I’ve noticed a curious phenomenon in recent days: folks are increasingly cleverly refer to their lab or team or group as the “design doing” group. This is presumably to paint a contrast with the less savory connotation of “design thinking,” which is that it involves thinking (?). At the d.school, we constantly advocate a “bias towards action.” You might call me a professional evangelist of the importance of doing to inform one’s thinking. But to imply that we need never think — and I hesitate before saying this — is to belittle a very important part of the innovation process.

The fact that this needs to be said is somewhat troubling. It is true that more experienced folks tend to default to planning rather than doing, and have a general disdain for doing-to-learn; and such people should be encouraged to see the value in an experiment-driven approach to creating data to make better decisions. To the “design doing” folks’ credit, it is entirely possible that the rebranding effort is only a matter of positioning, so that the uninitiated don’t get the wrong idea about what’s happening. But I think this belies a subtle but dangerous error. A “narrow way” is one beset by two cliffs — not just one — and this narrow way is no different. I fear that proselytes of “design doing” might be in danger of falling off the other cliff: of despising the need for deep thinking and prolonged consideration.

One classic model of creative thinking as defined in the literature is: Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, and Verification. This is a very useful construct, relevant to the present subject. In my estimation, the trendy emphasis on the “sprint” (which I love, and use myself!) has largely rendered incubation as unnecessary. But incubation is a critical part of creative illumination.

As Howard, Culley, and Dekoninck express in their 2006 International Design Conference article, “Information as an Input into the Creative Process,” “Unlike routine idea generation where ideas can be forced, creative idea generation relies on the incubation period and the information accessed during this period. For creative problem-solving the incubation period is essential. Total immersion in the problem without the incubation period will lead to fixation or lack of stimulation resulting in (merely) routine idea generation.”

It’s why procrastination is a legitimate strategy. It’s why diversions and hobbies help. It’s why an idea quota is a useful tactic. All of these are unnecessary if sprinting is the answer.

Click here to subscribe to Paint & Pipette, the weekly digest of these daily posts.