Design thinking and Creative Problem Solving (CPS) are both structured innovation methods, but they differ in their starting point and scope of application: design thinking starts with the end user and is most effective in product and service innovation, while CPS starts with the problem itself and has a broader range of applications—from strategy and organizational change to team problems. For many organizations, it’s not an either/or choice: the methods complement each other.
| Design thinking | Creative Problem Solving (CPS 6.1™) | |
| Origin | Design practice; popularized by IDEO and the Stanford d.school (1990s–2000s) | Research tradition of Osborn & Parnes (1950s), further developed by Isaksen, Treffinger & Dorval |
| Starting point | The end user and their needs | The problem, in any form |
| Phases | Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test | 4 components, 8 phases; to be applied based on needs |
| Core mechanism | User research + rapid prototyping and testing | Dynamic balance between divergence and convergence (“the heartbeat”) |
| Scientific basis | Limited empirical validation as a method | 70 years of peer-reviewed research, measured effects |
| Ideal application | Products, services, customer experiences | Strategy, change, team issues, and innovation |
| Role facilitator | Design lead / multidisciplinair team | Certified Facilitator |
Both methods in five sentences
Design thinking solves problems by thinking radically from the end user’s perspective. Teams observe and interview users (empathize), distill the real problem from those interactions (define), generate potential solutions (ideate), build rapid prototypes, and test them with real users.
Its strength lies in the short learning cycles: you quickly discover whether a solution works. The method became world-famous through IDEO and Stanford and is now the lingua franca of product and service teams. Its weakness: for issues without a clear “user”—such as a strategic course correction, a team conflict, or a reorganization—the format falls short.
Creative Problem Solving structures the thought process itself, regardless of the type of issue. The framework (currently CPS 6.1™) has four components—understanding the challenge, generating ideas, preparing for action, and planning the approach—and allows a facilitator to determine which phases are necessary for each situation.
The driving force is the strict alternation between divergence and convergence, which has been shown to lead to 400 to 600% more usable ideas. CPS builds on seventy years of cumulative research and integrates insights on cognitive diversity through the VIEW assessment. What CPS does not typically include: the systematic user research and prototyping discipline of design thinking. See also: What is Creative Problem Solving?
When should you choose which approach?
Choose design thinking when the issue revolves around a product, service, or experience with identifiable users, and you want to quickly learn whether solutions work in practice.
Choose CPS when the issue is broader or more diffuse—such as strategy, culture, collaboration, or process improvement—or when you’re not yet sure what the real problem is. The “understanding the challenge” component is specifically designed for situations where the question behind the question has yet to be identified. CPS is also the logical choice when you want to build a sustainable, organization-wide problem-solving capacity rather than a methodology for a single department: facilitators are certifiable, and the framework applies to any type of issue.
Combine both when you’re driving product innovation as part of a larger transformation. In practice, experienced facilitators use design thinking techniques (personas, journey maps, prototyping) as working methods within the CPS structure: CPS provides the process architecture and the divergence/convergence discipline, while design thinking provides the user focus. The “method war” being waged on social media barely exists in practice.
The Question Behind the Choice of Method
Anyone who Googles “design thinking vs. CPS” is rarely looking for a method—usually a solution to a stalled innovation process. Our experience: the problem rarely lies in the chosen method and almost always in two underlying factors. First, the organizational climate: in an environment lacking trust, time for ideas, and a willingness to take risks, every method will fail—assess that climate before you start a method-based project. Second, facilitation skills: a poorly facilitated design sprint and a poorly facilitated CPS session yield the same disappointment.
So don’t start with the method, but with the question: what kind of challenge do we have, who needs to be involved, and who will guide the process?
Want to talk more?
o2c2 helps organizations choose the right process approach—and trains facilitators who master both worlds. Schedule an appointment for a no-obligation conversation about your challenge.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CPS older than design thinking?
Yes—the CPS tradition began in the 1950s with Alex Osborn, decades before design thinking took its current form. Both methods have influenced each other, by the way: the diverge/converge logic of design thinking comes directly from the CPS tradition.
Can I get certified in both?
There are countless (non-standardized) certifications for design thinking. For CPS, there is a formal facilitator certification within the CPS 6.1™ framework, which o2c2 organizes in Brussels.
What does it cost to get started?
An exploratory session with an external process facilitator is the easiest way to begin. Those who want to build in-house capacity should look into the four-day facilitator certification.