The Evolution and History of Design Thinking

Understanding the history of Design Thinking reveals why it works, how it became widespread, and where it's heading. This evolution story spans six decades and involves some of the most influential thinkers in design, business, and innovation.

My doctoral research traced Design Thinking's development through extensive literature review, examining how the concept transformed from design profession practices into a broadly applicable problem-solving methodology.

The Foundation Era (1960s-1980s)

Herbert Simon (1969): The Philosophical Foundation

The story begins with Herbert Simon, whose 1969 work established the fundamental distinction that still guides Design Thinking today.

Simon argued that design is concerned with transforming current situations into better ones—focusing on "how things should be" rather than "how things are." This contrasted sharply with natural sciences, which study existing conditions.

Simon's insight was revolutionary: if you're in business, you're fundamentally in the business of solving problems. You don't sell products or services—you sell solutions that fix somebody's problem. This problem-solving focus should drive how you approach challenges.

Key Contribution: Established design as transformation-focused rather than analysis-focused.

Nigel Cross (1982): Expanding Beyond Designers

Nigel Cross built on Simon's foundation by examining what made designers effective problem-solvers. His research identified three distinctive qualities:

1. Tackle ill-defined problems rather than well-structured ones

2. Solution-focused approach rather than problem analysis

3. Transform abstract requirements into concrete objects

Cross made a crucial argument: these problem-solving qualities shouldn't be limited to trained designers. They should be taught in general education to help everyone become better problem-solvers.

Key Contribution: First call to democratize design skills beyond design professions.

The Terminology Era (1987)

Peter Rowe (1987): Defining "Design Thinking"

Peter Rowe conducted research with architects and urban planners that resulted in the first academic use of the term "design thinking."

Rowe made an important distinction:

• Design = the broad term for creating something (the "what")

• Design Thinking = the mental process used to create (the "how")

Using his architect example: architects design buildings (the act of creation), but design thinking describes the cognitive process they use to design those buildings.

Key Contribution: First formal distinction between design as output and design thinking as process.

The Business Integration Era (1990s-2000s)

Richard Buchanan (1990s): The Business Case

Richard Buchanan began arguing that design thinking should move beyond traditional design disciplines into the business world. He saw design thinking as integrating art and science-based disciplines to solve complex problems.

Buchanan's work marked a shift from academic theory to practical business application. He specifically advocated for teaching design capabilities in business contexts.

Key Contribution: First systematic argument for applying design thinking in business.

The Gap Period (Mid-1990s to Early 2000s)

Interestingly, after significant research and publication activity in the early 1990s, academic interest in design thinking temporarily declined. This gap period lasted until the early 2000s, when design thinking re-emerged with renewed energy.

IDEO and Mainstream Adoption (Early 2000s)

The early 2000s marked design thinking's transformation from academic concept to mainstream practice. IDEO, led by Tim Brown and David Kelley, played a crucial role in bringing design thinking into organizations.

IDEO focused on using design thinking for innovation in organizations and social causes, demonstrating practical applications that captured widespread attention. Media coverage increased significantly, introducing design thinking to business leaders worldwide.

Key Contribution: Demonstrated design thinking's practical organizational value.

The Academic Integration Era (2004-2010)

Boland and Collopy (2004): "Managing as Designing"

Richard Boland and Fred Collopy published "Managing as Designing," making a compelling case for teaching design thinking to managers.

Their central argument: management education focuses too heavily on decision-making and too little on idea generation.

They identified three types of reasoning:

• Inductive thinking: Based on directly observable facts

• Deductive thinking: Logic and analysis from past evidence

• Abductive thinking: Imagining what could be

Business schools traditionally taught inductive and deductive reasoning but ignored abductive reasoning. Boland and Collopy argued that combining all three creates better problem-solvers.

Key Contribution: Established the case for multiple thinking modes in business education.

Charles Owen (2005): Scientific + Design Thinking

Charles Owen built on the multiple thinking approaches by specifically comparing scientific thinking with design thinking.

Owen's argument: when you combine scientific thinking with design thinking, you have a more complete set of tools for addressing problems.

His analogy: if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But with multiple tools—hammer, wrench, screwdriver—you can see and solve problems more effectively.

Key Contribution: Demonstrated complementary value of different thinking approaches.

Roger Martin (2009-2010): Crystallizing the Integration

Roger Martin crystallized how the three reasoning types work together in design thinking:

1. Abductive reasoning: Generate possibilities (what could be)

2. Deductive reasoning: Evaluate options logically

3. Inductive reasoning: Learn from evidence and experience

Martin showed how design thinking requires moving fluidly between all three modes rather than relying primarily on deductive reasoning (traditional management approach).

Key Contribution: Provided practical framework for integrating multiple reasoning types.

The Application Expansion Era (2010-2015)

Heather Fraser: Beyond Product Innovation

Heather Fraser pioneered applying design thinking to business processes like strategic planning—a significant leap from product and service innovation.

This represented the first major expansion of design thinking beyond its traditional domains into core business functions.

Key Contribution: Demonstrated design thinking's applicability to business strategy.

Jeanne Liedtka: Workplace Integration

Jeanne Liedtka contributed significant research on applying design thinking in workplace contexts, helping establish it as a legitimate business discipline rather than just an innovation methodology.

Her work focused on how organizations could integrate design thinking into their regular operations.

Key Contribution: Established design thinking as ongoing organizational capability.

Broader Sectoral Adoption

During this period, design thinking expanded beyond business into:

• Public service: Government agencies using design thinking for policy

• Non-profits: Social organizations applying human-centered approaches

• Education: Schools integrating design thinking into curricula

The Current Era (2015-Present)

Mainstream Awareness with Implementation Challenges

Today, design thinking has achieved mainstream awareness. The conversation has shifted from "What is design thinking?" to "How do I apply design thinking in my specific context?"

However, this mainstream adoption revealed critical challenges:

The Consulting Industrialization

Large consulting firms began packaging design thinking as standardized methodologies, often missing the contextual adaptation that makes it effective. This led to:

• Increased awareness (positive outcome)

• Oversimplified application (negative outcome)

• Mixed results for organizations

The Context Problem

Organizations discovered that "out-of-the-box" design thinking often failed because:

• Context matters: Solutions that work in one environment may fail in another

• Culture influences outcomes: Organizational culture can enable or hinder design thinking

• Capabilities matter: Process knowledge alone doesn't guarantee success

The Capabilities Focus

Recent research (including my own) has shifted focus from processes and tools to underlying capabilities. This represents design thinking's evolution from methodology to organizational capability.

Three Key Evolution Patterns

From Academic to Applied

Design thinking moved from theoretical concept (1960s-1980s) to practical business tool (2000s-present), with each era building on previous insights.

From Designers to Everyone

The field evolved from design profession practice to democratized approach that anyone can learn and apply.

From Process to Capabilities

Current understanding emphasizes developing underlying human capabilities rather than just following prescribed processes.

Lessons from the Evolution

Innovation Takes Time

From Buchanan's 1990s call for business integration to widespread business school adoption took 15-20 years. Transforming ideas into reality requires patience and persistence.

Context Always Matters

Each era's contributors adapted design thinking to their specific contexts rather than applying it generically. This pattern continues today.

Integration Creates Breakthroughs

The most significant advances came from combining design thinking with other disciplines—business, science, psychology—rather than treating it in isolation.

Capabilities Enable Sustainability

Organizations achieving lasting results focus on developing underlying capabilities rather than just implementing processes.

Current State and Future Direction

Where We Are Now

• High awareness of design thinking across industries

• Mixed implementation results due to context and capability gaps

• Shift toward integration with other disciplines

• Focus on sustainable capability building

Where We're Heading

• Embedded organizational capabilities rather than separate activities

• Integration with emerging technologies (AI, automation)

• Contextual adaptation rather than standardized approaches

• Capability-based development rather than process-only training

The Ongoing Evolution

Herbert Simon's 1969 insight remains relevant: design is concerned with transforming current situations into better ones. Until we create a world where no problems exist, the work of design will always continue.

Design thinking will continue evolving as we face new challenges requiring innovative solutions. The approach that began with architects and urban planners now helps organizations tackle everything from digital transformation to climate change.

Key Takeaways

1. Design thinking has deep academic roots spanning six decades of research and development

2. Evolution followed logical progression from design professions to business to mainstream adoption

3. Each era built on previous insights while adapting to contemporary needs and contexts

4. Current challenges reflect maturation rather than fundamental flaws in the approach

5. Future success depends on capability development and contextual adaptation rather than process standardization

What This History Means for You

Understanding design thinking's evolution helps explain:

• Why it works: Built on solid research and practical testing

• Why implementation varies: Context and capabilities matter more than process

• Where it's heading: Toward integrated organizational capabilities

• How to apply it effectively: Focus on adaptation rather than replication