Design Thinking in Software Engineering:

Models and Techniques

Rafael Parizi, PUCRS Matheus Prestes, PUCRS and Sabrina Marczak, PUCRS

Abstract—Design Thinking is an approach to problem-solving through the execution of processes and methods that aims to meet user
needs, transforming a problem or idea into a minimum viable product prototype accepted by the end-user to distill the proper solution to
be followed-through. Distinct design thinking models and techniques are adopted in software development processes applying
empathy and a sense of divergence and convergence to identify and define what is technologically suitable and sound. The benefits of
its use are not without pitfalls. Learn more here!

Index Terms—Design Thinking, Software Development, Models, Techniques, Benefits, Difficulties.

F
1 D ESIGN T HINKING IN S OFTWARE D EVELOP -
MENT

D ESIGN T HINKING is a problem-solving approach that

brings human-centered design principles at its core.
Driven by the search for innovation, it fits the development
TABLE 1
Benefits on the use of Design Thinking

of new products, services, and processes in several contexts,
from startups to large and complex environments [1]; thus
being of use and interest to software development teams.
This user-centered approach can be used in software de-
velopment processes since early phases to understand and
identify what the customer needs are, providing better sup-
port for downstream development activities; mainly those
related to identifying a proper solution for the problem-
at-hand or validating solution-based hypothesis [2]. The
multidisciplinary view, engaging designers and users, offers
software teams the voice for dynamic, interactive and driven
problem-based collaboration; bringing all involved parties
closer together.
Industry-based empirical literature reports on several
other benefits of applying Design Thinking (DT) in soft-
ware development (see Table 1). By bringing the user at
the center of the discussion, DT also improves team com-
munication and facilitates knowledge domain acquisition
and sharing, which are well-known issues in software de-
velopment. Given its user-centered approach, hypothesis-
validation based focus, and interactive and dynamic nature,
DT is also considered an easy-in integration with agile
development mindset; seeing as a way to boost agile de-
velopment [3].
However, navigating in this new world might be chal-
lenging. Literature offers a plethora of sources for a practi-
tioner to choose from. Most of these argue that there is no
silver bullet recipe on how to select a theoretical model to
follow or which techniques to apply on. Empirical studies
report, as the state-of-the-art practice, that software teams
select what they see as most fit to their context at the time.
• R. Parizi is a PhD candidate in the area of Design Thinking for Software
Engineering (PUCRS). E-mail: Contact him at rafael.parizi@edu.pucrs.br
• M. Plautz is a MsC student in the area of Design Thinking for Software
Engineering (PUCRS).
• S. Marczak is a Software Engineering Adjunct Professor at PUCRS.
Better understanding of the customer and user needs
Resource to clarify user requirements
Strategy to validate a problem or an idea
Better identification of a solution or MVP
User at the center of the discussion
Bring customer and users closer together with software teams
Innovative and creative solutions to customer and user needs
Improved communication
Facilitates knowledge domain acquisition and sharing
Easy-in integration with agile software development mindset
To help those interested in embracing Design Thinking in
software development, we present a set of 10 models and 38
techniques reported in industry-based empirical literature
hoping that this can help introduce one to this new world1 .
2 D ESIGN T HINKING M ODELS
The models comprise different goals and are organized
in distinct phases as summarized in Table 2 and briefly
presented next.
Sandino et al.
Sandino et al. [4] integrates Design Thinking into software
development with an iterative process that begins with
instructions for subsequent team activities. The team then
explores features of the system to be developed, such as
potential users, their needs, and previous solutions to the
same problem. From this, the next step, characterized as a
divergent phase, the team should work collaboratively to
generate as many ideas as possible, prototype them and then
1. Note to reviewers: We have conducted a literature review and
identified 18 models and 46 techniques. We present here only those
reported as used in industry-based projects (from empirical studies).
The remaining were mostly reported as a resource to support Software
Engineering Education. Our review is available as a technical report in
Portuguese so far given that the second author needs to get its approval
as part of his Graduate Program requirements but it can be accessed:
here https://bit.ly/2YAECYl.
 TABLE 2
Design Thinking Models and Their Respective Phases

Models Phases Description

Define Definition of an initial structure and constraints to guide the work in the next activities.
Explore Gather information about the project, such as potential users, their needs and previous solutions.
Sandino et al

Idealize Identify the relevant issues to the people involved in the activity and to generate as many ideas as possible
to get answers to the identified needs.
Prototype Build detailed prototypes bringing useful information to be discussed with stakeholders.
Select Select the prototypes that solve the problem.
Implement Implement some selected prototypes to obtain outcomes.
Review Present results to users and capture feedback to evaluate the work done.
Define the Challenge Get information about the problem to be solved (or challenge) and define the activities for identifying and
developing the solution.
Nordstrom

Observe People Observe stakeholders as a means to identify what they do and think.
Form Insights Discuss and record insights from what has been observed and debating potential solutions.
Frame Opportunities Create a visual representation to understand the collected data by highlighting key relationships and
developing a solution strategy identification.
Brainstorming Ideas Generate numerous ideas to have solutions that meet user needs.
Try Experiments Test the selected solutions under real conditions to learn how they might work in practice.
Understand Understand the problem and context by collecting information about the topic or issue to be solved.
Observe Collect insights about the user needs by conducting observations, interviews, etc with the customers and
Plattner I

users.
D-School

Point of View Share the collected information amongst the team and convert them into a visual framework.
Hasso-

(HPI)

Ideation Work in an interdisciplinary way with observed data to generate solutions.

Prototype Visualize and communicate ideas with the help of fast and cheap prototypes (e.g., paper-based).
Test Evaluate the proposed solutions and user needs.
Approach The first meeting between technical members and stakeholders to share contextual information and
Diving Board

insights about the working methodology and user experiences.

Develop Construction of low-level prototypes based on artifacts and ideas presented in previous workshops and
community feedback.
Present and Provoke Participants present the latest iteration of the prototypes, which are designed to encourage the more
significant ideation of the participants through discussion and feedback on the artifacts.
Explore Explore the problem space with community participants, allowing them to share more contextual
information.
Reflect Participants reflect on mutual feedback and on subjects covered by the previous steps to generate a
requirements’ list.
Escape Once the problem has been explored and a list of requirements has been elicited, development begins.
Understand Understand the problem and its essentials, research data and facts, identify relevant actors and situations
and explore the possible scope of design.
Universitys

Emphasize Empathize with users to understand their problem, and capture deep insights into what users think and
Stanford

feel.
+ HPI

Define Moment to team members share all their impressions and information. The collected ideas and experiences
are used to reformulate and specify the initial problem.
Ideation Create personas to focus on the target group for the future solution and generate a large number of ideas.
Prototype Select the promising ideas generated earlier on and produce prototypes to quickly and concisely visualize
it.
Test Test prototypes in a real context to build empathy for the target group.
Empathy Understand what the user or customer need, in terms of what the customer feels.
Definition Set down the needs of the customer in terms of a problem that can be solved.
Ideation Propose a set of solutions that meets the needs of the customer.
D-School
Stanford

Prototype Create a solution that covers a selection of the features required by the user, so that the final customer can
Univ.’s

experience it.
Test Present the solution so that the customer can provide timely feedback to iterate within the process.
(Re)define the Problem Definition of the problem to be solved, involving the identification of stakeholders. In a second iteration,
Meinel e Leifer

it will serve as an analysis of test results.

Understand Understand the problem and context through data gathering about the topic or problem to be solved.
Idealize Generate and develop ideas that may lead to solutions.
Prototype Build a graphical view of the ideas generated to present the solution.
Test Test the prototypes in a real context that will be used to evaluate them.
Research Plan activities by choosing suitable methods, conducting research, and publish an insight report.
Idealize Execution of a co-creation workshop hosted by the ideation team, inviting other stakeholders to discuss
Workflow
Centered
Human-

the insights.
Prototype Build the prototypes and present them to the evaluation team.
Agile

Evaluate Conduct an evaluation and depending on the outcome, prototyping teams should have to rework their
prototypes.
Understand Empathy activity to help to understand the users, within the context of their problems, observing how
IBM DT

users interact with their environment.

Explore Generate new ideas in order to avoid obvious solutions and thus increase the innovation potential.
Prototype Iterative generation of artifacts intended to answer questions to solve the design problem and to validate
the ideas proposed during the Explore phase.
Evaluate Solicit users to provide feedback about the created prototype.
Divergent Generate multiple ideas, searching for relevant information and proposing new ideas about the related
DC-DT

task.
Convergent Produce solutions for the selected ideas by putting ideas into action and employing an innovative solution.
refine them at a selection stage. After choosing the ideas that
indicate what the product will look like, the team should
implement the solution considering who will do what, the
timeline, and with what features. Finally, the team should
review the product and make sure it truly meets the needs
of potential users.
Nordstrom Model
A model for using both DT, Lean Startup, and Agile, where
development of a new product must start with DT because
the team needs to discover user needs, identify problems,
and propose solutions. In this model, the problem to be
solved by the software team is seen as a challenge to obtain
information and define the sequence of activities, observing
people to capture insights and detailed stakeholder data.
Then a multidisciplinary team of developers and designers
brainstorm to generate various ideas into how to design a
solution strategy that meets user needs and then test the so-
lution under real-world conditions to capture user feedback
information that will guide the next steps of development.
This model is used by a team of developers and designers
applying agile and human-centered methodologies at the
BlackBerry Tech Center Recife, Brazil [5].
Hasso-Plattner I D-School Model (HPI)
Hasso-Plattner is a Design Thinking model that can be in-
tegrated into software development to enable participatory
design of the solution that meets user needs. This model em-
phasizes the human perspective by collecting information
through observations described as insights. In an ideation
process, it encourages interdisciplinary teams that merge
users and developers to work on generating a large set of
ideas and then putting them into practice by developing
prototypes, which are visual representations of the solution
being presented to users. Testing these allows for the solu-
tion evaluation and identification of user satisfaction with it
[6].
Diving Board
The Diving Board model articulates an involvement of the
software development team with stakeholders who can
provide useful information about their needs, helping to
elicit software requirements. This approach aims to perform
user-centric activities, with the team being responsible for
capturing user feedback and turning it into insights. Col-
laboratively, participants should build prototypes so that
solutions are idealized, useful for giving stakeholders a view
of the technologies available or that could be developed.
So, the model encourages discussions about the projected
solutions, which should be presented to those involved,
analyzed and establishes a process of reflection on the
results to assist in obtaining a list of requirements for the
system to be developed, which enables the kick-off of the
software development process [7].
Stanford University’s D-School
Stanford’s Design Thinking model aims to clarify the prob-
lem to be solved through empathy. This allows an immer-
sion in the users’ context in order to obtain details to support
the understanding of their needs, used to define the soft-
ware requirements. This process includes interviews with
experts, developers, analysts, among others, and fosters
interdisciplinary and collaborative work to present ideas
as a tool for generating candidate solutions. These are
formulated as prototypes to capture stakeholders reactions
and feedback needed to foster the software development
process. Examples of use of this model are development
of open government data solutions [8] and smart-cities
requirements engineering [9].
Stanford University’s + HPI
This model compiles the Stanford and Hasso Plattner’s
models based on principles such as user needs as the cen-
ter of attention, deep understanding, and interdisciplinary
teams. Focused on empathy with the user, this model can be
applied to the software development process by integrating
a team of IT specialists, developers, and professionals from
other areas of the proposed solution. It also provides for the
creation of personas so that it is possible to discuss their
characteristics and serve as a source for software require-
ments. These actions should be performed in collaborative
contexts, as they allow the generation of many insights for
the DT team through ideation, which provides subsidies for
the creation of prototypes seeking, through testing, to verify
if the proposed solutions adequately meet the needs of end-
users [10].
Meinel e Leifer
In this model DT is defined as a human-centered method-
ology that integrates expertise from different disciplines
such as design, engineering, and business for systems de-
velopment. It focuses on the end-user through stakeholder
identification, multidisciplinary collaboration, and iterative
improvement to produce innovative products, systems, and
services.
Meinel and Leifert consists of activities to generate ideas
that allow different views on solutions, starting with the
construction of prototypes as a way to present them and
then testing them in real context to evaluate the results.
Therefore, the DT has a Human-Centered Design approach
for teams to achieve a deeper understanding of the design
and enhance meeting user needs [11].
IBM DT
The purpose of the IBM model is to extend DT principles
to be applied in software processes, capturing user needs
for incremental software development. It has some modifi-
cations compared to other models, including the addition
of the Hill concept, which presents a new way to express
user needs in the project requirements. Each hill articulates
a clear objective and contains a defined scope to be achieved
in a release or finite set of releases and must be written to
solve a specific and clearly defined user problem. The hills
also describe intersections between user expectations and
store requirements and consist of three elements: “Who”:
Describes a specific user or group of users; “What”: de-
scribes a problem that needs to be resolved; and “How”: a
measurable target resulting from the completion of the hill
[12].
 TABLE 3
Design Thinking Techniques.

Technique Description
5w2h Used to explore and understand a problem where the team asks questions such as ”What? Why? Where?
Who? When? and How?”.
A Day in the Life An ethnographic-informed technique where the team or a team member follows and observes a user during
a typical day to understand her routine and daily operations.
Behaviour Archaeology Allows the team to know how the user organizes her work space, what shes uses to perform it, and how the
tools and artifacts are use and organized.
Bodystorming Physical aspects of the user that might affect or are related to the work-to-be-performed are experienced in a
certain proposed situation as a means to inspire new ideas.
Brainstorming A creative process mediated by a moderator who is responsible for stimulating participants’ creativity in
generating a vast number of ideas without letting the group loses focus on what is being discussed.
Brainwriting Participants are asked to write ideas on a piece of paper and then discuss these ideas with the other
participants as a means to foster new ideas to problem-solving.
Business Model Canvas A management-based template for documenting or creating business models. It is a visual map with
components describing a product’s value proposition, infrastructure, customers, and finances.
Card Sort A participatory procedure applied to elicit the perspectives, values, wishes, and behaviors of users and other
stakeholders, in which cards with individual topics each are given to each participant who are asked to
organize them by categories and later discuss their organization.
Character Profiles A synthesis method whereby a team builds a (semi)fictional character which incorporates the human-based
observations the team has discussed with its users in group as a means to consolidate important user
characteristics and behaviors to be considered.
Cognitive and Behaviour Map A discovering technique in which the team asks the participants to show how they think and how they
perform their actions.
Costumer Journey Map A visual illustration of a series of steps that users will go through while using a system, considering
chronological aspects.
Desk Research A research-based technique that gathers information from published material on the target audience, or
product or topic of interest. Data sources can range from peer reviewed articles to white papers and media
material such as newspapers, magazines, and websites.
Empathy Map A visual representation comprised of four quadrants to represent each what people say, think, feel, and how
they behave in relation to a certain thing.
Error Analysis A team strategy to identify errors and correct them based on the design and prototype of a solution in which
the team can base its discussion, resulting in a dossier to guide the planning of the next steps.
Five Whys? A consistent approach to understanding the root-causes of a certain problem. The team asks ”why”-based
questions five consecutive times using the previous answers to formulate the next question round and moving
forward the the problem root causes.
Fly on the Wall An observation-based technique used to understand how people behave while performing a certain activity.
How-Might-We Question An innovative-based technique in which the participants raise new innovative ideas by formulating questions
in the form of ”How might we...?”.
Insight Card A synthesis technique used for recording ideas whatever they emerge. The card format includes the idea title,
source and brief description.
Interview A technique to learn what the customer and/or user think about a certain problem and how she would fix it.
Living Lab A multi-stakeholder place set-up to carry out innovation projects that follows the principles of open and user
innovation and focus on real-life experimentation of ideas and solutions.
Mind Mapping A graphical representation for visually simplifying and organizing complex data at different levels of
abstraction, illustrating links between data allowing new information to be extracted.
Mockup A visual, prototype-based representation of the proposed software solution, allowing for discussion before
actual code is developed.
Narrative A validation technique in which the user narrates her experience interacting with the developed solution.
Observation Similar to the Fly-on-the-Wall technique, it aims to reveal the user experience by understanding her work
context and uncovering hidden needs.
Personal Inventory A study of relationships that individuals develop with their belongings at work.
Persona An archetypal definition created about who is facing a certain problem, created to identify the needs the
product shall solve.
Rapid Ethnography Quick information gathering technique by asking the participants to highlight their activities.
Role-Playing A group technique that stimulates participants to assume a character role to more easily share what happens
when interacting with a certain product.
Scenarios Mapping Document the collective understanding of users’ workflows aiming to explore new ideas.
Shadowing Observation-based technique used for a certain period of time to seek longitudinal detailed information on
how the user interacts with the product.
Social Network Mapping Used to unveil hidden stakeholders and to identify roles and responsibilities.
Stakeholder Mapping Visual representation of the involved stakeholders and their relationships.
Storyboard Represent the user experience through storytelling and scene scripts that map who, what, when, where, and
how a system is used or shall be used in the future.
Storytelling Discuss and define possible scenarios for a certain proposed solution, describing them through stories
illustrated by figures, texts and fictional characters.
Survey & Questionnaire Used obtain information from users in relation to their needs when a broad audience is of relevance.
User Feedback Grid A four-part matrix that helps to gather and organize any sort of user’ feedback, questions and ideas.
User Story Short and simple descriptions often written on cards or sticky notes of each feature from the perspective of
the user or customer who needs the new capability.
World Cafe Similar to Brainstorming, this technique aims for generating new ideas from the group’s collective participa-
tion in quick rounds of discussion.
Human-Centered Agile Workflow (HCAW)
HCAW combines agile and collaborative software devel-
opment with user-centric design, following Scrum’s estab-
lished approach, without restrictions on team location, team
size, or scope of the project. Also, this DT model is employed
for each sprint in Scrum. In the first sprint, provides for the
completion of all steps, from research to evaluation. In the
other sprints, only ideation step is re-conducted, focusing on
co-creation workshops, prototype presentation, and evalua-
tion, working as input artifacts to the specification. Thus,
DT is worked on at the ideation design stage and serves as
input to the implementation process [13].
DC-DT (Divergent-Convergent Model)
The DC-DT model aims to build the solution by initially
diverging many ideas and then converging the discussion to
identify a set of proposals that might reveal the solution-to-
be [14], [15]. Integrated with Blue-Ocean strategies, which
focus on analyzing the competitive factors of the market,
and Lean Startup, which focuses on creating a lean product
version that demonstrates delivering value to the target
audience, the DC-DT model is incorporated into the soft-
ware development as a valuable source of information for
visualizing stakeholder needs, designing solutions iterativ-
elly, getting feedback from a multidisciplinary team that
includes managers, researchers, developers, end-users, and
others, who practice co-design work building personas and
scenarios that create an environment to share ideas [16].
3 D ESIGN T HINKING T ECHNIQUES
The techniques are used for different reasons or in distinct
phases, associated or not with a certain theoretical model.
Table 3 lists these in alphabetical order, highlighting their
main purpose.
B UT I T IS NOT A LL A B ED OF R OSES ...
Although the successful industry-based reports from liter-
ature on the use of Design Thinking in software devel-
opment, these are not without some pitfalls (see Table 4).
These studies reported that is quite challenging for software
teams to develop a creative thinking mindset and establish
empathy by the user as well as to move from requirements-
implementation to a problem-solving mindset. These chal-
lenges can be overcame with multidisciplinary teams com-
posed of designers and software engineers, but companies
are still resistant to bring designers to work full-time as part
of software teams, being more common to have them con-
tributing to discussing the user experience and designing
user interfaces only. Bringing the user together is yet another
difficulty, already largely reported in agile development
literature. Those working on large and/or distributed teams
also complain that it is hard to keep up and find proper
tools to support the use of this user-centered approach. And,
unfortunately, it is also still perceived as a time consuming
activity that ”takes away from programming time”.
There is still a long way to go. Academia and industry
can work together to identify which models and techniques
are best fit to a certain scenario (e.g., problem is blurry,
TABLE 4
Challenges on the use of Design Thinking
Creative thinking mindset development
User empathy establishment
Requirements-implementation to problem-solving mindset change
Multidisciplinary team formation
User engagement and motivation
Scale up to large and/or distributed teams
Time consuming
problem is well defined but no indication of solution is
previously known, a solution already in place is no longer
attending the user needs and requires reconsideration),
customer profile and areas of application. Also, measure
whether Design Thinking indeed provides better resolutions
to user needs helping practitioners to more safely board this
journey and is yet not another silver bullet promise.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. Brown, “Definitions of design thinking,” Design Thinking:
Thoughts by Tim Brown, vol. 7, 2008.
[2] W. R. Prasad, G. Perera, K. J. Padmini, and H. D. Bandara, “Adopt-
ing design thinking practices to satisfy customer expectations
in agile practices: A case from sri lankan software development
industry,” in Proceedings of the Moratuwa Engineering Research Con-
ference. IEEE, 2018, pp. 471–476.
[3] A. L. Liikkanen, H. Kilpiö, L. Svan, and M. Hiltunen, “Lean
ux: The next generation of user-centered agile development?” in
Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction,
2014, pp. 1095–1100.
[4] D. Sandino, L. M. Matey, and G. Vélez, “Design thinking method-
ology for the design of interactive real-time applications,” in
Proceedings of the International conference of design, user experience,
and usability. Springer, 2013, pp. 583–592.
[5] D. F. de Paula and C. C. Araújo, “Pet empires: Combining design
thinking, lean startup and agile to learn from failure and develop
a successful game in an undergraduate environment,” in Interna-
tional Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 2016,
pp. 30–34.
[6] A. Berger, “Design thinking for search user interface design,” Proc
of the European Human-Computer Interface Conference, pp. 1–4, 2011.
[7] P. Newman, M. A. Ferrario, W. Simm, S. Forshaw, A. Friday, and
J. Whittle, “The role of design thinking and physical prototyping
in social software engineering,” in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 2015, pp. 487–496.
[8] L. N. Mutuku and J. Colaco, “Increasing kenyan open data con-
sumption: A design thinking approach,” in Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance.
ACM, 2012, pp. 18–21.
[9] C.-S. Lee and K. D. Wong, “An entrepreneurial narrative media-
model framework to knowledge building and open co-design for
smart cities,” in Proceedings of the Computing Conference. IEEE,
2017, pp. 1169–1175.
[10] A. Carell, K. Lauenroth, and D. Platz, “Using design thinking
for requirements engineering in the context of digitalization and
digital transformation: A motivation and an experience report,” in
The Essence of Software Engineering. Springer, 2018, pp. 107–120.
[11] H. Keighran and S. Adikari, “Developing high-performing teams:
A design thinking led approach,” in International Conference of
Design, User Experience, and Usability. Springer, 2016, pp. 53–64.
[12] P. Lucena, A. Braz, A. Chicoria, and L. Tizzei, “Ibm design thinking
software development framework,” in Proceedings of the Brazilian
Workshop on Agile Methods. Springer, 2016, pp. 98–109.
[13] L. Glomann, “Introducing human-centered agile
workflow(hcaw)–an agile conception and development process
model,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied
Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 2017, pp. 646–655.
[14] P. Daz, I. Aedo, and J. Cubas, “Codice: Balancing software engi-
neering and creativity in the co-design of digital encounters with
cultural heritage,” 2014, pp. 253–256.
[15] D. Chasanidou, A. A. Gasparini, and E. Lee, “Design thinking
methods and tools for innovation,” in Design, User Experience,
and Usability: Design Discourse, A. Marcus, Ed. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2015, pp. 12–23.
[16] A. W. T. Borba, G. H. C. Batista, and R. A. C. Souza, “Innostartup-
a toolbox for innovation in software development process,” IEEE
Latin America Transactions, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 3875–3885, 2016.
Rafael Parizi is a PhD candidate in the area
of Design Thinking for Software Engineering in
the School of Technology at PUCRS University,
Brazil. Parizi is also a Software Engineering se-
nior instructor at Federal Institute Farroupilha.
Contact him at rafael.parizi@edu.pucrs.br.
Matheus Prestes is a MsC student in the area
of Design Thinking for Software Engineering in
the School of Technology at PUCRS University,
Brazil. Prestes is also a senior systems analyst
at Thema Informtica Ltda, Brazil. Contact him at
matheus.plautz@edu.pucrs.br.
Sabrina Marczak is an Adjunct Professor in
the School of Technology at PUCRS University,
Brazil. She co-leads the MunDDoS Research
Group, which mostly conducts industry-based
research in Software Engineering. Contact her
at sabrina.marczak@pucrs.br