Design Thinking: An Overview
Georgi V. Georgiev
Kobe University
Abstract
predominant viewpoints on design thinking, paying particular
This study provides an overview of the current state of design
attention to the perspective of design research and design
thinking. Through a review of the literature, the paper surveys
education.
the basic viewpoints of design thinking, paying particular
Thus, this paper consists of two parts. The first part discusses the
attention to the perspective of design research and design
design-thinking paradigm. The second focuses on the methods
education. Two viewpoints are discussed: the “analysis of
currently employed to teach design thinking. Essentially, with
design” viewpoint and the “human-centered problem solving”
this structure, this paper aims to provide up-to-date guidelines
one. The necessity of design thinking to be conceptualized
for teaching design thinking and developing courses on design
and taught in an effective and practical way has been pointed
thinking from the viewpoint of design education.
out. Furthermore, the teaching of design thinking should be
comprehensive and attempt to develop design-thinking skills
2. Design thinking paradigm
to the fullest. Finally, education in design thinking can be seen
2.1. Bases of design thinking
as an indispensable research “ground” for understanding and
Design thinking can be described as a paradigm, rather than an
enhancing human creativity and innovation in a wide range of
example of a method or a methodology. Understanding of the
fields.
design thinking paradigm is rooted in the analysis of designers’
thinking process. This process has long been in the focus of
1. Introduction
research efforts to analyze design activities (Lawson, 1980;
1.1. Design thinking method
Cross, 1982; Lawson, 2004).
Design thinking—that is, how designers think—has long
Thus, the design thinking paradigm includes explicating the
been a topic of research and education in the field of design
specific approach applied by designers in addressing (or
(Lawson, 1980; Rowe, 1987; Cross, 1990; Goldschmidt, 1994;
providing answers to) the issues in their work (designing). This
Cross et al., 1996; Dorst, 2010), and more recently, outside
paradigm extends further and includes how the knowledge
this field too (Kelley, 2001). Design thinking has been studied
of such an approach, applied by designers, can be provided,
and approached from different standpoints (Cross et al., 1996;
taught, and applied in addressing (or providing answers to)
Lawson, 2004; Badke-Schaub et al., 2010), and is strongly
further issues. Such issues are regarded as “wicked problems”
supported as being applicable even outside the design context
(see Buchanan (1992) and Rittel (1972) previously) or “ill
(Brown, 2008). However, design thinking as a method has not
structured problems” (Simon, 1973). Following the notion that
been well conceptualized (Dorst, 2010).
among general problems, there are many “wicked” ones, the
In attempt to clarify the existing knowledge of design thinking
application of design thinking outside the context of design led
and systematize how it can be taught, this paper overviews the
to the creation of different viewpoints on design thinking itself.
current research on design thinking.
2.2. Discourses on design thinking
1.2. Focus and aim
The term of “design thinking,” which was used explicitly in the
This paper focuses on the answers of the following questions:
late 1970s and 1980s, was preceded by a more ambiguous
(1) What is design thinking from the viewpoint of design?
concept that can be traced back to the 1960s. According to
(2) What kind of teaching methods are commonly used for
the interviews of design professionals conducted by Hassi &
education on design thinking?
Through a review of the literature, the paper overviews
72
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
Laakso (2011), the roots of the term design thinking emerged in
the late 1960s. The concept of design thinking is explicitly used
by Lawson (1980) and was developed by Cross (1982) and
design viewpoint and a human-centered problem solving
Schön (1983). It became the title of a book by Rowe, published
viewpoint, respectively. The two viewpoints and the evolution
in 1987.
of their understanding (definitions) are shown in Table 1.
Design thinking includes at least two key viewpoints—that of
Badke-Schaub et al. (2010) discusses the different viewpoints
the designer (or design researcher) and that of the decision
as follows:
makers. Melles clarifies these viewpoints as follows:
“The traditional design thinking approach has meanwhile
“The term design thinking has two current meanings –the study
produced a broad research history but has to cope with
of the practices of working designers—the other meaning
its fragmented variety of empirical results, due to a lack of
refers to the human-centred ‘open’ problem solving process
theoretical integration; the new view on design thinking as
decision makers use to solve real world ‘wicked’ problems.”
management strategy is not grounded on empirical studies
(Melles, 2010, p.299)
or evaluations and suffers from an ambitious and too general
Further, Badke-Schaub et al. (2010) describes this difference
concept. Both approaches could gain from each other in
in viewpoints as the “traditional design thinking approach” and
different ways.” (Badke-Schaub et al., 2010, p. 39)
the “new design thinking movement.” For the purposes of the
These differences in viewpoints raise the question of what is
present research, we term these viewpoints an analysis of
covered by the term “design thinking.”
Table 1. Development of the viewpoints on design thinking
Authors
Analysis of design viewpoint on design
thinking
Human-centred problem solving viewpoint on
design thinking
Stewart (2011)
“Strategies for addressing ‘ill-structured’ and
‘wicked’ problems; an identification originally
made by thinkers within the Design Methods
movement”
“A tool to aid in the navigation of transition
(in this case a transition in the selfunderstanding, as well as in the operative
strategies, of disciplines)”
Hassi & Laakso (2011)
“Cognitive styles, methods of thinking and
processing information”
“Practices, thinking styles and mentality”
Badke-Schaub et al. (2010)
“The traditional design thinking approach;”
“Design thinking as the as sequence
of operations and structured pattern of
processes”
“The new design thinking movement;”
“Design thinking as innovation and
transformation process for:
• disruptive innovation to gain competitive
advantage on the global market
• to design systems or dealing with abstract
problems such as services
• human-/user-centered”
Melles (2010)
“The study of the practices of working
designers;” “Abductive, wicked and
synthetic”
“The human-centred ‘open’ problem solving
process decision makers use to solve real
world ‘wicked’ problems”
Cross (2010)
“Encompasses many forms of thinking and
intelligence;” “Skilled, educated practice of
designing”
Dorst (2010)
“Design thinking is characterized with a kind
of abduction process that provide a frame
for the connection of ‘how’ and ‘value’ in the
equation: ’what’ plus ‘how’ leads to ‘value’,
when ‘what’ and ‘how’ entities are unknown”
“Providing organizations with frameworks of
‘how’ leads to ‘value’ in unknown equitation:
’what’ plus ‘how’ leads to ‘value’”
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
73
Johansson &
Woodilla (2010)
“Design discourse;” “The way designers think as they
work”
Brown & Wyatt (2010)
“Aimed at consumer insights in depth.
Design thinking is inherently optimistic,
constructive, and experiential;” “Social
challenges require systemic solutions
that are grounded in the client’s or
customer’s needs”
Brown (2009)
“A discipline that uses the designer’s
sensibility and methods to match
people’s needs with what is
technologically feasible and what a
viable business strategy can convert
into customer value and market
opportunity”
Kelley (2006)
“The Design Process specifies
procedures which seek creative
success through providing a client with
innovative and unique design solutions
to a defined project, done on rational
grounds, through an agreed-upon
process”
Dym et al. (2005)
“Design thinking reflects the complex processes of
inquiry and learning that designers perform in a systems
context, making decisions as they proceed, often
working collaboratively on teams in a social process, and
“speaking” several languages with each other (and to
themselves)”
Lawson (2004)
“‘Framing’ process is an important and central feature
of design thinking;” “‘Moving’ phase of design thinking;”
Memory has role in understanding design thinking
Taura et al. (2002)
Design activities beyond “framework of problem solving;”
problem-solving process includes “Awareness of the
problem, Suggestion, Development, Evaluation, and
Conclusion”
Kelley (2001)
74
“Management discourse;” “Method for
innovation and creating value”
“Continuously refined methodology”
comprising the steps: “Understand,
Observe, Visualize, Evaluate and refine,
and Implement”
Oxman (1999)
“Thinking processes employing both visual and
conceptual knowledge;” “Fundamental dialectic process
of design thinking;” “Emergence of conscious access to
knowledge structures;” “The interaction between visual
and conceptual content in global strategies of design
thinking”
Buchanan (1992)
“Design thinking is wicked problem approach;” “Design
problems are “indeterminate” and “wicked” because
design has no special subject matter of its own apart from
what a designer conceives it to be. The subject matter of
design is potentially universal in scope, because design
thinking may be applied to any area of human experience”
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
Cross (1990)
“Produce novel unexpected solutions, tolerate uncertainty,
work with incomplete information, apply imagination
and constructive forethought to practical problems and
use drawings and other modelling media as a means of
problem solving;” “Must be able to resolve ill-defined
problems, adopt solution focusing strategies, employ
abductive/productive/appositional thinking and use nonverbal, graphic and spatial modeling media”
Rowe (1987, p. 34)
“Design thinking” is essential method that have specific
“style of inquiry” and “nature”:
• movement back and forth between exploration and
evaluation
• periodic unfettered speculation
• “dialogue” between designer and situation
• final less pronounced episodic character
Schön (1983)
“How professionals think in action;” “Reflective
practitioner”; “Reflection in action;” “Reflective
conversation with the situation”
Cross (1982)
“Designerly ways of knowing;” “Design has its own things
to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out
about them”
Lawson(1980)
“How designers think;” “The centre of design thinking, for
the way in which the designer chooses to shift attention
from one part of the problem to another is central to the
design strategy”
Simon (1969)
“Theory of thinking;” “Thinking how it adapts itself,
through individual learning and social transmission of
knowledge, to the requirements of the task environment;”
“Use of representations in thinking”
3. Analysis of design thinking
• practices
The scope of the term “design thinking” can be summarized
• structured pattern of processes
as follows.
• cognitive styles and methods of processing information
According to more than three decades of research on the topic
• strategies for addressing “ill-structured” and “wicked”
(see Table 1, columns 2 and 3), the designer-specific approach
problems
(may) include the following:
These points are not exhaustive, but nevertheless give an
• shifting attention to parts of the problem
idea of the diversity in the understanding of design thinking
• way of knowing
from a historical perspective. Because of the ambiguous
• reflective thinking in action
and constantly evolving nature of design thinking, it seems
• periodic and dialog style of inquiry
impossible to provide a conclusive description of its scope.
• use of various specific types of thinking and media
Consequently, the question now arises as to how the knowledge
• wicked problems approach
of the design thinking approach can be provided, taught, and
• abduction with unknown entities
applied.
• activities beyond framework of problem solving
• encompassing many types of skills and intelligence
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
75
Authors
The aims/goals of the teaching design thinking
Essential requirements for teaching design thinking
Melles (2010)
“A project-oriented semester long course with
relevant readings and mid-point assessment
of projects, outcomes and aims to expand the
designerly basis of undergraduate designers”
Moreover:
• Form a part of a broader base of foundation
studies for such students
• Need for a mixture of project work and readings
in curriculum design
• Address real world problems
Reports, mini-tests and presentations on:
“Applying design thinking strategies and concepts
to real-world problems” via “Developing expertise
in the framing and solution of real world problems
using design thinking;” “Developing expertise in
the range of tools and methods used to solve such
problems and demonstrate this;” “Communicating
design thinking applied to a specific context in the
public setting.” Moreover:
• Combined human-oriented, service-scoped
designerly outcomes
• Milestones through the semester stage the
process and feedback possibilities
• Projects undertaken by groups of students in
on-campus locations, where human, space and
product innovations are required
• Embracing all issues and follows a process
Dym et al. (2005)
Developing thinking about designing systems in the
following:
1) Thinking about system dynamics
2) Reasoning about uncertainty
3) Making estimates
4) Conducting experiments
“Effectively implementing project-based design
education;” “New approaches are needed to
assess the underlying theme of design learning for
both emerging paradigms of design thinking and
new modalities of design pedagogy”
Oxman (2004)
Cognitive-based teaching approaches in design
education:
• Have to treat “the cognitive processes of design
thinking as a form of
• explicit teaching content”
• “Teach how to construct knowledge related to
designs, or designing”
• “Use of appropriate representations of concepts,
conceptual structures, and conceptual
knowledge”
“The student functions as a design researcher
while learning about design, in addition to how
to design;” “Build a conceptual understanding
of the knowledge domain;” “The acquisition and
the construction of the body of concepts from
precedents is considered as means to demonstrate
and facilitate meaningful learning”
Oxman (1999)
Aims at cognitive orientation to design reasoning as
a foundation of design learning. “Cognitive design
media:”
The approach is “based upon the student’s
exploration of the design problem’s conceptual
space and the formulation of knowledge structures
which are related to potential solution spaces”
“Reflection on the problem in the medium of
conceptual drawings;” “Definition of the distinction
between the interactive modes of visual reasoning
and design ideation;” “The interaction between
student and tutor becomes more of a participatory
process in which the articulation of principle during
the dialectical process of design becomes the
responsibility of the tutor as an articulator of the
values and issues which motivate changes in the
subsequent stages of the design representation as
a process of search”
Table 2. Practices of teaching design thinking
76
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
Figure 1. Think map of characteristics of design thinking education
4. Analysis of the practices used in teaching design
thinking
milestones, and feedbacks; human, space, and product
innovations; and an all-embracing perspective.
Research on the practices used in teaching design thinking,
Teaching divergent inquiry in design thinking, Dym et al. (2005)
however, is surprisingly scarce. Table 2 provides a list of
defines thinking about designing systems as having the following
some notable studies on teaching design thinking, providing a
steps of thinking about system dynamics: reasoning about
timeline of the research on teaching design thinking in general.
uncertainty, making estimates, and conducting experiments.
4.1. Teaching methods for design thinking
These two examples are effectively implemented in project-
Pedagogical frameworks for teaching design thinking need to
based design.
be developed. Teaching approaches addressing some of the
Furthermore, new approaches are needed to assess the
aspects of design thinking described above (Oxman, 2004) or
underlying theme of design learning for both the emerging
models of teaching design thinking exist. Currently, project-
paradigms of design thinking and new modalities of design
based learning (PBL), which was explored by Dym et al. (2005),
pedagogy (Dym et al., 2005). Oxman (2004) discusses cognitive-
is the most favored of these for teaching design thinking.
based teaching approaches in design education. The cognitive
Melles (2010) describes a newly developed design thinking
processes of design thinking have to be treated as explicit
university course as “a project-oriented semester long
content of teaching, focusing on how to construct knowledge
course with relevant readings and mid-point assessment of
related to designing or the object of design (Table 2). Moreover,
projects, outcomes and aims to expand the designerly basis
a means of demonstrating and facilitating meaningful learning
of undergraduate designers” (Table 2). Moreover, this course is
could be to build a conceptual understanding aimed at the
characterized by a broader base of foundation studies for such
acquisition and construction of a body of concepts from their
students, a curriculum combining project work and reading, and
precedents (ibid).
attempts to address real-world problems. Emphasis is placed
Programs focus on training students on how to create
on combined human-oriented service-scoped outcomes,
innovative services or products, particularly systematic and
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
77
team-based idea creation, exploring the viewpoint of users,
for reflection (of own activities) and skills, relationships with
idea sharing using prototypes, and the development of effective
patterns and structures, a focus on practice, and attempts
communication to express the ideas (Ishii et al., 2009). The
to wicked (uncertain, ill-structured) problems (Figure 1).
three steps of “understanding,” “creating,” and “realizing” have
Consequently, a key question arises: how can such skills and
been considered indispensable for the attainment of in-depth
knowledge be taught?
understanding of humanity and society, idea and prototype
Applications of the teaching of the design thinking approach
development, and truly feasible strategic planning, through
are sought in the following areas:
team-based collaboration (i.school Annual Report, 2011, p. 2).
• Design education (Dym et al., 2005; Melles et al., 2012)
These characteristics of learning indicate the goal of education
• Other types of education (e.g., management (Skaggs et al.,
on design thinking—enhancing creativity.
2009))
Thus, this learning should engage design students’ inner
In recent years, differences in discourses on design thinking
senses and emotions (Taura & Nagai, 2011). As design thinking
have been increasingly discussed (Badke-Schaub et al., 2010;
depends on the inner senses of the designer, it relates also to
Stewart, 2011). However, the common target is teaching design
the designer’s motivation (Taura & Nagai, 2012).
thinking.
4.2. Guidelines for courses on design thinking
Therefore, the future challenge in design thinking is to provide
An overview of some of the first courses on design thinking
a concise theoretical and practical framework for design
can be found in Melles (2010). The newly developed course on
thinking to be taught effectively. Design thinking needs to be
design thinking has the following key characteristics:
established as a discipline in the future, a discipline that plays a
• “Majority of readings still employing design-oriented texts”
fundamental role in learning about and addressing unstructured
• Lectures “focus on design and innovation issues”
real-world problems.
• “Degree project work and industry involvement varies with the
level of the course—undergraduate or postgraduate”
• “Use of visualisation tools and other strategies, including
prototyping, familiar to design students”
6. Conclusions
First, design thinking should be clearly conceptualized and
taught in an effective and practical way. The teaching of design
The course is focus on application of design to resolve wicked
thinking should embrace all aspects of design and attempt
problems, and requires students to come up with practical
to develop design-thinking skills to the fullest. Reduction or
user-oriented solutions to such problems.
simplification of the approach of design thinking usually greatly
Furthermore, a systematic understanding of the features
reduces its effectiveness.
of the concept generation process (Taura et al., 2012), and
Next, further research efforts are needed to develop design
approaches that can be employed in reflecting on one’s own
thinking methods and practices by conducting studies in the
design activities (Nagai et al., 2011) should be incorporated in
design thinking classroom. Such an opportunity can be obtained
courses on design thinking.
owing to the inherent features of the approach as (self- and
4.3. Practice outside the framework of design
team-) reflective and by providing sufficient representations of
The human-centered problem solving approach has been used
the occurred processes (e.g. sketches, think maps etc.). Hence,
to tackle social challenges that require systemic solutions, and
design thinking, specifically education in design thinking, can be
that are grounded in the client’s or customer’s needs (Brown &
seen as an indispensible research “ground” for understanding
Wyatt, 2010). Such practices are used with an intention to gain
and enhancing human creativity and innovation in a wide range
in-depth consumer understanding through design thinking,
of fields.
which is an inherently optimistic, constructive, and experiential
process that relies on local expertise.
5. Discussion
The main characteristics of the approach can be summarized
as including certain logic (abduction), inquiry (style of), a need
78
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
References
Badke-Schaub, P., Roozenburg, N., & Cardoso, C., (2010)
Design Thinking: A paradigm on its way from dilution to
meaninglessness?, Ed. by Dorst, K., Stewart, S., Staudinger, I.,
Paton, B., & Dong, A., Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking
Research Symposium (DTRS8) Interpreting Design Thinking,
Sydney, 19-20 October, pp. 39-49.
Brown, T., (2009) Change by Design: How Design Thinking
Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J., (2010) Design Thinking for Social
Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2010,
31-35.
Buchanan, R., (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking,
Design issues, 8(2), pp. 5-21.
Cross, N., (1982) Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies,
3(4), pp. 221-227.
Cross, N., (1990) The nature and nurture of design ability.
Design Studies, 11(3), pp. 127-140.
Cross, N., (2010) Design Thinking as a Form of Intelligence, Ed.
by Dorst, K., Stewart, S., Staudinger, I., Paton, B., & Dong, A.,
Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium
(DTRS8) Interpreting Design Thinking, Sydney, 19-20 October,
pp. 99-105.
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K., (1996) (Eds.), Analysing
design activity, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Dorst, K., (2010) The Nature of Design Thinking, Ed. by
Dorst, K., Stewart, S., Staudinger, I., Paton, B., & Dong, A.,
Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium
(DTRS8) Interpreting Design Thinking, Sydney, 19-20 October,
pp. 131-139.
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D., & Leifer, L.J.,
(2005) Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning,
Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), pp. 103-120.
Goldschmidt, G., (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis kids
of architecture, Design studies, 15(2), pp. 158-174.
Hassi, L., & Laakso, M., (2011) Conceptions of design thinking
in the design and management discourses: Open questions
and possible directions for research. Proceedings of the
IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, 31
Oct. - 4 Nov, TU-Delft, the Netherlands.
i.school Annual Report, (2011) Annual Report 2011-12 of
i.school of The University of Tokyo, Retrieved from http://
ischool.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/file/annualreport2011.zip
Ishii, K., de Weck, O., Haruyama, S., Maeno, T., Kim, S.,
& Fowler, W., (2009) Active Learning Project Sequence:
Capstone Experience for Multi- Disciplinary System Design and
Management Education, Proceedings of the 17th International
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’09), California, USA,
Vol. 10, pp. 57-68.
Johansson, U., & Woodilla, J., (2010) How to avoid throwing the
baby out with the bath water: An ironic perspective on design
thinking. EGOS Colloquim 2010, 30 June 30 - 3 July, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Kelly, D., (2006) Design Thinking. Retrived from http://www.
extrememediastudies.org/extreme_media/1_navigating/pdf/
navigating_design_thinking.pdf
Kelly, T., (2001) The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from
IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, Crown Publishing Group.
Lawson, B., (1980) How Designers Think: The Design Process
Demystified. London, Architectural Press.
Lawson, B., (2004) What Designers Know. London, Architectural
Press.
Melles, G., (2010) Curriculum Design Thinking: A New Name for
Old Ways of Thinking and Practice?, Ed. by Dorst, K., Stewart,
S., Staudinger, I., Paton, B., Dong, A., Proceedings of the 8th
Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8) Interpreting
Design Thinking, Sydney, 19-20 October, pp. 299-308.
Melles, G., & Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S., (2012)
Teaching Design Thinking: Expanding Horizons in Design
Education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31,
pp.162-166.
Nagai, Y., Taura, T., & Sano, K., (2011) Research Methodology
for the Internal Observation of Design Thinking through the
Creative Self-formation Process, Design Creativity 2010, T.
Taura, & Y. Nagai, (Eds.), London, Springer, pp. 215-222.
Oxman, R., (1999) Educating the designerly thinker, Design
Studies, 20, 105-122.
Oxman, R., (2004) Think-maps: teaching design thinking in
design education, Design Studies, 25, pp. 63–91.
Rittel, H., (1972) On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of
the ‘First and Second Generations’, Bedriftskonomen, 8, pp.
390-396.
Rowe, P.G., (1987) Design thinking. The MIT Press, The
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action. New York, Basic Books.
Simon, H.A., (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge,
MIT Press.
Simon, H.A., (1973) The structure of ill structured problems,
Artificial Intelligence, 4 (3-4), pp. 181-201.
Skaggs, P., Fry R., & Howell, B., (2009) Design Thinking, ICSID
conference 2009.
Stewart, S.C., (2011) Interpreting Design Thinking, Editorial,
Design Studies, 32(6), pp. 515-520.
Taura, T., & Nagai, Y., (2011) Discussion on Direction of Design
Creativity Research (Part 1) - New Definition of Design and
Creativity: Beyond the Problem solving Paradigm. In Design
Creativity 2010, T. Taura, & Y. Nagai, (Eds.), London, Springer,
pp. 3-8.
Taura, T., & Nagai, Y., (2012) Concept Generation for Design
Creativity: A Systematized Theory and Methodology. London:
Springer.
Taura, T., Yamamoto, E., Fasiha, M.Y.N., Goka, M., Mukai, M.,
Nagai, Y., & Nakashima, H., (2012) Constructive simulation
of creative concept generation process in design: a research
method for difficult-to-observe design-thinking processes,
Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23, Issue 4, pp. 297-321.
Taura, T., Yoshimi, T., & Ikai, T., (2002) Study of gazing points
in design situation: A proposal and practice of an analytical
method based on the explanation of design activities, Design
Studies, 23(2), pp. 165-185.
デザイン学研究特集号 / デザイン思考 Design Thinking
Special Issue of Japanese Society for the Science of Design
Vol.20-1 No.77 2012
79