Design Thinking

by Nigel Cross

  Other Outstanding Designers

  These two case studies also reinforce and resonate with many of the observations that have been made in other studies of successful, innovative designers, and extend even further across the range of fields of design in which they practice.

  In Chapter 1, I drew upon the interviews that Bryan Lawson conducted with some highly successful, creative architects. He drew attention to similarities in the working methods of the architects he studied, which also have similarities with the engineering designer Gordon Murray and the product designer Kenneth Grange. One such is the need to maintain periods of intense activity, but interspersed with periods, usually away from the normal work environment, of more reflective contemplation. Lawson’s architects also are characterised by a dedicated sense of purpose, which they share with small, highly motivated teams of co-workers. There is also a common sense of focusing on a problem so precisely that it can be approached from ‘first principles’; as the outstanding engineer-architect Santiago Calatrava was reported by Lawson to say: ‘It is the answer to a particular problem that makes the work of the engineer … you need a very precise problem.’

  One thing that emerges strongly from Lawson’s studies that resonates with the study of Gordon Murray is the architects’ use of drawing as a design aid. Lawson observed that, ‘Frequently, drawings are overlaid and mixed together. Two-dimensional plans or sections can be seen with sketches and more diagrammatic marks all on the same piece of paper in what appears a confusing jumble.’ These sound very much like Gordon’s ‘Wonder Plots’. The architects also use their drawings as a means of ‘thinking aloud’, or ‘talking to themselves’, as Gordon put it. For example, as the architect Richard MacCormac said, ‘I use drawing as a process of criticism and discovery’, which sounds very similar to Gordon’s approach. The common elements in these similar approaches are the use of drawing not only as a means of externalising cognitive images but also of actively ‘thinking by drawing’, and of responding, layer after layer and view after view, to the design as it emerges in the drawings.

  Another study of an innovative designer, by Linda Candy and Ernest Edmonds, is particularly relevant because, like our study of Gordon Murray, it was also based upon the design of race-winning competition vehicles. Candy and Edmonds studied the design process of the racing-bicycle designer, Mike Burrows. His innovative, carbon-fibre, single-piece ‘monocoque’ frame design of 1985 was at first banned by the cycle racing authorities as illegal, but later became the basis of the LotusSport Olympic pursuit bicycle on which Chris Boardman won the 4,000 metres individual pursuit in world record time at the 1992 Olympic Games. Interestingly, as well as working outside the regulations, there are many features of Mike Burrows’ design approach that are similar to that of Gordon Murray.

  Like Gordon Murray, Mike Burrows is an enthusiast for his sport, and has participated as a racing cyclist. They both therefore have a very high personal motivation that drives their work, and both are steeped in the knowledge and expertise of their domains. They both constantly keep abreast of progress and current developments in their own and related fields, simply out of personal commitment, and this can often lead to insights and the transfer of technology from one field to another. A significant difference in working methods, however, is Mike Burrows’ limited use of sketching as a design medium; he prefers to move quickly to immediate physical realisations of ideas in models and mock-ups. This is rather more like Kenneth Grange’s approach of building models. Nevertheless, his successful approach to the ‘monocoque’ cycle design reflects Gordon Murray’s approach of concentrating on a major objective and designing from ‘first principles’. In Mike Burrows’ case it was a concentration on pursuing the dominant principle of minimising aerodynamic drag, and being prepared to completely re-conceptualise the conventional bicycle frame.

  A study of highly innovative engineers was made by Michael Maccoby, based on interviews with eight such people, nominated by their peers. Maccoby identified the life-long commitment of the innovators he studied, extending back to examples of interests stemming from their childhood or youth; the fact that innovators are not put off by failure, but expect to learn from failure; and that they have ‘the courage to innovate’. He also pointed to several examples among these innovators of their experience of solutions arising from sudden illumination of problems that they had been worrying about. For example, like Gordon Murray’s bathtime insights, the engineer-inventor Jacob Rabinow reported that ‘flashes of inspiration come to him while shaving, driving, or partaking in other activities. Solutions are usually sudden.’ Not all the innovators reported examples of sudden illumination, and for some, solutions only come from continuous hard work, but it is clear that sudden illumination (within a prepared mind) is a frequent element in creative design thinking.

  Robin Roy interviewed the industrial designer James Dyson, who reported that he almost never solved problems by getting ‘brainwaves in the bath’, but more often when doing some practical work, ‘welding or hammering something in the workshop’. However, this practical work may in itself be a way of letting the mind relax. Two of James Dyson’s most well-known design innovations, the ‘Ballbarrow’ wheelbarrow and the ‘Cyclone’ vacuum cleaner, both came from practical experience and from drawing on technology transfer from other fields (rather like Gordon Murray’s example of transfer of filter technology from medicine). The ‘Ballbarrow’ drew from Dyson’s experience with balloon tyres on amphibious vehicles, and the ‘Cyclone’ drew from his installation of an industrial cyclone to remove fine powder from the air of the factory where the ‘Ballbarrow’ was being produced.

  Common Features

  There appear to be sufficient striking similarities between these various studies of creative designers and other innovators for us to be able to draw some conclusions about common features of a successful approach to innovative design. We see in particular the immensely strong commitment of the innovative designers to their chosen fields of endeavour, based on a personal motivation that has been within them since youth. Added to this is a personal courage to take risks, even in the face of huge consequences for failure. The innovative designer is prepared to fail (occasionally), but is not afraid of failure, and of course seeks fanatically to avoid failure.

  Beyond these personality characteristics, there are some useful observations to be made about the methods and approaches adopted by successful, innovative designers, and which might perhaps to some extent be transferable to others. A key aspect of the approach lies in defining or framing the problem to be solved, which is not always the same as ‘the problem as given’. The goal is set at a high level, with clear objectives, and in direct terms which might even seem to be simplistic. It is this simple clarity which might make other people conclude that the goal is simply impossible. There is a holistic, systems view of the problem encapsulated in the goal. A clear concept of how to reach this goal is devised, sometimes by means of a sudden insight which comes when relaxing after deep immersion in the problem, and the solution details then cascade from the concept. Intense work is needed to develop, evaluate and refine the solution details; creativity is still ‘1% inspiration and 99% perspiration’. The clear, generative concept is not simply ‘found’ in the problem as given, but largely created by the designer; it is not a matter of recognising a pre-existing pattern in the data, but of creating a pattern that re-formulates the problem and suggests directions towards a solution.

  This approach seems to require, or is synergistic with, a particular style of working. Some aspects of this style arise from the innovative designers’ personality characteristics – for instance, their personal motivation means that they are steeped in their chosen domains, and they are prepared when necessary to work obsessively at their chosen problems and solutions. The working style is based on periods of intense activity, coupled with other periods of more relaxed, reflective contemplation. This working style may not be a reflection of a particular personality trait, bu
t a necessary aspect of creative work, which requires alternating intense effort with relaxation. The innovative designer also likes, perhaps needs, to work with a small team of committed co-workers who share the same passions and dedication.

  The working methods of the innovative designer are, for the most part, not systematic; there is little or no evidence of the use of systematic methods of creative thinking, for example. The innovative designers seem to be too involved with the urgent necessity of designing to want, or to need, to stand back and consider their working methods. Their design approach is strategic, not tactical. An important feature of their strategy is parallel working – keeping design activity going at many levels simultaneously. The best cognitive aid for supporting and maintaining parallel design thinking is drawing. Drawing with the conventional tools of paper and pencil gives the flexibility to shift levels of detail instantaneously; allows partial, different views at different levels of detail to be developed side by side, or above and below and overlapping; keeps a record of previous views, ideas and notes that can be accessed relatively quickly and inserted into the current frame of reference; and permits and encourages the simultaneous, non-hierarchical participation of co-workers, using a common representation. The drawing of partial solutions or representations also aids the designer’s thinking processes, and provides a form of interactive ‘talk-back’. As well as drawing, innovative designers frequently like to undertake practical work related to the design solution, such as building models or mock-ups, or participating in construction.

  Design Strategies

  Three key strategic aspects of design thinking appear to be common across all these studies: (1) taking a broad ‘systems approach’ to the problem, rather than accepting narrow problem criteria; (2) ‘framing’ the problem in a distinctive and sometimes rather personal way; and (3) designing from ‘first principles’.

  First, there is the ‘systems approach’ adopted by innovative designers. From his studies of innovators, Maccoby suggested that: ‘The innovator has a systems mind, one that sees things in terms of how they relate to each other in producing a result, a new gestalt that to some degree changes the world.’ This sounds similar to the approaches adopted by Gordon Murray and Kenneth Grange. Maccoby continued with an example which might almost be describing Murray’s approach: ‘For example, one can think about a car in terms of all its parts working together to make it go … In contrast, most engineers do not think in systems terms. They are concerned about designing a good piece-part, like a clutch.’ This sounds like Gordon describing how his approach is different from conventional, piece-focused, engineering design. It also sounds similar to the approach adopted by Kenneth Grange, in his re-perceptions of the problem as given, usually from the user’s point of view, and considering the user’s overall task for which the product is being designed. This ‘systems approach’ is evident, for example, in the way Kenneth designed the Frister & Rossman sewing machine so as to facilitate the whole process of sewing and the maintenance of the machine. Gordon Murray’s introduction of pit stops also illustrates how a total systems approach was adopted – not just a focus on the design of the car, but on the larger picture of winning the race.

  Secondly, the designers appear to explore the problem from a particular perspective, in order to formulate or frame the problem in a way that stimulates and pre-structures the emergence of design concepts. In some cases, this perspective is a personal one that they seem to bring to most of their designing; for example, Kenneth Grange has a strong, emotional distaste for what he considers to be ‘contradictions’ in design, where the object is not well adapted to its user and the patterns of use. As he said, ‘My attitude is to want it to be a pleasure to operate.’ And it was from operating the sewing machine that the new concept of an asymmetrical layout emerged, and the rounded edges, which gave the clients the re-styling that they wanted. In the case of the design of a hydro-pneumatic suspension system, Gordon Murray’s problem frame was governed by his focus on ‘How the hell can we get ground effect back?’ in order to achieve his goal of the fastest car, while satisfying the criteria set by the FISA regulations. This problem frame led him to the concept of the hydro-pneumatic suspension system. For these designers, therefore, their problem framing arises from the requirements of the particular design situation, but is strongly influenced by their personal motivations, whether they may be altruistically providing pleasure for the product user, or competitively achieving the fastest car despite the regulations.

  Thirdly, these designers either explicitly or implicitly rely upon ‘first principles’ in both the origination of their concepts and in the detailed development of those concepts. For example, Gordon Murray stresses the need to ‘keep looking at fundamental physical principles’ for innovative design, and in his design to regain ground effect he focused on the physical forces that act on a car at speed. And we saw in his city car design work that fundamental principles in details such as suspension and in manufacturing were part of his thinking from the very beginning. Kenneth Grange is less explicit about first principles, but it seems clear that he adheres to the modernist design principle of ‘form follows function’; he approaches design problems ‘by trying to sort out just the functionality, just the handling of it, and by-and-large out of that comes a direction’. This approach is evident in the examples of his product designs, which are based very much on the ‘first principles’ of function and usability. It was also evident in his design of the High Speed Train, which he based on aerodynamic analysis, and in both the big HST and the little sewing machine he questioned the established, underlying, standard engineering ‘requirements’ that had dominated the previous solutions.

  Finally, it seems from these examples that perhaps innovative design arises especially when there is a conflict to be resolved between the (designer’s) high-level problem goals and the (client’s) criteria for an acceptable solution. Creativity is often stimulated when there is a conflict to resolve, and it may be that these successful designers recognise this and seek the stimulus of conflict. Such conflict is particularly evident in Gordon Murray’s design strategy in Formula One, which was to challenge and, if necessary, somehow to circumvent the criteria set by the technical regulations. In Kenneth Grange’s case, the potential conflict is often with the client’s criteria for a product re-styling job, whereas his goal is to provide the product’s user with an enhanced affordance of use from the product. As he said, ‘You are almost invariably brought in by somebody who has got a very elementary commercial motive … It’s extremely unusual to be brought in to approach it from this usability, this function theme.’ And yet, of course, the client’s criteria still have to be satisfied.

  These similarities in design thinking are illustrated in Figure 4.1. In each case, at the upper, systems level there is a conflict, or potential conflict, between what the designer seeks to achieve as the highest goal and what the client sets as fundamental criteria. At the intermediate level, the designer frames the problem in a personal way, and develops a solution concept both to match that frame and to satisfy the criteria. The designer applies that problem frame at the lower level, in order to identify and draw upon first principles of physics, engineering and design that help to bridge between the problem frame and a solution concept.

  At the lowest level is explicit, established knowledge of first principles, which may be domain specific or more general scientific knowledge. At the intermediate level is where the designer’s strategic knowledge is especially exercised, and where that knowledge is more variable, situated in the particular problem and its context, tacit and perhaps personalised and idiosyncratic. At the higher level there is a mix of relatively stable, but usually implicit goals held by the designer, the temporary problem goals, and fixed, explicit solution criteria specified by the client or other domain authority.

  4.1 A model of the design strategy followed by creative designers.

  Sources

  Full references are included in the Bi
bliography.

  Linda Candy and Ernest Edmonds: Creative Design of the Lotus Bicycle, Design Studies.

  Bryan Lawson: Design in Mind.

  Michael Maccoby: The Innovative Mind at Work, IEEE Spectrum.

  Robin Roy: Case Studies of Creativity in Innovative Product Development, Design Studies.

  5

  Designing to Use

  In Chapter 1, I introduced the research method of ‘protocol studies’ as one way of studying design thinking in action. This experiment technique involves asking designers to ‘think aloud’ as they tackle a design task. The designers’ statements and actions are recorded for later analysis, in which they are subdivided into short ‘protocols’. The next two case studies are derived from these types of experiment.

  Case study number 3 is of the expert, highly skilled, American engineer Victor Scheinman, who agreed to act as the subject in a protocol study. Victor Scheinman is an engineering designer with many years of experience in designing both mechanical and electro-mechanical machines, and robotic systems and devices. He was one of the first designers of modern robotic devices, and he has won several design awards from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He is an accomplished designer, outstanding in his field. Although Victor has a wealth of design experience, the design task set in the experiment was a novel task for him. The task was to design ‘a carrying/fastening device that would enable you to fasten and carry a backpack on a mountain bicycle’.