Rebecca Ackermann, in her article ‘Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?’ states that Design Thinking, as “an approach that promised to democratize design may have done the opposite.” She provides examples of projects, such as the ‘Diva Centres’ project in Zambia, where application of Design Thinking to solve problems failed. In the article, Rebecca states that Design Thinking has failed to live up to its promise by becoming a diluted and often misused buzzword. Introduced and evangelized as an approach that anyone working on solving problems can adhere to, she postulates that its efficiency seems to ebb as a ‘genuine process’ to Design Thinking as ‘a marketable product’. She correctly states that ‘consultancies’ have now begun to offer workshops and certifications, often simplifying the methodology into a ‘mere checklist of activities’ that are detached from the underlying principles of deep user understanding. This commercialization led to a superficial application of the framework, with companies prioritizing the appearance as being “design-thinking-driven” over genuine engagement with the process and a deeper connect with the intended beneficiary.

Through examples she shares in the article, Rebecca identifies several key ways in which the spirit of Design Thinking was lost, while it was followed as per the letter. The first issue was the over-simplification of the process which stripped it of its depth. The emphasis on rapid prototyping and “failing fast” often led to rushed, poorly-researched solutions without sufficient consideration for the nuances of the problem (‘falling in love with the problem and not with the solution’) or the long-term consequences of implementation (Visualization). Interestingly, she explains that right from the Empathy stage, which is intended to build deep understanding of the users’ needs, actually translated into a hurry for superficial interviews or surveys, failing to capture the complexities of human behavior and context.

The second issue that the article highlights is the skewed perspective of the stakeholders looking into the problem. There are issues of ‘power imbalances’ and lack of inclusivity. This is a major reason why Design Thinking may fail. The process could be inherently biased, reflecting the perspectives of the (often privileged) designers and decision-makers rather than the actual users. The article emphasizes that the practitioners often ignore systemic issues and power dynamics, leading to solutions that reinforce existing inequalities or even create new ones! In such a scenario, Design Thinking becomes a very one-sided tool that is wielded by certain groups, rather than a truly collaborative approach.

The third issue that she identifies in the examples she shares brings out the lack of rigorous evaluation and accountability. The focus on rapid iteration and pivoting from idea to idea often meant that solutions were implemented without proper testing or evaluation of their effectiveness. The subjective nature of the success of the design made it difficult to objectively assess the impact of Design Thinking interventions, making it susceptible to becoming more about theatrical performance than tangible results.

The fourth and final point is that many organizations that leverage Design Thinking do not tend to pay attention to implementation and sustainability that also contributes to it not being impactful. While the framework excels at generating ideas, she says that practitioners do not go the distance in translating those ideas into practical, scalable, and sustainable solutions. The focus on initial ideation and prototyping neglected the crucial steps of operationalization, long-term maintenance, and adaptation to changing contexts.

The human-centered, iterative approach of Design Thinking is lost due to oversimplification, lack of inclusivity, inadequate evaluation, among other reasons. If, due to this, one blames the method, then it is a classic example of a poor workman blaming his tools.

However, on a deeper study on why such unintended outcomes happen despite rigorously adhering to the ‘process’, one can understand that it is mostly due to lack of meticulousness in the ‘approach’. In fact, it is mandatory to look beyond the mere process. It all starts with the right mindset to approach the problem. Time is a luxury that most problem solvers do not have – that’s one ingredient that precipitates a problem. However, giving in to the temptation to solve the problem leads to not understanding the actual issue (root cause) of the problem. Staying with the problem is imperative for successful outcomes. The longer one takes to understand its mysteries, the better the outcome. The other issue that leads to poor solution design is the lack of proper visualization of the end-to-end solution from implementation to impact which can be attributed to lack of alignment of all the stakeholders involved in the project and failure to comprehend the ecosystem (cartographic perspective). This could probably be attributed to inherent bias. 

The issue with poor and over emphasis on prototyping could stem from the lack of proper communication due to improper communication strategies and data collection methods. Lack of understanding the persona of the relevant stakeholders, results in poor comprehension of the issue.

And finally, yes, implementing a couple of workable prototypes or solution models is not tantamount to a successful solution. But as poorly conceived policies and solutions go, the root cause stays with insufficient grasp of the problem, of the larger ecosystem and misalignment of relevant stakeholders.

Doesn’t this mean that the problem is in not ‘Designing The Thinking’ first, before thinking of the design.