Unlike other desciplines, design is looking at the factors from epstimological and constructivism approachs where the meaning of the problem elements is clearly interpreted during the design practice.
So, feel free to call it anything, at the early 20 century, it was never been called design thinking. I usually prefer to design process/acitvity/thinking.
What I appreciate about a good design thinking session is:
- It externalises the insides of peoples heads in a way that allows other participants to share that knowledge. Individual tacit knowledge becomes shared general knowledge.
- Knowledge elicited during the session is presented in a way that makes it actionable
A design thinking session is doomed to failure if it isn't comprised of:
- Domain experts
- Decision makers
- A facilitator who actually knows what they're doing
This is something certain types of companies and organizationa fail at often, because their daily involvement makws them hyperfocused on certain aspects while they are blind to entire classes of solutions.
That doesn't mean designers can be sprinkeled on every project and drive an evolutionary leap, but it can be a way to explore the solution space.
Design however is a highly praiseworthy contemplation. There are those who do it well, and those who best learn to rip off what works as faithfully as means allow.
It is not just paying attention to your surroundings, it is actively scanning and evaluating to anticipate changes to your situation. Big difference between standing on a hill taking in the view versus keeping your head on a swivel, identify avenues of approach and egress, all while looking, listening, and smelling for anything out of place.
It is more applicable to the physical world than any software domain.
Can you tell Bannon looted the intelligence community and exposed the envelope of every clandestine military secret by getting Trump to gather all of those commanders into one room?
You’re screwed and you don’t even know it.