Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Visual thinking is about using pictures to help you solve problems, think about complex issues and communicate more effectively. Are you ready to work on your visual thinking skills? You don't have to be an artist. This site is different every time you visit: it's continuously updated via live feeds from the web to bring you the best and most delicious images and links available: visuals to inspire, examples to follow, books to read and things to do, designed to stimulate your imagination and visual thinking.
What does the word “design” mean, exactly–whether used as a verb or a noun? Today, as engineers, business executives, artists, hackers, and everyday people with entrepreneurial dreams call themselves “designers,” is the term more open-ended than in the past? And if so, how will that change the profession of design and the hiring of designers? Is it even possible to neatly sum up the history, the present, and the future of “design” so consumers and corporations alike can better understand the term and its many contexts? Alice Rawsthorn , the design critic of the International Herald Tribune and the global edition of the New York
Posted by Venessa Miemis | 1 Jul 2010 | Comments (6) The business world has been quick to try and implement design thinking in hopes of stimulating sweeping organization change and innovation, only to abandon it and return to old practices when it doesn't "work." Is design thinking nothing more than a poorly defined gimmick, or are people just missing the big picture? Perhaps a part of the problem is that design thinking is more than just a set of tactics to be carried out, but rather a new ecology of mind. While grounded in business-minded rationality and operating within a defined set of constraints, it also contains an emotional/intuitive component that is often lost upon the more traditional thinkers.
Please note: Copyright for posters and papers is owned by the authors. Posters Conference Proceedings
An efficient way to trace how the American public understands and defines the concept and influence of “design” is to look at the nominees of the People’s Design Award . It’s an honor given in conjunction with the National Design Awards, one of the most prestigious prizes any U.S. designer could hope for. The Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum For the past decade, the National Design Awards have represented the most high-profile educational program of the Smithsonian Institution’s Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum in New York. These prizes were created in 2000 to recognize excellent American design in a wide spectrum of fields. Five years ago, when the concept of “crowd sourcing” became popular, the National Design Awards added People’s Design Award, which uses online voting to determine a winner from public nominees (vote for or nominate a design here —voting is open through 6 p.m.
The best designed objects and interfaces appeal to three parts of our brains–the “new,” the “mid,” and the “old”–so states Susan Weinschenk, author of the book 100 Things Every Designer Needs to Know (New Riders Press) and Chief of User Experience Strategy at Human Factors International , a design consultancy with clients that range from 3M to Samsung. The new, Fall 2011 issue of Rotman magazine , just published by the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, features an interview with Weinschenk, who has a PhD in psychology. In this interview, she calls the “new brain” the conscious part of the brain; the “mid brain” the area that deals with processing emotions, social interactions, and images; and the “old brain” the part that focuses on our basic survival needs.
In 1969, Nobel laureate Herbert Simon commented that “engineering, medicine, business, architecture, and painting are concerned not with the necessary but with the contingent – not with how things are, but how they might be – in short, with design. Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. Design, so construed, is the core of all professional thinking.”
A while back I attempted to distill the differences between the traditional business approach to strategy and the “design thinking” approach. The end result was the Difference of Design table that included points from Tim Brown, Roger Martin, Richard Florida, and my personal experiences. Recently, I’ve been exposed to additional attempts at defining what makes design thinking a unique strategic value for business: Strategy as Design (PDF), Jeanne Liedtka
I had the great pleasure of spending a few days last week with some eminent designers and design thinkers as part of a World Economic Forum event in Dubai. We were participating as one of over 70 WEF Global Agenda Councils consisting of experts from around the world studying how to improve global institutions. As the Global Agenda Council on Design we felt that one of our greatest contributions might be to help other councils embed design thinking in their deliberations. We created a set of design principles that we felt might be a useful guide and I am listing them here: Design is an agent of change that enables us to understand complex changes and problems, and to turn them into something useful.
Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on March 19, 2010 I’m going to give a 5 minute talk on the future of design on Friday to spark conversation within a terrific group of design thinkers from around the world. Banny Banerjee, director of the Stanford Design Program is putting it on. I first met Banny at a conference in India put on by the National Institutes of Design.
“Is design thinking a movement that’s here to stay?” This question is one that designers, engineers, marketers, and business-school professors alike are debating at the moment. And it’s a query posed by four filmmakers producing a documentary simply called “Design & Thinking.”
The decade of Design Thinking is ending and I, for one, am moving on to another conceptual framework: Creative Intelligence, or CQ. I am writing a book about Creative Intelligence, due out from HarperCollins in fall 2012, and I hope to have a conversation with the Fast Company audience on this blog about how we should teach, measure, and use CQ. Why am I, who at Business Week was one of Design Thinking's major advocates , moving on to a new conceptual framework?
Read this post in: Français This post is the first of a two-parts article on design thinking co-written with Ralph-Christian Ohr ( @ralph_ohr ). As businesses are more and more challenged by the wicked nature of the problems they face, whether in strategic or operational context, we need to integrate more divergent and resilient reasoning in our decision-making practices. Cleared from all the fuss which so often surrounds it, design thinking could provide the ongoing transformation of businesses toward “social” with an actionable framework to leverage the true potential of collaboration.
The decade of Design Thinking is ending and I, for one, am moving on to another conceptual framework: Creative Intelligence, or CQ. I am writing a book about Creative Intelligence, due out from HarperCollins in fall 2012, and I hope to have a conversation with the Fast Company audience on this blog about how we should teach, measure, and use CQ. Why am I, who at Business Week was one of Design Thinking's major advocates , moving on to a new conceptual framework? Simple. Design Thinking has given the design profession and society at large all the benefits it has to offer and is beginning to ossify and actually do harm. Helen Walters, my wonderful colleague at Business Week , lays out many of the pros and cons of Design Thinking in her post on her blog .