Science, engineering and design thinking use different approaches to gaining knowledge or solving problems. I have explored the question of what constitutes each way of working and what the different disciplines can learn from each other. For me, the different ways of working complement each other very well and each discipline has great advantages but also blind spots.
This is not meant to be an objective or complete comparison. I studied engineering and worked in industry for 9 years. During that time, I always came into contact with scientific working methods as well. Today, I rather use design thinking to solve problems and this article reflects my subjective experience. I will also draw comparisons to the planning of a mountain tour for better comprehensibility.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
The way of working
Design Thinking is a method for problem solving that focuses very comprehensively on the user. The procedure in clearly defined steps therefore also starts with precisely understanding the problem from the user’s point of view and then defining the problem broadly enough to enable an optimal solution that is as simple as possible. In doing so, emphasis is placed on a holistic view. Ideas for solving the problem are deliberately collected and assessed later. Furthermore, it is also part of the method to test the solution with the user as early as possible and to improve it iteratively.
Engineers usually want to develop a solution to a complex technical problem. The exact nature of the solution is usually secondary and the way to get there is usually quite free, i.e. it does not follow a rigid method. The complexity of the problem and the interrelationships usually only need to be understood to the extent that they are important for the solution. The point of most engineering disciplines is not to understand every detail of the system. It is enough if the reaction/function of a system is understood. Systems that are too complex are simplified by making assumptions or neglecting variables. Complicated systems are broken down into several parts that can be worked on individually.
The working method in the (western) natural sciences is different again and also follows stricter rules. In general, the goal is to generate new knowledge and, if necessary, to explore an object in great detail. Accordingly, it usually has to be dissected. Functionality and interrelationships are to be understood precisely. Work is done by setting up a hypothesis and then testing it, or by looking for a pattern. Depending on the case, this knowledge is later developed further in practical applications.
Commonalities
All three working methods have in common the systematic, analytical procedure in steps. However, the exact procedure is defined in varying degrees of detail. In addition to this structured procedure, other skills such as creativity, recognising connections or good communication are also necessary.
The goal is to have implemented a solution in the end.
And in both design thinking and engineering, the goal is to have implemented a solution in the end. That means a project starts from the analysis and lasts in any case until the implementation or optimisation is completed. Part of this process in both cases is therefore to plan, visualise, experiment and iterate the solution.
Differences
One of the most important differences between the different approaches is the choice of system boundaries. Engineers like to set the system boundaries as tightly as possible and neglect certain influences generously in order to reduce the number of variables. In design thinking, the boundary is rather set as wide as necessary in order to also find or enable new solutions that have not been considered so far. Because the formulation of the task defines the space of possible solutions. Maybe on Monday a colleague asks me if I could organise a climbing tour for the weekend. Strictly speaking, however, the colleague primarily wants a nice experience in nature. With these two different tasks, completely different options arise – especially in the case of rainy weather. Defining the task and, if necessary, even extending the task at an early stage of the project can enable completely new solutions. For the users, these are either better or easier. And at the beginning of the project, this change of perspective is also possible without much effort. Opening one’s eyes to new kinds of solutions, however, can also mean that in individual cases one cannot contribute anything to the solution with one’s own skills and knowledge, but that other disciplines are needed. As a passionate climber, I might then no longer be able to lead a canoe trip at the weekend.
If you hold a hammer in your hand, every problem looks like a nail.
A second difference concerns the view of the problem or task. In design thinking, information about the problem from the user’s point of view is explicitly collected at the beginning and an overview is created. Then, in any case, you already have two perspectives on the same problem: that of the potential user and your own. If several people are interviewed, more perspectives and a holistic picture emerge. In different engineering disciplines I have experienced that too little attention was paid to the analysis of the problem and the influencing factors at the beginning or that not enough different perspectives were taken into consideration. Perhaps it is also due to the practical and solution-oriented nature of many engineers that want to start solving the problem immediately. They know that there are enough tasks waiting for them later, so they don’t want to waste time at the beginning. In the case of engineering problems, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the systems are usually complex and require very specific technical knowledge. With experts, unfortunately, it is often the case that if you hold a hammer in your hand, every problem looks like a nail. The danger here is that one pursues the first-best solution (jump to the conclusion). What was forgotten or not taken into account at the beginning can only be integrated later in the project with greater effort or not at all. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense, especially at the beginning of a project, to develop a holistic view of the project. In typical engineering projects, this can be done well in the context of a somewhat extended initial meeting, in which the perspectives of those involved are exchanged and a common understanding of the problem is developed(related blog article). In our example, once we are out with climbing gear, for example, we are no longer equipped for a long forest hike with a cave visit.
In Design Thinking, the focus is very much on the user and his or her needs right from the start. To do this, you have to engage with the other person in a curious and empathetic way and also record the findings straight away. It helps to approach the task as a beginner and not as an expert. During the process, it is then also a challenge to repeatedly question your own assumptions and needs and to put them aside and focus on the customer. It helps if this information is well documented. In various engineering disciplines I have experienced that engineers focus very much on the optimal solution from their own (technical) point of view. From a purely technical point of view, it may be the best possible, most versatile, most adaptable, cheapest or fastest solution. But it may not be the best solution for the customer if, for example, he does not understand it properly or cannot use/operate it. Here, the expert’s knowledge does not always help. But there is definitely a shift in thinking in this area and the focus on the user is becoming more and more important. On a mountain tour, it is also important to check the condition of the tour group on the way. Perhaps the day will be better remembered if you don’t continue the tour all the way to the summit, but turn back earlier and allow time for a swim in the mountain lake.
What can you learn from each other?
- At the beginning of the project, the system boundaries should be defined more broadly and the problem should be viewed more holistically in order to enable new solutions. These solutions can also quickly be discarded. But later, a new solution can only be considered with great effort.
- At the beginning, look at the problem from different perspectives and examine influencing factors. These should be recorded and are a valuable aid to decision-making later in the project.
- Regularly focus on the user. Listen at the beginning and see the world from the user’s or customer’s shoes (as a beginner and not as an expert). Later, test the solution with the user as early as possible so that it really solves the customer’s problem and not simply implement the best technical solution or one of the possible solutions.
- Simplify and decompose the problem – what can be dealt with separately and what can be left out altogether? When do we need to stop again to make a decision or put the pieces together?
For me, the different ways of working complement each other very well and each discipline has great advantages but also blind spots. There is a symbiosis when design thinking is applied in engineering or when engineering techniques are used in design thinking. The structured approach of science and the creation and testing of hypotheses are also always very helpful. As these are different ways of thinking and working, it is helpful to distribute the different functions among different people. It is often sufficient to work with an external person for special steps at the beginning and during a project. Then one person can keep the necessary overview and support the process so that the professionals can concentrate on the content and decisions. In this way, the symbiosis can be used in the best possible way and both ways of working can contribute their advantages and special features.
Business model Business model innovation Coaching Collaboration Consulting Continuous Improvement Corporate culture Corporate development Corporate development Design Thinking Efficiency Find your WHY Flow Innovation Involve employees Knowledge Method Motivation Product Innovation Purpose Satisfied employees Sinn Strategy Sustainability Tools Tools