Design Thinking vs Traditional Problem Solving

Written by Kanishka Selvakumar

Have you ever wondered what the difference is between design thinking and traditional problem-solving? Perhaps you haven't but look no further because this article will help you gain a better understanding of their key points of comparison. 

Before that, let's dive deeper into what those two terms mean. On one hand, design thinking is a problem-solving approach that is human-centric, meaning it is built from user needs. It seeks to understand and meet the needs of customers to develop innovative solutions that cater to their requirements. Traditional problem-solving is defined as an analytical approach. It involves a structured process of defining a problem, gathering data and statistics, analyzing them, and formulating solutions. 

Design thinking differs from traditional problem-solving in the sense that designers do not merely identify a problem and create the best solution solely based on feasibility and analytics. There are, of course, other key differences which we will explore further in this article.

1. Focus

Driven by empathy, design thinking focuses on user-centered design, starting with an understanding of the real needs and desires of customers.

With a problem-specific lens, traditional problem-solving focuses on providing a practical and straightforward solution to the immediate problem at hand.

2. Process

Design thinking is a non-linear process, so it does not require a fixed progression from phase to phase. It is also an iterative process, meaning a set of steps is constantly repeated to refine an idea, product, or process. There is no such thing as the "best" or "perfect" solution, as there are always areas for improvement when it comes to design thinking.

In a contrarian fashion, traditional problem-solving follows a highly linear and structured process. It involves extensive research and analysis, evaluating various solutions, and selecting the most suitable one. It also aims to avoid failure by getting the solution right on the first try.

3. Approach & End Result

Design thinking encourages innovation and creativity—it fosters unconventional ideas, ideas that challenge the status quo, and ideas that possess a unique spark. The result is an innovative and targeted solution that fits well with user needs. 

Traditional problem-solving is driven by factors such as logic, practicality, feasibility, viability, and sustainability to propose an all-rounded, proven-to-work solution that works technically.

4. Context of Use

Design thinking is commonly used to solve complex human-centric issues, such as social and community problems, workplace challenges, and consumer experiences.

On the other hand, traditional problem-solving is most effective in addressing well-defined and straightforward technical problems, such as data security, software and hardware issues, and mathematical challenges.

Case Study: Miscommunication Within Teams

Now that we have a deeper understanding of the main differences between design thinking and traditional problem-solving, let's examine them through a sample case study. Imagine a company is struggling with the issue of miscommunication between teams. Employees often miss important messages, which can result in duplicated work and missed deadlines.

Using the traditional problem-solving approach, the goal would be to resolve the issue of miscommunication promptly. This can be achieved by transitioning to more effective tools and platforms for online communication. Despite communication becoming slightly smoother, having more optimized communication tools doesn't guarantee that employees can communicate better. 

Here is where design thinking comes into play:

1. Empathise

Design thinking first seeks to understand why there is miscommunication in the first place. The root cause of miscommunication will never be clear unless there is open communication with the target audience (got the pun?). In the "Empathise" phase of the design thinking process, HR might conduct face-to-face interviews with employees to determine the real reason for the miscommunication to begin with. 

• Is it because there are too many divided departments? 

• Are unnecessary messages spammed to everyone? 

• Are the instructions unclear to the employees?

• Do employees feel comfortable raising questions to seek clarification?

In such cases, the apparent solution of optimized communication platforms proposed by traditional problem-solving methods may not be effective.

2. Define

Miscommunication may not be a technological issue—it stems from the nature of information sharing and possibly the employees' reluctance to speak up. 

3. Ideate

HR may then implement some of the following solutions to tackle the root cause directly:

• More frequent face-to-face meetings across teams, including all employees and not just managers. This solution allows everyone to clarify questions and clear doubts easily and immediately.

• Simple AI Summary bot that summaries conversations in group chats and online meetings.

• Peer-led communication workshops for junior employees to enhance their communication skills.

4. Prototype & Test

Feedback seeking from employees would help determine whether the solutions truly work. After further testing, refined solutions could be implemented.

The key takeaway is that traditional problem-solving methods may be effective in most cases. Still, design thinking is crucial for uncovering the root causes of problems and proposing solutions that truly make a meaningful impact. Nevertheless, no method is better than the other. It ultimately depends on the context in which they are used. 

Summary of Key Differences

Design Thinking	Point of Comparison	Traditional Problem Solving
End-user	Focus	Solution (Product or Service)
Non-linear, Iterative	Process	Linear & Structured
Innovative, Targeted Solution	Approach & End Result	Proven, Practical Solution
Solving human-centric issues	Context of Use	Solving technical issues