Design Thinking Process 001

Design Thinking Process
By Alejandro Rodriguez Musso
Design Professor
Universidad de Valparaíso
Chile
Abstract
The article explore the way that designers think when they develop a solution for a graphic design object
as a brand, and how the shape evolution can illustrate what kind of thinking process designers use to use
in their daily work.
Develop

When teaching design, perhaps the most important thing is the development of “analyticalcreative” competence. For a good attitude towards its development it is necessary to have a
conscience and valuation of its importance on human life, specially today when the xxi century
economy needs innovative minds.
In education, this attitude must be present at a teacher and student level as well, expressing
itself in an open mind to recognize and accept them, for which is necessary to re-educate our
way of thinking.
In general, patterns of thinking applied at traditional education in primary and high school,
consist on lineal thinking, this is, discover THE RIGHT ANSWER by the METHOD or path
already designated. This way of thinking is rigid, starts from knowing one only true and one only
model to get to it. However, the interpretation of reality depends on the observer and the context

of interpretation he is using, so the same problem can be seen and described differently from
two people. Someone with an “analytical/creative” mind will come up with many interpretations
or different solutions.
To achieve the development of an “analytical/creative” competence it is necessary to train the
divergent or lateral thinking, both will lead us to obtain alternatives that are equally valid to
respond to break points that, will present us with situations that were not obvious, making us
take conscience of their existence.
These break point situations are the ones that a designer thinks permanently. The designer,
through its way of thinking and working, searches for alternative courses of action that reduce
uncertainty and give structure to the different factors that come together in communication. In
this process, the development of alternatives is the main thing, so that it drives the inspiration
process of generating visual and innovative ideas.
By alternatives, we understand the evolution of a shape from a visually defined concept.
Developing Alternatives.
The process of developing alternatives starts from the understanding of the utility and necessity
of doing such process to accomplish innovation. To start this search, is necessary to recognize
“many paths of action, some of them will remain only as possibilities”, and others will grow
deliberately through a never ending search from a “INTERESTED VIEWER”, that will allow us to
discover the break points and inconsistencies. By itself, the process of developing alternatives
is a break point process.

Without questioning there aren’t breaks points, so there will be no evolution of the conceptual
interpretation of the shape. This must be taken as a known search for insecurity that is
expressed by verbal language a permanent questioning about what we perceive, at a syntactic
and semantic level. Now, the verbal language generates new interpretations about what we
see, always constrained by the limits of mind models and the project layout, constrains that
define the possibilities of solutions.

So, a formal evolution process starts inside the above limits. The constraints of the mind models
belongs to the designer and are defined by his experience or framework, and the constraints of
the project are defined by the needs of the task. Then, starting from a series of topological
break points (Changes on the structure of the shape), derived from the interaction between
shape and designer, we go on to the generation of formal alternatives with different angles of
visual interest.
The next figure shows that innovation, most of the time, only comes up when there has been a
long search for alternatives, this goes beyond the “expected period of development”, to
generate and discover new shapes and new interpretations. This capability has to be with being
able to see the different shape variations, that only occurs using divergent thinking. The shape
selected will depend on the needs of the task. As a result, it can be any of the shapes
developed in the process.


This exercise of perseverance has to
be done specially by people who don´t
have this ability by birth. In the case of
students that have the ability to
visualize alternatives making creative
jumps, education should be focused
on increasing the mind model by
expanding the referential framework
through reasonable experience.
The limitations or constraints in the
mind models changes according to
every new creative experience,
adding these experiences to the new
model developed.
Selecting an alternative.
The choosing of an alternative starts
at the same time that the shape starts
to change and evolve. When it comes
to choosing, two aspects have to be
consider:

a. the content of the message
b. the shape or visual syntax
a. the content of the message
In one way, the idea you want to communicate or content of the message, interacts with shape,
suggesting:
- Reinforcement of the idea. In this case, the alternative developed, responds or reinforces the
idea; therefore indetermination is reduced.
- Generating new ideas. In this case, shape, in its interaction with designer and his
“INTERESTED VIEWER”, stimulates new possibilities or paths for action, even to the point of
modifying the initial idea.
b. the shape or visual syntax
On the other side, when selecting alternatives, aspects related to shape: visual variables
(shape, color, texture, size, value, position) and the links between these variables must concur.
This relations generate order, structure, in other words, harmony and balance, two qualities that
clearly manifest when we encounter ourselves with an evolved shape.

So much in the development or the selection of alternatives, we can observe the existence of a
common factor. This common factor is the “INTERESTED VIEWER”, a willing to see and
discover the break points that are manifested and the ones underneath, and to keep exploring.
Perhaps we won’t see one option, because that option stands behind or underneath, it is

“transparent” to our perception. No one can see what his own framework structure won´t let him
see in an instant “t”, unless he searches consciously for a break point.