METISINC

18th March 2026 Below is the 2nd part in our series on Business Design Engineering BDE: Diffusion to Coherence Introduction The case for Business Design Engineering (BDE)  begins with a problem that is widespread, costly, and often misdiagnosed. In many organisations, business change is broken into adjacent but weakly integrated functions. One group shapes the value proposition. Another defines structure. Another translates the work into delivery artefacts. Another implements. On paper, this looks like sensible specialisation. In practice, it often produces something else: drift between what the organisation intended to achieve, what it is structurally capable of supporting, and what is ultimately delivered. This is not merely a workflow inefficiency. It is a coherence problem. As work moves from strategy to design, from design to architecture, from architecture to analysis, and from analysis to implementation, every hand-off introduces interpretive risk. The original logic of the intervention can weaken. A compelling concept may lose its force as it passes through siloed roles. Delivery may remain faithful to documented requirements while becoming increasingly detached from the value intent that justified the initiative in the first place. In that sense, fragmentation does not just slow change; it can actively distort it. This concern is not new. Socio-technical systems thinking has long argued that organisational effectiveness declines when social and technical design are treated as separate concerns rather than mutually conditioning elements of the same system ( Mumford, 2000 ). Broader design and management scholarship reaches a similar conclusion: organisations, management systems, and transformation interventions are all legitimate objects of design, and their cultural, structural, and operational dimensions cannot be cleanly separated without consequence ( Buchanan, 2015; Faust & Junginger, 2016 ). A second problem is feedback failure. In fragmented environments, delivery generates signals—progress, friction, maturity, constraint, unintended consequence—but those signals rarely travel back in a way that strengthens the original intervention logic or updates enterprise understanding meaningfully. Lessons may be captured, but they often remain localised, diluted, or administratively noted rather than structurally absorbed. The result is predictable: the same coherence failures are repeated across successive initiatives. This is where BDE becomes significant. Its value is not limited to reducing handoff loss between functions. It also improves continuity of learning across the lifecycle, ensuring that delivery reality informs both intervention refinement and upstream business understanding. A third issue lies in the false division between conceptualisation and realisation. In many models, Business Design is positioned as the activity of imagining future possibility, while Business Engineering is treated as the downstream task of making that possibility operationally viable. Conceptually, the distinction has merit. Business Design is concerned with desirability, proposition, and opportunity framing. Business Engineering is concerned with structural feasibility, operating logic, capability realisation, and governed implementation ( Faust & Junginger, 2016; Österle & Winter, 2003; Winter, 2001 ). The problem is not that these functions differ. The problem is that organisations often harden that difference into separate operating silos. When that happens, accountability for 'buildability', organisational fit, governance implications, and delivery consequence is pushed too far downstream. The designer may shape an attractive concept without remaining close enough to its practical landing. The engineer then inherits something already abstracted from implementation reality. What should be an interlocking relationship becomes an interpretive gap. BDE is proposed as a response to that gap. It does not replace Business Architecture, nor does it replace Business Analysis. Business Architecture remains the upstream anchor role that renders the enterprise legible through capability maps, value streams, operating concepts, and business blueprints (Business Architecture Guild, 2024). Business Analysis remains the downstream anchor role that elaborates needs, clarifies requirements, supports solution recommendation, and enables change through traceable implementation detail (Brennan, 2015). What BDE provides is the missing continuity layer between those poles. Its purpose is to remain close enough to both design intent and engineered realisation that the intervention does not become distorted by silo boundaries. It consolidates the practical concerns of Business Design and Business Engineering into one interlocking role or practice situated between architecture and analysis. The point is not to diminish specialist depth. The point is to reduce unnecessary interpretive hops between idea, structure, and landing. This is why BDE matters most in high-ambiguity, high-interdependence environments: enterprise transformation, operating model redesign, platform initiatives, regulated change, and distressed or drifting programmes. In these settings, the challenge is rarely just to generate a better concept or produce a more detailed requirements pack. The challenge is to preserve intervention integrity across the whole chain, from enterprise framing and proposition logic through to structural feasibility, governance fit, delivery coordination, and realised value. That is the role of Business Design Engineering. Not another fashionable title. Not role inflation, rather, a contraction of capability diffusion. It is a disciplined, lean, high-accountability practice designed to preserve coherence between business imagination and business realisation. References Brennan, K. (2015). A guide to the business analysis body of knowledge  (3rd ed.). International Institute of Business Analysis. Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the making: Design, management, and the reform of organizational culture. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1 (1), 5–21. Business Architecture Guild. (2024). A guide to the business architecture body of knowledge  (3rd ed.). Business Architecture Guild. Faust, J., & Junginger, S. (2016). Designing business and management. In R. Curedale (Ed.), Design thinking: Process and methods manual  (contextual treatment of management and organisational design perspectives). Mumford, E. (2000). A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering, 5 (2), 125–133. Österle, H., & Winter, R. (2003). Business engineering. In A.-W. Scheer, F. Abolhassan, W. Jost, & M. Kirchmer (Eds.), Business process change management  (pp. 61–80). Springer. Winter, R. (2001). Business engineering navigator: Gestaltung und analyse von geschäftsmodellen und geschäftsprozessen  [Business engineering navigator: Design and analysis of business models and business processes]. Springer.

This article is the first in a series on Business Design Engineering (BDE) : a discipline concerned with preserving coherence between business intent and business execution. The series explores what BDE is, why it matters, how it differs from adjacent roles, and where it creates the greatest value in complex change environments. This opening piece introduces the core problem BDE is designed to address: the loss of clarity, continuity, and value that often occurs as ideas move from strategy into delivery. From there, later articles will examine the role, its scope, its outputs, and its relevance to modern transformation work. BDE - The interlock between business intent and business execution Most organisations do not fail for lack of frameworks, methods, or specialist roles. They fail because the original logic of an initiative becomes diffused and diluted as it moves from strategy into structure, and from structure into delivery. An idea may begin as a clear strategic intent: a new operating model, a platform play, a service redesign, or a transformation response to emerging pressure. Yet by the time that idea reaches implementation, it has often been diluted by hand-offs, reinterpretation, siloed decision-making, and fragmented accountability. Work gets done, but the value does not land with the coherence originally intended. Business Design Engineering, or BDE, is best understood as the continuity discipline between business intent and business execution. It sits between the upstream structural framing of Business Architecture and the downstream delivery elaboration of Business Analysis. Its role is to shape, test, align, and guide an intervention so that it remains viable, governable, executable, and coherent from concept through delivery and learning ( Brennan, 2015; Business Architecture Guild, 2024 ). This is what makes BDE distinct. It is not a relabelled architect. It does not own the enterprise blueprint. It is not a relabelled analyst. It does not simply elaborate requirements for delivery. And it is not generic transformation consulting. Its centre of gravity is narrower and more practical: preserving intervention coherence so that intended value is neither lost in abstraction nor diluted in implementation. The case for BDE BDE reduces coherence loss across the lifecycle. It reduces unnecessary hand-offs and interpretive noise. It strengthens accountability for landing. It improves traceability from value to delivery. And it creates stronger feedback between shaping, implementation, and organisational learning ( Mumford, 2000; Österle & Winter, 2003; Winter, 2001 ). In practical terms, BDE becomes most valuable where ambiguity, interdependence, and delivery risk are high: enterprise transformation, operating model redesign, platform and ecosystem work, regulated environments, and distressed or drifting initiatives. In these settings, the challenge is rarely just to design something attractive or document something accurately. The challenge is to ensure that the intervention holds together all the way to outcome. This is the purpose of Business Design Engineering. Not more role inflation. Not another fashionable title. A clearer operating discipline for turning business intent into landed value. References Brennan, K. (2015). A guide to the business analysis body of knowledge  (3rd ed.). International Institute of Business Analysis. Business Architecture Guild. (2024). A guide to the business architecture body of knowledge  (3rd ed.). Business Architecture Guild. Mumford, E. (2000). A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering, 5 (2), 125–133. Österle, H., & Winter, R. (2003). Business engineering. In A.-W. Scheer, F. Abolhassan, W. Jost, & M. Kirchmer (Eds.), Business process change management  (pp. 61–80). Springer. Winter, R. (2001). Business engineering navigator: Gestaltung und analyse von geschäftsmodellen und geschäftsprozessen  [Business engineering navigator: Design and analysis of business models and business processes]. Springer.

Introduction to design thinking Design thinking often begins long before it is formally named. At its foundation is a recurring human impulse: the desire to imagine, shape, improve, and build. This impulse is visible wherever curiosity leads to experimentation, where existing objects are examined for how they work, and where materials, systems, or ideas are reconfigured in the pursuit of something better. In its earliest form, this process is rarely neat or linear. It frequently begins with tinkering, dismantling, modifying, testing, and recombining. Much of this activity is driven not by certainty, but by curiosity. The purpose may not be fully clear at the outset; what matters initially is the exploration itself. Through this exploration, understanding begins to emerge. Ideas take shape through action, rather than being fully resolved in advance. This pattern reflects a core principle of design thinking: creation is often preceded by inquiry, and inquiry is often advanced through experimentation. The act of working directly with materials, structures, tools, or systems produces insights that cannot always be reached through theory alone. Design therefore becomes both a practical and cognitive process, involving observation, interpretation, adjustment, and synthesis. Over time, this way of thinking reveals transferable patterns across many domains. Mechanical systems, electronics, fabrication, visual composition, organisational design, and digital systems all expose common design concerns: form, function, structure, interaction, constraint, and purpose. What appears at first to be domain-specific often proves to be more universal. Principles learned in one context can frequently be adapted to another, even where the surface details differ significantly. This is one of the reasons design thinking is so broadly applicable. It is not limited to product designers, architects, or engineers. It is equally relevant in business analysis, service design, digital transformation, strategy, and systems change. In each of these areas, the underlying challenge remains similar: to understand a current state, identify constraints and possibilities, imagine an improved future state, and shape a coherent pathway between the two. Design thinking also highlights the false separation often made between art and engineering. These are not opposing domains, but complementary modes of creation. Art contributes imagination, sensibility, interpretation, and emotional resonance. Engineering contributes rigour, structure, feasibility, and performance. Effective design emerges when these capacities are brought into relationship rather than treated as distinct or incompatible. At a deeper level, design thinking is concerned with coherence. It seeks to align intention, context, structure, and outcome. It asks not only whether something can be built, but whether it should be built in a particular way, for a particular purpose, and with a particular effect. This makes design thinking more than a method for generating ideas. It is a disciplined approach to turning ambiguity into clarity and possibility into form. In this sense, design thinking is both expansive and practical. It invites imagination while demanding discipline. It values experimentation, yet remains directed toward purpose. Whether applied to physical artefacts, digital platforms, business systems, or strategic transformation, its underlying aim remains consistent: to create meaningful, functional, and coherent outcomes through deliberate inquiry and informed action.

Within corporate environments, design and delivery work often spans the full lifecycle of a problem or opportunity: from identification and framing through to solution design, implementation, and eventual retirement. Across this landscape, one recurring challenge is the tendency of organisations to pursue “silver bullet” solutions or adopt the latest management and delivery trend—whether ITIL, UML, RUP, Agile, or otherwise—without fully understanding the intent, discipline, or conditions required for their effective use. As a result, tools and methods are often applied superficially, misaligned to context, or forced onto problems for which they are poorly suited. To address the relationship between design thinking and creative intelligence meaningfully, it is useful to define each concept separately before considering their connection. Figure 1. (Gibson et al., 2015) Design thinking is commonly understood as a systematic and collaborative approach to identifying and creatively solving problems. Luchs et al. (2016) frame it broadly in terms of two major phases: identifying problems and solving problems. While there is no single universally accepted definition, the concept is generally treated as a structured approach to design-oriented inquiry and action. As Lockwood (2011) notes, design thinking is not an exact science, nor does it have one definitive interpretation. Even so, it can be understood as a set of principles and practices that guide how problems are framed, explored, and addressed through design. Creative intelligence, by contrast, refers to the capabilities involved in generating, developing, locating, scrutinising, envisaging, and making assumptions about ideas. Jager and Muller (2020) describe creative intelligence as being shaped both by environmental conditions and by the cognitive processes used in different contexts, including the search for novel possibilities, the recognition of unexpected opportunities, and the formulation of responses to customer needs or complex problems. Benedek et al. (2014) further suggest that intelligence and working memory can enhance the perception and integration of stimuli during creative thought, thereby strengthening the quality of creative outcomes. Taken together, design thinking and creative intelligence are closely related. Design thinking provides a structured process for moving through uncertainty, while creative intelligence supports the generation, interpretation, and refinement of ideas within that process. One offers discipline and direction; the other expands the range and richness of what may be conceived. Gibson et al. (2015) present an eight-step approach to design thinking that captures this interplay particularly well. The approach begins by framing a specific challenge and committing attention to the problem. It then moves into research: reviewing existing work, drawing on known knowledge, and studying the subject in depth. This is followed by immersion, in which the problem is explored persistently and a wide range of potential solutions is considered using the knowledge available. From there, the process recognises an important but often overlooked stage: reaching a roadblock and experiencing creative frustration. Rather than treating frustration as failure, the model positions it as a natural phase within creative effort. The next step is relaxation—stepping back, detaching from the problem, and allowing it to incubate in the unconscious mind. This period of disengagement is not unproductive; rather, it creates the mental conditions for insight. The later stages involve arriving at an illuminating insight that shifts perspective, encouraging active daydreaming and allowing emerging ideas to flourish, and then experimenting with and testing those ideas in a spirit of judgement, iteration, and creative development. This sequence reflects an important principle of design thinking: insight is not simply an act of inspiration, but the outcome of disciplined engagement, cognitive release, and practical testing. Gibson et al. (2015) also compare this approach with Thomas Edison’s working methods. Edison’s practice illustrates how intensive focus, exhaustive research, experimentation, frustration, detachment, and eventual insight can function together within a creative process. According to Gibson’s account, Edison approached design and invention with a consuming focus on clearly defined challenges. He began by studying prior work extensively, using existing knowledge as the foundation for further inquiry. From there, he engaged in relentless experimentation, testing possibilities through repeated trial and error until a workable solution began to emerge. This process inevitably involved repeated dead ends and moments of frustration. Yet Edison’s method also included deliberate breaks, changes of activity, and periods of rest that allowed ideas to incubate. In this sense, his approach reinforces a central lesson of design thinking: sustained effort is essential, but so too is the ability to step back. Insight often arises not at the peak of force, but after force has been released. Edison’s work on the incandescent light bulb provides a particularly useful example. His team investigated thousands of potential filament materials before identifying a commercially viable direction. The process was not linear, nor was it guided by immediate certainty. Instead, it moved through research, experimentation, failure, reflection, and synthesis. The eventual insight was not isolated from this process; it was produced by it. This relationship between immersion and release is central to both design thinking and creative intelligence. Saturation in the problem space builds familiarity, depth, and tension. Temporary disengagement creates the mental flexibility required for new combinations and perspectives to emerge. Once an idea begins to take shape, it can be refined, developed, and tested for practical value. Even when an idea fails, progress has still been made: inertia has been broken, learning has occurred, and the creative process continues to move forward. In this sense, design thinking is not simply a method for solving predefined problems. It is also a disciplined way of engaging uncertainty, complexity, and possibility. Creative intelligence strengthens this process by enabling the perception of patterns, opportunities, and connections that might otherwise remain unseen. Together, they form a powerful basis for innovation, particularly in environments where complexity resists formulaic solutions. References Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Sommer, M., Arendasy, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence, 46 , 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.007 Gibson, R. (2015). Part 4: How big ideas are built. In The four lenses of innovation: A power tool for creative thinking  (pp. 204–285). John Wiley & Sons. Jager, C. de, & Muller, A. (2020). Chapter 3: Creative intelligence (CQ). In Creative intelligence CQ@play: Shaping your future in the fourth industrial revolution  (pp. 39–45). Knowledge Resources. Lockwood, T. (2011). Thinking from both sides. In Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience and brand value  (p. 13). Allworth Press. Luchs, M. G., Swan, K. S., & Griffin, A. (2016). Design thinking: New product development essentials for the PDMA . Wiley.

Divergent thinking is a cognitive process characterised by the generation of a broad range of creative, varied, and often unconventional ideas in response to a problem or challenge. It stands in contrast to convergent thinking, which focuses on narrowing possibilities in order to identify the single most appropriate solution. Divergent thinking is closely associated with creativity, ideation, and the capacity to move beyond familiar assumptions and established patterns of reasoning. Leonardo da Vinci remains one of history’s most compelling examples of divergent thinking in practice. As a Renaissance polymath, his life and work demonstrate an extraordinary capacity to think expansively, engage across disciplines, and generate insights that transcended the boundaries of his era. His legacy is not only one of artistic mastery, but also of intellectual range, disciplined observation, and relentless inquiry. Several characteristics explain why Leonardo da Vinci is so frequently regarded as an exemplar of divergent thinking. First, his multidisciplinary orientation distinguished him from many of his contemporaries. Leonardo did not confine himself to a single field of expertise. His work spanned painting, anatomy, engineering, architecture, music, botany, mechanics, and scientific observation. This breadth of engagement reflects a mind capable of drawing meaningful connections between seemingly unrelated domains, a defining feature of divergent thought. Second, Leonardo’s approach to problem-solving was consistently inventive. His conceptual designs for flying machines, armoured vehicles, hydraulic systems, and mechanical devices demonstrate a willingness to move beyond conventional limitations. Rather than accepting existing solutions, he explored alternative possibilities with imagination and technical curiosity. Third, Leonardo’s work was grounded in deep observation. Divergent thinking is often fuelled by close attention to patterns, anomalies, and underlying structures within the world. Leonardo’s notebooks, filled with anatomical sketches, studies of movement, engineering diagrams, and observations of the natural environment, reveal a disciplined habit of inquiry. His creativity did not emerge in isolation from reality; rather, it was informed by intense engagement with it. A further defining aspect of his work was the integration of art and science. Leonardo did not treat these as separate or competing domains. Instead, he approached them as mutually reinforcing ways of understanding the world. His anatomical studies improved the realism and precision of his paintings, while his artistic sensibility shaped the clarity and beauty of his scientific sketches. This capacity to synthesise distinct modes of knowledge is central to divergent thinking, which often depends on crossing intellectual boundaries rather than remaining within them. Leonardo also demonstrated a notable openness to complexity and ambiguity. Divergent thinkers are rarely constrained by rigid categories or premature certainty. They tolerate uncertainty long enough to explore possibilities that others may overlook. Leonardo’s work reflects this quality repeatedly. His notebooks often contain unfinished studies, speculative concepts, and exploratory lines of thought that suggest an ongoing process of experimentation rather than a fixation on immediate closure. Even works such as the Mona Lisa  continue to invite interpretation, reflecting a sensibility comfortable with nuance and layered meaning. His development as a thinker and creator further reinforces this interpretation. Leonardo trained under Andrea del Verrocchio in Florence, where his early artistic promise quickly became evident. Yet his trajectory was not defined by mastery within a single craft alone. Rather, his career evolved through an expanding pursuit of knowledge that reached far beyond painting. His notebooks reveal a sustained intellectual restlessness and a refusal to separate artistic practice from scientific and technical investigation. This breadth of curiosity is one of the clearest indicators of divergent thinking. Leonardo’s interests extended across the full spectrum of human knowledge available to him. His studies of anatomy produced drawings of exceptional precision that remain historically significant. His investigations into motion, proportion, hydraulics, and engineering anticipated ideas that would only be realised or understood more fully centuries later. The Vitruvian Man , for example, remains an enduring symbol of the relationship between geometry, proportion, art, and scientific reasoning. Leonardo’s body of work offers further evidence of a divergent mindset. His major paintings, including the Mona Lisa  and The Last Supper , are celebrated not only for their artistic achievement but also for the depth of observation and experimentation they embody. Techniques such as sfumato demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of perception, atmosphere, and the subtleties of human expression. Beyond these renowned works, his notebooks constitute an extraordinary archive of exploratory thought, bringing together sketches, diagrams, reflections, and hypotheses across multiple disciplines. His achievements therefore cannot be understood within a single category. In art, he produced works that continue to define standards of excellence and influence visual culture. In science and engineering, he generated studies and conceptual designs that anticipated future developments in anatomy, mechanics, and technology. His significance lies not merely in isolated accomplishments, but in the method of thinking that made such breadth possible. From a design thinking perspective, Leonardo da Vinci illustrates the value of curiosity, synthesis, experimentation, and disciplined observation. Divergent thinking is not simply the production of many ideas; it is the ability to explore widely, connect deeply, and remain open to insight across boundaries. Leonardo’s enduring relevance lies in his demonstration that innovation often emerges not from narrow specialisation alone, but from the willingness to think broadly, integrate knowledge, and pursue understanding without artificial constraint. His legacy remains a powerful reminder that creativity and rigorous inquiry are not opposites, but partners. In this sense, Leonardo da Vinci stands as one of history’s clearest examples of how divergent thinking can expand what is possible in both thought and practice. References Keele, K. D. (n.d.). Leonardo da Vinci . In The Oxford companion to the history of modern science . Kemp, M. (2006). Leonardo da Vinci: The marvellous works of nature and man . Oxford University Press. Zöllner, F. (2019). Leonardo da Vinci: The complete paintings and drawings . Taschen.

Design thinking is not confined to a single profession, discipline, or industry. Rather, it is a broadly applicable mode of inquiry and problem-solving that can be adopted across contexts. As Deutsch (2020) suggests in Think Like an Architect , this way of thinking should be understood as foundational rather than specialised. It is relevant not only to architects, but also to executives, designers, artists, analysts, and decision-makers across a wide range of fields. In that sense, design thinking is best viewed as a universal capability: one that draws insight from the surrounding environment, from adjacent disciplines, and from patterns observable across different domains of practice. A useful illustration of this principle can be found in Saul Bass’s poster for Otto Preminger’s Anatomy of a Murder . The composition is striking in its simplicity. Set against a dark orange or firebrick-red background, the poster features a black, paper-cut-out-like silhouette of a body lying on the ground, with the head tilted to one side. The title is distributed across the body: “Anatomy” appears on one leg, “of a” on the other, and “Murder” across the torso. As Arif (2017) observes, “The film’s title is spread across three different body parts, in an almost puzzle-like fashion that alludes to the mystery of the story. The main image of the full body is a literal meaning of the film’s title, and the pun on anatomy is shown here by the dissection of a human body.” The fragmented typography reinforces this effect. The disjointed arrangement of the text evokes the aesthetic of a ransom note assembled from cut newspaper, suggesting concealment, ambiguity, and deliberate fragmentation. The design withholds as much as it reveals, creating tension through visual economy. The imagery also evokes the visual language of crime and suspense. The faceless silhouette, combined with the fractured title treatment, shifts attention away from the identity of the victim and toward the broader mystery itself. Although Anatomy of a Murder  is a courtroom drama, the poster’s resemblance to a chalk outline at a crime scene creates an immediate association with investigation, ambiguity, and unresolved narrative tension. What makes the poster particularly effective is its restraint. There are no unnecessary embellishments, no visual excess, and no attempt to over-explain the story. Instead, the design relies on a small number of carefully chosen elements to provoke curiosity and communicate tone. This is a powerful reminder that sophistication in design often lies not in complexity, but in disciplined clarity. The parallel to business solution design is clear. Effective solutions are rarely defined by how much they contain, but by how precisely they address the problem at hand. Elegance, simplicity, and impact are not accidental qualities; they emerge from a deep understanding of the objective, the current state, and the obstacles that separate the two. In both visual communication and business design, the most compelling outcomes are often those that distill complexity into something coherent, purposeful, and immediately intelligible. Although this principle may appear abstract, its practical value is significant. Many professionals remain focused on activity, process, or output volume rather than clarity of intent and precision of execution. Design thinking offers an alternative posture: one centred on interpretation, synthesis, and disciplined problem framing. It is this capability that enables individuals and organisations to produce solutions that are not only functional, but also meaningful, efficient, and enduring. References Arif, I. (2017, October 18). Saul Bass anatomy of a murder . Medium. Deutsch, R. (2020). Chapter 35: Design thinking in architecture. In Think like an architect: How to develop critical, creative and collaborative problem-solving skills  (1st ed., pp. 146–148). RIBA Publishing.

* (Ball, 2022) Design thinking is rarely a simple exercise when approached from a standing start. The creative process often emerges gradually: in response to a problem, an opportunity, or a need for re-framing and renewed perspective. For this reason, effective design thinking often requires a period of cognitive preparation before meaningful insight can occur. A useful way to begin is by considering how a problem or opportunity might be approached in structured stages. The first stage is to frame the situation as a problem, an opportunity, or ideally both. At this point, the situation is best explored divergently in order to surface possibilities, tensions, and alternative interpretations. Once sufficient breadth of understanding has been achieved, the focus can shift toward convergent thinking, where the situation is clarified, narrowed, and defined with precision. Techniques such as mind mapping, collaborative brainstorming, diagramming, and concise problem statements can all support this movement between divergence and convergence. This process may be understood as involving several interconnected activities: Identification  — recognising and acknowledging the situation. Abstraction  — developing a broader and more holistic understanding. Decomposition  — breaking the situation into its constituent parts. Analysis  — examining those parts, the wider situation, and possible design implications. Aggregation  — bringing insights back together in order to shape a coherent response or solution. The second stage is research. This includes investigating not only the immediate problem or opportunity, but also examining what has been done in comparable situations. Existing methods, precedents, and patterns of practice can serve as valuable starting points. Rather than reinventing solutions unnecessarily, design thinking can benefit from adapting established approaches, including those drawn from unrelated disciplines. Often, innovation emerges through the reinterpretation or reapplication of ideas from one context to another. The third stage is immersion. This involves sustained engagement with both the problem and the relevant research. Immersion allows ideas to develop depth and texture through repeated exposure, analysis, and reflection. Intensive focus can generate momentum and produce significant progress, particularly in the early stages. However, prolonged effort without pause may eventually produce diminishing returns, fatigue, or conceptual stagnation. This leads to a fourth stage: cognitive saturation. At the tail end of immersion, effort may begin to feel strained and less productive. This is not necessarily a sign of failure, but often an indicator that the mind has reached a temporary threshold. In creative and analytical work alike, periods of strain are frequently followed by adaptation. However, that adaptation usually requires a shift in mode rather than continued force. The fifth stage is deliberate disengagement. Stepping away from the problem can be an essential part of the design process rather than a departure from it. Temporary distance allows tension to dissipate and enables subconscious processing to continue without direct effort. In many cases, clarity emerges not during concentrated struggle, but after that struggle has been released. From this point, insight often begins to surface. The sixth stage may therefore be described as revelation or illumination. During relaxation, reflection, or even routine activity, a previously unresolved problem may suddenly present a clearer path forward. These moments of insight can feel spontaneous, yet they are typically the result of prior immersion, pattern recognition, and subconscious synthesis. The seventh stage is experimentation. Ideas that emerge through insight must still be tested, refined, and sometimes discarded. Early concepts may improve through iteration, or they may give way to more promising alternatives once explored in practice. Through experimentation, one or more viable ideas begin to take shape as candidates for further development. This sequence illustrates an important principle of design thinking: creativity is not merely a moment of inspiration, but a disciplined process of framing, exploring, researching, immersing, reflecting, and testing. A practical example of this process can be drawn from a simple design challenge: creating a safe way to provide food and water for wild birds using readily available materials. With access to items such as postal twine, old pot-plant trays, and bamboo, a two-tiered feeding and watering station could be designed for suspension from a tree. Even in such a modest scenario, the stages of design thinking remain visible. The situation is identified, options are explored, existing materials are assessed, and a potential solution begins to emerge through synthesis and experimentation. This example demonstrates that design thinking is not limited to formal business, product, or architectural contexts. It also operates in everyday acts of problem-solving, where constraints, needs, materials, and intent must be brought into alignment. Whether applied to strategic transformation or practical making, the same underlying process remains relevant. Situation A need exists to create a safe and practical feeding and hydration station for wild birds using materials already available. Consequence Without an intentional design response, feeding wildlife may be inefficient, unstable, unsafe, or unsuited to the environment in which it is placed. Objective To design a functional, low-cost, and environmentally appropriate bird feeding and watering station using accessible materials and a simple construction method. Proposed Design A suspended, two-tier structure using bamboo as the supporting frame, pot-plant trays as the feeding and watering platforms, and postal twine as the hanging mechanism. Conclusion Design thinking provides a structured yet flexible approach to moving from vague awareness to practical resolution. By combining divergent exploration with convergent definition, and by allowing room for both immersion and reflection, it supports more thoughtful, effective, and adaptable solutions. Even simple design tasks reveal the value of this process when approached with deliberate attention and disciplined creativity. Ball, B. J. (2022, June 6). The Double Diamond: A universally accepted depiction of the design process . Design Council. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/archive/articles/double-diamond-universally-accepted-depiction-design-process