Thinking v doing: This was posted today on Linkedin
Lately, I’ve been reflecting on how often we get stuck in the thinking phase of design. Deep exploration, reframing the problem, mapping empathy… all good practices, but sometimes we spin our wheels and never actually solve the thing.
It reminds me of that classic story: A pottery teacher splits the class into two. One half is told to make the perfect pot. The other is told to make as many pots as possible. In the end, the best pots came from the iterators. Why? Because doing leads to learning. Iteration beats perfection.
Design Doing isn’t just about moving fast. It’s about learning through making. Shipping. Testing. Adapting. Repeating.
We need both mindsets, of course, but I’m starting to believe we overuse “Design Thinking” and underinvest in Design Doing. I know I did in my past.
Curious to hear from others:
→ Have you seen better results from quick iterations vs deep research?
→ How do you balance thoughtful exploration with the momentum of making?
Let’s talk.👇
Interesting take, so I commented:-)
I thought the frame was false, opposing thinking and doing makes no sense…
Personally, I reject your framing. Opposing problem-space hacking and build-test-iterate loops makes no sense. You need to build both into your process; the needs met by your better pot don’t necessarily emerge from creating more pots… I’m working on an un updated method. Still experimenting: maybe if I get some free time I’ll iterate enough to get the book written;-)
I added:
Also, the evidence is in the product (ie the outcome). If the apps on your iPhone are better today than five years ago then awesome, product culture works:-) In my experience the opposite is true, but I’d need a bigger sample to be sure…
Commenting on social media is nice, but sometimes you need a bit of room to express your thoughts...
Thanks for your thoughts, this issue is central to modern problem-solving and design practices.
You’re right, there is a risk of getting “stuck in the thinking phase”, where deep exploration can sometimes feel like spinning wheels if it doesn’t translate into action. The pottery analogy is a classic illustration of how “doing leads to learning” and the power of iteration. The idea that “Design Doing isn’t just about moving fast. It’s about learning through making. Shipping. Testing. Adapting. Repeating” resonates strongly with the value of iterative approaches.
From my perspective, the quality of our solutions is directly proportional to the quality of our understanding. Rushing to solve poorly defined problems results in wasted resources, recurring issues, missed opportunities, and solutions addressing symptoms rather than root causes.
But it’s not a gated process, you don’t have to complete one phase before starting the next. But you do have to make space for the problem space hackers, and you need to keep comparing notes as you iterate. It’s so not an either / or.
The method is our attempt to design a structured way to gain clarity while still moving forward. It’s a “destination-agnostic framework” that prioritises understanding the problem before committing to a fixed outcome.
Crucially, prototyping (a form of “doing” and learning through making) is an explicit part of the method, integrated into the “Elaborate” phase. Prototyping is used to test assumptions, gather feedback, and create learning opportunities with limited investment before committing significant resources.
The issue isn’t so much “Design Thinking” vs. “Design Doing,” but rather how might we integrate thoughtful exploration with intentional action and iterative learning.
So…
Have you seen better results from quick iterations vs deep research?
Quick iterations can improve solution quality within a defined problem space, but they often fail if the problem itself wasn’t deeply understood initially. Finding time for thorough problem exploration leads to significantly higher success rates for initiatives and better outcomes than rushing to implementation. Exploration informs effective iteration.
How do you balance thoughtful exploration with the momentum of making?
The method proposes structured, time-bounded problem exploration upfront, followed by iterative vision crafting and prototyping, and finally implementation planning and execution. Insights from action and iteration consistently feed back into refining the understanding of the problem and direction.
This creates a continuous cycle of deepening clarity and informed action.
Practical tools help embed this balance into ongoing practice.
Basically, I think both mindsets are needed, but our current biases lead us to underinvest in structured problem definition and exploration, making our “doing” less effective than it could be.