I think that trying to deconstruct a design and innovation process is extremely difficult, given the abstract nature of the process. However, Beckman did a good job of creating a logical matrix of our thought process. Beckman’s Innovative Process is quite interesting, but I think she discounts the fluidity with which designers can move through each stage.
On the Analysis-Synthesis spectrum and the Abstract-Concrete spectrum, Beckman asserts that we move in a full one-directional cycle from Observations to Frameworks to Imperatives to Solutions. Working with my team to green Van Houtte’s business demonstrated to me that we did not follow the flow cycle as outlined in the Innovation Process. As logical as the cycle appears, it cannot account for all the different obstacles and factors that come into play when one engages in the design/innovation process. Unlike the scientific process, the design process is much less linear, draws in elements from multiple disciplines, and include many unforeseeable factors. Hence, it is very difficult to develop a matrix that encompasses all these elements.
Meeting with Morten to understand his business process was the Observation stage. After that, we had to present our insights through the Frameworks stage. It was after the Frameworks stage that our group ran into a bit of a dead end. Because we had a lot of insights, we had difficulty in picking which few insights to focus on and deliver solutions. We ended up having to revisit the Observations stage again and again. The Imperatives stage (idea generation) was also stumbled upon a few times but with no concrete foothold. However, once we firmly established our positions in each of the Observations, Frameworks, and Imperatives stages, it was very easy to arrive at the Solutions stage.
Going through this design process with my group demonstrated to me the following:
- Yes, Beckman’s Innovation Process is accurate in describing the different types of stages that designers work through. Our group eventually visited all four stages of the Innovation Process.
- Looking back on the sequence of our process, it is not as clean of a journey as Beckman contends. Our team was stuck for a while in certain stages, particularly in the Imperatives stage. This setback forced us to trace back on our steps and take a closer look at our Observations. We certainly did not follow a linear thinking process.
- So, reflecting on this journey, I conclude that designers engaging in the design thinking process do go through all four stages (Observations, Frameworks, Imperatives, Solutions). However, the process is not linear- that is, it is not a continuous cycle flow as illustrated in the Innovation Process as suggested by Beckman.
Design thinking is a very complex process. This is supported by the affirmed complexity in research of any type of activity involving the brain. It is expected that an abstract concept such as creativity and design thinking cannot be easily pinned down and explained as a precise process. However, I do not think this is such a terrible thing. In my opinion, the beauty of creativity and design thinking is that there is no linear process, so you can explore with your team without any boundaries. With boundaries come limitations. Free thinking and no predefined processes/boundaries to hold us back are what make teamwork and design thinking so rewarding.