Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Design Thinking Books (2024)

designorate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#121

Post by gond »

jjk166 wrote: post #105
gond wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly the point. Taking a theory (Systems Thinking), a mental model which has the primary goal of holistically identifying, describing, and understanding wholes and reducing it down to a set of methods/framework out of ease of use (the pragmatism) is exactly the wrong approach in my opinion. Systems Thinking and all of its applications scenarios are based on epistemology. To turn it into a recipe is a wrong…

So your argument is don't use an off the shelf tool that gets the job done, build your own tool every time which likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool? If you think using Design Thinking goes against Systems Thinking, I don't think you really get either.

>If you think using Design Thinking goes against Systems Thinking

No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong.

> likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool?

The process in itself has value. Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological?

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#122

Post by jjk166 »

gond wrote: post #121
jjk166 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is don't use an off the shelf tool that gets the job done, build your own tool every time which likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool? If you think using Design Thinking goes against Systems Thinking, I don't think you really get either.

>If you think using Design Thinking goes against Systems Thinking No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong. > likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool? The process in itself has value. Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological?

> No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong.

So what do you mean by "Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid"?

> Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological?

Yes, but I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#123

Post by uxcolumbo »

bsoles wrote: post #117
uxcolumbo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your definition of 'Design Thinking' is. Design Thinking isn't about people thinking "that they can just come in and design user interfaces, etc. without really having an expertise in the particular field." It's a problem solving approach using UCD methods amongst others and working with experts in the field to come up with solutions and ideas to a given problem space. Key thing is you work with the peo…

It is the practice that matters, which is the "designers" trying to elevate their position to something more special by inserting their special rules into the design process, often at the expense of other people involved, including the experts. "Working with the experts" always turns into weird formalized brainstorming sessions or other rituals, where the designer defines the process and the rules, and others' role i…

Those experts and stakeholders have a day job (i.e. don't have time to do this) and are usually in silos. They are not experts in workshop facilitation, user testing, usability, rapid prototyping to iterate on ideas and to think more broadly.

It helps to avoid parts of the innovator's dilemma and to break out of siloed thinking, i.e. involve stakeholders from other functions of the org.

Not sure what you've been sold, but there are no special rules or rigid methods.

But you're right, unfortunately there are consultants who use this term to sell you a new wunder method to solve all your product problems, but they are not really design practitioners.

Same way as people took the Agile Manifesto and bastardized it to create SAFE.

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#124

Post by [deleted] »

bsoles wrote: post #120
doctorpangloss wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i confess, i've read both of your comments on this - your analogy and a deeper explanation of the analogy - and i still have no idea what you are saying. i'm not stupid. so first, my feedback here is, it sounds like you are an educator or in an education-adjacent role, and you should focus on making more sense haha. like lay out your beefs clearly, it sounds like you have a beef with interdisciplinary work, specifica…

As many other people on HN, I am an advocate for software engineers and I think it is important that software engineers themselves develop expertise and become owners in their particular fields of application, their processes, etc. Attempts to undermine their role and turn developers into simple cogs in the machine rub me the wrong way. I perceive (you might disagree) that Design Thinking, Agile, Scrum, and similar t…

[deleted]

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#125

Post by eleventyseven »

gond wrote: post #13

Please don’t use Design Thinking. Design Thinking is a subset of Systems Thinking (this is the polite interpretation). Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid: Another category to put stuff into, divide and conquer. It is an over-simplified version of the original theories. Better: Jump directly to Systems Thinking, Cybernetics and Systems Theory (and if measurements are more…

Well my 0.2c: in that case it sounds like Systems Thinking is just a subset of Thinking when we live in a world of systems

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#126

Post by doctorpangloss »

bsoles wrote: post #120
doctorpangloss wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i confess, i've read both of your comments on this - your analogy and a deeper explanation of the analogy - and i still have no idea what you are saying. i'm not stupid. so first, my feedback here is, it sounds like you are an educator or in an education-adjacent role, and you should focus on making more sense haha. like lay out your beefs clearly, it sounds like you have a beef with interdisciplinary work, specifica…

As many other people on HN, I am an advocate for software engineers and I think it is important that software engineers themselves develop expertise and become owners in their particular fields of application, their processes, etc. Attempts to undermine their role and turn developers into simple cogs in the machine rub me the wrong way. I perceive (you might disagree) that Design Thinking, Agile, Scrum, and similar t…

having a specific negative experience can be interesting, why don't you talk about that instead? generally, having been both the "design thinker" and the thinkee, in both the formal big corporate setting you are lamenting and in a less formal research environment, my and my colleagues experiences have been unequivocally positive. nobody is thinking about things in terms of, "perception of themselves as something special over software developer." that may be a problem unrelated to "design thinking," i can see how any creative thinking exercise can test people's interpersonal relationships differently than say, telling Claude what to do.

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#127

Post by gond »

jjk166 wrote: post #122
gond wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you think using Design Thinking goes against Systems Thinking No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong. > likely doesn't offer any advantage over the standard tool? The process in itself has value. Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological?

> No, not against. One is a subset of the other. but you are free to prove me wrong. So what do you mean by "Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid"? > Are you sure about the meaning of epistemological? Yes, but I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.

> So what do you mean by "Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid"?

It’s its approach to Systems. Take the 5 stages. Why 5, not 10 or 3? Why stages at all? Who’s to say? Why not enable people to create stages themselves and run from there? Or whatever fits their business.

Why not teach methodology instead of method?

>I'm not sure why you think it's relevant here.

I can only repeat myself: The value is in the process of inquiry itself. Systems Theory is not a set of methods. It is an epistemological based theory and requires a shift in how a person perceives reality, the often cited worldview. How do you know what you know? By assuming 5 stages? Is that objectively induced? What happens to that if looking through the lens of radical constructivism? The theory requires to incorporate multiple worldviews and with that, negates the assumption of an objective truth.

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#128

Post by gond »

logicprog wrote: post #106
gond wrote: post #13

Please don’t use Design Thinking. Design Thinking is a subset of Systems Thinking (this is the polite interpretation). Design Thinking does with its sole existence what Systems Thinking tried to avoid: Another category to put stuff into, divide and conquer. It is an over-simplified version of the original theories. Better: Jump directly to Systems Thinking, Cybernetics and Systems Theory (and if measurements are more…

I've been very interested in cybernetics and systems thinking lately — would you be able to recommend some good books? I'm not afraid of difficult academic or philosophical reading, but I'm looking for stuff that's large in scope, applies to general fields, etc.

There are so many subsets of the theory and I have no idea what would interest you and what you already know. Have you seen this paper?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220231906_The_Origi...

It leans a bit more on the cybernetic side but gives an overview and has what is possibly equally important as the text itself: some 7 pages of references. I started with openly accessible academic papers instead of books. If you find something interest there, you will surely have the direct reference to proceed further into that direction right at hand. Papers are shorter, you can switch the direction more easily. The price to pay is to miss the bigger picture a couple of times (which a book may convey) until some loose ends come together and create an aha moment.

(given what you said I would stay clear of all reinterpretations/popular science books. I would read something straight from the source, the people in the field, in whatever form it may show up.)

Re: Design Thinking Books (2024)

#130

Post by bsoles »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #123
bsoles wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the practice that matters, which is the "designers" trying to elevate their position to something more special by inserting their special rules into the design process, often at the expense of other people involved, including the experts. "Working with the experts" always turns into weird formalized brainstorming sessions or other rituals, where the designer defines the process and the rules, and others' role i…

Those experts and stakeholders have a day job (i.e. don't have time to do this) and are usually in silos. They are not experts in workshop facilitation, user testing, usability, rapid prototyping to iterate on ideas and to think more broadly. It helps to avoid parts of the innovator's dilemma and to break out of siloed thinking, i.e. involve stakeholders from other functions of the org. Not sure what you've been sold…

> Not sure what you've been sold, but there are no special rules or rigid methods.

I am not intentionally trying to be argumentative, but

- I have seen UX designers refer to a team of developers as "my developers" and I take it negatively.

- I have been into countless design sessions where the UX designers conducted a weird formalized session with cards, sorting, voting with colored stickers, and assigning equal votes to newly hired participants and senior domain experts. They were beyond stupid.

Post reply on HN