So, I was reading through my bloglines when I came across Victor’s recent post, pointing to an article about how JetBlue CEO David Neeleman’s business philosophy is influenced by his work as a (Mormon) missionary, driving a desire for equity in how people are treated. Which is all well and fine, except Victor claims David’s approach “shows perfectly how the empathy of great design thinking improves both human experience and the bottom line simultaneously.”
“Design Thinking” is a phrase that is getting increasingly bandied about, largely in an attempt to take the methods, practices, and approach of designers and apply it to other realms. A movement I’m definitely sympathetic with.
But a problem arises when we think that any “thinking” that we appreciate is “design thinking.” It’s very much in Victor’s personal and professional interest to associate the term with successes like JetBlue. But it’s also disingenuous in this case, because nothing in that piece has anything to do with design or design thinking.
Unless we think that designers have somehow cornered the market on empathy, and anyone being empathetic is utilizing design thinking. Which I think is a pejoration of the concept of empathy, and rapidly moves the phrase “design thinking” into the realm of catchy, but meaningless, buzzwords.
In fact, for all the hugger mugger around the term, I’ve found only one reasonable attempt to capture its meaning, Dan Saffer’s post, “Thinking About Design Thinking.” I think it’s a great place to start, and, if we’re able to maintain Dan’s focus on the concept, “design thinking” has potential for truly catching on.