Ch6 The Sticky Note and the Wicked Problem
Chapter 6 critically examines the gap between the scholarly tradition of design thinking and its corporate appropriation. It first restates the core insights of seminal scholars: Simon’s view of design as a mode of reasoning; Rittel and Webber’s definition of wicked problems; McKim’s notion of externalization as a cognitive act; Schön’s framing‑reframing cycle; Lawson’s empirical finding that designers learn by proposing solutions; Cross and Dorst’s identification of abduction as the inferential engine; Rowe’s case‑comparative method; and Buchanan’s concept of the ‘placement’ that makes an indeterminate situation visible. The chapter argues that these contributions form a coherent theory that emphasizes the decisive act of choosing how to regard a situation. It then shows how the corporate version cherry‑picks terminology while discarding the co‑evolutionary, argumentative, and critical aspects, reducing the practice to a diagrammatic, prescriptive process that forces participants into an unexamined frame. The author debunks the myth that design thinking can guarantee innovation, asserting instead that rigorous design practice can only increase the likelihood of tackling the right problem and detecting early mis‑alignment. A set of recoverable operations—refusing briefs, generating rival explanations, leveraging precedent, expressing ideas in falsifiable forms, and extending timescales—are presented as the modest, achievable promise. The chapter concludes with an ironic observation that the very tradition it revives is itself a body of precedent that has stopped being read, and provides an extensive bibliography documenting the scholarly lineage.
Topics
Scholarly Foundations of Design Thinking
Chapter 6 revisits the seminal contributions that constitute the original design thinking tradition: Simon’s view of design as a systematic mode of reasoning; Rittel & Webber’s definition of wicked problems and their co‑evolutionary nature; McKim’s claim that externalizing ideas is a cognitive act that makes intentions testable; Schön’s framing‑reframing cycle as a conversation with materials; Lawson’s empirical finding that designers learn by proposing solutions, with Cross and Dorst identifying abduction as the underlying inferential engine; Rowe’s case‑comparative method that builds a precedent library; and Buchanan’s ‘placement’ concept that deliberately shifts perspective to render indeterminate situations visible. Together these works form a coherent theory that emphasizes the decisive act of choosing how to regard a situation.
Corporate Appropriation and Simplification
The chapter contrasts the scholarly tradition with the corporate version of design thinking, which retains fashionable terminology but strips away co‑evolution, argumentative rigor, and critical framing. In corporate practice the process is reduced to a prescriptive, diagrammatic sequence (often a two‑day workshop with coloured paper) that forces participants into an unexamined frame, thereby losing the reflective and argumentative core of the original theory.
Debunking the Innovation Myth and the Honest Promise of Design Practice
Design thinking is not a guaranteed engine of innovation; innovation is an attribute assigned retrospectively. The chapter argues that rigorous design practice can only increase the likelihood of tackling the right problem and detecting early mis‑alignment, offering a modest but realistic promise rather than a magical guarantee.
Recoverable Operations for Bridging the Gap
A concrete set of modest, achievable actions is presented to restore the scholarly spirit within practice: refusing ill‑posed briefs, generating rival explanations, leveraging structural precedent, expressing ideas in falsifiable forms, and extending timescales. These operations aim to re‑introduce critical framing and argumentative rigor into corporate settings.
Neglected Precedent and Bibliographic Lineage
The chapter ends with an ironic observation that the design thinking tradition, which champions the study of precedent, has stopped reading its own historical case library. An extensive bibliography documents the scholarly lineage and notes methodological constraints, underscoring the importance of accurate citation for reconstructing the tradition.