Skip to main content

Design Thinking

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible

Abstract

Design thinking (DT) is a human-centered approach to innovation that implies empathy as an innovation mindset to understand the latent needs of users observed in real settings. Those observations generate insights, which are translated into innovative products through iterations with quick-and-dirty prototypes in order to collect feedback from the field and users. Despite its growing popularity, several scholars have highlighted the lack of academic rigor in DT and have reported several limits such as its inability to support radical innovation. This entry will describe the process, challenges, and limitations in DT, as well as ways to open up the field of the possible in DT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hill climbing is a mathematical optimization technique that attempts to find a better solution by incrementally changing a single element of the solution. If the change produces a better solution, an incremental change is made to the new solution, repeating until no further improvements can be found (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 2018).

  2. 2.

    Computer-based interactive systems vary in scale and complexity and examples include automated banking systems, Web sites and applications, vending machines, mobile phones and digital television, etc.,

  3. 3.

    The expression human factors is a predominantly North American. The terms ‘ergonomics’ and ‘human factors’ which can be used interchangeably are concerned with “fitting a job to a person” to fulfill the goals of occupational health and safety and productivity.

  4. 4.

    https://osha.oregon.gov/edu/grants/wrd/cergos/Pages/ergonomics.aspx

References

  • Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: A conceptual model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois-Bougrine S., Buisine S., Vandendriessche C., Glaveanu V., Lubart T. (2017). Engineering students’ use of creativity and development tools in conceptual product design: what, when and how? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 104–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Latorre, S., & Mourey, F. (2018). Anticipating non-expressed needs: Exploring a combined approach to enhance design thinking. Creativity Studies, 11, 277–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brangier, E., Barcenilla, J., & Robert, J.-M. (2017). Prospective ergonomics and innovative ideas in the early stages of design projects. In A. Zunjic (Ed.), Ergonomic design and assessment of products and systems (pp. 47–68). Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., Katz Barry B. K. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28, 381–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, W., & Evans, D. J. (2016). Designing your life: How to build a well-lived, joyful life. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The challenges of using design thinking in industry–experiences from five large firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 344–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley, M. R., & Jones, D. G. (2011). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design (2nd ed.). CRC press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Th. J., & Glenn, J. C. (2004, May 13–14). Integration, comparisons, and frontier of futures research methods. In EU-US Seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods (pp. 106–122). Seville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iskander, N. (2018). Design thinking is fundamentally conservative and preserves the status quo. Harvard Business Review.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jouvenel, de H. (2002). La démarche prospective. Un bref guide méthodologique, Revue Futuribles 247 [online], [cited 8 June, 2018]. Available from Internet: http://maelko.typepad.com/JouvenelProspective.pdf

  • Kasdaglis, N., & Stowers, K. (2016, July). Beyond human factors: The role of human centered design in developing a safety-critical system. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 345–351). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, L., & Meinel, C. (2019). Looking further: Design thinking beyond solution-fixation. In Design thinking research (pp. 1–12). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, J. (2007). Clayton Christensen’s Innovation Brain, Bloomberg (2007). Available from Internet: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-06-15/clayton-christensens-innovation-brainbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

  • Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A.; Verganti, R. 2012. Incremental and radical innovation: Design research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R. (2010). User-Centered Innovation Is Not Sustainable, Harvard Business Review. Available from Internet: https://hbr.org/2010/03/user-centeredinnovation-is-no

  • von Thienen, J. P., Clancey, W. J., Corazza, G. E., & Meinel, C. (2018). Theoretical foundations of design thinking. In Design thinking research (pp. 13–40). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zittoun, T., & de Saint-Laurent, C. (2015). Life-creativity: Imagining one’s life. In V. P. Glăveanu, A. Gillespie, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Rethinking creativity: Contributions from social and cultural psychology (pp. 58–75). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315866949

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Bourgeois-Bougrine, S. (2022). Design Thinking. In: Glăveanu, V.P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_110

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics