{"id":163,"date":"2016-01-30T20:57:08","date_gmt":"2016-01-30T19:57:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.rwth-aachen.de\/designthinking\/?p=163"},"modified":"2016-01-30T21:18:29","modified_gmt":"2016-01-30T20:18:29","slug":"design-thinking-history-the-impact-of-stanford-prof-john-arnold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.rwth-aachen.de\/designthinking\/2016\/01\/30\/design-thinking-history-the-impact-of-stanford-prof-john-arnold\/","title":{"rendered":"Design thinking history \u2013 the impact of Stanford Prof. John Arnold"},"content":{"rendered":"

There have been quite a few attempts to trace back the origins of the “design thinking movement”. In fact, most academic works I read on this matter include\u00a0an\u00a0epitome\u00a0of how it came to be. To this regard, I particularly want to point out Stefanie Di Russo’s excellent blog posts on the history of design thinking<\/a> and the underrated writings of Bruce Archer<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Rather than doing another chronology of design thinking however, I want to shed some light on the influence of Prof. John E. Arnold (1913\u20131963) of the Stanford Mechanical Engineering department, which I believe had a great impact on the design thinking movement. Here’s why:<\/p>\n

In 1957, John E. Arnold joined Stanford faculty\u00a0as Professor of Mechanical Engineering and\u00a0Professor of Business Administration. At that time, he was already known for his unconventional teaching paradigms for engineers, especially boiling down in his Arcturus IV case study<\/em>, a problem-based learning approach that put his students in a futuristic setting to work on\u00a0tools and appliances for a bird-like race having\u00a0“three eyes, including one with X-ray vision” [1]. (Rumour has it that this unconventional practice might be responsible for him leaving the M.I.T., where he taught creative engineering\u00a0before joining Stanford\u2026)<\/p>\n

“His “science fiction” approach caused a stir among traditional educators and conservative engineering leaders.”<\/p>\n

– New York Times, September 30, 1963<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"John<\/a><\/p>\n

It is interesting to note, that most scholars root the design thinking movement in\u00a0Herbert Simon’s The Sciences of the Artificial<\/em>\u00a0from 1969 [2]\u00a0\u2013 Stefanie Di Russo being a notable exception (see above). However, I will share some quotes from Arnold’s talk\u00a0Creativity in Engineering<\/em>\u00a0[3] held at a New York Conference on Creativity ten years before Simon published his work<\/strong>. I will also briefly link them to our\u00a0current understanding of design thinking<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cAnd fourth, in the last area, [the engineer] can take on some aspects of the artist and try to improve or increase the salability of a product or machine by beautifying or bettering its appearance, or by having a keener sensitivity for the market and for the kinds of things people want or don\u2019t want.\u201d<\/p>\n

– John E. Arnold<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While design thinkers usually don’t regard themselves as experts in aesthetic design, they do put great emphasis on what people want or don’t want. Most methods used in design thinking really try to improve our understanding of the user and other stakeholders\u00a0somehow associated to the product.<\/p>\n

\u201cQuestioning and fantasy are two prime requisites of the creative personality.\u201d                        <\/p>\n

– John E. Arnold<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Asking questions is an essential part of design thinking. We\u00a0interview people<\/a>, wonder WHY\u00a0things are as they are<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n

\u2026and, perhaps most importantly,\u00a0ask ourselves\u00a0How might we do this<\/em>?<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cHe is looking for a broad, generic statement, something that will not pre-condition his thinking along narrow lines but will give him a broad area to explore in his search for a solution.\u201d<\/p>\n

– John E. Arnold<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

While there are a lot of similarities to our current understanding of design thinking, there is at least one very notable difference: John E. Arnold was not a great advocator of team work, as can be seen in the following quote.<\/p>\n

\u201cPerhaps the team on some occasions interferes with the creative process. What comes out of a team or a committee is the most daring idea that the least daring man can accept.\u201d<\/p>\n

– John E. Arnold<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While there certainly is some truth in\u00a0this, I believe working in teams can generate synergies that make up for any shortcomings that might come with it. Furthermore, if we are able to hold a design thinking mindset, the “least daring” person will\u00a0not interfere with any visionary idea!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

John E. Arnold died on September\u00a027,\u00a01963 from a heart attack in Italy, where he was on a sabbatical to write a book on the philosophy of engineering [4].<\/p>\n

“John Arnold was a visionary thinker. Not one to follow, he set trends in design education.”<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Memorial Resolution for John E. Arnold<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1] Hunt, Morton M. 1955. \u201cThe Course Where Students Lose Earthly Shackles<\/a>\u201d LIFE Magazine, May 16.<\/small><\/p>\n

[2]\u00a0Simon, Herbert A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.<\/small><\/p>\n

[3]\u00a0Arnold, John E. 1959. \u201cCreativity in Engineering.\u201d In A Report on the Third Communications Conference of the Art Directors Club of New York, edited by Paul Smith, 33\u201346. New York: Art Directors Club of New York.<\/small><\/p>\n

[4] The Stanford Daily. 1963. \u201cProf. Arnold Dies Traveling in Italy<\/a>\u201d October 2.<\/small><\/p>\n

<\/div>