Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Design thinking frameworks aren't just theoretical models—they're the practical toolkits that separate companies who innovate from those who stagnate. You're being tested on your ability to recognize which framework fits which business challenge, understand the underlying principles of human-centered design, iterative development, and divergent-convergent thinking, and apply these concepts to real organizational problems. Mastering these frameworks means understanding how empathy translates into business value.
Don't just memorize the phase names of each framework. Know what makes each approach unique, when you'd choose one over another, and how they all connect back to the core principle: solving the right problem for the right user. The exam will test your ability to compare frameworks, identify their strengths in specific contexts, and explain why iteration and user feedback matter more than getting it "right" the first time.
These frameworks organize design thinking into distinct, sequential stages that guide teams from understanding users to delivering solutions. The power lies in providing clear structure while still allowing iteration within and between phases.
Compare: Stanford d.school vs. Double Diamond—both use sequential phases, but Stanford emphasizes user empathy as the starting point while Double Diamond emphasizes divergent-convergent thinking patterns. If asked to explain the cognitive process behind design thinking, Double Diamond is your strongest example.
When time-to-market matters, these frameworks compress the design thinking process without sacrificing user validation. They prioritize rapid learning over comprehensive exploration.
Compare: Google Design Sprint vs. Stanford d.school—both are five-phase models, but Design Sprint compresses everything into five days while d.school allows for extended exploration. Choose Design Sprint when you need quick validation; choose d.school when the problem space is ambiguous and requires deeper empathy research.
Large organizations need frameworks that account for business constraints, cross-functional complexity, and continuous delivery. These models integrate design thinking with enterprise realities.
Compare: IBM vs. LUMA Institute—IBM provides a holistic framework for enterprise product development, while LUMA offers a toolkit of individual methods. Use IBM when you need end-to-end process structure; use LUMA when you need specific techniques to address particular challenges within an existing process.
These frameworks prioritize collective intelligence and stakeholder engagement, recognizing that the best solutions emerge from diverse perspectives. They treat collaboration as a design principle, not just a nice-to-have.
Compare: IDEO vs. Frog Collective Action Toolkit—both emphasize collaboration, but IDEO focuses on professional team collaboration while Frog emphasizes community and stakeholder collaboration. For internal product teams, lean toward IDEO; for social enterprises or public sector challenges, Frog's toolkit offers stronger engagement methods.
These frameworks serve as comprehensive guides and reference materials, supporting teams in applying design thinking across varied contexts. They function more as encyclopedias than step-by-step processes.
Compare: Design Thinking Playbook vs. LUMA Institute—both offer method collections, but the Playbook provides narrative context and case studies while LUMA offers structured facilitation guides. Use the Playbook for learning and inspiration; use LUMA for hands-on workshop facilitation.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Sequential phase structure | Stanford d.school, Double Diamond, IDEO |
| Divergent-convergent thinking | Double Diamond, LUMA Institute |
| Rapid validation | Google Design Sprint, Nielsen Norman Group |
| Enterprise integration | IBM Design Thinking, Design Council |
| Collaboration and co-creation | Frog Collective Action Toolkit, IDEO |
| Method/tool libraries | LUMA Institute, Design Thinking Playbook |
| Time-constrained innovation | Google Design Sprint |
| Continuous iteration loops | IBM Design Thinking, Stanford d.school |
Which two frameworks most explicitly emphasize the divergent-convergent thinking pattern, and how do they visualize this concept differently?
A startup needs to validate a product concept before their next funding round in two weeks. Which framework would you recommend and why? What would you sacrifice by choosing speed?
Compare and contrast IBM Design Thinking with Stanford d.school: How does IBM's "loop" approach differ from d.school's five stages, and what business context makes each more appropriate?
Your organization wants to redesign public transit services and needs to engage community members, city officials, and transit workers in the process. Which framework best supports this multi-stakeholder challenge, and what specific features make it suitable?
If an exam question asks you to explain how design thinking balances user desirability, business viability, and technical feasibility, which framework provides the clearest model for this three-way integration?