With applications ranging from urban planning to product development, a design thinking approach lies at the root of some of our most successful products and platforms, from Uber and Apple to philanthropic organizations Acumen and New York Cares. Design thinking can create intuitive, enjoyable user experiences.

Talking to users yields important clues about what they’re looking for in a product or experience. But does the open-ended, meandering process of design thinking have application within the time-sensitive L&D?

In a word, yes. Too often, an L&D client orders a deliverable in response to a time-sensitive event—a product launch, a cohort of new hires who need to be trained, or an updated incentive program—instead of talking through what learners may need, given their prior knowledge, competencies, and informational and technological literacy. As L&D professionals, our impulse is to jump in and meet our client’s demand; however, we add more value when we build into the instructional design process time to engage learners in open-ended conversations.

This first step in the design thinking process—the empathize phase—has three key benefits that will resonate with learners and clients.

Empathizing helps us create authentic, accessible learning. The old adage that we teach the way we were taught holds true, especially under pressure. That’s probably why, against our better judgment, our web-based training resembles textbooks: small print, bulleted lists, and an occasional static image. These design choices limit our audience to those who learn successfully from traditional materials. If our learners have been hired for hands-on, interpersonal, or less-specialized roles, reading about skills may not serve them.

For example, a new call center employee learning how to redirect a frustrated customer should observe an expert’s diction and intonation. He may not have the literacy skills to imagine a live conversation from onscreen text. He may be better served by a video and job aid with de-escalating phrases in a legible font size that he can reference immediately.

When we empathize with our learners, we meet them where they are: at their desks, on the phones, or on the sales floor—and we help them solve real problems. When we ignore their needs—or worse, bemoan the skills they lack—we set them up for failure. Empathizing helps show respect for learners’ time. Learners’ needs differ based on job role, readiness, tenure, and even geographical region. Targeting our learning recommendations to a range of learner personas helps us create authentic and useful deliverables that make informed assumptions about what our learners know. A veteran accountant may not need to complete an entire series of compliance courses every year when there are only minor changes to her organization’s reporting procedures. However, a new college graduate just beginning his accounting career would likely require a more robust learning path.

Rather than pile deliverables onto a generic learning path, we should respect the needs of both learners and businesses by removing employees from their job responsibilities only when necessary. This awareness is particularly critical in developing training programs for sales staff: Time away from the sales floor generates losses for both the learners and business.

Empathizing may mean advocating against a deliverable. A commitment to helping clients and learners save time and money means that we sometimes recommend against creating a deliverable when we don’t believe it will boost the business or be useful to learners. That may mean that we propose announcing a product launch via an internal social media group rather than a mandatory web-based training program, or we devise a job aid rather than a cumbersome binder to help new hires navigate their first week on the job.

Empathy helps us make recommendations based on our understanding of our client and our learners. When we establish ourselves as advocates for both, our clients become more willing to take that first risk and try a different approach.

We shouldn’t only make training solutions. If we’re to transition successfully from traditional L&D into learner experience design, we need to engage learners in an ongoing dialogue. What content are they responding to and even purchasing? What do they need, and when do they need it?

Although we like to believe we have the answers—or at least a solid hypothesis about what the answers are likely to be—there is strength in inviting uncertainty into L&D by exploring the ever-evolving learners’ needs. Design thinking secures our profession by creating a context in which we continually disrupt our own established practices rather than being disrupted—or replaced— from outside.

PRO/CON

Design thinking, as a method for solving problems in L&D, can be inherently risky to your team or project. As with any tool or approach, the risk arises when the practitioner or team doesn’t understand how to use it or the limitations of doing so. Design thinking is no exception. However, you can control the risk with the power of knowledge and understanding.

Design thinking is currently in an identity crisis with a lack of universal understanding for what exactly it is. Depending on the publication or source, there are countless contradictory descriptions about what design thinking is and isn’t, so much so that I have questioned even my own understanding. The lack of clarity leaves the definition open to interpretation, thus introducing bias, subjectivity, and falsifications.

Design thinking touts the promise of offering creative problem solving through a prescribed step-by-step process that anyone can use for any problem. But design thinking is not a one-size-fits-all problem-solving process. While it is true that any industry can apply design thinking to its problems, not all problems require a design thinking methodology.

Additionally, design thinking has turned into a commoditized product with a quick-fix process that teams use to demonstrate how innovative they are. The issue, again, is that design thinking is neither a quick fix nor a process. By definition, a process is a series of repeatable steps in a predictable order leading to consistent outcomes. By nature, design thinking will not lead to consistent outcomes, given that each problem is likely unique. Design thinking has turned into a buzzword like L&D predecessors before it, such as curation, microlearning, and gamification. Conducting a brainstorming exercise does not indicate you are applying design thinking and doesn’t necessarily drive an innovative solution.

So, what then is design thinking?

As a design thinking practitioner, I would describe it as an approach to problem solving based on human-centered design practices. The design practices are easily applicable, flexible, nonlinear, and iterative, drawing all focus on the end user. The framework encourages curious and empathetic understanding while aiming to identify and prioritize uncovered opportunities. Design thinking provides a common vocabulary and incorporates tools that designers use, putting it into context for nondesigners.

But that’s it. It won’t solve every problem. It won’t make you creative. It doesn’t make you a designer. In fact, many argue design thinking does a disservice by oversimplifying design. The framework of design thinking is often confused with the practice of design. In the end, design thinking is the designer’s way of working, and nondesigners can adopt it.

Design thinking is not a standalone framework for success. You may need to meet other conditions to recognize value. For example, implementing a design thinking initiative may require corporate compatibility, such as leadership support of design thinking, openness and willingness to support and implement new ideas, or the trust and freedom to speak openly during the process.

During the past few years, an influx of design thinking courses have surfaced, capitalizing and perpetuating the continued inconsistent promise of what design thinking can offer. These courses introduce learners to a theoretical approach to design thinking but are limiting, with an evidence-based approach on the application and value.

Following a three-month course at a reputable educational institution, I was awarded a certificate anointing me with the title of design thinking practitioner. One problem ensued—I had no idea how to apply my theory-based learning. I was fortunate enough to be involved with a local design thinking community of practice, connecting me with practitioners who guided me through my first initiative. The community of practice provided me an opportunity and environment to question and critique, enabling me to grow in my practice. Simply investing in a training course is not enough. Design thinking requires a larger adoption of the philosophy and mindset as well as application of learning. Having a supported environment to apply the learning is imperative.

The best way to help L&D professionals harness the potential value of design thinking is to learn about it, question it, and then apply it. As it stands now, the value of design thinking is subjective to the practitioner’s understanding and potentially applying some discrete activities during a workshop. But the value should increase as you adopt a mindset that is focused on the end user and understanding that design thinking simply is one tool to embrace that mindset.