Systematic Design Thinking Processes

One of the most challenging transitions organizations face is the journey from inspiring vision to practical execution. As strategic direction evolves, many organizations respond with complete restructuring and radical prioritization—creating separate teams for thinking and doing. Design thinking offers a different path forward. This approach recognizes that successful execution doesn't require organizational upheaval, but rather thoughtful practices that maintain continuity throughout the entire process. Human-centered design creates bridges between visionary thinking and practical execution through practices like: Design research that uncovers not just user needs but organizational dynamics that will impact implementation. Understanding stakeholder motivations and informal power structures provides crucial context for execution planning. Collaborative prototyping that brings together visionaries and implementers early. When technical teams participate in concept development, they become stewards of the vision rather than simply executing requirements. Journey mapping the implementation process itself to surface potential barriers before they become roadblocks, helping teams anticipate decision points and organizational challenges. Yet even with these practices, something crucial often goes missing in the handoff between strategy and execution. Two roles prove particularly valuable: The organizational navigator who understands how to secure timely decisions, align with broader goals, and navigate political realities. They know not just the formal processes, but the invisible paths through which work actually gets done. The continuity keeper who holds the thread of design intent from vision through execution. As technical constraints arise, they ensure the core purpose remains intact, continuously asking: "How does this decision impact our fundamental goals?" and "Are we still solving the problem we set out to address?" When these roles disappear midway—whether through reorganization or project handoffs—the vision's essence often gets lost. Technical decisions reshape the concept without reference to its original intent. Organizations that successfully bridge vision and execution typically employ several practices: Documented design principles that articulate the non-negotiable elements in terms both strategists and implementers understand. Regular reconnection rituals that bring teams back to the fundamental purpose driving the work. Embedded design advocates within technical teams who maintain the voice of the original intent. Visual artifacts that make the vision tangible throughout execution. The transition from vision to execution isn't a handoff but a continuous journey. By applying human-centered practices and ensuring key roles maintain continuity, organizations can bring transformative concepts to life without losing their essence.

How the Double Diamond method helped me think and design better at Microsoft: I wish I learned the Double Diamond design process earlier at Microsoft. The Double Diamond is a tool that can help more leaders solve problems better. Too many people run around with a hammer looking for a nail: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." -- Abraham Maslow And too many people brainstorm the solution, without even brainstorming the problem. The Double Diamond helps fix this. How? 𝗧𝗪𝗢 𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗔𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗗 The Double Diamond is a design thinking approach with two diamonds: 1. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗦𝗶𝗱𝗲: The first diamond represents the problem side. 2. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝗶𝗱𝗲: The second diamond represents the solution side. That right there helps. I had a manager early on at Microsoft that would run up and tell me I had to solve Y. But Y was a solution. I didn't even know what the problem was yet. Neither did he. Now when somebody brings me a "problem" to solve, I ask them: "Are we on the problem side or the solution side?" 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗚𝗜𝗡𝗚 + 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗚𝗜𝗡𝗚 The second aspect of the Double Diamond that I find useful is diverging and converging. When you are brainstorming and expanding you are diverging. You are diverging when you brainstorm the problem or the solution. When you are narrowing or contracting the range of options, you are converging. You are converging when you narrow the problem and narrow the solution. Now when someone brings me a "problem" to solve, I ask them: "Are we exploring the solution, or did you already have one in mind?" "Are we exploring the problem, or are you already set on the problem?" 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘 𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗢𝗟𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘, 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗥 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚? It sounds simple, yet years at Microsoft taught me that even smart people can fall for traps. With the Double Diamond in mind, you have a simple approach to remind you to: 1.  𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 2.  𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 With the Double Diamond, you can quickly visually check: 1. 𝘼𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙢 𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚? 2. 𝘼𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜? Sometimes all it takes is a quick check to remember where you are in the process. 𝗚𝗘𝗧 𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗠𝗦 𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗚𝗘 Even better, the Double Diamond gives you a way to orient teams. It's rare to find everyone on the same page when it comes to solving problems. Some people are brainstorming the solution. Some are exploring the problem. Some are diverging, while others are converging. But if you use the Double Diamond you can at least check in and get people on the same page. This is where having a simple process can shine. #innovation #leadership #creativity  

While auditing content for an Entrepreneurship course at UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture I discovered a secret. The secret to enhanced user-centric innovation: We often get "stuck" with what we're taught, and this sometimes affects how we think. We all learn about Design Thinking as a standalone tool, but there's MUCH MORE to it. Integrating Design Thinking, Lean UX, and Agile methodologies creates a powerful framework for driving user-centric innovation. Here's how it works: → Design Thinking: for deep empathy and problem definition → Lean UX: for rapid prototyping and validation → Agile: for iterative development and delivery ... And what happens when each is missing? • Without Design Thinking = "Misunderstanding" • Without Lean UX = "Wasted Effort" • Without Agile = "Stagnation" Combining these methodologies offers a holistic approach. Concept Exploration + Iterative Experimentation = Needs-and-Pain-point Discovery The initial stages emphasize brainstorming and prioritizing insights, leading to hypothesis formation that guides subsequent experiments. Continuous experimentation allows for the revision of hypotheses based on real user feedback, creating a dynamic loop of learning and adaptation. Here's how to integrate them: 1/ Design Thinking: Start with empathy. Understand your users deeply before defining the problem. 2/ Lean UX: Prototype quickly. Validate your ideas with real users early and often. 3/ Agile: Iterate. Develop in short cycles and adapt based on feedback. As teams build and explore new ideas, they foster collaboration across disciplines, leveraging diverse perspectives to refine solutions. This integrated framework not only enhances the customer experience but also drives sustainable growth. This helps founders ensure they remain competitive and relevant in their respective industries. George Dr. Kelsey Burton Yenni 👀 LESSGO!

Most behaviour change strategies fail—here’s why Too often, interventions focus on awareness and education, assuming that more knowledge leads to action. But human behaviour is largely automatic, shaped by unconscious processes and complex systems. A new paper explores how integrating behavioural science with systems thinking can create more effective, scalable change. It introduces a structured framework—built on the Double Diamond approach—to help bridge the gap. Here’s a breakdown of their model and why it matters 👇 The authors point to 3 key issues with traditional approaches to behaviour change: 1️⃣ Traditional behaviour change approaches have focussed primarily on education and raising awareness, theorising that greater knowledge leads to changes in behaviour. Although this approach often fails to lead to sustained behaviour change 2️⃣ Much of our behaviour is driven by automatic, intuitive processes, which interventions typically overlook 3️⃣ Behavioural research is often conducted on small groups, making it difficult to scale insights to broader societal issues, where behaviour is influenced by complex, interconnected factors. The authors advocate integrating behavioural science with systems approaches to more effectively tackle complex societal issues. They make the point that “behavioural science provides insights into individual decision-making, while systems approaches offer ways of understanding, and working with, the dynamic interactions and feedback loops within complex systems." They use design thinking – specifically the Double Diamond - as a framework for bridging behavioural science and systems thinking (shown in the image below). Their model consists of four key phases: Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver, each aligned with distinct methods from both behavioural and systems sciences. 1️⃣ Discover (Divergent Thinking – Problem Space) This phase focuses on gathering insights to understand the system and its challenges. 2️⃣ Define (Convergent Thinking – Problem Statement) At this stage, the information gathered is analysed to define the core problem. 3️⃣ Develop (Divergent Thinking – Solution Space) In this phase, potential interventions are co-designed and iteratively refined. 4️⃣ Deliver (Convergent Thinking – Intervention & Implementation) The final phase involves implementing and iterating interventions within the system. The researchers argue that this structured, yet flexible approach helps navigate complexity by balancing micro-level behavioural insights with macro-level systemic influences. FYI – this is a pre-print and hasn’t yet been peer reviewed. Source: Parkinson, J. A., Gould, A., Knowles, N., West, J., & Goodman, A. (2025). Integrating Systems Thinking and Behavioral Science.

DEEP DIVE IN DESIGN 🙌🏾 "Human-centered systems thinking brings together the analytical, holistic tools of systems thinking with the creative human-centered process of design thinking. It’s a mindset and methodology for tackling complex systemic challenges in a human way: staying grounded in the needs of multiple stakeholders while also seeing larger dynamics at play so you can diagnose the real problem, design more effective solutions, and drive real behavior change and positive impact within systems. Combining systems thinking and design thinking enables you to: ✨ Zoom in and out, and toggle back and forth between a systems lens and a human lens. ✨ Gain a deeper, more holistic and human understanding of the system and its stakeholders. ✨ Develop empathy for both the people and the system itself. ✨ Understand what drives human behavior and system behavior. ✨ Redesign the system to produce better outcomes by designing and implementing interventions that drive positive change within the system. When you approach problem solving in this way—deeply human and holistic—you will get to solutions that are more effective, connected, integrated, and ethical." For everyone interested in learning more, especially for folx moving in the #impacteconomy, check out the case for Human Centered Systems thinking from IDEO U here 👇🏾 https://lnkd.in/e6XHBBW4 #humancentereddesign #designthinking #systemsdesign #innovation #socialimpact #humancenteredsystemsthinking #ideou #designleadership #socent #deepdiveindesign #IDEOU