office.

And good design is good business. Kilian’s claim is backed up with data: McKinsey Design’s 2018 Business value of design report  found that the best design performers increase their revenues  and investor returns at nearly twice the rate of their industry competitors. What’s more, over a ten-year period, design-led companies outperformed  the S&P 500 by 219 percent.

As you may have guessed by now, design thinking goes way beyond just the way something looks. And incorporating design thinking into your business is more than just creating a design studio and hiring designers. Design thinking means fundamentally changing how you develop your products, services, and, indeed, your organization itself.

Read on for a deep dive into the theory and practice of design thinking.

Learn more about McKinsey’s Design Practice , and check out McKinsey’s latest Business value of design report here .

How do companies build a design-driven company culture?

There’s more to succeeding in business than developing a great product or service that generates a financial return. Empathy and purpose are core business needs. Design thinking means putting customers, employees, and the planet at the center of problem solving.

McKinsey’s Design Practice has learned that design-led organizations start with design-driven cultures. Here are four steps  to building success through the power of design:

Understand your audience. Design-driven companies go beyond asking what customers and employees want, to truly understanding why they want it. Frequently, design-driven companies will turn to cultural anthropologists and ethnographers to drill down into how their customers use and experience products, including what motivates them and what turns them away.

Makeup retailer Sephora provides an example. When marketing leaders actually watched  shoppers using the Sephora website, they realized customers would frequently go to YouTube to watch videos of people using products before making a purchase. Using this information, the cosmetics retailer developed its own line of demonstration videos, keeping shoppers on the site and therefore more likely to make a purchase.

• Bring design to the executive table. This leader can be a chief design officer, a chief digital officer, or a chief marketing officer. Overall, this executive should be the best advocate for the company’s customers and employees, bringing the point of view of the people, the planet, and the company’s purpose into strategic business decisions. The design lead should also build bridges between multiple functions and stakeholders, bringing various groups into the design iteration process.
• Design in real time. To understand how and why people—both customers and employees—use processes, products, or services, organizations should develop a three-pronged design-thinking model that combines design, business strategy, and technology. This approach allows business leaders to spot trends, cocreate using feedback and data, prototype, validate, and build governance models for ongoing investment.

Act quickly. Good design depends on agility. That means getting a product to users quickly, then iterating based on customer feedback. In a design-driven culture, companies aren’t afraid to release products that aren’t quite perfect. Designers know there is no end to the design process. The power of design, instead, lies in the ability to adopt and adapt as needs change. When designers are embedded within teams, they are uniquely positioned to gather and digest feedback, which can lead to unexpected revelations. Ultimately, this approach creates more impactful and profitable results than following a prescribed path.

Consider Instagram. Having launched an initial product in 2010, Instagram’s founders paid attention to what the most popular features were: image sharing, commenting, and liking. They relaunched with a stripped-down version a few months later, resulting in 100,000 downloads in less than a week and over two million users in under two months —all without any strategic promotion.

Learn more about McKinsey’s Design Practice .

What’s the relationship between user-centered design and design thinking?

Both processes are design led. And they both emphasize listening to and deeply understanding users and continually gathering and implementing feedback to develop, refine, and improve a service.

Where they are different is scale. User-centered design focuses on improving a specific product or service . Design thinking takes a broader view  as a way to creatively address complex problems—whether for a start-up, a large organization, or society as a whole.

User-centered design is great for developing a fantastic product or service. In the past, a company could coast on a superior process or product for years before competitors caught up. But now, as digitization drives more frequent and faster disruptions, users demand a dynamic mix of product and service. Emphasis has shifted firmly away  from features and functions toward purpose, lifestyle, and simplicity of use.

Introducing McKinsey Explainers : Direct answers to complex questions

McKinsey analysis has found that some industries—such as telecommunications, automotive, and consumer product companies— have already made strides toward combining product and service into a unified customer experience . Read on for concrete examples of how companies have applied design thinking to offer innovative—and lucrative—customer experiences.

Learn more about our Operations Practice .

What is the design-thinking process?

McKinsey analysis has shown that the design-thinking approach creates more value  than conventional approaches. The right design at the right price point spurs sustainability and resilience in a demonstrable way—a key driver of growth.

According to McKinsey’s Design  Practice, there are two key steps to the design-thinking process:

• Developing an understanding of behavior and needs that goes beyond what people are doing right now to what they will need in the future and how to deliver that. The best way to develop this understanding is to spend time with people.
• “Concepting,” iterating, and testing . First start with pen and paper, sketching out concepts. Then quickly put these into rough prototypes—with an emphasis on quickly. Get feedback, refine, and test again. As American chemist Linus Pauling said : “The way to get good ideas is to get lots of ideas and throw the bad ones away.”

What is D4VG versus DTV?

For more than a decade, manufacturers have used a design-to-value (DTV) model  to design and release products that have the features needed to be competitive at a low cost. During this time, DTV efforts were groundbreaking because they were based on data rather than experience. They also reached across functions, in contrast to the typical value-engineering approach.

The principles of DTV have evolved into design for value and growth (D4VG), a new way of creating products that provide exceptional customer experiences while driving both value and growth. Done right, D4VG efforts generate products with the features, form, and functionality that turn users into loyal fans .

D4VG products can cost more to build, but they can ultimately raise margins by delivering on a clear understanding of a product’s core brand attributes, insights into people’s motivations, and design thinking.

Learn more about our Consumer Packaged Goods Practice .

What is design for sustainability?

As consumers, companies, and regulators shift toward increased sustainability, design processes are coming under even more scrutiny. The challenge is that carbon-efficient production processes tend to be more complex and can require more carbon-intensive materials. The good news is that an increased focus on design for sustainability (DFS), especially at the research and development stage , can help mitigate some of these inefficiencies and ultimately create even more sustainable products.

For example, the transition from internal-combustion engines to electric-propulsion vehicles  has highlighted emissions-intensive automobile production processes. One study found that around 20 percent of the carbon generated by a diesel vehicle comes from its production . If the vehicle ran on only renewable energy, production emissions would account for 85 percent of the total. With more sustainable design, electric-vehicle (EV) manufacturers stand to reduce the lifetime emissions of their products significantly.

To achieve design for sustainability at scale, companies can address three interrelated elements at the R&D stage:

• rethinking the way their products use resources, adapting them to changing regulations, adopting principles of circularity, and making use of customer insights
• understanding and tracking emissions and cost impact of design decisions in support of sustainability goals
• fostering the right mindsets and capabilities to integrate sustainability into every product and design decision

What is ‘skinny design’?

Skinny design is a less theoretical aspect of design thinking. It’s a method whereby consumer goods companies reassess the overall box size of products by reducing the total cubic volume of the package. According to McKinsey analysis , this can improve overall business performance in the following ways:

• Top-line growth of 4 to 5 percent through improvements in shelf and warehouse holding power. The ability to fit more stock into warehouses ultimately translates to growth.
• Bottom-line growth of more than 10 percent . Packing more product into containers and trucks creates the largest savings. Other cost reductions can come from designing packaging to minimize the labor required and facilitate automation.
• Sustainability improvements associated with reductions in carbon emissions through less diesel fuel burned per unit. Material choices can also confer improvements to the overall footprint.

Read more about skinny design and how it can help maximize the volume of consumer products that make it onto shelves.

Learn more about McKinsey’s Operations Practice .

How can a company become a top design performer?

The average person’s standard for design is higher than ever. Good design is no longer just a nice-to-have for a company. Customers now have extremely high expectations for design, whether it’s customer service, instant access to information, or clever products that are also aesthetically relevant in the current culture.

McKinsey tracked the design practices of 300 publicly listed companies  over a five-year period in multiple countries. Advanced regression analysis of more than two million pieces of financial data and more than 100,000 design actions revealed 12 actions most correlated to improved financial performance. These were then clustered into the following four themes:

• Analytical leadership . For the best financial performers, design is a top management issue , and design performance is assessed with the same rigor these companies use to approach revenue and cost. The companies with the top financial returns have combined design and business leadership through bold, design-centric visions. These include a commitment to maintain a baseline level of customer understanding among all executives. The CEO of one of the world’s largest banks, for example, spends one day a month with the bank’s clients and encourages all members of the company’s C-suite to do the same.
• Cross-functional talent . Top-performing companies make user-centric design everyone’s responsibility, not a siloed function. Companies whose designers are embedded within cross-functional teams have better overall business performance . Further, the alignment of design metrics with functional business metrics (such as financial performance, user adoption rates, and satisfaction results) is also correlated to better business performance.
• Design with people, not for people . Design flourishes best, according to our research, in environments that encourage learning, testing, and iterating with users . These practices increase the odds of creating breakthrough products and services, while at the same time reducing the risk of costly missteps.
• User experience (UX) . Top-quartile companies embrace the full user experience  by taking a broad-based view of where design can make a difference. Design approaches like mapping customer journeys can lead to more inclusive and sustainable solutions.

What are some real-world examples of how design thinking can improve efficiency and user experience?

Understanding the theory of design thinking is one thing. Seeing it work in practice is something else. Here are some examples of how elegant design created value for customers, a company, and shareholders:

• Stockholm’s international airport, Arlanda, used design thinking to address its air-traffic-control problem. The goal was to create a system that would make air traffic safer and more effective. By understanding the tasks and challenges of the air-traffic controllers, then collaboratively working on prototypes and iterating based on feedback, a working group was able to design a new departure-sequencing tool  that helped air-traffic controllers do their jobs better. The new system greatly reduced the amount of time planes spent between leaving the terminal and being in the air, which in turn helped reduce fuel consumption.
• When Tesla creates its electric vehicles , the company closely considers not only aesthetics but also the overall driving experience .
• The consumer electronics industry has a long history of dramatic evolutions lead by design thinking. Since Apple debuted the iPhone in 2007, for example, each new generation has seen additional features, new customers, and lower costs—all driven by design-led value creation .

Learn more about our Consumer Packaged Goods  and Sustainability  Practices.

For a more in-depth exploration of these topics, see McKinsey’s Agile Organizations collection. Learn more about our Design Practice —and check out design-thinking-related job opportunities if you’re interested in working at McKinsey.

Articles referenced:

• “ Skinny design: Smaller is better ,” April 26, 2022, Dave Fedewa , Daniel Swan , Warren Teichner , and Bill Wiseman
• “ Product sustainability: Back to the drawing board ,” February 7, 2022, Stephan Fuchs, Stephan Mohr , Malin Orebäck, and Jan Rys
• “ Emerging from COVID-19: Australians embrace their values ,” May 11, 2020, Lloyd Colling, Rod Farmer , Jenny Child, Dan Feldman, and Jean-Baptiste Coumau
• “ The business value of design ,” McKinsey Quarterly , October 25, 2018, Benedict Sheppard , Hugo Sarrazin, Garen Kouyoumjian, and Fabricio Dore
• “ More than a feeling: Ten design practices to deliver business value ,” December 8, 2017, Benedict Sheppard , John Edson, and Garen Kouyoumjian
• “ Creating value through sustainable design ,” July 25, 2017, Sara Andersson, David Crafoord, and Tomas Nauclér
• “ The expanding role of design in creating an end-to-end customer experience ,” June 6, 2017, Raffaele Breschi, Tjark Freundt , Malin Orebäck, and Kai Vollhardt
• “ Design for value and growth in a new world ,” April 13, 2017, Ankur Agrawal , Mark Dziersk, Dave Subburaj, and Kieran West
• “ The power of design thinking ,” March 1, 2016, Jennifer Kilian , Hugo Sarrazin, and Barr Seitz
• “ Building a design-driven culture ,” September 1, 2015, Jennifer Kilian , Hugo Sarrazin, and Hyo Yeon

Want to know more about design thinking?

Related articles.

Skinny design: Smaller is better

The business value of design

More than a feeling: Ten design practices to deliver business value

• marianappineda
• 27 abr 2018
• 9 Min. de lectura

Design Thinking Reflective Essay

Actualizado: 15 feb 2020

The first part of our Design Thinking module was to learn about different theories and how to apply to our different projects. I started to think about design thinking even for my life sometimes. It has been a trend for the past few years and as Hagerman (2017) points out, it has been implemented in all kinds of organisations and even governments.

Design thinking focuses on the user rather than only focusing on the product or service you want to create. It talks about the problem and as Stickdorn (2011) says it focuses on providing a benefit to the user and its needs. This was a key insight I learned in this module. It’s all about empathy.

When we started last year, one of our first activities was to create a product (shoe) that fits the needs of our users. We went around the university and tried to understand what our customers wanted and why they chose the shoe they did that day. We tried to emphasise with them, we tried to understand their stories. And that’s what design thinking is all about. Seeing a problem and trying to solve it, the end product or service is just the last part, the most important part is trying to create something that would be useful to someone.

But how do you understand someone’s problem? Or how do you see a problem around? We go through many different problems and challenges every day. And we solve most of them every day. The value is in realising that we can create something that can help people make their lives easier. Sounds simple but it’s actually not.

There are several ways of understanding the needs of a user. Using empathy as our base we can observe our users, just like we did with the shoe project, and see what their needs are. Then we need to test our product and to do that we first need to create a Minimum Viable Product (Ries, 2011). This MVP needs to be functional enough to take it to the market and test it. Before that we need to do several prototypes to iterate if it needs to. But the main thing is to start creating and testing. Because usually you will fail. But it’s better to fail fast so you can learn. Kelley and Kelley (2015) believe that we can learn from every challenge and every problem in front of us. They also state that every person can be creative if we give them the freedom to be. But as we are free to be creative we also need to be free to fail. And it’s from some of our greatest failures that we learn the most.

It was time to experience it ourselves. We had to come up with a product or service and create our first start-up in groups. Our group, consisting of five very creative women, coming from dance, design, film and marketing world decided that we wanted to do a service. One that had to do with performing arts and making a change in society.

We started brainstorming and came up with a socially conscious theatre based company. It all sounded great, we had the skills and the experience, as well as the passion for it. Then we were asked in class to create a Business Model Canvas. According to Osterwalder (2017), creator of the Business Model Canvas, the reason why startups fail is because of a lack of a viable business model. In order to see if your idea is good or not, you need to create a business model. Then, you need to test it and change your business model if necessary.

The Business Model Canvas helps you take a deep look at your product or service and identify the benefits of it. Only after creating it we started to see the flaws and the pros, as well as the value of the business itself.

What we realised is that maybe our service was a B to B instead of a B to C. But also that we were thinking of what we wanted to do but we were not necessarily solving any problems. So, instead of thinking about a problem first, we thought about what we thought was a good idea. We were not using the lean start-up method on thinking about the customer and the problem first. Luckily, we realised this as soon as we starting developing our business model canvas. Then, it was time to pivot, before we even started.

After this failed attempt. As we worked as a team and realised our first idea was not going to be viable and that we needed to pivot. We used several methods of design thinking like brainstorming, observation, prototyping. We decided to look at problems in our own lives. Things we face every day. During brainstorming, grocery shopping was a big topic among ourselves. Specially here in the UK, where they are trying to reduce the use of plastic bags, we thought we could do something about it. It’s not much about how we need to pay every time we want a bag but what we do with those bags after that. We accumulate and throw them. And then? They stay in the environment. And actually, plastic takes 500-700 years to deteriorate. It also damages the water and animals living in it. We are really harming our planet.

The UK decided to take action about this problem. In 2015, retailers started charging for bags being used. Research from Gov.UK (2015) show that people already have at least 40 bags around the house. This research also shows that “7.6 billion single-use plastic bags were given to customers by major supermarkets in England. That’s something like 140 bags per person”. After this was implemented, last year, the number went down to 2.1 billion bags (GOV.UK, 2018).

When we looked at this numbers we thought there was a gap there. We know there are reusable bags out there. But sometimes when we go shopping we need more than one bag. We also want to separate our cleaning products from produce. And we also wanted to do something that helped the environment not harm more. That is how after a lot of talking and researching about what was our there in the market we came up with the idea of Edamame Pod: a three in one reusable shopping bag .

The name Edamame Pod came from the fact that our product has three bags in one, just like Edamame. We tried to stay focused on the customers and the problems they faced in order to move forward this time.

We created a sketch to show what our product would look like. It was also time to prepare our pitch for our first Dragon’s Den. We realised that our product was difficult to understand at first. So we decided to create a prototype with paper and plastic just to show what it could look like.

For our pitch in front of judges and classmates we chose to do a short role-play first. This would demonstrate what our problem and who our customers where in an interesting and fun way. This was very well received and it demonstrated how we were solving a problem.

After this first phase, we needed to move forward. We needed to figure our pricing, materials and target market. Here is where the struggle begins. We had many problems when trying to move past this first stage.

When you have five very strong people in a group that care about their business is great, it is also hard to agree on something. We had our first trade fair in school and we had to start thinking about marketing and product. We didn’t agree yet on how our pod would be made and which material. So we decided to create another prototype. A smaller one that would fit in a pocket. People seemed to really like it. We also decided for our marketing to match our cause, sustainability. We used recycled bags to make signs and tried to keep it as lean as possible.

Looking back now, I think doing the prototype again with materials that were not going to be real was a mistake. It was one of our failures that we learned from. It was really hard to go back and create something real that was as small as that. But if we wanted to stick to our idea of three bags in one, it was just not possible.

We also participated in Bright Ideas competition. We had a whole weekend of workshop where we changed our business plan, learned about marketing and pitch our ideas. It was fun and specially engaging to hear other people’s ideas with such enthusiasm. It gave us a little push to keep going.

Our next step was looking at materials and finding a manufacturer. We started researching manufacturers here in the UK as well as abroad. But we weren’t sure about the material yet. This took longer than we expected. Reflecting on that now, it would have been helpful to set deadlines and goals we had to achieve at certain times. This would have given us a better management of time and resources. We weren’t really dividing chores either, which made it much more complicated to achieve something.

After a very interesting class on materials we “fell in love” with cork fabric. Cork is considered highly sustainable as the tree is not cut down to produce the material. The cork bark sheds naturally and has no effect on the tree itself. Benefits of this eco-friendly fabric include, being naturally water resistant, light weight and durable. We decided to use a button made from coconut shell.

Our first idea was to use a completely sustainable material like cork for the bags inside. The problem we encounter was our price would go up a lot and it would not allow us to make a profit. We were also struggling to find a manufacturer within the time frame we had. We decided to order cotton reusable bags and put our little touch on them.

Our great designer, Apeksha, created some images to put on our bags to give a unique touch. We also got in contact with someone from the fashion school and got her to help us manufacture the outside of the pod. The actual product was now much bigger than we intended. So our first proposition of creating something that you could carry in your pocket was not true anymore. We also wanted to solve the problem of forgetting shopping bags which now didn’t make sense since the pod was much bigger.

When some of our team members were working on the product others were working on marketing and branding. We created a website and all of our social media. We decided to focus on the cause at hand. By creating awareness about climate change, sustainability and the effect of plastic in our environment, we managed to attract people interested in these topics. Instead of focusing on the product we were selling we focused on the problem we were solving and the cause we were backing. And that was one of our best decisions.

It was finally time to show our product to the world. We had another trade fair, this time outside school. The only problem was, it was one of the coldest days of the year and it was snowing heavily. Even though we didn’t get many people at the trade fair it was fun to pitch to a new audience in the “real world” and to show our product.

Our last trade fair came along and we were much more comfortable with our sales pitch and with approaching clients. We also had a final celebration and awards ceremony organised by Enterprise! To our complete surprise, we won two prizes! Best trade stand and best sales pitch. It was a great recognition for all these months of hard work.

I feel extremely proud of our team. Even though we had struggles we were able to learn fast and change. We were able to adapt and we always worked hard in order to get to our goals. It was not an easy ride but it was worth it. We learned so much about team work, time management, short and long term goals as well as empathy. Not only with our users but within our company. It was a great experience and all the learning I will take it to my next ventures.

David Kelley (2012) says that in order to have creative confidence we need to turn fear into a familiar feeling. What he means is that we do not need to be afraid to fail. I think all these little failures that we had throughout the year gave us the opportunity to grow and learn fast. This gave us confidence in ourselves to try anything we want even though we might fail. If we don’t try, we would also not be able to succeed.

References:

Blank, S. (2013) ‘Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything’ , Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-the-lean-start-up-changes-everything (Accessed 10 January 2018).

Comi, A. (2017) ‘Starting Lean: MVP and Value Proposition’ [PowerPoint presentation]. BS7708: Design Thinking for Start-Ups. Available at: https://canvas.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 10 January 2018).

Fabric Funhouse (2018). About Cork. Available at: https://fabricfunhouse.com/pages/about-cork-fabrics  (Accessed: 26 April 2018).

GOV.UK. (2015). Carrier bags: why there’s a charge. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/single-use-plastic-carrier-bags-why-were-introducing-the-charge/carrier-bags-why-theres-a-5p-charge (Accesed 26 April 2018).

GOV.UK. (2018). Single-use plastic carrier bags charge: data in England for 2016 to 2017. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrier-bag-charge-summary-of-data-in-england/single-use-plastic-carrier-bags-charge-data-in-england-for-2016-to-2017  (Accessed 27 Apr. 2018).

Hagerman, Andy (2017). Spotting the Patterns: 2017 Trends in Design Thinking.  Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/spotting_the_patterns_2017_trends_in_design_thinking (Accessed: 18 November 2017).

Harrison Metal (2016) Design Thinking 1: Empathy Based Prototyping. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_n2QEf-WiU (Accessed: 26 April 2018).

Kelley, D. (2012). How to build your creative confidence. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16p9YRF0l-g (Accessed: 26 April 2018).

Kelley, T., and Kelley, D. (2015). Creative confidence: unleashing the creative potential within us all. Harper Collins.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Yves, & Clark, Tim. (2010). Business model generation : A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers.  John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Osterwalder, A. Strategyzer. (2017). I deas Don’t Matter In Innovation & Entrepreneurship. Available at: http://blog.strategyzer.com/posts/2017/11/13/ideas-dont-matter-in-innovation-entrepreneurship (Accessed 22 Dec. 2017).

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup : How constant innovation creates radically successful businesses. London: Portfolio Penguin.

Stickdorn, M. et al. (2011). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011.

Strategyzer.com. (2017). Strategyzer | Canvases. Available at:  https://strategyzer.com/canvas  (Accessed 22 Dec. 2017).

#business #creativity #sustainability #ecofriendly #leanstartup

• Design Thinking for Start-Ups
• Creatividad

Entradas Recientes

La Mirada Femenina en el Audiovisual

Los Nuevos Cuentos de Hadas

2020: El año que paró el mundo pero llegó el futuro.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

25 Design Thinking Questions: What To Ask + Answer Examples

As Walter Isaacson, acclaimed biographer of creative genius Steve Jobs, emphasizes, “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” The pursuit of innovation in business is what sets leaders apart; it’s the driving force behind the transformation of customer experiences. Every innovation, every groundbreaking product, and every revolutionary service begins with a question. That’s where the journey of design thinking questions and the power of asking comes into play.

Design Thinking isn’t just a methodology but a culture, and it’s been the driving force behind many remarkable creations. And what fuels this culture is all about asking the right questions.

Although formalized in the 21st century, design thinking has deep roots in history. In the 1950s, brilliant minds at Stanford University were already exploring new ways to enhance creative thinking. The goal was simple: breaking free from conventional problem-solving strategies. Let’s jump now to the 21st century, where design thinking has become a structured methodology at the heart of many renowned organizations’ strategies, such as Apple, Google, and Amazon.

What Are Design Thinking Questions?

The journey of design thinking is underpinned by a singular philosophy: to understand a problem truly, you must question it thoroughly and empathize with its challenges. This is where design thinking questions come into play.

Design thinking questions are open-ended, thought-provoking inquiries to understand a problem’s depths. These questions don’t just scratch the surface; they delve into the heart of the matter, searching for insights, ideas, and opportunities. The true power of these questions lies in their ability to cultivate empathy , unlock creativity , and catalyze innovative solutions.

We put together a table showcasing the elements of good design thinking questions:

These elements guide the formulation of effective design thinking questions essential for uncovering insights, sparking innovation, and solving complex problems through a human-centered approach.

What Are the Questions of Design Thinking and Their Use?

Behind design thinking, there’s a series of carefully crafted questions, each designed to guide problem-solvers through the journey of creativity and innovation. These questions serve several vital functions like:

• Empathy Building: They encourage the development of empathy for the end-users or the people affected by the problem you’re solving. These questions put you in their shoes to truly understand their needs and desires.
• Problem Definition: The right questions help you accurately define the problem you’re dealing with. You uncover hidden issues and complexities by questioning the situation from different angles.
• Ideation: Design thinking questions stimulate ideation. They fuel creativity, inspire innovative ideas, and help teams think outside the box.
• Solution Validation: Once you’ve generated ideas and developed solutions, questions become tools for validating your concepts. They help you ensure that the proposed solutions indeed address the problem.
• Continuous Improvement: Design thinking questions don’t stop with the first solution. They play a crucial role in ongoing evaluation, helping you continuously refine and enhance your offerings.

What Are the Most Important Points of Design Thinking?

To truly grasp the essence of design thinking questions, consider these vital principles that underpin the whole approach:

• User-Centric Approach: Design thinking fundamentally addresses the end-users’ needs and desires. Your questions should revolve around understanding them, their challenges, and their aspirations.
• Iterative Process: Design thinking isn’t a linear journey; it’s a continuous loop of understanding, ideating, prototyping, and testing. Questions guide you through these iterations.
• Problem Framing: Before diving into solutions, design thinking encourages an in-depth understanding of the problem itself. Your questions should focus on framing the issue from multiple perspectives.
• Collaboration: Design thinking is a collaborative effort. The questions foster teamwork, bringing together diverse skills and perspectives.
• Prototype Testing: Questions are tools for validating prototypes. The process includes creating a basic version of the solution and testing it to gather feedback, which is then incorporated into improvements.

In summary, design thinking is an innovation-driven approach that thrives on customer empathy , problem-solving, and continuous improvement, all facilitated by thought-provoking, open-ended questions.

Design Thinking Question Types

Throughout the design thinking process, specific types of questions serve as guiding stars, illuminating the path to innovation and customer-centric solutions:

• These questions go beyond the surface, delving into the heart of the matter: the people. They invite you to walk in your end-users or stakeholders’ shoes, to see the world through their eyes. When you ask empathizing questions, you’re on a quest to truly understand their needs, desires, challenges, and aspirations. It’s about peeling back the layers and getting to the core of human experiences. With empathizing questions, you unlock the profound insights needed to create solutions that genuinely resonate with people.
• In the realm of design thinking, defining the problem is an art form. These questions are like the skilled strokes of a painter’s brush, meticulously crafting the contours of the challenge at hand. They prompt you to consider the subtle details, the shades of the issue that might have gone unnoticed. With problem definition questions, you frame the challenge with precision, ensuring you’re targeting the right problem—no more, no less. They provide the scaffolding for your entire creative process.
• If empathy questions allow you to understand, ideation questions inspire you to dream to explore the uncharted territories of imagination. They’re your passport to a realm where possibilities are endless, and conventional thinking takes a back seat. These questions aren’t just about generating ideas; they’re about opening the doors to unbridled creativity. Ideation questions are open-ended, enticing you to challenge the status quo and venture into the territory of “thinking outside the box.” In this realm, groundbreaking ideas are born.
• You have ideas—bold, innovative, and possibly game-changing. But how do you know which ones have the potential to revolutionize your industry? That’s where validation questions come into play. They are the litmus test, the rigorous assessment that ensures your solutions are on target. Validation questions are the guardians of practicality, making certain that your ideas are not just impressive on paper but feasible in the real world. They help you confirm that the proposed solutions genuinely address the problem and, most importantly, the needs of your users.
• Once your solution is out in the wild, your journey doesn’t end; it transforms into an ongoing quest for refinement and enhancement. Iterative questions are the driving force behind this evolution. They encourage you to listen, learn, and adapt. With these questions, you delve into the feedback, data, and user experiences. You ask what’s working, what’s not, and most crucially, how you can make it better. Iterative questions are the engines of continuous improvement, enabling you to evolve your solutions harmoniously with the ever-changing landscape of customer needs and market dynamics.

With this arsenal of questions, design thinking becomes a powerful vehicle for innovation and transformation, propelling your organization to new heights of customer satisfaction and competitive success.

Design Thinking Success Examples

The impact of design thinking questions is most evident in the real-world examples of companies and organizations that have successfully employed this approach.

• Apple: One of the pioneers in using design thinking, Apple applies this philosophy from product design to the customer experience. They frequently ask empathizing questions like, “ How can we make the iPhone experience even more intuitive? “
• Google: Google’s work culture revolves around creative problem-solving. Their teams use ideation questions such as, “ What are new ways to simplify complex data access for users? “
• Amazon: Amazon applies design thinking to enhance its customer service and satisfaction. Questions like, “How can we make the customer’s online shopping experience more seamless and enjoyable? ” drive their innovation.
• IDEO: A global design consultancy, IDEO, is renowned for its design thinking expertise. They ask many problem definition questions to deeply understand various challenges before proposing solutions.

Free Template: 25 Design Thinking Questions (with Answer Examples)

Design thinking questions with example hypothetical answers:

Feel free to adapt these questions to your specific design thinking project and use them as a starting point for your journey into innovative problem-solving and product development.

Design Thinking Questions with QuestionPro

Integrating QuestionPro into your design thinking process can be a game-changer. Our suite of tools and solutions empowers you to formulate the right design thinking questions, collect valuable feedback, and convert insights into actionable strategies.

Whether you’re looking to enhance your product, service, or overall customer experience, our platform offers:

• Survey Design: Create custom surveys tailored to your design thinking needs with our intuitive survey builder.
• Feedback Collection: Gather feedback and responses effectively from diverse sources, from customers to employees.
• Data Analysis: Utilize advanced analytics to decipher the insights gained from your design thinking questions.
• Actionable Insights: Transform insights into actionable strategies for innovation and continuous improvement.

Design thinking questions are the compass guiding you through the intricate terrain of innovation. They empower you to understand, define, ideate, validate, and improve solutions.

When harnessed effectively, these questions can unlock a world of creativity and set your organization on a path to lasting success. So, embark on this journey with the right questions, and remember, innovation is just a question away.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Feedback Loop: What It Is, Types & How It Works?

Jun 21, 2024

QuestionPro Thrive: A Space to Visualize & Share the Future of Technology

Jun 18, 2024

Relationship NPS Fails to Understand Customer Experiences — Tuesday CX

CX Platform: Top 13 CX Platforms to Drive Customer Success

Jun 17, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

What Is the Design Thinking Process? The 5 Steps Complete Guide

If you’ve heard of Design Thinking, you may know that it’s an ideology concerned with solving complex problems in a creative, user-centric way. But what does Design Thinking look like in action? What does the process actually entail?

In this guide, we’ll tell you everything you need to know about the Design Thinking process —including where it comes from, why it’s so valuable, and what it’s used for. We’ll then explore the five stages of the Design Thinking process in detail.

We’ve divided our guide into the following sections. Feel free to skip ahead using the clickable menu!

• What is the Design Thinking process?
• What is the value of the Design Thinking process?
• How can I learn Design Thinking?

Ready to learn all about the Design Thinking process? Let’s go.

1. What is the Design Thinking process?

Before we can understand the Design Thinking process, it’s important to get to grips with the ideology behind it—that is, Design Thinking.

In simple terms, Design Thinking is a methodology that aims to tackle highly complex problems.

Complex problems—otherwise known as “wicked” problems— are those that are difficult to define and cannot be solved using standard methods and approaches. They are the opposite of “tame” problems, which can be solved by applying a tried-and-tested algorithm or logic. Let’s explore wicked vs. tame problems in more detail now.

Wicked vs. tame problems

Let’s imagine you’re holding a dinner party for six people. You’ve picked out a recipe for potato soup and you’ve bought all the necessary ingredients.

At the last minute, one of your guests asks if they can bring three friends along; you now need enough potato soup for nine people! Fortunately, this problem is easily solved—you’ll simply multiply the quantities of each ingredient on the recipe in order to make more soup.

This is an example of a tame problem. Based on what you know about cooking, and by applying some simple math, you are quickly able to find a solution. Wicked problems, on the other hand, have no known solution or algorithm. In fact, the more you try to solve a wicked problem, the more problems you expose!

Unlike our “tame” dinner party conundrum, wicked problems don’t have a final solution. Things like climate change, poverty, and world hunger are often-cited examples of wicked problems; they need to be tackled from multiple angles, and rather than looking for a single answer, they require a response that anticipates how the problem might evolve and mutate.

Wicked problems are everywhere in business, too.

Whether it’s reinventing an entire business model, trying to maintain your startup culture as the business grows, working out how to please a new customer group, or resolving conflict between different departments—none of these scenarios has a simple, tried-and-tested solution. They are complex, wicked problems that require Design Thinking !

Design Thinking fosters an outside-the-box approach, with a huge emphasis on creativity, innovation, and the needs of the user. The Design Thinking process is used to apply the Design Thinking ideology to real-world, wicked problems. It offers a solution-based approach to problem-solving.

Unlike problem-based thinking, which tends to fixate on obstacles and limitations, the Design Thinking process is all about outcomes. It provides a non-linear series of steps that you can follow to come up with innovative, actionable ideas.

You can learn more about solution-based vs. problem-based thinking in our comprehensive guide to Design Thinking .

Now we know what kinds of wicked problems we’re up against, let’s see what the Design Thinking process looks like in action.

The Design Thinking process in action

In the following video, design expert and mentor Camren Browne gives a beginner-friendly introduction to the design thinking process:

This list of five big organizations winning with Design Thinking explains how companies such as iBM, MassMutual, and Fidelity are “drawing on design thinking frameworks to jolt innovative ideas” and “drive bottom-line business outcomes.”

The Design Thinking workshop

One way to apply the Design Thinking process is through a Design Thinking workshop .

If you have a specific problem you want to tackle, a dedicated workshop will take you through each step of the Design Thinking process—from building empathy and defining the problem right through to prototyping and testing ideas—usually over the course of a few days or a week.

As a designer, you might invite your colleagues from other departments to harness a diversity of ideas. Design Thinking workshops aren’t just for designers, though; all teams can use and benefit from this creative approach to problem-solving.

Aside from dedicated workshops, Design Thinking can also be an embedded process—an overarching framework that informs how you make decisions and devise certain strategies.

Rather than going through the entire Design Thinking cycle in one sitting, you might choose to focus on just one element—such as getting to know your target audience (be it external customers or internal stakeholders) or conducting user tests.

In this sense, the Design Thinking process can be used to build a general culture that emphasizes putting the user first, collaborating in order to innovate, and testing early and often.

What is the goal of the Design Thinking process?

However you choose to implement the Design Thinking process, the goal is the same: to approach complex problems from a human perspective. The Design Thinking process fosters creativity, innovation, and user-centricity, helping you to come up with actionable solutions that are:

• Desirable for the user;
• Viable for business;
• Technologically feasible.

The Design Thinking process puts the needs and requirements of the user first. The first stage of the process is dedicated to building empathy with your target users and understanding their needs, expectations, and behaviors.

Next, you’ll focus on developing ideas quickly turned into prototypes and tested on real users. Inherent to the Design Thinking process is the early and frequent testing of your solutions; this way, you can gather feedback and make any necessary changes long before the product is developed.

In a nutshell: The Design Thinking process enables you to find innovative solutions to complex problems driven by the needs of the target user.

2. What are the 5 steps of the Design Thinking process?

The Design Thinking process can be divided into five key steps: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test.

When considering the five steps of Design Thinking, it’s important to remember that it’s not a linear process. Although we talk about the process in terms of sequential steps, it’s a highly iterative loop. With each phase, you’ll make new discoveries that may require you to revisit the previous stages.

With that in mind, let’s consider the f ive key stages of the Design Thinking process in more detail.

1. Empathize

The Design Thinking process starts with empathy. To create desirable products and services, you need to understand who your users are and what they need. What are their expectations about the product you’re designing? What challenges and pain points do they face within this context?

During the empathize phase, you’ll spend time observing and engaging with real users (or people who represent your target group)—conducting interviews, seeing how they interact with an existing product, and generally paying attention to facial expressions and body language.

As the first step in the Design Thinking process, the empathize phase encourages you to set your assumptions aside. Armed with first-hand insights, you can design with real users in mind. That’s what Design Thinking is all about!

Learn more:

• What Is Empathy In Design Thinking?
• Storytelling for UX Design Teams

In the second stage of the Design Thinking process, you’ll define the user problem you want to solve. First, you’ll gather all of your findings from the empathize phase and start piecing them together. What common themes and patterns did you observe? What user needs and challenges consistently came up?

Once you’ve synthesized your findings, you’ll formulate what’s known as a problem statement . A problem statement—sometimes called a point of view (POV) statement—outlines the issue or challenge you seek to address.

As with anything in the Design Thinking process, the problem statement keeps the user in focus. Rather than framing your problem statement as a business goal, like “We need to increase gym membership among over-50s by 30%,” you’ll frame it from the user’s perspective: “Over-50s in London need flexible, affordable access to sports facilities to keep fit and healthy.”

By the end of the define phase, you will have a clear problem statement to guide you throughout the design process. This will form the basis of your ideas and potential solutions.

Learn more: How To Define A Problem Statement: Your Guide To The Second Step In The Design Thinking Process

The third stage in the Design Thinking process consists of ideation—or generating ideas. By this point, you know who your target users are and what they want from your product. You also have a clear problem statement that you’re hoping to solve. Now it’s time to come up with possible solutions.

The ideation phase is a judgment-free zone where the group is encouraged to venture away from the norm, explore new angles, and think outside the box. You’ll hold ideation sessions to generate as many ideas as possible—regardless of whether or not they’re feasible! For maximum creativity, ideation sessions are often held in unusual locations.

Throughout this stage of the Design Thinking process, you’ll continuously refer back to your problem statement. As you prepare to move on to the next phase, you’ll narrow it down to a few ideas, which you’ll later turn into prototypes to be tested on real users.

Learn more: What Is Ideation In Design Thinking? A Guide To The Most Important Ideation Techniques

4. Prototype

In the fourth stage of the Design Thinking process, you’ll turn your ideas from stage three into prototypes. A prototype is essentially a scaled-down version of a product or feature—be it a simple paper model or a more interactive digital representation.

The aim of the prototyping stage is to turn your ideas into something tangible which can be tested on real users. This is crucial in maintaining a user-centric approach, allowing you to gather feedback before you go ahead and develop the whole product. This ensures that the final design solves the user’s problem and is a delight to use!

Learn more: Step Four In The Design Thinking Process: Your Complete Introduction To Prototyping

T he fifth step in the Design Thinking process is dedicated to testing: putting your prototypes in front of real users and seeing how they get on. During the testing phase, you’ll observe your target users—or representative users—as they interact with your prototype. You’ll also gather feedback on how your users felt throughout the process.

The testing phase will quickly highlight any design flaws that must be addressed. Based on what you learn through user testing, you’ll go back and make improvements.

Remember: The Design Thinking process is iterative and non-linear. The results of the testing phase will often require you to revisit the empathize stage or run through a few more ideation sessions before you create that winning prototype.

Learn more: User Testing: A Guide To Step Five Of The Design Thinking Process

3. What is the value of the Design Thinking process?

We’ve touched upon the goal of Design Thinking and how it can be applied to real-world, wicked problems. Now, let’s consider the value that Design Thinking brings.

Here are just some of the benefits of the Design Thinking process:

• The Design Thinking process teaches people how to innovate and problem-solve: While most of us are programmed to solve problems that readily present themselves, we’re not necessarily inclined to look for problems. Design Thinking encourages creative problem-solving; it pushes you to redefine the problem space and seek out the challenge worth solving. This is especially useful in a business context—designing a competitive digital product, optimizing internal processes, or reinventing an entire business model.
• The Design Thinking process fosters teamwork and collaboration: As explained by the HPI Academy , “innovations and answers to complex questions are best generated in a heterogeneous team of five to six people.” The Design Thinking process brings multidisciplinary teams together, breaks down silos, and encourages people to collaborate and challenge their assumptions.
• The Design Thinking process offers a proven competitive advantage: Design-led companies have been shown to consistently outperform their competitors . As already mentioned, the aim of the Design Thinking process is to come up with solutions, products, or services that are desirable for the user, economically viable from a business perspective, and technologically feasible. This user-first approach, coupled with early and frequent testing, helps to minimize risk, drive customer engagement, and ultimately boost the bottom line.

So: Design Thinking is a tool for creativity, innovation, and problem-solving. Not only does it help designers to come up with ground-breaking products, but it also fosters a culture of innovation and user-centricity at every level of business.

Before we consider the five stages of the Design Thinking process, let’s take a look at where the Design Thinking process comes from.

4. How can I learn Design Thinking?

With all this talk of the Design Thinking process and just how valuable it is, you might be wondering how you can learn more about Design Thinking and eventually start applying it to your own work.

A good place to start is user experience (UX) design—creating user-friendly products and services that solve a real user need. Indeed, UX and Design Thinking often go hand-in-hand; many key principles and steps of the Design Thinking process are also critical to UX, such as building empathy through user research, creating prototypes, testing on real users, and continuously iterating.

Learning the essentials of UX will help you to understand better how Design Thinking fits into the development of real-world products and solutions. Our one-month course in UX Fundamentals provides a comprehensive introduction to Design Thinking and shows you how to apply the first stage of the Design Thinking process to a real-world problem.

We also recommend checking out this excellent collection of resources for getting started with Design Thinking provided by the d.school (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University). If you’d like to learn more about putting the Design Thinking process into context, you’ll find a comprehensive guide over on IDEO.com .

As we’ve seen, the Design Thinking process can be applied to all areas of business. It’s a tool that can be used by anyone in any department to foster innovation and find creative solutions to complex problems. Whether you’re a designer, a teacher, or a CEO, the Design Thinking process will transform the way you think, collaborate, and come up with ideas.

If you’d like to learn more about Design Thinking and user-centered design, check out the following articles:

• What Is User Experience (UX) Design? Everything You Need To Know To Get Started
• What Is Human-Centered Design? A Beginner’s Guide
• Why Empathy Matters As A User Experience Designer

1. What is the design thinking process?

The design thinking process is a problem-solving methodology used by designers to approach complex problems and find innovative solutions. It typically involves five stages: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test.

2. What is ideate in the design thinking process?

Ideate is a stage in the design thinking process where designers generate a large number of creative ideas and concepts in response to the problem statement developed during the previous stage.

3. During which stage of the design thinking process is a problem statement formed?

A problem statement is typically formed during the “define” stage of the design thinking process. This involves gathering insights from stakeholders and users to understand the problem that needs to be solved.

4. Which stage of the design thinking process involves learning about customers’ challenges?

The “empathize” stage of the design thinking process involves learning about customers’ challenges. This stage is focused on gaining a deep understanding of users’ needs, emotions, and behaviors in order to develop meaningful solutions.

InVisionApp, Inc.

Inside Design

What is design thinking, and how do we apply it?

Emily stevens,   •   jan 30, 2020.

T he famous inventor, engineer, businessman, and holder of no fewer than 186 patents Charles Kettering once said, “If you have always done it that way, it is probably wrong.”

If you’re a designer, an entrepreneur, or any kind of employee, you are no stranger to the constant pressure to innovate. It’s the secret sauce, after all; the key to progress and success. Our capacity for innovation—the ability to conceive ideas which are at once actionable and effective—is what gives us the upper hand in competitive industries.

The Apples, Airbnbs, and Ubers of this world were all borne of innovation. Now, the challenge that all of these companies—and your company too, no doubt—face is to continue that innovation in order to maintain or further advance their position in their respective markets. Innovation can’t be a one-time affair; it needs to be part of the company’s DNA.

You also know that innovation doesn’t always come that easily.

That’s where design thinking comes in.

Design thinking has long been considered the holy grail of innovation—and the remedy to stagnation. It has been credited with remarkable feats, like transforming Airbnb from a failing startup to a billion-dollar business . It’s a concept that’s becoming increasingly hard to ignore, and yet, despite such high-profile success stories, it’s a concept that continues to be shrouded in mystery.

Enough of the vague definitions and abstract descriptions. In this post, we’ll show you exactly what design thinking is and what it looks like in action. Let’s get into:

What is design thinking?

• What are the key principles of design thinking?
• What is the design thinking methodology and how can I use it?
• How can I apply the design thinking framework?

Ready to leverage the power of design thinking? Let’s go.

Design thinking originally came about as a way of teaching engineers how to approach problems creatively, like designers do. One of the first people to write about design thinking was John E. Arnold, professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford University. In 1959, he wrote “ Creative Engineering ,” the text that established the four areas of design thinking. From there, design thinking began to evolve as a “way of thinking” in the fields of science and design engineering—as can be seen in Herbert A. Simon’s book “ The Sciences of the Artificial ” and in Robert McKim’s “ Experiences in Visual Thinking ”.

With the rise of human-centered design in the 80s and the formation of design consultancy IDEO in the 90s, design thinking became increasingly popular. By the start of the 21st century, design thinking was making its way into the world of business. In 2005, Stanford University’s d.school began teaching design thinking as an approach to technical and social innovation.

Indeed, many of the methods and techniques used in design thinking have been borrowed from the designer’s toolkit.

So what exactly is design thinking?

Design thinking is both an ideology and a process that seeks to solve complex problems in a user-centric way. It focuses on achieving practical results and solutions that are:

• Technically feasible : They can be developed into functional products or processes;
• Economically viable : The business can afford to implement them;
• Desirable for the user : They meet a real human need.

The ideology behind design thinking states that, in order to come up with innovative solutions, one must adopt a designer’s mindset and approach the problem from the user’s perspective. At the same time, design thinking is all about getting hands-on; the aim is to turn your ideas into tangible, testable products or processes as quickly as possible.

The design thinking process outlines a series of steps that bring this ideology to life—starting with building empathy for the user, right through to coming up with ideas and turning them into prototypes.

At this point, you’re probably thinking that this sounds suspiciously like UX. So what makes design thinking so special?

Design thinking helps us tackle “wicked” problems

The uniqueness of design thinking lies in the kinds of problems it addresses. When it comes to the problems to be solved with design thinking, we’re not just talking about ordinary, common problems that have tried-and-tested solutions. We’re talking about highly complex, “wicked” problems: the kind that refuse to be solved using standard methods and approaches.

Not only are these problems difficult to define, but any attempt to solve them is likely to give way to even more problems. Wicked problems are everywhere, ranging from global issues such as climate change and poverty, to challenges that affect almost all businesses such as change management, achieving sustainable growth, or maintaining your competitive edge.

Design thinking is an actionable approach which can be used to tackle the world’s wickedest of problems. It fosters user-centricity, creativity, innovation, and out-of-the-box thinking.

With that in mind, let’s explore the principles and pillars of design thinking in more detail.

What are the principles of design thinking?

There are certain principles that are pivotal to design thinking. These are reflected in the design thinking methodology, which we’ll explore in detail a little later on. We’ve outlined five of design thinking’s most important principles below.

1. User-centricity and empathy

Design thinking is all about finding solutions that respond to human needs and user feedback. People, not technology, are the drivers of innovation, so an essential part of the process involves stepping into the user’s shoes and building genuine empathy for your target audience.

2. Collaboration

The aim of design thinking is to pool a diverse variety of perspectives and ideas; this is what leads to innovation! Design thinking encourages collaboration between heterogeneous, multidisciplinary teams which may not typically work together.

3. Ideation

Design thinking is a solution-based framework, so the focus is on coming up with as many ideas and potential solutions as possible. Ideation is both a core design thinking principle and a step in the design thinking process. The ideation step is a designated judgment-free zone where participants are encouraged to focus on the quantity of ideas, rather than the quality.

4. Experimentation and iteration

It’s not just about coming up with ideas; it’s about turning them into prototypes, testing them, and making changes based on user feedback. Design thinking is an iterative approach, so be prepared to repeat certain steps in the process as you uncover flaws and shortcomings in the early versions of your proposed solution.

5. A bias towards action

Design thinking is an extremely hands-on approach to problem-solving favoring action over discussion. Instead of hypothesizing about what your users want, design thinking encourages you to get out there and engage with them face-to-face. Rather than talking about potential solutions, you’ll turn them into tangible prototypes and test them in real-world contexts.

The design thinking methodology in action

So far, we’ve covered quite a bit of theory. We know what design thinking is and the key principles that shape it. Now let’s consider what the design thinking methodology looks like in action, starting with the five key steps in the design thinking process .

The design thinking framework: five key steps

The design thinking framework can be divided into three distinct phases: immersion, ideation, and implementation. This framework can be further broken down into five actionable steps which make up the design thinking process:

Although these steps appear to be sequential, it’s important to point out that design thinking doesn’t follow a strictly linear process. At each stage in the process, you’re likely to make new discoveries that require you to go back and repeat a previous step.

Step 1. Empathize

• What? During the empathize phase, you’ll engage with and observe your target audience.
• Why? The aim of this step is to paint a clear picture of who your end users are, what challenges they face, and what needs and expectations must be met.
• How? In order to build user empathy, you’ll conduct surveys, interviews, and observation sessions.
• For example: You want to address the issue of employee retention, so you ask each employee to complete an anonymous survey. You then hold user interviews with as many employees as possible to find out how they feel about retention within the company.

Step 2. Define

• What? Based on what you’ve learned in the empathize phase, the next step is to define a clear problem statement.
• Why? Your problem statement sets out the specific challenge you will address. It will guide the entire design process from here on out, giving you a fixed goal to focus on and helping to keep the user in mind at all times.
• How? When framing your problem statement, you’ll focus on the user’s needs rather than those of the business. A good problem statement is human-centered, broad enough for creativity, yet specific enough to provide guidance and direction.
• For example: “My employees need to be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle while working in the office” is much more user-centric than “I need to keep my employees healthy and happy in order to boost retention.”

Step 3. Ideate

• What? With a clear problem statement in mind, you’ll now aim to come up with as many ideas and potential solutions as possible.
• Why? The ideation phase gets you thinking outside the box and exploring new angles. By focusing on quantity of ideas rather than quality, you’re more likely to free your mind and stumble upon innovation!
• How? During dedicated ideation sessions, you’ll use a range of different ideation techniques such as bodystorming, reverse thinking, and worst possible idea.
• For example: Based on what you’ve learned in the empathize phase, you hold several ideation sessions with a variety of different stakeholders. With your problem statement to hand, you come up with as many ideas as possible for how you might make your employees happier and thus more likely to stay with the company.

Step 4. Prototype

• What? Having narrowed your ideas down to a select few, you’ll now turn them into prototypes—or “scaled-down” versions of the product or concept you want to test.
• Why? The prototyping stagegives you something tangible that can be tested on real users. This is crucial in maintaining a user-centric approach.
• How? Depending on what you’re testing, prototypes can take various forms—from basic paper models to interactive, digital prototypes. When creating your prototypes, have a clear goal in mind; know exactly what you want your prototype to represent and therefore test.
• For example: During the ideation phase, one idea that came up was to offer free yoga classes. To prototype this idea, you set up a dedicated yoga room in the office, complete with mats, water bottles, and hand towels.

Step 5. Test

What? The fifth step in the design thinking process will see you testing your prototypes on real or representative users.

• Why? The testing phase enables you to see where your prototype works well and where it needs improving. Based on user feedback, you can make changes and improvements before you spend time and money developing and/or implementing your solution.
• How? You’ll run user testing sessions where you observe your target users as they interact with your prototype. You may also gather verbal feedback. With everything you learn from the testing phase, you’ll make changes to your design or come up with a completely new idea altogether!
• For example: You decide to test the yoga idea for two months to see how employees respond. You find that people enjoy the yoga classes, but are put off by the fact that they are in the middle of the day and there is nowhere to shower. Based on this feedback, you decide to move the yoga classes to the evening.

Applying the design thinking framework to your own work

Design thinking can also start small—you don’t need to become a UX designer in order to apply design thinking to your own work! You might choose to focus on just one aspect of the design thinking process, such as getting to know your customers and making a conscious effort to be more empathy-driven on a day to day basis. If you’re struggling to gather positive customer reviews, for example, you might choose to conduct user interviews in order to find out what your customers are missing.

Perhaps you want to focus on the collaborative nature of design thinking, in which case you might hold ideation sessions with representatives from a diverse variety of teams. If you notice that marketing and design constantly struggle to see eye-to-eye, for example, a few design thinking-style brainstorming sessions might help to get everybody on the same page.

Another increasingly popular method of applying design thinking is through design thinking workshops . If you have a specific problem you want to solve, such as coming up with a new product idea or figuring out how to boost employee retention, a design thinking workshop will take you through the entire design thinking process in a short space of time. Design thinking workshops are also used to teach non-design professionals how to innovate and find creative solutions—an essential skill in any area of business.

Examples of design thinking success

Product and service design are the most obvious contexts to benefit from design thinking. However, the design thinking framework can be used to tackle all kinds of challenges beyond the realm of design!

Design thinking is increasingly being integrated into business as a way to foster innovation and teamwork. IBM developed their Enterprise Design Thinking framework in order to “help multidisciplinary teams align around the real needs of their users,” claiming that businesses who use the framework are twice as quick to get their products to market, 75% more efficient in terms of teamwork, and enjoy a 300% return on investment.

Insurance firm MassMutual used a design thinking approach to tackle the challenge of getting young adults to purchase life insurance. In partnership with IDEO , they conducted extensive user research over the course of two years. Based on what they learned, they then embarked on a further two years of prototyping and testing. The end result was Society of Grownups , a suite of digital tools that help to educate young people to make smart financial choices.

Here at CareerFoundry , we not only teach design thinking as part of our UX Design Course , but we also incorporate it in the way we work and make decisions. The majority of our users are adult learners who are juggling online study with full-time work, and so one of the biggest challenges they face is time management. Based on the design thinking framework, we conducted extensive user research, including an in-house time management workshop with real students. With these new insights, we redesigned certain aspects of our e-learning dashboard—such as how project milestones are displayed, for example. In true design thinking fashion, we’ll continue to gather user feedback in order to iterate on and improve our current solution.

Now you know what design thinking is and how it can be applied to almost any context. If you’d like to learn more about design thinking, this comprehensive beginner’s guide explains how design thinking, lean, and agile work together, and sheds some light on the relationship between design thinking and UX design. If you’re keen to start incorporating design thinking into your work right away, check out these nine design thinking tools to try with your team .

Want to learn more about design thinking?

• 9 design thinking tools to try with your team
• 4 ways to improve your design thinking process
• Why the world needs more design thinking

Keep your design and dev teams synced on accessibility work using DSM.

by Emily Stevens

Collaborate in real time on a digital whiteboard try freehand, get awesome design content in your inbox each week, give it a try—it only takes a click to unsubscribe., thanks for signing up, you should have a thank you gift in your inbox now-and you’ll hear from us again soon, get started designing better. faster. together. and free forever., give it a try. nothing’s holding you back..

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Thinking

Good Essay On Design Thinking

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Thinking , Business , Facebook , Customers , Tesla , Google , Apple , Design

Words: 2250

Published: 03/17/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

Design thinking can be defined as the creative process of coming up with new innovative ideas to solve problems. Design thinking combines innovation and critical thinking to allow data to be organized, decisions to be implemented and solutions to be enhanced. Design thinking can be applied in all areas of industry such as technology, business, science, education, humanities and architecture. Design thinking process starts with defining the problem. Then research is done on previous attempts to solve the problem. Research is followed by ideation where design thinkers brainstorm and come up with different ideas on solving the problem. Then ideas are refined and a variety of ideas are presented to the customer. After choosing, the solution is implemented with feedback from the client collected later. Design thinking has several benefits such as creation of new efficient products and services; improved processes; increased productivity and elimination of weaknesses.

Design Thinking in the Business Model

Design thinking has been applied in business since its inception. Design thinking is a reliable and effective technique of solving business problems. The main focus of design thinking in business is meeting customer demands. Businesses have to set aside enough time for idea creation and ways to meet customer requirements. Design thinking has to be the centre in strategy development and managerial change in order to establish a culture that is focussed on problem solving. Creative ways of solving problems can be applied to production, services and any business process that needs improvement. Large and small firms have applied design thinking with varying degrees of success. Most business problems are not well designed and need thorough scrutiny and analysis of data before they can be tackled. The solutions to the problems have to be creative in order to satisfy customers and enhance the business problems. This is where design thinkers come in. The process of design thinking is tedious and time consuming but the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Design Thinking in Technology

The technology sector has evolved rapidly over the years. New software systems, websites, devices, games and applications are being churned out every day. Technology companies work diligently to keep up with the changing market. Customer needs keep changing frequently and technology companies must meet these demands in all ways possible. People interact with technology constantly therefore customers are attracted to goods and services that are efficient, reliable and innovative. Firms that come up with creative ideas often outwit their less innovative counterparts and end up making more profit. Many technology firms have turned to design thinking in order to meet customer demands, increase efficiency, build quality products and overcome challenges in technology.

THE APPLE IPAD

IPads are tablet computers designed and manufactured by Apple Inc. iPads were introduced in April of 2010. So far, Apple has sold over 400 million iPads worldwide. In the tablet sector, Apple has a market share of 69.6%. This shows that the iPad is a very popular device among consumers. The iPad design, features and performance have improved over time. All these were possible because Apple applied design thinking principles to their business process. In 2009, Steve Jobs studies the market and decided that his company would produce a device that would change the way people used tablet computers. He set out with a team of designers and software engineers who did extensive research on the tablet industryat that time. Customers were queried on what type of features they would want in a tablet. The teams then came up with ideas and blueprints for creating a quality tablet computer. The ideas were refined until an iPad prototype was designed. Apple then began manufacturing iPads. Figure 1: Tablet Shipments in 2012 When the iPad was released and it immediately became a big hit with consumers. Its selling points were its stylish user interface, the high processor speeds, connectivity and ease of use. Because the iPad was very light and portable, users could use it wherever. However it had its problems too such as battery life, lack of a cameras, lack of USB ports and incompatibility with other devices. Apple design teams have applied innovative solutions to these problems over time. Application of design thinking has enabled improvements on the weaknesses of the initial device. Over the years, Apple has improved the user interface, prolonged battery life, installed faster processors and created different accessories for the iPad. Taking consumer feedback has been central to improving the iPad. IPads have wide ranging applications from communication, art, music, aviation, health, sport and education. Apple has changed the way people communicate and interact with computers. IPads are used by people from all ages from kids to adults. Apple’s business rivals such as Google, Microsoft and Samsung have created their own tablets but they have never been able to beat Apple in tablet sales. Apple owes it all to design thinking.

GOOGLE GLASS

Google Glass is a type of wearable technology that was released by Google Inc. in February 2013. Features in Google Glass include an LED display, camera, internet browser and real time GPS. Google Glass was developed by Google to be a form of an ever present computer. Google Glass was created by Google X, a team of Google designers dedicated to creating new technological innovations. The designers were tasked with the challenge of making a smaller and thinner version of previous display designs. Google X developers suggested and tried many designs until a Google Glass prototype was created in 2011. The prototype was heavy and cumbersome to use therefore Google continued innovation and variations to the design until a satisfactory device was created. Google’s consumer-centric policy ensured that user input was considered at all levels on conception of Google Glass. Google Glass was released in 2013. The device was improved and had new features such a touchpad that enabled users to control the device and voice commands. The device was initially only compatible with phones and tablets that ran on Android OS but over time, the designers have enabled compatibility with Apple products. Google Glass has found applications in internet usage, communication, navigation, medical technology, photography, journalism and art. Google has constantly installed new improvements on the device making it desirable and effective. Application of creative designs to Google Glass has made Google a leader in scientific innovation especially in the wearable technology sector. Google Glass is a big improvement over previous wearable devices produced by Sony and Nokia.

ANDROID OPERATING SYSTEM

Android is a mobile phone operating system developed by Google. Android is used by mobile phones, smart watches and tablet computers. Special versions of Android are applied in cars, televisions and digital cameras. Android was developed in 2003. Google intended to create a smart mobile operating system that was aware of its user’s likes and location. It was initially proposed for digital cameras but the market was scarce. Therefore, the developers studied the market and decided to create a mobile operating system to compete with Nokia, Windows and Blackberry. The developers and designers conceptualized ideas on the system. In 2006, Google created an Android OS model. The model underwent many improvements and changes until 2007 when the complete Android OS was released. In 2008, HTC launched the first phone running on Android. Android has grown to become the world’s most popular mobile operating system beating its rivals such as Apple, Nokia, Blackberry and Windows. Today, more than half of smartphone users in the world have Android phones. Android’s meteoritic rise has been attributed to the creative strategies and innovations that Google has implemented. The creation of a Google store helped consumers customize their phones and use it for a variety of functions. By listening to customer feedback and improving the operating system, Android has been able to sell more phones than its competitors. Introduction of services such as widgets, Google Play store, Google Now and Google Music have been well received by consumers. Android’s rise is clear manifestation that design thinking is beneficial to the business process. Android has immensely changed the mobile operating systems niche. Figure 2: U.S. Smartphone Market Share by Operating System

TESLA MOTORS ELECTRIC CARS

Tesla Motors is an American firm that produces electric cars. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003. The main objective was to manufacture efficient electric cars for the market. Tesla Motors created many design for the electric car. Earlier designs were ineffective and had performance. In 2005, the designers incorporated carbon fibre into design of the car body. In 2006, the Tesla Roadster was launched. The Tesla Roadster was the first car to use lithium-ion batteries. The Roadster was an innovation breakthrough that Tesla Motors built on. In 2008, Tesla Motors launched the Tesla S model which was cheaper, efficient and aimed at the low end market. The latest car to be produced is the Tesla Roadster 2.5 which has many improvements over the original Tesla Roadster model. The 2.5 Roadster has better performance, more miles per charge, higher acceleration, higher speed and more refined luxury features. Tesla has designed the Tesla model X, a concept car that it plans to start producing soon. Through creativity and intelligent design, Tesla Motors has become the leader in premium electric vehicle manufacture beating competitors like Mitsubishi, Opel, Chevrolet and Renault. Tesla Motors produces and sells more electric cars than any other automobile company in the world. Tesla has made improvements in the zero emission vehicle categories helping to reduce pollution and climate global warming. Tesla has also established several charging stations across the U.S. to swap band charge depleted batteries. Tesla’s battery designs are improvements over normal electric car batteries. The lithium ion batteries in Tesla car models are cheaper, lighter and more reliable. Tesla Motor operates a shrewd business model that enables it to interact directly with customers. The feedback from customers has been instrumental in designing high quality cars. Therefore, design thinking has enabled Tesla to achieve phenomenal success in the electric motor industry.

Facebook is social networking site that enables users to write posts, post pictures, send messages and share videos. Facebook has grown to become the world’s most popular social media site. Currently it has over 1.2 billion subscriptions with 800 million active users every day. Facebook was started by Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues in 2004. It grew from being a Harvard students-only website to incorporating other universities in the Ivy League. Later other universities and high schools were allowed to join Facebook. In 2006, Facebook was opened to anyone in the world who is over 13 years with an email address. Since then, Facebook has grown exponentially. The growth of Facebook has been due to the introduction of new features to the site and constant upgrades. Facebook has evolved over time. The developers have applied new improved designs to enhance the customer experience with the site. The user interface has been enriched momentously since 2006. Facebook has also inculcated different apps and support for various video formats. Facebook’s website arrangement has also been improved making it easier to use. Facebook introduced news feed features that enabled users get real time information and news about various subjects. Such designs improvements have made Facebook very popular. Facebook is the most visited social media site in the world. Many firms have turned to Facebook to market their products and grow an online presence. Politicians use Facebook to spread their ideologies and to campaign during elections. Innovation and creativity have helped Facebook beat competitors such as Twitter, Google+ and Myspace. Facebook has changed the way people communicate, express themselves and share multimedia content . Design thinking is concerned with creating new innovative products that offer solutions to everyday problems. One area where design thinking has been applied is in creating Ring. Ring is a type of wearable technology that enables users to send messages, controls mobile devices, open doors, remote control televisions. Ring uses innovative gesture-recognition technology to run different applications. Ring’s creative features have been lauded by consumers. Users of Ring find it easy to operate different devices using the technology get the most out of their phones. Ring is also fun to use. Figure 3: Screenshot of Ring Technology Article in CNN Figure 4: Screenshot of Ring Technology Article in PasteMagazine .

Design thinking is the creative process of coming up with new innovative ideas to solve problems. Design thinking combines innovation and critical thinking to allow data to be organized, decisions to be implemented and solutions to be enhanced. Design thinking has several benefits such as creation of new efficient products and services; improved processes; increased productivity and elimination of weaknesses. Design thinking is a reliable and effective technique of solving business problems. Examples of design thinking applications in technology include the iPad, Android operating system, Tesla Motors electric cars, Facebook and google Glass. Ring technology is a case study of how design thinking has been successfully implemented in technology. Therefore, design thinking should be integrated by business to improve their products and maximize profits.

Allen, J., 2014. Ring Puts the Power of Wearable Technology on Your Finger. [Online] Available at: www.pastemagazine.com[Accessed 11 2014]. Asur, S. & Huberman, B. A., 2010. Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. s.l.:ACM International Conference. Brown, T., 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. Gilbert, D., 2012. Apple iPad Tablet market Domination. [Online] Available at: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk[Accessed 11 2014]. Jones, C., 2014. Apple's U.S. Smartphone Market Share Holding Steady Against Every Competitor. [Online] Available at: www.forbes.com[Accessed 11 2014]. Jones, M., 2014. Tesla Motors Inc Earnings Preview: Focus on Growth. [Online] Available at: http://www.valuewalk.com[Accessed 11 2014]. Molina, V., 2014. Google Glass: An Exploration of the Platform, s.l.: s.n. Toole, J. O., 2014. The CNN Top 10 Inventions. [Online] Available at: edition.cnn.com[Accessed 11 2014].

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 912

This paper is created by writer with

ID 280131213

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Free essay about employment training and development, example of essay on the page below has 674 words matching 76 of the text as, essay on reaction to 15 years on the bottom rung, free essay about rationale and analysis for georgia department of corrections, example of phonological interventions for reading disorder literature review, implementation and analysis of the foreign intelligence surveillance act research paper sample, outline about jury system research paper example, free thesis on role of religion in new england life, reflection on china essay, ipsec research paper examples, technology research paper example, the query letter creative writing example, example of essay on sale meeting and event management, hemodialysis course work sample, free research paper about conducting z test, free article review on ocean acidification, comparing and contrasting great gatsby with high fidelity movie review examples, essay on international relations, example of article review on mri utilization, good domestic and international factors essay example, free critical thinking about the significant of black reconstruction article, example of promotion strategies public relations essay, free the body essay sample, good example of educational testing essay, harrison ford essays, onward essays, strathmore essays, joseph wright of derby essays, britney spears essays, muddy essays, keira knightley essays, janet jackson essays, zico essays, environmental justice personal statements, lgbt personal statements, copyright law personal statements, interview personal statements, freedom personal statements, invention personal statements, corruption personal statements, speech personal statements, aids personal statements, daughter personal statements.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Design Thinking in Education: Perspectives, Opportunities and Challenges

The article discusses design thinking as a process and mindset for collaboratively finding solutions for wicked problems in a variety of educational settings. Through a systematic literature review the article organizes case studies, reports, theoretical reflections, and other scholarly work to enhance our understanding of the purposes, contexts, benefits, limitations, affordances, constraints, effects and outcomes of design thinking in education. Specifically, the review pursues four questions: (1) What are the characteristics of design thinking that make it particularly fruitful for education? (2) How is design thinking applied in different educational settings? (3) What tools, techniques and methods are characteristic for design thinking? (4) What are the limitations or negative effects of design thinking? The goal of the article is to describe the current knowledge base to gain an improved understanding of the role of design thinking in education, to enhance research communication and discussion of best practice approaches and to chart immediate avenues for research and practice.

Aflatoony, L., Wakkary, R., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). Becoming a Design Thinker: Assessing the Learning Process of Students in a Secondary Level Design Thinking Course. International Journal of Art & Design Education , 37 (3), 438–453. 10.1111/jade.12139 Search in Google Scholar

Altringer, B., & Habbal, F. (2015). Embedding Design Thinking in a Multidisciplinary Engineering Curriculum. In VentureWell. Proceedings of Open, the Annual Conference (p. 1). National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance. Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, N. (2012). Design Thinking: Employing an Effective Multidisciplinary Pedagogical Framework to Foster Creativity and Innovation in Rural and Remote Education. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education , 22 (2), 43–52. Search in Google Scholar

Apel, A., Hull, P., Owczarek, S., & Singer, W. (2018). Transforming the Enrollment Experience Using Design Thinking. College and University , 93 (1), 45–50. Search in Google Scholar

Badwan, B., Bothara, R., Latijnhouwers, M., Smithies, A., & Sandars, J. (2018). The importance of design thinking in medical education. Medical Teacher , 40 (4), 425–426. 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1399203 Search in Google Scholar

Beligatamulla, G., Rieger, J., Franz, J., & Strickfaden, M. (2019). Making Pedagogic Sense of Design Thinking in the Higher Education Context. Open Education Studies , 1 (1), 91–105. 10.1515/edu-2019-0006 Search in Google Scholar

Bosman, L. (2019). From Doing to Thinking: Developing the Entrepreneurial Mindset through Scaffold Assignments and Self-Regulated Learning Reflection. Open Education Studies , 1 (1), 106–121. 10.1515/edu-2019-0007 Search in Google Scholar

Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity through “Maker” Experiences and Design Thinking in the Education of Librarians. Knowledge Quest , 42 (5), 58–61. Search in Google Scholar

Bross, J., Acar, A. E., Schilf, P., & Meinel, C. (2009, August). Spurring Design Thinking through educational weblogging. In Computational Science and Engineering, 2009. CSE’09. International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 903–908). IEEE. 10.1109/CSE.2009.207 Search in Google Scholar

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation . New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach , 12 (1), 29–43. 10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29 Search in Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2018). Exploring Faces and Places of Makerspaces. AACE Review. Retrieved from March 3, 2019 https://www.aace.org/review/exploring-faces-places-makerspaces/ Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues , 8 (2), 5–21. 10.2307/1511637 Search in Google Scholar

Callahan, K. C. (2019). Design Thinking in Curricula. In The International Encyclopedia of Art and Design Education (pp. 1–6). American Cancer Society. 10.1002/9781118978061.ead069 Search in Google Scholar

Camacho, M. (2018). An integrative model of design thinking. In The 21st DMI: Academic Design Management Conference, ‘Next Wave’, London, Ravensbourne, United Kingdom, 1 – 2 August 2018 (p. 627). Search in Google Scholar

Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., & González, F. (2004). Using concept maps in qualitative research. In Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology Proc. of the First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 7–15). Search in Google Scholar

Cantoni, L., Marchiori, E., Faré, M., Botturi, L., & Bolchini, D. (2009, October). A systematic methodology to use lego bricks in web communication design. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communication (pp. 187–192). ACM. 10.1145/1621995.1622032 Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, M. P. (2014). Shoot for the Moon! the Mentors and the Middle Schoolers Explore the Intersection of Design Thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research , 4 (1), 14–30. 10.7771/2157-9288.1072 Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, Imagination and the Fires within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education , 29 (1), 37–53. 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x Search in Google Scholar

Cassim, F. (2013). Hands on, hearts on, minds on: Design thinking within an education context. International Journal of Art & Design Education , 32 (2), 190–202. 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01752.x Search in Google Scholar

Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management , 25 (1), 38–57. 10.1111/caim.12153 Search in Google Scholar

Cochrane, T., & Munn, J. (2016). EDR and Design Thinking: Enabling Creative Pedagogies. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 315–324). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 3, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172969/ . Search in Google Scholar

Coleman, M. C. (2016). Design Thinking and the School Library. Knowledge Quest , 44 (5), 62–68. Search in Google Scholar

Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design Thinking in Integrated STEAM Learning: Surveying the Landscape and Exploring Exemplars in Elementary Grades. School Science and Mathematics , 118 , 93–103. 10.1111/ssm.12268 Search in Google Scholar

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (6), 1154–1191. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x Search in Google Scholar

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies , 32 (6), 521–532. 10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 Search in Google Scholar

Douglass, H. (2016). Engineering Encounters: No, David! but Yes, Design! Kindergarten Students Are Introduced to a Design Way of Thinking. Science and Children , 53 (9), 69–75. 10.2505/4/sc16_053_09_69 Search in Google Scholar

Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education , 5 (4), 512–523. 10.5465/amle.2006.23473212 Search in Google Scholar

Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management , 0149206317744252. 10.1177/0149206317744252 Search in Google Scholar

Eppler, M. J., & Kernbach, S. (2016). Dynagrams: Enhancing design thinking through dynamic diagrams. Design Studies , 47 , 91–117. 10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.001 Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, R., Barzilai, S., Ben-Zvi, D., Chinn, C. A., Herodotou, C., Hod, Y., Kali, Y., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Kupermintz, H., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Sagy, O., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Innovating Pedagogy 2017: Open University Innovation Report 6. Milton Keynes: The Open University, UK. Retrieved April 3, 2018 from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2017.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., ... & Misiejuk, K. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2019.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Fabri, M., Andrews, P. C., & Pukki, H. K. (2016). Using design thinking to engage autistic students in participatory design of an online toolkit to help with transition into higher education. Journal of Assistive Technologies , 10 (2), 102–114. 10.1108/JAT-02-2016-0008 Search in Google Scholar

Fouché, J., & Crowley, J. (2017). Kidding around with Design Thinking. Educational Leadership , 75 (2), 65–69. Search in Google Scholar

Fontaine, L. (2014). Learning Design Thinking by Designing Learning Experiences: A Case Study in the Development of Strategic Thinking Skills through the Design of Interactive Museum Exhibitions. Visible Language , 48 (2). Search in Google Scholar

Gallagher, A., & Thordarson, K. (2018). Design Thinking for School Leaders: Five Roles and Mindsets That Ignite Positive Change . ASCD. Search in Google Scholar

Gestwicki, P., & McNely, B. (2012). A case study of a five-step design thinking process in educational museum game design. Proceedings of Meaningful Play . Search in Google Scholar

Glen, R., Suciu, C., Baughn, C. C., & Anson, R. (2015). Teaching design thinking in business schools. The International Journal of Management Education , 13 (2), 182–192. 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.001 Search in Google Scholar

Goldman, S., Kabayadondo, Z., Royalty, A., Carroll, M. P., & Roth, B. (2014). Student teams in search of design thinking. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 11–34). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_2 Search in Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Design Thinking: A Method or a Gateway into Design Cognition?. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation , 3 (2), 107–112. 10.1016/j.sheji.2017.10.009 Search in Google Scholar

Gottlieb, M., Wagner, E., Wagner, A., & Chan, T. (2017). Applying design thinking principles to curricular development in medical education. AEM Education and Training , 1 (1), 21–26. 10.1002/aet2.10003 Search in Google Scholar

Gross, K., & Gross, S. (2016). Transformation: Constructivism, design thinking, and elementary STEAM. Art Education , 69 (6), 36–43. 10.1080/00043125.2016.1224869 Search in Google Scholar

Grots, A., & Creuznacher, I. (2016). Design Thinking: Process or Culture? In Design Thinking for Innovation (pp. 183–191). Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Groth, C. (2017). Making sense through hands: Design and craft practice analysed as embodied cognition . Thesis. Search in Google Scholar

Harth, T., & Panke, S. (2018). Design Thinking in Teacher Education: Preparing Engineering Students for Teaching at Vocational Schools. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 392–407). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Harth, T. & Panke, S. (2019). Creating Effective Physical Learning Spaces in the Digital Age – Results of a Student-Centered Design Thinking Workshop. In S. Carliner (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 284-294). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Hawryszkiewycz, I., Pradhan, S., & Agarwal, R. (2015). Design thinking as a framework for fostering creativity in management and information systems teaching programs. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems . AISEL. Search in Google Scholar

Hernández-Ramírez, R. (2018). On Design Thinking, Bullshit, and Innovation. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts , 10 (3), 2–45. 10.7559/citarj.v10i3.555 Search in Google Scholar

Hodgkinson, G. (2013). Teaching Design Thinking. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2013--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1520–1524). Victoria, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Holzer, A., Gillet, D., & Lanerrouza, M. (2019). Active Interdisciplinary Learning in a Design Thinking Course: Going to Class for a Reason , 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615292 10.1109/TALE.2018.8615292 Search in Google Scholar

Jacobs, C. D. (2016). “Making Is Thinking”: The Design Practice of Crafting Strategy. In Design Thinking for Innovation (pp. 131–140). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_9 Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, C. N., Seager, T. P., & Cook-Davis, A. (2018). LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® In Multidisciplinary Student Teams. International Journal of Management and Applied Research , 5 (4), 264–280. 10.18646/2056.54.18-020 Search in Google Scholar

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management , 22 (2), 121–146. 10.1111/caim.12023 Search in Google Scholar

Jordan, S., & Lande, M. (2016). Additive innovation in design thinking and making. International Journal of Engineering Education , 32 (3), 1438–1444. Search in Google Scholar

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures Human-Centered Informatics , 5 (1), 1–105. 10.2200/S00413ED1V01Y201203HCI013 Search in Google Scholar

Keele, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE. sn. Search in Google Scholar

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture , 3 (3), 285–306. 10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 Search in Google Scholar

Koria, M., Graff, D., & Karjalainen, T.-M. (2011). Learning design thinking: International design business management at Aalto University. Review on Design, Innovation and Strategic Management , 2 (1), 1–21. Search in Google Scholar

Kwek, S. H. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved March 3, 2019 from http://www.stanford.edu/group/redlab/cgibin/publications_resources.php Search in Google Scholar

Larson, L. (2017). Engaging Families in the Galleries Using Design Thinking. Journal of Museum Education , 42 (4), 376–384. 10.1080/10598650.2017.1379294 Search in Google Scholar

Leeder, T. (2019). Learning to mentor in sports coaching: A design thinking approach. Sport, Education and Society , 24 (2), 208–211. 10.1080/13573322.2018.1563403 Search in Google Scholar

Lee, D., Yoon, J., & Kang, S.-J. (2015). The Suggestion of Design Thinking Process and its Feasibility Study for Fostering Group Creativity of Elementary-Secondary School Students in Science Education. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education , 35 , 443–453. 10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0443 Search in Google Scholar

Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9 (1), 181–212. 10.28945/479 Search in Google Scholar

Leifer, L., & Meinel, C. (2016). Manifesto: Design thinking becomes foundational. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 1–4). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_1 Search in Google Scholar

Leverenz, C. S. (2014). Design thinking and the wicked problem of teaching writing. Computers and Composition , 33 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.compcom.2014.07.001 Search in Google Scholar

Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 32 (6), 925–938. 10.1111/jpim.12163 Search in Google Scholar

Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., & Wagner, R. (2011). Design thinking: A fruitful concept for it development? In Design Thinking (pp. 3–18). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Search in Google Scholar

Lor, R. (2017). Design Thinking in Education: A Critical Review of Literature. In International academic conference on social sciences and management / Asian conference on education and psychology. conference proceedings (pp. 37–68). Bangkok, Thailand. Search in Google Scholar

Louridas, P. (1999). Design as bricolage: anthropology meets design thinking. Design Studies , 20 (6), 517–535. 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00044-1 Search in Google Scholar

MacLeod, S., Dodd, J., & Duncan, T. (2015). New museum design cultures: harnessing the potential of design and ‘design thinking’ in museums. Museum Management and Curatorship , 30 (4), 314–341. 10.1080/09647775.2015.1042513 Search in Google Scholar

Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage . Harvard Business Press. Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, J. H., & Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and design thinking in business and management higher education. Journal of Learning Design , 10 (1), 41–54. 10.5204/jld.v9i3.294 Search in Google Scholar

McLaughlin, J. E., Wolcott, M. D., Hubbard, D., Umstead, K., & Rider, T. R. (2019). A qualitative review of the design thinking framework in health professions education. BMC Medical Education , 19 , 98. 10.1186/s12909-019-1528-8 Search in Google Scholar

Melles, G., Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2012). Teaching design thinking: Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 162–166. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.035 Search in Google Scholar

Melles, G., Anderson, N., Barrett, T., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2015). Problem finding through design thinking in education. In Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (pp. 191–209). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Search in Google Scholar

Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2018). Doing Design Thinking: Conceptual Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management . Search in Google Scholar

Molinari, A., & Gasparini, A. A. (2019). When Students Design University: A Case Study of Creative Interdisciplinarity between Design Thinking and Humanities. Open Education Studies , 1 (1), 24–52. 10.1515/edu-2019-0002 Search in Google Scholar

Motschnig, R., Pfeiffer, D., Gawin, A., Gawin, P., Steiner, M., & Streli, L. (2019). Enhancing stanford design thinking for kids with digital technologies a participatory action research approach to challenge-based learning . 2018-October . Search in Google Scholar

Munyai, K. (2016). Design Thinking: A Methodology towards Sustainable Problem Solving in Higher Education in South Africa . International Association for the Development of the Information Society. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=title%3a%22Design+Thinking%22&pg=3&id=ED571612 Search in Google Scholar

Mumford, C., Zoller, T., & Proforta, T. (2016). How to Teach Design Thinking within Entrepreneurship- A Practical Guide. In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–3). Boca Raton: United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Search in Google Scholar

Ohly, S., Plückthun, L., & Kissel, D. (2017). Developing Students’ Creative Self-Efficacy Based on Design-Thinking: Evaluation of an Elective University Course. Psychology Learning & Teaching , 16 (1), 125–132. 10.1177/1475725716681714 Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S. (2016). Creative Needs Assessment in Instructional Design: Selected Examples. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 349–353). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S., Gaiser, B., & Werner, B. (2007). Evaluation as Impetus for Innovations in E-learning—Applying personas to the design of community functions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , 3 (2), 179–190. Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S., Allen, G., & McAvinchey, D. (2014). Re-Envisioning the University Website: Participatory Design Case Study. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1540–1549). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S., & Harth, T. (2018). Design Thinking for Inclusive Community Design:(How) Does it Work? In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 284–296). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S. (2018a). EdTech Research – Where to Publish, How to Share (Part 3): Social Networks and Identifiers for Sharing Articles and Monitoring Citations. AACE Review. Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from http://www.aace.org/review/edtech-research-publish-share-part-3-social-networks-identifiers-sharing-articles-monitoring-citations/ Search in Google Scholar

Panke, S. (2018b). EdTech Research: Finding, Organizing and Citing Research – Bibliographic Formats & Tools. AACE Review. Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from http://www.aace.org/review/edtech-research-finding-organizing-and-citing-research-bibliographic-formats-tools/ Search in Google Scholar

Parrish, J., Parks, R., & Taylor, A. (2017). Building Bridges with Student Mentoring: A Design Thinking Approach. College and University , 92 (1), 31. Search in Google Scholar

Peters, R. A., & Maatman, J. (2017). Long-Term Trends Accentuate the Import of Creative and Critical Thinking Skills Developed by Design Thinking and Ill-Defined Questions. Teaching Public Administration , 35 (2), 190–208. 10.1177/0144739416680850 Search in Google Scholar

Pope-Ruark, R., Moses, J., & Tham, J. (2019). Iterating the Literature: An Early Annotated Bibliography of Design-Thinking Resources. Journal of Business and Technical Communication , 33 (4), 456–465. 10.1177/1050651919854096 Search in Google Scholar

Primus, D. J., & Sonnenburg, S. (2018). Flow Experience in Design Thinking and Practical Synergies with Lego Serious Play. Creativity Research Journal , 30 (1), 104–112. 10.1080/10400419.2018.1411574 Search in Google Scholar

Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003, June). Personas: practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (pp. 1–15). ACM. 10.1145/997078.997089 Search in Google Scholar

Purdy, J. P. (2014). What can design thinking offer writing studies? College Composition and Communication , 612–641. Search in Google Scholar

Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: an educational model towards creative confidence. In DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010) . Search in Google Scholar

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research , 82 (3), 330–348. 10.3102/0034654312457429 Search in Google Scholar

Renard, H. (2014). Cultivating Design Thinking in Students through Material Inquiry. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 26 (3), 414–424. Search in Google Scholar

Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about “Design Thinking”: A Study of Teacher Experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 36 , 5–19. 10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049 Search in Google Scholar

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169. 10.1007/BF01405730 Search in Google Scholar

Roos, D. J., & Grey, J. (2004). Playing Seriously with Science Strategy. Imagination Lab Foundation Working Papers Series (45). Retrieved on March 3, 2019 from http://www.imagilab.org/research_workingpapers.htm#46 Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign , 4 (1), 5–18. 10.1080/15710880701875068 Search in Google Scholar

Schlenker, L. (2014). Design in Practice: Scenarios for Improving Management Education. In 11th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, CELDA (pp. 187–194). Porto, Portugal. Search in Google Scholar

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2014. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. Search in Google Scholar

Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., … Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5 . Milton Keynes: The Open University. Search in Google Scholar

Sheehan, N. T., Gujarathi, M. R., Jones, J. C., & Phillips, F. (2018). Using Design Thinking to Write and Publish Novel Teaching Cases: Tips from Experienced Case Authors. Journal of Management Education , 42 (1), 135–160. 10.1177/1052562917741179 Search in Google Scholar

Skaggs, P. (2018). Design Thinking: Empathy through Observation, Experience, and Inquiry. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1168–1172). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., Pai, G., Krishnan, A., & Roth, B. (2016). Diagnostics for design thinking teams. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 35–51). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_4 Search in Google Scholar

Suzianti, A., & Atthousi, H. N. (2019). Implementation of design thinking approach in designing learning support tools in the classroom for hearing impaired person (case study: Elementary school students in SLB-B Santi Rama). ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 75–80. 10.1145/3332324.3332338 Search in Google Scholar

Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., Hölzle, K., & Meinel, C. (2016). An educational perspective on design thinking learning outcomes. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). Search in Google Scholar

Thoring, K., & Müller, R. M. (2011). Understanding the Creative Mechanisms of Design Thinking: An Evolutionary Approach. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design , 137–147. 10.1145/2079216.2079236 Search in Google Scholar

Valentim, N. M. C., Silva, W., & Conte, T. (2017). The students’ perspectives on applying design thinking for the design of mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering and Education Track (pp. 77–86). IEEE Press. Search in Google Scholar

Vaughn, M. (2018). How Making and Makerspaces Promote Healthy Mindsets for Learning (p. 8). Search in Google Scholar

van de Grift, T., & Kroeze, R. (2016). Design Thinking as a Tool for Interdisciplinary Education in Health Care. Academic Medicine , 91 (1), 1234–1238. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001195 Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Meinel, C., & Nicolai, C. (2014). How design thinking tools help to solve wicked problems. In Design thinking research (pp. 97–102). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9_7 Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Royalty, A., & Meinel, C. (2017). Design thinking in higher education: How students become dedicated creative problem solvers. In Handbook of research on creative problem-solving skill development in higher education (pp. 306–328). IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-5225-0643-0.ch014 Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Clancey, W., Corazza, G., & Meinel, C. (2017). Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking. Part I: John E. Arnold’s Creative Thinking Theories. In Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking (pp. 13–40). IGI Global. Search in Google Scholar

von Thienen, J., Meinel, C., & Corazza, G. E. (2017). A short theory of failure. In Electronic Colloquium on Design Thinking Research (Vol. 17, pp. 1–5). Search in Google Scholar

Watson, A. D. (2015). Design Thinking for Life. Art Education , 68 (3), 12–18. 10.1080/00043125.2015.11519317 Search in Google Scholar

Wright, G., & West, R. (2010). Using Design Thinking to Improve Student Innovation. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2010--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 391–395). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Search in Google Scholar

Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 54 (4), 374–385. 10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214 Search in Google Scholar

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly , 26 (2), 13–23. Search in Google Scholar

Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C., … Dweck, C. S. (2016). Using Design Thinking to Improve Psychological Interventions: The Case of the Growth Mindset During the Transition to High School. Journal of Educational Psychology , 108 (3), 374–391. 10.1037/edu0000098 Search in Google Scholar

Zientek, L. R., Werner, J. M., Campuzano, M. V., & Nimon, K. (2018). The use of Google Scholar for research and research dissemination. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development , 30 (1), 39–46. 10.1002/nha3.20209 Search in Google Scholar

© 2019 Stefanie Panke, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

What Is Empathy and Why Is It So Important in Design Thinking?

It’s fairly safe to assume you want your products to actually work, right? Then you need to start the design process with empathy — one of the most important elements in both design thinking and the wider area of human-centered design . But what is empathy exactly, and why is it so vital? Let’s take a look at what empathy means and how it can help you, as a design thinker, create solutions that actually work for people. While we’re at it, let’s also explore how a lack of empathy can result in product failure — something we all want to avoid! By the end, you’ll come to understand the empowering notion that everyone can increase their empathy and, by doing so, start to design solutions which are truly human-centric.

Empathy is our ability to see the world through other people's eyes — to see what they see, feel what they feel and experience things as they do. Of course, none of us can fully experience things the way someone else does, but we can attempt to get as close to this as possible. We achieve this empathic state as we put aside our own preconceived ideas about the world and choose to understand the ideas, thoughts and needs of others instead.

IDEO’s Human-Centered Design Toolkit explains that, in the world of design thinking, empathy is a “deep understanding of the problems and realities of the people you are designing for.” In other words, empathy requires you to learn about the difficulties people face and uncover their latent needs and desires to explain their behaviors. You need to gain an understanding of their environment, as well as their roles and interactions within it if you want to truly empathize with them.

• Transcript loading…

When you empathize with people, you can transform even the most stressful situations into delightful ones for your end-users. In this video, you will see examples of well-designed and poorly-designed airports and the power of empathy in design.

Empathy helps you:

Appreciate people's emotional and physical needs.

Gain insight into the way people see, understand and interact with the world around them.

Realize how lives are impacted within the contexts being investigated.

Find out what people mean rather than just what they say — empathic research is inherently subjective and is concerned with motivations and thoughts, rather than facts.

Don’t Confuse Empathy With Sympathy

Empathy is often confused with sympathy — a mistake you definitely don’t want to make in the world of design thinking! Sympathy is about your ability to show concern for the well-being of another, but does not necessarily require you to experience what others do. Now you have begun to understand what empathy means, you can see there is a clear difference!

What’s more, sympathy often involves a sense of detachment and superiority; when we sympathize, we tend to project feelings of pity and sorrow onto another person. These feelings do not only have the potential to rub people up the wrong way, but also prove useless in the design thinking process. In design thinking, your goal is to understand the people for whom you design, not react to their current predicament in an emotional way. The Empathize stage of design thinking requires you to visit your users in their natural environments, learn about how they behave and conduct interviews with them — all so you can create a solution which helps solve a problem they face. You need empathy to achieve that, not sympathy.

In this RSA Short, research professor and author Brené Brown highlights the difference between empathy and sympathy, and reminds us we can only create a genuine empathic connection if we are brave enough to really get in touch with our own fragilities.

Now you have a good understanding of what empathy is (and isn’t), let’s move on to why it’s so important in the design thinking process.

Empathize is the first of five stages in the design thinking process. The other four are Define, Ideate , Prototype and Test.

“Empathize” is actually the first stage of the design thinking process — what could be more important than that?! It makes sense really when you think about it. Your goal, as a designer, is to gain an empathic understanding of the people you design for, after all! You should have a burning desire to observe, engage and empathize with the people you design for to understand their experiences and motivations. What’s more, you’ll need to immerse yourself in their physical environment if you want to have any chance at gaining a deeper personal understanding of the issues, needs and challenges involved in their day-to-day lives.

When you immerse yourself in the environment and in the context of the people you design for, you can often get a completely different perspective than what you might expect. What might seem like good weather for you (say, warm and sunny) may well be a not-so-nice day for someone else. We'll let HCI expert Alan Dix explain this.

Empathy is simply crucial to a human-centered design process such as design thinking as it helps you set aside your own assumptions about the world to gain insight into your users and their needs instead. The Empathize stage of the design thinking process is a time for you to collect as many experiences, insights and observations as possible, so you can build a solid foundation for the rest of your design project.

We cannot stress enough how important it is for you as a designer to develop the best possible understanding of your users, their needs and the problems that your product or service is trying to solve! You and your team can gain huge insight via the practical Empathize methods below, and, if time and money allows for it, it may also be worth getting some experts on board to help you fully understand the people you want to design for.

We favor eleven empathize methods at the Interaction Design Foundation — when you use a variety of methods to gain empathy with your users, you end up with deep and meaningful insights.

What’s good to note is this empathic phase of design thinking is named differently depending on which version of the methodology you follow. Different schools and companies which use design thinking have called empathic research "the Empathize stage" (as we do), "the understand phase," "the hear phase," and simply "looking," as well as a number of other terms. Regardless of which phrase you’re familiar with, the core is essentially the same — empathy is deeply human-centric and is essential at the start of any design process.

Empathy is Crucial to Business Success

Empathy can also be deemed an essential component of business solutions when you look at things from the perspective of profit. You may create solutions which completely miss the mark if you develop solutions in isolation — you need to gain essential insights about your users if you want to remain relevant in the market.

“People ignore design that ignores people.” — Frank Chimero, author of The Shape of Design

Many leaders within the fields of innovation , learning and entrepreneurship have pointed to three key parameters which define a successful product or service: desirability , feasibility and viability .

It’s not enough that the technology exists (i.e., feasibility is present) and that profits or business benefits may be derived (i.e., it is viable). Users need to feel a sense of desirability towards a solution. We can only design a desirable product or service when people's needs, experiences, wants and preferences are properly understood.

When you design products and services, you should aim for the sweet spot between feasibility, viability and desirability. This can only be achieved when you have built empathy for your users.

One clear example of this is the iPod. Many MP3 players came and went throughout the late 1990s, and didn’t create much of an impact. Then, along came the iPod in 2001. It not only provided a technological solution, but also delivered a completely desirable and viable experience. This meant Apple took the lead in the market and continued to hold it for many years to come, generating huge profits along the way.

Empathy Helps You Read Between the Lines

Empathy is also the only way to thoroughly understand what people mean , rather than just absorb what they say. You’ll have noticed by now people do not necessarily always cover the details when they share stories and other information. They may withhold information out of fear, distrust or another inhibiting factor — be it internal or based on those with whom they engage — and they may express themselves in a less than articulate way. As a designer, you therefore need to:

Make sense of what is not being said, or what is being hinted at beneath the external expressions and words.

Develop intuition, imagination, emotional sensitivity and creativity so you can dig deeper into people’s experiences.

Extract the right kinds of insight to ensure you make a meaningful difference.

Empathy is the difference between what your users say at face value and what IDEO Executive Design Director Jane Fulton Suri describes as “thoughtless acts.” Thoughtless acts are small, subtle acts people exhibit that reveal how their behaviors are shaped by their environment. For example, when people hang their sunglasses on their shirt or wrap colored stickers around their keys to differentiate them, it’s a sign of how an imperfectly tailored environment forces us to make an almost unconscious reaction. Empathy can help us find opportunities for new insights and new solutions to help people with these suboptimal, unconscious acts.

Become Conscious of Your Empathy

If you’re worried you’re unable to master being fully empathic towards the people you design for, there’s good news! Neuroscientists have recently discovered empathy is hard-wired into the way humans are made, and is therefore an integral part of our physiology. Humans who observe others, show brain activity which resembles someone actually engaged in the activity being observed. In other words, empathy is an innate quality we can all make use of to design for the people around us!

Think about it: Have you experienced a flurry of emotions or rush of adrenalin when you’ve observed someone else engaged in an activity? This is because we are empathic beings by our very nature. Our social contexts and methods of learning often work to remove this inbuilt empathy to a large extent or, at the very least, tame it. But when you engage with the people you design for, this wall starts to break down and you become more conscious about your levels of empathy, especially if you keep an open mind.

However, keep in mind that gaining empathy isn’t something you get and then you have it forever. It is a skill that needs to be constantly practiced and honed.

Not everyone can grasp empathy easily. For some people, it is harder than it is for others. Neurodiversity, which is the range of differences in individual brain function and behavioral traits, can affect how readily empathy is learned and understood. This is regarded as part of normal variation in the human population.

So, no matter what, practice, practice, practice to up your empathy skills game. Empathy isn’t just for users; it’s also for stakeholders , and teammates.

Empathy requires you to pay attention to subtle cues in a person’s behavior .

Designing Without Empathy: Augmented Reality Glasses

Why doesn’t everyone wear augmented reality (AR) glasses as they go about their daily lives? Probably because we find it ever so slightly awkward to shout out commands in public! Did designers even empathize with their users when they designed this product? It’ll be interesting to see what the future holds for these wearable computers.

In this video, a product tester describes their experience using smart glasses with notifications and information intended for everyday use.

The Take Away

Empathy is important for us as designers, and particularly within the field of design thinking, because it allows us to truly uncover and understand the latent needs and emotions of the people we design for. The Empathize stage actually makes up the first stage of the design thinking process, and it allows us to design solutions that meet all three parameters of a successful product or service: desirability, feasibility and viability.

References and Where to Learn More

Sarah Gibbons, Nielsen Norman Group's Chief Designer describes the spectrum of empathy, ranging from pity to compassion, and offers advice on how to practice empathy in UX here .

The RSA short animation above is an excerpt from this TEDx Talk by Dr. Brené Brown on the power of vulnerability.

IDEO’s Design Kit details several design thinking methods and includes case studies to demonstrate their impact.

Jane Fulton Suri’s book Thoughtless Acts? pulls the curtain back at how IDEO creates people-friendly products. See more here .

What happens when we ignore individuals and focus on data and averages? When it comes to pilot safety, the results can be fatal. Here is an excerpt from Todd Rose’s book “The End of Average ”.

© Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 3.0

Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide

Get Weekly Design Tips

Topics in this article, what you should read next, the 5 stages in the design thinking process.

• 1.8k shares

What is Design Thinking and Why Is It So Popular?

• 1.6k shares

Personas – A Simple Introduction

• 1.5k shares

Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results

• 1.3k shares

What is Ideation – and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions

• 1.2k shares

Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights

• 2 years ago

Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype

• 3 years ago

Stage 3 in the Design Thinking Process: Ideate

• 4 years ago

Stage 1 in the Design Thinking Process: Empathise with Your Users

Empathy Map – Why and How to Use It

• 4 weeks ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this article , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this article.

New to UX Design? We’re giving you a free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Design Thinking Essays

Organizational change and design thinking, a holistic paradigm reshaping human interaction, expanding jumeirah beach hotel into a new country, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 10 June 2024

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

• Qing Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1889-1481 1 ,
• Kun Yu 1 &
• Rongri Lin 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  742 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

536 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Design thinking (DT) is becoming an innovative and popular teaching method. Recently, DT has been used as an unconventional method to develop skills of problem-solving, creativity, and innovation. However, its effects on student learning are unclear . This research aimed to examine the DT’s effects on student learning. The meta-analytic result based on 25 articles showed that DT positively affected student learning ( r  = 0.436, p  < 0.001). Moreover, the learning outcome, treatment duration, grade level, DT model, and region had moderating effects. Additionally, moderator analysis suggested that DT instruction was more effective: (1) when class size is <=30; (2) on multidiscipline; (3) with long-term duration (>=3 months); (4) for secondary school and university students; (5) on student learning engagement, motivation, problem-solving skills, and academic achievement; (6) with the model of Observe, Synthesize, Ideate, and Prototype, and Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test; (7) when team size is <=7; (8) on African and Asian students.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using design thinking for interdisciplinary curriculum design and teaching: a case study in higher education

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

Blended knowledge sharing model in design professional

Introduction.

Design thinking (DT) is attracting more and more attention and interest worldwide (Aris et al., 2022 ). DT was introduced by Rowe ( 1987 ) and was first applied in education in 2005 (Çeviker-Çınar et al., 2017 ). Today, DT has been widely applied in nearly all stages of education (Pande and Bharathi, 2020 ), from formal to informal educational contexts (Aris et al., 2022 ). DT is a process, a method (Rowe, 1987 ), or a “philosophy” (Çeviker-Çınar et al., 2017 ). In education, DT is a teaching method and a learning orientation that enables learners to generate creative ideas and impactful change and actively explore problem solutions (Beckman and Barry, 2007 ; Lor, 2017 ; Retna, 2016 ). DT can help solve many fundamental educational issues (Koh et al., 2015 ). However, previous studies did not reach consensus about DT’s effects on student learning. Moreover, eliciting DT is not always easy because of its complexity and open-endedness (Becker and Mentzer, 2015 ). Therefore, this study carried out a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between DT and student learning.

Conceptual framework

Design thinking.

DT has various definitions. The most widely used definition in education is proposed by Razzouk and Shute ( 2012 ): “an analytic and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback, and redesign.” DT is a promising, practical method that can be applied to education (Brown, 2008 ; Rusmann and Ejsing-Duun, 2022 ). It is often integrated into the teaching process as an instructional method. DT consists of a set of logically organized stages or processes, each pointing to cultivating students’ key competencies. When students are engaged in DT instruction, they need to follow DT’s steps to move forward with their projects, thereby increasing their ability to perform better. DT also points to addressing problems in real situations (Xu et al., 2024 ), which could increase their interest, motivation, and engagement (Grau and Rockett, 2022 ; Lin et al., 2020a ). In sum, DT has become a dynamic, nonlinear, and spiraling process that can facilitate deep learning (Liu and Li, 2023 ) and eventually result in better student performance (Howard et al., 2021 ).

DT emphasizes learner-centeredness (Glen et al., 2014 ), which can help teachers and students cope with 21st century challenges and complex real-world problems (Gleason and Jaramillo Cherrez, 2021 ; Xu et al., 2024 ; Yande, 2023 ). For teachers , DT provides a framework for solving complex and emerging problems (Henriksen et al., 2020a ); DT also provides good solution strategies and guidance for teachers to design innovative instruction and improve instruction. For students , DT can improve students’ class participation and learning intention, create favorable atmospheres and enjoyment, enhance interaction between each other and creative confidence, deepen their discussion on projects, and eventually improve teachers’ instruction (Balakrishnan, 2022 ; Tu et al., 2018 ). Moreover, DT can also nurture the competencies necessary for students, such as communication, collaboration, teamwork, problem-solving skills, creativity, empathy, critical thinking, and metacognition (Abolhasani et al., 2021 ; Balakrishnan, 2022 ; Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023 ; Retna, 2016 ; Rusmann and Ejsing-Duun, 2022 ). In general, the value of DT in education is to help students grow, empower teachers’ development, and promote teaching change.

DT has gradually become the new normal, with students readily embracing the DT process and appreciating its merits (Retna, 2016 ). Meanwhile, a variety of DT models are proposed for use in different domains. Simon ( 1969 ) proposed the first DT model, which entails a one-way linear process of three steps: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The most widely applied model in education is that of the Stanford model (Liu et al., 2024a ), which has five stages: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test (EDIPT) (Plattner, 2009 ), especially in school and university educational settings. IDEO ( 2013 ) defined five stages of DT for educators: discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation, and evolution. To apply DT in K-12 (Liu and Li, 2023 ), Carroll et al. ( 2010 ) extend the EDIPT model to six stages, e.g., understand, observe, point of view, ideate, prototype, and test. Brown’s DT model has been widely used, with three stages: inspiration, ideation, and implementation (Brown, 2008 ). The Design Council’s DT model assists designers or non-designers in solving some of the most complex social, economic, and environmental problems. It has four stages: discover, define, develop, and implement (Design Council, 2015 ). The DT model selected should aim to meet both students’ needs and instructional goals (Brannon, 2022 ). It should be noted that the processes contained in different DT models may vary and therefore produce different results.

DT’s effects and research gaps

Recently, there have been gradually increasing explorations to investigate the impacts of DT on students’ learning performance in education. However, there is no consensus on the effectiveness of DT. The results can be classified into three types: (a) DT can promote students’ learning significantly (Albay and Eisma, 2021 ; Bawaneh and Alnamshan, 2023 ; Chang and Tsai, 2021 ; Dawbin et al., 2021 ; Hsiao et al., 2017 ; Kuo et al., 2022 ; Ladachart et al., 2022 ; Lin et al., 2020a ; Liu and Ko, 2021 ; Nazim and Mohammad, 2022 ; Padagas, 2021 ; Pratomo and Wardani, 2021 ; Simeon et al., 2022 ; Tsai, 2015 ; Ziadat and Sakarneh, 2021 ); (b) DT does not significantly enhance student learning (Khongprakob and Petsangsri, 2022 ; Kuo et al., 2022 ; Lin et al., 2020b ; Yalçın and Erden, 2021 ); (c) there are negative correlations between DT and learning outcomes (Chou and Shih, 2022 ; Lake et al., 2021 ).

It can be seen that DT’s effectiveness is still questionable . DT is an emerging topic that needs in-depth investigation (Baker III and Moukhliss, 2020 ). Some research gaps need to be addressed urgently. First , it lacks specific guidance and references on DT instruction. In-service teachers are unfamiliar with DT (Bressler and Annetta, 2022 ; Liu et al., 2024a ), which may reduce DT’s effects. Students may also undergo confusion and frustration when participating in DT courses (Glen et al., 2015 ; Razali et al., 2022 ). Therefore, it is crucial to explore where the DT approach may be more appropriate for the classroom setting (Lor, 2017 ). For instance, what is the most effective class size, team size, duration, or DT model? Second , DT’s effects are questioned (Rao et al., 2022 ). Namely, a systematic assessment of DT’s effectiveness is limited (Liedtka, 2015 ). There is no meta-analysis to deliver robust evidence on the effectiveness of DT in education. To summarize, with DT’s widespread introduction into education, performing a meta-analysis to reveal DT’s overall effects on student performance and possible influencing moderators is necessary and valuable.

Research purpose

Considering that there is no quantitative, comprehensive evidence on DT’s effects in education, we tried to solve the following questions:

RQ1 . What are the research characteristics of the included empirical studies of DT on student learning (e.g., publication year, research design, class size, grade level, duration, subject, team size, DT model, and region/countries)?

RQ2 . What is the overall effect of DT on student learning?

RQ3 . What are the DT’s effects on student learning under the potential moderators (e.g., learning outcome, class size, grade level, duration, subject, team size, DT model, and region)?

Compared to a mere literature review, meta-analysis can provide precise quantitative effects (Grant and Booth, 2009 ). Meta-analysis can integrate various empirical research results to calculate the overall effect value (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). This research was conducted based on the process proposed by Field and Gillett ( 2010 ).

Literature searching

We mainly retrieved the documents from the Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus, and Google Scholar. Some topic words, i.e., (“Design Thinking”) AND (“Learning Performance” OR “Learning Outcomes” OR “Academic Achievement” OR “Academic Performance”), were combined to search for the target documents. The search span was confined from January 2005 to June 2023. 1204 articles were retrieved preliminarily through the search, and 1059 articles were obtained after removing duplicated literature.

Selecting criteria and process

We selected literature based on the below criteria:

(1) It must report the relationship between DT and student learning performance;

(2) It must be empirical studies (experimental, quasi-experimental, or correlational research);

(3) The research participants should receive intervention through DT teaching;

(4) It should provide necessary data for calculating effect sizes in targeted papers (e.g., sample size, mean, standard deviation, the value of t or p );

(5) It should be peer-reviewed and published in English .

After the initial of screening of titles and abstracts and the removal of duplicates, 296 articles were selected. Whole-text articles were initially assessed for eligibility, and 84 articles that met the inclusion criteria remained. Finally, after the articles were read in full, 25 peer-reviewed studies were obtained. The literature searching and selection were conducted strictly according to the standard processes (Moher et al., 2009 ) (Fig. 1 ).

Flow diagram.

Literature Quality and Bias Assessment

One database cannot include all the published literature, so searching multiple authoritative databases can control the literature search bias (Stang, 2010 ). Higgins et al. ( 2019 ) recommend searching at least two databases. So, we selected three databases to reduce the search literature search bias (Kelley and Kelley, 2019 ).

The included criteria’s inaccuracy will result in literature selection bias (Sterne et al., 2016 ). We strictly drew up the selection criteria to reduce this bias, e.g., study purpose and design, intervention of DT, and published language (Liu et al., 2024b ).

We assessed the literature quality based on the criteria of Downs and Black ( 1998 ), which have 27 questions and five categories. We found that all selected studies got majority points in more than four of the above categories (range 18 to 21), so they were high-quality (Carter et al., 2017 ).

Coding potential moderators

Moderators are possible factors that influence DT’s effects. The eight moderators were divided into the background and method.

Background moderators

Learning outcome: DT’s learning outcomes are less examined. Examining DT’s effectiveness on different learning outcomes is necessary (Razzouk and Shute, 2012 ). It was coded into academic achievement, self-efficacy, learning motivation, problem-solving ability, creative thinking, and learning engagement.

Treatment duration: The DT process could take a long time to explore (Carroll et al., 2010 ), and it may moderate DT’s effect on learning. It was divided into <1, 1–3, and >3 months.

Class size: It is an important index of teaching effects (Retna, 2016 ). So, it may moderate DT’s effect on student learning. It was divided into 1–30, 31–50, 51–100, and >100.

Grade level: There should be a clear distinction regarding how DT is applied to different learning stages (Lor, 2017 ). It was divided into kindergarten, primary, junior high, high school, and university.

Subject: DT was not always useful across all subjects (Retna, 2016 ), and van de Grift and Kroeze ( 2016 ) found that it could enhance interdisciplinary education. Namely, the subject may moderate DT’s effects. It was divided into STEM, No-STEM, and multidiscipline.

Region: It refers to the area where the study was performed. The education system’s cultural context must also be considered when applying DT (Retna, 2016 ). So, the region is also considered a potential moderator. It was divided into Asia, America, Austria, Europe, and Africa.

Method moderators

DT model: It refers to DT’s specific processes or stages. The implementation of DT relies on specific models, and different models contain different operations. Therefore, the role of DT models should be considered. We coded the DT model into 9 types:

3IE =Inspiration, Ideation, Implementation, and Evaluation;

UOPIPT =Understand, Observe, Perspective, Imagination, Prototype, and Test;

EDIPT =Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test;

EDEIPT =Empathize, Define, Elaborate, Ideate, Prototype, and Test;

OSIP =Observation, Synthesis, Ideation, and Prototype;

PAS =Preparation, Assimilation, Strategic control;

2UPPI =User focus (User as an information source and User as a codeveloper), Problem framing, Prototype, and Iteration;

CTC =Copy, Tinker, and Create;

LAUNCH =Look, listen and learn, Ask, Understand, Navigate ideas, Create, and Highlight and fix.

Team size: This variable refers to the number of team members. DT pedagogy emphasizes the use of student teams (Beckman and Barry, 2007 ), and team size is one of the causes of conflicts around teamwork (Aflatoony et al., 2018 ). So, the team size may moderate DT’s effect. It was divided into 1–4, 5–7, and >=8.

Data analysis

CMA 3.0 was used to analyze the effect sizes and moderators’ effects. In order to overcome the differences in different studies, the Pearson correlation coefficient r was selected as the effect size (Borenstein et al., 2005 ). Since the paper sample sizes varied widely, the authors employed the Fisher Z -transformation based on the weighted study sample sizes to calculate the ultimate r and 95% confidence intervals (Lei et al., 2020 ).

Publication Bias

We used the funnel plot, classic fail-safe N , and trim-and-fill method to examine the publication bias. If there is no publication bias in the data, the scatter of the funnel would be spread symmetrically. First , the funnel plot showed that the samples in this study were not evenly distributed (Fig. 2 ). Second , fail-safe Nfs quantifies the threshold at which publication bias becomes an issue. CMA can calculate the threshold ( Nfs ). Next, the fail-safe Nfs indicated that Nfs  = 9179 was far larger than 220 (5* K  + 10, K = 42). Last , the trim-and-fill method can create plots of potentially missing studies to search for symmetry between the literature (Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ). This method found just five missing values on the right of the funnel plot (Fig. 3 ). In sum, it can be concluded that the data included were free from publication bias.

Funnel plot.

Funnel plot after trill-and-fill.

Actually, literature selection may cause publication bias. To minimize this bias, we strictly developed the selection criteria, e.g., study purpose and design, intervention of DT, necessary data, and peer-review. Especially, we limited the language of publication to English. This may exclude some potential literature published in other languages; it is one limitation of the current research and could be addressed in the future.

Homogeneity test and sensitivity analysis

The values of Q and I 2 can be used to determine whether heterogeneity exists. The result was Q  = 554.908 ( p  < 0.001) (Table 1 ), which was significant. Moreover, I 2  = 92.611% > 75%, according to Higgins et al. ( 2003 ), meant the heterogeneity was high. Thus, the random-effects model should be selected (Borenstein et al., 2009 ; Wilson et al., 2020 ). Moreover, moderating analyses were also necessary to be analyzed.

To confirm the robustness of this research, we used the one-study-removal method to examine the sensitivity. The result suggested that each overall effect size fell within a reasonable range (from 0.418 to 0.467). Thus, this study is robust.

General characteristics of the included 25 studies

To answer RQ1, reveal the current state of empirical research on DT, and provide complementary evidence for subsequent meta-analyses, a descriptive analysis of the included literature was conducted. The literature included was published between 2015 and 2023, e.g., 1 in 2015 (4.00%), 1 in 2017 (4.00%), 3 in 2020 (12.00%), 8 in 2021 (32.00%), 6 in 2022 (24.00%), and 6 in 2023 (24.00%). The result indicated a growing interest in empirical research on the use of DT for teaching and learning in education. In terms of study design, only 2 were correlational studies (Lin et al., 2020a ; Roth et al., 2020 ), while the other 23 were experimental studies (including pre-experiment, quasi-experiment, and true-experiment). Descriptive results are as follows:

(1) Grade level: kindergarten ( N  = 1, 4.00%), primary school ( N  = 3, 12.00%), junior high school ( N  = 2, 8.00%), high school ( N  = 9, 36.00%), and university ( N  = 10, 40.00%).

(2) Class size: 0–30 ( N  = 9, 36.00%), 31–50 ( N  = 10, 40.00%), and >=51( N  = 6, 24.00%).

(3) Duration: 0–1 month ( N  = 8, 32.00%), 1–3 months ( N  = 7, 28.00%), and =>3 months ( N  = 10, 40.00%).

(4) Subject: STEM ( N  = 16, 64.00%), No-STEM ( N  = 6, 24.00%), and multidiscipline ( N  = 3, 12.00%).

(5) DT model: EDIPT ( N  = 14, 56.00%), 3IE ( N  = 1, 4.00%), UOPIPT ( N  = 1, 4.00%), LAUNCH ( N  = 1, 4.00%), OSIP ( N  = 1, 4.00%), PAS ( N  = 1, 4.00%), PPI2U ( N  = 1, 4.00%), EDEIPT ( N  = 1, 4.00%), CTC ( N  = 1, 4.00%), and Unknown ( N  = 3, 12.00%) (Fig. 4 ).

(7) Team size : 0–4 ( N  = 7, 53.85%) and 5–7 ( N  = 6, 46.15%).

(8) Region : Asia ( N  = 21, 84.00%), America ( N  = 1, 4.00%), Australia ( N  = 1, 4.00%), Europe ( N  = 1, 4.00%), and Africa ( N  = 1, 4.00%) (Fig. 5 ).

(9) Countries : China ( N  = 12, 48.00%), Thailand ( N  = 2, 8.00%), Australia ( N  = 1, 4.00%), Austria ( N  = 1, 4.00%), Philippines ( N  = 2, 8.00%), Saudi Arabia ( N  = 2, 8.00%), Nigeria ( N  = 1, 4.00%), America ( N  = 1, 4.00%), Indonesia ( N  = 1, 4.00%), Jordan ( N  = 1, 4.00%), and Turkey ( N  = 1, 4.00%).

In general, the results revealed that most research used EDIPT ( N  = 14) as a DT model and focused primarily on the learning of STEM subjects ( N  = 16, 64.00%) by high school ( N  = 9, 36.00%) and university students ( N  = 10, 40.00%) in Asia ( N  = 21, 84.00%).

Overall effect size

When r  = 0.1, there is a small effect size; r  = 0.3 is a medium effect size; and r  = 0.5 is a large effect size (Cohen, 2013 ). The overall effect size of DT was upper-medium ( r  = 0.436, 95% CI [0.342, 0.525], p  < 0.001) (Table 1 ). Moreover, each study’s effect sizes were also provided (Fig. 6 ). The red diamond represents the overall effect size and its CI in the forest plot. Favours A meant the result was in favor of regular instruction, while Favours B meant the result was in support of DT instruction.

Forest plot.

Moderator analysis

Learning outcome.

The order of effect sizes from large to small was learning engagement ( r  = 0.740), learning motivation ( r  = 0.608), academic achievement ( r  = 0.450), problem-solving ability ( r  = 0.447), creative thinking ( r  = 0.329), and self-efficacy ( r  = 0.230) (Table 2 ). The between-groups effect ( p  < 0.01) indicated that the learning outcome had a moderating effect.

The order of effect sizes from large to small was <=30 ( r  = 0.609), 31–50 ( r  = 0.422), and >=51 ( r  = 0.389) (Table 2 ). The result of between-group effects was Q  = 0.856 ( p  > 0.05), indicating that the class size had no moderating effect.

Treatment duration

The result showed that the effect size of >=3 months ( r  = 0.535) was the largest, the next was <=1 month ( r  = 0.456), and 1–3 months ( r  = 0.245) was the smallest (Table 2 ). The between-groups effect ( p  < 0.001) indicated that the treatment had a moderating effect.

Grade level

The order of effect sizes from large to small was high school ( r  = 0.538), university ( r  = 0.463), junior high school ( r  = 0.443, p  > 0.05), primary school ( r  = 0.222), and kindergarten ( r  = 0.174) (Table 2 ). The between-groups effect ( p  < 0.01) indicated that the grade level had a moderating effect.

The order of effect sizes from large to small was multidiscipline ( r  = 0.604), No-STEM ( r  = 0.470), and STEM ( r  = 0.393) (Table 3 ). The between-groups effect indicated that the subject had no moderating effect.

The order of effect sizes from large to small was OSIP ( r  = 0.766), EDIPT ( r  = 0.522), 2UPPI ( r  = 0.346), PAS ( r  = 0.301), UOPIPT ( r  = 0.297), 3IE ( r  = 0.222), CTC ( r  = 0.191, p  > 0.05), EDEIPT ( r  = 0.174), and LAUNCH ( r  = 0.066, p  > 0.05) (Table 3 ). The Q test of the between-groups effect was significant ( p  < 0.001), indicating that the DT model had a moderating effect.

The order of effect sizes from large to small was 0–4 ( r  = 0.477) and 5–7 ( r  = 0.441) (Table 3 ). The between-groups effect ( p  > 0.05) indicated that the team size had no moderating effect.

The order of effect sizes from large to small was Africa ( r  = 0.690), Asia ( r  = 0.435), Australia ( r  = 0.355), Europe ( r  = 0.346), and America ( r  = 0.066, p  > 0.05) (Table 3 ). The between-groups effect ( Q  = 50.576, p  < 0.001) indicated that the region had a moderating effect.

Discussions and implications

This meta-analysis investigates DT’s effect on student learning with 42 validated effect sizes from 25 independent empirical articles. This research reveals that DT has an upper-medium effect on student learning. DT is the gaping link between the theoretical discoveries of social transformation pedagogy and the practical application of the skills needed for the future (Scheer et al., 2012 ). The DT process entails a set of logical stages that point to students’ key competencies. DT instruction can increase students’ involvement, establish a positive learning climate, and promote interaction and communication between teachers and students (Tu et al., 2018 ). Moreover, DT relies on teamwork and hands-on activities, which are beneficial for student learning (Holstermann et al., 2010 ; Oje, 2021 ; Sung et al., 2017 ; Swanson et al., 2019 ). Certainly, connecting DT with courses’ content may be a challenge (Hennessey and Mueller, 2020 ). Overall, if educators organize DT instruction appropriately, it will be effective in improving student learning.

It has a moderating effect. Specifically, DT can promote learners’ creative thinking, learning engagement, motivation, problem-solving ability, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. Notably, the effects of learning motivation, engagement, and academic achievement are large. The DT process entails a set of logical stages that point to students’ key competencies. DT is a dynamic, nonlinear, and spiraling process that can facilitate deep learning (Liu and Li, 2023 ), interest, motivation, creativity, and engagement, and eventually improve student learning (Howard et al., 2021 ; Rao et al., 2022 ). However, there are significant differences in the impacts of DT on student learning outcomes. DT models consist of a set of stages, and some models are complex and challenging. So, its effect on self-efficacy is smaller than other types of learning outcomes. In sum, DT still has great potential to enhance various learning outcomes.

It has no moderating effect. Specifically, <= 30 ( r  = 0.609) has a large effect, >= 51 ( r  = 0.389) and 31–50 ( r  = 0.422) have upper-medium effects. The result suggests that the smaller the class size, the better DT’s effects. DT is a guided, student-oriented process where learners need close supervision, guidance, and feedback (Retna, 2016 ). When the class size is large (>= 51), it is hard for teachers to provide prompt guidance and feedback. Moreover, large class sizes challenge teachers’ effective classroom management and interactions (Blatchford et al., 2009 ). Of course, >= 51 is broad. So, DT’s effects on larger class sizes (e.g., 51–80, etc.) need more exploration. Based on the result, we recommend that educators keep the class size below 51 students. Moreover, if conditions permit, more teachers could be involved in one class (e.g., two teachers) (Retna, 2016 ).

It has a moderating effect. Specifically, the effect of >= 3 months ( r  = 0.535) is large, <= 1 month ( r  = 0.456) has an upper-medium effect, and 1–3 months ( r  = 0.245) has an upper-small effect. Generally, the effect of 1–3 months is best (Yu et al., 2023 ), but our result is the smallest. The novelty effect may result in a larger effect at <=1 month than at 1–3 months. The decrease in the 1–3 months’ effect may be due to the novelty effect wearing off as students slowly familiarize themselves with DT and face learning challenges. Guaman-Quintanilla et al. ( 2023 ) noted that it is challenging to experience the entire process of DT within a limited time. Namely, time constraints are a challenge for students and educators (McLaughlin et al., 2023 ; Retna, 2016 ; Razali et al., 2022 ). Longer durations are needed for educators to conduct DT instruction to make students engage in DT (Razali et al., 2022 ). Actually, DT is a long-term journey to develop students’ abilities and skills, so enough time should be allocated. In short, though DT is effective for these durations, <=1 month or >= 3 months are more effective. More future research could examine the 1–3 months’ effect on DT.

It has a moderating effect. Specifically, high school ( r  = 0.538) has the best effect; university ( r  = 0.463) has an upper-medium effect; primary school ( r  = 0.222) and kindergarten ( r  = 0.174) have small effects; and junior high school ( r  = 0.443, p  > 0.05) has an insignificant effect. DT has been used in all stages of education, and DT is also effective. In this research, DT shows greater potential for high school and university students than for primary school and kindergarten students. DT is a task- and activity-oriented learning process that relies on team communication and collaboration, DT studies at different stages might yield different results due to cognitive-developmental differences (Mentzer et al., 2015 ). Given the complexity of DT, more DT instruction could be applied to university and secondary school students. Moreover, for researchers, more studies should be carried out at diverse grade levels, especially in kindergarten ( k  = 2) and junior high school ( k  = 4).

It has no moderating effect, but the effect of multidiscipline is better than that of STEM and No-STEM. This suggests that DT can foster multidisciplinary learning, consistent with previous studies (Chang and Tsai, 2021 ; de Figueiredo, 2021 ; van de Grift and Kroeze, 2016 ). DT has typical interdisciplinary features (Lugmayr et al., 2014 ) and can promote new solutions, innovation, and collaboration opportunities for complex problems in multidisciplinary areas (Cook and Bush, 2018 ; Gleason and Jaramillo Cherrez, 2021 ). At the same time, DT can be integrated into the subjects of STEM or No-STEM to promote learning and teaching (Hsiao et al., 2023 ). DT is taught as a concept rather than affiliated with a specific discipline (Lor, 2017 ). We recommend integrating DT into existing courses rather than adding additional add-on activities (Sandars and Goh, 2020 ), especially for multidisciplinary learning (Hsiao et al., 2023 ). Different disciplines or subjects have their own suitable design processes (Sung and Kelley, 2019 ), the result provides a broad subject division for reference. Future research could explore DT’s effects on more detailed subjects. Besides, most of DT was applied to STEM subjects ( k  = 32), fewer to No-STEM and multidiscipline. So, DT’s effects on both latter subjects should be viewed cautiously and pay more research attention.

It has a moderating effect, indicating that different DT models could generate heterogeneity. Specially, OSIP ( r  = 0.766) and EDIPT ( r  = 0.522) have large effects; PPI2U ( r  = 0.346) and PAS ( r  = 0.301) have lower-medium effects; UOPIPT ( r  = 0.297), 3IE ( r  = 0.222), EDEIPT ( r  = 0.174) have small effects; and CTC ( r  = 0.191, p  > 0.05) and LAUNCH ( r  = 0.066, p  > 0.05) have no significant effects. Before DT can be effectively implemented to solve complicated problems, it is essential to have a solid grasp and comprehension of the different stages of the DT process (Dam and Teo, 2019 ). Different DT models involve different steps or stages, which may affect the processes of cognition and learning. For instance, EDIPT is easier for middle school students (Sarooghi et al.m 2019 ). Based on the result of this meta-analysis, we recommend that educators adopt the models of EDIPT and OSIP in DT instruction. Importantly, educators should not rely too heavily on the pre-determined procedural DT processes, which may hinder the creative potential of DT (Wells, 2013 ). Educators can rationalize the DT model based on their actual situations (Li and Zhan, 2022 ). It is also necessary to mention that, with the exception of EDIPT, the numbers of effect sizes included in other DT models are small, so their results should be treated cautiously and more explorations are needed.

It has no moderating effect. Team sizes of 0–4 ( r  = 0.477) and 5–7 ( r  = 0.441) have upper-medium effects. Teamwork and team collaboration are great challenges for many students. DT could enhance students’ teamwork (Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2022 ). Success in DT requires teamwork, and larger teams can enrich the diversity of perspectives and increase the likelihood of solutions (Sung et al., 2017 ). Moreover, the composition of teams is also important (Apedoe et al., 2012 ). Generally speaking, heterogeneous ability groups may be appropriate in DT (Lou et al., 1996 ), i.e., both low-ability and high-ability students, and both male and female students (Yu and Yu, 2023 ). From the result of this research, 2–7 members in one group are beneficial. A larger number of teams may limit the teachers’ ability to guide and facilitate each team’s, and individual students’ learning (Apedoe et al., 2012 ). We recommend having <=7 members in one group. Specifically, when the class size is large, 5–7 is better; otherwise, 2–4 will be better. However, the result shows a broad team size for reference only. So, future research could explore which specific composition of teams (from 2 to 7 or above) in DT instruction is better.

It has a moderating effect. Specifically, Africa ( r  = 0.690) has a large effect, Asia ( r  = 0.435), and Australia ( r  = 0.355), and Europe ( r  = 0.346) have upper-medium effects, while America has an insignificant effect. This may be due to differences in cultural and educational systems in different regions. Different from individualistic cultures (e.g., America, Australia, Austria), most Asian countries are collectivist (e.g., China, Thailand, Indonesia, etc.), and students in these countries tend to value team goals more than individual goals (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2010 ). So, DT has an upper-medium effect on Asian students. Since the study distribution between different regions was highly uneven, this result should be treated judiciously. For instance, except for Asia, other regions’ studies are small, e.g., Australia ( N  = 1), Europe ( N  = 1), Africa ( N  = 1), and America ( N  = 1), so these regions need more attention. In general, DT positively impacts student learning in diverse regions, and DT is recommended to enhance Asian students’ learning.

Implications for future practice and work

This meta-analysis makes an evidence-based analysis of DT’s effects on student learning, and we provide some meaningful suggestions for future practice and research. These are also major contributions to the existing literature.

First , though DT’s effects on different types of learning outcomes are significantly different, it is still an effective teaching method to improve student learning. Educators can apply DT to enhance student academic performance, creative thinking, learning engagement, motivation, and problem-solving ability. Due to the limited amount of learning engagement and self-efficacy, their effects should be treated cautiously.

Second , a smaller size means a larger DT’s effect. Educators should keep the class size <51. Future research could focus more on exploring DT’s effects on larger class sizes (e.g., 51–80, etc.).

Third , treatment duration is a critical factor. <= 1 month or >=3 months are more suggested. Particularly, DT’s effect is smallest when the duration is 1–3 months, and this needs more future research.

Fourth , grade level is a key factor. DT could be applied to university and high school students. DT’s effect on junior high school is insignificant . Researchers could carry out more studies at kindergarten ( k  = 2) and junior high school ( k  = 4).

Fifth , DT can be used in the subjects of STEM, No-STEM, or multidiscipline. Meanwhile,future research could explore more on No-STEM, multidiscipline, and more detailed subjects.

Sixth , the DT model is also a critical factor that should be considered. Based on the results of this study, we recommend that educators adopt the models of EDIPT. Importantly, except for EDIPT, other models’ effects need more exploration.

Seventh , in terms of team size, it is suggested to have <= 7 members in one group. Specifically, when the class size is large, 5–7 is better; otherwise, 2–4 will be preferred. However, the result shows a wide range. Future research could explore which specific composition of teams (from 2 to 7 or above) is better for DT instruction.

Eighth , regional analysis suggests that DT is most used in Asia and is most suggested to support Asian student learning. However, the number of effect sizes in other regions is very small. Thus, their results should be viewed with caution, and future researchers can take more steps to test DT’s effects in America, Africa, Australia, and Europe.

Conclusions, limitations and future research

Conclusions.

This meta-analytic evidence reveals DT’s effects in education based on 25 empirical studies. We find that DT has an upper-medium positive effect on students’ learning. Specifically, DT can lead to higher learners’ creative thinking, learning engagement, motivation, problem-solving ability, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. In comparison, DT has better effects on student learning motivation, engagement, and academic achievement. Furthermore, the learning outcome, grade level, treatment duration, DT model, and region moderate DT’s effects on student learning. Namely, these moderators will affect DT’s effectiveness.

DT is on-trend worldwide (Aris et al., 2022 ), and it has profoundly changed many educators’ thinking about how to instruct to support learning (Hubbard and Datnow, 2020 ). Teachers are vital in DT instruction; they should be facilitators and navigators, not lecturers (Henriksen et al., 2020b ; Retna, 2016 ; Rusmann and Ejsing-Duun, 2022 ). In sum, DT can potentially promote learning at different grade levels, but the effectiveness of DT in education depends upon the goals (Panke, 2019 ). It is critical to make teachers see the value of DT in classrooms (Carroll et al. 2010 ) and conduct DT instruction with guidance and rules. This paper provides evidence-based findings for educators and researchers.

Limitations, research gaps, and future directions

There are several limitations that should be solved for future work. First , the literature is distributed unevenly by region, grade level, and DT model, so more future studies could be taken at kindergarten ( k  = 2), junior high school ( k  = 4), America ( k  = 1), Australia ( k  = 1), Africa ( k  = 2), Europe ( k  = 2), learning engagement ( k  = 1), self-efficacy ( k  = 3), and DT model except EDIPT. Second , the literature included in this meta-analysis was published in English . Future work could include other language studies. Third , the heterogeneity is considerable, and some potential moderators may be overlooked. Future work could explore more factors that influence DT’s effectiveness, e.g., learning environments. Fourth , the included literature is not large; future research could focus on experimental design to explore DT’s effects on student learning. Last , a meta-analysis may not display the whole status and findings of DT in education. Future researchers could conduct a systematic literature review to compensate for the neglected aspects of the current research.

Data availability

All data is provided in the forest plot and references. The details are provided at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EHGCGS .

References (*included in this meta-analysis)

Abolhasani Z, Dehghani M, Javadipour M, Salehi K, Mohammadhasani N (2021) An analysis of the role of design thinking in promoting the 21st-century skills: a systematic review. Technol Educ J 16(1):81–98. https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2021.7206.2508

Aflatoony L, Wakkary R, Neustaedter C (2018) Becoming a design thinker: assessing the learning process of students in a secondary level design thinking course. Int J Art Design Educ 37(3):438–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12139

*Albay EM, Eisma DV (2021) Performance task assessment supported by the design thinking process: Results from a true experimental research. Soc Sci Human Open 3(1):100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100116

Apedoe XS, Ellefson MR, Schunn CD (2012) Learning together while designing: does group size make a difference? J Sci Edu Technol 21(1):83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9284-5

Aris NM, Ibrahim NH, Abd Halim ND, Ali S, Rusli NH, Suratin MNM, Hassan FC (2022) Evaluating the academic trends on design thinking research: A bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2021. J Positive School Psychol 6(4):1022–1038

Google Scholar  

Baker III FW, Moukhliss S (2020) Concretising design thinking: a content analysis of systematic and extended literature reviews on design thinking and human‐centred design. Rev Educ 8(1):305–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3186

Balakrishnan B (2022) Exploring the impact of design thinking tool among design undergraduates: a study on creative skills and motivation to think creatively. Int J Technol Design Educ 32(3):1799–1812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09652-y

*Bawaneh AK, Alnamshan MM (2023) Design Thinking in Science Education: Enhancing Undergraduate Students’ Motivation and Achievement in Learning Biology. Int J Inf Educ Technol 13(4):621–633. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.4.1846

Beckman SL, Barry M (2007) Innovation as a learning process: embedding design thinking. California Manag Rev 50(1):25–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415

Becker K, Mentzer N (2015) Engineering design thinking: high school students’ performance and knowledge. In 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, IEEE, (pp 5–12), Firenze, Italy

Blatchford P, Russell A, Brown P (2009) Teaching in large and small classes. In: LJ Saha, & AG Dworkin (eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching. Springer, Boston, MA

Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2005) Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 3.3) (p. 104). Englewood, NJ: Biostat

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons

Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Business Review 86(6):84–92

PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Brannon ME (2022) Exploring the impact of design thinking on creativity in preservice teachers. Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University

Bressler DM, Annetta LA (2022) Using game design to increase teachers’ familiarity with design thinking. Int J Technol Design Educ 32(2):1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09628-4

Carroll M, Goldman S, Britos L, Koh J, Royalty A, Hornstein M (2010) Destination, imagination and the fires within: design thinking in a middle school classroom. Int J Art Design Educ 29(1):37–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x

Carter G, Milner A, McGill K, Pirkis J, Kapur N, Spittal MJ (2017) Predicting suicidal behaviours using clinical instruments: systematic review and meta-analysis of positive predictive values for risk scales. Br J Psychiatry 210(6):387–395. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.182717

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Çeviker-Çınar G, Mura G, Demirbağ-Kaplan M (2017) Design thinking: a new road map in business education. Design J 20(S1):977–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353042

Article   Google Scholar  

*Chang YS, Tsai MC (2021) Effects of design thinking on artificial intelligence learning and creativity. Educ Stud 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1999213

*Chou PN, Shih RC (2022) Engineering design thinking in LEGO robot projects: an experimental study. In International Conference on Innovative Technologies and Learning. Springer, (p 324–333)

Cohen J (2013) S tatistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge

Cook KL, Bush SB (2018) Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Sci Mathe 118 (3-4):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12268

Dam RF, Teo YS (2019) 5 stages in the design thinking process. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process

*Dawbin B, Sherwen M, Dean S, Donnelly S, Cant R(2021) Building empathy through a design thinking project: A case study with middle secondary schoolboys. Issues Educ Res 31(2):440–457

De Mooij M, Hofstede G (2010) The Hofstede model: applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. Int J Advertis 29(1):85–110. https://doi.org/10.2501/S026504870920104X

de Figueiredo MD (2021) Design is cool, but… A critical appraisal of design thinking in management education Int J Manag Educ 19(1):100429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100429

Design Council (2015) What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond

Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Commun Health 52(6):377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56(2):455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Field AP, Gillett R (2010) How to do a meta‐analysis. Br J Math Stat Psychol 63(3):665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gleason B, Jaramillo Cherrez N (2024) Design thinking approach to global collaboration and empowered learning: virtual exchange as innovation in a teacher education course. TechTrends 65(3):348–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00573-6

Glen R, Suciu C, Baughn C (2014) The need for design thinking in business schools. Acad Manag Learn Educ 13(4):653–667. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0308

Glen R, Suciu C, Baughn CC, Anson R (2015) Teaching design thinking in business schools. Int J Manag Educ 13(2):182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.001

Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inform Lib J 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Grau SL, Rockett T (2022) Creating student-centred experiences: using design thinking to create student engagement. J Entrep 31(2_suppl):S135–S159. https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557221107443

Guaman-Quintanilla S, Everaert P, Chiluiza K, Valcke M (2022) Fostering teamwork through design thinking: evidence from a multi-actor perspective. Educ Sci 12(4):279. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040279

Guaman-Quintanilla S, Everaert P, Chiluiza K, Valcke M (2023) Impact of design thinking in higher education: a multi-actor perspective on problem solving and creativity. Int J Technol Design Educ 33(1):217–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09724-z

Henriksen D, Jordan M, Foulger TS, Zuiker S, Mishra P (2020a) Essential tensions in facilitating design thinking: collective reflections. J Formative Design Learn 4(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-020-00045-3

Henriksen D, Gretter S, Richardson C (2020b) Design thinking and the practicing teacher: addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teach Educ 31(2):209–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1531841

Hennessey E, Mueller J (2020) Teaching and learning design thinking (DT). Can J Educ/Revue Canadienne de l'éducation 43(2):498–521

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons

Holstermann N, Grube D, Bögeholz S (2010) Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Res Sci Educ 40(5):743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0

Howard JL, Bureau JS, Guay F, Chong JX, Ryan RM (2021) Student motivation and associated outcomes: a meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspect Psychol Sci 16(6):1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789

*Hsiao HS, Yu KC, Chang YS, Chien YH, Lin KY, Lin CY, … Lin YW (2017) The study on integrating the design thinking model and STEM activity unit for senior high school living technology course. In 2017 7th World Engineering Education Forum. IEEE, (pp 383–390), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

*Hsiao HS, Chang YC, Lin KY, Chen JC, Lin CY, Chung GH, Chen JH (2023) Applying the design thinking model to hands-on mechatronics STEM activities for senior high school students to improve the learning performance and learning behavior. Int J Technol Design Educ 33(a):1389–1408

Hubbard L, Datnow A (2020)Design thinking, leadership, and the grammar of schooling: Implications for educational change. Am J Educ 126(4):499–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/709510

IDEO (2013) Design thinking for educators. https://www.ideo.com/post/design-thinking-for-educators

Kelley GA, Kelley KS (2019) Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in rheumatology: a gentle introduction for clinicians. Clin Rheumatol 38(8):2029–2038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04590-6

*Khongprakob N, Petsangsri S (2022) Promoting Undergraduate Creativity and Positive Learning Outcomes through a Design Thinking and Visual Thinking Teaching Model. J Positive Psychol Wellbeing 6(1):3809–3821

Koh JHL, Chai CS, Wong B, Hong HY (2015) Design thinking for education: conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Springer, Singapore

*Kuo HC, Yang YTC, Chen JS, Hou TW, Ho MT(2022) The impact of design thinking PBL robot course on college students’ learning motivation and creative thinking. IEEE Transac Educ 65(22):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3098295

*Ladachart L, Cholsin J, Kwanpet S, Teerapanpong R, Dessi A, Phuangsuwan L, Phothong W(2022) Ninth-grade students’ perceptions on the design-thinking mindset in the context of reverse engineering. Int J Technol Design Educ 32(5):2445–2465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09701-6

Lake D, Flannery K, Kearns M (2021) A Cross-Disciplines and Cross-Sector Mixed-Methods Examination of Design Thinking Practices and Outcome. Innov Higher Edu 46(3):337–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09539-1

Lei H, Chiu MM, Li F, Wang X, Geng YJ (2020) Computational thinking and academic achievement: A meta-analysis among students. Children and Youth Services Review 118:105439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105439

Liedtka J (2015) Perspective: linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. J Prod Innov Manag 32(6):925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163

*Lin PY, Hong HY, Chai CS(2020a) Fostering college students’ design thinking in a knowledge-building environment. Educ Technol Res Dev 68(3):949–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09712-0

*Lin L, Shadiev R, Hwang WY, Shen S(2020b) From knowledge and skills to digital works: An application of design thinking in the information technology course. Thinking Skills Creativ 36:100646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100646

Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA

*Liu GC, Ko CH (2021) Effects of social media and design thinking on corporate identity design course in Taiwan. E-Learn Digital Media 18(3):251–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020950879

Li T, Zhan Z (2022) A systematic review on design thinking Integrated Learning in K-12 education. Appl Sci 12(16):8077. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168077

*Liu S, Li C (2023) Promoting design thinking and creativity by making: a quasi-experiment in the information technology course. Thinking Skills Creativ 49:101335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101335

*Liu X, Gu J, Xu J (2024a) The impact of the design thinking model on pre-service teachers’ creativity self-efficacy, inventive problem-solving skills, and technology-related motivation. Int J Technol Design Educ 34(1):167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09809-x

Liu S, Zhao X, Meng X, Ji W, Liu L, Li W, Tao Y, Peng Y, Yang Q (2024b) Research on the application of extended reality in the construction and management of landscape engineering. Electronics 13(5):897. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13050897

Lor R (2017) Design thinking in education: a critical review of literature. In International Academic Conference on Social Sciences and Management / Asian Conference on Education and Psychology. Bangkok, Thailand, (p 37–68)

Lou Y, Abrami PC, Spence JC, Poulsen C, Chambers B, d’Apollonia S (1996) Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 66(4):423–458. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004423

Lugmayr A, Stockleben B, Zou Y, Anzenhofer S, Jalonen M (2014) Applying “design thinking” in the context of media management education. Multimedia Tools Appl 71:119–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1361-8

McLaughlin JE, Lake D, Chen E, Guo W, Knock M, Knotek S (2023) Faculty experiences and motivations in design thinking teaching and learning. Front Educ 8:1172814. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1172814

Mentzer N, Becker K, Sutton M (2015) Engineering design thinking: high school students’ performance and knowledge. J Eng Educ 104(4):417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group PRISMA (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Internal Med 151(4):264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

*Nazim M, Mohammad T (2022) Implications of design thinking in an EFL classroom: writing in context. Theory Pract Language Stud 12(12):2723–2730. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1212.31

Oje O (2021) The effects of hands-on learning on stem student motivation: a meta-analysis. Master thesis, Washington State University. https://doi.org/10.7273/000000061

*Padagas RC(2021) Design Thinking in a Professional Nursing Course–Its Effectiveness and Unearthed Lessons Revista Românească pentru Educaţie Multidimensională 13(2):132–146

Panke S (2019) Design thinking in education: perspectives, opportunities and challenges Open Educ Stud 1(1):281–306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022

Pande M, Bharathi SV (2020) Theoretical foundations of design thinking–A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Thinking Skills Creativ 36:100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100637

Plattner H (2009) An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. Stanford Institute of Design

*Pratomo LC, Wardani DK (2021) The effectiveness of design thinking in improving student creativity skills and entrepreneurial alertness. Int J Instruct 14(4):695–712. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14440a

Rao H, Puranam P, Singh J (2022) Does design thinking training increase creativity? Results from a field experiment with middle-school students. Innovation 24(2):315–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1897468

Razali NH, Ali NNN, Safiyuddin SK, Khalid F (2022) Design thinking approaches in education and their challenges: a systematic literature review. Creative Educ 13(7):2289–2299. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.137145

Razzouk R, Shute V (2012) What is design thinking and why is it important? Rev Educ Res 82(3):330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429

Retna KS (2016) Thinking about “design thinking”: a study of teacher experiences. Asia Pac J Educ 36(S1):5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049

*Roth K, Globocnik D, Rau C, Neyer AK(2020) Living up to the expectations: the effect of design thinking on project success Creativ Innov Manag 29(4):667–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12408

Rowe P (1987) Design thinking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

Rusmann A, Ejsing-Duun S (2022) When design thinking goes to school: a literature review of design competences for the K-12 level. Int J Technol Design Educ 32(4):2063–2091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09692-4

Sarooghi H, Sunny S, Hornsby J, Fernhaber S (2019) Design thinking and entrepreneurship education: Where are we, and what are the possibilities? J Small Bus Manag 57(S1):78–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12541

Sandars J, Goh PS (2020) Design thinking in medical education: the key features and practical application. J Med Educ Curricular Dev 7:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120520926518

Scheer A, Noweski C, Meinel C (2012) Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design Technol Edu: Int J 17(3):8–19

Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

*Simeon MI, Samsudin MA, Yakob N(2022) Effect of design thinking approach on students’ achievement in some selected physics concepts in the context of STEM learning Int J Technol Design Educ 32(1):185–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09601-1

Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

Sung YT, Yang JM, Lee HY (2017) The effects of mobile-computer-supported collaborative learning: meta-analysis and critical synthesis. Rev Educ Res 87(4):768–805. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704307

Sung E, Kelley TR (2019) Identifying design process patterns: a sequential analysis study of design thinking. Int J Technol Design Educ 29(2):283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1

Swanson E, McCulley LV, Osman DJ, Scammacca Lewis N, Solis M (2019) The effect of team-based learning on content knowledge: a meta-analysis. Active Learn Higher Educ 20(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731201

*Tsai CW (2015) Investigating the effects of web-mediated design thinking and co-regulated learning on developing students’ computing skills in a blended course. Univ Access Inform Soc 14(2):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0401-8

Tu JC, Liu LX, Wu KY (2018) Study on the learning effectiveness of Stanford design thinking in integrated design education. Sustainability 10(8):2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082649

van de Grift TC, Kroeze R (2016) Design thinking as a tool for interdisciplinary education in health care. Acad Med 91(9):1234–1238. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001195

Wells A (2013) The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: a phenomenological perspective. Int J Technol Design Educ 23(3):623–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Wilson ML, Ritzhaupt AD, Cheng L (2020) The impact of teacher education courses for technology integration on pre-service teacher knowledge: A meta-analysis study. Comput Educ 156:103941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103941

*Xu W, Chen JC, Lou YF, Chen H (2024) Impacts of maker education-design thinking integration on knowledge, creative tendencies, and perceptions of the engineering profession. Int J Technol Design Educ 34(1):75–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09810-4

Yande A (2023) Enhancing Student Learning Outcomes using Design Thinking Strategies. Honor thesis, University of Texas at Austin

*Yalçın V, Erden Ş(2021) The effect of STEM activities prepared according to the design thinking model on preschool children’s creativity and problem-solving skills. Thinking Skills Creativ 41:100864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100864

Yu Q, Yu K (2023) Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Team Members in Blended Team-Based Learning: Moderating of Team Learning Ability. Asia-Pac Educ Res 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00795-1

Yu Q, Yu K, Li B, Wang Q (2023) Effectiveness of blended learning on students’ learning performance: a meta-analysis. J Res Technol Educ 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2264984

*Ziadat AH, Sakarneh MA (2021) Online design thinking problems for enhancing motivation of gifted students. Int J Learn Teach Educ Res 20(8):91–107. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.8.6

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and hard work. We would also like to express our gratitude to Springer Nature.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Qing Yu, Kun Yu & Rongri Lin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Qing Yu and Kun Yu: conceptualization, data curation and analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, and writing-review & editing. Qing Yu: writing-original draft, project administration, and resources. Rongri Lin: investigation, validation, resources, and writing-review & editing.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qing Yu , Kun Yu or Rongri Lin .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yu, Q., Yu, K. & Lin, R. A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 742 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03237-5

Download citation

Received : 26 January 2024

Accepted : 23 May 2024

Published : 10 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03237-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

A Year on Ozempic Taught Me We’re Thinking About Obesity All Wrong

By Johann Hari

Mr. Hari is a British journalist and the author of “Magic Pill: The Extraordinary Benefits — and Disturbing Risks — of the New Weight Loss Drugs.”

Ever since I was a teenager, I have dreamed of shedding a lot of weight. So when I shrank from 203 pounds to 161 in a year, I was baffled by my feelings. I was taking Ozempic, and I was haunted by the sense that I was cheating and doing something immoral.

I’m not the only one. In the United States (where I now split my time), over 70 percent of people are overweight or obese, and according to one poll, 47 percent of respondents said they were willing to pay to take the new weight-loss drugs. It’s not hard to see why. They cause users to lose an average of 10 to 20 percent of their body weight, and clinical trials suggest that the next generation of drugs (probably available soon) leads to a 24 percent loss, on average. Yet as more and more people take drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro, we get more confused as a culture, bombarding anyone in the public eye who takes them with brutal shaming.

This is happening because we are trapped in a set of old stories about what obesity is and the morally acceptable ways to overcome it. But the fact that so many of us are turning to the new weight-loss drugs can be an opportunity to find a way out of that trap of shame and stigma — and to a more truthful story.

In my lifetime, obesity has exploded, from being rare to almost being the norm. I was born in 1979, and by the time I was 21, obesity rates in the United States had more than doubled . They have skyrocketed since. The obvious question is, why? And how do these new weight-loss drugs work? The answer to both lies in one word: satiety. It’s a concept that we don’t use much in everyday life but that we’ve all experienced at some point. It describes the sensation of having had enough and not wanting any more.

The primary reason we have gained weight at a pace unprecedented in human history is that our diets have radically changed in ways that have deeply undermined our ability to feel sated. My father grew up in a village in the Swiss mountains, where he ate fresh, whole foods that had been cooked from scratch and prepared on the day they were eaten. But in the 30 years between his childhood and mine, in the suburbs of London, the nature of food transformed across the Western world. He was horrified to see that almost everything I ate was reheated and heavily processed. The evidence is clear that the kind of food my father grew up eating quickly makes you feel full. But the kind of food I grew up eating, much of which is made in factories, often with artificial chemicals, left me feeling empty and as if I had a hole in my stomach. In a recent study of what American children eat, ultraprocessed food was found to make up 67 percent of their daily diet. This kind of food makes you want to eat more and more. Satiety comes late, if at all.

One scientific experiment — which I have nicknamed Cheesecake Park — seemed to me to crystallize this effect. Paul Kenny, a neuroscientist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, grew up in Ireland. After he moved in 2000 to the United States, when he was in his 20s, he gained 30 pounds in two years. He began to wonder if the American diet has some kind of strange effect on our brains and our cravings, so he designed an experiment to test it. He and his colleague Paul Johnson raised a group of rats in a cage and gave them an abundant supply of healthy, balanced rat chow made out of the kind of food rats had been eating for a very long time. The rats would eat it when they were hungry, and then they seemed to feel sated and stopped. They did not become fat.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .