Why not apply this same approach to architecture as well as cars? That would be a game-changer. Too often architects think about buildings primarily as “place making”—static containers that enclose habitable space. However, what’s important is what happens inside buildings—that’s literally where the action is. Thinking about the places and their processes together will open new doors and lead to a deeper understanding of how architects can create significant additional value for owners and users alike. That’s when design thinking becomes strategic rather than transactional.

A good example of how architecture can impact outcomes is the recent spate of STEM buildings constructed at college campuses across the country. There’s more focus on cross-pollination among the basic scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, and biology); more open labs with bench space and equipment arranged to accommodate team-based project work; more experiential, hands-on learning rather than focusing just on texts or memorizing the periodic table. As a result, new STEM labs are more open, more interactive, and more geared to multi-media teaching and learning. Not surprisingly, the number of STEM majors has increased substantially, grade point averages are rising, and new graduates are securing well-paid employment in a wide variety of related industries, from engineering to healthcare to biotechnology. All this is rooted in a deeper understanding of how architecture can enhance success in STEM curricula. It’s a marriage of place and process.

Design thinking is not limited to healthcare projects or STEM labs. “Process design” can be applied anywhere at any scale. For example, in a typical office building, where do people spend their time? How much (and what kind of) activity takes place at an individual’s desk, and how much on the phone, in a conference room, or at the coffee machine? Which kind of activity is the most productive, and are there ways to design office space that will measurably enhance communication, collaboration, and teamwork? Over the past few years, there has been a clear trend toward more open office environments, but what do the data tell us? What is the ideal ratio of spaces for privacy and community? Why do so many conference rooms sit empty most of the time? What are the ideal seating arrangements for mixing executives and general staff? Are companies with open offices more profitable. If so, why?

The answers to questions like these will lead designers in interesting directions. For example, what role does design play in public health? How can civic spaces be designed to enhance safety and reduce crime rates? How can correctional facilities be designed to reduce recidivism rates? Why is the risk of acquiring an infection so much higher in a hospital than an airport, and what can be done about it? Could schools be designed so that student safety can be taken for granted? The questions—and the opportunities—are endless.

In thinking about issues like these, it should be obvious that “design” is not limited to plans, sections, and elevations. It invites (and requires) broad expertise in sociology, science, business, logistics, manufacturing, information technology, transportation, and other fields. Because buildings are the source of 46% of carbon emissions annually, knowledge of materials science is also a critical factor. This opens new territory for designers to have a positive impact, since everything we make, consume, and discard is designed in some way.

The implications are clear. Architects need to care as much about how things work as how things look. And they need to know more. When that happens, the sky is the limit.