design thinking solving wicked problems

How to Apply Design Thinking to Wicked Problems

A large part of a UX designer’s job is solving problems. In fact, the wide range of principles and mindsets employed by designers can be applicable beyond the realm of design itself.

Enter wicked problems. Essentially, these are problems in the world which prove incredibly difficult to solve, due to a complicated web of factors. How to tackle them has always been one of the great challenges.

Because good design is human-centered , designers are excellently positioned to help. So where did this concept come from, and how can Design Thinking help? Let’s find out.

First, we’re going to start by looking at where the term “wicked problems” first came from. We’ll then look at what makes up a wicked problem, and go through some examples. Lastly, we’ll look at how wicked problems and Design Thinking interact and how you can apply them to UX design.

If you’d like to skip ahead to a certain section, simply use the clickable menu:

• Where did wicked problems come from?
• Characteristics of a wicked problem
• Examples of wicked problems
• What is Design Thinking?
• Applying Design Thinking to wicked problems
• Final thoughts

1. Where did wicked problems come from?

Professor Horst W. J. Rittel, a design theorist from Berlin, coined the term “wicked problems” way back in 1973. 

Rittel was investigating how to tackle complex social policy problems in societies. He recognized that some of these problems shared characteristics that made them extremely difficult to solve, and he called these “wicked problems.”  

Wicked problems are:

• Unique and novel
• Difficult or impossible to solve
• Characterized by incomplete factors and complex interdependencies
• Subject to contradictory evidence
• Dependent on multiple stakeholders, often with conflicting interests

2. Characteristics of a wicked problem

In his paper, Professor Rittel also outlined the ten characteristics of a wicked problem:

• There is no definitive formula
• Wicked problems have no stopping rule —there’s no way to know your solution is final
• Solutions are not true-or-false ; they can only be good or bad
• There is no immediate test of a solution to a wicked problem
• Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation” ; because there’s no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly
• Wicked problems don’t have a set number of potential solutions
• Every wicked problem is essentially unique
• Every wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem
• There is always more than one explanation for a wicked problem because the explanations vary greatly depending on the individual perspective
• Planners/designers have no right to be wrong and must be fully responsible for their actions

Now that we’ve looked at the definition and characteristics of wicked problems, let’s examine a few real-world issues to see if they meet the criteria to be described as a wicked problem.

3. Examples of wicked problems

The term “wicked problems” was first coined in the context of public policy, and so—perhaps unsurprisingly—many complex social problems prove to be wicked ones.

Let’s take a look at three real-world issues and see if they meet the criteria for a wicked problem.

1. Global heating

Is it unique and / or novel.

Yes—it is unique in the sense that we don’t face any problems similar to global heating as a whole. However, it has been talked about since at least the 1980s, so it is no longer a novel problem.

Is it difficult or impossible to solve?

Yes—it is certainly difficult to solve. Whether or not it is impossible to solve remains to be seen.

Is it characterized by incomplete factors and / or complex interdependencies?

Yes—an example of an incomplete factor is the potential unavailability of reliable data about how much any country has reduced its CO 2  emissions, due to the political, economic, and social pressure to show significant reductions.

Is it subject to contradictory evidence?

The scientific consensus that the climate is warming and this is being caused by humans is not subject to contradictory evidence to any significant degree—as of 2019, 99% of the scientific evidence supported it .

However, there is contradictory evidence regarding potential solutions, the pros and cons of nuclear energy being one.  

Is it dependent on multiple stakeholders with different interests?

Yes—not only do individual nations, groups of nations, industries, and unions have different interests, each of those contains multiple stakeholders with different agendas and interests, such as political parties, lobby groups, think- tanks, big business, etc.

Is it a wicked problem?

Yes—global heating clearly meets four of the five criteria to be classified as a wicked problem.

And some of the solutions suggested are subject to contradictory evidence, even if there is scientific consensus around the nature of the problem.

2. Homelessness

No—although the details of every city’s homelessness situation will vary, the causes and effects will overlap to the extent that the problem could not be described as unique.

And homelessness has been documented since 1383 and probably much earlier, so it is not a novel problem. 

That depends. It is probably impossible or nearly impossible to solve for societies that don’t have the financial means to provide state-funded housing.

However, some wealthier cities such as Helsinki have taken radical approaches that have all but eradicated rough-sleeping, if not homelessness.

Yes and no—the causes of homelessness are generally understood, so incomplete factors wouldn’t apply.

Conversely, somewhat complex interdependencies do exist when tackling homelessness at city or individual level, because the functioning, legislation, and definitions of the city or national governments; housing officers, social workers, the homeless individuals themselves, and their families can all potentially contribute to the outcome.

Generally no—most of the main solutions applied to reduce homelessness are evidence-based.

Yes—tackling homelessness at a city level requires sustained government support and commitment, which means multiple stakeholder involvement.

As well as that, most approaches would require cooperation with stakeholders such as social services, landlords, charities, and healthcare professionals. 

Overall, homelessness is not a wicked problem. Although it is dependent on multiple stakeholders with different interests, it is neither a unique nor a novel problem.

There are proven methods to tackling homelessness and eradicating or almost eradicating it is possible with the right resources and strategy.

3. Turning around a long-term chronically underperforming school

No—similar to homelessness, although each underperforming school’s situation will be unique, the causes and effects of many will overlap so they could not be described as unique in any meaningful way.

Some underperforming schools will have been failing since mass education began, so it cannot be described as a novel problem, either.

Yes—it is likely that it is at least difficult to turn around an underperforming school in an economically deprived area and—in the worst cases and depending on the resources available—it might be impossible.

Yes—long-term school underperformance is characterized by complex interdependencies between national and local educational, economic, and social policies.

As well as this, multiple interdependent causes and symptoms could be at play, such as:

• health issues
• absenteeism
• lack of study space
• lack of trusted adult relationships
• lack of youth services
• substance abuse
• malnutrition
• language barriers
• gang membership

Yes—there is contradictory evidence as to which approaches and solutions are most likely to succeed in turning around a chronically underperforming school.

Yes—a solution would be dependent on school staff and administrators, as well as state level and local infrastructure with their own interests and agenda.

Parents, guardians, students, youth workers, charities, and other stakeholders would also be involved in any potential solution.

Yes, the difficulty of turning around a chronically underperforming school, as well as the multiple and complex interdependencies and stakeholders involved mean turning around a long-term chronically underperforming school is a wicked problem.

Now we’ve defined wicked problems and taken a look at real-world examples, let’s explore how it applies to design.

We’ll do this by first seeing what the Design Thinking Process is, and examine how it could be applied to a wicked problem.

4. What is Design Thinking?

Design Thinking is a non-linear, iterative process that is extremely useful for tackling ill-defined, complex, or unknown problems. 

As its name suggests, the process emerged in the design field and was often applied to design problems. Now it is widely used in design, product, and development teams globally.

Design Thinking is structured to:

• Understand users
• Reframe problems in human-centered ways
• Challenge underlying assumptions
• Redefine problems
• Rapidly create innovative solutions to prototype and test.

For a deeper understanding of Design Thinking, you can take a look at our comprehensive guide to Design Thinking . You can also let designer Rob Hamblen explain about the Design Thinking Process and how to apply it in this video:

Typically, the Design Thinking Process is made up of five key stages:

These stages aren’t necessarily linear, as discoveries made along the way often require previous steps to be repeated.

And, due to the unique and challenging nature of complex design problems, the process will often need to be run through several times.

Now, if we circle back to our opening description of wicked problems, we can see that wicked problems can often resemble complex design problems . 

Both wicked problems and complex design problems are unique and novel, difficult or impossible to solve, and characterized by incomplete factors and complex interdependencies. 

On top of this, they’re often subject to contradictory evidence and dependent on multiple stakeholders with different interests.

This connection comes into play when we consider the potential value and relevance of Design Thinking in approaching wicked problems. 

It was Richard Buchanan, a design theorist and academic, who first connected the two in his 1992 paper “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.”

He made the connection between Design Thinking and wicked problems after he saw that the iterative process in Design Thinking could be applied to wicked problems outside of the design world.

To explore this further, let’s take one of the wicked problems we looked at earlier—the challenge of turning around a chronically underperforming school—and see how Design Thinking could be applied to it.

5. Applying Design Thinking to wicked problems

Applying Design Thinking to turn around a chronically underperforming school could result in a rapid iterative process that looked something like this:

1. Empathize—Research your users’ needs

The first stage of the Design Thinking Process is empathizing. This means researching and understanding your users’ needs.

When applied to turning around an underperforming school, the main user groups would be students, parents, guardians, teachers, and school administrators. Local politicians and community leaders might be secondary groups.

In this case, the best form of research would probably be one-on-one interviews. The aim would be to learn about users’ situations—specifically their precise needs, pain points, and blockers. 

2. Define—State your users’ needs and problems

The next stage is defining the users’ needs and problems. The information will help to define the various root causes at the heart of the school’s underperformance.

All of the user groups—students, parents, guardians, teachers, and school administrators—would have different needs and different problems preventing them from having those needs met. 

A key part of the Design Thinking Process is fully understanding users’ needs and problems, and by the end of step two you should have a solid understanding of them and their root causes.

3. Ideate—Challenge assumptions and create ideas

The next stage is ideation, which means challenging the assumptions underlying the wicked problem and brainstorming multiple ideas for tackling it.

In this case, an assumption to challenged could be: 

The school budget means it’s impossible to afford the support and facilities necessary to tackle the root causes of underperformance.

That assumption itself is based on two other assumptions—that the school budget is fixed, and that the support and facilities need to be paid for out of the school budget.

The Design Thinking Process would create ideas to challenge those assumptions. Examples could be:

• A parent and guardian council partnered with school leadership and governors to lobby the education board for increased funding 
• Building partnerships with youth mentoring, drug awareness, and tutoring charities
• Starting a fundraising campaign for sporting and creative facilities and ventures
• A project in partnership with local government to ensure every student’s household is receiving the financial support and healthcare they are entitled to
• Targeted outreach to parents and guardians who are speakers of other languages to make them aware of their children’s school situation and put them in touch with free translation services. 

Now the process has led to a set of ideas that could be used to tackle the school’s underperformance, the next stage would be to start prototyping.

4. Prototype—Start to create solutions

If you’re not familiar with it yet, brush up on our introductory guide to prototyping .

Creating a prototype from the idea of building a partnership with a tutoring charity could look like this:

• Establishing contact with the tutoring charity
• Agreeing on the terms of a pilot intensive tutoring program 
• Working with teachers to assign tutoring for 10 students with a high need for support
• Working with students, teachers, parents, and guardians to ensure students understand their responsibilities in the tutoring program. 

After creating this solution as part of the prototype, it would be time to test its effectiveness.

5. Test—Try your solutions out

After the intensive tutoring pilot program was rolled out, its success could be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Qualitative success metrics could be gathered from interviewing the students, tutors, and parents about what went well and what didn’t. 

Quantitative success metrics could be indicators such as the students’ performance in the tutored subject before and after the program. 

If the program was having the desired impact, it could be expanded to include more students. 

Alternatively, if it wasn’t having the desired impact, we could return to stage four to an earlier stage in the process and iterate on the pilot program prototype or focus on an altogether new solution.

Final thoughts: why Design Thinking and wicked problems can go together

Design Thinking can be applied to wicked problems successfully for three main reasons.

Firstly, its emphasis on gathering evidence in the empathize stage is useful for approaching a wicked problem with a clear foundation for action as well as a strong understanding of the users, stakeholders, and interdependencies involved. 

Secondly, its rapid iterative process (empathize → define → ideate → prototype → test) is particularly suited to the unique, complex, and difficult nature of wicked problems. 

This is because it encourages broad and creative ideation which produces multiple solutions, which can then be tested rapidly and/or simultaneously.

Finally, Design Thinking stresses the importance of failing often—as quick and cheap failures are a key part of the iterative process. Each failure should be another step towards a solution. 

This is a very useful approach for tackling wicked problems, as it accelerates the learning process and ensures resources aren’t wasted on slow and expensive failures.

We hope you’ve enjoyed our exploration of wicked problems and Design Thinking. To dive deeper into the subject, why not check out our comprehensive guide The Key Principles and Steps of the Design Thinking Process .

If you’d like to read about other topics from the field of UX design, check out these articles:

• Inclusive Design vs. Universal Design: What’s the Difference?
• 11 Best Free Wireframe Tools for UX Designers
• What Is Lateral Thinking? The Skill You Need

A Systems View Across Time and Space

• Open access
• Published: 13 April 2023

Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and needfinding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems

• Rahmin Bender-Salazar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5783-6314 1  

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship volume  12 , Article number:  24 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

6 Citations

Metrics details

Organizations in a wide array of fields and disciplines are increasingly using design thinking as an innovative process to create products or services that address wicked problems in their industries. Design thinking, a method of creative and collaborative problem solving originating in the tactics of designers, is a product design and development process that is, more and more, being used as a tool to move innovation forward and structure creation processes in diverse disciplines, from product development to food creation to social science research. Increasingly design thinking has become popular beyond the confines of creative and design disciplines and into the realm of wicked problems in social and ecological systems. While design thinking has many forms and applications, this study uses a refined version built upon the key themes of inspiration, ideation, and implementation as defined by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO (2009), and situates it within the social science discipline—namely, systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research. Through a distilled design structure this flexible methodology combines insights from organizational development, social psychology, systems theory, and design research. By embedding learning and reflective practices into the structure of design thinking, a hybrid model of design thinking emerges that is a more effective tool for framing, setting in context, and solving these types of problems within teams.

From large private companies to small NGOs, academic institutions, and government entities, all are striving to learn about and create innovative services, products, and experiences that address the problems the relevant stakeholders in their industries face. Design thinking, a methodology for problem solving that has its origins in designers’ approaches, tactics, and needs to make this multi-disciplinary process explicit (Gregory, 1966 ), has increasingly emerged in recent decades as a powerful method to drive the innovation process in the pursuit of improvement. Design thinking, as described by the emerging management and innovation scholar Michael Luchs, is “…a creative problem-solving approach—or, more completely, a systematic and collaborative approach for identifying and creatively solving problems” ( 2015 , p. 1). Design thinking’s holistic approach to stakeholders and systems, coupled with its participatory nature, has made it an approachable technique to use beyond the fields of art, architecture, engineering, and technology that traditionally have design disciplines. The theories and practice of design thinking have grown in popularity and have been more heavily used in the academic discourses on management and in the business industry over the past several decades. Thus, this discipline has emerged as a problem solving tool beyond the traditional confines of design (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013 ).

This leads to the following research question: to what extent does the application of design thinking, tasked with addressing wicked problems, represent an effective means for team problem setting and problem solving in organizations?

To fully grasp the concepts discussed in this proposal, it is helpful to clarify a few definitions before proceeding. Wicked problems: these are difficult and challenging problems, which appear in all fields and organizations; the most complex, multifaceted, and intractable problems with systemic impact are referred to as wicked problems (Churchman, 1967 ; Rittel & Webber, 1973 ; Roberts, 2000 ). Organizations: This term is defined as “social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific goals” (Etzioni, 1964 , p. 3) and, in this study, they are defined as seeking to solve problems through the creation of a new product or service. Design thinking: The definition of design thinking in this study can be simply understood as the use of methods and research practices to solve problems that are traditionally not in the fields of design, architecture, or engineering.

A brief history of design thinking

Design thinking was evangelized and popularized by IDEO beginning in the early 1990s (Brown, 2009 ); however, it existed in the academic discourse much earlier in various forms. To understand the current and evolving use of design thinking, a historical review of this process is beneficial. Specifically, it is essential to examine the early work examining designers’ practice and research, occurring in the latter half of the twentieth century, by the parents of modern design thought: Lawson ( 1980 ), Rowe ( 1987 ), Archer ( 1979 ), and Cross ( 1991 ).

An initial push to make a more rigorous discipline out of design thinking sprang from what Michael Barry and Sarah Beckman—current researchers exploring learning in design thinking—refer to as “…a need to make design thinking explicit and a need to embrace the many disciplines that are engaged in some way with design” (Beckman & Barry, 2007 , p. 26). The movement towards an explicit design method began in the 1960s, which would later be referred to as the first generation, and the subsequent movement in the 1970s and 1980s, known as the second generation (Rittell, 1984 ). This second generation of design thought began to emphasize the social aspects of design, by including active participants in the process (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ).

As described by Archer, “there exists a designerly way of thinking and communication that is both different from scientific and scholarly methods of enquiry when applied to its own kinds of problems” (Archer, 1979 , p. 18). This assertion from Archer accents not only the thinking aspect but the unique way of communicating used by designers applying the design thinking method towards problem solving. Similar to this, Cross explains that the design thought process is a research practice and a way of processing information, described as “designerly ways of knowing” ( 2001 ), that is an independent methodology with rich theory and should not be dependent on social science theory ( 2007 ). These two scholars lay the groundwork for design thinking to emerge as a distinct discipline for tackling problems in a myriad of disciplines.

In addition, Rowe outlined a systematic design process to problem solving that emphasized the role of the designer to address the needs of the client ( 1987 ). He described this user-centered process as design thinking, which was one of the earliest uses of the term. In Rowe’s design thinking process, a designer intervenes in a client organization; interprets the evidence gathered through quantitative and qualitative investigation; and makes an effort to address the challenges presented in the form of a product or service. In Lawson’s work, the process of design thinking, though not explicitly called that, is explored as a process that utilizes experimentation and information gathering tactics to tailor products ( 1980 ). Lawson’s definition predates Rowe’s use of the term of design thinking but similarly focuses on the designer’s expert role in assessing the needs of a client and testing possible solutions. This process is a tool that designers can masterfully use, informed by their expertise and designerly ways of knowing (Cross, 2001 ), to ultimately solve challenges that often fall into the definition of wicked problems. Rowe and Lawson focus on the intrinsically unique features of design thinking, with an emphasis on how the use of data gathering and testing make it an ideal tool for finding appropriate and optimal solutions.

These foundations of design thinking led us to Tim Brown’s definition of three overlapping, sometimes non-sequential elements—inspiration, ideation, and implementation—as outlined in Change by Design ( 2009 ) and popularized by IDEO. This simple structure serves as the foundation in which to organize the foundational theories for the proposed method in this article. This definition of design thinking is informed by the work of Lawson ( 1980 ), Rowe ( 1987 ), Archer ( 1979 ), and Cross ( 1991 , 2001 ). This foundational design method is broadly defined as the three key elements can be repeated, can overlap, and can be non-sequential (Brown & Wyatt, 2010 ).

Design thinking adapted towards addressing wicked problems

For this exploration of design thinking’s effect and innovative potential in addressing wicked problems, it is essential to understand the corresponding academic discourse and how it has evolved with design thinking. The theory was first described in an editorial by management theorist Churchman ( 1967 ) as a reaction to the term, first coined by Horst Rittel. The article was an exploration of these difficult, virtually unsolvable problems in the management science discourse and responsibility of society and academia to accept their intractability and find innovation solutions to live with them (Churchman, 1967 ). This first formal definition of the concept was further expanded with more defined parameters with the article of Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973 as uniquely complex problems. Rittel and Webber’s ( 1973 ) work framed wicked problems within the context of social policy planning, where problems are often not clear, and contrasted that with problems in mathematics and chess, where there are clear cut solutions. As stated by modern theorists Brian Head and Wei-Ning Xiang, “…the ubiquity of wicked problems is the norm, and present in almost every pressing issue area that matters to human society today…” ( 2016 , p. 1). This description describes the growing relevance and prevalence of wicked problems on human systems and how it has grown in importance from its inception.

Herbert Simon, a pioneer in design research and artificial intelligence, wanted to use a design approach, in the vein of the one described above, as a unique discipline, to tackle “ill-structured problems,” which he described as problems with undefined characteristics ( 1969 ). Simon described his approach to design as a means of “…devising artifacts to attain goals…” (Simon, 1969 , p. 114), which continued a trend of describing design as a solution making and transformative process. This interpretation of design thinking continued to gain momentum amongst theorists and practitioners throughout the twentieth century, which resulted in design thinking as a methodology becoming synonymous with problem solving, especially as a multidisciplinary practice for framing wicked problems (Buchanan, 1992 ). Design thinking as a method to solve problems outside the creative domain began with Herbert Simon, who applied design methodologies to science and his field of artificial intelligence ( 1969 ). This movement of applying the design thinking discipline to fields not traditionally associated with design continued with the product development process used by IDEO, know as Human Centered Design or HCD (Brown, 2008 ; IDEO, 2011 ). The degree of client participation and at which stages of the process vary between methods, but they agree on a key area of design thinking—that the client or product user is the primary focus.

As design thinking moves beyond the traditional creative sphere and enters the realm of addressing wicked problems across a wide spectrum of topics, the discipline is enriched by the rigorous research practices that the social sciences have to offer. The stand-alone discipline of design thinking explored in this article integrates some of the social science methodologies to effectively adapt to the new terrain of designing for social systems. Specifically, this discipline is informed by systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1969 ; Dentoni et al., 2023 ; Meadows, 2008 ; Senge, 1996 ), organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ; Kolb, 1984 ; Senge, 1990 ) and action research (Lewin, 1946 ).

Design and systems

Systems are an essential element to implementing a design thinking process that addresses wicked problems, because they allow the designer to see a more expansive view of the problem. To understand how to design a specific product or service, the designer often analyzes the various systems that are involved, such as social, technological, ecological, or political systems. By understanding the inner workings of these systems and collaborating with relevant stakeholders, a designer can co-create a product or service that acts as a targeted intervention to improve the system. This perspective has its origins in general systems theory, formulated by biologist Ludwig Von Bertalanffy ( 1969 ), which expands the understanding of systems beyond science and analyzes all systems in an intricate, open, and holistic manner. The majority of design thinking approaches are human-centric perspectives on general systems theory in that they focus not only on the systems involved with a specific intervention but also on how the different systems interact with each other. Though most design thinking processes are human-centered, they are not exclusively focused on social systems, because the ecological and built environment are also considered. Expanding on this viewpoint is organisimic theory (Goldstein, 1995 ), which emphasizes human interconnectedness—that humans are intrinsically and inextricably intertwined with the natural environment and the ecological systems therein. In addition, Barry Commoner, in his work The Closing Circle , further stated that everything in living systems is connected to each other and what has an effect on one affects all (Commoner, 1971 ). These ideas inform systems thinking (Dentoni et al., 2023 ; Senge, 1996 ), which is an application of systems theory to interpret the intertwined and dynamic interactions among multiple interdependent elements to inform possible interventions. This approach to interconnected systems informs the design thinking approach through the very foundation of the process—placing the human at the center of the research and looking at all the ways this individual connects with the product, service, or system.

Design thinking to stimulate learning

The principles of design thinking are human-centered, that is, the results are specifically tailored to the end-user, and are created using a process of collaboration, active engagement, and reflection (IDEO, 2011 ). This process can be further explained using the double loop learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ), which informs how reflective practice foundationally builds on learning. Double loop learning involves single loop learning—repeated attempts to address the same issue with the same method—while additionally engaging in reflective practice to learn from past performance and emphasize repeat attempts to refine approaches (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ).

David Kolb, a scholar in learning science, similarly, outlines an experiential learning model ( 1984 ) rooted in social psychology, which focuses on concrete action, learning from experience, reflection, and experimentation. This theory involves an axis of learning with the y -axis containing two opposing methods of processing experience and an x -axis of opposing methods of transforming experience. This axis of learning can be seen in Fig.  1 , and display experience processing in learning from a spectrum of concrete examples as one extreme and abstract conceptualization of ideas as the opposition. The processing of information is similarly balanced that with two opposing methods of transforming experience (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ; Kolb, 1984 ). The two diametrically opposed information transformation processes include reflective observation on one end and active experimentation on the other (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ). In simple terms, the process as seen in Fig.  1 shows two forces of learning that of processing reality and transforming it within each there is a tangible and intangible component. The work of Kolb, Argrys, and Schön increase the potential to learn from the design thinking process with rapid prototyping practice—reacting and changing the product, system, or service based on reflective practices and adapting based on those reflections. Rapid prototyping is influenced by social learning models, which emphasize interaction in learning and the importance of experimentation with both thought and action.

Kolb Learning model as adapted from Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ), Kolb ( 1984 ) and Kolb and Kolb ( 2005 )

Charles Owen, a design academic from the Illinois Institute of Technology who has advocated for design as an engine for innovation ( 2006a ), builds on the prototyping practice from Kolb, Argrys, and Schön. Owen theorized that the design process has discernable phases that, while often not in order, generally begin with the analytic research stage and end with the synthetic experimentation and creation stage (Owen, 1993). This innovation model begins with creating ideas and concepts from research and then applying them to experiments for testing. When used through the lens of learning, this proposed process, as illustrated in Fig.  2 , begins to take shape as a non-sequential, innovative method to interpret and address complex problems. This process is illustrated in the work of Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ) who combined the elements of Owen ( 2006b ) in a simple vestige of two axes and four quadrants. In this prescribed and infinitely repeatable process, concrete analysis brings about observable research that can then be applied to abstract analysis, that is, frameworks and theories. Finally, this leads to abstract synthesis, which is the creation of ideas that can be clearly synthesized to become concrete solutions.

Innovation process as adapted from Beckman and Barry ( 2007 )

Using design thinking in concert with action research

Design thinking, as described by Owen, seeks to form knowledge through action (1997), which is similar in style and approach to Action Research (Lewin, 1946 ) in the social sciences. Action research was first created for researchers to take a participatory and active role in their studies to mold and guide their experience (Lewin, 1946 ), which echoes the role of the designer in a design thinking process. The designer or researcher needs to take account of their subjects and make observations, which is a traditional research paradigm while also understanding their impact as a participant in the process. In addition, reflective practice (Argyris & Schön, 1978 ) is a means to review and learn from past experience, and with this tool, a designer or researcher is able to build on observations of the research subject or client and create the best solutions for them. A similar approach to the use of knowledge aggregated from observations and reflective practice, is the needfinding model, which is an exploration of addressing the needs of a particular subject and working to create a solution tailored to solve this problem for them (Faste, 1987 ). Needfinding in design thinking does not occur as a sequential step after reflection and observation, but rather as a method to guide both of those processes to address the needs of the intended client or product user. Similarly, in action research, needfinding is necessary for the researcher to undertake to gain context of motivations of organizations and individuals involved. In action research, the subject and researchers are all participants and collaborators in the change process and its essential to understand their needs in this context, which parallels the collaborative and solution creating work of a designer.

Schön described design, in its traditional form, as a tacit process with designers’ knowledge that is difficult to transfer or explain ( 1983 ). This situates designers as having specific expertise that is difficult for those without the professional know-how to comprehend or utilize. Design thinking seeks to clarify the discipline of design into a process more akin to implicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takechi, 1995 ), allowing design expertise to be disseminated to a larger audience, including both the designer and the client or product user. This implies that the interaction between the designer and the client is a reciprocal transaction or a communication between interacting components and systems (Germain, 1991 ; Luhmann, 1995 ). This interactive method represents the action research process, where both parties contribute to the creation process, with the designer leading the exercise. The change desired in the design thinking process, rather than research study, is an output in the form of a product or service made in collaboration with the client.

This approach to learning is common within design in that it is meant to create the ideal solution through experimentation, iteration, and continually learning from both. Using participatory action research, that is focusing on rapid learning, repetition of the practice-driven design thinking framework, and reflection, is essential for innovating and solving wicked problems (Argyris & Schön, 1991 ; Lewin, 1946 ).

Innovating through design thinking

Innovation, described as the “core renewal process” in an organization purposed with creating new products and services (Bessant et al., 2005 ), is the mechanism for addressing wicked problems. To innovate effectively to remain competitive, organizations have increasingly turned to the application of design thinking as a process for product development in recent decades (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013 ; Lockwood, 2010 ). Design thinking-driven problem solving is a powerful and disruptive method that creates innovative products and services that seek to address these types of problems across diverse fields.

This article uses a foundational approach to design thinking-driven problem solving, which is, in essence, a flexible framework that does not adhere to a strict structure. Rather, it is able to ebb and flow within the design challenge and cater to the relevant stakeholders. As stated by Sydney Gregory in the seminal work The Design Method , “[the] design method is a pattern of behavior employed in inventing things…which do not yet exist. Science is analytic; design is constructive” ( 1966 , p. 6). Design, in this context, is used as an engine of product, system, and service creation that addresses individuals’ needs and challenges.

The design thinking process explained above can be considered an innovation process (Brown & Wyatt, 2010 ) and has a social learning component (Beckman & Barry, 2007 ). More specifically, this process can be defined as a problem setting method (Schön, 1983 ). Problem setting, as explained by design cognition scholar Willemien Visser is “…the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, and the means that may be chose[n]” ( 2010 , p. 4). Problem setting is the first step towards innovation and tackling a wicked problem. By defining the problem and understanding all of the pieces that interact with it, one can begin to address, but not necessarily solve a wicked problem. To understand how to use design thinking as a method within this innovative problem setting process, one must understand the context of the current design thinking discourse.

Towards a refined design thinking model

Organizations are consistently looking for innovative ways to advance their products, profits, and goals, and design thinking, though not clearly defined, has emerged as a driving force to meet these challenges. Despite the varying definitions (Brown, 2008 ; Dorst, 2006 , 2010 ; Kimbell, 2015 ), there are enough similarities that describe the key elements of design thinking that bring it in line with other design and social science research methodologies. By combining a few of the fundamental elements into a hybrid model of design thinking, it can be used as a powerful tool to address wicked problems that organizations face. This method, as illustrated in Fig.  3 , brings together the elements of Charles Owen’s map of innovation ( 1998 , 2006a , 2006b ), Kolb’s experiential learning ( 1984 ), and Tim Brown’s three signature elements of the design thinking process ( 2009 ).

Hybrid model of design thinking, which is a design process workaround with design thinking and innovation adapted from the work of Beckman and Barry ( 2007 ), Brown ( 2008 , 2009 ), Brown and Wyatt ( 2010 ), Brown and Katz ( 2011 )

The components of inspiration, ideation, and implementation (Brown, 2009 ) serve as the foundation of this hybrid model. Using Brown’s simplified construction could be interpreted as embracing the recent, popular versions of design thinking as a third or independent discipline. However, its approachable three-pronged structure provides a categorical separation between steps and meshes well with Owen’s concepts of innovation—the interplay of analysis and synthesis with abstract and concrete ( 1998 , 2006a , 2006b ). This powerful combination creates a streamlined and flexible framework, where innovation can occur in a non-sequential order, dictated by the needs of the problem. Interestingly, Archer foresaw this hybrid approach when he stated, “time is rapidly approaching when design decision making and management decision making techniques will have so much in common that the one will become no more than the extension of the other” ( 1967 , p. 51). Archer’s foresight in the above hybrid design approach is in line with his third-way ( 1979 ) thought process but differs in that this design discipline works in concert with social science instead of wholly separate from it. Using this innovative hybrid design thinking model, wicked problems can be quickly identified and addressed, with an outlook towards finding specific solutions to fit users’ needs.

Research design

Building on the theoretical model, based on the literature review above, a case study was undertaken to better understand the model in practice. The case study used a participatory design thinking exercise with a cohort of students enrolled in an applied entrepreneurial Masters-level course at Wageningen University. This course was targeted at students interested in entrepreneurship and circular economy, and worked with eight student teams that were developing business ideas using renewable materials in garment production. Disruptive innovation—a product, service, or approach that fundamentally upends the status quo of an industry or field (Christensen, 1997 )—serves as a lens in this case study to analyze the effect of design thinking on problem solving and concept development of the student teams’ entrepreneurial ventures The course was focused on circular economic systems, which seeks to reuse resources in a closed, infinitely repeatable loop, which is in contrast to traditional linear economic models that use finite resources and create waste (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017 ). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a leader in applying the circular transition, define the concept as the following:

A circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces the “end-of-life” concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems, and, within this, business models. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012, p. 7)

Circular economy seeks to reduce humanity’s impact on the environment and climate by decreasing waste and using resources more efficiently, thus attempting to solve the wicked problem of negative human impact on the environment.

Creating a baseline

Participants in the study came from two types of academic backgrounds: a science-based one, and one rooted in the social sciences. There was an observable difference between each group in their ability to learn and apply design thinking. Students from a science-based background, such as environmental science or biochemistry, were able to learn and use design thinking concepts with greater ease than those with a social science, humanities, or management studies background. This noticeable difference may be attributable to the science-based students’ ability to mix and match frameworks as needed to find solutions to complex problems. For example, in physics, students have been taught to use one formula for one situation with its own set of variables, and another formula for another situation with a second set of variables. In other words, the situation dictates what tools are used. Similarly, in the hybrid model of design thinking, which the students were exposed to, specific elements are only applied in certain circumstances and situations. Thus, as design thinking contains elements of the scientific method, this may have resonated more with the science-based students’ usual ways of learning and applying methods.

The overall purpose of creating a baseline was to see what portion of the design thinking concepts had permeated in participants’ minds and how they described those concepts. As such, I used what participants shared as their interpretation or impression of design thinking in their own words. In many cases their descriptions were of a concept without the use of the concept name (e.g., prototype, ideation), and I compared these explanations with the concepts used in the hybrid model of design thinking in an effort to make connections where possible. The students displayed their knowledge of design thinking during the interviews and through the course by describing important elements of the process, namely, creating prototypes, building on failed attempts, and repeated reflection on the implementation of their ideas. To establish a baseline, it was not necessary for participants to use the exact names or descriptions of the design thinking concepts, as the real test of whether they understood these concepts and could apply them would be uncovered during the design thinking in action (DTiA) section of data collection.

This qualitative methods study, informed by design thinking, was conducted in three phases: Phase 1 consisted of an ethnographic observational study and Phase 2 consisted of a series of six interviews (see Table 1 ) with past participants to assess their knowledge of and ability to apply design thinking to a real world problem.

The purpose of these two phases was to collectively gather data to understand the relationship between design thinking and problem solving in a team. Specifically, the data from the two phases seeks to answer to what extent design thinking represents an effective method for team problem setting and problem solving of wicked problems in organizations. Once collected, the data was codified (see Table 2 ) into four major themes: (1) the interviewee’s personal motivation in life and vocational goals; (2) their professed knowledge in the aspects, uses, and approaches of design thinking; (3) the interviewee’s application of design thinking in a scenario; and (4) their assessment of the effectiveness of design thinking.

The research findings examine the research question, “To what extent does the application of design thinking, tasked with addressing wicked problems, represent an effective means for team problem setting and problem solving in organizations?" To answer this question, I used the four themes outlined above to conduct the data analysis, and the interpretation of the data will continue to follow these themes. For the interpretation, I split the four overarching themes into two categories. The first category incorporates the first two themes (personal motivation and knowledge of design thinking) and acts as a baseline to gauge, where the individual is academically and what design thinking concepts they have retained. This is useful information, because it paints a clearer picture of the participants’ individual characteristics, which I then paired with the second category of themes to understand whether these characteristics play a role in the participants’ application of design thinking to solve a wicked problem. The richest set of data comes from the second category. The latter two themes (application of design thinking and perceived effectiveness) are included in this second category as a way to analyze DTiA through role-playing scenarios, which gives insight into the participants’ practical knowledge and application of the hybrid design thinking model used for this experiment.

This DTiA exercise revealed three key features of the hybrid model, which combines behavioral science and traditional design methods to create a flexible and foundational model for addressing wicked problems. Three key aspects within the hybrid model that were particularly apparent in this second category were “problem setting”, “needfinding”, and “double-loop learning”. First, interviewees successfully applied problem setting by outlining all the necessary information that would be required to solve an assignment—in this case, the hypothetical scenario of working with Apple to improve the iPhone’s falling market share. Interviewees correctly prioritized the following: (1) setting up a component team to tackle the issue; (2) collecting data on competitors to compare best practices; (3) understanding the needs of potential and past customers; and (4) creating a process to experiment and iterate on failures. These priorities exemplify the hybrid model’s three central elements and how organizational learning, needfinding, and problem setting are key to the success of the model in addressing wicked problems. What’s more, the interviewees were able to link ecological systems, such as environmental value chains and social systems while looking at both consumers and stakeholders to put the question into context. Second, participants used needfinding to distinguish what aspects of the real world problem were most important to take into consideration when evaluating possible solutions. These aspects focused mostly on the needs of human and ecological systems that were involved with the problem. Third, participants used double-loop learning to test possible solutions to the problems they faced and made iterative changes based on the positive or negative results. Specifically, the interviewees showed how they questioned all of the parameters of the prompt and laid a plan for testing, retesting, and iteration of ideas.

This study’s findings suggest that the hybrid model of design thinking is an effective framework for addressing wicked problems. Namely, participants were able to recall various terms, such as “prototyping” and “ideation” when defining this hybrid model. Furthermore, they displayed implicit knowledge by successfully using aspects of the model, including “double-loop learning,” “iteration,” and “reflective practices,” to find solutions during the DTiA exercise. For example, Interviewee C specifically defined “prototyping” as “a method to create quick test solutions that can then be iterated upon and improved with future versions towards a suitable solution.” Being an explicit definition of this design thinking concept, it is clear that Interviewee C understood and retained the information learned during the course. By contrast, Interviewee A did not identify “prototyping” by name but displayed use of the concept during the role-playing exercise.

The course participants used design thinking in the formulation of their entrepreneurial ventures, which were created to address the wicked problem of environmental sustainability. Two groups of participants in particular, Epsilon and Zeta, used design thinking to address very specific problems they identified within environmental sustainability, which are outlined below.

Epsilon team’s use of the hybrid design thinking method

Epsilon’s innovative solution was developed in response to the lack of incubation spaces for sustainable entrepreneurs in Wageningen, Netherlands—that is, workspaces and offices, where like-minded entrepreneurs can work and have access to investors and experts to grow their businesses. The team focused on Wageningen specifically, because they had the most experience in this city, as students at the local university and as entrepreneurs who had attempted a previous venture here already. Note that this was the team’s second venture attempt for this study. They first explored how to grow a mushroom skin, related to the “living skin” research project, so that they could experiment with different types of coating to make the material waterproof. They planned to sell the waterproof coating to companies to make durable clothing, bags, or car interiors. Through experimentation and the prototyping process, the team tried to grow mushrooms but faced challenges with a lack of expertise and a space to grow the fungi. The team expressed frustration about these obstacles and through reflection realized that getting expert assistance and finding a space to experiment were essential to their success as a venture; however, perhaps, these were problems they could address. As such, the team shifted their focus to a new venture, which was to find an innovative solution to the lack of incubation spaces in Wageningen.

The team researched and tested their new venture concept of creating an organic, sustainably, and locally sourced café that is an office space for ventures in the city, has a network of experts to help entrepreneurs, and offers a location for entrepreneurs to sell and test their products and services. With this shift, the team then went to collect data and surveyed people around the city and the results showed that there was, in fact, demand from residents and sustainable entrepreneurs for this type of space and that Wageningen did not currently have any locations that met these entrepreneurs’ needs. Specifically, they found that a co-working space and having access to experts are actually crucial for entrepreneurs in the early stages of their ventures, because it allows them to test their ideas and learn from others as they iterate on better solutions. Similarly, the team itself was able to learn from the failure and challenges of their first venture attempt, which inspired them to address that problem directly with a different venture. Epsilon’s venture evolved to become a café, store, and incubation space for entrepreneurs in Wageningen that sought to create products or services that are environmentally sustainable and have closed-loop, circular waste streams. Their final venture concept included a plan for further development, testing, and iteration to continue learning as they grow and improve their products.

This team’s journey from one venture to another provides an exemplary use of the hybrid design thinking model. This shift embodies Argyris and Schön’s definition of double-loop learning, the students not only explored their original question related to their venture but also if it was the right question in itself. Argyris and Schön ( 1978 ) described the concept with the following metaphor:

Single loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to perform this task, because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and, therefore, take corrective action. If the thermostat could question itself about whether it should be set at 68 degrees, it would be capable not only of detecting error but of questioning the underlying policies and goals as well as its own program. That is a second and more comprehensive inquiry; hence it might be called double loop learning. (pp. 2–3)

I shared the metaphor above with the students during the beginning of the course, and this group exemplified double-loop learning in the selection and refinement of their venture. Team Epsilon showed their understanding of the context of a venture and how that can change the very nature of a proposed solution as it was for them, when they shifted the problem they focused on. Furthermore, their reaction to changing circumstance can be interpreted as the team displaying Schön’s ( 1983 ) concept of “reflection-in-action” (p. 79). The team struggled with their concept and made changes that ebbed and flowed with the challenges they faced, which in Schön’s definition would be part of the designer’s reflective “conversation with the situation.” Their use of double-loop learning in regard to building on lessons learned and changing approaches based on feedback led them to their new venture and guided how they continued to iterate and improve that new venture. Furthermore, they expertly displayed problem setting and understanding the context of a venture and how that can change the very nature of a proposed solution as it was for them, when they shifted their problem. The final project from this team was well thought out, fit to context and was an exemplary use of the hybrid model.

Zeta team’s use of the hybrid design thinking method

The Zeta team faced very different challenges in creating their venture. The team members, who came from diverse backgrounds and had varying interests and skillsets, came up with a plethora of ideas and had a difficult time choosing one idea to move forward with. The ideation and brainstorming process was not decisive or iterative, and the students expressed their frustration as the process rolled on without a clear venture in sight. The team worried that they had fallen behind and would not have enough time to complete all aspects of the project. With design thinking coaching by the researcher, the team was encouraged to refocus their efforts to think about any problem, not necessarily related to environmental sustainability, and see how they could collectively address it. Once they had decided on a problem, they could then begin introducing aspects related to reducing waste streams and circular economy in an organic way that would connect the problem they chose to the bigger, wicked problem of environmental sustainability.

The team used needfinding to find the requirements of the problem and then utilized framing and reframing to make their venture work in that context. This venture’s process exemplifies frame innovation, coined by Dorst ( 2015 ), which he describes as a “key entrepreneurial activity” (p. 149). The team shifted frames, from seeing their venture as a means to solve an aspect of environmental sustainability, to solving a real-world problem that can be connected to environmental sustainability. The Zeta team went through further consultation and began discussing one team member’s proposed problem based on her experience working with the United Nations (UN) on disaster recovery in Latin America. She described the problem of people needing quick housing when a disaster strikes; the logistic challenges of getting temporary, single use housing into the disaster area; and the waste the homes leave once they are no longer used. This discussion led the group to connect this issue to the “living skin” fungi material to create temporary housing that could be lighter weight, biodegradable, and reusable. This idea connects the problem posed within the problem of environmental sustainability, which was their task. Furthermore, this shift exemplifies an understanding of systems thinking and interconnectedness of social and ecological systems. Once the initial concept was developed, they began to refine the idea using team members’ expertise working in international development and aid as well as environmental sustainability. They then turned to the questions of how to make this into a venture and who would be their target audience. This process led them to brainstorm how they could balance the needs of potential clients (disaster response organizations), potential users (disaster victims), and the natural environment (ecological footprint). The team conducted surveys and found that potential clients would be interested in cost and scale of the potential solution, while potential users would be most interested in comfort and durability. Those considerations were then balanced with creating the minimalist ecological footprint and having a viable business model so the venture would thrive. They made two crucial decisions at this juncture: first, they decided not to manufacture the material but to source it from a third party, and second, they decided to structure their venture as a non-profit focused on the UN and disaster recovery agencies.

Using the design thinking concepts of rapid prototyping and reflection they were able to quickly figure out which ideas were working and abandon those that were not, which ultimately led to a venture they described as “living houses.” This iterative process they embodied shows the power of using design thinking for concept refinement. The team’s final venture concept was a not-for-profit organization that sourced biodegradable and reusable materials to create light-weight, temporary housing to be sold to NGOs, governments, and public international institutions for disaster victims around the globe. Their plan included next steps for further testing and iteration to improve the product and business model. In both cases, the Epsilon and Zeta teams used the hybrid design thinking model to problem set and problem solve as they set up and executed their ventures. This clearly helps address the central research question of the study by showing the utility of design thinking as tool for addressing wicked problems both in the internal venture creation process and the problem the venture sought to address, environmental sustainability.

Connecting team’s use of design thinking hybrid method to interview data

While these team examples provide evidence to support the positive impact of design thinking on problem setting and solving for wicked problems, the most interesting results came from the Phase 3 interviews that took place 1 year after completion of the course. During these interviews the participants were tasked with using the hybrid design thinking model in a theoretical applied scenario. Through these participant interviews, I was able to explore which features of design thinking they had internalized and how they might apply those to a real world problem. As explained in the following discussion, the participants’ ability to use design thinking concepts implicitly and explicitly over a year later shows that the concepts were adopted as a modus operandi, at least in part. As shown in the matrix in Fig.  4 , the participants all showed a high ability to apply the competencies regardless of their ability to define them as. In addition, the participants who did not recall the definitions were able apply the competencies to a higher level of specificity and knowledge than two out of the three interviewees that could.

Matrix showing interviewees’ ability to define ( x -axis) and apply ( y -axis) on key design thinking competencie s

In the scenario with the interview, participants were tasked with describing the steps they would take to tackle the problem of declining market share of the iPhone. Without being specifically prompted, all interviewees included some form of waste reduction and environmental sustainability into their action plan in the scenario. Some causation for the inclusion of these environmental themes could be the students’ backgrounds, their association with the course’s focus on this particular wicked problem, and/or a general growing awareness of the global climate crisis. That said, their ability to connect a problem to a deeper, wicked problem demonstrates their use of the competencies of system thinking and problem setting from the hybrid design thinking model. They were able to place a practical task within a wider context and connect it with wicked problems involved, such as climate change and electronic waste.

Much like in the case of the Zeta team described above, any seemingly unrelated problem can be used as a gateway to begin discerning the mechanics needed to address a specific, wicked problem, which will lead to creating experimental solutions that can be further tested. Furthermore, the participants were able to identify, in name or description, the three core elements of the hybrid design thinking model—inspiration, ideation, and implementation—and delineate corresponding activities for each while also explicitly and implicitly describing design thinking’s approach to solving wicked problems. The participants’ perception of and demonstrated application of design thinking elements in their problem solving procedure in the interview sheds light on the effectiveness of design thinking as a problem setting and solving tool. This suggests that the participants embraced design thinking, specifically the three-pronged hybrid model that melds design methodologies and behavioral science, as a useful process for problem solving. More important than the interviewees identification of the steps of the model, was their application of problem setting and problem solving strategies that follow the three main elements of design thinking. Participants were able to show the use of brainstorming (inspiration), prototyping (ideation), and iteration (implementation) in various ways and interchangeably. This nimble and engrained use of the concept shows its effectiveness as a problem setting and problem solving tool as well as its impact on users.

Connecting findings to the existing literature

This study was informed by a literature review which examined the history, theories, and application of design thinking in addressing wicked problems. In this study, design thinking is considered a “third discipline” or independent area of study that applies behavioral science and design methodologies to a proposed hybrid model. This hybrid design thinking model strengthens typical design methodologies by including (1) systems thinking, taking into account interconnectedness of ecological and social systems; (2) organizational learning, using double-loop learning, reflective practice, and iterative prototyping; and (3) elements of action research, such as collaborative and cyclical feedback with designer and client. This integrated process is particularly pertinent when working on problems beyond traditional design, for it lends a structural framework to behavioral science research using the three phases of ideation, prototyping, and implementation. In the hybrid design thinking model, behavioral and organizational considerations are not merely optional, but rather an essential element that works in congress with design methodologies.

As outlined above, the findings of this study are in line with the literature and research that indicate that design thinking is a potent tool for addressing wicked problems. By their nature, wicked problems are intractable and complex, so when testing ways to solve them effectively the method must be able to adapt with that nature. Specifically, this research suggests that design thinking represents an innovative process uniquely equipped to address wicked problems through its use of “problem setting.” That is, the effective use of needfinding—looking for solutions for relevant stakeholders—and double-loop learning—applying iterative knowledge and testing assumptions while doing. Although the participants in this study represent a very small treatment group in a specific educational setting focused on tackling environmental wicked problems, there is potential to test this experiment more broadly in educational settings focused on a variety of wicked problems.

Implications for future research

There are four overarching implications that result from this study that academic researchers and practitioners should take into consideration when exploring how to use design thinking as an effective method to address wicked problems. First, future research should conduct experiments using design thinking to address wicked problems that occur within other thematic areas, such as gender inequality, wealth distribution, employment with new technologies, and religious tensions, among others. Second, future research should test a variety of team compositions and study settings beyond that of a university. For example, team members could be part of a research institution, corporation, government, or NGO, and studies could be conducted within those organizations or across disciplines. Third, future research should explore what other aspects of design thinking are effective and learn why they are or are not successful in tackling wicked problems. Fourth, future research should test the hybrid design thinking model’s effectiveness using other forms of design thinking as a control. Finally, beyond academia there are implications of this study for professional practice. Gleanings from this study and use of the hybrid model in the field can occur immediately if used as an adaptable and editable tool for problem solving. This can be used in NGO’s, governments, universities and companies working on wicked problems in their work.

Limitations

This was a qualitative methods study that included a participatory design exercise focused on students enrolled in an entrepreneurship and circular economy course, where they were tasked to use design thinking as a method for creating innovative solutions to the wicked problem of environmental sustainability. While designed to examine how effective design thinking is for setting and solving wicked problems for teams, there is a clear limitation of its application on settings outside education, such as in business and practices outside of academia. Although the course was hands-on, involved the creation of a nonprofit or for-profit business, and was team-based, it still took place in an educational setting rather than in the open marketplace. In addition, this study unfolded in a European context and specifically within the Netherlands, which limits its scope further. As stated earlier, there are wider implications for this data beyond being held in an academic setting that influence the results and potential uses of design thinking. As stated above, future studies should be conducted with teams outside of academia who are tackling different wicked problems other than environmental sustainability. Different results could occur in different settings and problems and future research can explore those possibilities.

Beyond the components of the research, this study had limitations with time, as it had to be carried out during a specific semester and was dependent on student availability. In addition, due to university considerations, including the time needed for proposal review and IRB approvals, there were delays in conducting the interviews which were originally set for May 2018, but were carried out in December 2018 and January 2019. However, this allowed for a shift in focus of looking at how the knowledge and practice of design thinking remained implicitly and explicitly in the interviewees’ problem solving practices. A final limitation is that this study was a doctoral dissertation, which means it had a limited budget and a specific time period in which it was required to be completed.

Final thoughts

Analysis of designers’ thinking and doing has been explored for over a half century, and design thinking, in particular, has evolved over the last three decades from a process only used by designers to more expansive use. Along with the expanded use of design thinking is the rightful criticism, skepticism, and curiosity with the approach, which can offer an opportunity for further refinement and transdisciplinary use. This evolution has expanded design thinking from traditionally creative fields to help create products to practical, ergonomic and aesthetic standards to being used by governments, social policy researchers, non-governmental organizations, and many more to solve societal problems and the most difficult among them, wicked problems. The hybrid design thinking model strengthens design methodologies with systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research, which can help deepen and inform the design methods when working on problems beyond traditional design. IDEO’s popularized design thinking process with the three elements of inspiration, ideation, and implementation provides a structure that can be used as a basis to add insights and tactics from social sciences—namely, systems thinking, organizational learning, and action research—and designer’s methods more broadly. Systems thinking offers an opportunity for teams to zoom out and have a macro view of the dynamic, interconnected elements of the wicked problem they seek to address through iterative solutions and reflection. Organizational learning offers a posture of learning which can strengthen the iteration, testing, and reflection processes in design thinking. Finally, action research informed practice with design thinking enables teams to be active participants, researchers, and designers in finding possible solutions to wicked problems. Design thinking when applied to solving problems in an entrepreneurial education setting will add to the effectiveness and innovative nature of the solutions created. Through creative brainstorming, experimentation and reflection being integrated into the creation of entrepreneurial solutions to wicked problems there is great potential ramifications beyond educational settings, such as industry, government, and civil society.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials used in the research are available through the ProQuest dissertation database as part of graduation requirements for the PhD at Fielding Graduate University.

Abbreviations

Design thinking in action

Institutional Review Board

Archer, L. B. (1967). Design management. Decision, 1 (4), 47–51.

Google Scholar  

Archer, L. B. (1979). Whatever became of design methodology? Design Studies, 1 , 17–20.

Article   Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective . Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared: a commentary. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), SAGE focus editions: Participatory action research (pp. 85–96). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985383

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50 (1), 25–56.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications (Rev. Ed) . George Braziller.

Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation, 25 (12), 1366–1376.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review., 86 (6), 84–92.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation . Harper Business.

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 , 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review., 12 , 31–35.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5–21.

Christensen, CM. (1997).  The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail . Harvard Business School Press, ISBN 978-0-87584-585-2

Churchman, C. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14 (4), B141–B142.

Commoner, B. (1971). The closing circle: Nature, man, and technology . Random House Knopf.

Cross, N. (1991). Research in design thinking . Delft University of Technology.

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17 (3), 49–55.

Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing (p. 16). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Dentoni, D., Cucchi, C., Roglic, M., Lubberink, R., Bender-Salazar, R., & Manyise, T. (2023). Systems thinking, mapping and change in food and agriculture. Bio-Based and Applied Economics. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-13930

Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues., 22 , 4–17.

Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (131–139). Sydney University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. The MIT Press . https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10096.001.0001

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations . Prentice-Hall.

Faste, R. A. (1987). Perceiving needs. SAE Journal, Society of Automotive Engineers., 871534 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4271/871534

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143 , 757–768.

Germain, C. B. (1991). Human behavior in the social environment: An ecological view . Columbia University Press.

Goldstein, K. (1995). The organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man . Zone Books.

Gregory, S. A. (1966). Design and the design method. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The design Method. Plenum Press.

Head, B., & Xiang, W.-N. (2016). Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: More awareness, greater acceptance, and better adaptation. Landscape and Urban Planning., 110 (2013), 1–4.

IDEO. (2011). Human centered design toolkit , 200.

IDEO. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from https://www.ideo.com/about

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22 (2), 121–146.

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3 (3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . PrenticeHall.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/40214287?refreqid=search-gateway:69b4159ab026cceba348641bddd445b6

Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified . Burlington: Elsevier Ltd.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34–46.

Lockwood, T. (2010). Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience and BrandValue . New York, NY: Allworth Press.

Luchs, M. G. (2015). A Brief introduction to design thinking. In M. G. Luchs, K. S. Swan, & A. Griffin (Eds.), Design thinking (pp. 1–11). Hoboken: Wiley.

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems . Stanford University Press.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer . Chelsea Green Publishing.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company . Oxford University Press.

Owen, C. L. (1998). Design research: Building the knowledge base. Design Studies, 19 (1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00030-6

Owen CL. (2006a) Design thinking: Driving innovation. The Business Process Management Institute BPMI.org . September 2006a

Owen, C. L. (2006b). Design thinking—notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 1 (2), 16–27.

Rittel, H. (1984). Second-generation design methods. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 317–327). Wiley.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1 (1), 1–19.

Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking . The MIT Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . Doubleday.

Senge, P. (1996). Systems thinking. Executive Excellence, 13 (1), 15.

Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial . MIT Press.

Visser, W. (2010). Schön: Design as a reflective practice. Collection, 2 , 21–25.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Wageningen University & Research and Fielding Graduate University for the opportunity to conduct this research in an entrepreneurial classroom setting. Ethical Approval through institutional review board (IRB) is detailed in Appendix B . This work was completed as part of doctoral research of Rahmin Bender (-Salazar) conducted for the Fielding Graduate University and at Wageningen University & Research and published with ProQuest as part of graduation requirements.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Rahmin Bender-Salazar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rahmin Bender-Salazar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Interview Protocol—November 2018

[To open the conversation a bit of small talk and catching up with the former student, what they have been up to and what do they have planned next and this lines up to the informal questions below (in no particular order).]

Welcome and thank you for this time and to explore some of these concepts with you and get your perspective. Now that you have completed the Design Thinking course, I would like to explore with you whether, in your future career, you would consider design thinking as a way for teams to tackle difficult problems, and any ideas you may have on the subject. This is not designed in any way to test your knowledge about design thinking, or to reflect on how you did in class. I would simply like to understand whether, with what you’ve learned, you feel that design thinking is a good way to tackle tough problems, and how you would go about doing that.

Questions to warm up and understand context—5 ~ min

What is your major/main subject of study?

How do you want to use your education and what do you want to do as your vocation?

Design thinking and problem solving—40 min

[The purpose of the first question is to begin to brush on problem setting and begging the design thinking process, the parameters and elements. The goal is to solicit data from participants through storytelling and their thoughts on the topic.]

Can you tell me a story about your experience with design thinking in the class that you thought was memorable?

Are there other examples of things that struck you about design thinking?

What is it about the design thinking approach that you like the most?

Is there anything that you don’t like, or would do differently?

Let’s do some role playing. Let’s say, tomorrow you get hired by Apple to be the head of their new development team. They have a serious problem: the iPhone has reached a saturation point. You are tasked to come up with an entirely new set of functions that will totally reinvent the iPhone. How would you go about doing that, if you were using the design thinking approach? If you can, break it down using the three-phase hybrid model we discussed: Ideation-Prototyping-Implementation.

Is there anything about design thinking you feel you need to know more about, before you could confidently begin to use it?

Wrap up—10–15 min

So in sum, do you think design thinking a good method to produce disruptive innovation, or would you use other methods?

Does design thinking need to be adapted to the fast pace of disruptive change today?

Appendix B: Ethical Approval for Research—April 2018

1) IRB Approval Information

Name: Rahmin Bender.

IRB#: 17–1107

Title: Applying Design Thinking and Practice to team projects seeking to create regenerative and sustainable products to address the wicked problem of sustainable garments

Faculty: Fredrick Steier.

Type: Title Change and General Revisions.

2) Study Summary

The dissertation project seeks to explore through participatory action research, how the application of design methods to address wicked problems represents a disruptive innovation in the process of solution creation and if so or not, to what extent. The disruptive innovation is framed within the context of the Netherlands, the public University education system and the field of sustainable fashion and garment production. The specific context of this study will be at Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands working with student teams creating business ideas, using design thinking and aligned methods, with the renewable materials in garment production. The forty Masters students in a circular economy course will be split into eight teams that will work with designers using these materials to create business and product concepts using design thinking processes facilitated by me.

3) Revision Checklist

I. Change title to: Applying design thinking to entrepreneurial learning spaces purposed with addressing wicked problems.

Title changed to emphasize more on the application of design thinking on the learn space and how it addresses the wicked problem, rather than focusing more and more on the

II. Change question 2 element (c) from “(c) how design process impacts team dynamics of product creation team” to (c) how design process impacts the co-creation of the entrepreneurial learning space.

Question changed to focus additionally on how using the design process not only impacts the outputs of the course but the course itself.

III. Change question 3’s following elements.

Change this bullet: “World Café held after the course to accumulate data and feedback from participants and put into context with the notes.”

New Text: Changed to Design Charrette held after the course to accumulate data, feedback and put notes into context through a participatory designing of future iterations of the course.

Change this bullet: “Depending on IRB is performed data collection will be focused on the World Café portion that will be held in January post course and the course and work will be looked at historically.”

New text: IRB includes data from the course that ended in the end of 2017 as well as data from the participatory design workshop titled a design charrette occurring in 25 April 2017.

Add the following bullet

Design-based Research informed by action research and design thinking will serve as the research method for analyzing the historic data from the course and data collected in the design charrette to address the research questions posed.

The above changes are made to reflect a change from a World Café method to a more intimate design charrette. This change was made because of difficulty getting a large enough participation for a World Café to work, ideally 20 or more people. The design charrette will use the same research element but be in a smaller setting, which will allow for more interaction. Finally, the addition of design-based research to emphasize the element of the entrepreneurial learning space and how that was actively formed and influenced by the use of design methods.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bender-Salazar, R. Design thinking as an effective method for problem-setting and needfinding for entrepreneurial teams addressing wicked problems. J Innov Entrep 12 , 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00291-2

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2022

Accepted : 05 April 2023

Published : 13 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00291-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Design thinking
• Problem setting
• Design process
• Wicked problems
• Systems thinking
• Organizational learning
• Needfinding

How to solve problems with design thinking

May 18, 2023 Is it time to throw out the standard playbook when it comes to problem solving? Uniquely challenging times call for unique approaches, write Michael Birshan , Ben Sheppard , and coauthors in a recent article , and design thinking offers a much-needed fresh perspective for leaders navigating volatility. Design thinking is a systemic, intuitive, customer-focused problem-solving approach that can create significant value and boost organizational resilience. The proof is in the pudding: From 2013 to 2018, companies that embraced the business value of design had TSR that were 56 percentage points higher than that of their industry peers. Check out these insights to understand how to use design thinking to unleash the power of creativity in strategy and problem solving.

Designing out of difficult times

What is design thinking?

The power of design thinking

Leading by design

Author Talks: Don Norman designs a better world

Are you asking enough from your design leaders?

Tapping into the business value of design

Redesigning the design department

Author Talks: Design your future

A design-led approach to embracing an ecosystem strategy

More than a feeling: Ten design practices to deliver business value

MORE FROM MCKINSEY

How design helps incumbents build new businesses

• All Categories
• Human Performance
• Extreme Environments
• Advanced Materials, Processes and Energy Devices
• Advanced Communications
• Manufacturing, Automation and Data Engineering
• Sustainability

Access premium Learning Sparks content!

Answer a few quick questions to access the complete library of videos.

ASU Learning Sparks

Solving wicked problems & designing for complex challenges.

Wicked problems are complex and difficult to solve due to incomplete knowledge, conflicting interests, and unpredictable environments. Unlike tame problems that can be solved using existing methods, solving wicked problems defies simple solutions. However, design thinking offers an iterative and co-creative approach to solving wicked problems by incorporating experimentation and feedback.

A “wicked problem” is an idea that seeks to differentiate between different kinds of problems and thereby what approaches to them might be effective and appropriate. A wicked problem is a distinction in contrast to “tame problems” and describes a category of complex and ill-defined problems that are difficult or potentially impossible to solve because of incomplete or contradictory knowledge, multiple stakeholders with conflicting values and interests and uncertain, dynamic, and unpredictable behaviors and environments. 

The term “wicked problem” is often used to describe problems from domains like environmental management, social policy, or urban planning which are characterized by no clear problem definition, no optimal solution, and no objectively right or wrong answers. 

A tame problem can be solved by applying existing knowledge and techniques. “X + 2 = 4” is a clearly defined problem that immediately invokes a whole set of unambiguous procedures to solve it that will result in an objectively true answer. A tame problem is well suited to rational, rigid, and scientific methods.

A wicked problem on the other hand is defined by complexity, uncertainty, uniqueness, and incompleteness. 

It is worth pausing to form a distinction between complexity and complicatedness. Complex systems have interacting parts that exhibit emergent properties, non-linear behavior, and sensitivity to initial conditions. Ecosystems, economies, and brains are complex. A complicated system, meanwhile, has intricacy but is often characterized by linearity, predictability and cause-and-effect relationships. Airplanes and buildings are complicated. Complicated systems yield to an approach that breaks them down into smaller parts and analyzes each part in isolation. Complex systems require a holistic approach that can map interactions and feedback loops between different parts of a system as it adapts to changing conditions. A machine can be assembled from its constituent parts and set running. A living thing cannot.

So wicked problems, like climate change, defy reductionist problem solving – But does that mean they are hopeless?

Not necessarily. Design thinking, with its iterative and co-creative approach to problem solving, is being brought to bear on wicked problems on all levels. By building experimentation, learning and feedback into a dialogue and deliberative process, the idea is that design can offer new points of traction on many of the defining characteristics of wicked problems like complexity, uncertainty and incompleteness. 

The concept of “wicked problems” is a framework for understanding and ideally addressing complex and persistent problems that defy easy solutions. But the uniqueness of every wicked problem means that no one approach will find preferable equilibria for every challenge

Abductive Reasoning in Problem Solving

Lesson Unplanning & Developing Creative Students

Possibility Thinking Protocols

Wicked Problem and Design Thinking

• By NNSI Editorial Team
• In Wicked Problems

Every day, we are confronted with problems–small and large scale. Design thinking provides a systematic approach to solving these problems. Formally, design thinking refers to the diverse and interrelated approaches, techniques, and tricks to scientifically addressing the problems we face individually and collectively. 

This blog is dedicated to understanding the connection between design thinking and wicked problems. Wicked problems are problems without a singular cause or an immediate solution. They are complex and ongoing problems–such as the social determinants of health –that require a continual and curated effort to address. In this blog, we (1) outline the traditional design thinking model and (2) explore a reframed design thinking model that uses a wicked problems approach. Research for this blog is sourced from Richard Buchanan’s article, “ Wicked Problems in Design Thinking .”

1. The Linear Approach to Design Thinking

Design thinking is traditionally a direct, step-by-step approach to addressing a problem. This linear way of thinking about the design thinking process simplifies the design process into two phases: (1) problem definition and (2) problem solution.

Linear Design Model

This two-phase linear approach to design thinking is an initially attractive model because it is direct and precise without relying on any one individual designer or design perspective. Many find this model to be logical and easy to understand. Critics of this model have identified two primary concerns with this approach to design thinking. 

• First, design thinking in application is not linear . The sequence of steps to solving a problem rarely follows a distinct or uniform pattern. 
• Second, most problems addressed by design thinkers are wicked problems . They have no cause or solution; they are multifaceted, changing, and challenging. A simple model like the linear design model underestimates the complexity of real-world problems.

2. A Wicked Problems Approach to Design Thinking

The application of design thinking to wicked problems was created by mathematician and designer Horst Rittel, who challenged the linear design process normalized prior. As discussed, the linear model suggests that problems have a clear set of identifiable conditions, but this is rarely (if ever) the case. 

Rittel argues that most design problems are indeterminate in the way that wicked problems are indeterminate. Indeterminate problems are not undetermined but boundless. They don’t have set limits or determined conditions. The designer can take creative liberty to see the problem and the necessary solution to this problem in whatever way they see fit. Design thinking in this context can be fluid and adaptable. The designer can change their approach, alter their approach, or even implement several simultaneous approaches to work with a changing problem rather than linearly fight against it. 

The beauty of the wicked problems approaches to design thinking is that it recognizes the indeterminate nature of the problem and provides a flexible solution to this indeterminacy. We might face daunting and ongoing wicked problems, but design thinking can provide the tools and framing to match these problems where they are and begin work towards solving them.

3. A Wicked Problems Approach in Practice 

To see a wicked problems approach to design thinking, consider RE-AMP , a network committed to short and long-term campaigns for environmental advocacy. RE-AMP has an ambitious goal: reduce regional global warming emissions by 80% by 2050. RE-AMP is unique from many other networks because they intentionally solve issues using a holistic problem-solving approach (or what this blog calls a wicked problems approach).

In practice, RE-AMP mapped out all of the significant issues and related players to get a visual understanding of their daunting but essential task. The resulting map (pictured below) demonstrates the complexity of this wicked problem.

The network was able to break the larger problem into smaller goals and approach those goals simultaneously by using this map as a working guide. RE-AMP identified four primary sub-goals to achieve their larger goal of environmental efficiency: (1) stop the building of all-new pulverized coal-fired power plants, (2) retire most of the region’s existing coal plants, (3) replace coal-generated electricity with renewable power, and (4) reduce overall electric consumption through increased efficiency. With these goals in mind, RE-AMP generated teams of organizations to address each goal, and each team developed its own five-year plan. 

These goals have changed and adapted over time, developing with the state of the issue. Critically, however, each RE-AMP team made a concerted effort to maintain a network among and between other teams: organizing work across groups, coordinating activities, and communicating regularly. This way, even though this wicked problem is changing and adapting, all teams can coordinate and adapt.

The wicked problems approach to design thinking is a primary contributing factor to the significant success RE-AMP has seen since its inception. See this comprehensive case study to read about RE-AMP and its practices.

To conclude, the problems addressed by networks are, more often than not, wicked and non-linear. As such, we must tackle them from this changing lens to see optimal success in overcoming (or minimizing) such problems.

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Design Thinking: New Innovative Thinking for New Problems

Einstein was certainly right — we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. In addition, with the rapid changes in society, the methods we have previously used to solve many of the problems we face are no longer effective. We need to develop new ways of thinking in order to design better solutions, services and experiences that solve our current problems. Design Thinking steps in with a bold newly systematised and non-linear human-centred approach. This will help us radically change how we go about exploring problems and creating solutions to those problems.

The problems designers, business owners, and engineers face today are in a whole new level of scale compared to the challenges we’ve faced in the past few decades. In a largely globalised world, where the changes in economic and natural resources can be felt halfway around the globe, our challenges are becoming more intertwined with the systems that connect us all. To solve the new wave of problems we face today and in the future, we need a new kind of thinking, a new approach towards innovation . Design Thinking is a large part of that new approach towards innovation, as it allows people, teams, and organisations to have a human-centred perspective, and yet a scientific approach, towards solving a problem. Tim Brown, CEO of the international design consultancy firm IDEO, makes this point in the introduction of his book, Change by Design :

“A purely technocentric view of innovation is less sustainable now than ever, and a management philosophy based only on selecting from existing strategies is likely to be overwhelmed by new developments at home or abroad. What we need are new choices—new products that balance the needs of individuals and of society as a whole; new ideas that tackle the global challenges of health, poverty, and education; new strategies that result in differences that matter and a sense of purpose that engages everyone affected by them. It is hard to imagine a time when the challenges we faced so vastly exceeded the creative resources we have brought to bear on them.” – Tim Brown

Which Problems Can Design Thinking Help us Solve?

One of the first questions people ask when hearing about Design Thinking is, "What is Design Thinking best used for?" Design Thinking is suited to addressing a wide range of challenges and is best used for bringing about innovation within the following contexts.

Redefining value

Human-centred innovation

Quality of life

Problems affecting diverse groups of people

Involves multiple systems

Shifting markets and behaviours

Coping with rapid social or market changes

Issues relating to corporate culture

Issues relating to new technology

Re-inventing business models

Addressing rapid changes in society

Complex unsolved societal challenges

Scenarios involving multidisciplinary teams

Entrepreneurial initiatives

Educational advances

Medical breakthroughs

Inspiration is needed

Problems that data can't solve

A Holistic approach to Challenges

Design Thinking is best suited to addressing problems where multiple spheres collide, at the intersection of business and society, logic and emotion , rational and creative, human needs and economic demands and between systems and individuals. We would most likely not require Design Thinking to tackle tame problems — that is, problems that are simple and that have fixed and known solutions — unless we were seeking a novel or innovative means to solving the problem with a different desired goal than the typical available solutions.

It's NOT Just a Process or Set of Steps

However, Design thinking is not necessarily only to be understood as a process or method for solving a set-in-stone collection of problems. It is also a mindset that can be applied in almost any scenario where innovation or thinking differently is required. It can also be combined with other methodologies, business strategies, social innovation models, and management practices. It's something that changes depending on its context and can use tools and techniques from other disciplines.

It's About Human-Centred Innovation

Design Thinking works best where we need to make human sense of things, approaching challenges in ways that best suit human needs regardless of the scale or authority of the challenge. A conformist, controlled, technical or linear approach is no longer able to grapple with the newly complex and sensitive needs of modern society.

It starts with an intention, a desire, a need or yearning towards a better situation or state. We have no way of knowing whether this is a mere dream or a practical and viable path to take. Design Thinking gives us the tools to explore What Could Be .

As Bruce Mau, founder of the Massive Change Network, put it:

"It's not about the world of design, but the design of the world". – Bruce Mau

Cope with Disruptions in Society

Since the disruptions in human development caused by the Industrial Revolution, analysts have been strategizing ways of streamlining just about every business, production and economic process imaginable with the aim of extracting the maximum benefit from the least amount of time and resources. While this may have had some degree of success on the level of productivity and efficiency, the recipe to that much-needed innovation within all sectors has been somewhat of a conundrum. This is where Design Thinking steps in with a bold new human-centred approach at radically changing how we go about exploring problems and finding solutions to those problems, helping us break out of the old moulds we've become stuck in, so as to take a fresh look at the world around us.

Besides the ongoing struggles between the analytical and creative worlds, other factors have dramatically disrupted the way we see, understand, experience, and interpret the world around us. Technology is developing at such a rapid pace that job descriptions can barely keep up, let alone entire industries. Consumers demand much more now that they are constantly switched on, always informed, and obsessively sharing everything with their networks.

Focus on Humans, Not Users

In order to remain relevant, companies and organisations are also fighting a battle for attention on an unprecedented level. Besides the constant scrutiny and accountability, information overload is also reaching its peak. People are increasingly seeking out those products, services, and organisations that they personally connect with on a meaningful level. Many people are selecting the few options that speak directly to their human needs and experiences . This has driven Human-Centred Design and Design Thinking approaches of all types to mushroom in the last few years. Approaches to business and social innovation are increasingly looking for alternatives to the old models of adding value, by focusing on human needs and experience as primary motivating factors.

Innovative solutions need to be found that can keep up with massive disruptions affecting Human Resources, Energy, Sustainability, Education, Economic Constraints, Political Instability—these large, systemic and complex problems with capital letters—and a whole plethora of other challenges which existing strategic and management practices and processes are unable to pick apart.

Innovate or be Swept Away with the Tide

Idris Mootee, CEO of Idea Couture and a leading expert on applied Design Thinking in large-scale strategy innovation, wrote his book Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation about the implementation of Design Thinking methodology within business. The book outlines a number of disruptions in the business environment , including new consumer behaviour and expectations, forcing companies to rethink their every move.

“This disruption has not been so kind to businesses operating by the rules of the old model. We don't have to watch their ads anymore. We don't believe their marketing hype anymore. We don't want to eat their junk ingredients anymore. We don't have to buy from their stores anymore. And we don't want the best of them to just be profit machines anymore. We want more, when we want it, how we want it, and at the price we want it.” – Idris Mootee

Idris Mootee uses the analogy of the study of weather systems, where it was determined that even the slightest changes in atmospheric conditions may have dramatically varying results in the way weather patterns developed. The current climate of rapid change and upheaval is even more difficult to forecast for the future. We are unable to see what lies around the next corner, let alone months or years down the line. This means we need a completely new and dynamic approach to innovation and strategic planning: something less rigid that can quickly and easily adapt to the varying conditions we find ourselves in and those dramatic changes which lie around the next corner.

The abilities to understand and act on changes rapidly in our environments and changes in human behaviour are becoming crucial skills we are still developing and refining. Design Thinking offers a means for grappling with all this change in a more human-centric manner. In order to embrace Design Thinking and innovation, we need to ensure that we have the right mindsets, collaborative teams, and conducive environments.

Form the Right Mindsets, Teams, and Environments for Innovation

Creating the right mindsets , selecting the appropriate team, and setting up environments which encourage innovation to take place are three of the essential aspects of fostering successful innovation within companies, organisations, and society at large.

1. Form The Right Mindsets for Innovation

One of the amazing things about Albert Einstein was the connection between his creative and analytical thinking . He was an extremely creative individual, deeply reflective of the human condition, weaknesses and failings while at the same time years ahead of most in terms of his analytical thinking capacity. His ability to join and synthesise worlds of influence, merging creative thinking with intense analytical abilities brought about the breakthroughs he achieved as a thinker and a scientist. Like Design Thinking, Albert Einstein relied on and celebrated both logic and imagination.

“Logic will take you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” – Albert Einstein

The notion that creativity or "artistic" talent is only the domain of those gifted with these abilities is one of the most inhibiting factors in our lives today. However, it is becoming a more widely held belief that creativity and lateral thinking can be learnt, and with the implementation of the appropriate steps, process and mindset, can be unleashed to solve some of the "wickedest" problems (i.e., most complex and tricky problems) we find ourselves faced with. The challenge is that most modern corporations, organisations and institutional settings tend to kill creativity with an overly conformist notion of things.

The struggle between creative and logical thinking is an old one, which is yet to be understood fully, even with scientific breakthroughs in neuro- and cognitive science . It has been a common belief that those who tend to be more analytical, logical and rational in nature have always relied more heavily on the left side of their brains, while those who are more creative, expressive and emotional have relied more on the right side. This myth seems to have recently been busted, with studies indicating both sides of the brain are involved in both creative and logical processes of all kinds and work.

We need to develop more open, collaborative, and explorative cultures and mindsets, which combine both logic and imagination, in order to create new innovative solutions. And Design Thinking will help us do just that.

2. Create Cross-disciplinary and Innovative Teams

It is the norm in many organisations to encourage the development of skills and abilities relevant to a specific role. For instance, creativity is encouraged in graphic designers, while analytical skills are encouraged for marketing, business, and operations-related jobs. However, such a “boxed” organisation of talent, where different skills are developed and used in silos throughout different departments, will not be able to produce much of the innovation we need for the new wave of wicked problems .

We now know that a healthy collaboration between the creative and logical ways of thinking is crucial in creating the kind of holistic thinking that is required to understand and solve new kinds of multi-dimensional problems. This is also true for people working in multidisciplinary teams, where teams possessing a range of thinking styles, expertise, and experiences come together to develop solutions more effectively than narrow-focused, specialist individuals are able to working alone. In Design Thinking, cross-disciplinary collaboration plays an important role — it is when designers, ethnographers, business analysts, and marketers work together that we create truly revolutionary ideas. To facilitate Design Thinking and innovation, thus, organisations need to start thinking about truly cross-departmental, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and abandon the silo model of skills.

3. Create Environments Conducive to Innovation

The environments we inhabit and the activities we most engage in influence our thinking patterns, our understanding of things, and our ability (or lack thereof) to innovate.

This is why innovative companies like Google spend money to create workspaces that are filled with toys and unconventional equipment, and areas for creative thinking throughout their offices. It’s also the reason that many companies clear space in their busy annual schedules to send their entire staff on team-building getaways where they build rafts together, jump around in circles and, in the best way possible, behave like kids. However, it’s not only to make the company a fun and interesting place to work. It's about allowing for and tapping into the type of thinking which results in breakthrough innovation as opposed to churning out more of the same cookie-cutter patches to problems. Playing is risky business. You put yourself out there. Likewise, it takes courage to question status quo and come up with innovative solutions.

That’s why we need to create dynamic spaces, both physically and metaphorically, where people are able to embrace change, explore the unknown, experiment with radically new ways of thinking, and work together collaboratively.

Author/Copyright holder: Mathew Ingram. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY 2.0

Google is one of the major companies which prioritise to spend time and money creating playful workspaces filled with toys and unconventional equipment. The goal is to help employees feel safe and that it’s okay to come up with new and unconventional solutions in a playful manner.

IDEO Formed the Right Mindsets, Teams, and Environments for Innovation

How can you start forming the right mindsets, set up cross-disciplinary teams, and create playful environments to foster innovation? Let’s take an example. After the 2000 dot-com bubble burst, IDEO CEO Tim Brown decided that it was time to do a redesign of the organisation. In the redesign, IDEO transformed the way collaboration within the organisation, as well as with external partners, worked fundamentally. IDEO created the concept of “One IDEO”, which underscores the need to act not as independent design studios, but rather a single interconnected network of talents. The company also changed the way it organised its offices by abandoning the classic design studio model. Instead, they started adopting a “global practices” model, which helped teams organise according to global systems in areas like “Health Practice” and “Zero20” (which focuses on the needs of children up to the age of 20).

New organisational structures like that in IDEO — which are themselves subject to change as and when needed to better serve the needs of clients and the world — are needed to spur innovative collaboration between teams and create impactful solutions that make the world a better place. However, the changes do not have to be large-scale. While it’s nice to have adult-sized playgrounds like those in Google and Facebook campuses, it is more than enough to ensure that the organisational layout and philosophy is one that encourages and prioritises collaboration and innovation.

The Take Away

The challenges organisations and countries face today are much more complex and tricky than the ones we faced a few decades ago. Part of the reason is globalisation, which brought together different agents across the globe into an interconnected web of systems that affect one another. To solve these new, complex problems, Design Thinking steps in with a bold and newly systematised, non-linear human-centred approach. Design Thinking allows us to adopt a human-centred perspective in creating innovative solutions while also integrating logic and research. In order to embrace Design Thinking and innovation, we need to ensure that we have the right mindsets, collaborative teams, and conducive environments. When we align our mindsets, skills and environments, we are able to create innovations that allow us to survive the disruptions we might face in the near future. Keep in mind a deep desire to create a better situation for the world around us, and start creating a better world for yourself and the world.

References & Where to Learn More

Tim Brown, Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation , 2009

Idris Mootee, Design Thinking for Strategic Innovation , 2013

See Bruce Mau here .

Don Norman . “Rethinking Design Thinking” , 2013.

Bill Moggridge, “Design Thinking: Dear Don” , 2010.

Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide

Get Weekly Design Tips

Topics in this article, what you should read next, what is design thinking and why is it so popular.

• 1.6k shares

Personas – A Simple Introduction

• 1.5k shares

Stage 2 in the Design Thinking Process: Define the Problem and Interpret the Results

• 1.3k shares

What is Ideation – and How to Prepare for Ideation Sessions

• 1.2k shares

Affinity Diagrams: How to Cluster Your Ideas and Reveal Insights

• 2 years ago

Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype

• 3 years ago

Stage 3 in the Design Thinking Process: Ideate

• 4 years ago

Stage 1 in the Design Thinking Process: Empathise with Your Users

Empathy Map – Why and How to Use It

What Is Empathy and Why Is It So Important in Design Thinking?

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this article , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this article.

New to UX Design? We’re giving you a free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

The Journal of the NPS Center for Homeland Defense and Security

Solving Homeland Security’s Wicked Problems: a Design Thinking Approach

By Kristin Wyckoff

Kristin Wyckoff's thesis

– Executive Summary –

The Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) requires a consistent yet flexible approach to address wicked problems. While design thinking can be applied to any problem, it lends itself to “wicked problems” that cannot be definitively described or solved. [1] Wicked problems require a multidisciplinary approach and a shared understanding and commitment around a problem to identify and develop solutions. Examples of wicked problems include impacts of climate change, evolving terrorist threats, and cyber security within an increasingly connected cyber and physical world. While design thinking is not a new concept, its recent manifestation within the private and public sectors to include organizations, such as Apple, Google, IBM, and the governments of Singapore and the United Kingdom, warrants attention to how it may address homeland security’s complex problems. A design-thinking methodology holds promise for DHS S&T as its tenets align with the diversity and complexity inherent within the homeland security environment. Design thinking emphasizes a human-centered and multidisciplinary approach to solution development that supports DHS S&T’s mission to identify and transition cutting-edge solutions to homeland security operators.

• Research Question

This thesis answers the question of how DHS S&T could adopt a design-thinking approach to solve complex problems. The research specifically examined how design thinking is used to solve problems, S&T’s current approach to solving problems, and how other public organizations are using a design-thinking methodology.

• Method and Design

The research approach involved a comparative analysis of case studies. The first case study reviewed the use of design thinking within Denmark via the MindLab. The second study reviewed Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) approach to problem identification and solution through a design-thinking lens. Galbraith’s Star Model was used to analyze how DHS S&T, MindLab, and DARPA apply design-thinking principles to inform the framework to apply and incorporate design thinking within DHS S&T’s approach to R&D. The Star Model consists of five areas that in conjunction with one another can influence an organization’s culture and individual behaviors.

Rather than a passing trend, an in-depth review of design thinking coupled with the case studies confirms the promise the approach could bring to DHS S&T. A design-thinking approach requires a significant shift in how S&T executes research and development (R&D). This shift can strengthen the dialogue necessary between S&T, homeland security practitioners, and nontraditional DHS partners to spur solutions. This thesis provides a framework for how S&T can incorporate design-thinking principles that are working well in other domains to tackle homeland security’s complex problems. While the basic tenets of design thinking remain consistent across the literature, it is noted that successful adopters of a design-thinking approach define it according to their own terms and factor their organization’s culture into its implementation. By reviewing aspects of design thinking through the Star Model, a holistic approach is provided for S&T to consider how design thinking can be customized to best align with its mission, values, and workforce to spur new approaches to discovering and developing solutions to homeland security. To support the homeland security enterprise (HSE), DHS S&T must be able to refine and improve tools and processes continually, think outside of traditional solutions, adapt quickly, and work across disciplines and geographic areas. A design-thinking model could impact projects immediately and positively shape the organization’s culture over time.

A strong and consistent relationship with end users and partners across disciplines has remained elusive for DHS S&T. A design-thinking approach emphasizes communication and a shared understanding of a problem to identify multiple solutions. By emphasizing the end use of a product or service, design thinking holds the promise of improving DHS’s rate of technology transition and impact on the homeland security and resilience. While the research question focused on DHS S&T, it is hoped other organizations may be able to apply the practices captured within their own organizations.

[1] Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences 4, no. 2 (June 1, 1973): 155–69. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.

Find all CHDS Theses

Homeland Security Digital Library's Thesis Repository

More Articles

Beyond the Border: The Impact of Flawed Migration Strategies in South and Central America on U.S. Immigration

Do the dutch know much a comparative analysis of gender and use of force in law enforcement in the netherlands and the united states, all hands on deck: a preparedness analysis of municipal fire department mutual aid during fires aboard u.s. navy vessels, legitimation of the police: a practitioner’s framework, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Innovation, Wicked Problems and Design Thinking

• First Online: 05 July 2019

Cite this chapter

• Steven Ney 5 &
• Christoph Meinel 6  

Part of the book series: Understanding Innovation ((UNDINNO))

2771 Accesses

This chapter (as well as the subsequent Chap. 3 ) sets up the conceptual framework to help us analyse the impact of DT on large organisations. This chapter explores the relationship between the challenges organisations face today, innovation and Design Thinking. People in large organisations are interested in Design Thinking because it promises innovation. But how do innovations emerge from Design Thinking? We argue that Design Thinking supports innovation because it helps tackle complex and uncertain challenges, also called ‘wicked problems’. These types of challenges have an uncanny way of evading resolutions. In an increasingly complex and uncertain world, this chapter argues, responses to wicked problems emerge from the interplay of different professional and disciplinary perspectives. We suggest, then, to think of innovations as those solutions that successfully and creatively bring together the different insights from a range of disciplines, perspectives and professions. This, we contend, is exactly what Design Thinking enables teams to do: it provides an effective method for mobilising a wide range of disciplines, professions and perspectives for solving wicked problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Despite being rather gloomy about the long-term prospects of capitalism (Schumpeter 2013 ).

So in a way, Schumpeter concedes that Marx was right. The boom-and-bust of business cycles, the contraction and expansion of economies as well as the flourishing and decaying are an inextricable part of the dynamic evolution of capitalism. Where Marx went wrong, however, is that these business cycles are dysfunctional and move unerringly towards the fulfilment of some implicit historical telos, namely the advent of a socialist millennium.

And yet, curiously, these institutions are also interested in Design Thinking.

For all its considerable weaknesses, the Public Choice literature, most famously Anthony Downs’ ‘Inside Bureaucracy’, has conclusively shown that public and citizen sector organisations are subject to very similar utility-maximising and rent-seeking behaviour that defines economic actors.

Another, probably more commonly used term for a frame is ‘world-view’.

These types of responses have come to be known as ‘clumsy solutions’ (Verweij et al. 2006 ). They are called ‘clumsy’ solutions because they somewhat inelegantly incorporate what look like incompatible approaches and contending rationalities. We shall have more to say about the nature of these solutions in the following chapter.

Adler, E., & Haas, P. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organisation, 46 (1), 367–389.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship, productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), 893–921.

Big Issue Foundation. (2018). History and achievements . Retrieved February 2, 2018, from https://www.bigissue.org.uk/about-us/history-and-achievements

Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise . London: Taylor & Francis.

Book   Google Scholar  

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5–21.

Christensen, C. M. (2000). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail . New York: HarperBusiness.

Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78 (2), 66–77.

Collingridge, D. (1992). The management of scale: Big organisations, big decisions, big mistakes . London: Routledge.

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work . New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene . New York: Oxford University Press.

Dees, G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship: From philanthropy to commerce . Norfolk, N.C.: Center for Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship.

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation . Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Douglas, M. (1987). How institutions think . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship . London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Drucker, P. F. (2007). The essential Drucker (Classic Drucker Collection Edition) London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Fleck, L., Schäfer, L., & Schnelle, T. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache . Basel: Schwabe.

Fox, C. J., & Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: Towards discourse . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hobsbawm, E. J. (2012). How to change the world: Tales of Marx and Marxism . London: Abacus.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69 , 3–29.

Huczynski, A. (2012). Management gurus . London: Routledge.

Huczynski, A. A. (1993). Explaining the succession of management fads. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4 (2), 443–463.

Kolko, J. (2010). Exposing the magic of design: A practitioner’s guide to the methods and theory of synthesis . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Latour, B. (2005, September). Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory (pp. 316). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foreword by Bruno Latour.

Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong. The New Yorker .

Martin, R. L. (2009). The opposable mind: Winning through integrative thinking . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review , 29–39.

Mulgan, G., & Albury, D. (2003). Innovation in the public sector . London: The Cabinet Office Strategy Unit.

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated . Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

Ney, S. (2009). Resolving messy policy issues . London: Earthscan.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and The World Bank. (2018). The innovation policy platform. Retrieved February 19, 2018, from https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org

Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience . Oxford: Blackwell.

Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. In P. Christopher (Ed.), The essential public manager (pp. 26–51). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Rayner, S. (1991). A cultural perspective on the structure and implementation of global environmental agreements. Evaluation Review, 15 (1), 75–102.

Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies . New York: Basic Books.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 , 155–169.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sahni, N., Wessel, M., & Christensen, C. (2013). Unleashing breakthrough innovation in government. Stanford Social Innovation Review . Summer.

Schumpeter, J. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7 (2), 149–159.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy . London: Routledge.

Shapiro, R. A. (2013). The real problem solvers: Social entrepreneurs in America . Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S., Rayner, S., & Thompson, M. (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: The case of climate change. Public Administration, 84 (4), 817–843.

Weick, K. E. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (4), 435–452.

Yunus, M. (1998). Banker to the poor: The story of the Grameen bank . London: Aurum Press.

Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism . New York: Public Affairs.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

T-Systems International, Berlin, Germany

Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Christoph Meinel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ney, S., Meinel, C. (2019). Innovation, Wicked Problems and Design Thinking. In: Putting Design Thinking to Work. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19609-7_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19609-7_2

Published : 05 July 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-19608-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-19609-7

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• BOOK REVIEW
• 27 May 2024

Tackling ‘wicked’ problems calls for engineers with social responsibility

• Susan Krumdieck   ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2333-958X 0

Susan Krumdieck is a professor of mechanical engineering and chair in Energy Transition Engineering at the School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

In the nineteenth century, steamboat explosions were common — until they weren’t. Credit: Universal History Archive/UIG/Getty

Wicked Problems: How to Engineer a Better World Guru Madhavan W. W. Norton & Company (2024)

Society relies on engineers to deliver almost everything it uses, from food and water to buildings, transport and telecommunications. But new technologies are often rushed into service, for market reasons, before potential risks and consumer behaviours are understood, and well before sufficient regulation is put in place to protect the public.

Calling all engineers: Nature wants to publish your research

In Wicked Problems , biomedical engineer and US policy adviser Guru Madhavan considers the implications of these human-made vulnerabilities using striking stories — such as a tsunami of molasses, aeroplane crashes, exploding steamships and infants decapitated by airbags. By exploring the interplay between engineers and policymakers, Madhavan shows how engineering can produce problems that policy cannot fix, and how successful systems can create socially unacceptable risks.

Madhavan focuses on ‘wicked problems’, which emerge “when hard, soft and messy problems collide”. Time and time again, a technology becomes profitable and is widely adopted, then its problems become clear and public alarm grows. A period of debate follows, marked by inflamed emotions, news coverage, litigation, denial of responsibility and political impotence. Eventually, corrective mechanisms are developed, implemented and enforced with updated standards. These patterns and problems of rapid technological development are becoming recognized. And there are plenty of modern examples, from social-media platforms and artificial-intelligence systems to self-driving cars .

Deep dive into disasters

There’s much that can be learnt from history, Madhavan tells us. Take the lucrative business of supplying molasses for whisky and food manufacturing, for example. A massive storage tank built in 1915 in Boston, Massachusetts, had exhibited so many signs of being unsafe that the company managers and workers grew accustomed to the leaks and stress groans. One day in 1919, the tank, filled to capacity, ruptured, sending 10.5 million litres of syrup through the streets in a 10-metre-high surge, destroying buildings, killing 21 people and injuring 150.

In the wake of the molasses disaster, the industry rushed to improve the safety of both ‘hard’, physical infrastructure and ‘soft’ operational standards. Risks and vulnerabilities were assessed, better materials were engineered, designs were improved on and safety and maintenance measures were implemented to reduce the risk of pressure-vessel explosions and collapses.

Warning signs were ignored in the lead-up to the 1919 Boston Molasses Disaster. Credit: Science History Images/Alamy

But why was it normal to accept vulnerability — why did workers and managers ignore the warning signs? A social-responsibility code was needed to tackle the soft problems of human error and risk normalization, as well as the vague problems of greed, mismanagement and hubris. Had such a code existed, it would also have spoken to the ‘messy’ problem of colonial exploitation in sugar-cane-exporting countries. Madhavan brings attention to the need for engineers to take on social responsibility.

The world must rethink plans for ageing oil and gas platforms

Madhavan explores six facets of wicked problems — efficiency, vagueness (about the nature of the problem), vulnerability, safety, maintenance and resilience. Risks are impossible to eliminate, but they can be diminished through ‘mindful’ processes (in which workers have time to run through checklists and identify hazards), workplace cultures of humility and continuous learning, and robust, responsive work structures, such as whiteboards on which issues can be recorded, with processes to stop work to check and report errors.

Systems-safety engineer Nancy Leveson at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, for example, strives to account for social and cultural behaviours in her work. She has studied steam-boiler explosions, which are rare today but were commonplace a century ago. Of course, high-pressure-steam science and pressure-vessels engineering have improved since then — but Leveson points out that the real transition has been in culture. These explosions went from being a tragedy to being unacceptable.

The Wright stuff

Aviation provides a fertile ground for the study of such disasters, and Madhavan makes ample use of examples from this sector. In 1903, aeroplane inventor Orville Wright took on the risks of flying alone; within a decade, he was flying with paying customers. The book goes deep into the 121-year history of aircraft, flight simulators, airmail, navigation technologies, air-traffic management and government interventions. It recounts the early challenges of flying and navigating, and the risk-taking culture that was particularly common among pilots in the first three decades of aviation — resulting in a number of accidents. Flying was so unsafe in the 1960s that in the United States, only one in five people was willing to fly.

Madhavan threads the story of US aviation pioneer Edwin Link throughout the book to explore how a systems approach is needed to address wicked problems. As well as being a pilot, Link was an inventor, entrepreneur and adventurer with a strong sense of responsibility. I was awarded a Link Foundation Energy Fellowship during my PhD studies. The scholarship application asked candidates to discuss how their vision for research was guided by social responsibility — now I know why.

Practice in Edwin Link’s Blue box provided pilots with physical and mental training. Credit: Jon G. Fuller/VWPics/Alamy

Link devised a flight simulator, known as the Blue Box, in which trainees gain experience with the flight deck and the controls and get a feel for different manoeuvres. Importantly, beyond technical skills, he organized the training experience around the mental discipline of the pilot. He understood that ‘blind flight’ — when pilots lose visibility of the horizon and landmarks — often led to a catastrophic loss of control because pilots relied too much on their senses instead of on the plane’s instruments. Confining pilots in the Blue Box without visual cues taught them how to trust the altitude, heading and horizontal situation indicators.

Similarly, Madhavan champions the importance of looking at seemingly technical problems through a wider lens — such as the business, policy and social aspects. He makes the case for investing in engineering-research programmes to develop the holistic approaches and methods needed to address wicked problems. He also calls for the field of engineering to expand beyond its typical role of fostering economic growth through technical innovation and take on the political and social aspects of industrial development. Examples include the Endicott-Johnson Shoes Company, then based in Binghamton, New York, which, in the 1910s, started building affordable houses for its workers and reduced their workday from ten to eight hours.

Wicked Problems is a wake-up call for all engineers to expand their mindset. Although I wish that Madhavan’s book had gone a step further, to lay out how us engineers could do that, it does provide a background and argument to pivot our current risky, if successful, endeavours towards safer systems.

Nature 629 , 994-995 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01519-1

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

Promoting women in tech

• Engineering
• Scientific community

Heterogeneous integration of spin–photon interfaces with a CMOS platform

Article 29 MAY 24

A vision chip with complementary pathways for open-world sensing

Selective lignin arylation for biomass fractionation and benign bisphenols

Japan’s push to make all research open access is taking shape

News 30 MAY 24

How I overcame my stage fright in the lab

Career Column 30 MAY 24

Defying the stereotype of Black resilience

Career Q&A 30 MAY 24

Nature’s message to South Africa’s next government: talk to your researchers

Editorial 29 MAY 24

Anglo-American bias could make generative AI an invisible intellectual cage

Correspondence 28 MAY 24

Global Talent Recruitment (Scientist Positions)

Global Talent Gathering for Innovation, Changping Laboratory Recruiting Overseas High-Level Talents.

Beijing, China

Changping Laboratory

Postdoctoral Associate - Amyloid Strain Differences in Alzheimer's Disease

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Associate- Bioinformatics of Alzheimer's disease

Postdoctoral associate- alzheimer's gene therapy, postdoctoral associate.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

More From Forbes

How philosophy can help leaders solve wicked problems.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

An old strategy can help leaders reduce the risk of the solutions backfiring.

When faced with wicked problems , political and corporate decision makers often rush to implement technological solutions. Consider the way business leaders are dealing with the global infertility problem : A 2021 study by Mercer found that , as of 2020, nearly 20% large U.S. employers offered egg freezing benefits to their employees.

However, as noted in Forbes last year, a study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that employees may perceive egg freezing benefits as more pressure than perks, causing them to have negative reactions to the benefit as well as the organizations that offer it.

Egg freezing is not the only example of a technological solution that risks backfiring . In late 2020, Andy Jarvis , the associate director of the Alliance of Bioversity International, said, “The food system is in the mess it is right now because we introduce technologies and approaches to manage it without fully understanding all the indirect impacts the intervention can have.”

And when Geoffrey Hinton left Google last year, ending a lifetime of developing and deploying AI, he claimed that “the small but very real danger that AI will turn out to be a disaster.” So, if rushing to introduce technologies isn’t the solution to wicked problems, what is?

The Problem Behind The Problem

Throughout 2,400 years of Western civilization, philosophers have had one strategy for dealing with the big questions facing us humans. The strategy is to understand the problem behind the problem. In the case of infertility, the problem behind the problem is that women (and men) are temporal creatures. This means that we are getting older by the minute. We have limited time on this earth. And not only does women’s ability to reproduce have an expiration date, so does life for each and every one of us.

Apple Brings Back iPhone 14 Pro For First Time At Lower Price Refurbished

Trump lashes out at robert de niro after actor calls him a ‘tyrant’ outside courthouse, elon musk is the world s richest person again thanks to his new ai startup.

While the problem of infertility may seem to be solved with egg freezing, the problem of aging is not. No matter how early and how many eggs are put in the freezer, we are destined to run out of time. And regardless of who pays the bill for the expensive procedure, it is not the political or corporate decision makers who pay the personal price of postponing pregnancy and parenthood. ​​It is the women and men who regret that they spent their scarce time working instead of raising a family.

It’s Not About What, It’s About Who

The problem behind all the problems that have to do with rushing to implement technological solutions is that technology suppresses the existential and ethical questions we all have to ask ourselves sooner or later.

Having limited time on this earth forces us to prioritize how we spend our time, and leaders should support their employees and other stakeholders in asking these questions rather than delaying and preventing it.

To adopt the philosophers’ strategy of understanding the problem behind the problem, leaders must acknowledge that solving wicked problems is not about what, it’s about who . They can do this by asking themselves three questions.

1. Whose Problem Is This?

Wicked problems are by definition complex and tangled, and therefore have—and call for collaboration between—many stakeholders. Yet, leaders must ask themselves who depends the most on a solution. They must ask: Whose problem is this? And: Whose life will benefit, or suffer, the most if a solution is, or is not, found?

When I recently did a study among young talents from the UNLEASH community, I realized that leaders across the globe try to solve the wicked problem of climate change without asking these questions. Based in Nepal, one of the young talents participating in the study made the observation that “the indigenous groups in my country have very limited awareness about climate change because no one includes or tries to include them in the movement or advocacy work.”

His studies showed that the reason indigenous people are not included is that they have no education. But, as he explained, “they are the ones who have witnessed the impact of climate change in real life and they are also the ones who are using various strategies to cope with the impacts.” His point was that the people who suffer most from a problem are also the ones best at finding a solution. And that “if all the climate activists incorporate indigenous knowledge and use them in advocacy, the climate movement would be more impactful and meaningful.”

2. At What Level Should The Problem Be Solved?

Being accustomed to solving problems on behalf of large groups of people, political and corporate decision-makers often forget to ask themselves at what level the problem needs to be solved: Who or what needs to change for the solution to be a success? The individual? The team? The organization? Society? Humanity as a whole? Depending on the answer, leaders must focus their efforts on different things.

While individuals need time to reflect and prioritize what’s important to them, teams cannot change unless they are given the space to discuss , explore, and experiment with new ways of working. Organizational change requires different stakeholders working together to redesign the structures, technologies, processes and culture that shape collective behavior. And when a problem requires the whole of society or humanity to change, leaders must think of themselves and their organization as a tiny but crucial part of a huge ecosystem .

3. Who Do We Prevent From Solving Other Problems?

The final question takes us back to egg freezing and the issue of technology versus time. Building on the second question, leaders must ask themselves: If we make a decision to solve this problem from an organizational, societal, or humanity perspective, what decisions do we prevent individuals and teams from making? What problems do we make it harder for individuals and teams to solve themselves? And how will their limited agency affect their sense of responsibility to make the solution a success?

By asking (1) Whose problem is this? (2) At what level should the problem be solved? and (3) Who do we prevent from solving other problems? leaders give themselves and others the time they need to think through important aspects of wicked problems before deciding whether or not to implement a technological solution.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

The Wicked Problem of Climate Change (Fall 2024)

Course overview.

This interdisciplinary course provides a comprehensive overview of the wicked problem of climate change. Unlike ordinary problems, which are well-defined, self-contained, and come with a limited set of potential solutions, wicked problems resist definition, are mixed up with other problems, and cannot be solved in a way that is simple or final. As the pace of climate change accelerates and environmental and social impacts are increasingly being felt at the individual, community, and global level, there is a growing need for responses and solutions that crosscut disciplinary boundaries. This course approaches the wicked problem of climate change from diverse disciplinary perspectives (i.e., applied sciences, humanities, social sciences, and health sciences) to investigate the various dimensions of this global challenge. Topics addressed may include the history of climate change and its scientific underpinnings, approaches to governance, climate change communication, and impacts on the natural environment, human health, society, culture, technology, and economies. The course prepares students to analyze the wicked problem of climate change from an interdisciplinary perspective, to evaluate and critique diverse perspectives on the issue, and to devise potential solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change. 

Open to all undergraduate students in level 3A or higher, the Wicked Problem of Climate Change course takes an innovative and interdisciplinary approach to investigate how climate change is impacting our way of life, combining both in-class and online learning. 

Graduate students at the University of Waterloo are engaged in research that is advancing our understanding of - and developing solutions to - some of society’s most challenging problems. As part of the University’s strategic plans to develop talent for a complex world and focus on interdisciplinary scholarship, this initiative sees a team of PhD candidates come together to design, develop, and offer a course related to contemporary Wicked Problems. The course will be offered to upper-year undergraduate students from across the University to create a community of scholars, sharing different perspectives from the PhD candidate instructors and the learners in the classroom.

The innovation lies in its team of instructors – three PhD candidates, who are deep into their own explorations of climate change, will enthusiastically lead this blended learning course to examine aspects of climate change and the wicked problems it presents to humanity. The interdisciplinarity is found in the instructors (one from Engineering, Science, and Environment) and in the undergraduate students who register for the course from various disciplines.

The intention of the Wicked Problem course is as follows:

• Each PhD candidate brings disciplinary expertise to the course;
• The teaching team receives mentorship and support with regard to course conception, design and integration;
• Collectively, the course creates an interdisciplinary experience that fosters learning and integration of knowledge, methods and ways of knowing that could not be achieved within a single disciplinary approach.

Read more about the first iteration of the Wicked Problem of Climate Change  course to learn more about what this style of course is like. 

Please note that this course is offered as a blended course . The Registrar's Office defines this as such: "A blended class, designated by a campus code of BLND, is  a class normally scheduled with both an online and in-person activity  (students must be available to come to campus)." 

How to Register

Are you interested in signing up and trying a truly innovative learning experience? The course selection period for fall enrolment opens on May 23rd . Please register using the following course subject code/catalogue number:

Please note that you may register for this course regardless of which Faculty you are enrolled in . All students from all Faculties/disciplines are welcome.

Draft Course Learning Outcomes

The following are the draft intended learning outcomes for the course. Please keep in mind the course is being designed throughout the Spring 2024 term and these learning outcomes are subject to change as the course is re-designed. Final intended learning outcomes will appear on the course syllabus in September 2024. By the end of the course, students should be able to:

• Explain the core concepts of climate change and current mitigation and adaptation approaches.
• Examine the wicked problem of climate change across applied sciences, humanities, social sciences, and health sciences, including interconnections between and limitations of each discipline.
• Assess the impact of climate change on culture, societies, economies, technology, and the natural environment.
• Compare diverse perspectives to articulate and evaluate your own position on climate change.
• Collaborate with other students and combine disciplinary approaches to propose solutions to a climate change problem of your choice.
• Develop interdisciplinary skills and identify how those skills can be used in your future studies and/or career.

Meet the Instructors

These PhD candidates are spending the Spring 2024 term in the Teaching Innovation Incubator , working together with Centre for Teaching Excellence education specialists and past instructors of the Wicked Problem of Climate Change course to re-design and develop a course that will be a highlight in an undergraduate student’s degree. 

Faculty of Environment

T ara Chen (She/Elle) is a Ph.D. candidate in the Geographies of Health in Place, Planning and Public Health Lab ( GoHelP ) at the Department of Geography and Environmental Management in the Faculty of Environment. She identifies as a young public health professional working to strengthen health systems with the motto, “ everything & everywhere is public health ”. Her research interests include nature-based social prescribing, climate-health impacts, health literacy, and cross-sectoral collaborations. She is currently the Climate-Health Fellow in the Association Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER), supporting the development of climate change literacy for health professionals. In her spare time, she is a strong advocate for amplifying young voices in dialogue, research and practice.

Tara holds a BHSc from Western University, Canada and a dual Masters of Public Health, specializing in Governance and Health Economics from the Erasmus Mundus Europubhealth+ program (University of Sheffield, England; Jagiellonian University, Poland; Ecole des Hautes Études en Santé Publique, France). She has worked on multi-stakeholder projects involving the SDG space, gov’t health authorities, hospitals, civil-based organizations, non-gov’t organizations and local communities across the globe (including Jamaica, Taiwan and the European Region).

With a profound belief in the power of education to drive positive change, Tara is excited to engage with learners across diverse disciplines to illuminate the interconnectedness of climate change issues with broader societal concerns. She looks forward to fostering active engagement in an interdisciplinary classroom.

X (Formerly Twitter) :   @TaraTChen

LinkedIn : tara-chen

Google Scholar : Link

Timothy Shardlow

Faculty of Science

My name is Tim and I am a 3 rd year PhD Candidate in the Müller Lab from the Department of Biology. My research involves studying cyanobacteria within drinking water reservoirs impacted by climate change which can cause challenges to drinking water treatment. One of my study sites is in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada which experienced a wildfire in 2016, which has caused deterioration in their drinking water supply due to cyanobacteria.

By being involved in the Wicked Problem of Climate Change course, I am given the opportunity to share an aspect of climate change that I don’t believe many people immediately think about, and that is drinking water safety and security. I hope to give people, regardless of educational background, a new perspective on climate change and how it impacts our freshwater sources. As part of my research, I have collaborated with students and faculty from various research backgrounds and disciplines, and I look forward to that sort of collaboration occurring in this course as well.

Fatima Suleiman

Faculty of Engineering

Fatima Suleiman is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering with a background in Electrical/Electronics Engineering and Design Engineering. She is also a recipient of the NSERC Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship. Her doctoral research focuses on improving temperature measurement for Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), helping the automotive industry produce lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles that reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the entire vehicle life cycle. Her academic experience also includes energy modelling and analysis for new building designs and retrofits to enhance energy efficiency and lower carbon emissions. Having collaborated with diverse stakeholders on various projects across multiple continents, Fatima recognizes the importance of interdisciplinary thinking in addressing complex interconnected problems like climate change. She is excited to guide students in developing the interdisciplinary problem-solving skills essential for designing systemic climate solutions.