Blog

If you want creativity that actually changes business outcomes, you need more than a brainstorming wall and a stack of sticky notes.

Design thinking has become a buzzword, yes, but it's also one of the most pragmatic ways I've seen to turn messy, human problems into practical, revenue supporting solutions. I've coached teams in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane who thought design thinking was fluff; then watched the same teams prototype a service in 48 hours and save months of costly development. That flip, from cynicism to curious doing, is where the value lives.

Design thinking isn't a magic wand. It's a mindset and a set of practices that balance curiosity and discipline: empathy, experimentation and iteration. The genuinely useful thing about it is this: it forces you to centre real humans in messy organisational problems, not spreadsheets, not historical precedent, not what the CEO read last month. Put simply, it's about listening properly, testing quickly and refusing to accept the "because we've always done it this way" answer.

Why bother? Because design led organisations outperform. The Design Management Institute's Design Value Index showed design led companies significantly outperformed the S&P over a decade, a figure often cited around 200% growth relative to standard benchmarks. And while numbers don't capture everything, the broader point is clear: investing in design capability is not just for brand teams or product departments. It's a strategic advantage.

Empathy as the bedrock

People often underestimate the discipline behind empathy. It's not a soft add on. It's a research method. Sitting with a frontline worker for half a day, watching what they do, hearing the words they don't say, that's where design opportunities appear. Too many project teams rely on assumptions. "We think customers want X." No. Ask the customers. Watch them use X, or not.

Empathy changes the question from "What can we build?" to "What problem are we actually solving, and for whom?" That pivot makes solutions relevant. It also makes them adoptable. When you design for human behaviours and constraints you end up with solutions people are more likely to use. Simple as that.

Experimentation, fast, cheap, and honest

If empathy is the research, experimentation is the engine. Build quick, ugly prototypes and put them in front of users. Iterate. Repeat. The objective is learning, not perfection.

I'll be frank: organisations waste enormous budgets building polished solutions that never get used because they skipped testing. The safer, smarter play is to prototype at the speed of conversation. Cardboard and paper. Wireframes. A barefoot mock up in a Cafe. You are not aiming to impress investors on day one; you are aiming to validate assumptions before you commit.

And yes, this upsets risk averse managers. They prefer tidy Gantt charts. Fine. Then show them the alternative: months of budget and a product that flops. That argument wins more often than you'd think.

Iteration beats perfection

Iteration is a muscle. It's tempting to reach for a single "perfect" solution, but most good work is evolutionary. Every prototype teaches you what's missing. Every test reveals a hidden constraint or a surprising user workaround. Embrace failure, but not as glib encouragement. Treat failure as data. Learn fast. Reduce the cost of each subsequent experiment.

I'm unapologetic here: teams that plan forever and ship rarely are part of the problem. Better to ship small, measure, learn and improve. That approach keeps you relevant in fast changing markets.

The core skills you need

People ask: "Can we train design thinking?" Yes. But understand it's more than a one off workshop. The skills you need include:

• Empathy: observation, ethnographic interviewing, and the ability to synthesise insights into human centred problem statements
• Creative confidence: a willingness to propose wild ideas, then turn them into testable prototypes
• Analytical thinking: the discipline to critique ideas against feasibility and business viability
• Collaboration: facilitation skills, stakeholder management, and the ability to work in multidisciplinary teams
• Visual communication: sketching, mapping, storyboards and other low fidelity artefacts to make ideas tangible quickly
• Adaptability: responding to user feedback, shifting scope, and course correcting

If a team is strong across these areas, they can apply design thinking to everything from Customer service re designs to internal process improvement. We've run workshops where a back office process overhaul, started as an empathy based exercise, reduced turnaround times by weeks. Not sexy in a marketing sense, but massively impactful.

Observation and listening, underrated, but indispensable

Watching is different to listening. Designers learn to observe behavioural cues, what people do when they think no one's watching. Small details tell big stories: where customers leave a queue, the workarounds they invent at the photocopier, the questions they never ask because they assume the answer will be rude or irrelevant.

Active listening matters too. Open ended questions, mirroring answers and reflecting back what you heard are simple techniques that make people feel heard, and reveal deeper insights. Too many teams treat user interviews like checkbox exercises. They ask surface level questions and then design accordingly. That's an expensive mistake.

Creativity needs constraints

This sounds counterintuitive but creativity blossoms with constraints. If you give teams a blank canvas and no guardrails, they often freeze or produce solutions that are impractical. But give them a well defined user problem, resource constraints, and a clear business boundary, and they produce focussed, novel ideas. It's the old paradox: structure can liberate creativity.

Some teams push back: "We can't be creative under constraints." Nonsense. Constraints force prioritisation and invention. I prefer 90 minutes of fierce creativity with constraints than a whole day of polite fluff.

Brainstorming, ideation and tools that actually work

Mind maps, SCAMPER and reverse brainstorming, these techniques are more than quaint facilitation tricks. When used correctly, they scaffold divergent thinking and then help the team converge on viable concepts.

• Mind mapping expands associative thinking. It helps teams uncover unexpected links between user needs and organisational capabilities
• Reverse brainstorming, asking "How could we make this worse?", surfaces potential failure modes pre emptively. You'll be surprised how often a reverse brainstorm delivers a risk register that saves a launch
• SCAMPER forces incremental improvements: substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to another use, eliminate, and rearrange. It's practical and very actionable

If you run ideation sessions, keep them time boxed, include diverse disciplines and end with a clear prioritisation mechanism. Voting alone won't cut it; use feasibility impact grids or quick prototype tests.

Multidisciplinary teams win

Diversity of thought is not a political box to tick. It's an operational advantage. Engineers see constraints. Psychologists see behaviour. Marketers see adoption channels. When these perspectives collide early, solutions are stronger. A well run multidisciplinary workshop surfaces blind spots fast.

I've seen engineering led initiatives fail because they optimised for technical elegance, not customer reality. Conversely, I've seen overly commercial teams ship sexy features that were unusable. The solution: bring the disciplines together early and let them argue constructively. That friction is productive.

Communication and conflict, manage both

Poor communication kills most projects faster than lack of budget. Shared artefacts, journey maps, personas, prototypes, become the lingua franca of a design team. They help align stakeholders and avoid endless email threads.

Conflict is inevitable in any creative endeavour. Design thinking doesn't eliminate it; it gives you tools to resolve it. Encourage dissent, but tie it to user evidence. If someone resists an idea, ask for data or run a quick experiment. That converts opinions into learning.

A couple of slightly divisive stances

• Design thinking is more effective face to face than fully online. Yes I know the world went virtual, and we've adapted, but there's an energy in a room that's hard to replicate. Whiteboards, sticky note storms, whispered sidebar conversations, they matter. People will disagree. Fine. Try and see for yourself
• Failure should be celebrated, but not romanticised. I mean, we need candid post mortems that surface real learning. Don't clap for failure as a virtue; treat it as a data point. Some will say that celebrates mediocrity. It doesn't. It institutionalises learning

Prototyping: make it stupid, then make it smart

Build to learn, not to impress. Early prototypes are crude and that's good. Make them ridiculous on purpose. Then test. Watch reactions. Ask why a user hesitates. Iterate. Over time the prototypes get smarter and the risk drops.

Prototyping also shortens feedback loops with stakeholders. A paper mock up speaks louder than a 50 slide deck. If you want executives to grasp the problem, show them a prototype they can touch or click. It works.

Measuring success, don't hide behind vanity metrics

Success in design thinking is behavioural change. Are customers using the new flow? Has call volume dropped? Has throughput improved? These are tangible measures. Vanity metrics like "ideas generated" are fine for momentum, but not for value.

Set clear hypotheses before you test: "We believe this change will reduce onboarding time by 30%." Then design the experiment to confirm or refute that hypothesis. Repeat. Keep the metrics tight.

Design thinking scales, but slowly

You can pilot design thinking in a single team in a single office, but scaling requires leadership, capability building and, crucially, time. You need coaches, methods baked into projects and a tolerance for iterative timelines. When done right, the payoff isn't just better products, it's a culture shift toward curiosity and evidence based decision making.

We see it in our workshops: when managers adopt design habits, regular user visits, mandating prototypes, asking evidence based questions, the ripple effects are enormous.

A few practical missteps I keep seeing

• Skipping user research to "save time." This usually costs more later
• Over investing in polished prototypes before validating desirability
• Treating design thinking as a one off workshop rather than an ongoing practice
• Hiring external consultants to "do the design thinking" and then not building internal capability. That's outsourcing the muscle you actually need

Design thinking is not the only tool, but it's a powerful one

Some will argue agile, Lean, Six Sigma or traditional project management are enough. They're not mutually exclusive. Design thinking complements these frameworks, it's particularly powerful in the fuzzy front end of discovery. Use it to define the problem, then apply execution frameworks to scale solutions.

Final thought. For an approach that's now fashionable, it's remarkably practical. The change it drives is less about theatrics and more about habits: spend time with users, prototype quickly, learn iteratively, and make decisions with evidence.

We run design thinking programs across Organisations in Australia and the pattern is consistent: teams that embrace the discipline move from reactive firefighting to proactive problem solving. They produce work that people actually use. They save money. They increase engagement. And, importantly, they build capability that sticks.

It's not always comfortable. It's not instant. But if you want innovation that works, not just ideas that look nice in a slide deck, design thinking is worth the effort.

Sources & Notes

Design Management Institute (DMI), Design Value Index, commonly cited findings that design led firms significantly outperformed standard market benchmarks over a decade (Design Management Institute, Design Value Index, 2015).

World Economic Forum, The Future of Jobs Report 2020, identified creativity, critical thinking and complex problem solving among the top skills needed for the future workforce (World Economic Forum, 2020).