Book Review: Design Thinking by Peter G. Rowe

Written by: Szeedawg,

Following is a critical review of the book Design Thinking, by Peter G. Rowe. 

Introduction

Design Thinking (Rowe 1987)[i] provides a synopsis of the eponymous topic and provides specific context to architecture. It provides a serviceable overview of the historical progression of design thinking procedure, and it offers a specific examination of the topic from the perspective of architecture. On a meta-level it may also point to useful method for applying normative analyses of design thinking to a discipline-specific framework. The book was published before some important recent work on design thinking appeared, so an updated edition is necessary. Lastly, it would be better organized if it made more integrative use of the philosophy of science content in the final chapter. 

Case Studies & Method

Rowe outlines the overall objective of the book as follows: To “account for the underlying structure and focus of inquiry directly associated with those rather private moments ‘seeking out’ on the part of designers…”[ii] He starts the discussion with some practical examples of designers tackling real-world challenges, following the method discussed in Hayes (1981, 51-57)[iii] and Pohlman (1982)[iv] of reconstructing the steps and procedures used by the designers as they recall their interior thought processes. At this stage it would have been helpful for the author to openly declare his specific methodology and philosophy of science approach instead of leaving that discussion to the end of the book, and then doing so in a general, synoptic manner. Had he been more clear about is nomothetic, interpretive approach at the outset it would have put his subsequent survey of design inquiry approaches into sharper relief.[v]

Two further criticisms of the case study examples are worth noting. First, the thought processes in each case study were not clearly presented and their summarizations were not clearly outlined. The sketches are unhelpful because they are reproduced in a virtually illegible size and are not well incorporated into the inquiry process description. Second, the cases are only peripherally referred to in the rest of the book. Instead of referring back to the cases and the summarized learnings, the author uses the cases as interesting anecdotes in the subsequent inquiry of process and normative guides, but leaves them otherwise unrelated to the book’s findings. A tighter connection between the research and the findings would have made this a stronger work. 

The cases were nevertheless valuable illustrations of the fact that many challenges faced by designers are brought upon themselves: By committing to a concept without sufficient inquiry into the project’s practical requirements, by forcing a style into a project where it may not be the most appropriate, and by failing to reconcile two competing ideas at the outset of a project. This sets the stage for the remainder of the book by showing that design thinking cannot be examined on a purely procedural basis because its episodic nature inevitably requires a normative discourse to guide the problem solving at each stage of inquiry. Procedure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful design.[vi]

Procedure

Before tackling design thinking procedure the author offers a broad and useful overview of problems and problem solving theory. The author eventually lands on the information processing theory of problem solving from Newell, Shaw and Simon (1957),[vii] which the author indicates is the then-current dominant school of thought. As noted before, this finding comes abruptly, without sufficient substantiation, and without consistent reference throughout the rest of the book.

The remainder of the procedural section contains helpful summaries and overviews of important concepts of problem solving. He rightly concludes that there is no single, definitive design process because process alone is limited epistemologically to “knowing-how” versus “knowing-what.”[viii] For the reviewer, this overview was helpful and effective in summarizing what at the time of publishing was the most recent thinking on the subject. 

Normative Positions and Application 

Having identified the inadequacy of procedure on its own, the author turns to normative positions and their application to design thinking. Of most interest to the reviewer was the normative framework of analysis, because of its possible use in applying design thinking to other disciplines and fields beyond architecture. Across the top of the grid we move from common to divergent elements (orientation, leitmotifs, style) and against these themes we mark the major categorizations of subject matter thought: functionalism, populism, conventionalism and formalism. This method of mapping large-scale objectives of the discipline against specific, existing schools of thought can provide a useful way to apply design thinking normative inquiry to other disciplines, and merits further analysis.

This brings us to one of the primary criticisms of this book, which relates to its currency. Being published in 1987, the author predates some of the more recently influential work on design thinking that presumably would have influenced some of this analysis. For example, had Krippendorff’s (1989)[ix] contribution on circular cognitive processes been available it likely would have informed the author’s discussion of the interplay between process and normative decision-making, possibly bringing to a more integrative conclusion. A similar statement can be made about the body of work by Martin[x], Verganti,[xi] Buchanan[xii] and other more current design thinkers. 

Realms of Inquiry

The author finishes the book with an overview of two realms of inquiry into architecture: external and self-referential. First, he covers architecture’s relationship to the external world by canvassing the major philosophies of science and their approaches to architecture as a social endeavor. He covers the current dominant philosophy, functionalism, planning orthodoxy, systems approaches,[xiii] and then the usual “alternative” scientific approaches, including humanism, structuralism, tacit conventions, phenomenology, and logical falsification. The second approach to inquiry is self-referential within the field of architecture. The author concludes, pointing to three modes of re-interpretation and outlines some corresponding challenges.

The author’s analysis would have been more coherent had this final chapter appeared early in the text and formed the backdrop against which the survey of design thinking unfolded. Had the author gone one step further and taken an approach similar to Burrell and Morgan (2008),[xiv] in which they clearly define and delineate the entire scope philosophical approaches at the outset and then discuss the various applied positions in detail, this work would have formed the basis for an enduring analysis of design thinking as applied to architecture.

Conclusion

Design Thinking made a useful contribution but it needs a new edition in order to incorporate recent contributions to design thinking. The book would also benefit from a tighter integration of the research, and from using the philosophy of science inquiry as a logical thread to give this broad topic more internal consistency. 

---

[i] Rowe, Peter G., (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

[ii] Ibid. p. 1.

[iii] Hayes, John R. (1981). The Complete Problem Solver. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press, in Ibid. p. 2.

[iv] Pohlman, Richard W. (1982). “A System for Recording  Bahavior and Occupying Design.” In Omer Akin and Elanor F. Weinel, eds., Representation in Architecture, pp. 121-138. Silver Springs Maryland: Information Dynamics, in Ibid. p. 2.

[v] This research method is of particular interest to the reviewer for reasons of expected subsequent design thinking inquiry, and the reviewer would have preferred more in-depth description of the method.

[vi] Parenthetically, the discussion of episodic nature of design inquiry reminds the reviewer of Kay, Regier, Boyle, Francis (1999), and related open systems thinkers, whose work on self-organizing holarchic open systems, in the sense of their application of systems theory to complex systems that respond to exergy by adapting until it can no longer be absorbed, at which time the self-organization becomes chaotic and must re-establish a new homeostasis. (Kay JJ, Regier HA, Boyle M, Francis G, An Ecosystem Approach for Sustainability: Addressing the Challenge of Complexity, Futures 1999;31:721-742.)  In terms of the reviewer’s subsequent research open systems and complexity theory will be of particular interest in identifying a framework for design thinking analysis.

[vii] Newell, A., Shaw J.C., and Simon H.A. (1957). “Elements of a Theory of Problem Solving.” Rand Corporation Report P-971, March.

[viii] Schoen, Donald A., (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books., in Ibid. p. 112.

[ix] Krippendorff K., “On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or the Proposition that “Design is Making Sense (of Things),” in Margoulin, V. and Buchanan, R., eds., The Idea of Design, MIT Press, 1995, pp. 156-184.

[x] Martin, Roger, (2009). The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

[xi] Verganti, R., (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

[xii] Buchanan, R., “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” In Margolin, V. and R. Buchanan, eds., The Idea of Design, MIT Press, 1995, pp. 3-20.

[xiii] An interesting outcome of this discussion, from the reviewer’s perspective, is that closed systems approaches can at times be problematic to designers insofar as they may require a restrictive categorization of variables as exogenous to the system; an approach antithetical to a holistic, design-based approach.

[xiv] Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., (2008). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Company.