Design Thinking – Ideation, Thinking Styles & Ideation Methods

IDEATION PHASE WITHIN DESIGN THINKING

• Position in process: third component of the overall Design-Thinking cycle (after Empathise & Define; before Prototype & Test).
• Purpose of the Ideate phase
  • Generate as many ideas as possible.
  • Suspend judgement on feasibility, viability, desirability until later.
  • Encourage free exploration, building on others’ suggestions.
• Typical artefacts & media used
  • Boards, sticky-notes, sketching pads, chart-papers.
  • Digital canvases (e.g., Miro, Figma, LucidChart, Microsoft Whiteboard).
  • Mind-maps (explained in detail later).

FOUR MAJOR THINKING SKILLS

• $1$. Divergent Thinking
• $2$. Convergent (Analytical) Thinking
• $3$. Critical Thinking
• $4$. Creative Thinking
• Collective role: help us interpret the world, make decisions, solve problems & craft values.

Divergent Thinking

• Coined by J. P. Guilford in $1956$.
• Characterised by
  • Free-flowing chain of ideas.
  • Non-linear generation; multiple thoughts emerge simultaneously.
  • Rapid exploration leads to unexpected connections.
• When used
  • Open-ended questions without single correct answer: “Should I become a doctor or lawyer?”.
  • Tools: Pros-&-cons lists, Venn diagrams, tables.
• Case Study — Knowledge-Transfer Cost at “DT”
  • Problem: “Knowledge transfer adds cost.”
  • Divergent solutions proposed (no filtering):
  • Eliminate KT programme entirely.
  • Run large classroom sessions with one instructor.
  • Send a document for self-study.
  • Ask recruits to search online for resources.
  • Hire only experienced staff who need no KT.
  • Lesson: Quantity precedes quality; judgment postponed.
• Real-world exemplar: Twitter MVP
  • Launched without clear market; observed use-patterns, then refined.
  • Highlights risk: many MVPs fail (survivorship bias).

Convergent (Analytical) Thinking

• Also coined by Guilford in $1956$ — the opposite of divergent thinking.
• Focus: derive single best answer via logic, memory & existing procedures.
• Suited for
  • Standardised or multiple-choice tests.
  • Situations needing speed, accuracy, logic.
• Case Study — Filtering DT ideas (post-divergence)
  • Eliminated options $1$ & $5$ (not feasible to scrap KT or only hire experts).
  • Rejected option $4$ (online self-search unmonitored, variable pace).
  • Compared remaining options $2$ vs $3$.
  • Selected Option 2: classroom with one instructor as cost-effective compromise.
• Divergent vs Convergent framing example
  • Shared facts: commute distance $4\;\text{miles}$, car mileage $30\;\text{MPG}$.
  • Divergent Q: “Money no object; how else can I cut fuel?” (includes moving house, biking, etc.).
  • Convergent Q: “Find the $3$ best replacement vehicles.”
  • Practical takeaway: designers oscillate between both modes.

Critical Thinking

• Goal: analyse issues to form evidence-based judgements.
• Benefits: problem-solving prowess, data-driven decisions, comfort with ambiguity.
• Rejects untested assumptions; appraises via three logical processes:
  • Deduction: draw certain conclusions from full facts.
    • Example: blood test $\rightarrow$ virus present $\Rightarrow$ patient definitively infected.
  • Induction: infer generalised conclusion from partial patterns.
    • Example: fever + cough $\rightarrow$ likely influenza.
  • Abduction: choose most plausible explanation from scant clues.
    • Example: cat on roof $\rightarrow$ probably climbed nearest tree.

Creative Thinking

• Definition: view issues in unconventional, alternative ways to spark novel ideas.
• Impact: fuels innovation, identifies market gaps, redefines orthodoxy.
• Traits: risk-taking, experimentation, iterative testing.

IDEATION METHODS & TOOLS

Brainstorming

• Origin: Alex Osborn (advertising, $1940$s).
• Essence: orchestrated, high-energy group idea dump (target $30$–$40$ ideas; first $10$ rarely fresh).
• Best practices
  • Start with clear problem statement.
  • Allow brief silent solo reflection before group session.
  • Encourage piggy-backing / scaffolding on others’ ideas.
  • Separate generation & evaluation (evaluation next day to enable incubation).
• SCAMPER checklist (used when idea-flow slows)
  • Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify/Magnify, Put to other use, Eliminate/Minify, Reverse/Rearrange.
  • Usage cycle: read question $\rightarrow$ jot/sketch responses $\rightarrow$ rephrase $\rightarrow$ repeat.

Storyboarding

• Purpose: visualise user’s journey before committing to prototypes; align stakeholders & uncover gaps early, saving cost.
• Applicability: discovery of new products or evolution of existing ones.
• Core components
  • Scenario: concise textual user story (e.g., “Corporate buyer James replenishes office supplies.”).
  • Visuals: sequential sketches/photos showing environment, screens, dialogue.
  • Captions: $\le$ $2$ bullet points per frame detailing actions & emotions.
• Six-step creation workflow
  $1$. Gather data (interviews, tests, metrics).
  $2$. Choose fidelity (sketches, sticky-notes, photos, hi-fi illustrations).
  $3$. Define persona & single scenario (one path per board).
  $4$. Plan steps & annotate emotional states.
  $5$. Draw visuals + add captions (stick figures acceptable).
  $6$. Distribute, solicit feedback, iterate.
• Tools continuum: whiteboards $\rightarrow$ Miro $\rightarrow$ Figma $\rightarrow$ LucidChart $\rightarrow$ Microsoft Whiteboard.

Bingo Selection (Convergent-Filtering Technique)

• Trigger point: when idea pool reaches critical mass & further divergence is counter-productive.
• Goal: cluster, rank, ditch to isolate few promising concepts.
• How-to
  • Facilitate grouping into form-factors (physical, digital, experience prototypes).
  • Select $1$–$2$ ideas per category.
  • Small teams: open discussion on pros/cons.
  • Large teams: pair with Post-it / Dot Voting
    • Each idea on separate Post-it.
    • Each participant receives $3$–$4$ votes.
    • Dots or coloured stickers capture likes/dislikes or other chosen attributes.
• Advice: archive unused ideas as future “stokers”.

Six Thinking Hats (Edward de Bono, $1985$)

• Frames evaluation by switching cognitive standpoints symbolised by coloured hats:
  • White – facts, data, neutrality.
  • Yellow – optimism, benefits, opportunities.
  • Black – caution, risks, critical lens.
  • Red – emotions, gut feelings.
  • Green – creativity, alternatives, possibilities.
  • Blue – control, process orchestration (usually facilitator; opens & closes session).
• Typical question sets
  • White: “What data do we have/missing? Is it valid?”
  • Yellow: “Why will it work? Benefits for users?”
  • Black: “What are weaknesses? Worst-case impact?”
  • Red: “How do we feel? Intuition?”
  • Green: “What else can we do? Combine ideas?”
  • Blue opening: “Why are we here? Desired outcome? Timeline?”
    Blue closing: “What did we decide? Next steps?”
• Application example for new-product ideation: cycle through hats, then Blue summarises sufficiency of analysis.

Mind Mapping

• Definition: radial diagram beginning with central theme; branches store keywords, phrases, facts & figures.
• Uses
  • Lecture note-taking (listen for key points).
  • Reveal links/relationships among ideas.
  • Essay brainstorming & planning.
  • Single-page synthesis of large topics.
  • Review tool before exams.
• Benefits: holistic overview, fosters creativity, improves recall.
• $5$-step procedure
  $1$. Place central theme in centre (landscape orientation helps).
  $2$. Use lines/arrows/colours to connect branches; these relationships may become essay paragraphs.
  $3$. Draw quickly; avoid over-editing; accept all possibilities early on.
  $4$. Colour-code categories (e.g., blue = must include, black = good ideas, red = needs research).
  $5$. Leave white-space for future additions; upscale to A3 if needed.
• Visual structure: hub-and-spoke; iterative outward growth.
• Academic transition: each main branch $\rightarrow$ potential essay paragraph; ensures each paragraph aligns with central thesis.

ETHICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL & PRACTICAL INSIGHTS

• Suspending judgement in divergence fosters psychological safety & inclusivity.
• Balancing divergent & convergent modes prevents tunnel vision and analysis-paralysis.
• Critical thinking guards against cognitive biases, misinformation & groupthink.
• Creative thinking encourages risk-taking, yet should be tempered with feasibility checks (e.g., Twitter MVP lesson on survivorship bias).
• Storyboarding & mind-mapping respect different learning styles (visual, kinesthetic).
• Methods like Six Hats create structured empathy, letting teams voice optimism, pessimism, feelings & facts without personal conflict.

NUMERICAL & STATISTICAL REFERENCES (LaTeX-formatted)

• Year coined: $1956$ (Divergent & Convergent Thinking).
• Six Hats publication: $1985$.
• Idea quota in brainstorming: $30$–$40$ (first $10$ not freshest).
• Commute example: distance $4\;\text{miles}$, mileage $30\;\text{MPG}$, find top $3$ vehicles.