Examining the design thinking triad in practice
As scholars, practitioners and students of design, we are likely familiar with the triadic framework of design thinking, which emphasizes desirability, feasibility and viability as the key dimensions to consider when approaching a design problem. This model is celebrated for its pragmatic, user-centered and iterative approach, often positioned as a universal key to unlocking innovation across disciplines. But have we paused to critically examine the underpinnings of this widely accepted model?
What if the framework we so readily embrace is, subtly yet powerfully, imbued with a neoliberal ethos that aligns our design practices with the foundational principles of capitalism? This hypothesis may initially seem jarring, as the design thinking model is typically presented as an apolitical tool for problem-solving. Yet, upon closer inspection, connections between the “holy trinity” of desirability, feasibility and viability and capitalist norms and values start to surface, suggesting this model may not be as neutral as we assume.
Neglect of socio-cultural and political dimensions
Critics argue that the design thinking model, with its focus on desirability (what people need), feasibility (what is technically possible) and viability (what is financially sustainable), often overlooks the socio-cultural and political dimensions of design problems. This can lead to solutions that, while technically feasible and financially viable, may reinforce existing power structures or fail to address deeper systemic issues. Arturo Escobar, in Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy and the Making of Worlds, highlights how narrowly focused design processes may miss opportunities to engage more broadly with cultural, environmental and social justice issues that are essential to sustainable change.
Another criticism is that the model often reduces complex issues to questions of desirability, feasibility and viability, potentially oversimplifying the full scope of a problem’s complexity. As Cameron Tonkinwise discusses in Design Studies: What Is It Good For?, this reductionist approach can lead to solutions that treat only symptoms, bypassing root causes and, consequently, the chance to create lasting, meaningful impact.
Design thinking as a capitalist Trojan horse
Design thinking, with its focus on user-centeredness and innovation, can be seen as a kind of capitalist Trojan Horse. While it offers a critical, human-centered approach to problem-solving, it also reinforces capitalist values and norms beneath the surface. Like the mythical Trojan Horse, it enters the field of design as a valuable asset, but ultimately, it may serve to uphold the existing capitalist system.
The dimension of desirability often aligns with consumer preferences, a cornerstone of market-based capitalism. Under neoliberalism, consumer choice is often portrayed as the main mechanism for achieving societal wellbeing. Yet, this emphasis on individual desires and preferences can obscure structural issues that shape and constrain these desires, including social inequality, power imbalances and cultural hegemony. By focusing on individual wants, the model may inadvertently ignore the broader socio-cultural factors that heavily influence what people perceive as “desirable.”
Feasibility, similarly, often centers on technological solutions, reflecting a kind of technological determinism common in neoliberal thought. This approach assumes that market-driven technology and innovation will address societal challenges, yet it tends to overlook the ways in which technology itself is socially constructed and can reproduce existing power relations and inequalities. When designers assess a project’s feasibility primarily through a lens of technical capability, they may fail to account for the societal and ethical implications of their work.
The viability criterion, assessing whether a solution can succeed in the market, often results in an overemphasis on profitability and marketability. This can constrain design’s potential to tackle issues that lack immediate economic return yet are critical for social equity and environmental sustainability. Ezio Manzini, in Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation, argues that this market-driven perspective limits the designer’s role in advocating for more holistic solutions that align with the values of social responsibility and environmental care.
Together, these three dimensions can subtly but powerfully shape the design process in alignment with a neoliberal, capitalist framework. By framing design problems and solutions in terms of individual desires, technological capability and market dynamics, design thinking may sideline considerations of social justice, cultural diversity and ecological responsibility. This implicit alignment with capitalist values can restrict designers from critically engaging with the broader social impacts of their work.
Toward a more holistic design approach
In response to these critiques, some scholars and practitioners advocate for a more holistic, critically engaged approach to design. This expanded approach considers additional factors, including social justice, cultural diversity, environmental sustainability and political agency, encouraging designers to examine how their work might support rather than ignore these values. By moving beyond the constraints of the desirability-feasibility-viability model, designers can engage with a wider spectrum of possibilities, challenging capitalist assumptions and making space for alternative visions of what design can achieve.
These more inclusive design practices aim to extend the boundaries of design thinking and challenge its capitalist underpinnings, providing a path forward for those seeking to create solutions with a deeper, more lasting impact. By integrating a broader range of social, cultural and environmental considerations into the design process, designers can contribute to systemic change that truly benefits society rather than merely adapting to market imperatives. This approach opens the door to designs that not only meet user needs but also promote a more equitable, diverse and sustainable world.