This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
An experimental study of the implementation of design thinking in non-designerly firms
Report for the doctoral education seminar on 25% level
Marcus Jahnke HDK, School of Design and Crafts, Business & Design Lab The Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts University of Gothenburg Sweden
Ulla Johansson, Associate Professor, Business & Design Lab, University of Gothenburg Håkan Edeholt, Professor in Product Design, AHO, Oslo School of Architecture and Design Maria Elmquist, Assistant Professor, Center for Business Innovation, Chalmers University of Technology
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the thesis and research question ....................................................................................... 7 Theoretical points of departure .................................................................................................................... 8 The evolving concept of innovation ...................................................................................................... 8 The relative absence of creativity in main-stream innovation research ............................................ 10 The suggestion of design thinking as a model for innovation ............................................................ 11 A problematic representation of design ............................................................................................. 12 The wieldy concept of design ............................................................................................................. 13 The concept of design thinking ........................................................................................................... 14 Design thinking as a possible process for organizational learning ..................................................... 15 Method ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 An abductive experimental research approach .................................................................................. 16 Field work and collection of empirical material ................................................................................. 18 Analysis and reflection ........................................................................................................................ 19 The empirical project .................................................................................................................................. 20 Background to the experimental empirical project ............................................................................ 20 The experimental empirical project .................................................................................................... 20 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 22 Appendix 1 - Presentation of participating companies and designers ............................................... 22 References .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Marcus Jahnke, HDK/Business & Design Lab, 090330
Page 2 of 26
I began to appreciate how problematic my instrumental intentions with design had been. and I became determined to be “on the side of the planet”. the Center for Consumer Science. As luck would have it. the combined initiative of HDK and the Business school of the University of Gothenburg. We shared similar experiences and together came up with the idea of combining our ideas in an experimental design research project. This was not least a result of my explorations into issues like sustainability and gender through design. as actor Bob Peck stated in the BBC drama series “Edge of Darkness”. I could not reconcile with the established notion of change processes as top-down enforcement of policies.Preface As a teenager in the 80’s I was shocked to learn about the state of the planet. Simultaneously I observed how design driven R&D projects generated radical new knowledge and visionary results. provided perfect “testbeds” for my ideas on how to inquire into such complex matters. Writers such as Lovelock. I made environmental issues an integral part of my engineering training. In a time when the idea of design as the model for innovation and change is catching on it seemed about time to dig deeper into these claims and hopes. Still. This work however became increasingly disheartening. I worked initially with great optimism with environmental change processes in the auto industry. Here the designer network O2 nordic and the research project “Gender and Design” at CFK. a glimmer of a hope had been ignited. Thoreau and von Wright challenged my assumptions about progress. It was with despair that I also witnessed how this knowledge was turned to dust when meeting the unyielding mass of the formal organization. Many of the notions that I had earlier been shaped by at university and in industry were fundamentally challenged in the search for my creative process. Even before it was thought of. At the same time my notion about designs possible contribution to innovation and change was also strengthened and deepened. To my great surprise these studies resulted in a more fundamental shift in thinking than I had anticipated. HDK/Business & Design Lab. In this work I came across a Marie Loft who had worked with designers in the SVID (Swedish foundation for industrial design) project “Companies and Employees in Good Shape” to address workplace health and safety in organizations with no previous design experience. was just about to be launched. Could design perhaps serve as the alternative model for learning and change in organizations that I was searching for? It was with an instrumental intent of exploring this potential that I left industry for design studies at HDK. Business & Design Lab. Business & Design Lab and SVID in Marcus Jahnke. 090330 Page 3 of 26 . procedures and targets.
combination seemed a suitable context for this interdisciplinary project. 090330 Page 4 of 26 . My objective of being part of positive change remains. Marcus Jahnke. and with the blessing of VINNOVA (The Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems) we could begin our explorations. 30 March 2009 Marcus Jahnke. further on down the road. HDK/Business & Design Lab. Hopes are that a deepened understanding and a more critical perspective of issues relating to the use of design as a process for innovation can somehow be put to good use in other contexts and circumstances. This is the backdrop of my study.
e. especially those with little or no previous design experience. From a design perspective a risk might also be that the current design thinking hype could collapse before the ideas has had a chance of being properly tried and tested.Introduction Background In recent years the concept of “Design Thinking” has been proposed as a way to strengthen innovation capability in firms.g. methods. 1995) have claimed that design needs to be integrated in the early stages of product development. Cooper. Dunne. The rhetoric is based on a couple of recurring cases. Dunne. 2008. (Brown.g. 2008). 2000. One such example is the development program “Design as development force” (“Design som utvecklingskraft”) which was initiated by the Swedish government and conducted by SVID (the Swedish foundation for industrial design) between 2003 and 2005. What is new is the notion that the innovation process as such should be modeled on design thinking and designs methods. (Vedin.g. Verganti. if any. The suggestion that design can be beneficial to product development and innovation is however not all that new. HDK/Business & Design Lab. Design management scholars e. (Lawson. Not least as practical experience do seem to support the suggestion that design can be beneficial to innovation. Among the projects of this program some resulted in innovations that could be regarded as radical and where design seemed to play a pivotal role. (Boland. 2004. (Borja de Mozota.g. for example from the practice of design consultancy IDEO. This lack of studies stand in the way of a more informed way of applying design thinking to strengthen innovation capabilities in firms. It is argued that in doing so. 2006). Such claims are made both by innovation scholars e.g. To add to this lack of knowledge. 2008. design’s contribution can be leveraged strategically to improve products and strengthen the brand. management scholars e. Drawing from research into the practice of design e. (Brown. This could be detrimental to both the practice of design and the general innovation capability of industry. few. 2006). 2006) it is suggested that design’s processes. 090330 Page 5 of 26 . 2006) as well as design practitioners. Marcus Jahnke. perspectives and attitudes (design thinking) are apt to the generation of novelty that can be turned into innovations. Neumeier. empirical academic studies have as yet sought to understand the implications of applying design thinking as a model for innovation. Cross. This suggestion has generated substantial hype in business press e.g. These accounts are fairly superficial and do not in any detail describe experiences from the process of implementing design thinking. 2003. 2006.
mindsets and infrastructure barriers (Assink.g. A similar observation of friction was made in a study of the integration of design in product development (Persson. That epistemologies are quite different between practices. A more recent study of one of the successful projects of the development program did however show that although the outcome was positive. 1998.However. Designers seem more apt to radical or disruptive solutions. For example. what skills and abilities will it take to channel or transfer design’s thinking and methods to organizations with little or no previous experience from design. management and design. the scope of possible concepts is widened. not least between engineering. (Simon. 1985.g. and engineers (ideal typically) can be regarded as problem oriented while designers are solution oriented (Edeholt. has been shown and discussed by several scholars e. Johansson. considering that the practice of design is based on knowledge which is largely embodied and non-articulated. 1996. if innovation is sought for. How can such possibly different perspectives be integrated? And what consequences will an instrumental application of design thinking have on the role and practice of the designer? If the designer is regarded almost as an incarnation of innovation. 2006).how may then a fit between these processes and mind-sets be negotiated and turned into a generative innovation process? Further. e. This raises a number of important questions. as noted by Edeholt (ibid). the very concept of innovation is understood differently between for example engineering and design. Marcus Jahnke. no studies in collaboration with Academia were made of the projects (Johansson. 2008b. in particular those of design and engineering. However the practical implications of an instrumental meeting or merging of epistemologies have rarely been studied empirically. This was attributed to the meeting of different epistemologies or logics. 090330 Page 6 of 26 . as in the current hype. what will be demanded of her or him? For example. When designers regard users and contexts as drivers of innovation rather than technology. and their respective processes reflect these different logics . and as the independent evaluator of the program criticized the program for. 2008). 2006). 2008). HDK/Business & Design Lab. the integration of design thinking was not without friction (Persson. dominant designs. Schön. 2007). 2006). But this may clash with those factors often attributed to as “innovation barriers”. Edeholt. Ramirez.
innovation and management. The purpose of the thesis is thus: “To explore what occurs when design thinking is introduced by a designer as a model for innovation in organizations with little or no previous experience of design. it is interesting to note how radical the approach of applying design thinking to spur innovation is. methods. this means designs processes. and to organizations with little or no previous experience of design. 2008). Further it suggests a participation of designers. Purpose of the thesis and research question This study deals with the fairly recent suggestion that innovation processes may be modeled on “design thinking”. 090330 Page 7 of 26 . What are possible strategies for such a “learning journey” to be both efficient and effective? What will it mean to practices. Such an approach infers the instrumental application of design in an area where design has hitherto been little applied. as well as provide actionable knowledge for firms and designers. perspectives and attitudes rather than the traditional result of the design process – a design.” Marcus Jahnke. Hopes are for a contribution which may not least help spur discussion between the discourses of design. leadership and organizational culture? And what are the possible pit-falls? To summarize. In this light it seems paradoxical that design thinking as a model for innovation is heralded without reservation and with little empirical knowledge backing these claims. HDK/Business & Design Lab.The idea of applying design thinking to strengthen innovation capability suggests a process of organizational learning (Junginger. The aim of this study is to attempt to fill some of this knowledge vacuum. More specifically.
the texts can be seen as excerpts from my current understanding. A typical example is (vonStamm. as swirling thoughts that will surely change and evolve as part of the research process. i. can be regarded as areas still within the traditional discourses of engineering and business management. or “diffuse” (Rogers. process or management. This however. not as a linear. To me the concept begins at the “other end”. 1993) understanding of artifact as social actors (non-human) liberates innovation from specific areas such as technology. Most of these definitions are quite uniform and for the most part share well-known notions that can be derived from Schumpeter’s definition (1934). that innovation is set in an economic context. (Mensch. 1989) and innovation of “messages and meanings” (Verganti. 1995). These notions open up for an understanding of innovation as a concept which may cover all areas of human endeavor and this is also my own understanding of innovation. not in the innovative solution which may be connected to a certain area.g. This context has influential social components and I believe that the ANT (Actor-Network. services (Thomke. The evolving concept of innovation A large number of definitions of innovation exist. A reason for this mix of theory and reflection is that I believe that this may contribute to a rewarding and open discussion at the seminar. 1979. skipping the boundaries of business and engineering. HDK/Business & Design Lab. and the especially the context of that need. 2003) and management practices (Birkinshaw. Marcus Jahnke. and that this introduction is judged as successful. that innovation means the introduction of novelty of some sort to the market. Even though this allows for a wide understanding of innovation. Dougherty. The representation below includes my own reflections on theory as it has developed this first year. This is also how I understand how innovations spread. In other words . To me innovations are not least social interactions. traditionally the concept has been intimately related to the areas of science and technological development and technological products (Utterback.e. 2003): “Innovation is the commercial successful exploitation of ideas”.Theory) (Latour. 2006). include for example social and political innovation e. but rather with the need the solution address. However the number of areas included in the concept of innovation has since then expanded to also include for example processes (Schroeder. 1994. 1990). 2006). More “radical” concepts. Zapf. 090330 Page 8 of 26 .Theoretical points of departure I will here touch on areas of theory that I believe are of interest for the thesis. 1996).
(Samuel. 2005). Numbers are not the name of this game but rather representational structures that permit functional reasoning. through collaboration and “Open Innovation” (Chesbrough. or a new organisational method in business practices. 090330 Page 9 of 26 . 2004). a new marketing method. 2003) is a fairly recent concept expanding this rationale. process. An often used distinction is that between levels of novelty of innovations. According to Leifer et al (Leifer. The concept of “User Driven Innovation” (von Hippel. More radical notions can be found in movements such as “Open Source” e. HDK/Business & Design Lab. (Gold. A typical way to distinguish seems to be between a range between incremental and radical change (Tidd.g. 2001) a radical innovation “is a product." He claims that the character of the ”representation” will suggest what kind of solution and area will be favored. 2007:44). judging by the recent OECD definition of innovation according to the “OSLO manual” (OECD/Eurostat. 1988) further expands these notions. That innovation may takes place between organizations.sequential model of diffusion (ibid:133). however qualitative it may be. Further. or process. I recognize elements in scholarly accounts of for example how designers reserve the right to keep an open mind and “postpone judgment” when dealing with wicked problems where the possible solution may lie in many different and/or combined areas. Simon (1996:146) argue that: “… an appropriate representation of the problem may be essential to organizing efforts toward solution and to achieve some kind of clarity about how proposed solutions are to be judged. and perhaps still is. 2005): “An 'innovation' is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service). but rather as an ongoing process of translation and adaptation where actors use the innovation as a symbol shaped by their own purposes (Latour. workplace organisation or external relations. but still stay with the perspective of the organization or firm. or service with either unprecedented performance features or familiar features that offer significant improvements in performance or that Marcus Jahnke." Regarding sources of innovation. Here my understanding is also wide open in the sense that I wish to include any source as important. 2005) and “Hacktivism” e.g. Here I believe that innovation research has stayed in too narrow representations of problem areas for too long. This understanding is one that has been developed during my design training as well as my own attempts at coming up with novelty addressing social issues. traditional notions maintain that innovation occurs inside organizations of some sort.
” (ibid:4). These scholars instead propose a theory which accounts for the expandable rationality of the design process. 1992) and TRIZ (Moehrle. Marcus Jahnke. Here they seem to be used rather as “band-aids”. Hatchuel and Weil (2003) argue that innovation is a type of process which does not fit with in traditional logics of linearity and stages or problem solving. 1963). or in the case of TRIZ. Problem solving within the engineering discourse has for the most relied on analytical models handling quantitative properties (Evbuomwan. technology or mode of production. 1996). Cross. the concept of innovation implies a more “radical innovation”.transform existing markets or create new ones. 1997). HDK/Business & Design Lab. These are generally either product or process oriented and do not integrate creative thinking (Hatchuel. To spur idea generation and creativity industry has applied tools and methods such as “Brainstorming” (Osborn. These are derived from research from different areas. The relative absence of creativity in main-stream innovation research One striking observation is that innovation research seems to rarely deal with the concept of creativity. 2003). “Lateral Thinking” (de Bono. One reason for this is that the designer is not (ideally) partial to a certain product type. These tools seem to fit well within the analytical and linear logics of product development. Instead design favors the perspective of the user and the context. However. Edeholt (2006) argue that for the designer. it has to be built in the definition of the process. 2006) and design may therefore move in larger conceptual spaces. The designer is keen on maintaining an open mind to any types of solutions which may improve a situation (Lawson.” (ibid:102). 090330 Page 10 of 26 . for example cognitive psychology. through the language of formal logics. while ““incremental innovation” will consequently be bundled up together with what Schumpeter coined as “routine work”. Radical innovation is often also equated with the concept of disruptive technology or disruptive innovation (Christensen. This to a large extent also reflect how I perceive innovation. The “Concept-Knowledge Theory” (C-K theory) is a formalized design theory which expresses the rationale of creative practices such as architecture and design. 2005). to fix a system which does not otherwise include the logic of creativity. “creativity cannot be just ‘added’ to problem solving theory. rather than the bounded rationality which Simon suggested. however within the scope of this study I may well use distinctions such as incremental and radical further on. from a systematic classification of key principles behind innovation. 2006.
Utterback.g. Design seems to be understood as the ideal innovative practice on which to model both management and innovations processes. (Boland. These scholars suggest design as a model for a more successful innovation. This is also reflected in Amabile’s work (1996) where creativity is set in a social context. Design professionals Tom Kelley and Tim Brown of IDEO have further helped popularize this suggestion through books. Parallel to this. Dunne. for example cultural or social development. The suggestion of design thinking as a model for innovation The perceived absence of creativity in established rational processes and practices noted above is also part of the rhetoric behind the fairly new tendency to turn to design for answers on how to improve innovation capability.g. vonStamm. argue that a common feature of companies that succeed in the development of products. HDK/Business & Design Lab. arguing that management practice needs to learn from designs attitude to problem solving. involve fuzzy problems and high levels of ambiguity. 2004.”. and that the innovative and creative capacity is allowed more scope. a small group of scholars e. they also turn to design for answers. Such notions are part of an ongoing battle between different ideas about the nature of creativity. critique of assumptions of creativity as mental problem solving is raised by philosophers like Asplund (2002) and Dreyfus (2008) who argue that creativity is also a social and embodied process. (Verganti. 2004:4) of current management practice. are predominantly visual rather than verbal. This is a more radical rhetoric compared to that of the Design Management Marcus Jahnke. arguing that this is “doomed to mediocrity in its organizational outcomes” (ibid:6). 2003). 2006. a concept borrowed by Lawson (1980). Within the innovation discourse. is that they pay attention to a wider perspective than that which is technical and productrelated. (vonStamm. articles in business press and TV. And just as proponents of “Design-Inspired Innovation” within the innovation discourse. 2006.g.External to innovation research. Not least is the design consultancy IDEO used as a popular example on “Design Thinking”. 2006) criticize the “decision attitude to problem solving” (Boland. e. management scholars e. 090330 Page 11 of 26 . 2003): “innovation and design share the same frame of mind” and that the designer is ”educated and trained to deal with projects that involve unfamiliar concepts.
” Design’s more critical. However it seems to me that design is asked by design thinking proponents to explore but never provoke. 2002. 090330 Page 12 of 26 . Manzini. 1995.g. firstly. The current lack of more in-depth knowledge makes it difficult to apply the concept of design thinking in an informed way. Excellence is achieved when a product is eminently good. “critical design” e. HDK/Business & Design Lab. Lasn. von Osten. If the above tendencies taken together shape the understanding of design within industry. it is not least the works of such movements as “ecodesign” e.g. 2003). with a few exceptions e. (Edeholt. Ramirez. (Papanek. (Svengren. 2002) and “social design” e. Foster. (Sparke. 2006.g. 2007. 2008a. Borja de Mozota. A problematic representation of design When scrutinizing the texts of design thinking proponents from a design perspective. 2003. Junginger. 2006. 2008. 2008b.g. Secondly. Dunne. 2005. One such example is (Utterback. (McRobbie. two things are striking. 2006:2): ”To achieve inspired designs and innovations. Persson.discourse which emphasized the integration of design into product development and management processes e. 2002) which have paved the way for development and innovation.is achieved when a product is neat and simple. Not to forget either the Bauhaus or the Memphis Group that worked at odds with the traditional establishment and in close cooperation with political and social movements. (Pinto. 2006). 1995). Ahl. (Persson. in the context of how EU policy through the Lisbon agenda promote the “artist” and “creativity” as instrumental models for the innovation capability of the new economy. Cooper. 1985. which all point to tendencies of friction and clashing of though-styles and mind-sets as part of the process. Johansson. subversive and visionary track record is rarely referred to. few empirical studies have investigated such meetings of epistemologies. Within the practice of design. This critical and provocative perspective in design is intertwined with its visionary and synthesizing ability.g. 1998).g. Marcus Jahnke. the possibly problematic meeting of epistemologies when design is proposed as a new way of thinking for organizations is rarely discussed by design thinking proponents. This has however been explored by scholars within design and design management research e. 1995. that these discourses seem to share a quite normative and traditional understanding of design as an aesthetic practice. However. 2006. Johansson. Walker. 2003.g. Elegance – the tasteful richness of a product’s design . will not a vital part of design’s tradition risk being quenched? Similar concerns have been raised by scholars e. to date. 2007). the aspiration must be for excellence and elegance.
Indeed. rather than for example a certain technology or product etc. Akrich (1992) suggests that “innovators ‘inscribe’ a specific vision about the world into the technical content of the new object” (ibid:208). 2006. as derived from Schumpeter. Why is this interesting? Because it explains the fundamental perspective of design – that of the context and the user.g. nor trace the etymological roots of design. and a specialization in the very specific context of industrial mass production. “Necessity is the mother of invention” (Hugo. From an innovation point of view. the definition works. Firstly because this is a rather text consuming exercise. (Johansson. However from an innovation point of view.The wieldy concept of design I will here neither describe how design is a verb. i. are social actors (non-human). 2004). 090330 Page 13 of 26 . and secondly as this has been done so extensively by others e. My own understanding of design is an amalgamation of Simons’ notion expressing human intent and a post constructivist and feminist inspired recognition that design is also part of the ongoing construction of values and norms. If we compare the notion of Simon with the concepts of innovation. as expressed by Viktor Hugo. Instead I will attempt at capturing an understanding of design as relevant for this study. we see a great difference in that the latter has a very clear business connotation. 1996): “design is the transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones” This notion is often commented for being too broad to work for design as a practice. Simon’s fundamental notion of design still seems relevant (Simon. Marcus Jahnke. provides a more direct link to Simon’s definition. it is an overarching concept within which design can be seen as a specialization of the human capacity to transform with intent. a “script”. an adjective or a noun. A paradoxical and valuable character of design then is that it has kept to and guarded a more “pre-modern” understanding of innovation.e the artificial and designed. when we search for this innovative capacity in the practice of the designer. Such an understanding is pronounced by the ANT (Actor Network Theory) e.g. Lawson. 2008a. 2007) notion that artifacts. 2000). I would suggest that the “pre-innovation” concept as expressed in for example variations of the ancient saying. (Latour. Julier. such as gender. HDK/Business & Design Lab.
2006:58) and where solution attempts drive the process forward. Lawson drew not least from Schön’s notions about the reflective practitioner (Schön.The concept of design thinking The concept of Design Thinking. 1983). 2006:102). The principal tool in this process is sketching which let the designer engage in a “reflective conversation with the situation” (Schön. (Kelley. 1973). and suggested that design should be understood as a creative. 1983). are typically also “multi-dimensional” with a “need to devise an integrated solution to a whole cluster of requirements” (Lawson. favored an understanding of the design process modeled on problem solving theories and the linear processes that followed were expressed in the generic format of “analysis-synthesis-evaluation”.g. 090330 Page 14 of 26 . for example the processes of Alexander (1964) and Jones (1970). 1985). In this process. and Boland (2004). This first wave. Cross. Lawson has successively launched several models to frame the design process and practice. which included Simon. Here visual thinking. Rather the problem and solution emerge in parallel during the design process to result in a “matching problem-solution pair” (Cross. 2001. 1996). between solution and sub-solutions (ibid 78). the problem is actively challenged through solution attempts and attempts at “framing” the problem in different ways (Schön. The designer moves back and forth between problem and sub-problems. This research has its roots in the 60s and Simon’s suggestion of a “Science of Design” (Simon. Such problems include qualitative properties to which no one correct solution can be found. 2006). Lawson (1980) reacted against this and argued that these models failed to capture the process and character of design. Such problems. HDK/Business & Design Lab. Marcus Jahnke. intuitive. 2006:59). which is referred to and used by scholars like Martin (2004). and design strategists like Brown (2008) has been drawn from previous research into the design process. reflective and largely embodied process. Typical notions of design thinking include that designers deal with what Rittel and Webber called “wicked problems” (Rittel. Designers employ an “explorative process” where problem and solution emerge in “putative action” (Cross. however it seems that the concept with most staying power is “Design Thinking” – a way to attempt to express the quite fuzzy nature of the design process through descriptions rather than models. which are initially “ill-defined” and where an optimal solution cannot be found. metaphors and analogies are actively used e.
but which is more “complete” can be defined as “the internal driving energy to generate and explore radical. and that “The iterative and participatory nature of human-centered product development presents a viable path for double-loop learning” (ibid). Lawson. (van den Bosch.g. The notion of “Absorptive Capacity“ of a firm e. 2006). to experiment with solutions for potential opportunity patterns detected in the market whitespace and to develop them into marketable and effective innovations. Hatchuel (2001) argues that design’s iterative process of expanding the concept and knowledge space can also be regarded as a learning process. fashion design etc. This certainly seems to amount to innovation as an organizational learning challenge. 090330 Page 15 of 26 . Junginger (2008) argue explicitly that “The design of a product can become an organization’s strategy for internal change”(ibid).Design thinking as a possible process for organizational learning Within literature on design thinking by design research scholars. leveraging internal and external resources and competencies” (ibid:219). 1990) suggest a number of capabilities needed for a firm to be able to “absorb”. This notion of regarding design thinking as a possible process of learning to enhance innovation capabilities in organizations is recent in my study. The notion of “Innovation Capabilities”. 1985) where design becomes embodied as knowledge and reflection in action – such knowledge is not easily articulated (2004). such as industrial design. 1999. Within the innovation discourse a number of scholars have investigated both success factors behind innovation as well as inhibitors of innovation (Assink. I will therefore not pursue this line of reasoning further. Cohen. What does it mean that design is tied to a specific practice and context when applied as a possible process of learning? In other words. the design rationale is not “pure”.g. 2006). design is learnt through studio training (Schön. new ideas and concepts. 2006. What effects will this lack of articulation have on a process of transferring design thinking to “non-designerly” organizations. it is affected by the specific traditions and methods within different design disciplines. or “recognize the value of new external information and apply it to commercial ends” (Cohen. (Cross. 1990). Further. the design process is often compared to a learning process e. which includes this absorptive capacity. when the process is facilitated by designers? Marcus Jahnke. HDK/Business & Design Lab. This will probably have an effect on instrumental applications of design thinking. and so far I have only touched lightly upon theory. other than to imply some preliminary questions to inquire.
on the one side. (Dunne. in design and the design practice through an experimental approach and a design practitioner perspective. This. thus enabling interrelated reflection and creativity (Schön. 1985:49). between that of action and that of observation. Krippendorff calls for a “Science for design” which “… does not surrender its criteria to other disciplines. Marcus Jahnke. Clues to a “designerly” understanding of such an approach can be found in Schön’s description of design as processes of ongoing oscillation between involvement in. I believe that the study of this role. a science which instead “… encourages designers to examine their own practices in their own terms…” (ibid:35). Utterback.” (ibid:35). Krippendorff mostly stays with a traditional understanding of design and the practice of design. and on the other side. In the case of design thinking as a model for innovation.” (ibid:34).Method An abductive experimental research approach Krippendorff (2006:33) argues that most research about design is done from outside the design community. he argues “… hardly helps the design community to understand itself… [and]… is one serious weakness of the contemporary design discourse. The proposition of design thinking as beneficial to innovation stems mainly from the research fields of management and innovation e. The fundamental notion underpinning this approach is that qualitative knowledge can be generated by a continuous shift in position. to knowledge areas such as innovation and organizational learning as well as complementary methods. when exemplifying what is included in such research. This bridge is firmly anchored. focusing on design methods and the artifact. and detachment from. and the meeting of epistemologies in this practice. by other disciplines and non-designers. the perspective of the designer. 2006). as well as the addressing of the problematic meeting of epistemologies.g. HDK/Business & Design Lab. and as I have attempted to imply elsewhere in this text. calls for a more over-arching research approach – of a bridge that needs to be built between different discourses to provide knowledge in the areas hitherto neglected. 2004. Boland. 2006. the design problem at hand. a more radical shift in the role of the designer is implied. However. The perspectives and knowledge of these fields are important in regarding design in a new light. seems for the most part lacking. However. 090330 Page 16 of 26 .
The purpose of the study is however not to primarily search for instrumental solutions or models answering questions on the format of “how to”. In this sense it resembles the shifting roles that are typical of “Insider Action Research” (IAR) e. This approach will be used to challenge existing theories with the emerging empirical findings. Rather it is to better understand “… what occurs when design thinking is introduced as a model for innovation in organizations with little or no previous experience of design. but also between the roles of “insider” participation and “outsider” observation. This process will be characterized by the challenge to handle a multitude of different perspectives and questions. Such an approach is modeled on the pragmatist concept of “abduction” (Alvesson. Indeed this might be the very “designerly” quality of the approach – to let the journey of exploration shape the framework utilized in the solving of such mysteries – of the “wicked problems” posed by the “open-ended” research purpose. and an ethnographical approach favoring observation certainly means one additional level of complexity. 1996).The experimental research approach allows for a more traditional and “designerly” process based on the intent to “design” a solution.g. To allow for and pronounce distancing and observation the experimental approach will be combined with an ethnographically inspired approach. The reason then for this experimental approach. This will allow for the attention to questions on the format of “what is going on here?” (Alvesson. Something which is further accentuated by a need to utilize “shallow” or “peripheral” elements of my “interpretative repertoire” (Alvesson. and my active participation.”. or rather as a designer-asdesign strategist. in this case a process for applying design thinking and design’s methods as a model for innovation. 090330 Page 17 of 26 . 2008b) in that theory and empirical material interplay and is used interchangeably to look for relationships and connections that had not been previously suspected. 2007:1274) to be able to construct or frame mysteries. This challenge is at the same time the prerequisite for the quality of the process. Marcus Jahnke. (Bartunek. The combination of an experimental process involving action. Here I will rely on an approach of looking for “mysteries” and the construction of “breakdowns” (ibid). It demands not only moving between empirical material and theories. HDK/Business & Design Lab. In this process I actively participate as a designer. is to render possible a more in-depth understanding of the process from a design practitioner perspective. 2007:1270). in certain stages of the process.
A short report is also written and presented at a management meeting before a formal decision is taken to initiate the process. These seminars are recorded and also filmed. These interviews will also be recorded. Additional interviews – The interviews of the initial review will be followed up by interviews midterm and at the end of the project.Field work and collection of empirical material The collection of empirical material is modeled on qualitative research methods including ethnographically inspired observations as well as interviews. The discussions of these meetings are also recorded and part of the empirical data. Discussion seminars – Two types of regular “discussion seminars” are held. These will also be semi-structured and open-ended and include both company representatives and designers. 090330 Page 18 of 26 . Marie Loft and me. The review is conducted by me and Marie Loft and is based on a site visit and semi-structured and open ended interviews with key personnel. Other documentation may include photos and video filming. I for the most part plan these seminars in collaboration with Marie Loft. Notes are taken which are used as empirical material. The “management seminar” is held twice a year and includes two representatives per company as well as the external designers. Theses interviews are recorded and are part of the empirical material as are notes made of the visits. At these seminars progress is discussed and experiences are shared. Marcus Jahnke. including e-mails and other documentation. Marie Loft and me. Additional documentation – I also use photography and other means to collect more “ambient” data that may both be part of the visualization and my own reflections. Marie Loft and the external designers on the progress of the projects are also logged as notes. as well as ensuring commitment to the project. Discussions between me. The “designer seminar” is held slightly more often and involves only the external designers. There are several “arenas” where I obtain material for the study: The initial review .As a first stage of the process an “initial review” is conducted with the combined objective of establishing an understanding of current product development and innovation processes and possible design integration. Workshops – I participate as an observer in most workshops conducted by the external designer and with the project groups of the companies. HDK/Business & Design Lab.
a reflexive approach will be utilized (Alvesson. To be able to represent such issues a “sensemaking” approach (Weick. HDK/Business & Design Lab. This may include working with mood-boards and images to visualize events. or the perceptions and involvement of the participants of the firm in the process. 2008a). the representatives of the companies as well as my own actions. I will also take advantage the possibility to reflect through design practice. 2007). Observations will be directed towards both designers. Marcus Jahnke. emotions. Interesting questions may involve what happens when the designers utilize their practice-based and often non-articulated knowledge in action as part of this process. the SVID representative (Marie Loft). This enables a representation of multitude of views and understandings. perspectives etc. 090330 Page 19 of 26 .Analysis and reflection The research question deals with phenomena occurring when designers actively attempt to transfer “design thinking” to the companies involved in the project. To be able to interpret and engage in the action of interplay between theory and empirical material. 1995) will probably be utilized. for example in the format of “provotypes” (Morgensen. This however remains to be seen. It may also involve interventions directed towards the company processes. 1992) or “discursive” design projects (Tharp.
It departs from the critique of the lack of academic studies and also actively builds on the experiences of SVID.e. involves about four active firms (see appendix 1. regional and national projects are conducted in collaboration with partners in which design methodology and knowledge constitute the forces that drive developments. SVID engaged external designers that led “Participatory Design” inspired design processes in these organizations involving different teams of internal stakeholders such as employees. the regional officer of South Sweden. both to mirror the current assumptions about design thinking of leading scholars. 090330 Page 20 of 26 . 2006). The project. The outcomes were concrete designs and innovations as well as in some cases organizational change. The experimental empirical project The empirical experimental project is a direct consequence of this situation. i. HDK/Business & Design Lab. users etc.” (Webpage. One such project was “Companies and Employees in God Shape (Företag och anställda i god form) which was part of the Swedish Governments bid program “Design as Development Force 2003-2005”. and also to study such a development processes in action. the projects within the “Design as Development Force” program were never studied by Academia. This was also critiqued by the independent evaluator of the program (Johansson. SVIDs representative in this work is Marie Loft. the Swedish foundation for industrial design. Most of the participating firms are part the SVID network of mainly industrial companies. Another ambition has been to find firms with little or no previous design experience in-house. 2009-02-12). union representatives. as interesting as the outcome often was. Care has been taken to find firms explicitly interested in the idea of the design process as a possible model for innovation. that design thinking can be beneficial for “non-designerly” firms.) in the period between the fall of 2007 and the fall of 2010. who was also the project manager of ““Companies and Employees in Good Shape”. In this project a number of organizations explored workplace related health and safety issues through a design process facilitated by SVID. As part of SVIDs tasks. Marcus Jahnke.The empirical project Background to the experimental empirical project The aim of SVID. However. which is financed by VINNOVA. The project is set up with the double ambition to expand SVID’s approach to also include how designers may assist in developing innovation capabilities of firms explicitly. is to “improve the awareness within the private and public sectors of the importance of design as a competitive tool and to encourage the integration of design methodology into their activities.
HDK/Business & Design Lab. an ambition has been to find a range of sectors and sizes of firms to provide an as rich opportunity for the studies as possible. The purpose of the experiment is to try-out an approach of transferring design thinking to firms to possibly strengthen innovation capabilities. 090330 Page 21 of 26 . one per company. The external designer. and partly by the firm he or she is involved in. is financed partly by VINNOVA through the project. or “journey” based on two overlapping “tracks”. He or she also coaches the second track throughout the project. That the designer seems to have the ability to facilitate processes and articulate design is fundamental. The first track consist of as a series of workshops and events aimed at providing experiences. This track is explicitly modeled on design thinking and design’s methods. Further. Here the experiences of the first track are instrumentally employed. Marcus Jahnke. The second track is a more concrete innovation case established by the firm about mid-way into the project.but also as this accounts for a large part of Swedish industry and thus potential for design. This is done through a learning process. “mind-set” etc is also important as well as the ambition to obtain an even division of men and women. The designer is chosen in accordance with the SVID strategy of working with self-employed designers or smaller design studios to support their development. the designers are chosen considering several different projects related criteria. insights and knowledge to strengthen the innovation capabilities of the firm. The first track is planned and facilitated by an external designer. Further. The match between the designer and company regarding both for example sector.
After the initial review we were hesitant if the company was ready for the project. the son of the person responsible for product development. A quite straining negotiation resulted in the clear shift of responsibility which we had proposed. however no formal innovation process. although to date no empirical material have as yet been analyzed.Appendices Appendix 1 . This seems not least to be the result of a match between the company and the external designer Charlotta Schill. In the process she draws from both her own practice and her experience of teaching at The Swedish School of Textiles in Borås. The company had some positive experience from previously participating in a design project with SVID. However the company left the project in the fall of 2008 after two workshops. Study 1 . At the moment this case develops rapidly. Designer Charlotta Schill. The reason for this remains to be analyzed. 090330 Page 22 of 26 .IDESTA Foodtech AB develops and manufactures products for the catering and restaurant field such as stainless steel equipment and cabinets. Most design work is done in-house. This seems to have been an important foundation for the establishment of trust in the employees and management of Tranemo Workwear. An external designer has been consulted from time to time to do mostly graphic design. The company has a semiformal product development process.Tranemo Workwear is a family owned manufacturer of work wear. Marcus Jahnke. We could detect a clear conflict of attitude between the person responsible for product development and the newly appointed CEO. Atoll Design . HDK/Business & Design Lab. Each firm constitutes one separate study.Presentation of participating companies and designers This section will briefly describe the firms and the designer that participate in the empirical project. I will also attempt to describe some key events below. Our critique was of a low level of interest in innovation in the person responsible for product development.Charlotta is a self employed designer with a long training and experience from the fashion and textile industry. Study 2 . Development is restricted to the improvement of existing products. Idesta Foodtech AB has previously been a part of the Electrolux Group and still to a large extent relies on the product portfolio which followed with the buyout of the company.
However it has been difficult to grasp the possible contribution and find a suitable approach. Study 4 . It develops heat exchangers and home appliances for district heating. The unit has a product development organization with a formal stage-gate process as well as a concept development organization which is less formally controlled. The process is currently being planned. Designer Olof Kolte . In addition to this the process was put on hold when the first external designer had to leave the project due to family reasons. Here background is in both interior design and engineering design. White Cloud Design – Cecilia is a self employed designer with an expressed interest in design management issues. The innovation approach is quite advanced. and in cooperation with the internal designer. HDK/Business & Design Lab. To date a couple of projects involving external industrial designers have been made.Forbo Vinyl Flooring AB is a production unit within the global Forbo group. It develops and manufactures flooring solutions for public buildings. Study 3 . Visualizations of radical concepts as models have for example been successfully attempted. Designer Thomas Laurien – Thomas is both self employed as a textile designer as well as lecturer and PhD-student of HDK. is a civil engineer. a mini representation of the production process. designer and lecturer at Lund University industrial design with a strong focus on sustainable design.Designer Cecilia Nilsson. Marcus Jahnke.Olof Kolte. The workshop was successful and Forbo Vinyl Flooring AB wishes to continue the exploration of how design could contribute to innovation together with Thomas. 090330 Page 23 of 26 . Most innovation work is clearly production oriented and external factors have so far been little explored.Alfa Laval Heat Exchangers is a unit within the Alfa Laval group. This workshop was lead by designer Thomas Laurien. The unit shows a lively creative climate centered on the “innovation lab”. Fortunately this happened before the process was properly started. As part of this ambition design students from HDK were invited to explore and develop possibilities of a new innovative flooring solution in 2007. The unit wishes to both retain and improve the strong creative climate of the organization. The new designer Olof Kolte is currently working on a new approach focusing sustainability as a specific innovation area where design may provide new insights and perspectives. The project manager is well versed in the design thinking approach and seems eager to try it as a way to further develop the innovation capabilities of the concept development organization.
SKÖLDBERG. (1990) Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. HDK/Business & Design Lab. (2002) Genom huvudet . EVBUOMWAN.. Lyon. Sweden. methods and systems". Springer Verlag London Ltd. Stanford. M. LOUIS. ALVESSON. M.A. Studentlitteratur. S. H. (2007) Constructing Mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. J... A. N.. (2006) The inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. GABRIEL. (2002) Svensk Smak: Myter om den moderna formen. Harvard Business School Press. HARLEY. R. Chichester. Sustainable Innovation. JEBB. Academy of Management Journal. B.) (2004) Managing as designing. C.. 9:2. CROSS. Chalmers University of Technology..R. SIVALOGANATHAN S.P. GOLD. Jönköping. M. Boston. Journal of Management Studies. (2008a) Reflecting on Reflexivity: Reflexive Textual Practices in Organization and Management Theory. 1265-1281.. Brain Books AB. 090330 Page 24 of 26 . Academy of Management Review. M. (1992) Verklig kreativitet. C. M..Problemlösningens socialpsykologi. HATCHUEL. R. (1996) Sustained product innovation in large mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. M. R. Göteborg. MIT Press. MA. (2006) Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion. BARTUNEK. EGOS 2001. AMABILE. H. BOLAND. EK. London. Allworth Press. Harvard University Press. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. . John Wiley & Sons. (1996) A survey of design philosophies. W.. ALVESSON. Arkitektur. Ma. Boulder. (2005) Hertzian Tales: Electronic products. Stanford University Press. EDEHOLT. M. 5.. Ordfront Förlag AB. DUNNE. 512-523. EDEHOLT. R.. The MIT Press. 39. MA.. Administrative Science Quarterly. E. H. 128-152. W. Chicago. (2002) Design and Crime: And other diatribes. Boston. D. D. Westview Press. (1997) The Innovators Dilemma: when new technologies cause established firms to fail. COHEN. B. CHESBROUGH. C. (1996) Insider/Outsider Team Research. (2006) How Management Innovation Happen. OLSSON. E. Marcus Jahnke. M. M. Harvard Business School Press.) (1992) The description of technical objects. H. ASSINK. 45. 35. Harvard Business Review. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 47-55. (2003) Design Management. K. AKRICH. MA. 32. Cambridge. LEVINTHAL. (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Sage Publications. (2005) Innovation Happens Elsewhere: Open Source as a Business Strategy. Morgan Kaufmann. DOUGHERTY. A-C. ALEXANDER. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. CHRISTENSEN. D.. models. N. M. 210. (2006) Sustainable Innovation from an Art-and-Design Perspective. F. BROWN. J. M. Verso. C. 1120-1153. (2008b) Tolkning och Reflektion: Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod. BIRKINSHAW. CA. MIT Sloan Management Review. innovation och andra paradoxer: Om förändring satt i system.References AHL. DUNNE. (1996) Creativity in Context. Cambridge.. D. London. COLLOPY. 5th Interim Conference of the International Sociological Association. (1995) The Design Agenda: A Guide to Successful Design Management. (Ed. Göteborg. R. FOSTER. Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. Thousand Oaks. BORJA DE MOZOTA. HARDY. H. (2008) Design Thinking. MARTIN. COOPER. European Journal of Innovation Management. Cambridge. KÄRREMAN. (2008) Research design and the professional model.. (2001) Linking Organization Theory and Design Theory: towards collective action theory and design oriented organizations. Colorado. 301-320. ALVESSON. DE BONO. PRESS. EDEHOLT. D. ASPLUND. Journal of Engineering Manufacture. F. T. R. USA. HARDY. (2004) Design.. T. Bokförlaget Korpen. M. (Ed. aesthetic experience and critical design. 45.
Rotman Management. (2003) A New Approach of Innovative Design: An introduction to c-k theory. Policy Planning. NEUMEIER. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations New York. MA. L. A. H. (1963) Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. B. Architectural Press. S. G. OECD/EUROSTAT (2005) Oslo Manual. U. (2006) The semantic turn: a new foundation for design. G. J. Paris. 15. C. KENAW. MANZINI. JUNGINGER. WEBBER. R. U. B. Academy of Management Executive. (2006) How Designers Think: The design process demystified. K. London. (1992) Towards a Provotyping Approach to Systems Development. Stockholm.M. A. (2008) Hubert L. Journal of Information Systems. M. RÄISÄNEN. (1998) Strukturer och livsformer: om teknisk och social design. Academy Chicago Publishers. Rotman School of Management. Kessinger Publishing JOHANSSON. S. En utvärdering av regeringens designsatsning 2003-2005 Växjö. G. V. London.. Peachpit Press. S. KELLEY. CRC Press. F. LAWSON. Milan. Sage Publications Ltd. teknik och marknadsföring. International Conference on Engineering Design. RICE. E. CA.. (1970) Design Methods. Charles Scribner’s Sons. Design Management Institute. (2003) Lucy Orta. 227-238.. (2001) Implementing radical innovation in mature firms: The role of hubs. J (2008b) Towards a better paradigmatic partnership between design and management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Adbusters Media.. W. Oxford. P. G. Carnegie Mellon University. Berkeley. OSBORN. Ballinger Books. R.HATCHUEL. New York. Stockholm. 14th International Product Development Management Conference. (2006) Design som utvecklingskraft. Studentlitteratur. COLARELLI O'CONNOR.. T. MORGENSEN. Cambridge. Paris. KRIPPENDORFF.. America's leading design firm. SVENGREN HOLM. B. JONES. LASN. 24. Architectural Press. JOHANSSON. LEIFER. (2000) The Culture of Design. PAPANEK. managers. Cambridge. Växjö University Press. LATOUR. (1980) How Designers Think: The design process demystified. (1985) Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change.... ROGERS. Harvard University Press. JÉGOU. (1973) Dilemmas in General Theory of Planning. MA. (2008) Logics at play in everyday organizational situations involving design. V. (2008a) Möten kring design . MCROBBIE. J. UK. Chichester. Design Issues. FL. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. 4. 090330 Page 25 of 26 . MENSCH. School of Design. (2001) The Art of Innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO. Dialogos.Om relationer mellan design.. A. Chicago.. PERSSON. K. Marcus Jahnke. Toronto. (2003) Sustainable Everyday: Scenarios of urban life. 155-169. WOODILLA. Minds & Machines. 2008. (2007) Artefaktens återkomst: Ett möte mellan organisationsteori och tingens sociologi. (1979) Stalemate in Technology. B. (2007) New Actors in Product Development: Investigating communication and collaboration in interdiciplinary product development teams. The Free Press. Creativity and Innovation Management. 18.K. C. JULIER.. E. (2002) Everyone is Creative: Artists as Pioneers of the New Economy? London. New York. France. Santérus förlag. PINTO.. (2005) What is TRIZ? From Conceptual Basics to a Framework for Research. Porto. 4. Pittsburg. M. S. Edizioni Ambiente. . (2004) The History of a Crime. RITTEL. PERSSON. B. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Oxford. NY. LAWSON. ROHLIN . WEIL. M. HDK/Business & Design Lab. JUNGINGER. and organizations. M. MA. Dreyfus's Critique of Classical AI and its Rationalist Assumptions. Stockholm. U.. KARLSSON. MOEHRLE. (2006) Design Anarchy. (2006) Change in the Making: Organizational Change through Human-Centered Product Development. (2008) The Designful Company: How to build a culture of nonstop innovation. HUGO. LATOUR. UK. Boca Raton.. P. (2004) The Design of Business. ICED 03. R. Design thinking: New challenges for designers. (2008) Product Development as a Vehicle for Organizational Change. JOHANSSON. F. Doubleday. 14. MARTIN. DMI 2008. Phaidon Press RAMIREZ.
(1985) The Design Studio.. 170—183. J. A. D. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. (2007) Discursive Design: Beyond Purely Commercial Notions of Industrial/Product Design.. S. WALKER. SCHROEDER. AND PAVITT. B.. TETHER. New York. K.. (1995) Industriell design som strategisk resurs Lund. B.. (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. B. S. (1990) A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation upon competitive strategies. VEDIN. (1995) As Long as it's Pink: The sexual politics of taste. SIMON. Oxford University Press. Chicago. S. (1999) Co-evolution of a Firms' Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities. 551-568. Sage Publications Ltd.. Marcus Jahnke. M. P. M. D. MA. UK. BESSANT. VONSTAMM.SAMUEL. Boston. B. SCHÖN. SCHÖN. J. THARP. 25-41. Cambridge. London. (2003) Managing innovation design & creativity. H.. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.. Organization Science. E. W. UTTERBACK. Singapore. SCHUMPETER. WALSH SANDERSON. VERGANTI. (2003) R&D comes to services: Bank of Americas path breaking experiments. London. Soziale Welt. M. 090330 Page 26 of 26 . J. Harvard University Press. transform.-A. (2005) Managing Innovation. R. SPARKE. ZAPF. London. Boston. John Wiley & Sons Ltd... UK. Wiley. HDK/Business & Design Lab. Earthscan. (1988) The Sources of Innovation. VON OSTEN. World Scientific Publishing Co. DE BOER. ALVAREZ. (2007) Unpredictable Outcomes: A reflection after years of debates on Creativity and Creative Industries. B. Haddington. Lund University Press. L. Malmö. F. UTTERBACK. THARP. VERGANTI. The School of Art Institute of Chicago/The University of Illinois. WEICK. J.W. RIBA Publications Limited. A. Basic Books Inc. M. EKMAN. TIDD. 10. WEBPAGE. 70-79. R. E.. S. VEDIN. A. MIT Press. (2006) Innovating through Design. (2006) Design Inspired Innovation. Alhambra. Pte. (2006) Sustainable by Design: Explorations in theory and practice. London. A. THOMKE. J.. VAN DEN BOSCH. Harvard Business Review. K. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial. J.M. M. S.net. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. 11. Ltd. (1989) Über soziale Innovationen. H. market and organizational change. (2004) Hacktivism and the Future of Political Participation. VON HIPPEL. 4. E. (2000) Innovation & Kreativitet. Strategic Management Journal. S. VOLBERDA. M. Harvard Business Review.eipcp. Pandora Press SVENGREN. (2009-02-12). Integrating technological. Chichester. D. Harvard University.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.