Being retired

 So, now I have been retired since May 2025. It is great! I have not done anything related to my work life (yet). Well, I am connected with FLAME university in India as a Distinguished Visiting Scholar (not so much work though).

It has so far felt great not to think about academia, research or teaching. I am quite happy that I retired when things started to radically change in the university world, especially in this country. But who knows, I might get back into some work later. I will however wait until I really want to do it, and not for any other reason.

I do not know if anyone still reads this blog.

If you want to reach out to me, use estolter@gmail. com

"Thinking on Paper" - notes on how to write and design

 In 1989 I got the book "Thinking on Paper : Refine, Express, and Actually Generate Ideas by Understanding the Processes of the Mind" written by V. A. Howard and M. A. Barton as a gift by my PhD advisor Professor Kristo Ivanov. Kristo gave this book to all PhD students for a while. I assume that he did not appreciate how little we all were writing. Anyway, I really liked the book. 

Recently I re-read some parts of it. I found my own notes and comments from 1989 in the book and realized that this book has in many ways shaped my thinking about writing but maybe even more about design. 

The core ideas that the authors present, while aimed at writing, are all highly relevant for the process of designing. To me, the book presents two core ideas that I still return to, and also generously share with my students and colleagues. 

The first idea is that that writing is, what the title says, 'thinking on paper'. The authors explains the difference between writing as articulation and as communication. Most writing has to start as articulation and if the writer sees it as communication it becomes a problem. Articulation is the discovery and formulation of ideas, while writing for communication is a process of critique, testing, assessment, and evidence. In relation to this, the authors also make perfectly clear that writing is not something that happens to you, instead it is an activity, something you do. There is no "waiting for the Muse". 

The other core idea is also visible in the title and that is that to become a better writer you have to understand writing. They write "The first step is to get clear in your mind what writing is, and what it isn't." And the reason for that is because "what you think writing is (or isn't) can profoundly affect how you do it." 

To me, this means that the most useful knowledge for design is knowledge about design. This is also a philosophy that I have followed over the years and also why I always stress the importance of theory and philosophy as the most practical ways to improve as a designer. Of course, you also need hands-on skills and knowledge which also the authors take seriously (which is why the second part of the book is very hands-on advice based on the notion of 'thinking on paper'  on how to structure your writings, how to make an argument, even some about grammar and punctuation). 

Anyway, if you are someone who struggles with writing, this is the book for you. If you are a designer, this is a book that presents a highly useful theory about design!

Maybe the best study ever on the nature of creativity among designerly professionals

 A few years ago, I found the book "The Creative Architect - Inside the Great Midcentury Personality Study" by Pierluigi Serraino (The Monacellli Press). Like most people interested in design, I have read a lot about creativity. Some texts are good, but most are too superficial and almost trivial. The Serraino book is a wonderful contrast. It provides the story and findings from a large, serious, and ambitious creativity study from the late 1950s. The study was done with a number of the most renowned architects of the day.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in creativity.

Here is the book description from the publisher:

"The story behind a little-known episode in the annals of modern architecture and psychology - a 1950s creativity study of the top architects of the day, including Eero Saarinen, I.M. Pei, Philip Johnson, Louis Kahn, Richard Neutra, George Nelson, and dozens more - is now published for the first time.

The story of midcentury architecture in America is dominated by outsized figures who were universally acknowledged as creative geniuses. Yet virtually unheard of is this intensive 1958-59 study, conducted at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research at the University of California, Berkeley, that scrutinized these famous architects in an effort to map their minds.

Deploying an array of tests reflecting current psychological theories, the investigation sought to answer questions that still apply to creative practice today: What makes a person creative? What are the biographical conditions and personality traits necessary to actualize that potential? The study's findings have been gathered through numerous original sources, including questionnaires, aptitude tests, and interview transcripts, revealing how these great architects evaluated their own creativity and that of their peers.

In The Creative Architect, Pierluigi Serraino charts the development, implementation, and findings of this historic study, producing the first look at a fascinating and forgotten moment in architecture, psychology, and American history."

Well, not much....but a couple of book suggestions

Not much is happening on this blog, but I intend to change that moving forward. My last post (and copy on LinkedIn) got a lot of feedback. I have not been able to move on that yet, but I will soon. So, until then, a couple of book suggestions.

An old favorite: R. G. Collingwood's "The Idea of History." This is one of the books that has most influenced my own thinking. I read it as a PhD student, and it still sits on my desk. The important section of the book is "Part V. Epilegomena"

Another absolute favorite is chapter 2, "The Discernment of Perception: An Aristotelian Conception of Private and Public Rationality" by Martha Nussbaum in her book "Love's Knowledge"

Of course, these texts do not look as if they are about design theory, but they truly are. They touch on foundational aspects of what it means to be rational, how to evaluate quality, etc., all at the core of design.

Ok, enough for now. 

Design Process Model Workshop

I wrote the text below on LindkedIn the other day asking if there are any interest in a workshop. so far about 125 people have replied. I am quite surprised. I will work on some plans on how to perform such a workshop. 

"I am considering conducting a 2-hour online workshop to present and discuss a design process model I have developed over the last decades. I would like to do it with a very small group, maybe 10.

But I wonder if anyone would be interested?

The model is not normative in any sense. It captures all kinds of design processes (user, client or value-oriented). The model's strength is as a thinking tool."

If you have comments or are interested, please email me at estolter@gmail.com

Taking Design Seriously

Yesterday I had the pleasure of giving a talk to a large group of UX specialists at the Lilly company in Indianapolis (thanks Samantha Merrit for the invite). 

I chose the title "Taking Design Seriously." The purpose of the talk was to discuss the idea that design must be understood at a higher level than it usually is. Design is not a method or particular process. Instead, it should be understood as one of the major approaches that humans have developed to cope with their reality, such as science, art, politics, economics, etc. Each approach has been designed to fulfill certain purposes and to deal with specific aspects of our reality.  Designing has to be seen as being one of them. Each approach has its own disciplined logic of thinking and action. 

In the talk, I compared some of the approaches, their similarities and differences, to each other and to design. Understanding this makes it easier for designers to understand the challenges they face when dealing with people from different approaches. 

To me, this way of understanding designing is crucial and it creates a foundation for all other aspects of designing. 

 Back to my old blog site

Well, after some time, I am back to my old blog site. I am getting closer to retirement, so I do not expect a lot of activity here, but who knows?

The Challenge of Improving Designing

 Happy to see that my latest article called "The Challenge of Improving Designing" now is published in the International Journal of Design. And the article is free to download to anyone.

https://lnkd.in/eExbDY4

A video interview with me by Mehmet Aydın Baytaş on Design Theory and Philosophy

I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Mehmet Aydin Baytas recently on my thoughts when it comes to design theory and philosophy. you can find both the video and the article at the link

https://www.designdisciplin.com/erik-stolterman/

The Future of Interaction

 In the last chapter of our book "Things That Keep Us Busy - the elements of interaction" we spend some time on what the future of interaction might be. We tried to do it by extrapolating the analysis that we had done throughout the book. We did to be real and not too speculative. If we are right or wrong is up to you to decide. 

I have included the first page here and the rest of the chapter can be found if follow the link.

11 Full Speed Ahead

We would like to believe that a deeper examination of interaction and

interactivity would make us better equipped to imagine and approach the

future of interactivity. Obviously we cannot reliably predict what will happen,

but our examinations, conceptual developments, and terminological

emendations should at least improve our ability to explore different possible

futures. We have already engaged in explorations of some ongoing

or imminent developments by extending our understanding of interactivity

with ideas such as faceless interaction, the growing relevance of the

expressive-impressive thought style, and a changing view on control and

complexity. But in this final chapter we will indulge in some more speculative

ideas about the future, some lines of possible developments that we can

imagine, optimistic opportunities, and probable problems.

Let us assume that our society indeed is steaming full speed ahead with

regard to interactivity (partly because it is possible, partly because people

want it). Can we slow down? Not likely. Can we steer? Possibly. Clearly,

things can be done at the level of particular artifacts, systems, and designs.

They can intentionally be designed to move toward a certain imagined

future. And some things can probably be done at a higher level of design

insight and foresight. But a large part of the development might still be a

matter of large-scale systemic effects beyond any designer’s control. This

does not mean that explorations of what lies ahead are a waste of time: on

the contrary, by reflecting on potential futures, by formulating scenarios,

by naming trajectories, by defining emerging phenomena, by analyzing

consequences, we are not only exploring, we are also making potential

futures more, or less, possible and probable.

--------------------------------------

Ref:

Janlert, Lars-Erik, and Erik Stolterman. Things That Keep Us Busy : The Elements of Interaction, MIT Press, 2017. 

Going back to Bruno Latour and the role of "things"

Over the years I have returned to the writings of Bruno Latour. Every time I do that, it excites me in different ways, sometimes because his ideas are extraordinarily creative, sometimes because they are overwhelmingly complex and rich and, of course, because they always provoke and challenge me.  

Today I re-read his article from 2004 called "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern". It is a long and complex text with highly delicate argumentation and reasoning. As always when reading Latour, he forces you to think and tricks you to believe that he is arguing for one position while in the next paragraph he turns it upside down.

I will not go into what the text is about or his arguments. But briefly, it is about the confusing situation that many "constructivists" found themselves in when they realized that their attempt to "deconstruct" facts and truth had similarities with the work of those who advocate conspiracies and those who (for other reasons) claim that there is no truth. Latour lays out a complex argumentation that leads to what can be seen as a new form of critique and a reconsidering of the meaning and role of "things". Challenge yourself and read it.

Latour, Bruno. "Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern." Critical inquiry 30.2 (2004): 225-248.

The Evil of Design

 

In design theory or design thinking, we do not often talk about the evil of design. However, we all know that design, with or without intent, can lead to outcomes that are undesirable or even destructive to the world around us. In our book “The Design Way – intentional change in an unpredictable world” we dedicate one chapter to the notion of the evil of design. Below are a couple excerpts.

“Good design’s most interesting paradox is that it is both magnificent

and evil. This is not the same pairing of apparent opposites as the more

common duality of good and evil. We are not talking about Evil, with a

capital E, designating malevolent forces dedicated to the destruction of

everything that is good in the world, or counter to the positive presence

of God as in many religious traditions. It is true that design has been considered

evil in this way. Some designs have been attributed to the work of

the devil or the influence of evil spirits. For instance, a European bishop

banned the use of rifled barrels on guns, because the resulting superior

accuracy over the old, smooth-bore muskets could only be due to the

intervention of the devil.” (Page 184)

“Our first category is natural evil, which is always an integral part of the

process of change, including the types of changes wrought by design. This

is a form of evil that is an unavoidable part of all life. In any creative act,

something new is brought into the world at the expense of the old—which

is then destroyed. There may be good and necessary reasons for the change

brought on by design, but that does not deny the real and painful experience

of grief and emptiness, brought by the loss of that which has been replaced.

      By definition, any design is an act going beyond established boundaries—

in other words, “thinking outside the box.” This is also one of the oldest 

definitions of evil. In most cases, everyday designing isn’t considered

boundary crossing or breaking because those boundaries that such

designs do cross or break are too weak to be thought of as strong norms

in the same sense as a taboo, for example. Moreover, these boundaries

usually are not even visible as boundaries for behavior.

Necessity—natural evil

• Going beyond boundaries

• Natural order of life—survival at any cost

• Lost opportunities

• Lost alternatives

• Point of view

• Natural force

Chance—accidental evil

• Power without understanding

• Cause without connection

• Misfortune and accidents

• Breakdown of natural order

Intension—willful evil

• Destroying life and life-giving essence

• Power without charity

• Agency without community

• Destroy other’s selfhood

• Using others as a means only

• Separation from unity

Figure 11.2

Categories of evil in design

Those designs and designers that are seen as causing changes affecting

the normal routine of life, however, often are treated with a certain amount

of irritation, if not outright hostility. This is because they have crossed a

boundary maintaining the defined limits of normal or typical everyday

activity. This form of design evil can be perilous to the designer, because

even if the change is for the benefit of those affected, the designer is still

cast as an enemy of people’s peace of mind and their routine existence.

    New designs always bring shadows with them. There are always unintended

consequences associated with new designs, many of which can be

quite negative. This is related to another, more obvious natural evil—the

loss of opportunities. When a design is brought into the world and made

real, its very presence excludes other opportunities. The substantial investment

of money, energy, material, and time in a new design directly prohibits

other attempts to make alternative designs and realities because of

lack of resources. This also holds true for more abstract investments, such

as pride and status. This is because identity and self-image become invested

in a commitment to the new reality emerging as a consequence of the new

design’s meaningful presence. This form of evil is closely related to the

“survival-at-any-cost” strategy of evolution. Even though it appears this

strategy is the essence of nature, in our human vocabulary it carries the

suspicion of being an evil that seriously needs to be redeemed.

     New designs also bring with them specific points of view that define

them as evil because of our human frame of reference. The material, corporeal

world forms the substance of design, yet this realm is considered

evil and base in many spiritual traditions. Humans are encouraged to avoid

focusing on this aspect of life, yet it is the very material from which a

designer assembles his or her design palette.

    Associated with this perspective of evil is the old and enduring notion

that evil is a natural and eminent force in the affairs of people: one must

continually balance and compensate for the effect of this unrelenting evil

energy that’s always at work in the natural order of things.

     Our second category is accidental evil. This type of design evil can be

thought of as avoidable. Some examples are: power without understanding,

agency without interrelationship (i.e., acting without personal connection

to consequences), and the misfortune of being in the wrong place

at the wrong time as a matter of mischance, bad luck, or tragedy. This form

of evil happens out of ignorance, carelessness, or inattention and is not

the outcome of an intention to do harm. For example, the design of toys

that are actually dangerous for children is the consequence of inattention

to those being served. Accidental evil can be modified, or mitigated, by

becoming more fully informed and aware when engaging in design.

      Good design judgments are dependent on having the right design

knowledge, but that’s not all. Design knowledge cannot be separated from

the “knower.” Therefore, in design, character counts. This is similar to the

way that good character counts in making wise decisions, in the absence

of a predetermined outcome. Good design is dependent on good designers

as much as on the best information or know-how.

     Finally, there is the category of willful evil. In a design context, this

includes power without charity and agency without community—in other

words, acting on people’s behalf without their contractual consent to do

so. It also includes dominance over others such as collective dominance

over the individual, individual dominance over the collective, and individual

dominance over another individual. The Kantian form of willful evil

involves the use of people as a means only rather than an end. Finally, it

includes the destruction of life, especially human life and life-giving essence.

    These are just a few examples of intentional evil that can become a part

of design. The history of human affairs is filled with designs that were evil

by intention, such as those of Albert Speer, the German architect, who

among other things created organizational designs based on slave labor for

the Nazis during World War II. A more recent example is the design of

Web-based technology that intrudes on unsuspecting users of the World

Wide Web. This design also shields the identity of all those involved in

the creation and use of child pornography websites, for example. Powerful

design theories and approaches can be used in the creation of things,

concrete or abstract, that history will hold as evil in the most literal sense,

such as the design of nuclear weapons, which were considered defensible

in their time.

     Becoming good at design, or helping others to become good at design,

does not assure that good design will be the outcome. The theories and

practices of design are still subject to human willfulness. As human beings

we are not bound to proscriptions of character that guarantee our good

intentions as well as magnificent designs. That challenge is well beyond

the scope of this book, but it is an essential consideration for designers

and design stakeholders.” (Page 186-188)

Our book "The Design Way - intentional change in an unpredictable world" in Chinese

 My co-author Harold Nelson and I heard for a while that there is a Chinese version of our book "The Design Way - intentional change in an unpredictable world" (MIT Press, 2012). Just the other day, one of my students, who is in China, helped us and sent two copies of the book to me. It is so exciting to see our work in Chinese. The book looks good with great graphics, but to what extent the text is close to the original, I cannot judge :-)

New book in our book series

I am happy to announce that we have published a new book in our MIT Press book series "Design Thinking/Design Theory" that I edit together with Ken Friedman. The new book is "How Artifacts Afford: the power and politics of everyday things" by Jenny L. Davis.

Here is a link to all books in the series
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/series/design-thinking-design-theory

How System Designers Think about Design and Methods: Some Reflections Based on an Interview Study

In 1992 I wrote an article that was published in the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. It was based on an interview study I did for my PhD thesis. I have not read this paper since it was published, almost 30 years ago! Hard to understand.

Anyway, today I read it, and I liked it. It is interesting to see how I did work on the same ideas I work on today. But, more importantly, is that I recognize how formative that interview study was for my research at the time and even today. I still agree with the analysis and the contributions of the research. Actually, I think it is still highly relevant. Other researchers have written about the same topic and in many cases argued for similar conclusions, but it is still not an understanding of design that is prevalent.

I would like to re-write some parts of the paper, but it is a paper and study that I am still proud of.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239066287_How_System_Designers_Think_About_Design_and_Methods_Some_Reflections_Based_on_an_Interview_Study

Stolterman, E. (1992). How system designers think about design and methods. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol 4.

When COVID makes philosophy concrete

In these uncertain times, it is interesting to see how the philosophy of technology by Alfred Borgmann suddenly becomes real and concrete. Borgmann's philosophy is about 'things' and 'practices' that can lead to focal experiences, that is, experiences that are real, grounded, connected to time, people, and places.

Borgmann developed what is called the 'device paradigm' philosophy with the core notions of focal things and focal practices, commodification, etc. He warned us that when we commodify our everyday experiences through the use of technology, the experiences are not the same, they lose essential qualities. However, the commodification of practices is so convenient, it leads to a comfortable life where everything is constantly available to us without any concerns about how it is done and with no effort on our part. For instance, our homes are heated or cooled without us even knowing how it works. We only turn the thermostat. He discusses this in contrast with the fireplace that requires knowledge about wood, how to light a fire and the obvious presence the fire has in the house. It connects us tot he place, to time and to others.

Our world with smartphones and their apps is another more modern example. Most apps are built on an idea that aligns almost perfectly with Borgmann's theory. The idea is that an app will make us independent of time, people, and place. We can use them at any time, without needing other people and we can be anywhere. The experience is commodified. Press the button and you get it. How it works, who is actually doing it, or where it is done is irrelevant to us. We are fully disconnected. And we are not engaged in any focal practices. According to Borgmann, what makes an experience a focal practice is when it is connected with time, people, and place. It may not be so convenient or practical (as obvious with the example of the fireplace), but it connects us with practices, people, history, places and it limits us when it comes to what decisions and prioritizations we can do.

Most people are in their everyday lives happy to trade connections (focal) with convenience (commodities). But in these pandemic times, we can see how Borgmann's philosophy is emerging as a thought pattern among a lot of people. People are getting tired of Zoom meetings, not because they do not function necessarily, often they work quite well, but there is something missing. Real meetings require so much more, we have to travel to a specific place, we have to book a room, we have to dress accordingly, we have to engage in small talk before and after the meeting, we might have to make sure there is coffee available, etc. People are reflecting on what it is that is missing in this world where everything is commodified. We cannot go to restaurants, instead, we order prepared food to our homes. We do not have to do anything. But it is not the same. Something is missing. Maybe Borgmann's philosophy describes and explains what is going on.



-----------------

Borgmann, A. (2009). Focal things and practices. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, 115-35.

A model of how to become a designer

Any type of learning goes through stages or levels of knowledge and abilities. So does design learning. To become a designer is, as any process of becoming a professional expert, a complex and rich process that involves everything from knowing facts to having a sense of who you are as a professional and human.

In our book, "The Design Way", we present this as a hierarchy model of design-learning outcomes. Starting with becoming able to express routine expertise, through adaptive expertise, design expertise to end with value expertise. This journey takes effort and time, learning and practice. The model (see figure below) portrays this journey. The model can be used as a way to measure where you are in your process of becoming a designer and as a "tool" to help to decide how to further develop your competence and expertise.

Below the figure, I have added an excerpt from the book about the model.

"A hierarchy is based on the understanding that the things in a lower level are given significance, meaning, and value by next the higher level. For example, for design capacity, facts and skills are valuable only in the context of the confidence to take action or to do things. The competence to learn is only valuable in designing if there is the courage to be creative and innovative, to take risks with the full understanding of responsibility and accountability which is the next higher level in the hierarchy—that of connection.

The hierarchy of learning outcomes is necessary and crucial to understand since it makes it clear that some outcomes are not possible to achieve if others at a lower level are not already achieved. It also shows that at the end of the day, to become a designer is a process that deepens over time and becomes more personal as you move up the hierarchy." (page 234)

Where do you start if you want your organization to become more designerly?

There are a lot of discussions about design thinking today. And everyone wants to be better at design. Every company wants to be more designerly. This is all good. But where do you start if you want to change people or companies to be more designerly?

In our book "The Design Way" we introduce what we label as "design learning domains". We show it in a simple schema (see Fig 14.12 below). We explain the idea like this

"Design learning can be addressed in four domains: (1) design character, (2) design thinking, (3) design knowing, and (4) design action or praxis (see figure 14.12). These domains can be expressed as sets. The outcome of design learning or inquiry can be seen as a process of managing competency sets that are interrelated among the quadrants formed by the crossing axis of familiar dichotomies such as concrete reality and abstract thinking, and the individual contrasted to social collectives. These sets—mindsets, knowledge sets, skill sets, and tool sets—must be established and filled, in the process of becoming a designer (see figure 14.13)."

What we see today is a lot of different approaches aimed at improving or enhancing design thinking to create more designerly organizations. Most of these approaches do not address all four sets. The argument we make is that to establish a deep understanding of design that can lead to competent design practice, all four quadrants have to be addressed and "filled".

So, the next question then becomes where do you start the process of building design expertise, all quadrants filled? Do you start by teaching people certain tools, or certain skills, or certain knowledge or do you first engage with their mindset? Among contemporary and serious design educations we can easily find all kinds of approaches, some focused first on skills, others on knowledge or on mindset. Most of them over time addressing all quadrants.

Companies that are trying to transform themselves into being more designerly are unfortunately not as ambitious. Commonly they focus on either the mindset or the skill set. This means that they might invite speakers to preach the benefits of a designerly approach with the purpose to change the mindset of the people or they engage in concrete workshops where some simple tools and skills are practiced. Neither of these will lead to any lasting or serious changes in everyday practice.

To be clear, there is no 'right' way of approaching the design competency sets. Each attempt, each organization, is unique and has to be addressed as such. Each attempt to enhance design has to be adapted and designed to fit the specific situation. And nothing will be achieved if not all quadrants are engaged with.

Is your company designerly enough?

Today a lot of organizations are excited by the notion of design and the ways a designerly approach can enhance their business. Some companies even label themselves as "design companies" or state that they want to be seen as designerly companies. This is all well, but what does it mean and how do you know if and when you actually are designerly enough?

In many areas we have seen different forms of maturity models. A maturity model is supposed to help people "measure" and establish how mature they are in relation to some aspects. Examples are plenty, such as capability maturity models for software, project planning maturity models, risk maturity models, etc.

One of the fundamental ideas that underlie maturity models (even though not always stated) is that any progress in an area has to be built on a solid foundation. Without a solid foundation, any introduction of new tools, methods, approaches or procedures will probably over time fail.

So, does your organization have a solid foundation that can support the development of a designerly culture and improved design thinking and action? And do you have the knowledge and tools to find that out?

There are ways to assess an organization when it comes to how designerly they are and the level of their design maturity. Unfortunately, I see a lot of organizations that try to build a design culture without caring about the foundation. Instead, they start to implement (simplistic) tools and methods locally without the appropriate support and without any intentional effort in developing a strong and solid foundation that can support such initiatives. Not surprisingly, many of these initiatives fail and lead to a negative experience, and to a negative view of what a design approach can do.

So, organizations should (1) engage in assessing how designerly they are and (2) develop and use a design maturity model to better understand where they are and what needs to be done to successfully transform into a design-oriented organization.

Design Thinking and Disciplined Thinking

We all think.

Most of us realize that there are different ways of thinking. Most of us also believe and understand that different ways of thinking lead to different outcomes. So, the choice of how to think about something has serious consequences.

Howard Gardner explores forms of thinking in his book "The Disciplined Mind". Gardner is famous for his notion of multiple forms of intelligence. The idea is that people are intelligent in different ways. Ways that more or less are suitable for specific problems and situations. He argues that people need to nurture all forms of intelligence to be able to function well in the world, and his theories are of course highly influential and debated when it comes to education.

In this book, Gardner explores the notion of "disciplined thinking". He writes "over the years, cultures have evolved systematic ways of thinking about these issues" ("issues" referring to questions about the "true, the beautiful, and the good"). He continues "At any given moment, the disciplines represent the most well-honed efforts of human beings to approach questions and concerns of importance in a systematic and reliable way" (p 144). He shows that over time different disciplined ways of thinking may find themselves in conflict, or in competition, or going through a radical change. For instance, the scientific way of thinking has grown over centuries and has evolved into an extraordinarily powerful and efficient way of thinking if the purpose is to establish solid knowledge. However, scientific thinking is aimed at revealing what exists and how it works (the "true") and is less efficient when it comes to finding out what is "beautiful" or "good". So, each disciplined way of thinking has its strengths and weaknesses.

We have all experienced the extraordinary emergence of design thinking as a "new" form of thinking. People in academia and industry have accepted design thinking as a powerful way of approaching the world and to achieve change. Design thinking as a broad approach (and not as a simplistic process) seems to be able to provide humans with a way of approaching the world that other ways of thinking can't. However, if we want design thinking to develop we have to let go of the idea that design thinking is a well defined step-wise process, or a set of tools and techniques, and something that can be learned in an afternoon workshop.

Instead, we have to understand design thinking as a broad disciplined way of thinking, similar to what Gardner describes in his book as a "disciplined approach". Design thinking is not about using post-it notes or being user-oriented, or working in creative teams. It is a broad form of thinking that is disciplined in ways that other approaches are not. If we do not accept this, design thinking will only become a temporary fad and will after a few years disappear and be forgotten.