Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures
Abstract
This paper takes a critical look at the design thinking discourse, one that has different meanings depending on its context. Within the managerial realm, design thinking has been described as the best way to be creative and innovate, while within the design realm, design thinking may be partly ignored and taken for granted, despite a long history of academic development and debate. In the design area, we find five different discourses of ‘designerly thinking’, or ways to describe what designers do in practice, that have distinctly different epistemological roots. These different discourses do not stand in competition with each other but could be developed in parallel. We also observe that the management discourse has three distinct origins, but in general has a more superficial and popular character and is less academically anchored than the designerly one. Also, the management design thinking discourse seldom refers to designerly thinking and thereby hinders cumulative knowledge construction. We suggest further research to link the discourses.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is no unambiguous definition of design thinking, as it varies depending on the author's academic background and context.
“Although the concept of design and design thinking has been around for decades, there is no unambiguous definition of design thinking, as it varies depending on the author's academic background and the context in which the concept is used (Berger-Walliser, Barton and Haapio, 2017, pp. 355-360;Buchanan, 1992;Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013).”
From Access to justice in public procurement: improving judicial review through lean thinking, proactive law and legal design (2025) · cites this paper as Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013
Legal design has roots in design thinking.
“Legal design has roots in design thinking.”
From Access to justice in public procurement: improving judicial review through lean thinking, proactive law and legal design (2025) · cites this paper as Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla and Çetinkaya, 2013
Integrating DT into STEM education enhances creativity, problem-solving abilities, and student engagement.
“Integrating DT into STEM education enhances creativity, problem-solving abilities, and student engagement by offering a flexible framework that supports both technical skill development and innovative thinking (Henriksen et al., 2017;Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013).”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013
Although DT promotes problem-solving and innovation, it does not inherently lead to improvement of creativity in integrated DT models.
“although DT promotes problem-solving and innovation, it does not inherently lead to the improvement of creativity in integrated DT models (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013;Liedtka, 2015Liedtka, , 2018)).”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338 · cited 1× · see citing works
“problem - solving activity (Buchanan, 1992 based on Rittel and Webber, 1973).”
Wicked Problems in Design Thinking
Buchanan, R. (1992) · Design Issues · doi:10.2307/1511637 · Cited by 3,539 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Buchanan’s (1992) article about ‘wicked problems’ in design has become a foundational reference not only for the discourse about design thinking, but also for the whole design area.”
Influential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services
Robert, G., Cornwell, J., Locock, L., Purushotham, A., Sturmey, G., & Gager, M. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7714 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
Muneer, S., Santhosh, M., Parangusan, H., & Bhadra, J. (2026) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-025-10005-2 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Kaave, P., Storsjö, I., & Heikkinen, P. (2025) · TalTech Journal of European Studies · doi:10.2478/bjes-2025-0009 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M.
- Affiliations
- Sacred Heart University (US)
- Venue
- Creativity and Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03-25
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 121-146
- ISSN
- 0963-1690 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8691
- OpenAlex
- W2076426378
- Cited by
- 1,163
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 122 · 2021: 155 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 117 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 47.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Creativity and Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Keywords
- design thinking, designerly thinking, design discourse, management discourse, epistemology, creativity, innovation, cumulative knowledge, design practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
