Investigating the Underlying Principles and Consequences
of Design Thinking: A Literature Study
Charles de Beaufort
a, aFaculty of Economics and Business, Strategic Innovation Management, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands
First supervisor: K.R.E. Huizingh (k.r.e.huizingh@rug.nl) Second supervisor: R.A. van der Eijk (r.a.van.der.eijk@rug.nl)
Date: 16 August 2013
Abstract
This thesis provides a broad literature review on design thinking in which its definition, underlying principles and added value are examined for a business context. Design thinking is explained on the basis of a three-dimensional approach and benchmarked with publically available literature in order to cover the scope of this insufficiently studied and theorized concept. The research provides a critical approach to design thinking and clarifies the concept’s potential for business through implementation and development of “designerly ways” of thinking. This thesis challenges the process approach for explaining design thinking, and thereby proposes an alternative conceptualization that identifies underlying principles on which design thinking relies. By explaining the underlying principles and identifying their added value, this research contributes to current literature in innovation management and provides practical advice for innovation managers. The findings serve as theoretical foundation for future empirical research.
Keywords: design thinking, underlying principles, added value, innovation, visualization, teams.
Amount of words (excluding references and appendix): 9079
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 3
1.1METHODOLOGY 4
2. DEFINING DESIGN THINKING 5
2.1 DESIGN THINKING AS A COGNITIVE STYLE 6
2.2 DESIGN THINKING AS A GENERAL THEORY OF DESIGN 7
2.3 DESIGN THINKING AS A COMPETENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONS 7
3. CONTRADICTIONS IN DESIGN THINKING PROCESS MODELS 8
3.1 THE BASIC PRINCIPLES 8
3.1.1 PROBLEM AND SOLUTION SPACE 9
3.1.2 DIVERGENT AND CONVERGENT THINKING 9
3.2 THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN THINKING 10
3.2.1 (RE)FRAMING THE DESIGN PROBLEM 11
3.2.2 GATHERING EXTERNAL KNOWLEDGE 12
3.2.3 KNOWLEDGE POOLING 12
3.2.4 SYNTHESIZING 13
3.2.5 IDEATING 13
3.2.6 PATH SELECTING 14
3.2.7 SPECIFYING 14
3.2.8 TANGIBLE SOLUTION 15
3.3 WHAT MAKES DESIGN THINKING DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL METHODS? 16
3.3.1 UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES 16
3.3.2 IMPACT AND NATURE OF DESIGN THINKING 16
4. THE ADDED VALUE OF DESIGN THINKING IN BUSINESSES 17
4.1 TWO AREAS OF ADDED VALUE IDENTIFIED 17
4.1.1 DESIGN THINKING ACCELERATES THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT CYCLES, AND THEREBY INCREASES THE QUANTITY OF NEW
PRODUCTS 18
4.1.2 DESIGN THINKING INCREASES THE SUCCESS OF NEW PRODUCT CREATION 19
4.2 THE DISADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF DESIGN THINKING 19
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 22
1. Introduction
Nearly half a century ago, a linkage between management and design thinking was made by Simon (1969), who stated that managing resembles design because it, too, is the process by changing existing situations into preferred ones. To this day, design is one of the cornerstones of design thinking (Buchanan, 1992) and plays a central role in problem solving and driving the future of businesses (Rothwell, 1994). Both design and design thinking aim to fulfill users needs (Vianna et al, 2013; Brown, 2008) and latent needs, needs that users are not aware of or have difficulty envisioning (Narver and Slater, 2004). However, the word “design” is confusing since it can be used as both a noun and verb. This discussion is shaped by different discourses of design from literature. Simon (1969) was the first who argued that the work of designers is not as practical as crafting and creating objects, but involves all the conscious activities to create artefacts and thereby creating a desired state of affairs. It is still argued that meaning is the essence of the design process and the artefact serves as a medium to communicate this meaning (Brown, 2008; Krippendorff, 2006; Pink, 2005; Löwgren and Stolterman, 2004; Liu, 1996). Design, as creating meaning, has both an explorative process character and human centered approach (Vetterli et al., 2012; Tschimmel, 2012; Brown, 2009; Dunne and Martin, 2006). So, design is explained as an activity to shape processes based on problem solving and seeking new opportunities, and is therefore argued as a verb and no noun in this thesis. The following definition of design, related to a business context, is applied:
The activity of finding a solution that meets users’ expectations or fulfill latent needs.
Design thinking is the “thinking” before the “doing” (Brown, 2012) and is therefore defined by Visser (2006) as the whole of cognitive activities that designers apply during the process of designing. Overall this thesis is not only applicable for business problems such as rapid technological changes or unmet user needs, but argues for a business opportunity; the added value design thinking has to offer innovation management. The main research question of this thesis is:
Which underlying principles of design thinking can enhance innovation management?
The contributions of this study derive from its sub-questions. First, by systematically analyzing available literature, a definition of design thinking for a business context is given. Second, a comprehensive set of underlying principles of design thinking is identified that together form a lucid approach for explaining the concept. Third, the added value mainly resulting from these principles, for innovation management is proposed. The next section discusses the structure of this research.
1.1Methodology
In order to guarantee the use of relevant information this study wields two quality rules. Firstly, only those articles that included the combined term “design thinking” in its title or among its keywords were selected as primary data source. Secondly, the majority of referenced articles published in journals that were rated by the RuG as “very good” or “top” journals. Furthermore, most articles and books stem from the period after 2000, however articles from Simon (1969), Rowe (1987), and Schön (1983) were inevitable due to their fundamental contribution to this topic. By using forward and backward snowballing techniques, relevant eligible articles, were identified. This technique revealed a number of articles from various contexts in which design thinking is used (e.g. Journal of Engineering Education, Journal of Experimental Psychology and Design Issues). Besides scientific journals, papers and books this thesis appraises documentaries, online contents and documents provided through LinkedIn discussion groups in order to build a theoretical frame for design thinking.
Based on the three-dimensional approach of Kimbell (2011) and extended with available literature, design thinking is defined for a business context. To identify the underlying principles, a comprehensive approach is used to identify the nature of design thinking related to its divergent contexts and its different approaches. The following keywords for analyzing available literature were used: “Elements, cognitive styles, core activities, characteristics, methods, tools, concepts and principles”. All these individual aspects were recorded and displayed visually (see Appendix A). The pooling of similar aspects or differing ones of corresponding meanings together revealed elements of design thinking. Then, corresponding elements were grouped together and underlying principles occurred (see Appendix B). After describing these phenomena of design thinking, the efficacy of design thinking is compared to the “standard of business product development”. This revealed which underlying principles added value and enhanced innovation management. Product development in this thesis includes incremental and radical innovations and the creation of new life cycles. Figure 1 below represents the roadmap of this literature study. The first three steps describe phenomena of design thinking and the last step reveals its efficacy. The following section analyzes and defines design thinking for a business context.
Figure 1: The roadmap of this literature study
2. Defining Design Thinking
The documentary “Design & Thinking” states that the term design thinking evolved to facilitate a distinction between what others think of a design, that is usually just the surface, and the thinking designers do before creating (Brown, 2012). Design thinking is about the mental processes designers use to design artefacts but not the artefact itself (Martin, 2006). However, as with design, there is no widely accepted definition of design thinking (Cross, 2011; Kimbell, 2011; Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Brown, 2009; Burnette, 2009; Martin, 2009; Bauer and Eagan, 2008). So far, research resulted in a variety of definitions that have been created on the basis of divergent ways of viewing design situations and using theories that originate from diverse contexts (Dorst,
What is
Design? • Step 1: based on literature a defini[on was chosen What is
Design Thinking?
• Step 2: based on a three-‐dimensional approach and published literature a defini[on was chosen
What are the Underlying Principles?
• Step 3: different aspects formed groups of elements. These groups formed together the underlying principles
What is the added value?
2010). Hence, there is little value in proposing a single definition given the lack of a unique meaning, as there are too many discourses (Johansson and Woodilla, 2010). In order to deal with this problem, design thinking is defined by Kimbell’s (2011) three-dimensional approach and extended by available literature. Excluding one dimension would lead to an incomplete understanding of design thinking since the dimensions are complementary.Based on the use of dimensions and reflecting academic literature, design thinking is defined according to a business context. Furthermore, the classification of three dimensions explains how design thinking has evolved over time.
1. Design thinking as a cognitive style (Cross, Dorst and Roozenburg, 1992; and Schön, 1983) 2. Design thinking as a general theory of design (Buchanan, 1992)
3. Design thinking as a competence for organizations (Brown, 2008, 2009; Martin, 2007, 2009; Bauer and Eagan, 2008; Dunne and Martin, 2006)
The third approach, design thinking as a competence for organizations, is crucial in this research as it connects design thinking to business.
2.1 Design thinking as a cognitive style
Rowe’s Design Thinking (1987) highlights one of the first discussions of design thinking as a cognitive style. The book offers procedural aspects and insights based on Rowe’s teaching methods for architects and urban planners. From a variety of fields, including product design, engineering and architecture researchers investigated how designers think and act during problem-solving activities (Burnette, 2009; Cross, 2006; Lawson, 2006; Schön, 1983). They proved that designers left analytical processes behind and relied heavily on a new type of reasoning to generate creative solutions. As such it can be concluded that design thinking started as a way of thinking, a cognitive style.
available. So instead of only using analytical thinking, authors argued for a productive and interactive mix of inductive, deductive and abductive thinking (Tschimmel, 2012; Cross, 2011; Brown, 2009; Dunne and Martin, 2006).
2.2 Design thinking as a general theory of design
Where the body of research started by focusing on cognition, others continued defining the field of design as a general theory. Buchanan (1992) followed the trend of design thinking in the twentieth century, where design grew from a segmented profession to a field for technical research and to what should be recognized as a liberal art applicable in a broader context. Buchanan (1992) argued that design, as a general theory, is applicable on nearly anything, whether tangible or intangible, whether an object or a system. He was the first to interpret design thinking as a general theory of design and seeing design as a liberal art, uniquely well placed to serve the needs of a technological culture in which many elements are designed within the complexity of human needs and problems. His paper “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking” stated that most problems faced nowadays are so called wicked problems, a class of social system problems that are poorly defined, where the information is confusing and with too decision makers involved (Buchanan, 1992). In order to deal with these problems the designer brings a unique new way of looking at problems and finding solutions. Buchanans’ version of design thinking is not about how individuals design, but aims to define design thinking’s role in the world (Kimbell, 2011).
2.3 Design thinking as a competence for organizations
More recently, two proponents reconfigured design thinking from a general theory to a more focused business context, design thinking as a competence for organizations (Martin, 2012; Brown, 2009). Brown (2009) points out the need for design thinking to cope with rapid technological change. He states that through following the non-linear, iterative process that is guided by inspiration, ideation and implementation, design thinking can convert problems into opportunities. This process is only successful by using integrative thinking, which is similar to abductive reasoning. This method of thinking implies that managers need not only rely on analytical processes but should also create novel solutions that go beyond and improve on existing alternatives (Brown, 2009).
these events to relate to each other and on the system as a whole (Dunne and Martin, 2006). Martin (2009) explains that the way good designers think by using abductive reasoning enables managers to shift from choosing between alternatives to help them synthesize entirely new and innovative concepts that eventually lead to a competitive edge. This explains the complementarity among the dimensions since design thinking as a cognitive style by using abductive reasoning contributes to an organizational competence by achieving competitive edge and value. Building on Kimbell’s (2011) approach and published literature, design thinking for business in this thesis is argued as:
Applying the methodology and approach of design and designers to a broader set of issues and problems in business (Brown, 2013).
By looking more closely into the roots of design thinking related to the divergent discourses this study identifies underlying principles. The following chapter explains the underlying principles and provides propositions.
3. Contradictions in Design Thinking Process Models
Process models of design thinking are used for educating innovation managers (Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Vetterli et al., 2012; Best, 2007; Lawson, 2006; Dym et al., 2005). However others see design thinking as an iterative activity directed by broad guidelines without fixed processes (Lindberg et al., 2010). Therefore frequent used design thinking models have a circular and (re)iterative nature to weaken sequentiality (see Appendix C). Owen (2006) highlights that design thinking models are based on the balancing act between sequential processes with a clear explanation while at the same time avoiding the impression of linearity by circular streams or feedback loops. Therefore design thinking is not argued as a fixed process, but as a facilitator that shapes processes.
In this thesis the process approach is challenged. An alternative conceptualization is proposed that identifies underlying principles on which design thinking, whether explained as a process or not, relies. The approach overcomes process terminology such as stage, sequences and phases which according to Lindberg et al. (2010) are chosen due to its commonness and comprehensibility rather than actually deciding upon its conceptual fit. In the context of this thesis, underlying principles are the essential and crucial elements of design thinking which are not readily apparent.
3.1 The basic principles
gives crucial insight about how the design problem is constructed and perceived (Burnette, 2009) while the latter helps to learn and cope creatively with relevant information during problem solving (Brown, 2009).
3.1.1 Problem and Solution Space
Newel et al. (1967) introduced the concept of a problem space. They aimed to identify possible solutions reasoning from within the problem space itself since, according to their logic, the optimal solution of a design problem is derived from the inner structure of the problem. Contrary to this approach, Cross and Dorst (2007), argued co-evolution between problem and solution is needed in order to find an optimal solution. Therefore design thinking is regarded as dualistic approach since it is neither possible to fully understand a problem, nor to deduce rationally an optimal solution (Buchanan, 1992). In a typical problem space exploration subjective representations of diverse stakeholders set out the yardsticks. These representations serve as inspiration and communication tool when exploring the solution space.
3.1.2 Divergent and Convergent Thinking
The terms divergent and convergent thinking refer back to Guildtford (1967) who argues that both are elementary cognitive factors of problem solving. Divergent thinking is an important factor of exploratory and creative work while convergent thinking brings together the divergent aspects to comprehensive frameworks and concepts (Brown, 2008). Both types of thinking apply in both problem and solution space. A visual integration of both basic principles can be seen in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: The basic principles of design thinking
of both approaches is found in that design thinking prefers divergence over classification in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the problem situation, and aims to build a knowledge fundament to elaborate a certain idea by using convergence (Cropley, 2006). So basically, design thinking is the rhythmic exchange between diverging activities of opening up the problem and solution and converging activities of selecting and streamlining (Brown, 2008). The dynamic interaction between the basic principles generate a system of checks and evaluations to make sure that the decisive solution for the problem as addressed by design thinking will be suitable, validated and implementable for the social system.
3.2 The Underlying Principles of Design Thinking
By assessing the dynamically recurring steps of design thinking until the optimal solution is found, the principles on which design thinking relies were identified. Together the principles provide a comprehensive and intuitive picture of design thinking to educate managers about the positive impact of design thinking. The approach is ambidextrous since it avoids linearity by using feedback loops thus providing sequential process depictions to achieve clarity among managers by giving strategic directions. The following eight underlying principles and their elements were selected after thorough analyzing the reviewed literature (see Table 1). A more detailed explanation of the selected elements and principles can be found in the methodology.
Table 1: The eight underlying principles and their elements
Underlying Principle Elements Authors
(Re)Framing the Design Problem
(Re)Framing Tschimmel, 2012; Cross, 2011; Brown, 2009, 2010; Dorst, 2006; Owen, 2006; Schön, 1984
Holistic approach Cross, 2011; Brown, 2008; Owen, 2006; Buchanan, 1992
Reconsidering the first principle
Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Cross, 2011; Martin, 2009; Brown, 2008; Dorst, 2006; Dunne and Martin, 2006
Optimism and constraints Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Cross, 2011; Brown, 2008, 2009; Ungaretti, 2009; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Owen, 2006; Vandenbosch and Gallagher, 2004; Norman, 2002
Gathering External Knowledge Insight, observation,
empathy
Tschimmel; 2012; Ungaretti, 2009; Brown, 2008; Nonaka; 2007; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Dym et al. 2005; Narver and Slater, 2004
Knowledge Pooling
(Diverse) team Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Tschimmel, 2012; Vetterli et al., 2012; Cross, 2011; Dorst, 2010 Brown, 2008, 2009; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Owen, 2006
Mutual knowledge base Tschimmel, 2012; Vetterli et al., 2012; Cross, 2011; Brown, 2008; Owen, 2006
Visual language Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Tschimmel, 2012; Vetterli et al., 2012; Cross, 2011; Dorst, 2006, 2010; Brown, 2008, 2009; Martin, 2009; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Owen, 2006; van der Lugt, 2002
Synthesizing Synthesize information Kolko, 2010; Best, 2007; Howard, 1988
Ideating
Creating multiple ideas Girotra, Terwisch and Ulrich, 2012; Tschimmel, 2012; Vetterli et al., 2012; Brown, 2008, 2010; Ungaretti, 2009; Owen, 2006; Buchanan, 1992; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Lawson, 2006; Rowe, 1991; Von Hippel; 1986
Abductive/ Inductive thinking
Tschimmel, 2012; Cross, 2011; Kimbell, 2011; Tonkinwisse, 2011; Dunne, 2010; Brown, 2008, 2009;Martin, 2006, 2007, 2009; Lockwood, 2009; Ungaretti, 2009; Martin and Dunne; 2006; Cross, Dorst and Roozenburg, 1992; and Schön, 1983
Path Selecting Decision-making Martin, 2009; Brown, 2008; Pincus, 2007; Rowe, 1991; Howard, 1988;
Specifying
Iterative, chaotic and exploratory
Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Tschimmel, 2012; Cross, 2011; Dorst, 2010; Lindberg et al., 2010; Martin, 2009; Plattner, Meinel and Weinberg 2009; Brown, 2008, 2009; Martin, 2009; Ungaretti, 2009; Beckman and Barry, 2007; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Löwgren and Stolterman, 2004; Liu, 1996; Rowe, 1991
Tangible Solution Feedback from stakeholder Tschimmel, 2012; Brown and Wyatt, 2012; Cross, 2011; Liedtka and Ogilvie, 2011,
Dorst, 2006, 2010; Brown, 2008, 2009; Martin, 2009; Best, 2007; Owen, 2006;
3.2.1 (Re)Framing the Design Problem
It is argued that half of the design thinking act is done by framing. This principle is about choosing a novel standpoint from which a problematic situation can be tackled (Dorst, 2010). This is needed since design problems are of changeable nature (Dorst, 2006). The purpose is to build a deep understanding of the design problem based on information given by the users as well as the expertise of the designer (Tschimmel, 2012). Designers seek to identify whether the stated problem, represents the problem that should be observed. Therefore, Dunne and Martin (2006) urge to develop a clear understanding by interacting with users as early as possible when implementing design thinking. An important tool in reframing is asking why-questions1 instead of what questions. By asking why-questions, the activity reveals the true nature of the problems and thereby evokes creative solutions. When exploring possible solutions, it is essential to keep the overall picture in mind (Martin, 2009; Brown, 2008; Dorst, 2006). Keeping the overall picture in mind is what Cross (2011) calls a holistic approach. This approach is characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole, and therefore assumes that design thinking includes all relevant perspectives when framing a problem. According to Brown (2010) the more perspectives2 get involved in framing, the better solution will become.
According to Brown (2009) framing exists out of a set of constraints that gives the project team a framework from which to begin. Optimistic behavior, that most design thinkers show, is related to dealing with
1 Example of Sara Beckman during a class conversation (documentary Design & Thinking): “If I asked you to build me a bridge, what would you do”
whereupon the class named different types of bridges. When the class asks her why she wants a bridge, she answers she needs to get across the water. The class comes up with alternative solutions such as a tunnel, boat, swimming, airplane… oh and a bridge. When the class asks her why she needs to get across the water, she answers by saying that she needs to get a letter to the other side… now what ideas do you have? In this way she completely reframed the problem.
constraints. Whereas constraints may sound negative, they are the driving force to creative solutions when framing and have the capacity to inspire (Dunne and Martin, 2006; Vandenbosch and Gallagher, 2004). Design thinking benefits from constraints because it reduces the load on memory (Norman, 2002), and comes up with at least one potential solution that is better than the current alternatives (Razzouk and Shute, 2012). When facing a problem, designers question its basic assumptions (Dunne and Martin, 2006) or, as described by Cross (2011), designers reconsider the problem from the first principle. Both comprehend the purpose, function and ultimately the use of the problem to be solved. Summarized, framing is the focal mode that opens every design thinking workflow and is reshaped until the state of knowledge matches the (re)framed problem, see iterations in 4.2.7 (Brown, 2010; Dorst, 2010; Schön, 1984).
Proposition 1: The more perspectives involved during framing, the more likely a company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
3.2.2 Gathering External Knowledge
This principle is based on exploring the problem space and aims to collect all divergent knowledge related to the design problem. Contrary to (re)framing it aims to collect only knowledge outside the designers’ own expertise. Identifying which stakeholders are concerned with the design problem is crucial; information about how they think, feel and behave is compulsory for this mode. This information is gathered by identifying explicit and tacit knowledge. The easiest to identify is explicit knowledge and appears in documents, statistical sheets and reports (Dym et al., 2005). Tacit knowledge, a vital part of problem space exploration, is not so easy to grasp and includes unspoken thoughts, habits, behaviors, feelings and needs (Nonaka, 2007). Tacit knowledge is used to fulfill the unarticulated needs of the users of which they are not aware, the latent needs (Narver and Slater, 2004). According to Brown (2008) a successful design thinking activity is guided along three reinforcing elements, namely; insight, observation, and empathy. The core of this principle is to identify stakeholders’ needs by building empathy in order to reveal both explicit and tacit knowledge.
Proposition 2: The more divergent knowledge is gathered besides the companies own knowledge base, the more likely a company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
3.2.3 Knowledge Pooling
understood among all team members (Owen, 2006). Besides providing a multidimensional understanding of the problem space (Blomquist and Arvola, 2002), knowledge pooling is important because is it overcomes constraints related to time, resources (both human capital and cost) or experience (Vetterli et al., 2012). An important aspect of knowledge pooling is the use of visual language (Owen, 2006). This enables designers to communicate a common view through sketches, drawings and prototypes that would otherwise only be clarified through discussion (Cross, 2011). By first working out ideas and transforming them into drawings and early prototypes, ideas become tangible and allows both designers and users to learn more about the problem space, facilitate communication and generate solutions together (Tschimmel, 2012). These early and rapid prototypes are a cheap and effective way to reveal the value of solutions. Mistakes revealed by early prototypes are the input for an iterative process that leads to enhanced learning and more valuable solutions (Brown, 2009). Another important aspect of this mutual knowledge approach is that designers have the view of a generalist to reach across disciplines and communicate their effort across these disciplines (Owen, 2006). Cross (2011) agrees on this generalist view and points out the importance of personal and team skills in gathering and structuring information and making judgments to move on to the solution space. The core of this principle is creating a mutual knowledge base among team members to generate relevant knowledge for a faced problem.
Proposition 3: The more knowledge is pooled among team members before decision-taking, the more likely a company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
3.2.4 Synthesizing
The core of this underlying principle is to synthesize information by grouping, structuring or forming preliminary conclusions as a set up for further work along the way (Howard, 1988). This is crucial when confronted with an overload of information, whether related to the problem or solution space (Long, 2009). This large quantity of information is too extensive to fully incorporate in the subsequent design workflow (Kolko, 2010). The activity of synthesizing knowledge occurs several times; during framing, building prototypes, solution generation and more. The core of this underlying principle is to converge the diversity of gathered information before processing them.
Proposition 4: The more information is synthesized, the more likely the company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
3.2.5 Ideating
with the most likely solution. According to Martin (2009) the combined power of abductive thinking, inductive and deductive thinking relies on its ability to indicate a new path to a possible truth and create novel solutions. Lastly, team member characteristics such as experience and the diversity of ages, difference in background and domains of the member have a positive impact on ideating (Vetterli et al., 2012). The core of this underlying principle is to create multiple and divergent ideas for possible solutions by team members. Proposition 5: The more ideas created, the more likely the company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
Preferably, the created ideas should be based on abductive thinking. But this element is left out of the proposition since it is not measurable. However characteristics of abductive logic, such as the quantity of experimentation related to finding the solution on which there is no empirical evidence available could be used as parameters in future research.
3.2.6 Path Selecting
This principle deals with decision-making on multiple options of proceedings during the design workflow based upon available time and resources (Pincus, 2007). It deals with teams that focus too much on exploration, and not on exploitation thereof (Heiman and Nickerson, 2004). Overemphasizing exploration leads to unstable companies, because breakthroughs occur on an irregular and unpredictable fashion. On the other hand, emphasizing exploitation, first increases efficiency and cuts costs, but eventually reaches a point of diminishing and unsatisfactory return on investment (Martin, 2009). As with synthesizing, this principle implies that decision-making by teams is a prerequisite. If this is not the case, it is plausible to harm mutual understanding of the design workflow and eventually loose track (Skambraks, 2004). The core of this underlying principle is choosing one direction among available options with the whole team.
Proposition 6: The more team members involved in decision-making, the more likely the company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
3.2.7 Specifying
visualizations can send the project back to the drawing table until it meets the requirements. Therefore it is argued that iterations lead to a better innovative solution.
Propositions 7: The more concept iterations take place, the more likely company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
3.2.8 Tangible Solution
This principle visualizes and objectifies the concept to collect feedback from stakeholders (Owen, 2006). The necessity of tangible solutions is high due to its cognitive aid, their ability to communicate the matter and the possibility to explore future situations and solutions (Martin, 2009). The level of refinement of the prototypes depends on the amount of iterations; during the early stages the concept is a rough representation that is evaluated on a subjective nature (Dorst, 2006). These early and low-resolution representations should only take as much time, investment and effort to generate useful feedback to proceed by making go/no go decisions as a team (Brown, 2008). The evaluation of ideas becomes more formal and objective when prototypes are of higher resolution and sophistication, this allows designers to benchmark and gain useful feedback about the details of a concept (Dorst, 2006). It is important to notice that this principle focuses on clarifying the solution in the solution phase whereas the knowledge pooling principle uses sketches and prototypes for clarifying the problem in the problem space. The core of this underlying principle is to produce (fine-grained) prototypes that enable feedback from stakeholders.
Proposition 8: The more tangible solutions are made the more specific feedback is generated, and the more likely a company will develop successful innovative solutions for unmet (latent) needs.
The interaction between the basic principles and the underlying principles are shown in table 2 below. Principles 3.2.1, 3.2.3, and 3.2.5 are regarded as coupling point by linking up divergent and convergent movements.
Table 2. Interaction between underlying principle to Problem/Solution Space and Diverging/Converging Thinking
Underlying Principle Problem or Solution Space Diverging or Converging Thinking 3.2.1 (Re)Framing the Design Problem Problem Space Starting or Coupling Point (C à D) 3.2.2 Gathering External Knowledge Problem Space Diverging
3.2.3 Knowledge Pooling Problem Space Coupling Point (D à C) 3.2.4 Synthesizing Both Spaces Converging
3.2.7 Specifying Solution Space Converging 3.2.8 Tangible Solution Solution Space Converging
3.3 What makes design thinking different from traditional methods?
Despite the notion that design thinking has been widely published in academic literature, the topic elicits some controversy. It has been argued that design thinking is a new term for an old concept, part of “traditional’’ ways, but labeled differently. Jonas (2011) makes a distinction between the domain of research into the cognitive and social processes of “Designing” and the new and normative strategic concept “Design thinking”. The difference between both approaches is that the topics to be designed and problems to be solved nowadays are reaching far outside the traditional field of design, ranging from food production and health care solutions for the poor to sustainable mobility to climate change adaptation. Some principles and elements might be used by traditional innovation methods such as requirement analyses, idea generation, idea evaluation, prototype development, and testing. However, the difference in scope and the combination of all principles as a whole is what sets design thinking apart from design (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). Overall this thesis argues design thinking differs from the familiar methods by their underlying principles, impact and nature.
3.3.1 Underlying principles
In general, design thinking principles are more thorough and comprehensive than traditional innovation models (Cooper et al., 2009). By “comprehensive” the authors mean that design thinking should not be used as roadmap from which managers can pick certain elements. Rather, the approach as a whole should be followed. Each principle fully incorporates multiple important elements; latent needs are identified, multiple visualization techniques are used at different moments to get feedback, information is shared and synthesized among teams before deciding on direction. More importantly, some elements have only just been introduced to innovation methods in business. The use of visual language, a holistic approach, an iterative character and the use of abductive thinking is what set the design thinking approach apart from what is commonly used in traditional business methodology.
3.3.2 Impact and nature of design thinking
the usual systematic and tactical approaches (Cross, 2011) and may as such contribute to the strategy of the company at an early stage of problem solving.
The solution in design thinking is not an individual attribute like a product (Brown, 2008). Through system thinking the concept connects the individual aspects that are based on multiple perspectives in order to create experiences for people that are more seamless, and connected together to make more sense (Brown, 2009). Design thinking exceeds single product solutions by coming up with innovations in meaning, in which all relevant perspective are related to each other (Martin, 2012; Verganti, 2009; Krippendorf, 2006). By explaining how a designer can deal with problems considering the form, content, and context design thinking has the capacity to tackle wicked problems (Dunne and Martin, 2006; Buchanan, 1992). Next to this integrative fashion of solving problems, design thinking enables managers to generate entirely new concepts instead of choosing between alternatives (Martin, 2009). Brown (2008) reinforces this opinion and argues that designers create novel solutions going beyond and dramatically improve existing alternatives. Not only has design thinking a greater impact outside of the company, but in concerto the design thinking implementing companies dynamically undergo changes to further improve the level of innovation. According to Martin (2009) design thinking is a culture, a way of working that defines how projects are defined, how hierarchic roles are divided and how people communicate.
4. The Added Value of Design Thinking in Businesses
Companies deal with new emerging economies and have to adapt to new demands by innovation (Baker, 2004). Market trends are constantly shifting and becoming less predictive, which requires neatly and continuous adaptation to consumers’ needs. Consequently, companies have a hard time in creating satisfactory solutions to serve these unmet (latent) needs (Brown, 2008). To deal with business problems and seeking opportunities the added value of design thinking is suggested for innovation managers.
4.1 Two areas of added value identified
4.1.1 Design thinking accelerates the product development cycles, and thereby increases the quantity of new products
A “new product” is changing at least one product characteristic compared to the companies’ previous products (Martin and Mitchell, 1998). The urge to innovate has also been highlighted by Stalk and Hout (2003) who argue that outdated products change from being a loss of strategic opportunities to becoming a threat for remaining competitive on the market. Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995) explain that new products are core value components for companies to adapt, diversify and reinvent in turbulent markets. Due to the abundance of new products nowadays, innovative companies have to accelerate the developing time in order to gain market potential. Overall, design thinking can be used to stimulate improvement of time to market, decrease market response time, and increase the quantity and quality of new products (Kelley and Lesh, 2012).
4.1.2 Design thinking increases the success of new product creation
Success related to new product creation is explained by Cooper (1994) as the ratio of products that meet the minimum level of acceptable financial profitability. This thesis argues that product success is achieved by having a (sustainable) competitive advantage. As mentioned before companies will gain a nearly inexhaustible long-term business advantage when they master design thinking (Martin 2009). However this statement might be overdone, it is believed that consistent patterns of design thinking research have been made that endorse this (Dorst, 2011).
Competitive advantage is achieved by the activity of efficient problem finding and problem solving (Stabell and Fjeldstad, 1998). They argue that in relation to solution finding, design thinking has the highest leverage in re-framing problems, has a dynamic approach to problem solving, and is highly compatible with poorly defined problems. The source of this success can be traced back to how designers formulate problems by asking why- instead of what-questions (Schön, 1983). This helps understanding users needs and constant redefining of task constraints as guided by the initial idea of the intended solution, and ultimately leads to successful product innovation (Rowe, 1987). This repetitive activity of an iterative process occurs until an optimal solution is found (Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Cross, 2011; Brown, 2008, 2009; Martin, 2009; Ungaretti, 2009; Beckman and Barry, 2007). A designer uses abductive reasoning to add information to his own experience and thereby develops unique solutions (Dorst, 2011). Not only the cognitive ability of a designer is important, but also the functioning of a high-performing multidisciplinary team is pivotal to gain sustainable competitive advantage (Rothwell, 1992). Getting a team able to deliver insights, the ideas may be replicable but the ability to develop and deliver insights routinely and continuously is not replicable. In comparison to traditional methods, that typically separate the problem definition and development phases, improved and more sophisticated solutions are found using design thinking, in which the team works together from defining the problem until implementation (Martin, 2009). Overall, it is argued that design thinking increases the success of new products by its comprehensive and thorough understanding of users’ unmet needs and its iterative nature in order to needlessly meet this need. This thesis provides that added value for each underlying principle in table 3.
4.2 The disadvantages and limitations of Design thinking
thinking is not about the right or wrong process (elements) however, but about the right or wrong solution (Brown, 2012). The intrinsic risk of the design thinking movement is that people will push it so far that it becomes a formulated process, since risk adverse businesses have a desire to push things to algorithms (Martin, 2012). Overall, this thesis argues that design thinking, based on the nature of the approach itself, does not have significant disadvantages or limitations but the translation of the concept to business does have some implications.
Table 3. The added value of each underlying principle
Underlying Principle Added value of design thinking Authors
(Re)Framing the Design Problem
• Better understanding of users’ needs • Stronger customer intimacy and loyalty • Evoking better and more creative solutions • Better definition of initial problem
• Achieving a holistic view of complex systems • Explore ideas more quickly and thoroughly
• Brown, 2008, 2009, 2012; Cross, 2011; Martin, 2009; Dunne and Martin, 2006 • Blaich and Blaich, 1993
• Martin, 2009; Brown, 2008; Rowe, 1987 • Dorst, 2010
• Rhea, Cox and Pesterev, 2008; Owen, 2006
• Brown, 2010 Gathering External
Knowledge
• Building stronger empathy by observation of
users •
Brown, 2008; Roto, 2007; Narver and Slater, 2004
Knowledge Pooling • Create a mutual knowledge base among team members that opens doors to new experiences, insights and knowledge • User visual language for feedback during
problem space
• Tschimmel, 2012; Vetterli et al., 2012; Cross, 2011; Brown, 2008; Owen, 2006 • Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Tschimmel,
2012; Vetterli et al., 2012; Cross, 2011; Martin, 2009; Brown, 2008; Dunne and Martin, 2006; Owen, 2006
Synthesizing • Synthesize information for better decision
making •
Howard, 1988
Ideating • Create multiple and divergent ideas
• Abductive thinking leads to more creative ideas and novel solutions
• Parallel working leads to higher quality solutions and time efficiency
• Brown, 2008; Owen, 2006 • Martin, 2004, 2009; Brown 2008 • Cross, 2011; Dow et al., 2010
Path Selecting • Conscious decisions taken by the whole team leads to more motivation and higher quality decisions
Specifying • Iterative process until idea is in optimal state
allows better solutions • Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Martin, 2009; Löwgren and Stolterman, 2004; Liu, 1996
Tangible Solution • Develop fine grained ideas with enable rich feedback during solution space •
Tschimmel, 2012; Brown, 2008, 2009; Martin, 2009
5. Discussion and Conclusion
This literature review explains design thinking as a multi-dimensional concept applicable to various contexts. In order to find a suitable definition of design thinking related to business, Kimbell’s (2011) approach was extended with published literature. Through investigation of the literature two basic principles and eight specific underlying principles were identified on which design thinking relies. While most design thinking approaches are process based (see Appendix D), this study contributes to the current body of evidence from the scientific literature by proposing a approach that balances situational flexibility and adaptability on the one hand, and the clarity of a sequential process model on the other hand. This approach deals with this contradiction by identifying certain underlying principles that have no sequential process nature but they are reiterating steps of the problem solving process. Linking the principles to product development identified areas in which underlying principles can enhance innovation management. These areas, labeled as added value, aim for the acceleration of product development and for (sustainable) success of innovative solutions that fulfill the unmet and latent needs. An overview of the added value for innovation management is represented in table 3. Overall, the model offers an approach better suited for dealing with the accelerating pressures for growth and innovation faced by so many managers today than traditional analytic methods in businesses.
5.1 Future Research
Little empirical research is done due to the subjective nature of design thinking aspects. The main outcomes are intangible assets such as experiences and preferences of stakeholders (Gann et al., 2003). This literature study provides propositions for each underlying principle from which hypothesis can be derived. The propositions presented here do not include all elements regarding each underlying principle, so future research could build additional hypothesis upon the remaining elements.
5.2 Limitations
Despite the intention to provide an objective and thoroughly analysis of the available literature on design thinking, this thesis has several limitations. Firstly, the model proposed is not as common and comprehensible as would be for a process model approach, which affects its clarity. Secondly, in addition to lacking empirical structural evidence this might lead to resistance with managers. Thirdly, the study includes also references other than peer-reviewed scientific journals, such as documentaries, online contents, conference abstracts and papers. Fourth, since some elements are interrelated or occur in multiple principles, measurements might become a source for bias. Furthermore, the source of scientific journals itself stem from divergent research backgrounds (e.g. Research in Engineering Design, Design Issues, International Marketing Review) and this might be in contrast with the business context of this paper.
5.3 Managerial Implications
study. First, managers can learn about and apply underlying principles and their elements as a whole on their own product development process. Second, a specific overview (table 3) is provided of each element related to fast product development and to successful new product creations. Third, managers need to be aware of their own attitude and approaches towards employees when implementing design thinking as an integral value-driving component in the company culture. Instead of setting hard deadlines, they should embrace a design attitude. They should have a hands-on, can-do attitude about wicked problems and conceive constraints as a source of inspiration. Towards other team members and ad hoc invited experts they should be interactive, collaborative and empathic. Last, innovation is about understanding the outliers (Martin, 2009) and design thinking helps with this search. However some managers feel design thinking is dangerous and they request formulated methods such as the “4 P’s” and “Five Forces Model”. This risk, of pushing the design thinking so far that people make formulas, is what managers should be aware of. They should step away from the desire to push things to algorithms and experience how design thinking liberates up their product development by not having to come up with the answer right away and by dreaming about what might be.
5.4 Final Thoughts
Whether a manager or not, I would strongly recommend design thinking to everyone since the principles and elements are applicable into various contexts, including one’s private life. It has influenced the way I approach problems, how I deal with conflicts and constraints and how I manage my business (www.ridedoggy.com). It even helped me to write this thesis since I used framing (including external insights during group discussions) to identify research questions and I designed a methodology to answer these questions (e.g. visualizing, use of convergent and divergent thinking by identifying principles). Furthermore, I wish to thank K.R.E Huizingh for proposing this subject and for accepting me, despite the misinterpretation of the concept in my initial motivational letter. I am deeply grateful for his patience and the amount of time he has put in the feedback sessions and emails over and over again. In line with him, I wish to thank “my group” including Arien Hendriksma, Marije Bakker and Tymen Jissink for their feedback during the monthly sessions. Lastly, I would like to extend my warmest thank to René Goedkoop for giving extensive feedback and for giving me hope after my initial version was rejected.
6. References
van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van Der Bij, H. (2012). Problem Solving in Organizations: A Methodological
Handbook for Business and Management Students. Cambridge University Press.
Adler, N. J., 2006. The arts and leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do? Academy of Management and Education, 5 (4): 486-499.
Baker, S., 2004. New Consumer Marketing: managing a living demand system. Wiley.
Bauer, R., Eagan. W., 2008. Design Thinking: Epistemic Plurality in Management and Organization. Aesthesis, 2 (3): 64-74.
Best, K., 2007. Design Management: managing design strategy, process and implementation, AVA publishing. Blaich, R., Blaich, J., 1993. Product Design and Corporate Strategy – Managing the Connection for
Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Blomquist, A., Arvola, M., 2002. Personas in action: ethnography in an interaction design team. Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, 45 (4): 197-200.
Boland, R. J., Collopy, F,. 2004. Managing as Designing. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press. Brooks, F.P., 2010. The Design of Design – essays from a computer scientist. Addison Wesley, NJ. Brown, T., 2008. Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86 (6): 84-92.
Brown, T., 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Harper Collins.
Brown, T., 2012. Design & Thinking Movie. http://designthinkingmovie.com
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M., 1995. Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of management review, 343-378.
Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), 5-21.
Burnette, C., 2009. A Theory of Design Thinking. Paper prepared in response to the Torquay Conference on Design Thinking, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. November 1.
Chandy, R., 2010. BRAND AND TECHNICAL INTEGRATION FOR RADICAL INNOVATION: DO FIRMS THAT INTEGRATE DO BETTER THAN FIRMS THAT DO NOT? Marketing Theory and
Applications, 226.
Cooper, R. G., 1994. New products: the factors that drive success. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 60-76.
Cooper, R., Junginger, S., and Lockwood, T., 2009. Design thinking and design management: A research and practice perspective. Design Management Review, 20(2), 46-55.
Cropley, A., 2006: In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3): 391-404. Cross, N., 2011. Design Thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK.
Cross, N., 2007. From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking. Design Research Now, 41-54.
Cross, N., 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Berlin: Springer
Cross N., Dorst, K., Roozenburg, N., 1992. Research in Design Thinking. Delft: Delft University Press. Dorst, K., 2006. Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues, 22(3), 4-17.
Dorst, K., 2010. The Nature of Design Thinking. Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research
Symposium, (DTRS8) Sydney, October 19(20): 131-139.
Dorst, K., 2011. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
Dunne, D. 2010. Two inquiry-based approaches to sustainable value: Positive design and integrative thinking.
Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, 3, 195-214.
Dunne, D., Martin, R.L., 2006. Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5 (4): 512-523.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A, M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., Leifer, L. J., 2005. Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 103-120.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Tabrizi, B. N., 1995. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative science quarterly, 84-110.
Gann, D., Salter, A., and Whyte, J., 2003. Design Quality Indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research &
Information, 31(5), 318-333.
Girotra, K., Terwisch, C., Ulrich, K. T., 2010. Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science, 56 (2): 591-605.
Guildtford, J.P., 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Heiman, B. A., and Nickerson, J. A., 2004. Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6‐7), 401-420.
Howard, R.A., 1988. Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise. Management Science, 34(6): 679-695.
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., Cetinkaya, M., 2013. Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management. 22(2): 121-146.
Kelley, A. E., and Lesh, R. A., 2012. Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Routledge.
Kimbell, L., 2011. Rehinking Design Thinking: Part 1. Design and Culture, 3(3): 285-306.
Krippendorff, K., 2006. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation For Design. Boca Raton, FL; London, England, New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press.
Lawson, B., 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. 3rd edition. London: Architectural
Press.
Liedtka, J., Ogilvie, T., 2011. Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. Columbia University Press.
Lindberg, T., Gumienny, R., Jobst, B., Meinel, C., 2010. Is There a Need for a Design Thinking Process? Interpreting Design Thinking, 243-254.
Liu, Y-T., 1996. Is designing one search or two? A model of design thinking involving symbolism and connectionism. Design Studies, 17(4): 435-449.
Lockwood, T., 2009. Transition: How to Become a More Design‐Minded Organization. Design Management
Review, 20(3), 28-37.
Long, F., 2009. Real or Imaginary: The effectiveness of using personas in product design. Irish Ergonomics Review, Proceedings of the IES Conference, 2(3): 1-9.
Löwgren, J., Stolterman, E., 2004. Thoughtful interaction design: a design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Martin, R. L., 2004. The Design of Business. Rotman Management, Business Design. Martin, R. L. 2006. Designing in hostile territory. Rotman magazine, 4-9.
Martin, R. L., 2007. The Opposable Mind. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Martin R. L., 2009, The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge MA.
Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., 2004. Responsive and Proactive Market Orientation and New-Product Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(14): 334-337.
Nonaka, I., 2007. The Knowledge Creating Company. Harvard Business Review. July-August, 162-171. Norman, D. A., 2002. The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Owen, C. L., 2006. Design Thinking: Not on Its Nature and Use. Design Research Quartely, 1(2): 16-27. Pierce, C.S., 1903. Pragmatism – The Logic of Abduction, 12(5): 195–205.
Pincus, A., 2007. The Perfect (Elevator) Pitch. BusinessWeek, 1-5.
Pink, D. H., 2005. A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age (pp. 1-3). New York: Riverhead Books.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., and Weinberg, U., 2009. Design-thinking. Mi-Fachverlag.
Prahalad, C. K., and Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership,
32(3), 4-9.
Razzouk, R., Schute, V., 2012. What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research, 82 (3): 330-348.
Rhea, D., 2003. Bringing Clarity to the “ Fuzzy Front End”. Design Research – Methods and Perspectives, 145-154.
Rhea, S., Cox, R., Pesterev, A., 2008. Fast, inexpensive content-addressed storage in foundation. Annual Technical Conference,143-156.
Rothwell, R., 1992. Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22(3), 221-240.
Roto, V., 2007. User experience from product creation perspective. In Towards a UX Manifesto workshop (pp. 31-34).
Rowe, P., 1987. Design Thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schön, D.A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D.A., 1984. Problems, Frames And Perspectives On Designing. Design Studies, 5 (3):132-136. Schön, D.A., 1999. The reflective practitioner, Basic books.
Simon, H.A., 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK: MIT Press.
Skambraks, J., 2004. 30 Minuten für den überzeugenden Elevator Pitch. GABAL Verslag GmbH, Offenbach. Stabell, C. B., and Fjeldstad, Ø. D., 1998. Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains, shops, and networks. Strategic management journal, 19(5), 413-437.
Stalk, G. and Hout, T.M., 2003. Competing against time: How time-based competition is reshaping global markets, Simon and Schuster.
Thagard, P., Shelley. C., 2005. Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. Waterloo, Ontario: Philosophy Department, University of Waterloo.
Tonkinwise, C., 2011. A taste for practices: Unrepressing style in design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 533-545.
Tschimmel, K., 2012. Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. ISPIM. Papers from the XXIII ISPIM Conference – Action for Innovation: Innovating from Experience. Barcelona, Spain.
Vandenbosch, B., Gallagher, L., 2004. The role of constraints. Managing as designing, 198-207. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Van der Lugt, R., 2002. Brainsketching and How it Differs from Brainstorming. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(1): 43-54.
Vianna, M., Vianna, Y., Adler, I. K., Lucena, B., Russo, B., 2013. Design Thinking Business Innovation. MJV Press.
Visser, W., 2006. The cognitive artifacts of designing.
Verganti, R., 2009. Design driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what
things mean. Harvard Business School Press.
Vetterli, C., Hoffmann, F., Brenner, W., Eppler, M. J., Uebernickel., F., 2012. Designing Innovation: Prototypes and Team Performance in Design Thinking. The XXIII ISPIM Conference - Action for Innovation: Innovating from Experience. Barcelona, Spain.
Von Hippel, E., 1986. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management science, 32(7), 791-805.
7. Appendices
Appendix A: List of all aspects used for identifying the underlying principles.
Brown, Tim. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Harper Collins.
• Design thinking relies on our ability to be intuitive and recognize patterns • Exploratory process
• Fail early to succeed sooner • Chaotic
• Willing to embrace constraints • Feasibility, viability and desirability • Emphasis on fundamental human needs
• The classic starting point of any project is the brief; a set of mental constraints that gives the project team a framework from which to begin.
• People need to experiment, take risks and explore full range of their faculties.
• Three reinforcing elements of any successful design program: insight, observation and empathy. • In design the solution is not locked away somewhere waiting to be discovered but lies in the creative
work of the team.
• The process of the design thinking looks like a rhythmic exchange between the divergent and convergent phases.
• A culture of optimism; without optimisms the unshakable belief that things could be better than they are – the will to experiment will be continually frustrated until it withers. Optimism requires
confidence, and confidence is built on trust. And trust, as we know, flows in both directions. • Prototyping – the willingness to go ahead and try by building it – is the best evidence of
experimentation. Prototyping results “faster”. The faster we make our ideas tangible, the sooner we will be able to evaluate them, refine them, and zero in on the best solution. They should command only as much time, effort, and investment as is necessary to generate useful feedback and drive an idea forward.
• When you practice DT, you move through “four mental states”. Divergent thinking can generate alternatives to the present reality and provide more choices. Next, employ convergent thinking to sort your options and decide which is best. Then apply analysis and synthesis. Analysis breaks patterns down and synthesis identified meaningful patterns, as you reassemble them. Shift cyclically back and forth among these states, generating the new, analyzing it, sifting and selecting, and then examining it in practice and often starting the whole process over again.
• Attitude of experimentation and be open to risk.
• Invite people to solve a specific problem with a set of constraints, so they can win recognition and financial reward.
Dunne, David, and Roger L. Martin. 2006. Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5 (4): 512-523.
• System thinking; visualizing a design or managerial problem as a system of structures, patterns and events, rather than just the events along – and understanding the impact of changes in one component on the others, and on the system as a whole (Senge, 1994).
• Constraints are embraced as the impetus to creative solutions. If something can’t be done, it is only because the thinking around it hasn’t yet been creative and inspired enough. Norman (2002), claims that constraints facilitate the design process by reducing the load on memory; and with Vandenbosch and Gallagher (2004), who argue that constraints have the capacity to inspire.
• Each problem is viewed as an opportunity for invention that includes a questioning of basic assumptions and a resolve to improve the state of the world.
• Empathy by understanding users’ needs and by collaboration with peers. Norman (2002) calls for greater emphasis on user-centered design. Because we tend to project our own rationalizations and beliefs onto others, designers can become isolated from users’ needs and interests, and functionality can suffer. Hence is it essential to develop a clear understanding though interaction with users as early as possible in the design process.
• The design attitude is concerned with finding the best answer possible, given the skills time and resources of the team, and takes for granted that it will require the invention of new alternatives.
Owen, C. L. 2006. Design Thinking: Not on Its Nature and Use. Design Research Quartely, 1:2 December. • Conditioned inventiveness: Design brings to invention a concern that what is produced not only to be
inventive, but be so within the frameworks of human-centered and environment-centered measures governing the designer’s efforts.
• Human-centered focus: DT must continually consider how what is being created will respond to the clients’’ needs.
• Environment-centered concern: Part of human-centered focus.
• Ability to visualize: designers can visualize ideas in a range of media, bringing a common view to concepts otherwise imagined uniquely by everyone in a discussion.
• Tempered optimism: designers must be able to turn on enthusiasm on demand.
• Bias for adaptivity: DT today has accepted that concept, approaching problems with the view that, where possible, solutions should be adaptive – in production, to fit the needs of users uniquely: throughout their use, to fit users’ evolving needs.
• Predisposition toward multifunctionality: design thinking keeps the big picture in mind while focusing on specifics.
• Systemic vision: DT is holistic
• View of a generalist: DT is highly generalist in preparation and execution. In a world of specialists, there is real need for those who can reach across disciplines to communicate and who can bring diverse experts together in coordinated effort. A designer is a specialist in the process of design, but a generalist in as wide a range of content as possible.
• Ability to use language as a tool: Visual language, mathematical language and verbal language. • Affinity for teamwork: Good interpersonal skills become part of the professional set of tools they
develop.
