Design Thinking for Social Innovation

Designers have traditionally focused on enhancing the look and functionality of products. Recently, they have begun using design techniques to tackle more complex problems, such as finding ways to provide low-cost healthcare throughout the world. Businesses were the first to embrace this new approach—called design thinking—and nonprofits are beginning to adopt it too.

In an area outside Hyderabad, India, between the suburbs and the countryside, a young woman—we’ll call her Shanti—fetches water daily from the always-open local borehole that is about 300 feet from her home. She uses a 3-gallon plastic container that she can easily carry on her head. Shanti and her husband rely on the free water for their drinking and washing, and though they’ve heard that it’s not as safe as water from the Naandi Foundation-run community treatment plant, they still use it. Shanti’s family has been drinking the local water for generations, and although it periodically makes her and her family sick, she has no plans to stop using it.

Shanti has many reasons not to use the water from the Naandi treatment center, but they’re not the reasons one might think. The center is within easy walking distance of her home—roughly a third of a mile. It is also well known and affordable (roughly 10 rupees, or 20 cents, for 5 gallons). Being able to pay the small fee has even become a status symbol for some villagers. Habit isn’t a factor, either. Shanti is forgoing the safer water because of a series of flaws in the overall design of the system.

Although Shanti can walk to the facility, she can’t carry the 5-gallon jerrican that the facility requires her to use. When filled with water, the plastic rectangular container is simply too heavy. The container isn’t designed to be held on the hip or the head, where she likes to carry heavy objects. Shanti’s husband can’t help carry it, either. He works in the city and doesn’t return home until after the water treatment center is closed. The treatment center also requires them to buy a monthly punch card for 5 gallons a day, far more than they need. “Why would I buy more than I need and waste money?” asks Shanti, adding she’d be more likely to purchase the Naandi water if the center allowed her to buy less.

The community treatment center was designed to produce clean and potable water, and it succeeded very well at doing just that. In fact, it works well for many people living in the community, particularly families with husbands or older sons who own bikes and can visit the treatment plant during working hours. The designers of the center, however, missed the opportunity to design an even better system because they failed to consider the culture and needs of all of the people living in the community.

This missed opportunity, although an obvious omission in hindsight, is all too common. Time and again, initiatives falter because they are not based on the client’s or customer’s needs and have never been prototyped to solicit feedback. Even when people do go into the field, they may enter with preconceived notions of what the needs and solutions are. This flawed approach remains the norm in both the business and social sectors.

As Shanti’s situation shows, social challenges require systemic solutions that are grounded in the client’s or customer’s needs. This is where many approaches founder, but it is where design thinking—a new approach to creating solutions—excels.

Traditionally, designers focused their attention on improving the look and functionality of products. Classic examples of this type of design work are Apple Computer’s iPod and Herman Miller’s Aeron chair. In recent years designers have broadened their approach, creating entire systems to deliver products and services.

Design thinking incorporates constituent or consumer insights in depth and rapid prototyping, all aimed at getting beyond the assumptions that block effective solutions. Design thinking—inherently optimistic, constructive, and experiential—addresses the needs of the people who will consume a product or service and the infrastructure that enables it.

Businesses are embracing design thinking because it helps them be more innovative, better differentiate their brands, and bring their products and services to market faster. Nonprofits are beginning to use design thinking as well to develop better solutions to social problems. Design thinking crosses the traditional boundaries between public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors. By working closely with the clients and consumers, design thinking allows high-impact solutions to bubble up from below rather than being imposed from the top.

Design Thinking at Work

Jerry Sternin, founder of the Positive Deviance Initiative and an associate professor at Tufts University until he died last year, was skilled at identifying what and critical of what he called outsider solutions to local problems. Sternin’s preferred approach to social innovation is an example of design thinking in action.1 In 1990, Sternin and his wife, Monique, were invited by the government of Vietnam to develop a model to decrease in a sustainable manner high levels of malnutrition among children in 10,000 villages. At the time, 65 percent of Vietnamese children under age 5 suffered from malnutrition, and most solutions relied on government and UN agencies donations of nutritional supplements. But the supplements—the outsider solution—never delivered the hoped-for results.2 As an alternative, the Sternins used an approach called positive deviance, which looks for existing solutions (hence sustainable) among individuals and families in the community who are already doing well.3

The Sternins and colleagues from Save the Children surveyed four local Quong Xuong communities in the province of Than Hoa and asked for examples of “very, very poor” families whose children were healthy. They then observed the food preparation, cooking, and serving behaviors of these six families, called “positive deviants,” and found a few consistent yet rare behaviors. Parents of well-nourished children collected tiny shrimps, crabs, and snails from rice paddies and added them to the food, along with the greens from sweet potatoes. Although these foods were readily available, they were typically not eaten because they were considered unsafe for children. The positive deviants also fed their children multiple smaller meals, which allowed small stomachs to hold and digest more food each day.

The Sternins and the rest of their group worked with the positive deviants to offer cooking classes to the families of children suffering from malnutrition. By the end of the program’s first year, 80 percent of the 1,000 children enrolled in the program were adequately nourished. In addition, the effort had been replicated within 14 villages across Vietnam.4

The Sternins’ work is a good example of how positive deviance and design thinking relies on local expertise to uncover local solutions. Design thinkers look for work-arounds and improvise solutions—like the shrimps, crabs, and snails—and they find ways to incorporate those into the offerings they create. They consider what we call the edges, the places where “extreme” people live differently, think differently, and consume differently. As Monique Sternin, now director of the Positive Deviance Initiative, explains: “Both positive deviance and design thinking are human-centered approaches. Their solutions are relevant to a unique cultural context and will not necessarily work outside that specific situation.”

One program that might have benefited from design thinking is mosquito net distribution in Africa. The nets are well designed and when used are effective at reducing the incidence of malaria.5 The World Health Organization praised the nets, crediting them with significant drops in malaria deaths in children under age 5: a 51 percent decline in Ethiopia, 34 percent decline in Ghana, and 66 percent decline in Rwanda.6 The way that the mosquito nets have been distributed, however, has had unintended consequences. In northern Ghana, for instance, nets are provided free to pregnant women and mothers with children under age 5. These women can readily pick up free nets from local public hospitals. For everyone else, however, the nets are difficult to obtain. When we asked a well-educated Ghanaian named Albert, who had recently contracted malaria, whether he slept under a mosquito net, he told us no—there was no place in the city of Tamale to purchase one. Because so many people can obtain free nets, it is not profitable for shop owners to sell them. But hospitals are not equipped to sell additional nets, either.

As Albert’s experience shows, it’s critical that the people designing a program consider not only form and function, but distribution channels as well. One could say that the free nets were never intended for people like Albert—that he was simply out of the scope of the project. But that would be missing a huge opportunity. Without considering the whole system, the nets cannot be widely distributed, which makes the eradication of malaria impossible.

The Origin of Design Thinking

IDEO was formed in 1991 as a merger between David Kelley Design, which created Apple Computer’s first mouse in 1982, and ID Two, which designed the first laptop computer, also in 1982. Initially, IDEO focused on traditional design work for business, designing products like the Palm V personal digital assistant, Oral-B toothbrushes, and Steelcase chairs. These are the types of objects that are displayed in lifestyle magazines or on pedestals in modern art museums.

By 2001, IDEO was increasingly being asked to tackle problems that seemed far afield from traditional design. A healthcare foundation asked us to help restructure its organization, a century-old manufacturing company wanted to better understand its clients, and a university hoped to create alternative learning environments to traditional classrooms. This type of work took IDEO from designing consumer products to designing consumer experiences.

To distinguish this new type of design work, we began referring to it as “design with a small d.” But this phrase never seemed fully satisfactory. David Kelley, also the founder of Stanford University’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (aka the “”), remarked that every time someone asked him about design, he found himself inserting the word “thinking” to explain what it was that designers do. Eventually, the term design thinking stuck.7

As an approach, design thinking taps into capacities we all have but that are overlooked by more conventional problem-solving practices. Not only does it focus on creating products and services that are human centered, but the process itself is also deeply human. Design thinking relies on our ability to be intuitive, to recognize patterns, to construct ideas that have emotional meaning as well as being functional, and to express ourselves in media other than words or symbols. Nobody wants to run an organization on feeling, intuition, and inspiration, but an over-reliance on the rational and the analytical can be just as risky. Design thinking, the integrated approach at the core of the design process, provides a third way.

The design thinking process is best thought of as a system of overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps. There are three spaces to keep in mind: inspiration, ideation, and implementation. Think of inspiration as the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions; ideation as the process of generating, developing, and testing ideas; and implementation as the path that leads from the project stage into people’s lives.

The reason to call these spaces, rather than steps, is that they are not always undertaken sequentially. Projects may loop back through inspiration, ideation, and implementation more than once as the team refines its ideas and explores new directions. Not surprisingly, design thinking can feel chaotic to those doing it for the first time. But over the life of a project, participants come to see that the process makes sense and achieves results, even though its form differs from the linear, milestone-based processes that organizations typically undertake.


Although it is true that designers do not always proceed through each of the three spaces in linear fashion, it is generally the case that the design process begins with the inspiration space—the problem or opportunity that motivates people to search for solutions. And the classic starting point for the inspiration phase is the brief. The brief is a set of mental constraints that gives the project team a framework from which to begin, benchmarks by which they can measure progress, and a set of objectives to be realized—such as price point, available technology, and market segment.

But just as a hypothesis is not the same as an algorithm, the brief is not a set of instructions or an attempt to answer the question before it has been posed. Rather, a well-constructed brief allows for serendipity, unpredictability, and the capricious whims of fate—the creative realm from which breakthrough ideas emerge. Too abstract and the brief risks leaving the project team wandering; too narrow a set of constraints almost guarantees that the outcome will be incremental and, likely, mediocre.

Once the brief has been constructed, it is time for the design team to discover what people’s needs are. Traditional ways of doing this, such as focus groups and surveys, rarely yield important insights. In most cases, these techniques simply ask people what they want. Conventional research can be useful in pointing toward incremental improvements, but those don’t usually lead to the type of breakthroughs that leave us scratching our heads and wondering why nobody ever thought of that before.

Henry Ford understood this when he said, “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said ‘a faster horse.’” 8 Although people often can’t tell us what their needs are, their actual behaviors can provide us with invaluable clues about their range of unmet needs.

A better starting point is for designers to go out into the world and observe the actual experiences of smallholder farmers, schoolchildren, and community health workers as they improvise their way through their daily lives. Working with local partners who serve as interpreters and cultural guides is also important, as well as having partners make introductions to communities, helping build credibility quickly and ensuring understanding. Through “homestays” and shadowing locals at their jobs and in their homes, design thinkers become embedded in the lives of the people they are designing for.

Earlier this year, Kara Pecknold, a student at Emily Carr University of Art and Design in Vancouver, British Columbia, took an internship with a women’s cooperative in Rwanda. Her task was to develop a Web site to connect rural Rwandan weavers with the world. Pecknold soon discovered that the weavers had little or no access to computers and the Internet. Rather than ask them to maintain a Web site, she reframed the brief, broadening it to ask what services could be provided to the community to help them improve their livelihoods. Pecknold used various design thinking techniques, drawing partly from her training and partly from ideo’s Human Centered Design toolkit, to understand the women’s aspirations.

Because Pecknold didn’t speak the women’s language, she asked them to document their lives and aspirations with a camera and draw pictures that expressed what success looked like in their community. Through these activities, the women were able to see for themselves what was important and valuable, rather than having an outsider make those assumptions for them. During the project, Pecknold also provided each participant with the equivalent of a day’s wages (500 francs, or roughly $1) to see what each person did with the money. Doing this gave her further insight into the people’s lives and aspirations. Meanwhile, the women found that a mere 500 francs a day could be a significant, life-changing sum. This visualization process helped both Pecknold and the women prioritize their planning for the community.9


The second space of the design thinking process is ideation. After spending time in the field observing and doing design research, a team goes through a process of synthesis in which they distill what they saw and heard into insights that can lead to solutions or opportunities for change. This approach helps multiply options to create choices and different insights about human behavior. These might be alternative visions of new product offerings, or choices among various ways of creating interactive experiences. By testing competing ideas against one another, the likelihood that the outcome will be bolder and more compelling increases.

As Linus Pauling, scientist and two-time Nobel Prize winner, put it, “To have a good idea you must first have lots of ideas.” 10 Truly innovative ideas challenge the status quo and stand out from the crowd—they’re creatively disruptive. They provide a wholly new solution to a problem many people didn’t know they had.

Of course, more choices mean more complexity, which can make life difficult, especially for those whose job it is to control budgets and monitor timelines. The natural tendency of most organizations is to restrict choices in favor of the obvious and the incremental. Although this tendency may be more efficient in the short run, it tends to make an organization conservative and inflexible in the long run. Divergent thinking is the route, not the obstacle, to innovation.

To achieve divergent thinking, it is important to have a diverse group of people involved in the process. Multidisciplinary people—architects who have studied psychology, artists with MBAs, or engineers with marketing experience—often demonstrate this quality. They’re people with the capacity and the disposition for collaboration across disciplines.

To operate within an interdisciplinary environment, an individual needs to have strengths in two dimensions—the “T-shaped” person. On the vertical axis, every member of the team needs to possess a depth of skill that allows him or her to make tangible contributions to the outcome. The top of the “T” is where the design thinker is made. It’s about empathy for people and for disciplines beyond one’s own. It tends to be expressed as openness, curiosity, optimism, a tendency toward learning through doing, and experimentation. (These are the same traits that we seek in our new hires at IDEO.)

Interdisciplinary teams typically move into a structured brainstorming process. Taking one provocative question at a time, the group may generate hundreds of ideas ranging from the absurd to the obvious. Each idea can be written on a Post-it note and shared with the team. Visual representations of concepts are encouraged, as this generally helps others understand complex ideas.

One rule during the brainstorming process is to defer judgment. It is important to discourage anyone taking on the often obstructive, non-generative role of devil’s advocate, as Tom Kelley explains in his book The Ten Faces of Innovation.11 Instead, participants are encouraged to come up with as many ideas as possible. This lets the group move into a process of grouping and sorting ideas. Good ideas naturally rise to the top, whereas the bad ones drop off early on. InnoCentive provides a good example of how design thinking can result in hundreds of ideas. InnoCentive has created a Web site that allows people to post solutions to challenges that are defined by InnoCentive members, a mix of nonprofits and companies. More than 175,000 people—including scientists, engineers, and designers from around the world—have posted solutions.

The Rockefeller Foundation has supported 10 social innovation challenges through InnoCentive and reports an 80 percent success rate in delivering effective solutions to the nonprofits posting challenges. 12 The open innovation approach is effective in producing lots of new ideas. The responsibility for filtering through the ideas, field-testing them, iterating, and taking them to market ultimately falls to the implementer.

An InnoCentive partnership with the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development sought a theoretical solution to simplify the current TB treatment regimen. “The process is a prime example of design thinking contributing to social innovation,” explained Dwayne Spradlin, InnoCentive’s CEO. “With the TB drug development, the winning solver was a scientist by profession, but submitted to the challenge because his mother—the sole income provider for the family—developed TB when he was 14. She had to stop working, and he took on the responsibility of working and going to school to provide for the family.” Spradlin finds that projects within the InnoCentive community often benefit from such deep and motivating connections.13


The third space of the design thinking process is implementation, when the best ideas generated during ideation are turned into a concrete, fully conceived action plan. At the core of the implementation process is prototyping, turning ideas into actual products and services that are then tested, iterated, and refined.

Through prototyping, the design thinking process seeks to uncover unforeseen implementation challenges and unintended consequences in order to have more reliable long-term success. Prototyping is particularly important for products and services destined for the developing world, where the lack of infrastructure, retail chains, communication networks, literacy, and other essential pieces of the system often make it difficult to design new products and services.

Prototyping can validate a component of a device, the graphics on a screen, or a detail in the interaction between a blood donor and a Red Cross volunteer. The prototypes at this point may be expensive, complex, and even indistinguishable from the real thing. As the project nears completion and heads toward real-world implementation, prototypes will likely become more complete.

After the prototyping process is finished and the ultimate product or service has been created, the design team helps create a communication strategy. Storytelling, particularly through multimedia, helps communicate the solution to a diverse set of stakeholders inside and outside of the organization, particularly across language and cultural barriers.

VisionSpring, a low-cost eye care provider in India, provides a good example of how prototyping can be a critical step in implementation. VisionSpring, which had been selling reading glasses to adults, wanted to begin providing comprehensive eye care to children. VisionSpring’s design effort included everything other than the design of the glasses, from marketing “eye camps” through self-help groups to training teachers about the importance of eye care and transporting kids to the local eye care center.

Working with VisionSpring, IDEO designers prototyped the eyescreening process with a group of 15 children between the ages of 8 and 12. The designers first tried to screen a young girl’s vision through traditional tests. Immediately, though, she burst into tears—the pressure of the experience was too great and the risk of failure too high. In hopes of diff using this stressful situation, the designers asked the children’s teacher to screen the next student. Again, the child started to cry. The designers then asked the girl to screen her teacher. She took the task very seriously, while her classmates looked on enviously. Finally, the designers had the children screen each other and talk about the process. They loved playing doctor and both respected and complied with the process.

By prototyping and creating an implementation plan to pilot and scale the project, IDEO was able to design a system for the eye screenings that worked for VisionSpring’s practitioners, teachers, and children. As of September 2009, VisionSpring had conducted in India 10 eye camps for children, screened 3,000 children, transported 202 children to the local eye hospital, and provided glasses for the 69 children who needed them.

“Screening and providing glasses to kids presents many unique problems, so we turned to design thinking to provide us with an appropriate structure to develop the most appropriate marketing and distribution strategy,” explained Peter Eliassen, vice president of sales and operations at VisionSpring. Eliassen added that prototyping let VisionSpring focus on the approaches that put children at ease during the screening process. “Now that we have become a design thinking organization, we continue to use prototypes to assess the feedback and viability of new market approaches from our most important customers: our vision entrepreneurs [or salespeople] and end consumers.” 14

Systemic Problems Need Systemic Solutions

Many social enterprises already intuitively use some aspects of design thinking, but most stop short of embracing the approach as a way to move beyond today’s conventional problem solving. Certainly, there are impediments to adopting design thinking in an organization. Perhaps the approach isn’t embraced by the entire organization. Or maybe the organization resists taking a human-centered approach and fails to balance the perspectives of users, technology, and organizations.

One of the biggest impediments to adopting design thinking is simply fear of failure. The notion that there is nothing wrong with experimentation or failure, as long as they happen early and act as a source of learning, can be difficult to accept. But a vibrant design thinking culture will encourage prototyping—quick, cheap, and dirty—as part of the creative process and not just as a way of validating finished ideas.

As Yasmina Zaidman, director of knowledge and communications at Acumen Fund, put it, “The businesses we invest in require constant creativity and problem solving, so design thinking is a real success factor for serving the base of the economic pyramid.” Design thinking can lead to hundreds of ideas and, ultimately, real-world solutions that create better outcomes for organizations and the people they serve.

Tim Brown is the CEO and president of IDEO, a global innovation and design fi m. He is author of Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation (HarperBusiness, 2009), a newly published book about how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation.
Jocelyn Wyatt leads IDEO’s Social Innovation group, which works with enterprises, foundations, nongovernmental organizations, and multinationals to build capabilities in design thinking and design innovative offerings that meet the needs of local customers.

Tracker Pixel for Entry

1 "In Memoriam: Jerry Sternin," Positive Deviance Initiative.

2 "Nutrition in Viet Nam," Positive Deviance Initiative.

3 "What Is Positive Deviance?" Positive Deviance Initiative.

4 "The Viet Nam Story: Narrated by Jerry Sternin," Positive Deviance Initiative.

5 Kevin Starr,"Go Big or Go Home," Stanford Social Innovation Review, fall 2008.

6 J.R. Minkel, "Net Benefits: Bed Netting, Drugs Stem Malaria Deaths: Proactive African
Countries See Fewer Children Felled by the Mosquito-Borne Disease,” Scientific
American, February 4, 2008.

7 Tim Brown, Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and
Inspires Innovation, New York: HarperBusiness, 2009.

8 Tim Brown, Change by Design.

9 Jocelyn Wyatt, E-mail correspondence with Kara Pecknold, September 23, 2009.

10 Linus Pauling, Barclay Kamb, Linda Pauling Kamb, et al., Linus Pauling: Selected Scientific Papers, Volume II - Biomolecular Sciences, London: World Scientific Publishing,

11 Tom Kelley and Jonathan Littman, The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO's Strategies for
Defeating the Devil's Advocate and Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization,
New York: Random House, 2005.

12 "Accelerating Innovation for Development: The Rockefeller Foundation and Inno-Centive Renew Partnership Linking Nonprofit Organizations to World-Class Scientific Thinkers," Rockefeller Foundation, June 23, 2009.

13 Jocelyn Wyatt, E-mail correspondence with Dwayne Spradlin, September 18, 2009.

14 Jocelyn Wyatt, E-mail correspondence with Peter Eliassen, August 10, 2009


  • BY Tom Moucka

    ON November 19, 2009 07:36 PM

    This is a well written article addressing the number one problem I face as I consult with nonprofits of every shape and size: the “this-is-the-way-we’ve-always-done-it syndrome”. Many nonprofits think that remaining true to their founding vision means static inspiration, ideation and implementation. Developing a design thinking culture makes perfect sense, but how do you do that? How can an organization shift it’s long-held operating culture to one of design thinking? As a consultant, I engage my clients in design thinking all the time (and they are thrilled because of it) but I need to teach them how to do it. Where can I find this “Toolkit for Design Thinking”?

  • BY IngenuityArts

    ON November 20, 2009 03:14 PM

    Something I`ve developed based on my own need to try and get other people on-board with a design/systems thinking approach is to think of this approach as the development of thought processes or arts. Art is both intuitive and technique driven. We believe there is a solution, but we don’t know in advance what it is. We need ways of thinking and acting that help us understand where the solution lies and what form it might take. This is very different than pushing our existing systems harder to squeeze a bit more out of them.

    I think that innovations like represent a convergence of needs, solution elements, and willing actors. Kiva wasn’t a case of someone trying to do fundraising for charity - they simply went at the age-old poverty issue from a very different and under-served angle. As the article suggests via IDEO and others, we can learn to prototype (even if we don’t build ‘thinks’), we can learn the habits of mind that deepen creativity (because creativity doesn’t just magically appear, it can be nurtured and learned). I’ve prototyped a short book that explores some of these things - what I call Ingenuity Arts - as a way of formalizing for myself the non-linear thinking that I need to keep working on. It is about rationality without rationalism - analysis without the reductionism that is so rampant.

    We need to be rich in the ingredients that lead to solutions rather than being burdened by formulas that no longer work. I’d be interested in hearing what other people are doing in trying to build design thinking ideas into their work. Thanks for the article. Well worth a read. The IDEO toolkit is also very useful for getting past roadblocks personally and with teams.

  • BY Florence Haridan

    ON November 23, 2009 01:53 PM

    As a change agent, I often bear witness to emotional blockages to change. I see this as a challenge at this time in design history as one to engage.

    Our ability as affective communicators will be the pivot point to bring design thinking to the fore. I believe as designers we are now required to up our Emotional Intelligence as we never have before. In helping change the way the world thinks, we are at the very deepest level asking them to change a huge part of who they are. We are being required to develop trust at new levels. We are required to face fear, anger and despair at the deepest levels as we seek solutions to our greatest problems as a global community.

    Being able to understand and respect the deep emotions that are associated with a problem, we will be able to bring teams of peole together to overcome them with a greater sense of connection to each other.

    Facing emotion will help as as designers to lead individuals and groups to overcome issues and problems that are often embedded deeply into a community.

    Daniel Goldman’s work in Emotional and Social Intelligence, I believe should be standards on our design book shelves. As we lead, we must be tuned to the emotional needs of not only the users we are solving for , but also the team that is working to solve the problem. As we understand the power of emotion in relationships, we will tap into ever deeper sources of creativity and clarity.

  • Kim Farris-Berg's avatar

    BY Kim Farris-Berg

    ON November 23, 2009 10:37 PM

    Design thinking can be applied to public policy infrastructure, too. See the work being done by Education|Evolving ( This group’s entire approach is design-based. They are responsible for changes in policy frameworks that increase the possibility for innovation in K-12.

  • BY Matthew Lechel

    ON November 24, 2009 07:21 AM

    This is a great article that includes some references to other organizations that I look forward to exploring further.  I would argue that increasing transparency in the design process can lead to even further ‘buy-in’ and hold all stakeholders in the design process to be accountable for any decisions that are made.  Remember, there are some solid arguments out there AGAINST participation (for example, “Participation, The New Tyranny” which not only has the most hilariously titled book ever, but also outlines reasonable rationale for why participatory design processes are often as corrupt as any other, or more so).  Innovative transparency within these innovative design processes will only make them stronger.  I am on the board of a non-profit in Kalamazoo, MI that is utilizing many of the practices outlined above with the goal of local sustainable development that leads to local structural impacts.  It’s called The I.D.E.A. Association (Interdisciplinary Development through Education and Art). We’d love any feedback from the professionals on this issue.

  • pernille berg's avatar

    BY pernille berg

    ON November 24, 2009 04:26 PM

    This is indeed a great article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Working in an European context it is highly interesting and inspiring to read these experiences. The design thinking process is very similar to the process developed by Index: design to improve social living - I am interested in sharing experiences in how to ensure the educational system can support, facilitate and enhance the skills of the T-shaped person.

  • BY Abhijit Shirsath

    ON November 24, 2009 11:33 PM

    really great idea! this will help society and people to make life simple

  • Geoff Day's avatar

    BY Geoff Day

    ON November 26, 2009 07:26 AM

    Enjoyed the article - thanks. I am from the world of education and am strong believer that we need to have far more design thinking in the curriculum.  I have always felt that the dominance of Inquiry thinking is not a good reflection of the “real world” at all. Many educators seem to think that if we teach more Inquiry we will be somehow addressing everything about problem solving - NOT!

    I once heard it said that “Over 90% of life’s real problems cannot be solved by logic alone.” (E. do Bono) so where in schools do we follow an approach to help students understand the 90%? Design thinking is a great way to do that. Not just appearing within the Arts but throughout the curriculum.

    Inquiry feeds the need to know, the why and our curiosity; design thinking feeds the need to figure out how and our creative needs. They use the same the thinking tools but with a different focus, in a different order and with a different emphasis. I feel that if we focus more on the acceptability of the solutions we can see this more clearly.

    There is a whole spectrum of problem solving processes (or as I prefer to think of them, solution seeking processes that include opportunity development - “positive problem solving”?)  depending on the acceptable solution but there are two “families” as I view it - those closer to being dominated by Logic and those being dominated by Perception.  I won’t dwell on that point but happy to explain more if anyone is interested. 

    In education there is a strong belief in Teacher as Researcher; surely there is a need for Teacher as Designer? They live the process every day as they design curriculum activities so why not teach student’s the same techniques? Having developed a framework a while ago to foster this concept and having had an opportunity to develop it with teachers, I know it can be done. It just seems that the world of academia is not the most conducive conduit for creativity of this kind!

  • BY Karsten Gjefle

    ON November 28, 2009 01:34 PM

    Great work - as a former development worker in the NGO/UN community I have converted to design promotion and solution orientation. One should think that development worker looked for innovation all day to solve the problems but during the 90’s it was such a conservative bunch and there are still great resistance in using the peoples information and needs to create workable solutions.

    We use industrial and service design to create solutions within sanitation. For the last 20 years in Sub Saharan Africa there has been no progress - after such results it should be time to look for new ways to solve the crisis killing millions of kids every year.

    Keep ut and join the design thinking and remember you don’t have to be a designer yourself to be creative…

  • BY Aaron Hurst

    ON November 30, 2009 07:59 AM

    We have been working at the Taproot Foundation recently with a former IDEO consultant and the impact of design thinking has been really remarkable.  Interestingly, it may be that this approach is more common in nonprofits who don’t have the funds to do large sample research and instead depend on working directly with a small number of users on program design.  They also have lower capital costs for launching new efforts so there is more room for experimentation.  It is lower cost and more aligned with the human-centric nature of nonprofit organizations and their programs.

    It is also seems likely that nonprofits that embrace this thinking do it more holistically while many companies only do it in a silo or to check off their “innovation” activitity for the year.  As a result, ten years from now we might actually look back and see that the nonprofit sector is the leader in this field and the one teaching corporations how to do it right.

  • BY Dustin Larimer

    ON December 7, 2009 06:05 PM

    Quite surprised by the absence of one word in particular that I would imagine sits in the top drawer of IDEO’s design thinking toolkit: analogy.  Analogical thinking, or conceptual transfer, is essentially the core mechanism for innovation within diverse interdisciplinary groups, and is also an extremely effective way to re-conceptualize and translate ideas from one discipline to another, creating both empathy and creative breakthroughs at the same time.  Design thinking not only lets social organizations approach problems in new ways, it also lets them enhance and unleash collaboration within their own ranks in new and exciting ways.

  • BY Dustin Larimer

    ON December 7, 2009 06:28 PM

    ** Just realized my first comment may have sounded a tad arrogant - it really was a brilliant article, and is certainly making the rounds ‘round the interwebs.  Does anyone know if/where this conversation is happening on other sites or boards?  It definitely needs to continue…

  • Mat Despard's avatar

    BY Mat Despard

    ON February 18, 2010 11:36 AM

    Very interesting article, though the underlying concepts applicable to nonprofits aren’t really that novel. Essentially the authors are describing the process of conducting a formative evaluation, which is concerned with (among other things) how participants interact with the planned intervention to identify barriers to full dosing.

  • Interesting how Tim Brown is applying the design thinking approach to the nonprofit sector and social entrepreneurship.  - I think that the real benefit of applying design thinking in social innovations is the up-scaling effect. By engaging people through design thinking process you will get a very powerful group of people for the implementation. Design thinking is at the same time about involvement, empowerment and engagement. All the driving forces we need for the change.

  • BY Chuck Watts

    ON March 22, 2010 04:39 AM

    I am the founder of the Empathy Surplus Campaign, a non-profit organization in Ohio, dedicated to expanding freedom by promoting strong, empathetic grassroots participation in county party central / executive committees by encouraging responsibility for ourselves, and others. Elected precinct representatives are encouraged to facilitate civil discourse among constituents to identify strong, empathetic and responsible public policy directions, organizing grassroots support of those policy directions and electing public servants to implement those policy directions.

    As I read through this article about “design thinking,” what strikes me is I suspect I am in the first stage, the inspiration stage.

    This is not a surprise. What is great about this article and this game is I discovered there is a process for what I’m trying to do, which is to build on Thomas Jefferson’s idea of wards or precincts as those “little republics” where neighbors get together to govern themselves.

    I need more people involved, but not just warm bodies. I need the kind of social innovators Urgent Evoke is also seeking.

    A challenge and a strength is that I am living into this process by hosting weekly and monthly meetings. Our weekly meetings are places to get to know people better. Our monthly meeting is a place to hear speakers and encourage people to come.

    I think I will invite others to this game.

  •'s avatar


    ON August 6, 2010 03:22 AM

    Hi Geoff,

    I work for a not for profit organisation in education and am keen to hear more about your views on applying design thinking to teaching. Would you be able to contact me on zahmoh @ ?

    Many thanks,

    p.s. I’m based in London

  • BY Sam John

    ON August 9, 2010 08:06 AM

    On the mosquito net in Africa, we think the numbers from WHO are wrong. There is no major evidence that shows that it works. The problem in this design process is focusing on effects, instead of cause. We have people living in Africa that suffer the worst of malaria, yet the WHO increasingly publishes very deceptive numbers.
    The aids model in Africa is flawed and there is nothing that will save it until the aid agencies stop manipulating African markets with dumping of nets and likes. More than 80% of mosquito net companies collapsed in Africa because of the WHO program. Now, we cannot see the nets as the WHO has run short of funds. Immediately, the cycle is back and people are dying because the evolving small sector of making nets has been carefully destroyed by WHO.
    We are tired of this aids program in Africa and it is time it stops. WHO is not helping because our effort to create a sustainable and not begging solution is destroyed by free things that work for a few seasons. Imagine people that invested in making nets; now there is no business. Even the distributors cannot make money because governments give them free. But the worst, there is no net.

  • Great to read this article.

    I have been involved with the Stanford Design for Extreme Affordability Program lead by David Kelly and Jim Patell for almost 10 years now. A wonderful part of the program for me is being involved in the students process of learning how to apply their design idea to the market they are serving. Your article mentions an excellent example of this with Kara Pecknold, who took an internship with a women’s cooperative in Rwanda. Her task was to develop a Web site to connect rural Rwandan weavers with the world. Pecknold soon discovered that the weavers had little or no access to computers and the Internet….

    The single biggest reason that most technologies for developing countries never reach scale is that nobody seems to know how to design for the market. Over the past 30 years, I’ve looked at hundreds of technologies for developing countries. Some provided elegant solutions for challenging technical problems. Some were big and clumsy. Some were far too expensive. Some of were beautifully simple and radically affordable. But only a handful were capable of reaching a million or more customers who live on less than two dollars a day.

    If you succeed, against all odds, in designing a transformative radically affordable technology, you still have addressed only 25 % of the problem. The other 75% is marketing it effectively, which requires designing and implementing an effective branding, mass marketing and last mile distribution strategy.

    I have been blogging about this for the last couple of weeks. This week I look at more advanced ideas for Design for the Market which may be of interest to you.

    Paul Polak

  • BY Alice Johnson

    ON January 17, 2011 04:00 PM

    Fantastic arguments throughout.  This is exactly what I try to explain to my own web viewers.  That needs should ultimately inform design.  Affordability is also a major factor obviously, but it all boils down to same basic issues. 

    Interesting how Tim Brown is applying the design thinking approach to the nonprofit sector and social entrepreneurship.  - I think that the real benefit of applying design thinking in social innovations is the up-scaling effect. By engaging people through design thinking process you will get a very powerful group of people for the implementation. Design thinking is at the same time about involvement, empowerment and engagement. All the driving forces we need for the change.

    Thanks Again,
    Alice Johnson

  • BY Eric Storm

    ON February 1, 2011 02:04 PM

    I am really enjoying seeing “design” having a more central role in how people go about their lives and work.  It seems indicative of a larger shift from form and tradition, beyond goals and excellence, to process and meaning.  As the world becomes more complex, our ability to handle complexity necessitates the development of new tools and ways of seeing the world.  Social technologies (the real software, not the hardware!) are developing, and a design perspective and approach can only help make them better.

  • Joao Vasconcellos's avatar

    BY Joao Vasconcellos

    ON March 3, 2011 09:57 PM

    Putting a bunch of designers on a project, designers who are not working closely with the recipients of the system/technology and not making an indepth effort to understand the process they had to manage just isn’t going to work. Or it could work as part of a very iterative, ergo expensive, process.
    I’m thinking of IDEO’s work on a particular project.
    Maybe it’s “People/Places/Processes Thinking” not “Design Thinking.”

  • Findlay Robertson's avatar

    BY Findlay Robertson

    ON March 6, 2011 02:18 PM

    I am going to try and make myself visible through the obvious spam on this page and provide some relative commentary. I found this article at a pristine time as I have just begun to look in to a project that started at Burning Man called The Flutter Tunnel. Artist Bland Hoke was commissioned for the project and created a solar powered art display with contributions going towards social change in third world countries. I know that the New School at Parsons recently created a program for these kind of ‘artists’ and I am looking forward to seeing the developments. Here is a link to the flutter tunnel project:

  • Anitha Gopalan's avatar

    BY Anitha Gopalan

    ON March 21, 2011 12:02 PM

    Working with the team of IDEO was an amazing experience during my stint as Sales Innovations Manager at VisionSpring. In fact, IDEO took team VisionSpring through a systematic process of ideation and implementation to achieve our objectve of exploring various means to cater to the young customers in need of eye-glasses.The Human Centred Design was a great tool which helped us follow a specific process in actually translating innovation into a system, process or strategy.
    The Human Centred Design and the various concepts of IDEO has much wider scope extending beyond the realms of innovative social enterprises!

  • Kirsten Sims's avatar

    BY Kirsten Sims

    ON January 5, 2012 01:01 PM

    I hope that everyone everywhere reads this article.

  • This is a great read! Really appreciate the work and philosophy of IDEO. We can definitely use the points raised in the article for future endeavors with non profits here in Africa.

  • BY Elisabeth

    ON October 5, 2012 07:22 AM

    I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your blog. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it
    much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often.

    Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Superb work!

  • BY Mohammed

    ON July 18, 2013 11:58 AM

    Hi there! Someone in my Facebook group shared this site with us so I came to check it out.
    I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m bookmarking
    and will be tweeting this to my followers! Outstanding blog and wonderful
    style and design.

  • Judelaine Ramirez Catalano's avatar

    BY Judelaine Ramirez Catalano

    ON July 30, 2014 08:04 AM

    The “Design Thinking” is truly an innovative approach that can be applied to any task by leveraging on the variety of culture, background and expertise of the people you work with. This requires emotional, social and cultural intelligence. It takes an open-mind and a collaborative attitude to build on the ideas of others instead of sticking to the traditional ways of doing things. The academe will benefit a lot with this approach. It is time for us to tailor fit our curricula and make it more empathetic to the learning needs of the students to substantially equip them to the ever changing and competitive industries that they will be working for.

  • I wish that everyone everywhere flows this content.

  • Amazing justifications throughout.  This is exactly what I try to describe to my own web audiences.  That needs should eventually notify style.  Budget is also a significant component obviously, but it all depends upon same primary problems.

  • We need to be loaded with the components that cause to alternatives rather than being overwhelmed by treatments that not perform. I’d be enthusiastic about listening to what other people are doing in trying to develop style considering concepts into their perform. Thanks for the content. Well value a study. The IDEO tool set is also very useful for getting previous hurdles individually and with groups. source:


    ON March 16, 2015 11:07 PM


    My name is Irak López and I am the Director of the mexican e-Government Magazine PUNTOGOB (

    Our next number is about Innovation and we liked very much your article “Design Thinking for Social Innovation”
    So, we want to ask you if we can publish the article in PUNTOGOB (with corresponding credits).

    Thank you very much.

    Best regards.


Leave a Comment


Please enter the word you see in the image below:


SSIR reserves the right to remove comments it deems offensive or inappropriate.