My Primary Design Thinking Model

Tl;dr version: I use a four-part design process loop as an orientation to my general approach for human-centered problem-solving. Credit goes to IIT-ID’s Charles Owens and Jump’s Dev Patnaik.

Look, I’m not hanging my hat on a proprietary process model, having invented design thinking, nor brilliant and original communication design. There are many useful frameworks and representations of design processes and design thinking models out there. I tend to find this one comfortable and useful most of the time. Some of them are exquisitely layered examples of graphic design posters, and some are napkin sketch-level simplicity. I lean more towards a sketch.

My formal education in the Stanford product design program hadn’t leaned on any one model to represent design thinking except for the simple Express-Test Cycle. (“ETC” window decals greeted visitors to the home of the Design Department at the time.)

When we founded Jump Associates in 1998, my cofounders and I adopted a model from Chicago’s IIT Institute of Design (ID), despite all being from Stanford Engineering grads, 3/4 from Product Design. ID was the leading place to study Design Planning, and a great place to learn frameworks. My PD classmate Dev (now Jump’s CEO) immersed in Design Planning and the “Chicago design mafia” in his time at Doblin prior to assembling the founding team of Jump, and he adapted professor Charles Owens’ model to explain our approach. At this point it’s part of my brain too.

Stanford’s ‘d.school’ and IDEO have since used their 5-bubble Design Thinking model to great success in growing the awareness and use of design thinking beyond its origins. Stanford also uses ‘focus and flare’ to talk about convergent and divergent thinking, which is also a feature of the UK Design Council’s “Double Diamond” process popular in the UX design world. The Owens/Jump cycle, ETC, and Stanford’s model are all valid, stressing the importance of learning, generating, testing, and iterating in problem-solving.

They’re all accurate to an extent, but that’s not the most important thing. As statistician George E. Box expressed so well, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” It’s good to have several at hand. If I find one way or another that’s more useful and helpful for clients and collaborators, that’s what matters most.