What Can Design Thinking Learn from Behavior Group Therapy?

  • Julia von Thienen
  • Christine Noweski
  • Christoph Meinel
  • Sabine Lang
  • Claudia Nicolai
  • Andreas Bartz
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

Some widely-used approaches in Behavior Group Therapy bear a striking resemblance to Design Thinking. They invoke almost identical process-models and share central maxims like “defer judgement” or “go for quantity”. Heuristics for composing groups (mixed!) and preferred group sizes (4–6) are very much alike as well. Also, the roles ascribed to therapists are quite similar to that of Design Thinking coaches. Given these obvious analogies, it is most natural to ask what the two traditions can learn from one another – and why it is that they are so strikingly alike. This article ultimately hopes to inspire further investigations by giving examples of how Design Thinking may profit from taking a look at Behavior Group Therapy. We will discuss (a) new techniques for coaches to detect and treat personal dissonances that impede project work, (b) new methods for teams to upgrade empathy, find crucial needs or test prototypes and (c) theoretical insights regarding what happens in the process.

Keywords

Behavior Therapy Plan Analysis Design Team Wicked Problem Design Thinking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bartz A (2011) Einführung in die verhaltenstherapeutische Gruppenpsychotherapie. BFA, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck AT (1976) Cognitive therapy and emotional disorder. International University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowlby J (1988) A secure base: parent–child attachment and healthy human development. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Caspar F (2007) Beziehungen und Probleme verstehen. Eine Einführung in die psychotherapeutische Plananalyse. Hans Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiedler P (1996) Verhaltenstherapie in und mit Gruppen. Psychologische Psychotherapie in der Praxis. Beltz, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  6. Grawe K (2004) Neuropsychotherapie. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  7. Holmes J (1993) John Bowlby and attachment theory. Makers of modern psychotherapy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Maslow AH (1954) Motivation and personality. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Osborn A (1953) Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. In: Policy sciences, vol 4. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 155–169Google Scholar
  11. Roedinger E (2011) Praxis der Schematherapie. Lehrbuch zu Grundlagen, Modell und Anwendung. Schattauer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  12. Thienen Jv, Noweski C, Rauth I, Meinel C, Lang S (2012) If you want to know who you are, tell me where you are: The importance of places. In C Meinel & L Leifer (Eds.), Understanding innovation. Design thinking research. Studying co-creation in practice. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia von Thienen
    • 1
  • Christine Noweski
    • 1
  • Christoph Meinel
    • 1
  • Sabine Lang
    • 1
  • Claudia Nicolai
    • 1
  • Andreas Bartz
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso-Plattner-Institut (HPI), für Softwaresystemtechnik GmbHPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations