Design Thinking: An Essential Framework for Innovating in Uncertain Times

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article explores the key dimensions that differentiate design thinking from traditional management approaches and their practical implications for innovating during times of uncertainty. Design thinking adopts a human-centered, experimental, and integrative framework centered on empathy, reframing problems, rapid prototyping, and cross-disciplinary collaboration. Across eight dimensions including orientation to users versus the firm, risk-taking versus optimization, and embracing ambiguity versus certainty, design thinking equips organizations with a methodology and mindset well-suited for addressing 'wicked problems' in complex, fast-changing environments. Supported by academic literature and practitioner examples, this brief argues that design thinking provides a powerful means for organizations across sectors to not just react to challenges but shape our future through innovation.

In my 20+ years of teaching, consulting, and research across various disciplines, few concepts have proven more practically useful and intellectually stimulating than design thinking. As organizations grapple with unprecedented challenges amidst a global pandemic, economic turmoil, and calls for social change, design thinking offers a proven approach for innovating under deep uncertainty. Beyond its conceptual merits, design thinking provides a practical framework to structure how managers and designers perform their work and make strategic decisions.

Today we will explore the eight core dimensions along which design thinking differs from traditional management approaches, grounded in both academic research and real-world examples from my client work. We’ll see how design thinking fosters a deeper empathy with customers, embraces ambiguity as an opportunity rather than a threat, and unleashes creative potential through rapid prototyping and experimentation.

But first, let’s address a critical question: what exactly is design thinking, and why does it matter now more than ever?

What is Design Thinking?

Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer's toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success (Brown, 2008). At its core, design thinking relies on a methodology that deploys curiosity, fast learning, visual thinking, and collaboration to solve "complex, ill-defined problems" (Brown, 2009). As the world confronts deeply interconnected economic, environmental and social challenges, design thinking provides a structured yet flexible process to address "wicked problems" without easy solutions (Rittel & Webber, 1973).

Far from a concept reserved for designers themselves, companies across industries have adopted design thinking to catalyze fresh innovation. A 2020 study from the Design Management Institute found that 89% of executives see design thinking as important to business success, a notable increase from 75% just three years prior. As disruptions accelerate and customers demand experiences far beyond basic functionality, design thinking equips organizations with the tools and mindset to build the future, not just react to present conditions. In the sections that follow, we'll explore its rich dimensions that separate it from conventional management.

Design Thinking Dimensions

1. User-Centered vs. Firm-Centered

   
   

Traditional management approaches tend to begin and end within the boundaries of the firm, focusing on efficiencies, metrics and shareholder value (Buchanan, 1992). In contrast, design thinking is resolutely user-centered, prioritizing the investigation of customer or citizen needs, pains and insights to better serve their interests and drive meaningful innovation (Gibson, 2007).

For example, after launching an insight-driven redesign, banking giant Chase improved customer experience by 19% while reducing call center volume a remarkable 15% (Parker et al., 2015). Other firms like Airbnb, Warby Parker and Intuit's Mint grew rapidly by starting not with their product roadmaps, but deep immersion in lived user experiences.

This customer-first mindset ultimately proves more strategically advantageous. As Albert Einstein supposedly said, “If I had an hour to solve a problem I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.” Design thinking promotes this inverted problem-solving approach.

2. Reframing over Optimization

   
   

Where conventional executives tend to optimize known solutions, designers see opportunities to reframe persistent problems through radically new perspectives (Brown, 2008). Rather than maintaining the status quo, design thinking fosters an attitude of constructive disruption to generate previously unimagined alternatives.

Through reimagining existing paradigms across sectors like mobility (Uber, Lyft), accommodation (Airbnb) and commerce (Amazon), firms have transformed multi-billion dollar industries. This propensity for conceptual reframing stems from techniques like "critical reframing" where assumptions are challenged through alternative lenses (Dorst, 2015).

During the COVID-19 crisis, design thinking helped organizations move beyond short-term fixes to rethink their core purpose. For instance, online learning platform Coursera rapidly expanded their job-training offerings by reframing education as career-long skill-building (Wrye, 2020). This shifts perspective from momentary adjustment to long-term transformation.

3. Bias for Experimentation over Analysis

   
   

Where conventional management favors analysis and prediction through optimization of certainty, design thinking embraces experimentation and uncertainty as a source of discovery and continuous innovation (Brown, 2008; Dorst, 2015). This bias toward fast, low-cost experimentation allows for rapid hypothesis testing while minimizing risks from failure.

Techniques like rapid prototyping, where ideas become tangible for user feedback early, help prevent persisting down unpromising avenues. After sketching concepts on paper, groups at IDEO will often create quick, rough physical or digital models to get reactions that inform iterative refinement (Kelley and Littman, 2005).

Companies prospering in uncertainty demonstrate this mindset. Netflix tests over 1000 micro-experiences per year on their platform (Sterling, 2018), while Amazon runs hundreds of controlled experiments daily across AWS, Marketplace and consumer sites (McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2017). The results? Exponential learning and unforeseen opportunities emerge through low-risk trial and error.

4. Collaborative Creation over Linear Execution

   
   

Where traditional management relies primarily on division of specialized labor coordinated in a top-down, linear fashion, design thinking brings diverse perspectives together in multidisciplinary collaboration centered on joint creation (Brown, 2008; Kelley and Littman, 2005).

Such approaches as design sprints and ideation workshops integrate input from areas like marketing, engineering and sociology throughout the process. This leads to more holistic solutions accounting for technical feasibility, economic viability and social desirability.

For instance, when the city of Cincinnati faced financial distress in 2002, a cross-sector design thinking initiative brought together over 100 partners to reimagine the city through the lens of citizens first. Over a decade, this collective impact approach helped revitalize neighborhoods, empower communities and add over $8 billion in annual economic impact (UNDP, 2010).

Collaboration ensures that no single functional lens fully frames the problem or limits potential solutions prematurely. As challenges compound post-pandemic, this diverse integration will prove ever more vital for fresh perspectives on complex human issues.

5. Integrative Vision over Disparate Projects

   
   

Where traditional management oversees projects as modular components, design thinking links vision and tactics through an integrative process spanning conjecture and reality (Brown, 2008). This prevents addressing narrow problems in isolation without considering how the whole system functions.

Approaches like storytelling and scenario planning help align diverse stakeholder efforts by creatively envisioning potential futures (Scearce et al., 2009). Groups then collaboratively map backwards the steps and experiments needed, remaining open to emergent directions guided by evidence over predetermined conclusions.

Public sector innovators leverage this integrative quality. Singapore's Urban Redevelopment Authority applies design thinking across decades to holistically strengthen economic competitiveness through detailed long-term land use frameworks and master plans integrating sustainability, density and livability (Schwab, 2008). While each initiative addresses a specific need, all work in concert towards an overarching aspirational vision for the city-state.

Maintaining this integrative and long-term perspective will grow increasingly valuable for anticipating second and third-order impacts across ecological, economic and social domains in our interlinked world.

6. Ambiguity over Certainty

   
   

Where traditional managers treat uncertainty and ambiguity as threats to be minimized, design thinking considers them opportunities to foster discovery, creativity and innovation (Brown, 2008; Dorst, 2015).

Embracing uncertainty actually helps avoid premature consensus, allows new questions to emerge over iterations and prevents blind commitment to initial hypotheses. Tools like storytelling also aid ambiguity by prompting qualitative discussions less bounded to quantify metrics.

A prime example arises from chipmaker Intel's failure in the emerging mobile market. They initially struggled applying formulaic analyses optimized for desktop chips, but then empowered ambient uncertainty through experimentation and prototyping unconventionally in garages (Kelley and Littman, 2005). This reframing unlocked a $10B business in just a decade through adaptability instead of adherence to existing realities.

As global events increasingly defy prediction, organizations relying on design thinking will prove far better equipped to see uncertainties not as risks to mitigate, but opportunities to uncover previously invisible options through iterative learning.

7. Convergent and Divergent Thinking

   
   

Traditional management tends to prioritize analysis, evaluation and compromise in convergent thinking. By contrast, design thinking emphasizes the creative, divergent phases of exploring many initial possibilities before progressively narrowing down options (Brown, 2008; Dorst, 2015).

Tools like brainstorming help suspend judgement, make wild connections between disparate ideas and visualize "what if" scenarios untethered from limitations. Only after generating many unique alternatives does the process enter phases favoring feasibility, desirability and viability to support convergence.

IDEO famously doubled the success rate of new product concepts using this divergent-then-convergent approach, cutting development times by half (Kelley and Littman, 2005). Divergence fosters novelty while convergence hones relevance, a balance critical for innovating in fast-changing landscapes.

As 21st century challenges continually transform, design thinking ensures organizations explore previously unconnected domains for unforeseen possibilities before converging on implementable solutions accounting for hard realities.

8. Focus on Humans over Processes

   
   

Where traditional management tends to prioritize repeatable processes, design thinking centers human behavior, needs and motivations (Brown, 2008; Buchanan, 1992). Beyond users, the approach considers all stakeholders' perspectives through techniques like stakeholder mapping and empathy interviews.

This moves focus from machine-centric efficiency to understanding humans holistically across contexts - their fears and dreams, social norms and aspirational behaviors. Such methods as contextual inquiry through immersive observation and articulating unmet user jobs help uncover latent tensions between lived realities versus stated desires.

For instance, when redesigning Nike's basketball shoe, researchers spent time watching players closely on inner-city courts to grasp cultural nuances missed through surveys alone. This human grounding transformed shoe performance by accounting for factors like self-expression of identity through style on urban asphalt (Kelley and Littman, 2005).

Process blindspots cannot anticipate how innovations affect human experiences and relationships. Design thinking safeguards against this through persistent focus on the very people programs aim to ultimately serve.

Conclusion

While still a novelty to some, design thinking has matured into a potent approach for organizations seeking to not just adapt, but shape our fast-transforming world. No longer the domain solely of creative enterprises, design thinking equips all actors across sectors to build the inclusive, sustainable and prosperous future humanity desires.

Now in an age testing resilience at all levels, its dimensions for reframing persistent challenges, experimenting through uncertainty and aligning diverse perspectives around human-centered visions have perhaps never proved more timely. By embedding design thinking's rigor and mindset, companies can make holistic strides toward innovation not only in products but systems, communities and mutually-reinforcing change itself. Our shared challenges demand nothing less.

Though the road ahead remains unclear, design thinking offers a proven map for navigating uncertainty – not by eliminating it, but leveraging ambiguity as a wellspring of new ideas and pathways inconceivable from within known paradigms alone. I am optimistic that as more embrace this approach, we can build the future we want from the present we have. Our shared humanity, if nothing else, calls us to create together.

References

1. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.

2. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins.

3. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), 5-21.

4. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.

5. Gibson, B. (2007). ACCELERATING INNOVATION IN U.S. HEALTHCARE DELIVERY THROUGH DESIGN THINKING. Health Affairs, 26(5), 1657–1665.

6. Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for beating the devil's advocate & driving creativity throughout your organization. Currency/Doubleday.

7. McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. WW Norton & Company.

8. Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2015). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton & Company.

9. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

10. Scearce, D., Fulton, K., & Kannan, B. (2009). Venture philanthropy 2008: Its rise and effects. Monitor Group.

11. Schwab, K. (2008). The global competitiveness report 2008-2009. World Economic Forum.

12. Sterling, G. (2018). The art of customer happiness: A guide to fine wine and good food according to Netflix. Amazon Publishing.

13. UNDP (2010). "Cincinnati's transformation from manufacturing to knowledge economy." Human Development Report 2010 20th Anniversary Edition. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

14. Wrye, S. (2020). How Coursera Pivoted to Job Training During COVID-19. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). Design Thinking: An Essential Framework for Innovating in Uncertain Times. Human Capital Leadership Review, 30(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.30.4.2