1. Fundamentally Conservative and Preserves the Status Quo
1.1. Reaffirms the PRIVILEGED role of the designer
1.1.1. "They turn the everyday ability to solve a problem into a rarified practice, limited only to those who self-consciously follow a specialized methodology."
1.1.1.1. This is fundamentally wrong. Design thinking works best when you take others into the process—you do not become a leader, but a facilitator in the process. You do not have more say than the users.
1.2. Puts the designer on a pedestal
1.2.1. The designer is the gatekeeper to which all ideas and preferences must first pass before being included in its solution
1.2.1.1. Done right, this isn't a problem. Testing and retesting—and having users as part of the design team can help mitigate this.
1.2.2. Design thinking relies on the designers' ability to empathize and how they perceive a user's stories
1.2.2.1. Yes, but it does not ignore existing data as the article implies.
1.2.2.2. Design thinking uses real and live experiences of users to complement data in forming their empathetic connections.
1.3. "The designer, as [a] creative visionary, is somehow suspended above the fray of bias, blind spots, and political pressure"
1.3.1. "Subjectivity is inevitable"
1.3.1.1. Yes, on your own in particular. This can be mitigated somewhat by working in teams and crosschecking.
2. Theatre of Innovation
2.1. "Part of the problem is that many people use design thinking methodology in a superficial way."
2.2. "Companies know they need to be more creative and innovative, and because they're looking for fast ways to achieve those goals, they cut corners."
2.2.1. Design thinking—in its true form—has a rigid structure. Take away parts of it, and it becomes a superficial form of design thinking, and thus is critiqued for its inefficiency.
2.3. "We get a lot of the materials that look like innovation, or look like they make us more creative . . . but without some kind of history or strategy to tie them together, and track their progress, track their impact, they end up being a theatrical thing that people can point to and say 'oh wwe did that'" — Hendrix
2.3.1. "Design thinking [fails] in cultures that don't promote play . . . [which] allows people to be more creative."
2.3.2. Some people using design thinking poorly DOES NOT invalidate it
2.3.3. It is fair to criticize it, as with any process
2.3.4. Design thinking can be limited in that it can be too rigid, and thus company culture can be incompatible
2.4. Without the strategy and discipline, the tools won't work.
3. Doesn't work
3.1. IDEO Shopping Cart
3.1.1. Before its time
3.1.2. Didn't have a financial supporter
3.1.3. Despite having a market need, there was no innovation because it didn't actually come into fruition until later
3.2. Hurricane Katrina Wall
3.2.1. Participatory design is not the same as Design Thinking
3.2.2. This did not follow the "rigid" structure of Design Thinking as author implies.