1. The document proposes a theory of design thinking consisting of seven modes of thinking: intentional, referential, relational, formative, procedural, evaluative, and reflective. 2. These seven modes occur during any purposeful thought or design thinking to resolve a problematic situation. The modes involve different ways of thinking like gathering information, organizing options, forming plans, executing plans, and assessing outcomes. 3. Complex design problems are addressed through these same seven modes of thinking at different levels, with sub-goals comprising larger goals. The theory suggests emotions motivate these modes of thinking to seek meaningful resolutions to problematic situations.

1. 1
A Theory of Design Thinking
Charles Burnette, PhD, FAIA
charlesburnette@comcast.net
Prepared in response to the Torquay Conference on Design Thinking
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Nov 1, 2009
Most of us understand that design done in a morally responsible, collaborative and
ecologically sensitive way is a key to improving the future. We appreciate the positive,
flexible, and creative manner in which problematic situations in any field can be
addressed and resolved through design thinking. We also understand that increasingly
designing will involve other people, more complex and difficult situations, more
advanced methods, and have many outcomes - some of them undesired. However, we
are less sure of the structure, implementation, social conduct, or neurological foundations
of such thinking. We do not have a model of design thinking that is clear enough to
enable us to implement computational support systems, facilitate research, guide
education, or support interdisciplinary collaboration.
A conceptual specification of design thinking is needed; one that can be successfully
applied by an individual thinker, an interdisciplinary team or collaborating stakeholders
using natural language, computers, or any other medium. Such a theory must also
accommodate diverse methods and “wicked” problems that involve multiple feedback
loops. It must be accessible at different levels and for different purposes.
I will suggest a model for design thinking that, I believe, will meet these needs. It is a
model that began with a PhD dissertation addressing the variety of information
communicated during an architectural project. It has since been explored and tested in
many venues including undergraduate and graduate design studios, interdisciplinary
workshops, and K-12 classrooms. More recently, it was used to structure and guide the
development and demonstration of a computer based system to support interdisciplinary
design. This federally funded project occupied 8 graduate students for five years.
The model identifies seven modes of thinking that occur during purposeful thought and
design thinking. Each mode manifests a different point of view about a focal situation
and addresses specific information in ways appropriate to that information. Each
implements a different intentional stance toward a problematic situation. The modes and
their interaction are based on scientific findings of how the brain functions as well as on
the process of designing. Complex neurological descriptions of how the brain actually
works are compressed into language that is easily understood and applied. Distributed
object-agent computational processing is anticipated.
Thinking in modes is quite natural. To use a mundane example, imagine the task of
crossing a street. A problematic situation arises when the need or desire to cross a street
is felt. To determine how to cross the street you must gather information about the
situation such as the layout of the street, the state of the traffic light, the flow of traffic,
your relative location, etc.. You organize this information into alternative options for
crossing the street and analyze which best serves your immediate goals. If you are in a

2. 2
hurry you may consider running across between moving cars. Whatever option you
choose you formulate it as a plan of action that you then carryout to cross the street. As
you do so you evaluate progress and assess risk while adjusting your action as required.
Once across you reflect on the experience and incorporate what you learn from it into
your knowledge about crossing streets. Such thought is so familiar that we don’t realize
that different ways of thinking are involved.
Here in more explicit form are the modes involved in this or any other purposeful
thought.
Intentional Mode – Executive thought to manage the resolution of a need or desire – i.e.
to cross the street.
Referential Mode – Nominal thought to identify and define discrete objects and actions
that have relevance to your need in the situation – i.e. Status of light, traffic, distances,
etc.
Relational Mode – Associative thought to structure and analyze the Referential
information to fit the problematic situation and your intention regarding it – model
alternative crossing options and select one.
Formative Mode – Synthesizing thought to express and communicate a plan of action, the
meaning of the situation, its subject or anticipated outcome. – Commit to a crossing plan
and its probable outcome.
Procedural Mode – Productive thought to execute sequential actions to carry out a plan or
change an expression or situation – execute the crossing.
Evaluative Mode - Comparative thought to assess a procedural outcome against some
standard or expectation – assesses performance and result.
Reflective Thought – Proactive thought to learn from the experience and apply the
experiential knowledge – incorporate what you’ve learned into what you know.
Intentional thought implies the existence of a situation needing resolution. Referential
thought implies that the focal situation will have recognizable content. Relational thought
implies that the elements in a situation will have structure. Formative thought implies
that the focal situation can be comprehended, mediated, and expressed. Procedural
thought implies that a situation can be changed through thought and action. Evaluative
thought implies that there will be outcomes and ways to value them. Reflective thought
implies that there will be information and experiences to remember and assimilate into
potentially useful knowledge. All of these modes are necessary to purposeful thought
whether to cross a street or solve a puzzle. Any of them can be applied in creative ways
through Design Thinking.
Purposeful thought is not Design Thinking although Design Thinking uses the cognitive
capabilities associated with each mode of purposeful thought. It does so by intentionally
exploring and manipulating the content of each mode to improve a focal situation or
create an artifact that satisfies needs or desires regarding it. Creativity may occur in any
mode but is most often pursued through Intentional, Relational and Formative thought. It
occurs in Intentional thought through the application of preferences, priorities, strategies,
and habits of mind, in Relational thought through idiosyncratic associations and analysis,

3. 3
and in Formative thought through perceptual choices, conceptual blending, and
interpretations based on the experience of the thinker. The focal situation, its context,
background, and the needs or desires that arise during its interpretation differentiate every
thought.
Situations as different as the utterance of a sentence or the construction of a building are
addressed through the same seven modes of thought. For example, an utterance requires
an intention to speak, meaningful sounds, a speech structure, a vocal medium of
communication, the action of uttering, an assessment of the effects of the utterance, and
the capacity to hold the utterance in memory and to recall and adapt it to similar
circumstances in the future. Similarly, a building requires an intention to build, resources,
their organization, a formal expression, a process of producing that expression, an on-
going assessment that the building is built as intended, and the experience adds to
knowledge of building for future use. Making an utterance or producing a building
employs all modes of thought. The more complex the task, the more sub-goals it
comprises. For example: to utter a sentence relevant words and their phonetics must be
recalled, organized and voiced; to draw the façade of a building, the windows and doors
must be articulated, positioned and drawn. Each primary goal is elaborated through the
pursuit of sub-goals, and every sub-goal is constrained by the context, background, and
intention regarding the primary focal situation. Traditional disciplines are defined by such
constraints.
But how are modes of thought motivated, organized and employed during design? How
are designs resolved? How can people use knowledge of the different modes of thought
to improve the circumstances they confront?
The theory suggests that input from the environment, the body and brain motivate
thought that seeks meaningful form in a single holistic instant in the present time and
place. This input generates an emotional response, automatic recall and adaptive
interpretation of knowledge relevant to the experienced situation. Occurring in the frontal
cortex, this recall mediates the faster physiological response from the limbic system to
create feelings regarding the situation. If the incoming information is familiar an
associated feeling and customary response is invoked. There is no problematic situation
and no new need or desire arises. However if something is unknown or unexpected the
affective tone changes and an intention to respond to the need or desire is motivated.
Each intentional thought carries its motivating emotional tone forward. This is how
purposeful/design thinking begins.
Stephen Pinker has noted (1997:373) that emotions motivate such thought: “ The emotions
are mechanisms that set the brain’s highest level goals. Once triggered by a propitious
moment, an emotion triggers the cascade of goals and sub-goals that we call thinking and
acting…Because the goals and means are woven into a multiply nested control structure
of sub-goals within sub-goals within sub-goals, no sharp line divides thinking from
feeling....” The model presented here implements Pinker’s hierarchical structure of goals
and sub-goals while suggesting what emotional ranges trigger them and influence how
they mediate one another. The theory of emotional motivation for each mode of thought
is elaborated elsewhere. (1)

4. 4
Since thought to resolve a need or desire is open ended, a mental framework to
accommodate subsequent thought is identified with the problematic situation and
activated. This allows the intentionally guided thought to be pursued over whatever
duration it requires while inputs from stimuli continue and other responses develop.
The framework for such an emerging train of purposeful/design thought is conceived as a
master template containing subordinate templates for each different mode of thought. The
initial motivation sets the mode and tone of the primary intention that will be elaborated
through subordinate frames. Each mode can be thought of as an intentional frame of mind
containing sub frames as the following diagram suggests.
Intentional Frame: Any Mode
Each mode of thought employs all modes of thought. If it did not the thought could not be
complete. For example, an Intentional thought requires components, organization,
expression, processing, evaluation and reflection. A Referential intention, and all the
other modes of thought, also require these components. When activated each mode
applies seven subordinate modes to the particular information it addresses. Subordinate
frames are constrained by the focal situation, relevant knowledge, and intentional
objectives of their parent frames. These sub-frames may be elaborated by further
subordinate frames in a cascade of elaborative thought.
Intentional
Thought
Referential
Thought
Relational
Thought
Formative
Thought
Procedural
Thought
Evaluative
Thought
Reflective
Thought
Interpreted Focal
Situation
Stimulus Situation
Goal Criteria
Needs and Desires

5. 5
The cascading elaboration of a thought becomes easier to understand when one thinks
again of the intention to form a sentence. A sentence requires situated intent, components,
organization, meaning, production, assessment and reflection. It is about something and
has semantic elements, syntactic structures, a medium of expression, production
processes, an empirical evaluation, and calls on memory to interpret its expression and
significance. The intention generating the sentence manages the cognitive components
that contribute to its expression. Sentences also function as identifiable “cognitive
objects” that organize subsidiary objects (phrases, words, syllables) to express the
sentence and its meaning. All components in a sentence have roles to play. Similarly,
every mode of thought in an intentional frame, including subordinate modes, has its own
intentional role and focus.
I Rf Rl F P E R
Focal Situation
Stimulus Situation
Rf- PI Rf-PRf Rf-PRl RfPFo Rf -PP Rf -PE Rf- PR
Rf- P Situation
Rf- I Rf- Rf Rf - Rl Rf - Fo Rf - P Rf - E Rf- R
Rf Situation
R Referential Frame
Process Frame
Referential Process Frame
Parent Frame
Process

6. 6
But what would stop such a cascade? Reflective thought is assumed constantly to search
memory for a match or partial match to the focal information addressed by each frame.
When a match is found the frame is partially or fully resolved. Its Formative expression is
then fed into the frame above it perpetuating reprocessing until resolution of the parent
frame occurs.
Thus, Reflective thought is the driver of mental resolution. As previously noted,
Reflective thought is assumed to operate on information coming from the environment,
the body and the brain to adaptively interpret the immediate mindset in the light of prior
knowledge. This constant interpretation is how knowledge held in memory becomes
applied to phenomenal experience. This processing precedes the intentional thought that
seeks to resolve any anomalies that may arise. If interpretation is successful there are no
anomalies to resolve and no new intentional response is motivated. However, once an
intention is framed it and all its sub-frames have their own Reflective sub-frames that
interpret, inform, or motivate further thought.
All this, and much more, represents how the proposed model of modal thinking supports
both purposeful thought and design thinking. It can be applied to any situation, be
informed by any relevant knowledge, and be subject to any intentions or habits of mind
that may be applied. This allows the model to map onto the concerns of any discipline,
business or person.
The model has been applied extensively in the teaching of design thinking in basic
education, K-12 with considerable success. Lesson plans; teaching styles, and evaluation
of what is learned were all assisted by its distinctions. (See www.idesignthinking.com)
The concept and content of an intentional frame maps directly onto the object model in
object oriented computer programming. Similarly, modes of thought can function as
objects/agencies in collaborative computational frameworks as illustrated in the
following diagram.(3) The agents implementing each mode would operate autonomously
or through the intervention of operators.

7. 7
Monitoring the processing and exchange of information between agents in such
computational systems would facilitate research on design thinking. Similarly, The
exchange of information between members of a team, each member acting as the agent
for a mode of thought, would enable research on design thinking to be conducted in an
interdisciplinary social context. This group dynamic exposure to the modes of thought
provides a proven way to both teach and implement the model. Those participating in the
experience internalize and use the entire model to organize their thoughts and to analyze
the thoughts of others.
Such an operational model would provide the common ground needed to support design
thinking across different applications and disciplines. Those willing to explore its use will
better understand its potentials to improve design education, research and practice.
Bibliography
1. Burnette, C (In process): Design Thinking: Structure, Theory and Application
2. Pinker, S., 1997, How the Mind Works, New York, W.W. Norton
3. Kobryn, C.: 2000, Modeling Components and Frameworks with UML,
Communications of the ACM, 43(10), 31–38.