Other critics have
suggested that neither
author sufficiently
communicated how to
apply design thinking.

With a deep reliance on
the context of a problem,
I’m not sure that anyone
can “prescribe” enough
of an approach to satisfy
these detractors.

March + April 2010

interactions

innovation and design to core strategies of the company.”

New relationships: “Design thinking is being applied at new scales in the move from discrete products and services to complex systems.… We are entering an era of limits; the cycle of mass production and mindless consumption that defined the industrial age is no longer sustain-able…. Design thinking needs to be turned toward the formulation of a new participatory social con-tract…. We’re all in this together.”

Embracing complexity. “When it comes to colo-
nies of humans, we have to reckon with addi-
tional factors of individual intelligence and free
will…. Instead of an inflexible, hierarchical pro-
cess that is designed once and executed many
times, we must imagine how we might create
highly flexible, constantly evolving systems in
which each exchange between participants is an
opportunity for empathy, insight, innovation, and
implementation.”
Repeatedly, design is compared and contrasted
with design thinking: “Design is about deliver-
ing a satisfying experience. Design thinking is
about creating a multipolar experience in which
everyone has the opportunity to participate in the
conversation.”

Dissonant Passages

I’m quite comfortable mucking around in concepts, which are far more critical to the design of transactions and services than to products you can see and touch. Martin focuses on concepts as a means to help others apply design thinking to things like business strategy.

I’m not as comfortable, however, with the way Martin shares his concepts. The book was bumpy—it lacked the natural flow of his other works, and seemed ill sequenced. The strongest lead-in for the book started in Chapter 4—design thinking in the context of the P&G story—with supporting details in Chapter 3. Then Chapter 5 introduces the critical context for the trade-off between validity and reliability, with supporting details in Chapter 2.

Chapter 1 starts off with a “new” concept, a “knowledge funnel,” that is referenced throughout the book. It takes the original design continuum (referenced earlier) and aligns each part to a funnel starting with “mystery” as the widest part. For me, the funnel detracts from the original concepts, as the funnel forces something that was once fluid and unidirectional into a very linear concept. The additive value of the funnel is not apparent.

This is unfortunate because Martin’s concepts are not only relevant, they’re also interrelated in ways that provide a powerful framework for assessing and applying design thinking. The mystery continuum has a direct correlation to validity and reliability. Note how the left and the right of the various continuums in Figure 2 correspond directly to one another.

This collection mimics the left and right of a long-standing, powerful model: yin and yang. Just as with the yin/yang model, design thinking works to embrace the dichotomy—embracing both sides at once to create a new “middle.” But business tends to believe that the goal is to move toward the right. As a result, businesses are predominantly over-yang’d. Design thinking provides a means to restore the natural power inherent in the balance.

Martin’s writing circles back on itself often and poses contradictions. He speaks repeatedly of a balance: “Design thinkers seek to balance validity and reliability.” Then in the diagram of the “Design thinker’s personal knowledge system,” the first label states: “ 1. My world is reliability oriented.” I got the distinct impression that Martin