Evidence Based Library and Information Practice


Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011, 6.4 
 

15 
 

   Evidence Based Library and Information Practice  
 
 
 
Commentary 
 
From Solving Puzzles to Designing Solutions: Integrating Design Thinking into Evidence 
Based Practice 
 
 
Zaana Howard 
PhD Candidate, Faculty of Design 
Swinburne University of Technology 
Melbourne, Australia 
Email: zhoward@swin.edu.au  
 
Kate Davis 
Lecturer, Information Studies Group, Information Systems Discipline, Faculty of Science and 
Technology 
Queensland University of Technology 
Brisbane, Australia 
Email: k3.davis@qut.edu.au  
 
Received: 31 Oct. 2011     Accepted: 03 Nov. 2011 
 
 

 2011 Howard and Davis. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative 
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/

 

), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and 
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial 
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one. 

 
Introduction 
 
With the rapid evolution of technology, 
coupled with changing customer needs and 
expectations, businesses, communities and 
even society as a whole, are facing 
increasingly complex challenges. Many of 
these challenges did not exist five – or even 
two – years ago. Libraries, with their reliance 
on technology and focus on customer service, 
are by no means immune to these complex 
challenges. Retrofitting existing solutions not 
designed to handle such complexity is no 
longer sufficient. The design literature calls 
these “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 
1973) which require new solutions be 

designed to suit their “wicked” nature. For 
example, to date the purchase and circulation 
models for ebooks has failed significantly as 
libraries and ebook vendors have focused on 
traditional circulation models and attempted 
to retrofit these models to materials that are, 
by their very nature, different from print 
collections. As a result, the features of 
electronic books – such as, for example, the 
ability of numerous patrons to borrow them 
concurrently – have not been exploited. As 
libraries of all types grapple with increasing 
proportions of their collections moving to 
electronic format, a new approach to the 
complex problem of ebook management is 
needed. This requires an agile, flexible and 

mailto:zhoward@swin.edu.au�
mailto:k3.davis@qut.edu.au�


Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011, 6.4 
 

16 
 

human centred approach to create sustainable 
and scalable solutions adaptable to the rapid 
pace of change.  
 
Evidence based practice (EBP) has been touted 
as one method for problem solving, 
particularly within health care and libraries. It 
focuses on using evidence for decision‐
making, and locates the evidence base within 
literature (Eldredge, 2004). While literature 
can provide grounding, it is not sufficient to 
give insights or determine solutions to wicked 
problems where radical innovation and agility 
is required. EBP focuses on solving “tame” 
problems ‐ problems that can be analyzed and 
understood in order to devise an appropriate 
solution, such as solving puzzles or algebra 
(Stompff, 2010). In relation to libraries, an 
example of a tame problem would be the 
introduction of a new physical format such as 
DVDs. The problem could be understood and 
analysed within the library context and an 
appropriate solution devised. This new format 
still fit within the existing system; however, it 
required some thoughtfulness regarding 
policies and processes. It was akin to puzzle 
solving rather than problem solving. 
 
In contrast to EBP with its focus on tame 
problems, design thinking focuses on solving 
complex and wicked problems, where there is 
often little or no precedence. Design thinking, 
in its simplest form, is an approach for solving 
business problems, similar to the way 
designers approach design problems (Dunne 
& Martin, 2006). It is a human centred rather 
than literature focused approach that is 
collaborative and participatory by nature. This 
enables it to be more agile and produce more 
innovative, scalable, and future focused 
results than EBP. 
 
Incorporating design thinking principles and 
tools into EBP has the potential to move its 
applicability beyond tame problems and 
continuous improvement, toward wicked 
problem solving and innovation. This paper 
proposes a hybrid approach to maximise the 
strengths of the two methods for designing 
solutions to wicked problems. 
 

What are Wicked Problems? 
 
The term “wicked problems” was coined by 
Rittel & Webber (1973) in reference to the 
complexity of problems in social planning. 
Over time, it has been adapted to fit within a 
wider perspective to more generally address 
problems that are both ill‐structured and ill‐
defined. Wicked problems are a class of 
complex social system problems, which are “ill 
formulated where the information is 
confusing, where there are many clients and 
decision makers with conflicting values, and 
where the ramifications in the whole system 
are thoroughly confusing” (Churchman, 1967, 
141). They are unique, with complex 
interrelationships and interdependencies 
because the clients, stakeholders and context 
are different for each problem and subject to 
continuous change. 
 
If we consider wicked problems within a 
library context, we start to see each book or 
resource as part of a much more complex and 
macro system – one resource as part of one 
collection within a library that is situated 
within a community, which in turn is situated 
within a city, and so on. Each level of the 
system has varying interrelationships and 
interdependencies between objects, spaces, 
environments, and people. The notion of 
wicked problems acknowledges the unique 
context of the problem and takes a holistic 
view to develop a customized solution (Rittel 
& Webber, 1973). 
 
Where problems are wicked, new solutions 
appropriate for the context need to be 
developed. EBP is insufficient to allow for 
designing appropriate solutions. EBP is akin to 
solving a puzzle, with the assumption that 
there is just one solution, the pieces of which 
can be found in the current narrowly defined 
literature‐focused “evidence base”. This 
evidence base needs to be diversified in order 
to design new solutions for the wicked 
problems faced by libraries (Partridge, 2011; 
Koufogiannakis 2011; Pan and Howard, 2009). 
This represents a shift from finding a solution 
to designing solutions. Within this concept, 



Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011, 6.4 
 

17 
 

design thinking brings a unique way of 
looking at problems and designing solutions 
(Stompff, 2010). 
 
Design thinking for problem solving 
 
Design thinking is an approach for problem 
framing and solving which can be applied to 
tangible products as well as intangible services 
and systems (Buchanan, 1992; Kimbell, 2009). 
It denotes a collaborative and human centred 
problem solving approach using a design 
mindset to solve wicked problems. A design 
mindset refers to the perspectives and mental 
processes designers move through during the 
act of designing (Cross, 2006). 
 
Brown’s (2008; Brown & Wyatt, 2010) design 
thinking process consists of three stages: 
inspiration, ideation, and implementation (see 
Figure 1). It is a non‐linear approach so, while 
there are definite stages, there is no 
predetermined manner in which these should 
be navigated. Instead, Brown (2008) suggests 
considering the phases as a system of spaces to 
move through, back, and between for iterative 
purposes throughout the process. Rather than 
steps, these spaces demarcate related 
activities.  
 
For Brown (2008), inspiration considers the 
context and circumstances that motivate the 
search for solutions. This involves spending 
considerable time on problem finding, leading 
to the iterative design of a solution that takes 
into account the complex systems in which the 

problem resides. Ideation is the process of 
generating, developing, and testing ideas that 
may lead to new solutions; and 
implementation is the development of the 
product to market. This approach provides a 
valuable framework for considering design 
from problem acknowledgement and 
definition through to final problem resolution.   
 
Over the past decade design thinking has been 
increasingly used as an innovation approach 
across a number of industries including 
business and management (Brown, 2008; 
Dunne & Martin, 2006), healthcare (Brown, 
2008; Duncan & Breslin, 2006), library and 
community services (Bell, 2008) and social 
innovation (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). Design 
thinking has evolved to be considered a 
purposeful human centred design approach 
for innovation and change making for 
individual, community, and societal benefit, 
which can be applied within any number of 
contexts. Due to its social and participatory 
nature, it has great potential for agility and to 
produce radical innovation rather than 
incremental improvement as per EBP.  
 
Comparing design thinking and evidence 
based practice  
 
Both EBP and design thinking can be 
imagined in comparative stages (see Table 1).  
There are similarities in the purpose of the 
stages, however differences lie in the approach 
and activities of each. For example, within the 
first phase, both methods emphasize the 
importance of asking or addressing the right 
question. The manner in which this is 
achieved differs remarkably between the two. 
For EBP the problem is first constructed into a 
question followed by searching for the “best 
available evidence”, which may be published 
or unpublished literature or other 
“authoritative resources” (Eldredge, 2000, 
291). The evidence is then appraised for 
relevance to the problem.  
 
For design thinking, the inspiration phase 
draws evidence from both primary and 
secondary sources and is grounded in the 
contextual local data. This involves observing  

 
Figure 1  
Design thinking process (adapted from 
Brown, 2008). 



Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011, 6.4 
 

18 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
customers, interviewing and conducting 
workshops with stakeholders, understanding 
the organization’s vision, locating the problem 
within industry trends, and may include 
consulting the literature. The focus is on 
understanding human behavior, needs, and 
values. All of this data is then synthesized in 
order to understand the problem from a 
holistic perspective and construct a question. 
In this way, design thinking is heavily human 
centred, and uses participatory methods to 
gather and understand data.  
 
Where EBP determines a solution based on the 
appraisal of the evidence, implements it, and 
then evaluates the result, design thinking uses 
the results of the inspiration phase to 
brainstorm and ideate multiple futures and 
solutions. A selection of these are prototyped 
and tested with customers and stakeholders 
for evaluation and feedback. Solutions are 
then iterated and refined as needed prior to 
implementation. This ensures the solution is 
viable, feasible, caters to the required human 
needs and ultimately resolves the problem. 
 
An understanding of the two methods 
determines that EBP focuses heavily on 
deductive thinking for decision making, 
whereas design thinking uses inductive, 
deductive and abductive, “leap of faith” 
(Martin, 2009) thinking to generate solutions. 
Design thinking is a holistic, whole‐brained 
approach that seeks to understand the many 
interrelationships as well as the qualitative 
and quantitative aspects involved, whereas 
EBP takes a dominantly logical, analytical, left 
brained approach to decision making. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A hybrid model 
 
This paper proposes a hybrid model (Figure 2) 
integrating the most valuable aspects of both 
EBP and design thinking to provide an agile 
and rigorous approach for wicked problem 
solving. There are six stages in this hybrid  
model: define the problem, research, 
prototype and test, implement, evaluate, and  
storytelling. As with design thinking, the 
phases of the model are not intended to be  
linear. In particular, the phases of problem 
definition, research, and prototyping and 
testing are spaces to be moved in and out of as 
needed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Define the problem 
 
Defining the problem in this model focuses on 
curiosity and asking “why” questions such as, 
“Why is it the way it is currently? Why is this  

Table 1  
Phases of Evidence Based Practice and Design Thinking 

Evidence based practice (Booth, 2004) Design thinking (Brown, 2008) 
Define the problem Inspiration  

(problem finding, research, insights) Find evidence 
Appraise the evidence 
Apply results of appraisal Ideation  

(brainstorming, prototyping, testing) 
Evaluate change Implementation  

(execution, evaluation, evolution) Redefine the problem 
 

 
Figure 2 
Hybrid EBP and design thinking model 
 



Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011, 6.4 
 

19 
 

a problem? Why does it matter? What are the 
business constraints?” The answers may be 
found through documents, reports, 
conversations, workshops, or experiences. 
Through curiosity, developing an 
understanding of the current context enables 
the crafting of a question that defines the 
problem accurately. 
 
Research 
 
Research acknowledges the need to collect and 
consider primary and secondary research. In 
this phase, design thinking and EBP converge 
to bring together information from and about 
the past through the literature of relevant 
disciplines as well as personal stories; the 
present through observation, interviews, 
workshops and industry trends; and the 
future through identification of aspirations.  
 
Appraisal is absorbed into this research 
process. In this model, appraisal is focused on 
synthesis and sense making, where research is 
evaluated and insights synthesized. 
Connections between data are identified and 
organized into meaningful and valuable 
findings for action. The question is then 
reviewed and iterated based on this research 
as necessary. 
 
Prototype and test 
 
The inclusion of prototyping and 
hypothesizing allows the use of abductive 
thinking and creativity to identify possible 
solutions. It involves generating multiple 
solutions through structured ideation and 
then prototyping the solutions most likely to 
provide significant benefits. These prototypes 
are then tested directly with customers and 
stakeholders. The feedback from testing, as 
well as personal reflections, allows further 
understanding of the problem and allows the 
iteration of solutions in a meaningful way. 
This new information can be combined with 
the synthesized information from the research 
phase to inform further hypothesizing and 
prototyping. 
 

Implement and evaluate 
 
Implementation and evaluation take on rollout 
and review roles in this model. Due to the 
significant effort in research, prototyping and 
testing, and the commitment to collaboration 
and engagement throughout the process, 
implementation becomes a routine, minimal 
risk process as the majority of the barriers and 
issues have already been addressed. 
Evaluation is also routine, gathering feedback 
and reviewing the success of the solution after 
a determined period of time. This feedback 
can be used for further iteration or evolution 
of the solution. 
 
Storytelling 
 
Problem redefinition is replaced by 
storytelling, a process to close the loop and 
contribute to the evidence base. When 
solutions have been implemented and 
evaluated, it is important to tell the story – 
informally and formally. This adds to the 
evidence base that can be drawn from in the 
research phase of future EBP processes. 
Design thinking acknowledges that every 
problem is unique, so the purpose of feeding 
back into the evidence base is not presenting a 
solution that can be picked up and 
implemented elsewhere. It is about 
documenting the process, the inputs, and the 
learnings.  
 
A hybrid approach maximizes the strengths of 
the two methods for designing solutions to 
wicked problems. While design thinking 
brings new methods and tools to EBP, the 
primary benefit of merging the two 
approaches is the new mindset that design 
thinking brings to EBP. This mindset focuses 
on human centredness rather than literature; it 
redefines what we might consider to be 
“evidence”, and involves collaboration and 
engagement of customers and stakeholders 
throughout the whole process to ensure 
human needs are met. It is also future 
oriented, looking forward rather than looking 
back, and enabling a mindset of reframing 
problems to support solving those with little 
or no precedence.  



Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011, 6.4 
 

20 
 

Conclusion 
 
There are significant benefits to be gained 
from adopting a human centred rather than 
literature focused foundation for EBP. The 
proposed hybrid approach of integrating EBP 
with the mindset, tools, and methods of 
design thinking is one possible model that 
could move EBP forward.   
 
The model is exploratory, with the 
recommendation that it be tested. It brings 
together the most rigorous aspects of EBP and 
the human centredness of design thinking to 
create a model that allows for creativity and 
innovation while also allowing for solutions 
grounded in evidence. It has the potential to 
move EBP’s applicability beyond tame 
problems and continuous improvement, 
toward wicked problem solving and 
innovation. The authors welcome approaches 
from organizations that would be willing to 
test the hybrid model in practice. 
 
 
References 
 
Booth, A. (2004). Formulating answerable 

questions. In A. Booth & A. Brice 
(Eds.), Evidence Based Practice for 
Information Professionals: A handbook 
(pp. 61‐70). London: Facet Publishing. 

 
Bell, S. J. (2008). Design thinking. American 
 Libraries, 39(1/2), 44‐49. 
 
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard 
 Business Review, 86(6), 84‐92. 
 

Brown, T. & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking 
for social innovation. Stanford Social 
Innovation Review, Winter, 30‐35. 

 
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in 
 design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5‐ 
 21. 
 
Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. 
 Management Science, 14(4), B141‐B142. 
 

Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. 
 Design Studies, 26(1), 5‐17. 
 
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. 
 London: Springer. 
 
Duncan, A. K., & Breslin, M. A. (2009). 

Innovating health care delivery: the 
design of health services. Journal of 
Business Strategy, 30(2/3), 13‐20. 

 
Dunne, D. & Martin, R. (2006). Design 

thinking and how it will change 
management education: An interview 
and discussion. Academy of 
Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 
512‐523. 

 
Eldredge, J. (2000). Evidence based 

librarianship: An overview. Bull 
Medical Library Association, 88(4), 289‐
302. 

 
Eldredge J. (2004). How good is the evidence 

base? In A. Booth & A. Brice (Eds.) 
Evidence Based Practice for Information 
Professionals: A handbook (pp. 36‐48). 
London: Facet Publishing. 

 
Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond design thinking: 

Design‐as‐practice and designs‐in‐ 
practice. Centre for Research on Socio-
Cultural Change (CRESC) Annual 
Conference. Manchester: University of 
Manchester. 

 
Koufogiannakis, D. (2011, June). Considering 

the place of practice‐based evidence 
within EBLIP. Presentation delivered 
at EBLIP6: Valuing knowledge and 
expertise, Salford, England. 

Martin, R.L. (2009). The design of business: Why 
design thinking is the next competitive 
advantage. Boston, Mass.: Harvard 
Business Press. 

 
Pan, D. & Howard, Z. (2009). Reorganizing a 

technical services division using 
collaborative evidence based 
information practice at Auraria 



Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011, 6.4 
 

21 
 

Library, Evidence Based Library and 
Information Practice, 4(4), 88‐94. 

 
Partridge, H. (2011). Moving forward: 

Defining and conceptualizing 
evidence based practice for the library 
and information profession. 
Presentation delivered at EBLIP6: 
Valuing knowledge and expertise, 
Salford, England. 

Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a 
general theory of planning. Policy 
Sciences, 4, 155‐169. 

 
Stompff, G. (2010). Don’t call me wicked! 
 Klatergoud. Accessed 31 May 2011: 
 http://www.klatergoud.com/2010/12/d
 on%E2%80%99t‐you‐call‐me‐wicked/ 

 


	/   Evidence Based Library and Information Practice