Pocket guide to design thinking
A framework for holistic, equitable, community-centred innovation
This little book was planned, written, edited, designed and published in-house by my company, Co.school. Tracey Falk was responsible for the ins-and-outs of the visual design.
My favourite part, again, are the stories. While it's a helpful, digestible explainer of the whole framework, it comes alive in the storytelling.
Official description:
"Learn what makes design thinking an effective, co-creative method. And what doesn’t. Design thinking has been a contemporary darling of major design studios and corporate giants—and has garnered its fair share of valid criticism. But beneath the hype, opportunism, and misapplication of the method, design thinking contains timeless, foundational strengths that can help co-creators pursue innovation in equitable, effective ways. This accessible pocket guide to design thinking offers a refreshed take on how to apply design thinking in the service of the community. Learn how to guide a process through the double diamond—while keeping ethics firmly in place throughout the journey—in order to arrive at solutions for complex problems."
Opening words
(Here's how the book starts)
Many years ago, inside a small room in a town hall, behind the council chambers, I was leading a workshop with a municipal partner. The sketching exercise we had initiated was underway, and pens were scribbling on papers. I walked around the room as the timer ticked on.
The window view to the outdoors was obscured by pillars and projector screens. The frosted glass on the other two walls obscured the adjoining rooms, showing only silhouettes—like a muted puppet show. On the remaining wall, a framed coat of arms was hung, accompanied by an ornate, long description of the relevant heraldry practices. It read like a Lewis Carrol poem.
“Vert three pallets wavy Argent jessant from a chief dancetty Azure fimbriated Argent in base barry wavy of four Azure and Argent.”
I wanted to make sense of this whimsical, absurd nonsense sentence, this artifact of expired royal practices, but the timer was about to go.
We went through a review of each other’s sketches, and on to the voting activity. As one participant’s sketch was selected for continued development, I heard him admit, “I already had this idea before the workshop. I just wanted the chance to convince you all to go for it.”
If I was a more principled person, I might have picked up my supplies and left. A more dramatic person might have walked out. And if I was a more courageous person, I might have called it out. I might have said, “Right here is everything wrong with design thinking: this is nothing but a puffed-up display of absurd pageantry!” I might have gestured wildly to the coat of arms. “As outrageous and outdated as the language of heraldry itself. This,” I might huff, “is merely innovation theatre!”
Instead, I simply moved on to the next activity; I realized I was part of the problem. After all, I had helped create the container we were within. And it wasn’t conducive to anything but innovation theatre.
- The participants were a homogenous, exclusive group who already held power.
- We weren’t generating new ideas, only marinating in the ones we already had.
- There were no users or community-members anywhere in sight. We had received no perspectives or input from those this process was intended to serve.
- Time was being used as the primary governing force: the clock was more important than any other measure of impact.
- The very room we were using was a secretive chamber squirreled away behind the seat of power, devoid of any connection with nature or the community.
- The solutions we were exploring were about to be chosen and shipped, with no further consultation.
We could have critiqued the process, lambasted the people, and abandoned ship upon the wavy Argent.
But you know what we did instead? We stayed connected to one another. We worked together to name what was wrong with the process. We designed a better one.
In that same community, with the same project sponsors, not more than a year later, we were in a different room.
- The participants were a diverse, multi-generational group from all across the municipality.
- The ideas were being pushed towards newness, with ample time for gathering external inspiration, and to challenge each other’s perspective.
- Engaging meaningfully with community members was part of the schedule, to provide relevant input and perspectives as key part of the whole process. There was a purposeful plan to continue to stay connected to these community members after the work was done.
- Time was on our side; an entire week had been cleared to explore the problem area. We also had a plan for measuring progress and continuing the work long after the week was done.
- The workshop environment was thoughtfully chosen. Natural light poured in from ample windows as we worked in a publicly-accessible community centre, where children played and seniors gathered. Nature walks near a forest and creek were steps for refreshing tired brains during breaks.
- No solution would be chosen or shipped without the testing and involvement of the community itself.
Inclusion or extraction?
If you were to eat a meal that uses low-quality ingredients, prepared by mistreated staff, in a place with poor atmosphere—a meal that gives you indigestion, and generates a great deal of plastic waste—you’d be well within your rights to be upset about your negative experience. But you’d be silly to come away from that experience saying, “I’m never eating dinner again!”
Instead, you’d approach the experience differently, paying closer attention to what you value. If you were creating the dining experience, you’d make different choices: choosing higher quality ingredients, ensuring anyone involved in the process is treated well, and attending to the atmosphere. You’d be conscious of health and dietary restrictions. You’d find reusable dinnerware.
Design thinking has been heavily critiqued of late, and it can be confusing to parse where we’re at. Are we done with design thinking? Or is it just time to practice it in a different way?
At its most useful, design thinking remains a critical practice of inclusive innovation: it is one way of exploring new ideas, engaging with your community, and emerging with ideas worth executing.
It’s also true that it’s been heavily used as a tool of extractive capitalism. Design thinking has helped corporations develop products that have caused harm, further disenfranchising communities. It has also created plenty of ideas that languish and die on the whiteboard, with no hope of ever being launched.
We come to design thinking with a distinct sense of caution, and a desire to retain what is healthy and helpful about the practice. Let’s understand the process, and be part of seeking regenerative solutions that enhance human well-being. Let’s be part of restoring communities to wholeness, seeking futures that are equitable.
Which means that first, we need to reacquaint ourselves with the basics.
What, exactly, is design thinking?
(Ready for more? You can buy the book here.)