Design Thinking Takes Root in Hong Kong?
In recent years, the design‑thinking movement—once a niche in the global design world—has begun to seep into other fields. As a result, people in public affairs, business, and education in Europe and the United States are increasingly aware of this movement. The surge in popularity of design thinking is, of course, tied to the reputation of its champions. Among them are IDEO, a world‑class design firm, and Stanford, a top university. Companies such as Procter & Gamble, which have loudly embraced design thinking to drive innovation, have seen solid growth, demonstrating that traditional firms can benefit from using design thinking to innovate.
In Hong Kong, the promotion of design thinking in education has been underway for some time. The Hong Kong Design Centre and several design schools have been the main drivers, with a handful of consulting firms providing related services. Yet, locally, only a handful of people truly understand what “design thinking” is.
What exactly is design thinking? Where does it come from? To answer these questions, we must first define “design.”
Most people think of design as something related to beauty, assuming that design is about making things look good and attractive, so visual effect is crucial. This view merely highlights one function of design: capturing and expressing aesthetic values. Design blends form and function, but most people agree that design should serve business. Design is not a personal expression of beauty for the designer; that is the realm of the artist. Ultimately, design is about solving problems for the client.
What problems are we solving? The Bauhaus school in Germany, founded in the 1920s and 1930s, argued that design must combine science, art, and production, and that form must follow function to solve industrial and social problems. Their proposal came at a time when Germany, defeated in World War I and humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles, needed to rebuild. The school believed that the relationship between function and form should be the core of design work. Those who valued function naturally supported “form follows function,” arguing that design does not need unnecessary ornamentation; highlighting function is enough. In short, simplicity equals beauty; excess is waste. Critics argued that this functionalist view would produce dull, monotonous designs that would not appeal to the contemporary, emotionally driven, playful consumer (cultural studies researchers refer to this shift as the post‑modern turn, especially in contrast to the rational modernity represented by Bauhaus).
“Design is a relationship. Design is the relationship between form and content.” This is the definition of design given by Paul Rand, a luminary in graphic design. Rand believed that form and function cannot be completely separated. Consider this article you are reading: it has a title, layout, and is one column of a newspaper. Similarly, design pioneers such as Christopher Alexander viewed design as a relationship. For Alexander, context defines the design problem, and form provides the answer. Design cannot be considered outside its physical and cultural time‑space; failed designs often result from designers who think they know everything, ignoring local conditions and the needs of users and maintainers. His Pattern Language theory in architecture distilled common templates from many historical projects, providing a reference for design practice. The innovations in software engineering and user interface design that stem from his insights will always be remembered.
To understand design from the perspective of cognitive psychology, we must mention Donald Norman. He has tirelessly promoted user‑centered design and once worked for Apple, making user experience the core of Apple’s design. Norman believes there is a gap between the mental models of users and designers, leading to divergent perceptions of design form. A good designer must enter the user’s world, empathize, and understand their needs to create effective design.
Another essential design theorist is Herbert Simon. He is not only a Nobel laureate in economics but also has made outstanding contributions in cognitive psychology, organizational behavior, artificial intelligence, design theory, and public administration. His seminal work, The Sciences of the Artificial, has become a classic in design theory. For Simon, design should be viewed as a science of problem solving. Problem solving involves continuously identifying the gap between the future state and the present state, setting task standards, and closing the gap. In this process (which he calls means‑ends analysis), tasks are decomposed into subtasks, each with its own future and present states. These problem gaps stack to form a tree‑like structure he calls the problem space. He believed that AI programs could search this structure for solutions. For him, solving a problem is essentially a program search, and design is no different. He believed that by continually decomposing and validating problems, and applying scientific methods to turn design tasks into systems engineering, results would naturally emerge. He passed away in 2001, but many of his ideas have come to fruition with today’s big data and machine learning.
Simon’s view that design thinking is a problem‑solving process has influenced proponents of design thinking. While innovation is the ultimate goal of design thinking, inspired by Norman and Alexander, design thinking also starts from the user and their context, employing empathy to fully immerse in the user’s situation and view problems from the user’s perspective, aiming to deeply grasp the user experience. The relationship between function and form is static; only when people interact with design does its value manifest. This shift reflects the global economic transition from manufacturing to service economies, where service itself is an experience.
Design Thinking and User Experience
On the other hand, the rapid evolution of information technology has turned human‑computer interaction into a mode of interaction between people and other products and services. Understanding the historical contexts of Bauhaus and IDEO/D‑School helps explain their differing views on design.
For IDEO, the design‑thinking process combines divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Divergent thinking uses brainstorming techniques to generate ideas and foster diverse design patterns. Convergent thinking analyzes and evaluates the pros and cons of each pattern, helping to focus, integrate, and filter. These two modes can alternate, building verifiable experience prototypes to simulate and validate how users experience the design. Mature prototypes can be used to screen and evaluate the feasibility of different solutions, calculate production technology and business model cost and revenue structures, and coordinate with supply chains and markets. This experimental part aligns with the scientific method advocated by Herbert Simon.
Design thinking is a bridge that connects creativity and innovation. However, to harness its power effectively, a company’s culture must be exploratory, its organization must have diverse talent, and it must systematically encourage the formation of cross‑functional teams. Each team member’s ideal archetype should be T‑shaped: the vertical axis represents deep expertise, while the horizontal axis represents the ability to collaborate and innovate across disciplines.
Hong Kong’s design pioneers, such as Henry Steiner and Kan Tai-Keung, who remain active today, have benefited greatly from Bauhaus and Paul Rand in their creative careers, blending those influences with Hong Kong and Chinese culture, earning international acclaim. Under this tradition, several generations of outstanding Hong Kong designers have emerged.
Now we ask: When Bauhaus opened a door in Hong Kong’s design world and received extraordinary resonance, can the new generation of Hong Kong designers integrate “design thinking” with Hong Kong and Chinese culture to further elevate Hong Kong design?
Author: Suen Yiu-sin
Original article from the Hong Kong Economic Journal, Thursday, April 26, 2012 Updated May 2014
