Group-Based Reinvention of Information Technology
A Case Study of an Agile Innovation Process in the Banking Industry
M.Sc. Business Administration – Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
October, 2018 Etrit Asllani S2782596 Bergerstr. 78 60316, Frankfurt am Main Tel.: +49 (0) 1590 1818506 e-mail: e.asllani@student.rug.nl
Master Thesis Supervisor: dr. B. Müller Co-assessor: dr. M.A.G. Offenbeek
Abstract
People repurpose artifacts, ideas, discoveries and inventions to satisfy the continuous change of the user´s needs by achieving new goals. Through the malleability and flexibility of
information technology it is suitable for repurpose. This process is called IT reinvention. This paper scrutinizes IT reinvention in groups which fills the gap in the literature of understanding how groups change the meaning of a technology in use. An exploratory case study approach was used to gather insights from the data of an investment bank based on triangulation of different data sources. The results show the processes groups follow to reinvent the
technology of current use. Based on the data, a comprehensive framework is proposed and discussed in relation to the literature. Theoretical and managerial implications, limitations and future research possibilities conclude this paper.
1. INTRODUCTION
The pace of technology adoption is increasing almost exponentially (McGrath, 2013) and creates new forms of competition, as the importance of innovation has been reinforced both by globalization and new technologies, respectively (Wade, 2015). Even classical business champions, such as banks, are under pressure. New competition from Fintechs emerged in the financial industry although they are often not considered to provide financial services (Haymann, 2016). The immense threat of emerging start-ups but also internet companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Uber and Google, force traditional companies to rethink their traditional business models (Kuls, 2018). To be ahead of the competition, companies try to foster employees’ creative ideation and prototyping of innovative products. While it is still unclear how radical innovation (introducing a new product or service
introduced to the market) can be fostered in companies (Norman, & Verganti, 2013), they consider agile working methods, such as Design Thinking as a means of producing innovative ideas/products, (Nussbaum, 2004), which is best suited for improving the product in iterative steps (incremental innovation). Design Thinking is not a new approach in itself, as it received a lot of attention through the application beyond that of product design though (Waerder, Stinnes, & Erdenberger, 2017). Organizational practitioners and scholars emphasize the potential value of Design Thinking methods for improving innovative outcomes (Gerber, 2006; Liedtka, 2017). According to the definition of Brown (2008), Design Thinking is a team-based, human-centered, creative, iterative and practical approach in finding innovative ideas and solutions. In practice, Design Thinking has increasingly established itself as a structured method for complex innovation and development processes. Companies such as SAP, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Allianz, Volkswagen, Roche, etc. use this method to work on new solutions (Zydra, 2014).
However, most of the new innovations are not entirely utilized by its full potential. While IT investments have been increased by organizations over the time (Cha, Pingry, & Thatcher, 2009), Shpilberg, Berez, Puryear, and Shah (2007) argued that those IT alignments did not lead to organizational effectiveness and enhanced performance. Moreover, less than 25% of new technology projects met their business goals (Benoit & Hussey, 2011).
According to Gartner´s hype circle, many new technologies are over-flattered by the inflated expectation of the technology and it hardly reaches a plateau of productivity in which people not only use the technology´s features but recognize the malleability and interpretive
interpretive flexibility beyond the technology´s purpose. This underleveraging of IT and the high costs of new IT investments might be reduced by understanding how the technology currently in use can be utilized differently from what it is intended for.
Furthermore, people repurpose artifacts, ideas, discoveries and inventions to satisfy the continuous change of the user´s needs by achieving new goals (Rogers, 2003). On the one hand, some authors use different terminology describing similar phenomena such as
repurpose of digital objects (Benoit & Hussey, 2011), on the other hand, scholars from IS research used the term Reinvention to describe this particular phenomenon, such as Rice and Rogers (1980). They defined reinvention as “the degree to which an innovation is changed by the adopter in the process of adoption and implementation after its original development” (1980, pp. 500-501). As this definition only takes the outcome into account, Nevo, Nevo, and Pinsonneault (2016, p.159) suggested to define IT reinvention as “changing an implemented IT and/or its use to pursue new goals.”
One example of this interpretive flexibility led to a new purpose of Microsoft´s X-BOX Kinect, which originally aimed at providing gamers with an interactive, motion-driven experience while playing video games. However, Helena Mentis, who planned to improve medical practices in general used the Xbox Kinect´s sensors in conjunction with a screen, which allows a surgeon to easily monitor the patient´s chest and manipulate the image without touching screen, keyboard, or mouse. Furthermore, this repurpose of an artifact allows the surgeon to determine the proper placement of a stent even faster (Gantenbein, 2012).
Figure 1. Switch in the artifacts purpose from a gaming device (left) to a medical instrument (right)
Throughout the paper I will refer to the terminology of the concept of IT reinvention, proposed by Nevo and colleagues (2016). IS scholars have examined how users cope with IT induced disturbances (Beaudry &, Pinsonneault, 2010), improvise with IT over time
around teams (Barzak, Griffin, & Kahn, 2009). Nevertheless, Nevo and colleagues´ model (2016) might not be applicable for groups as the actors prospects themselves in a future-state. This cannot be applied for groups as every individual would produce different scenarios. Despite the fact that group innovation processes are extensively researched (e.g. Nisula, & Kianto, 2015), the literature does not provide sufficient explanation of group-based
reinvention. Further, there is a lack in explaining how groups change the meaning of a
technology or its use to pursue new goals of the technology. This paper fills this gap of group-based IT reinvention. Additionally, Nevo and colleagues recognized this lack of literature and called for research filling this gap by examining the process involved in group-based IT Reinvention.
This leads to the research question of this paper: “What are the key subprocesses that compose group-based IT reinvention?
This research question will contribute to the theory in IS literature, as it will provide a deeper understanding of group-based IT reinvention and fills the gap of explaining how people change the meaning of the technology to reach radical innovation (Norman, & Verganti, 2013). Moreover, the theoretical insights are of high value as they provide
explanation on how groups might use IT´s full potential by changing an implemented IT and its use to pursue new goals. This paper will contribute especially to the banking industry, in which banks started to transform core businesses and hence re-invent the industry (Parker, Alstyne, & Choudary, 2016). Finally, the study will contribute to managerial practice to the extent that innovation and change managers use the knowledge to adjust their innovation process methods to fully utilize the technology in use.
In the next section we review the literature on IT reinvention and of group-based innovation processes. Subsequently, we outline the underlying steps of a common agile innovation processes used across companies, which represents the context of the case study.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Differentiation Between Innovation and IT Reinvention
and third includes the extent of its novelty (Boer &, During, 2001). While the definition always includes a new product, process or method, the demarcation between incremental and radical innovation is based on the extent of novelty. Small improvements are defined as incremental innovations according to Garcia and Calantone (2002), whereas radical
innovation is new to the market, industry or world, such as the introduction of Apple iPhone in 2007, that introduced the era of smartphones, commercially. Based on the definition, the purpose of innovation remains the same. However, it should be noted that radical innovation refers to the object while this paper focuses on the purpose of the object. Benoit and Hussey (2010) emphasized the need for repurposing of technology to utilize the technologies’ full potential. Whenever a technology is modified and implemented to pursue new goals it is defined as IT reinvention (Nevo et al., 2016). Here the distinction between radical innovation and IT reinvention becomes blurred. While radical innovation might entail a completely new product such as the internet or blockchain, IT reinvention describes the repurpose of the technology at hand or its change. There the distinction between innovation and IT reinvention can be concluded. Nevo and colleagues (2016) argued that information technology is prone towards reinvention due to its flexibleness. Nevo and colleagues (2016) proposed a process model of IT reinvention that includes the five sub-processes based on Emirbayer and Mische´s self-agency theory (1988) (narrative construction, symbolic recomposition, hypothetical resolution, anticipatory identification and experimental enactment). Those five steps were entangled in the following steps of the framework illustrated in Figure 2.
Nevo and colleagues argued that during the process of IT reinvention, the user imagines him/herself in a future state. This is relevant for IT reinvention, because actors “hypothetically project themselves forward into a future in which they can construct alternative images of themselves and invent new possibilities” (Nevo et al. 2016, p.160). While this argumentation might be true for an individual actor it cannot be applied in groups, as each member of the group would imagine a different prospective ego, hence the group would not follow similar steps resulting in the reinvented IT that is used to achieve new goals. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature and provides an answer to the research
question. Due to the fact that teams are seen as the core of innovation processes within organizations (Goh, Goodman, & Weingart, 2013) and the lack of literature focusing on IT reinvention in groups, it is crucial to investigate the group processes within group-based IT reinvention. In fact, group processes allow for a variety of perspectives from every member of the group which might be helpful to explain how the use of the technology changes so that it fulfills new goals or needs. Consequently, it is important to review the existing research regarding innovation processes and groups.
2.2 Group-based Innovation Processes
as each small iterative cycle builds on the lessons learned from the previous cycle (Norman, & Verganti, 2013). The methods have a common framework, which is an iterative cycle of investigations. This cycle is characterized by observation, an ideation phase, rapid prototype and testing (Norman, & Verganti, 2013), illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 3. The Iterative Cycle of HCD or DTH (Norman, 1998)
Nevertheless, it has to be noted that each organization applies the concept of DTH differently, depending on their needs, their sources of knowledge of the concept and the organizational context (Carlgren, Rauth, & Elmquist, 2016). Based on the criticism, Carlgren and colleagues (2016) proposed a framework of DTH contributing to the literature by making DTH
researchable in both theory and practice. They built their framework on an empirical
interview study of six organizations (among others Procter & Gamble Products and Deutsche Bank), with a size between 5,000 and 100,000 employees. Carlgren and colleagues (2016) identified 5 themes (user focus, problem framing, visualization, experimentation and diversity); their common principles, practices and techniques are presented in Appendix D. 2. 3 Group Dynamics and Goal Orientation
Looking at the five themes of DTH, diversity represents the group issues involved in innovation processes that are crucial when it comes to delivering and implementing a highly valuable product. Reviewing the literature, team reflexivity and goal orientation are important concepts relevant to the innovation process.
objectives, so they can make changes accordingly. This process includes attention to the ideas exchanged in the group and the reflection of these ideas. Furthermore, the reflection leads to innovation through reflecting on how to become more effective within the working process. Schippers, West, and Dawson (2015) found a positive relationship between team reflexivity and team innovation, arguing that reflexive teams will be more innovative than non-reflexive teams in demanding situations.
2.3.2 Goal-orientation theory. Within group innovation processes, goal orientation is a crucial component leading to effective outcomes (Alexander, & van Knippenberg, 2014). Goal orientations reflect the underlying motivations that people strive for in performance situations (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). Dweck (1986) distinguishes between learning and performance-prove orientation. Learning-oriented teams seek out for challenges and focus on the task. Failure is not seen as problematic, because success is understood in terms of learning. In contrast to that, performance-prove oriented teams want to do better compared to others, so a risk of failure is seen as disappointing. Therefore, performance-prove oriented teams strive for positive feedback which recognizes their competence (van Knippenberg, 2014). Van Knippenberg (2014) proposed that teams with shared learning orientation pursue in highly innovative ideas and are motivated to seek for information and feedback from expert peers, regardless of the valance compared to teams who share performance-prove orientation.
2.4 Gap Between the Hills and the Literature
Until now the difference to innovation processes and IT reinvention has been worked out, and that innovation processes mostly undergo a group-based creative iteration process such as design thinking. In the following section, the gap in the literature is defined more specifically. According to Norman and Verganti (2014), the hill-climbing paradigm can be applied for incremental and radical innovation, illustrated in Figure 4. This describes that a product follows a series of incremental innovations from point A, through group-based
processors to gesture recognition in video games. Therefore, the scope of this paper includes the change of meaning.
The subprocess of Nevo and colleagues showed how individuals undergo sub-processes of IT reinvention. However, it cannot be applied to this context as the innovation processes includes group activities. Hence, Nevo et al. (2016) suggested that group
orientation and group dynamics might not only play a role in the process of innovation but also of IT reinvention. However, the processes involved in group-based IT reinvention has not been investigated and might contribute to its understanding and filling the gap in the literature explaining how people overcome the “gap between the hills” (red quadrant).
Figure 4. The hill-climbing paradigm applied to incremental and radical innovation
3. METHODOLOGY
In the following, the research approach is discussed and is divided into case selection and description, data sources and data analysis. Although innovation processes are
extensively researched, the literature lacks an explanation on how people change the purpose of information technology. Hence, this paper opted to use an exploratory qualitative case-based approach which is according to Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) best suited for
platform technology, which can be observed through employees on a group level. Consequently, three teams in the context of one organization are investigated comparing systematic similarities, differences and allows the researcher to recognize emerging patterns (Eisenhardt, 1991).
3.1 Case Selection and Description
The decision basis for the case selection was a convenience sampling strategy. The company was more accessible to the researcher due to prior work experience. Nevertheless, the organization suits the research question by fulfilling the following requirements.
First, the organization uses information technology to make processes within the organization more effective, efficient and to reduce redundancy. This is important for the research, because this paper aims to contribute to the IS literature. Second, the organization has a group-based innovation process, specifically a human centered design approach as the literature shows that the likelihood of IT reinvention increases within an iterative innovation process. The selected organization is an investment bank and financial service company, with around 100,000 employees. In the course of the digital transformation, the bank established Design Thinking methods as an agile innovation process since 2008 to develop new products for both internal and external customers and to further shift customer focus into the corporate culture. The organization perceives Design Thinking as an innovation process that uses a variety of techniques to develop and test innovative solutions by means of prototypes.
The specific case which has been selected for the analysis is a cross-divisional project which started in the end of 2017 with a workshop of different stakeholders who are involved in idea management across the bank. Those stakeholders are among others idea evaluators, platform owners and the project team. The project manager decided to begin the project with a design thinking innovation process in which the stakeholders took part in. The project´s goal is to find a solution for the current distribution of idea management platforms. The
technology in use is a platform web application which is linked to the different idea
3.2 Data Sources
A complex phenomenon requires the researcher to investigate the entity of interest from different perspectives to capture all different facets (Flick, 2004). In the following, multiple sources of the data collection are presented such as interviews, field notes based on observation, photos and physical objects. To gather primary and secondary data, a 2-month internship was completed in the division of digital transformation services of the bank. Moreover, insights to the design thinking methodology within the innovation process was gathered. This role was characterized as a participant-as-observer in which the relationships with the informant was built, this is connected to the risk of losing the research perspective (Gold, 1958). It should be noted however that this role leads to a more genuine interaction between interviewer and interviewee through an established rapport, trust and commitment (Alvesson, 2003).
3.2.1 Interview. As a qualitative instrument, 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted with heterogenous participants in terms of roles and background which allowed the researcher to gather more in-depth primary-data across individuals, by asking a few explicit questions (Yin, 2009). The semi-structured questionnaire is illustrated in Appendix B. The goal of the interviews is to capture key processes of reinventing the platform technology and how the teams achieved the final product which in this case, is a prototype. Due to the dense schedules of managers and employees in the bank, the interviews lasted on average 40 minutes with a range between 25 and 60 minutes. The language of the interviews was
German, except one interviewee switched between English and German. To ensure a smooth process of the interviews, a consistent and professional preparation was required. This
included booking of a quiet room for the interview called Think Tank. However, as the project was cross-divisional in nature, 2 out of 11 interviews were conducted via telephone. To record the interviews a ready-to-record-software (QuickTime and a dictaphone function on the smartphone) and hardware such as an external microphone were used. Furthermore, an informed consent of the respondents was collected prior to the record and transcription. The transcription of the interviews was done after the completion of all interviews, because of the short intervals between the interviews. The sum of the 11 transcripts include 97 pages
3.2.2 Observation. During the innovation process, some notes of the observation were conducted in the form of field notes (Yin, 2011) which include 5 hand-written pages of
observations, informal comments, feelings and thoughts. Those notes are written on a smart notebook, which uploads the notes digitally. The notes are structured according to the design thinking methods, to ensure a fast note writing. Those field notes can be found in Appendix H. An additional observation report conducted by another intern was conducted in a different setting and used as secondary data. This observation report can be found in Appendix G.
3.2.3 Physical objects and photos. Besides the interviews, material of the innovation process such as prototypes and outcomes of the working process are collected. These final testable prototypes were either a wireframe on a poster or a physical object which can be demonstrated. The ideation and prototype results were documented via photography. The photos can be found in the results section and Appendix C.
3.3 Data Analysis
The analysis of the data followed an iterative coding process based on grounded-theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The coding process was analyzed by one researcher. The first iteration included an open-ended review of the transcripts with the goal of identifying themes and patterns in the data. This is defined as open coding and gives the researcher new insights about interpreting phenomena reflected in the data (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). Those quotes coming from the open coding were categorized into codes or sub-categories and show their relationship to each other. This is defined as axial coding (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). Those occurring themes were tested against the data (selective coding) in which a higher order category emerges (Corbin, & Strauss, 1990). An example of the coding procedure is illustrated in Table 1.
The coding process began after the collection of all interviews to avoid any leading questions after observing a pattern, which would result in a confirmation bias. However new insights from the interviewees were integrated to the question to gather a deeper
Interview text Open coding and Axial Codes Selective coding So actually, it's such an admission
what you do to a stranger where it turns out afterwards: everyone has opened up and, in the end,
everyone has the same motives that you wouldn't necessarily entrust to strangers but we did.1
Opening up, Disclosure, Sharing information
Mutual trust among the group
Comparing this passage to other opening up and disclosure passages or themes, mutual trust among the group emerged. This shows the importance of trust for cohesion among the group Table 1. Example of the coding process.
4. RESULTS
The results of the study are presented in the following and lead to the framework of group-based IT reinvention. Before that, the context of the reinvention process is described briefly. Within the innovation process the project stakeholders went through Design Thinking methodologies. Their goal was to create a solution for a specific problem. So, the first step prior to the reinvention process was to identify the problem. The bank has several idea management platforms, which did not communicate with each other.
“In the first year we didn't even communicate with the other platform. So, they didn't even know that we existed.” (IP001)
Moreover, the platforms were nontransparent with very little feedback of the idea evaluators. “There must have been 18 or, others have said 35, different applications to publish or
advance someone’s ideas. That was probably very nontransparent, and you didn't get any feedback (...)”
This problem identification tends to be a crucial first factor in order to create a shared
understanding of the problem and second to prepare for a solution. As a consequence, project “idea tailwind” kicked-off, which summarized all the different platforms on a web-application to “centralize information”, as stated by respondent IP003. After the first workshop, in which the people identified the problem, the project manager initialized an innovation process using the Design Thinking methodologies. As a preparation the project team identified the
System2 was used to understand the connections and to ensure that all participants are on a
common ground.
“Before that, there was the Eco-System. We didn't have to do anything. We were shown that. But then we could understand the connections. In other words, the platform manager and the employee who might use it must somehow fit together. One can't be A and the other
completely opposite.” (IP003)
4.1 Subprocesses of Group-based IT Reinvention
In the following a proposed framework of group-based IT reinvention and the
interaction of the sub-processes are introduced which derived from the different data sources such as interviews, the observation field notes and photos. The framework is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Proposed Model for Group-based IT Reinvention
4.1.1 User orientation. Within the group-based reinvention the group identifies the user of the technology at hand and tries to take the perspectives of the user before developing a solution for a specific problem. So first the group shares a common user understanding with its characteristics, attributes, motivation his pain points and tasks. This sub-process is crucial before starting to think of solutions. User orientation is characterized by imagination of the user and empathy. The proximity of the group towards the user himself helps in empathizing with the user.
We were in the team 5 platform owners and they oriented the user a little bit to themselves. First, we calculated the average age. We then thought about how the people are, how can a person who accepts ideas, who is engaged to do something, who has a helper syndrome, what kind of
This user orientation is crucial for the following sub-processes as shift in perspectives lead to sufficient solution for the user instead of doing what is best for the reinventor.
“So, I think it's very good that you take perspectives and try to develop solutions from certain perspectives that are also relevant for the users in the end.” “In general, however, it is quite good to find this coming together, such a centralized person. A persona that simply suits everyone. (Group 1). 4
So, I think it promotes on the one hand to look very strongly beyond the edge of the plate and to think from other perspectives or if you put yourself in personas, you can do that now with a stakeholder or some competitor and ask, how does he see that from the outside view. You also simply put yourself in a position to do so in a playful way. (Group 2.)
The better the shift in perspectives and the understanding of the user, the better the group can understand the needs of the user and shape appropriate solutions for the user accordingly. Respondent 3 described how their group focused on themselves, which led to higher empathy: These two examples, representative of the group, show that group 2 and group 1 were able to achieve a user orientation and moreover to shift their perspective and “stepping into the user´s shoes”. While there might be some variations of individuals in group 1, the images and field observation show that group 1 and group 2 managed to capture an insightful user which is rich on information (field notes, G1 and G2).
“For me it was very difficult with the persona, because it was someone who has been in the bank for 10 years and I am a total newcomer.” (Group 1)
Figure 6. Images of the user orientation (left G1, middle G2, right G3)
Although group 1 and 2 achieved a switch in perspective to the next subprocess, group 3 did not manage to empathize with the user. This might be a result of their distance towards the user which led in a stereotype thinking of a perfect woman, which in conclusion did not show a user orientation and therefore no shift in perspectives.
“Our Persona was very stereotyped. They came actually from the advertisement. We took them out from the advertisements, from the papers and they were advertisement people not built people. We had a nice girl, good job, she was qualified, she was smart, speak multiple languages. I don´t think they were real people. But that is for our group.5
4.1.2 Free ideation. The sub-process of free ideation is characterized by the creation of different scenarios, imagination, creativity and random scattering of terms. As Figure 5 shows, this free ideation is based on the possibility to achieve user orientation and a shift in perspectives, because the invented solutions are directed at the user´s needs.
I think that if we had started brainstorming at 10.30 a.m. without the persona, without Pains and Gains (...) we would not have come to the following outcome. (Group 2).
The feasibility of the variety of events is not of the group´s concern and the group free themselves from existing prescription of the IT usage.
“We've had a lot of ideas. Partly attached to reality, something like Tinder, that's where we
found the Idea tinder. On the other hand, platform technologies that we can improve. So, we first threw all the information into the room and spontaneously decided in the air, that fits with this, and that with this. Then we started to cluster them and then we selected our top ideas. That was a very interesting approach, because there came things, you dared to simply through things in the air, like Tinder, banks, ideas and these connections actually never come so to use these technologies.” (Group 2). 6
Although this subprocess includes brainstorming which can be done by every group without shifting in perspective, the abstraction which came from a shift in perspective enables groups to think outside the box, searching for technologies from different industries such as “Tinder” (Group 2) or “MyTaxi App” (Group 1) which is characterized by the abstraction arrow of benchmarking, illustrated in Figure 5.
see that we get as much community input as possible to relieve ourselves and to give us the opportunity to moderate ourselves than really do the work and then some ideas came up about how to do it best and Ideentinder was the best, well it just sounded like a funny
idea.”(Group 2).
Similar to the user orientation, group 3 struggled to find a solution and needed help from the Design Thinking moderator, who asked some guiding questions (Field notes, G3). As a result, group 3 did not think outside the industry and came up with a solution of monetary
recognition. Although the images in figure 7 are not an indicator of quality, the quantity gives an idea of the fluency of the free ideation, especially in group 1 and 2.
Figure 7. Images of free ideation (Group 1 left, Group 2 middle, Group 3 right)
4.1.3 User - Reinvention Narrative Construction. Based on the ideas resulting from the free ideation, groups select their best idea to fulfill the user´s needs and create plans how the user will use the technology. The group construct a narrative which visualizes the user and the selected idea. Through the shift on perspective the group feels involved. The collective reinvention narratives might be a social narrative such as group 2 or a more technical such as narrating through front-end design or functionality such as group 1.
the Super-idea" wipe upwards. That would be a continuation or further development of Tinder. (Group 2).7
It should check if there are duplicates, therefore this categorization and then you should be able to track in the app: Ok my idea is somehow here at the start, I sent it now, now it goes to the place. Somehow visualizing it on a map. (...) Then we had a comment function and a like function so that it could be controlled even further. (Group 1).
The findings show that group 1 and group 2 were able to construct a narrative which involved the user as well as the technology which resulted from an ideation outside the industry. This can be concluded to be a similar abstract process than the shift in perspective, because the group has to think outside the box to take other industries and products into account which are not context dependent. However, group 3 had a narrative which included the stereotype user and no technology. This resulted in a narrow-mindedness (Group 3) as one representative of the group described the solution.
“We just thought: ok, what is it that he sometimes takes his time, the expert, etc.? We have concluded that if we would perhaps pay him money for each idea he is now working on, but that would really bring added value for the bank, that he would then be paid money for it and then the process would somehow be speeded up.” (Group 3)
Within the user-reinvention narratives the group created the story how the user will apply the technological solution. This solution is built and tested in the follow-up stage characterized by prototyping, testing and iteration.
4.1.4 Practical (Re)construction. This sub-process enables groups to build their narratives into a tangible object. While every group has managed to build a prototype, the abstraction through a play-ground mentality enables groups to iterate through trial and error. In this playground mentality state, groups do not discuss every requirement but rather
experiment with the idea without fearing negative consequences. Moreover, it seems that this mentality helps people to consider even other materials which were not part of the prototyping material such as a pizza box.
“During prototyping we took a pizza box and then built our Idea tinder so we took individual
DIN A5 pages and wrote down and explained what this app does.” 8(Group 2)
aspect of the community (Group 2) or making an intangible entity tangible through a certificate recognizing your work (group 3).
Those prototypes were tested by an audience of 10 internal employees who were unknown about the reinvention process. Exchanging ideas not only within the group but also across the groups tend to be a major factor for the iteration. Then the first implementation was rigorously tested for feasibility, narratives and potential implementation. A feedback form was used to suggest improvements for the next iteration. Across all the groups feedback seemed to be crucial and was welcomed by group 2 and individuals in group 3 whereas group 1 tend to defend their prototype (field notes).
“The best thing was really this feedback round. The idea to see how others did it, then exchange ideas and get feedback and introduce it again to people who weren't involved in the workshop. Whereby all feedback was important. Not only the people who weren't in the workshop, but also from the other workshop participants. I thought that was good, that was constructive.” (Group 3).
Working with the feedback was the final step within the reinvention process in which the groups implemented the suggestions coming from the feedback.
“The mental development was then still to say, we match it to the user. Many of the
interviewees also think this is good, but it is more technologically complex and more difficult from a data protection point of view.” (Group 2) and
“In the end, the ideas were also presented, it came out that the TinderApp and ours can be linked with each other” (Group 1).
4. 2 Frame of group-based IT reinvention
Groups in an IT reinvention processes act within a frame consisting of group cohesion and team goal orientation. These two sections were crucial in the IT reinvention process and enable groups to reinvent IT in an unbiased and open-minded environment, in which each contribution is valued and groups try to learn from their failures and seek out opportunities.
4.2.1 Team goal orientation. Groups in an innovation process face feedback during process, challenges, failures and many more. Nevertheless, the reaction of the group on those factors defines this stage. Learning-oriented groups see feedback as an opportunity to learn and therefore feedback is highly valued and welcomed (Field notes, G2).
In contrast groups showing a more performance-prone orientation where more competitive (Field notes, G1) and seek for positive feedback:
Find it cool to see the reaction and get feedback and somehow you believe more in the product you helped build and that you visualized and pitched it right away. Negatives are more
helpful, but you unconsciously want to have good feedback (Group 1).
4.2.2 Group cohesion. Groups cohesion within the team is characterized by mutual trust to each other, teamwork, involvement of every member in the group, team reflexivity team identification, open-mindedness (Siebold, 2007). This was especially present in group 2.
“Everyone has opened up and, in the end, everyone has the same motives, which one would not necessarily entrust to strangers” (Group 2)
“All had a similar wavelength and we freely said our opinion” (Group 2)
“But my team was almost all people I'd never seen before. I was open to it. There was a relationship of trust and so the result could grow. (Group 2)
This group cohesion tends to vary between the groups. While the team work was found to be productive and collaborative in group 1, some differences in the level of group cohesion were found. For example, team identification varies between the groups. Group 1 spoke rather about “my solution” instead of “our”, which indicates low team identification.
“As a participant, I was quite satisfied with my solution. Like I said, I have a prototype, so you can click through it.” (Group 1).
Nevertheless, other members still felt valued and based on the data you can conclude that the level of cohesion varies between 1 and 2. Looking at the outcome, Group 2 had according to the testers and feedback from the other groups the most creative, feasible idea of all three and reinvented the IT. They were characterized by great mutual trust and respect of the
contribution of each team member, they shared ideas and reflected on those which led to follow-up contributions, and they identified with the team. In contrast, lack of trust, fear of judgement and resistance lead to less contributions.
“At the time there is, what I said before, a social pressure. It makes it ridiculous, because we hat very different personalities in my group and not everyone was ready to speak out his mind, because they were afraid of the judgement of the others, although we were five but this is something we already fail.” (Group 3)10
Similar outcomes have been made in another innovation process within the bank. According to observations by an intern, cohesiveness impacts the creation of innovative ideas and influence productivity.
“The cohesiveness of the group determined the quality and quantity of their ideas especially during the brainstorming session. An important factor that might play a role in this regard is the group norm. I observed that in groups with a norm of high productivity, cohesion resulted in more successful ideas which in turn resulted in an innovative and feasible Prototype in contrast to the other groups.” (Observation report).11
The sub-processes and their explanation are summarized in table 2.
User orientation The group envisions a user empathize with him/her the envisioned user. The group identifies with the user, understand his/her needs and pains. This subprocesses is characterized by the abstraction of shift in perspective.
Free ideation The group collectively shares ideas without constraints. This
subprocesses is characterized by the abstraction of benchmarking in which the group think outside of that specific domain/context. User-Reinvention
Narrative Construction
The group creates narratives including the user and the technology from the prior sub-processes. These narratives consider either a social or a technical aspect of solving the problem.
Practical
(Re)construction
Due to the abstraction through a playground mentality, the group is enabled to experiment with the objects. The group uses different materials to make their idea tangible. This idea is tested. This process is characterized by the iteration of build and rebuild.
IT Reinvention The outcome of group-based IT reinvention. The technology has changed its purpose and meaning.
Group cohesion Group cohesion within the team is characterized by mutual trust to each other, teamwork, involvement of every member in the group, team reflexivity, team identification and open-mindedness. This frame enables the group to abstract their thinking.
Team Goal Orientation
Goal orientations reflect the underlying motivations that people strive for in performance situations. Learning-orientated teams seek out challenges and see failure as opportunity to grow. Performance-proven oriented teams are competitive and strive for positive feedback.
Table 2. Overview of the sub-processes
4.3 Relationship between the frame and sub-processes
Team goal orientation is crucial for groups to be motivated to strive continuously for a
solution even when failure occurs. Based on the results, you can distinguish between oriented groups and performance-proven oriented groups. Following the outcome, learning-oriented groups tend to be more successful in reinventing IT compared to performance-oriented groups. Moreover, it shows that performance-performance-oriented, slightly make changes in the technology focusing on features, which can be implied to be an incremental innovation. In contrast, groups with a learning orientation see feedback and failure as opportunity to grow which helped the group to follow the sub-processes more effectively.
Proposition 1: Learning orientation enables groups to reinvent the technology Proposition 2: Performance-proven orientation enables groups to innovate the technology incrementally
Group cohesion enables the group to think out of the box (illustrated with the curved arrows in figure 5) through the shift perspectives, considering ideas from other areas (benchmarking) and through a play-ground mentality. These safe atmospheres allow the group members to think abstractly, to experiment, to throw something crazy into the room without restrictions and constraints. This frame enables achieving greater potential in every sub-process which was also found with the outcome of the three groups.
Proposition 3: Higher group cohesion enables groups to reinvent the technology through abstraction
levels are visualized through the arrows in figure 5. and can be explained by its psychological distance. A shift in perspective, benchmarking outside the industry and playground mentality create a psychological distance in which the group collectively abstract the way of thinking which can be clustered in an “out-of-the box thinking”.
Proposition 4: Psychological distance enables the group to think more abstract and to reinvent the technology
In Appendix C the outcomes of the first iteration are demonstrated, which fulfill a different purpose in comparison to the initial idea of consolidation of all platforms through a website. However, only in the case of group 2 and group 1 it can be concluded that the meaning of the technology has changed, whereas group 1 did not consider the technology within their
processes.
5. DISCUSSION
Research on innovation processes and post-adoption behavior has been conducted for decades. A recent study conducted by Nevo, Nevo and Pinsonneault (2016) contributed to the IS literature by making the distinction between IT adaptation and IT reinvention. They
demonstrated a new theory considering the process of changing an implemented IT and/or its use to pursue new goals. This classification was a door-opener in the realm of post-adoption behavior. Nevertheless, literature focused on building the terminology and theory of IT-reinvention for individuals. That investigation leads to a logical theoretical execution of group-based IT reinvention and attempts to answer the following research question: What are the key subprocesses that compose group-based IT reinvention? Due to the nature of this question, a single-case study was selected to develop a theory by conducting 11 interviews with heterogenous individuals who were assigned to different groups. The groups were supposed to create a solution for their idea management which was at that state a web-application linked to the variety of platforms. The results reveal a framework of group-based IT reinvention in which reinventive groups follow a sequence of subprocesses illustrated in figure 5. Those subprocesses are user orientation, free ideation, user-reinvention narrative construction and practical (re)construction. However, these sub-processes only lead to IT reinvention when groups think abstractly. Through the first abstraction path in shift in
group to search for solution outside of the industry and connects the free ideation based on the user orientation with the technology. The user-reinvention narratives are results of this
combination, similar to the introductory example of the video game device used as a medical instrument. The third abstraction path is characterized by the playground mentality in which reinventive groups start the iteration of building their prototype and testing it through a trial and error approach and thinking out of the box how to visualize the reinvented technology. These abstraction paths are affected by its psychological distance. The further away, the more abstract it becomes. In this case, shifting the perspective, thinking of technologies outside the industry and building products with unusual material constructs a psychological distance or a high construal-level, which is the degree of abstraction (Liberman, Trope, Macrae, &
Sherman, 2007).
These results are in line with current research on creativity in which people think more abstract, the higher their psychological distance (Liberman, et al. 2007). This psychological distance is found to increase creativity and can be either temporally (Pennington & Roese, 2003) or spatial (Jia, Hirt, & Karpen, 2009). This might also explain IT Reinvention in user´s who prospects themselves in a future ego (Nevo et. al., 2016) or tend to be more creative and think more abstractly, when they make a product for others then for the self (Polman & Emich, 2011). However, those literature focuses on creativity which is a necessary but insufficient condition for innovation (Baer, 2012) and also for IT reinvention.
While construal-level theory might explain the underlying mechanism, the frame of group-based IT reinvention is discussed in the following. Based on the findings, groups did think more abstract when group cohesion was high, which led to a high performance. Literature on group cohesion and performance are in line with this result, which found that group cohesion tends to make groups more successfully, but this is found to be a bi-directional relationship (Brian Mullen, & Carolyn Copper, 1994). In addition, the proposed frame of goal-orientation and group cohesion is in line with a meta-analysis of 30 years of research in the realm of creativity and innovation, which found a strong relationship between cohesion,
5.1 Theoretical and managerial implications
This paper contributed to the innovation-management literature by filling the gap in the hill-climbing paradigm (Norman, and Verganti, 2014) through explaining how groups “change the meaning” of a technology, which is according to Nevo and colleagues (2016) defined as IT reinvention. Nevo and colleagues’ model of IT reinvention could not have been applied for group-based processes as their model foscused on the individual level. Therefore, their model implied that every user follows an independent sequence of sub-processes. This paper contributed further to IS literature by extending the understanding of IT reinvention. This paper distinguishes to the paper of Nevo and colleagues (2016) by three crucial factors. First, group-based IT reinvention consists of sub-processes which lead only to IT reinvention through paths of abstraction (shift in perspectives, benchmarking and playground mentality). Second, this paper developed a model considering relevant group processes, such as group cohesion and team goal orientation which provide the frame of group-based IT reinvention. Third, the sub-processes differ which might result in the difference of the level of analysis (individual or group). However, similarities were also found with regard to reinvention narratives. Another contribution was the distinction between radical innovation and IT reinvention within the literature review.
Managerial implications based on this study are that change managers and agile coaches can adapt their innovation processes accordingly to decrease the high investments in new innovation instead of reinventing. Hence, Design Thinking or other agile methodologies might be tailored to foster IT reinvention. Moreover, organizations can adapt the environment accordingly to foster group cohesion and a learning-oriented mentality such as Google´s “safe heavens” (Iyer and Davenport 2008).
5.2 Limitations and future research
Despite the limitations, future research should seize the opportunity to scrutinize IT reinvention further. As such it would be insightful to quantify to what extent learning-oriented teams and performance-oriented teams differs in group-based IT reinvention. Based on the findings of this research, it is assumed that learning-oriented teams are more successful in group-based IT reinvention compared to performance-oriented teams. Further it is still unclear how groups change the technology which lead to radical innovation, such as cloud technology as a storage carrier or blockchain technology as a new digital currency. In this context a look at transformational leadership might give some insights. Finally, it is of great importance to explore the construal-level theory as an underlying mechanism of IT reinvention, in both individual and group level.
5.3 Conclusion
References
Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423-438.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of management review, 28(1), 13-33. Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119.
Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kahn, K. B. 2009. Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26: 3–23.
Beaudry, A., and Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 689-710.
Benoit, G., & Hussey, L. (2011). Repurposing digital objects: Case studies across the publishing industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 363-374.
Berente, N., and Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Post-implementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376-396.
Boer, H., & During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between product, process and organisational innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1-3), 83-107.
Boudreau, M. C., and Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1), 3-18.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 25(1).
Cha, H.S., Pingry, D.E. and Thatcher, M.E. (2009). What determines IT spending priorities? Communications of the ACM,52 (8),105-110.
Corbin, J.M, & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10), 1040.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management review, 16(3), 620-627.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), pp.25-32.
Emirbayer, M., and Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Surgery, 103(4), 962-1023.
Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. A companion to qualitative research, 3, 178-183.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management: AN INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATION OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 19(2), 110-132.
Gantenbein, D. (2012). Kinect launches a surgical revolution. Microsoft Research Blog. Retrieved from: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/kinect-launches-surgical-revolution/
Gerber, E. M. (2006). Relations in design thinking: A case study of a social network. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper.
Goh, K. T., Goodman, P. S., & Weingart, L. R. (2013). Team innovation processes: An examination of activity cycles in creative project teams. Small Group Research, 44(2), 159-194.
Gold, R.L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217-223 Hayman, A. (2016). Insurtech - The new gold for startups. Swiss Finance + Technology
Association. Retrieved from: https://swissfinte.ch/insurtech-switzerland/
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied psychology, 94(5), 1128.
InnoSutra. (2017). Characteristics and types of innovation. InnoSuTra,21 Iyer, B., & Davenport, T. H. (2008). Reverse engineering Google's innovation
machine. Harvard Business Review, 86(4), 58-68.
Kuls, N. (2018). Wie die Deutsche Bank von Amazon und Airbnb lernt. Frankfurt
Allgemeine. Retrieved from: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/wie-die-deutsche-bank-von-amazon-und-airbnb-lernt-15798354.html
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 143-149.
Liedtka, J. (2014). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. JOURNAL PROD INNOV MANAG, 32(6),925-938
Liedtka, J. (2017). Evaluating the impact of design thinking in action. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2017(1).
McGrath, R.G. (2013). The pace of technology adoption is speeding up. Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2013/11/the-pace-of-technology-adoption-is-speeding-up
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological bulletin, 115(2), 210.
Nevo, S., Nevo, D., & Pinsonneault, A. (2016). A temporally situated self-agency theory of information technology reinvention. MIS Quarterly, 40(1), 157-A8.
Nisula, A.M., & Kianto, A. (2016). Group climate and creativity in temporary innovation camp settings. CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, 25(1). 157-171. Norman, D. A. (1998). The design of everyday things. London: MIT.
Norman, D.A., & Verganti, R. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. DesignIssues, 30(1), 78-96.
Nussbaum, B. (2004). The power of design. Businessweek, (3883), 96-94.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How
Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economyand How to Make Them Work for You. WW Norton & Company.
Panetta, K. (2017). Top trends in the gartner hype cycle for emerging technologies 2017. Smarter with Gartner. Retrieved from:
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/top-trends-in-the- gartner-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-2017/
Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. (2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.), New York: Free Press. Rice, R. E., and Rogers, E. M. (1980). Reinvention in the innovation process, Science
Communication,1(4), 499-514.
Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769-788.
Shpilberg, D., Berez, S., Puryear, R. and Shah, S. (2007). Avoiding the alignment trap in information technology. MIT Sloan Management Review,49(1). 51-58.
Siebold, G. L. (2007). The essence of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 33(2), 286-295.
Wade, M. (2015) Digital business transformation - a conceptual framework. Global Center for Digital Business Transformation.
Waerder, B., Stinnes, S., & Erdenberger, O. (2017). Practitioner´s section: Design thinking as driver for innovation in the chemical industry. Journal of Business Chemistry, 14 (2). Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied psychology, 82(3), 390.
Zydra, M. (2014). Labor für Geistesblitze. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved from:
Appendix A – Semi-structured Interview Guide (German) Einleitung
Mein Name ist Etrit Asllani, zurzeit schreibe ich meine Masterarbeit für den
Masterstudiengang Change Management. Im Lichte meiner Diplomarbeit sind wir heute hier, um über Ihre Erfahrungen mit dem Design Thinking Workshop und das IT-bezogene Problem zu sprechen, das Sie mit dem Workshop anstoßen wollten.
Während des Interviews hoffe ich, mehr Informationen zu den folgenden Themen zu erhalten: • Das Projekt selbst
• Der bisherige Ansatz der Problemlösung • Den Design Thinking Workshop
• Wie es geholfen hat, das Problem zu lösen.
Das Interview dauert etwa 30-60 Minuten. Mit Ihrer Zustimmung wird das Gespräch aufgezeichnet, damit die Ergebnisse korrekt verarbeitet werden können. Außerdem werden die Ergebnisse dieses Interviews in meiner Diplomarbeit verarbeitet. Ich werde die Ergebnisse dieses Interviews sorgfältig behandeln und die Daten anonymisieren. Nach Abschluss meiner Diplomarbeit werden die Audioaufnahmen entfernt. Außerdem werden die Transkripte verschlüsselt. Also, im Falle eines Verstoßes gegen meine Geräte, werden die Transkripte nicht von Nutzen sein.
Die Interviewfragen beziehen sich auf die zuvor besprochenen Themen. Während des Interviews möchte ich Sie einladen, die Fragen so sorgfältig und vollständig wie möglich zu beantworten. Sollte Ihnen etwas unklar sein, fragen Sie bitte nach weiteren Erklärungen. Sie können das Interview jederzeit abbrechen und Ihre Antworten von der Diplomarbeit
zurückziehen.
Ich hoffe, Ihnen ist alles klar. Haben Sie Fragen oder Anmerkungen?
1) Was ist Ihre derzeitige Position im Unternehmen und welche Rolle haben Sie im Projekt?
2) Beschreiben Sie kurz worum es sich bei dem Projekt handelt
3) Wie haben Sie bisher versucht das Problem zu lösen? Wie haben Sie bisher gearbeitet?
4) Können Sie den Ablauf des Design Thinking Workshops erläutern und zu welchen Ergebnissen Sie gekommen sind?
a. Wie viel Erfahrung haben Sie in Design Thinking?
b. Inwiefern unterscheidet sich das Ziel ihres Ergebnisses mit dem vorherigen Ziel?
5) Inwiefern unterscheidet sich das Arbeiten mit den DTH Methoden von ihrer vorherigen Herangehensweise?
a. Inwiefern hat Ihnen DTH geholfen oder nicht geholfen auf Ihr Ergebnis zu kommen?
6) Wie denken Sie geht es nun weiter mit dem Projekt?
7) Inwieweit denken Sie fördert oder hindert die Design Thinking Methoden Ihre Sichtweise an ein Problem heranzugehen?
a. Zu welchem Ausmaß sind Sie mit der Teamarbeit, mit dem Prozess und dem Endergebnis zufrieden?
b. Seit dem Workshop sind einige Wochen vergangen. Inwieweit änderte die Methodik Ihre Arbeitsweise?
8) Was hat Ihnen besonders am Workshop gefallen und haben Sie noch irgendwelche Anmerkung?
Master Thesis 2018 - Design Thinking and IT Reinvention Interview Guide (English) Introduction
My name is Etrit Asllani, currently I am writing my Master Thesis for the Change Management Master program. In light of my Thesis we are here today to talk about your experiences with the Design Thinking workshop and the IT related problem you wanted to kick-off with the workshop
During the interview I hope to gather more information on the following topics: • The project itself
• The previous approach of solving the problem • The design thinking workshop
• How it helped to solve the problem
The interview will take about 30-60 minutes of your time. With your consent, the interview will be recorded so that the results can be processed correctly. Furthermore, the results of this interview will be processed in my Thesis. I will handle the results of this interview carefully and I will anonymize the data. After I finished my thesis the audio records will be removed. Furthermore, the transcripts will be encrypted. So, in case of breach of my devices, the transcripts will not be of any use.
The interview questions relate to the topics as previously discussed. During the interview I would like to invite you to answer the questions as carefully and complete as possible. If at any time something is unclear to you, please feel free to ask for further explanation. You’re free to stop the interview at any time and withdraw your answers from the thesis.
I hope all is clear to you. Do you have any questions or remarks so far? INTRO (Informed Consent, Research Purpose, Anonymity)
1) What is your current position in the company and what role do you have in the “project? 2) Describe briefly what the project is about
3) How have you tried to solve the problem so far? How have you worked so far? 4) How much experience do you have in design thinking?
5) How did you come to participate in the Design Thinking Kick-Off Workshop? 6) Can you explain the course of the workshop with the respective steps and results? 7) How does the goal of the platform differ with the goal of your prototype?
8) How does working with DTH methods differ from their previous approach? 9) How did DTH help or not help you to get your result?
10) How do you think the project will continue?
11) To what extent do you think Design Thinking methods promote or hinder your view of a problem?
12) To what extent are you satisfied with the teamwork, the process and the end result? 13) Several weeks have passed since the workshop. To what extent has the methodology changed the way you work?
Appendix B – Interviews and group composition Group Interview
Code Role min (Pages) Duration Language Place
1 IP002 Intern 39 (7) German Think Tank
1 IP005 IT project lead 55 (13) German Think Tank
1 IP010 Business management specialist
28 (5) German Think Tank
2 IP001 Business management 45 (10) German Phone
2 IP003 Trainee (Business analyst) 38 (10) German Think Tank
2 IP004 Software architect 50 (11) German Think Tank
2 IP007 Senior product development expert
60 (13) German Think Tank
2 IP009 PMO change manager 35 (7) German Phone
3 IP006 Intern 25 (5) German /
Appendix C – Outcome of the reinvention process
Group 2
Idea Tinder
A social network app was linked with the idea of evaluation idea management. This prototype fulfilled a new purpose by involving the community aspect which changed the meaning of the platform technology. It was rated the best by the testers and subjectively I found this idea the most original and creative. It functions similar to the tinder app in which the people wipe left and right, when they like or dislike the idea and they wipe to the top when they want to get involved in the project.
Group 1
My Taxi App
This idea improved the initial attempts of a consolidation of the different idea management platforms by new features. However, the novel part was the integration of a tracking system inspired by another app used in the transporting industry. This idea was evaluated as very feasible. Nevertheless, it did not rank as high as the Idea tinder reinvention.
Group 3
Certification
Appendix D – Method toolkit (master thesis: Schlegel, 2012; Hoisington, 2013)
Method Why? Use case
Pig in the Middle
Helps you identify the stakeholders associated with a certain design challenge
To help people think about a problem from different vantage points by considering the stake holders
Your team is asked to improve a mobile banking app. By
understanding the needs of the many different stakeholders, the team can ultimately build a better app that addresses the needs of everyone involved. Without taking time to apply this method, critical stakeholders could be overlooked. Persona
Is a model of a person that helps designers remember who their users are by reminding them of their users´ needs and desires
To guide a product so that it addresses the real needs of its users
While developing a new product or service, use Personas to design software features that accurately reflect the daily needs of your users. 5 Why´s
Help you find underlying causes of a problem
To find the root cause of the problem you´re running into and answer the question “what is causing this idea to fail?”
Your team feels that manager´s new strategy is going in the wrong direction. You apply the 5 Why´s to find possible causes and better understand the problem. Value Proposition
Designer
Helps to clarify and test value you are offering to your user
To ensure that the idea you are bringing to market accurately addresses your customers’ needs
Your team has a start-up idea. In order to prepare for critical user testing and feedback sessions, you use the Value Proposition Designer to clarify and test the assumptions about user needs and desires that underlie your idea
Brainstorming
Helps generate lots of different ideas by leveraging the collective thinking of a group
To generate a large amount of diverse
ideas that tackle a specific issue. You are tasked with bringing in ideas on how an organization could better connect with the “Generation Y”. Together with your team, you brainstorm to come up with lots of ideas.
Prototyping
Transforms concepts into tangible, testable products
To understand an idea more
thoroughly by transforming it from a concept to a tangible product. By creating a usable, testable product, the team can determine which features should be kept, changed, or discontinued
You are asked to build a mobile banking app. To understand what your users need, you build a prototype. This allows your user to understand your concept, and give you feedback about what they like, don´t like, and would wish to see in a future version.
Testing
Helps you refine prototypes user feedback
To find out from the user whether your prototype is understandable and achieves the results you were aiming for, as well as to gain insights from the user that could improve the next prototype
Your team has built a prototype of some features for new water bottle packaging. Because you took the time to test these features, you gained valuable feedback on the prototype and explored, together with the user, new features that future users would appreciate.
Feedback Capture Grid
Helps facilitate real-time feedback capture during presentations of information or prototypes
To be more systematic with your feedback and more diverse in the type of feedback given.
Your design team is rehearsing a presentation on their new prototype. During the presentation you keep track of your thoughts using
