DTB19 Booklet Online PDF

Mapping Design Thinking:
Transformations, Applications and Evolutions
RESEARCH REPORT
March 2019
RESEARCH PLATFORM DEVELOPED BY IN COLLABORATION WITH

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Leadership by Design: Finding Meaningin a World without Direction 3

Claudio Dell’Era, Alessandro Perego, Roberto Verganti and Francesco Zurlo
The Research
0 1 FRAMEWORK
Design Thinking: Approaches and Players 9
Claudio Dell’Era and Roberto Verganti
0 2 RESEARCH RESULTS
Transformations in Consulting Paradigms based on Design Thinking 23
Claudio Dell’Era and Stefano Magistretti
Applications of Design Thinking developed by Innovators 59
Stefano Magistretti and Claudio Dell’Era
Evolutions of Design Thinking enabled by Emerging Startups 101
Cabirio Cautela and Luca Gastaldi
0 5 RESEARCH APPROACH
Methodology and Forthcoming Reports 125
0 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Kick-off, Design Thinking Jams and Convention 157
0 7 TEAM
Research Team, Partners and Sponsors 187
00 I N T R O D U C T I O N
Leadership by Design: Finding Meaning

in a World without Direction
www.osservatori.net 3
00 I N T R O D U C T I O N
Leadership by Design: Finding Meaning

in a World without Direction
Claudio Dell’Era, Alessandro Perego, Roberto Verganti and Francesco Zurlo
Nowadays, technologies are providing incredible options; we live in a world

where technological opportunities are cascading on society at an unprecedent-
ed speed. A world awash with technologies and information. We have more. Our
technological mines keep generating an enormous quantity of technology ore.
And digital media are producing an enormous quantity of data. But humans do
not use ore, or data; they need products and services, and Design Thinking can
allow people to navigate an overcrowded world. Scholars and practitioners are
acknowledging the central role of design as a driver of innovation and change.
In a way, the importance of design as a source of value creation had been scruti-
nized since decades. Design Thinking is making the headlines, with an extremely
rapid diffusion in the practice and interest of organizations. The increasing at-
tention of practitioners to Design Thinking is evident by looking at the recent
moves of large innovation consultancies. Design Thinking is booming in those
industries where the digital transformation requires new competences and ca-
pabilities for developing effective customer experiences.
4 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

Design Thinking is an approach that looks at value and change from the per-
spective of people. Or, even better, from the perspective of what is meaningful
to people. Similarly to many other approaches, also Design Thinking combines
three factors: (i) technologies, how things are made and their performance im-
proved; (ii) people, how these things are valuable for customers; (iii) business,
how organizations can profit from offering them.
The perspective embedded in Design Thinking makes it unique: Design Thinking
starts from people. You want to generate value for people by creating amazing
meaningful things. You then search for a profitable business model to turn this
people value into shareholder value. You still need the three factors: people,
business, and technologies. But the assumption here is that if people find value
in something, then business will follow naturally. And when we mean people, we
mean both the user of the products (the customers) and the makers (people in
your organization). Design creates products by starting from what is meaningful
for customers. Design creates organizational transformation by starting from
what is meaningful for people in your organization: by engaging them in creat-
ing innovation instead of adopting it, in collaborating, in nurturing their creative
confidence, in bringing their work closer to the purpose of their life.
00 INTRODUCTION
In a time when Design Thinking is spreading into the business community, we

commit to helping organizations benefit from it. The purpose of the Design
Thinking for Business Observatory is to join forces with all those pioneers who
want to be at the frontier, who want to understand what Design Thinking is,
where it is going, who is doing what, how Design Thinking can provide value
to their organization and to them as individuals. More specifically the Design
Thinking for Business Observatory aspires to be to be the reference point for
the community of innovators that adopt pioneering approaches such as Design
Thinking in creating value for the society, look for new practices, and want to be
in the right networks.
The second edition of the Design Thinking for Business Observatory has the
main objective of exploring more in depth the different aspects and players
characterizing the current Design Thinking environment along three research
lines (see Figure 00.1):
• Transformations in the way consulting organizations interpret Design
Thinking: This research line, in collaboration with Delft University of Tech-
nology, Imperial College Business School, Reykjavik University, and Stock-
holm School of Economics, provides a global overview of the approaches,
practices, and capabilities of Design Thinking developed by the consultants;
• Applications of Design Thinking by innovators: This research line inves-
tigates the similarities and differences in the pioneering adoption of De-
sign Thinking by innovators across industries (e.g., Finance, Energy, In-
formation and Communication, Public Administration) and professional
roles (e.g., C-levels, Design, Research and Development, Marketing, IT)
on the Italian scale;
• Evolutions of Design Thinking enabled by emerging startups: This research
line identifies those emerging startups in the Italian market that provide in-
teresting technological solutions (e.g., Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Rap-
id Prototyping) to empower the Design Thinking processes.
Claudio Dell’Era Alessandro Perego Roberto Verganti Francesco Zurlo

Scientific Committee Scientific Committee Scientific Committee
Research Direction

R E S E A R C H L I N E 1 : T R A N S F O R M AT I O N S
startup
startup
startup
strategic
consultants
design
studios
NUMBER OF CONSULTING
technology
ORGANIZATIONS:
developers
digital
agencies
startup
239
startup
NUMBER OF RESPONSES: 291

startup
R E S E A R C H L I N E 2 : A P P L I C AT I O N S
design
design
thinkers
thinking
design
centers
thinkers
design
NUMBER OF INNOVATORS:
thinking
centers
design 215
design thinking
thinkers centers
RESEARCH LINE 3: EVOLUTIONS
startup
startup
startup
strategic
consultants
design
studios
technology NUMBER OF STARTUPS:

developers
digital startup 145
startup agencies
startup
Figure 00.1 Research lines
01 FRAMEWORK
Design Thinking:
Approaches and Players
Claudio Dell’Era
Research Director
Roberto Verganti
Scientific Committee
01 FRAMEWORK
Design Thinking: Approaches and Players

Claudio Dell’Era and Roberto Verganti
Design has become central in our world. A key source of value for people and
society. And Design Thinking, its declination in terms of innovation processes
and leadership, has become a major point of interest for any business. From
an accessory suited only to niche consumer firms, to a necessary factor in any
industry and organization. We live in a world where technological opportunities
are cascading on society at an unprecedented speed, a world awash with tech-
nologies and information. Organizations need design to make this wealth of op-
portunities accessible to people. To capture the potential value of technological
innovation. Design Thinking is what helps us navigate an overcrowded world. It
is what helps us transform the “more, and more, and more” of our society into
“what is meaningful”. Design Thinking is a catalyst for change in organizations.
In a world that is rapidly evolving, everyone wants (and needs) to participate in
change. Especially in light of the Digital Transformation. Innovation is nowadays
not confined only to R&D. It happens everywhere in the organization: in any
single internal process and any single moment of interaction with customers.
The challenge of the digital transformation is not the “digital”, but the “transfor-
mation”. Organizational transformation requires a different mindset and process
able to engage everyone. Design Thinking is key in our world transformed by
technologies, because:
• It is needed for value creation, to turn this wealth of technologies and infor-
mation into real value for customers;
• It is needed for organizational transformation, to engage people in a wide-
spread process of change.
FROM TO
business technology people
people technology business
Business as purpose People as purpose

Technology as driver Technology as mean
People as mean Business as consequence
Figure 01.1 Perspective embedded in Design Thinking

Design Thinking creates products by starting from what is meaningful for cus-
tomers. It creates organizational transformation by starting from what is mean-
ingful for people in your organization: by engaging them in creating innovation
instead of adopting it, in collaborating, in nurturing their creative confidence,
in bringing their work closer to the purpose of their life. The assumption here is
that if people find value in something, then business will follow naturally.
Design Thinking, whatever nuance you consider, always has this perspective: to
do business by starting from what is meaningful to people. It is a people-first
approach put into practice. To use an analogy, Design Thinking applies a basic
fundamental rule of life to business: you do not find happiness by searching for
it. Happiness is a consequence of a meaningful life. The same is true for profit.
You do not create profit by searching for it. Profit is a consequence of making
meaningful things for people. Design Thinking is rooted in a fundamental un-
derstanding: if something is meaningful for the people who receive it, and for
the people who create it, how can business value not easily ensue? So, in a way,
Design Thinking starts simply from a change in perspective. But this change in
perspective brings with it a disruption in terms of mindset, processes, and tools
(see Figure 01.1).
The Design Thinking paradigm can assume different forms and interpretations
according to the nature of the companies involved (consulting organization and
client), the specific challenges, and the objectives of the innovation project (see
Figure 01.2):
• Creative Problem Solving: Solving wicked problems adopting both analyt-
ical and intuitive thinking;
• Sprint Execution: Delivering and testing viable products in order to learn
from customers and improve the solution;
• Creative Confidence: Engaging people to make them more confident with
creative processes;
• Innovation of Meaning: Envisioning new directions that aim at proposing
meaningful experiences to people.
Figure 01.2 4 kinds of Design Thinking
01 FRAMEWORK
0 1 . 1 Creative Problem Solving
The Creative Problem Solving approach is based on three fundamental princi-

ples rooted in the origins of Design Thinking. The main aim of this kind of Design
Thinking is to solve problems; it assumes that users have a need or a problem,
and they search for the best solution. This approach implies that organizations
innovate by understanding the user needs (what problems customers currently
have), and then creating ideas to better solve these problems. If solving prob-
lems is the main aim of this kind of Design Thinking, ideating is the activity to
be nurtured and stimulated to originally solve the problems addressed. The as-
sumption is that the more ideas are generated, the greater the chance of finding
a good one. Ideating is about sharing insights with the team, make sense of a
vast amount of data, and identifying opportunities for design to generate many
ideas. Creative problem solving is not about coming up with the ‘right’ idea, it
is about generating the broadest range of possibilities. Ideating is the principle
that suggests exploring broad landscapes in terms of concepts and opportuni-
ties. The Creative Problem Solving approach moves from the outside-in. It starts
from going out and observing how users use existing products; then it requires
the ability to interpret these observations to create original solutions. Recogniz-
ing relevant insights requires empathizing with the users.
Transforming the selected innovative ideas into tangible, even if rough, proto-
types allows interacting with the users, receiving feedback, and learning from
failures. A prototype can be anything that a user can interact with. The Creative
Problem Solving approach relies on combining the conscious and unconscious
mind, rational thoughts, and imagination. The contribution of the naïve mind
allows addressing the problems in a fresh and lateral perspective. Innovation
teams adopting the Creative Problem Solving approach need to be optimistic
and demonstrate an experimental attitude; they need to empathize and iterate,
looking for inspiration in unexpected places.

Although several models have been developed to describe the dynamics char-
acterizing the Design Thinking paradigm, the alternation of convergent and
divergent phases is a clear feature of Creative Problem Solving. Creative pro-
cesses are usually characterized by the combination of a divergent phase, where
several ideas and proposals can be created, and a convergent phase, where
ideas and proposals need to be refined and narrowed down to identify the most
promising ones. The Design Thinking paradigm suggests applying these cre-
ative dynamics (divergent + convergent) not only to developing the solution,
but also to defining the problem. The Double Diamond is a visual representation
of the design process: while the first diamond is aimed at properly framing the
problem (designing the right thing), the second aims at effectively developing
the solution (designing things right). It can be organized in four distinct phases:
(see Figure 01.3):
• Discover: Through a range of discovery methods (e.g. interviews, focus
groups, ethnography, observation, cultural insights, etc.), teams dive deep
and wide into the current landscape to create empathy for the end user and
uncover insights on both the user and the business needs;
• Define: By leveraging the insights gathered, interpreting and aligning the
user needs and business goals, teams identify and converge on project ob-
jectives and set the scope for feasible, viable, and desirable outcomes;
• Develop: To identify the best solution, teams use methods such as “how
might we?” to generate hypotheses and internally test them. Through pro-
totyping and rapid iteration processes, a Proof of Concept emerges. To en-
sure that teams are on the right track, they need to externally test and vali-
date the Proof of Concept with end users. Through this validation, abstract
concepts become more concrete;
• Delivery: In the fourth phase, the resulting project (product, service, or sys-
tem) is refined and launched.
LEGEND: DISCOVER DEFINE DEVELOP DELIVER
designer
user
Figure 01.3 Process of Creative Problem Solving
01 FRAMEWORK
0 1 . 2 Sprint Execution
The Sprint Execution approach to some extent represents the linear evolution
of Creative Problem Solving to the point that both the principles and practices
highlight some similarities. The aim of the Sprint Execution approach does not
consist in just designing a product concept or an innovative idea, but aims at
delivering products ready to be launched on the market in line with user needs.
The product is the principal vehicle to both capture the value and learn from the
reactions of the market. Sprint Execution addresses the acceleration that digi-
tal transformation requires with significant tension in quickly making products
to launch on the market. The way of thinking adopted in the Sprint Execution
approach is constantly driven by a practical attitude: everything that is thought
in the initial phase has to be delivered at the end of the process in realistic and
working products. In the Sprint Execution approach, users have a fundamental
role. They are fundamental stakeholders to interact with in order to collect their
feedback and reactions, but they are not considered the main source of informa-
tion at the beginning of the design process. In other words, the direction pursued
by the Sprint Execution approach is inside-out: this means that the product is ini-
tially conceived by the team, and then the team brings the product to users to get
feedback. This does not mean that consulting organizations adopting the Sprint
Execution approach do not consider knowing the market they are addressing as
fundamental, but they strongly believe the valuable knowledge they need to be
innovative can only be obtained through the interaction with products.
From the practice point of view, Sprint Execution significantly leverages the
contributions provided by minimum viable products, defined as a product with
just enough features to satisfy early customers, and to provide feedback for
future developments. The need to quickly create products able to bring value
to users requires design teams composed of experts (usually internal stakehold-
ers) able to deal with different categories of constraints and opportunities.

If the Sprint Execution approach shows some similarities with the Creative Prob-
lem Solving approach, such as the iterative nature of the process or the core role
of prototyping, interesting differences connote the emerging approach, such as
the focus on the solution (instead of the problem) or the emphasis on conver-
gent phases (instead of divergent phases). Also from a process point of view,
interesting particularities emerge (see Figure 01.4):
• Map/Decide: the availability of detailed data on individuals in different set-
tings changes the role of the Discover phase. Differently from the Creative
Problem Solving approach, the initial understanding of users is embedded
in data collected through daily and permanent processes; users do not
trigger the process, even if they indirectly provide the initial knowledge
managed by the designers and experts (e.g. business developers, product
managers, marketers, etc.);
• Build: The emphasis given to the role of prototypes in the Creative Problem
Solving approach is even extended in Sprint Execution. The Prototype con-
cept evolves into the Minimum Viable Products (MVP): even if not refined,
the MVP must deliver value to the user, and as a consequence, it is no longer
a prototype, but a product;
• Measure: One of the fundamental principles of the lean startup approach is
innovation accounting; the identification of the appropriate metrics is fun-
damental to assessing the results achieved by the MVP and consequently
understanding the (direct or indirect) feedback provided by users;
• Learn: The aforementioned metrics are even more fundamental to validate
the lessons learned.
LEGEND: MAP/DECIDE BUILD MEASURE LEARN BUILD MEASURE
designer
user
expert
Figure 01.4 Process of Sprint Execution
01 FRAMEWORK
0 1 . 3 Creative Confidence
The Creative Confidence approach is one of most interesting evolutions of the

Design Thinking paradigm and is characterized by profound differences with
the Creative Problem Solving approach, both in terms of principles and prac-
tices. First of all, the main aim of the Creative Confidence approach is to nur-
ture mindsets and shape the organizational culture, which are the fundamental
premises for any kind of innovation: products, services, processes, business
models, etc. It is a matter of creating the appropriate mentality to face business
challenges and feel confident in going through changes. The Creative Confi-
dence approach focuses especially on people because the most effective way
to transform businesses is through several changes in the mindsets and atti-
tudes of people. Engaging people and supporting them in feeling confident
with new perspectives and new horizons stimulates proactive behaviors and
creates the appropriate premises to deal with innovation challenges. Very often,
the users that the design projects adopting the Creative Confidence approach
address are employees. For this reason, the direction that connotes this kind of
Design Thinking is co-designing and co-developing. As previously mentioned,
the main aim of the Creative Confidence approach is to nurture mindsets that
enable employees to feel confident in facing organizational changes and in-
novation challenges. For this reason, it is fundamental to engage employees
allowing them to propose (design) and realize (develop) the change according
to their beliefs and attitudes.
In terms of practices, the adoption of the Creative Confidence approach is
based on the early and intense involvement of all those experts (usually internal
stakeholders) who can support the change. Especially in digital transformation
projects, it is fundamental to involve all those stakeholders that can contribute
to the design phase and then support its realization.

Innovation and leadership are becoming fundamental in every organization.
In a world that keeps changing, innovation and leadership are the two funda-
mental ingredients to succeed. They are intrinsically connected to people, more
than methodologies and tools. Several consultancies are reinterpreting Design
Thinking through organizational lenses leveraging its particular features, human
centrality, and empathy. Design Thinking is increasingly adopted not only to
innovate products and services, but also with the aim of reshaping the organiza-
tional culture and enabling digital transformations. Leveraging the core features
of Creative Problem Solving and fine-tuning complementary traits, the Creative
Confidence approach is overwhelmingly emerging. In this vein, human-cen-
teredness and deep empathy have always constituted the core elements of De-
sign Thinking and are even more relevant in projects that aim to change the
organizational culture and mentality. While entrepreneurs face the challenge of
creating an organizational culture and mindset through a bottom-up approach,
intrapreneurs usually challenge established and shared beliefs, assumptions and
practices through a top-down approach. As a consequence, successful intra-
preneurs need to create a shared sense of purpose that inspires action across
employees. From a process perspective, the core ingredients are empowering
individuals to create change, and fostering collaboration (see Figure 01.5):
• Engage: In the initial phase, it is crucial to engage key stakeholders who can
become intrapreneurs in driving the change;
• Co-design: Using the information collected in the first phase, identify the
strongest cultural barrier that is holding back innovation in the organiza-
tion; engaging employees in co-designing the new organizational model
reduces traditional inertia towards change;
• Involve and Co-develop: In the last phases, the involvement of larger por-
tions of the organization and the identification of “small wins” are funda-
mental practices to successfully drive the change.
LEGEND: ENGAGE CO-DESIGN INVOLVE CO-DEVELOP
designer
user (employee)
expert (internal
stakeholder)
Figure 01.5 Process of Creative Confidence
01 FRAMEWORK
0 1 . 4 Innovation of Meaning
Similarly to the Creative Confidence approach, the Innovation of Meaning ap-

proach is one of the most interesting evolutions of the Design Thinking para-
digm. At the same time, it significantly differs from the more established and
diffused Creative Problem Solving both in terms of principles and practices. Ac-
cording to the Innovation of Meaning approach, organizations envision scenar-
ios to support the search for new meaning and to make people fall in love. This
concerns a novel vision that redefines the problems worth addressing, proposing
a new reason why people use something, a new value proposition, a new vision.
Differently from the Creative Problem Solving approach based on ideating, the
Innovation of Meaning approach is based on criticizing. Criticism is the practice
of going deeper into interpreting things. It strives to unveil what lies underneath
the surface of things by contrasting different perspectives to develop a rich-
er and more robust interpretation. The Innovation of Meaning approach needs
criticism for two reasons: (i) it starts from our values and beliefs, and criticism
is the practice that supports the evolution of the individual perspective; (ii) it
enables people and organizations not only to move beyond the past, but also
to create the new. The role of users also significantly differs in the Innovation
of Meanings approach compared to the other kinds of Design Thinking. Mean-
ings are new interpretations of what is good and what is bad; thus, there is no a
scale of judgement. This is why the outside-in process is no longer effective, but
rather requires taking the opposite direction: from the inside-out. Meanings are
interpretations, and interpretations cannot be outsourced, they can only come
from us: people will never love a product that is not loved by its designers and
developers. If they do not love it, the market recognizes the weak relationship.
The purpose of going through a process based on inside-out criticism is to create
a vision that is powerful, robust, and meaningful: something for people to love.
In a world awash with opportunities, focusing on quantity simply increases con-
fusion, entropy.

It instead requires going deeper. The way to obtain a novel meaningful interpre-
tation is not by having another one, but by going deeper with a few good per-
spectives, contrasting them, fusing them. The Innovation of Meanings approach
significantly relies on metaphors because they are the most powerful way to
express concepts and emotions, especially when these concepts are new and
abstract, such as a new meaning. Interpreters are defined as experts from far-
flung fields who address the same strategic context, but from different perspec-
tives. They help reflect even deeper on the implications of the emerging vision.
While creative solutions can be borrowed from the outside, since they enable
achieving a goal or superior performance, new meanings must come from our-
selves, because no one can go in a direction that is not meaningful for them-
selves. Furthermore, differently from Creative Problem Solving that is built on
the art of ideation, Innovation of Meaning requires the art of criticism. Criticism
enables digging deeper in challenging and making our initial beliefs more ro-
bust. These two particular features of the Innovation of Meaning approach also
imply significant changes in the required process (see Figure 01.6):
• Envision: The initial direction needs to be developed individually and con-
ceived by internal people; it is fundamental to start with personal insights
about what is meaningful to every one of us; then, to create a shared pur-
pose, these insights must be contrasted and compared;
• Criticize: Enriching and making the individual direction more robust essen-
tially requires leveraging criticism that can initially come from colleagues
(who share the same context and culture) and then from external experts
(named interpreters);
• Probe and Talk: Developing probes able to embody and significantly repre-
sent the new direction is crucial to obtain the final critique from end users.
designer
user (employee)
expert (internal
stakeholder)
expert (outsider)
Figure 01.6 Process of Innovation of Meaning
01 FRAMEWORK
0 1 . 5 Design Thinking Ecosystem
Considering the complexity of the ecosystem an interpretative framework is in-

troduced in order to guide the reader. In particular, the main clusters that have
been identified are two. Respectively Consulting Organizations and Innovators
(see Figure 01.7).
These players operate in the ecosystem with completely different aims and
goals. This simplification of the ecosystem is helpful to better comprehend who
the players populating the Design Thinking ecosystem in the Italian scenario are.
In particular, it is clear that the clusters are built on a single dimension that is
the company mission. Mainly, if the firm is oriented on providing Design Think-
ing services, it has been classified as consulting organization; if it supports the
development of Design Thinking initiatives with digital or physical solutions, it
has been considered a supplier and finally, if the company is looking for Design
Thinking solutions in the market and is acquiring or adopting them in internal
projects, it has been considered an innovator.
As regards the aim of the research, particular attention has been dedicated to
the organizations providing advisory services based on Design Thinking. As a re-
sult, considering the huge differences in the nature of Consulting Organizations,
different clusters have been identified. In particular, Consulting Organizations
have been divided into Design Studios, Digital Agencies, Strategic Consultants
and Technology Developers. As Figure 01.7 shows, Consulting Organizations
cannot exist without Innovators, to the point that the link between these two
sides of the ecosystem is crucial. In addition, the Consulting Organization Eco-
system is also enriched by the presence of several Startups delivering Design
Thinking services that have been examined.
C O N S U LT I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S I N N O VAT O R S
providing advisory services based on Design Thinking adopting (looking for) advisory services based on Design Thinking
startup design
startup design
startup thinkers
strategic
thinking
consultants design
centers
design thinkers
studios
technology design
developers thinking
digital startup centers
design
startup agencies design thinking
thinkers centers
startup
S TA R T U P S
providing solutions that support Design Thinking
Figure 05.1
01.7 Design Thinking Ecosystem

02 R E S E A R C H R E S U L T S
Transformations in Consulting
Paradigms based on Design Thinking
Claudio Dell’Era
Research Director
Stefano Magistretti
Senior Research Team
02 R E S E A R C H R E S U LT S
Transformations in Consulting Paradigms

based on Design Thinking
Claudio Dell’Era and Stefano Magistretti
As described in Chapter 5 regarding the Research Methodology, the research

line «Transformations in the way Consulting Organizations interpret Design
Thinking» in collaboration with Delft University of Technology, Imperial College
Business School, Reykjavik University, and Stockholm School of Economics, pro-
vides a global overview of the approaches, practices, and capabilities of De-
sign Thinking developed by consultants. More specifically, the empirical results
rely on 291 responses collected in the last quarter of 2018. As shown in Figure
02.1, the majority of the sample (93.8%) is composed of responses provided by
Consulting Organizations located in four countries: Italy (43.9%), Netherlands
(17.2%), Sweden (15.8%), and the United Kingdom (16.9%). The Consulting Or-
ganizations in our sample have an interesting variety in terms of size: while the
average number of employees is equal to 325.8, the sample includes Consulting
Organizations with fewer than 5 employees and others with more than 1.000.
Similarly, the revenues obtained in 2018 are, on average, equal to 240.1 million
€, ranging from less than 0.5 million € to more than 1.000 million €. The Nether-
lands, on average, has the smallest Consulting Organizations in the sample (192.1
employees and 163.9 million € in terms of 2018 revenues), while Italy and the
United Kingdom are characterized by the largest companies in terms of average
number of employees (respectively 359.4 and 309.8), and average revenues
obtained in 2018 (respectively 241.4 and 244.8 million €).
Figure 02.1 Responses, Employees and Revenues of the Consulting Organizations in 2018 [Sample = 291]

The research line «Transformations in the way Consulting Organizations inter-
pret Design Thinking» focuses on the units (e.g., business unit, service line, de-
partment) providing consulting services based on Design Thinking. Also in this
case, the sample shows an interesting variety along different dimensions (see
Figure 02.2): number of employees within the unit in 2018 (on average 73.6),
% of employees within the unit who were involved in consulting projects based
on Design Thinking in 2018 (on average 60.3%), total unit revenues obtained in
2018 (on average 50.4 million €), and % of total unit revenues obtained in 2018
generated by consulting projects based on Design Thinking (on average 51.1%).
The collected data explore two main areas: the first part of the questionnaire
investigates consulting projects based on Design Thinking that the respondents
completed in 2018 and with which they were familiar, while the second part
focuses on the portfolio of all consulting projects based on Design Thinking
completed by the units the respondents are members of (see Chapter 5 for the
detailed description of the adopted research methodology). More specifically,
the introduction section of the questionnaire aims to collect overall data on the
Consulting Organizations (location, number of employees, revenues in 2018) and
on the respondents (educational background, job title, experience in adopting
Design Thinking). The first part of the questionnaire is structured in 6 sections:
• The Project Information section aims to outline the consulting projects se-
lected by the respondents in terms of duration, industry where the client
operates, organizational and team structure;
• The Goals section aims to identify the primary objectives addressed by the
selected consulting projects and the project context;
• The subsequent three sections explore the Practices adopted in the se-
lected consulting projects from different viewpoints: Phases, Capabilities,
and Attitudes;
• The Value section aims to capture the value generated by the selected con-
sulting projects for the consulting organization and for the client.
Figure 02.2 Employees and Revenues of the Units (e.g. business unit, service line, department) developing consulting projects based on Design
Thinking in 2018 [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
The second part of the questionnaire is organized in 2 sections:

• The Briefs section relies on four exemplar briefs to investigate the compo-
sition of the portfolio of all consulting projects based on Design Thinking
completed by the unit in 2018. The proposed briefs capture the essential
elements of the approaches described in Chapter 1 (Creative Problem Solv-
ing, Sprint Execution, Creative Confidence, and Innovation of Meaning). The
section first explores the % revenues obtained in 2018 across the four briefs
and their growth in comparison to 2017. Thereafter, it investigates the ca-
pabilities and attitudes that have had the largest positive influence on the
success of the four consulting project categories.
• Finally, the Portfolio section explores the structure of the portfolio of con-
sulting projects in terms of industries in which the client operates, client
functions representing the sponsor, and the main consulting project do-
mains addressed.
In order to link the first and the second part of the questionnaire, the selected
consulting projects described in the first six sections were classified by respon-
dents according to the four categories proposed in the second part of the ques-
tionnaire. As shown in Figure 02.3, the sample of 291 consulting projects is quite
balanced across the four categories: Creative Problem Solving (26.1%), Sprint
Execution (21.7%), Creative Confidence (24.7%), Innovation of Meaning (20.3%),
and Other (7.2%).
The remainder of the chapter is organized in 5 main sections:
• Understanding the Design Thinking Market (industries, sponsors, domains,
and goals);
• Interpreting the Design Thinking Approaches (Creative Problem Solving,
Sprint Execution, Creative Confidence, and Innovation of Meaning);
• Organizing Design Thinking Teams (duration, team size and composition);
• Applying Design Thinking Practices (phases, capabilities, and attitudes);
• Generating Value through Design Thinking (consulting organizations and
clients).
26.1% 21.7% 24.7% 20.3%
Other: 7.2%
Figure 02.3 Classification of the consulting projects selected by the respondents [Sample = 291]

I T A LY
12/06/1987 DCA Consulting GreatPixel Publicis.Sapient

3M (2) Dedagroup SpA HITACHI VANTARA PwC
Accenture DEGW - L22 HPE Quantility Srl
Alessandro Gianni Deloitte Digital Hub Innovazione Trentino Realtà Srl
Assist Design Italy IBM (2) Reload Srl
B.digital (Blueit Group) Digital Seed SRL Idea-re di Paolo Franceschini Reply
Baboul DINN! Il prisma (2) RINA
BCF Srl Doing Intesys SAP
BCG (2) e-Novia KPMG Advisory Shifton
Bemind Interactive EcoSafe srl Lenovys Sketchin SAGL (3)
Beople Srl ENGINEERING INGEGNERIA Logotel Sogei SpA
Bep business e persone Srl INFORMATICA Makiohasuike & co Souffl (2)
Bip (2) Envision Reply Material Connexion Italia Spark Reply
BTS Design Innovation EPAM Continuum Med-use Strategic Management
Caffeina SpA ESTECO SpA MIDA (3) Partners
Capgemini Eustema SpA MJV TECNOLOGIA E IN- Treehouse Innovation
Cedfor Service Everis NOVAZIONE Tribe Communication
CONSULTANT Evoluzione Telematica Srl Munogu Srl Triplesense Reply
CONSULTEAM Excellence Nautes Università degli Studi di Trento
Contactlab Exprivia SpA NiEW DESIGN Srl Value Partners
Costa Consulenza Modulare Fjord OpenKnowledge Var Group Spa
Integrata Frog Oracle WebRatio Srl
CRMpartners Srl Futureberrry Partners4Innovation Xenia Lab International
Davide Vercelli Studio Gaia (2) Porsche Consulting Zavolta&Partners
NETHERLANDS
6’4 design manufactory Freedomlab NextGenners Studio Dumbar

Accenture Fronteer Npk design Studio Koos
Achilles Design Happen Group Osudio The Incredible Machine
Branddoctors Hoog+Diep Pilotfish The Young
Capgemini IBM pinkoliv Think+DO
Cognizant Interactive Ideate Reframing Studio VanBerlo
contextqueen INK Strategy Remember to play Vanderveer Designers
Deloitte Digital Innovation Booster Spark Xplane
ELP Livework Springtime Yellow Ball
Exact MOBGEN STBY Zuiderlicht
Fabrique Muzus Strategiemakers
SWEDEN
Above Agency Daresay Itch SAP

Another Tomorrow Doberman Kairos Future Söderhavet
Backelite (Capgemini) EITHealth Making Waves Tankeapoteket AB
Berge EVRY NextGen Value AB Tieto
Boid Fjord Openlab Usify (2)
Brand Manual Googol Pollen Valtech (2)
Capgemini Invent Grow Pond Veryday/McKinsey
Cartina Hyper Island PriorityGroup Zenit Design
Centigo IBM Repeat Studio
Crearum Innoproach RISE
Curlabs Inuse (3) SAM
UNITED KINGDOM
Barclays Fjord (2) McKinsey & Company Special Projects

Capco Fluxx Method Spotless
Dalberg Design Frog Design (3) Modern Human TEN by Anatomy HCD ltd
Deloitte Digital Future Tonic Noddingdog LTD Think Plan Thrive
Designit Futurice Normally Ltd Thinkersblock Ltd
Door Idea Couture Nucleus Thinkpublic
DotLabel IDEO Pancentric Treehouse Innovation
EY Seren Livework RetroFuzz Ltd We Are Unstuck
Fahrenheit 212 LSG Group SPARCK.io
OTHER
Barco Ondesign Ernst and Young Nope

European Commission Context Studio DTI Sistema de Ensino Energia
Altran Accenture GUIX Isobar
AVANADE Australian Government Myra SOPRASTERIA
*ANONYMOUS RESPONSES: 46
Figure 02.4 Consulting Organizations partaking in the research [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 2 . 1 Understanding the Design Thinking Market
The data provided by the 291 consultants on the portfolio of projects based
on Design Thinking completed by their unit (e.g., business unit, service line,
department) in 2018 allow understanding the market addressed along sever-
al dimensions:
• Industries where the clients operate;
• Sponsors, interpreted as the client function representing the project
sponsor;
• Domains, defined as the main domain addressed by the project.
The versatility of Design Thinking is demonstrated by the almost homogeneous
distribution of the revenues gained in 2018 across different industries (Agricul-
ture; Arts, Entertainment and Recreation; Automotive; Consulting; Education;
Energy; Engineering; Finance and Insurance; Food and Beverage; Forestry and
Fishing; Healthcare; Hospitality; Information and Communication; Manufactur-
ing; Mining; Public Administration; Real Estate; Retail; Transportation and Logis-
tics; Other). About 70% of revenues gained in 2018 through consulting projects
based on Design Thinking derived from clients that operate in 9 industries (see
Figure 02.5): Finance and Insurance (13.6%), Healthcare (9.3%), Retail (8.4%),
Manufacturing (7.4%), Consulting (6.8%), Energy (6.5%), Automotive (6.0%),
Information and Communication (5.9%), Public Administration (5.9%). While
these industries show structural differences, they also highlight interesting com-
monalities such as the growing relevance of customer experience (e.g., Finance
and Insurance, Retail, Public Administration) and progressive liberalization with
the consequent entry of new players (e.g., Healthcare, Energy). The distribution
of Design Thinking demand across industries significantly changes in the four
countries analyzed (see Figure 02.5). The Italian industries most interested in
Design Thinking are Finance and Insurance (12.5%) and Manufacturing (10.8%),
while Dutch companies that mainly adopt Design Thinking operate in the Fi-
nance and Insurance (11.5%) and Retail (10.3%) industries.
Figure 02.5 Design Thinking demand across industries and countries [Sample = 291]

Also interesting to note is that the Automotive (8.6%) and Energy (8.4%) indus-
tries are quite relevant in the Dutch market. Swedish demand mainly comes from
the Healthcare (14.1%) and Information and Communication (7.6%) industries,
while the UK Design Thinking market is significantly concentrated in the Finance
and Insurance (24.7%) industry.
Focusing on the client functions representing the sponsors of consulting proj-
ects based on Design Thinking (Board; Business Development; Design; Entre-
preneur; Human Resources; Information Technology; Marketing; Operations; Re-
search and Development; Sales; Other), 4 cover more than 50% of the revenues
gained in 2018 through consulting projects based on Design Thinking (see Fig-
ure 02.6): Board (21.2%), Marketing (13.6%), Information Technology (10.3%),
Business Development (10.2%). If the strategic relevance of Design Thinking is
consistent with the fact that very often the Sponsor of Design Thinking projects
is directly the Board, the similar distribution across three functions (Marketing,
Information Technology, and Business Development) underlines the fit with the
three main elements embedded in any Design Thinking project, respectively,
People (desirability), Technology (feasibility), and Business (viability). The dif-
ferent distributions of Design Thinking demand across client functions repre-
senting the sponsors in the four countries analyzed provide interesting insights
(see Figure 02.6). While the role played by the Board is substantially in line in
the four countries, significant differences emerge on the three functions. In Italy,
Information Technology (14.2%) and Marketing (13.2%) represent the principal
sponsors of Design Thinking projects. The Dutch and English Consulting Or-
ganizations respectively obtained 14.2% and 16.6% of annual revenues through
Design Thinking projects sponsored by Marketing. Differently, the Swedish Con-
sulting Organizations significantly rely on Design Thinking projects sponsored
by Business Development (19.2%). To some extent, it seems that the Swedish
and English markets are characterized by a more focalized client function in
terms of Design Thinking sponsorship, respectively, Business Development
(19.2%) and Marketing (16.6%), while Italy and the Netherlands show a more
dispersed distribution.
Figure 02.6 Design Thinking demand across Sponsors and Countries [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
The analysis of the domains addressed by consulting project based on Design

Thinking (Brand, Business Model, Communication, Culture, Process/Organiza-
tion, Product, Retail, Service, Strategy, Other) highlights interesting approaches
developed by the Consulting Organizations: 4 main domains cover more than
60% of the revenues obtained in 2018 through consulting project based on
Design Thinking (see Figure 02.7): Strategy (21.2%), Service (16.6%), Product
(15.3%), Process/Organization (10.2%). Coherently with the data on the client
functions that sponsor Design Thinking projects, the Strategy domain is, on av-
erage, the highest in terms of percentage revenues obtained in 2018. This find-
ing reinforces the diffused interpretation of Design Thinking as a paradigm able
to support strategic projects. If Service and Product represent the historical
domains where Design Thinking can be applied, interesting to note is that the
Process/Organization domain is, on average, quite relevant: 1 consulting project
out of 10 addresses process and organizational issues, at least in terms of reve-
nues obtained by the Consulting Organizations. The distribution of the revenues
obtained in 2018 through consulting projects based on Design Thinking and ad-
dressing the Strategy domain across the four analyzed countries is quite homo-
geneous (see Figure 02.7): from 20.4% in the UK to 23.8% in Sweden. Interesting
differences across the four studied countries can be identified in relation to the
three domains previously introduced. The Italian market is characterized by a
balanced distribution across Service (14.1%), Product (13.1%) and Process/Or-
ganization (11.8%), while the Dutch market is characterized by a strong focus on
Service (24.7%). Also interesting to note is that the Italian and the Dutch market
seem to be most interested in adopting Design Thinking in organizational proj-
ects, respectively 11.8% and 11.5%. The Swedish market is strongly focused on
the Product domain (20%) and the English on the Service domain (18.6%).
Figure 02.7 Design Thinking demand across Domains and Countries [Sample = 291]

DESIGN THINKING MARKET
Top 3 Industries Finance and Insurance 13.6%

requiring Design Thinking Healthcare 9.3%
projects in Europe Retail 8.4%
Top 3 Client Functions Board 21.2%

sponsoring Design Thinking Marketing 13.6%
projects in Europe Information Technology 10.3%
Top 3 Domains Strategy 21.1%

addressed by Design Thinking Service 16.6%
projects in Europe Product 15.3%
Figure 02.8 Understanding the Design Thinking market
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 2 . 2 Interpreting the Design Thinking Approaches
As introduced in Chapter 1, the research line «Transformations in the way Con-

sulting Organizations interpret Design Thinking» investigates four different ap-
proaches that can be adopted in applying Design Thinking: Creative Problem
Solving, Sprint Execution, Creative Confidence, and Innovation of Meaning.
More specifically, the collected data quantify the market addressed by consult-
ing organizations through the adoption of the 4 kinds of Design Thinking and
estimate the growth described by each approach. Furthermore, the analysis
identifies the capabilities and attitudes that have the largest positive influence
on project success across the 4 kinds of Design Thinking.
As shown in Figure 02.9, the Creative Problem Solving approach is the most ad-
opted: about 1/3 of revenues obtained by the consulting organizations through
the development of Design Thinking projects in 2018 was based on the adoption
of creative-based and outside-in processes (32.6%). In other words, Creative
Problem Solving represents the most diffused and adopted interpretation of De-
sign Thinking. The Sprint Execution and Creative Confidence approaches show
a similar penetration, respectively 24.0% and 22.6%. Considering that Design
Thinking originally derived from the product and service fields, interesting to
note is that almost 1/4 of revenues obtained by the Consulting Organizations
in 2018 through Design Thinking projects concern cultural and organizational
change issues. Finally, about 1/6 of revenues obtained in 2018 derived from
consulting projects that adopt the Innovation of Meaning approach and aim at
envisioning radically-new directions (16.9%).
The analyzed countries show some particularities in terms of the revenues
achieved through the 4 kinds of Design Thinking: while Italy shows a significant-
ly higher % of revenues from Creative Confidence projects (25.0%), the Dutch
market seems more intrigued by the Innovation of Meaning approach (23.1%).
Both the Swedish and English distributions are significantly in line with the gen-
eral distribution (see Figure 02.9).
Figure 02.9 Demand of the 4 kinds of Design Thinking [Sample = 291]

To estimate the growth of revenues obtained through the adoption of each kind
of Design Thinking, we qualitatively compared the revenues obtained in 2017
with those obtained in 2018 according to the following categorization: Signif-
icant decrease, Moderate decrease, Stable, Moderate increase, Significant in-
crease, Not available. As shown in Figure 02.10, about 1/3 of revenues obtained
through the adoption of the 4 kinds of Design Thinking was stable. Creative
Confidence is the approach that grew the most from 2017 to 2018: 26.8% of
respondents identified a moderate increase in revenues obtained through con-
sulting projects based on Creative Confidence, while 17.9% of respondents per-
ceived a significant increase. Analyzing the data collected in each country, some
interesting particularities emerge:
• In the Italian market, the growth of the Creative Problem Solving approach
is moderately more positive compared to the rest of Europe (increase =
39.8% vs 36.4%), while the growth of Innovation of Meaning is less intense
(increase = 26.6% vs 31.0%);
• In the Dutch market, the growth of both the Creative Problem Solving and
Sprint Execution approaches is significantly less positive compared to the
rest of Europe (respectively, increase = 24.0% vs 36.4%; increase = 36.0% vs
41.6%), while both Creative Confidence and Innovation of Meaning (respec-
tively, increase = 54.0% vs 44.7%, increase = 36.0% vs 31.0%) show more
intense growth;
• In the Swedish market, the growth of the Creative Problem Solving ap-
proach is moderately less positive compared to the rest of Europe (increase
= 30.4% vs 36.4%), while the Innovation of Meaning approach shows a more
intense growth (increase = 37% vs 30.9%);
• Finally, in the English market, the growth of the Sprint Execution approach
is moderately less positive compared to the rest of Europe (increase =
34.7% vs 41.6%), as well as the Creative Confidence approach (increase =
38.8% vs 44.7%).
Figure 02.10 Growth of the 4 kinds of Design Thinking [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
The analysis of the relevance of 30 different goals achieved by the 291 consult-
ing projects based on Design Thinking suggests interesting insights on the in-
terpretation and potentialities of the paradigm. The 3 most relevant goals iden-
tified by the respondents are:
• “Designing new user experiences” (5.8);
• “Understanding changes in users’ behaviors and expectations” (5.4);
• “Developing a new product or service” (5.3).
It is particularly interesting to note that the most relevant goals vary across the 4
kinds of Design Thinking (see Figure 02.11). The consulting projects based on the
Creative Problem Solving approach highlight the same top 3 goals with slightly
different values in terms of relevance: “Designing new user experiences” (5.9),
“Developing a new product or service” (5.7), “Understanding changes in users’
behaviors and expectations” (5.5). While in the Sprint Execution projects the
most relevant goal is also “Designing new user experiences” (5.8), this approach
aims at “Adopting and leveraging digital technologies” (5.8) and “Addressing
a specific user need” (5.4). In both the Creative Confidence and Innovation of
Meaning approaches “Designing new user experiences” (respectively 5.7 and
5.8) is one of the top 3 goals. The other two most relevant goals are instead
linked to the individual approaches:
• In the case of Creative Confidence projects, “Fostering new values, atti-
tudes, behaviors” (5.9) and “Engaging and motivating employees” (5.7) are
the most relevant goals;
• In the case of Innovation of Meaning projects, “Identifying and formulating
a new vision” (6.2) and “Devising a new long-term strategy” (5.9) are the
most relevant goals.
While “Designing new user experiences” is the most relevant goal in all coun-
tries, the national interpretation of the 4 kinds of Design Thinking introduces
interesting changes to the relevance of consulting project goals:
• Italian consulting organizations identify “Adopting and leveraging digital
technologies” (5.2) and “Identifying and formulating a new vision” (5.2) as
particularly relevant;
TOP 3 GOALS
Designing new user experiences 5.8

DESIGN THINKING
Understanding changes in users’ behaviors and expectations 5.4
projects [Sample = 291]
Developing a new product or service 5.3

C R E A T I V E P R O B L E M S O LV I N G

SPRINT EXECUTION
Adopting and leveraging digital technologies 5.8
Addressing a specific user need 5.4
Fostering new values, attitudes, behaviors 5.9

C R E AT I V E C O N F I D E N C E
Engaging and motivating employees 5.8
Identifying and formulating a new vision 6.2

I N N O VA T I O N O F M E A N I N G
Devising a new long-term strategy 5.9
Figure 02.11 Goals in Design Thinking projects [Sample = 291]

• Dutch consulting organizations focus on “Fostering new values, attitudes,
behaviors” (5.4);
• Swedish consulting organizations identify “Addressing a specific user need”
(5.4) as particularly relevant;
• Finally, English consulting organizations focus on “Identifying and formu-
lating a new vision” (5.8) and “Addressing a specific user need” (5.8).
To identify the key supporting competences that enable the appropriate adop-
tion of each kind of Design Thinking, 10 different capabilities (see Figure 02.12)
and 5 attitudes (see Figure 02.13) have been identified. The three capabilities
that have the largest positive influence on the adoption of Creative Problem
Solving consulting projects are:
• “Gathering and clustering insights about users/clients” (12.8%);
• “Thinking outside the box and proposing original ideas” (12.7%);
• “Divergent thinking by generating many new ideas” (12.6%).
The most important attitude in developing Creative Problem Solving projects is
“Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images” (24.7%). In
the case of Sprint Execution projects, the top three capabilities positively influ-
encing project success are completely different:
• “Running market tests and learning from them” (14.9%);
• “Transforming ideas into tangible and working prototypes” (14.7%);
• “Iteratively defining and redefining the problem to deeply understand the
challenge faced and identify new solutions” (12.4%).
Furthermore, the attitude of greatest impact on the success of Sprint Execution
projects differs from the Creative Problem Solving one: “Accepting to work on
solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process” (24.7%).
The three capabilities that have the largest positive influence on the adoption of
Creative Confidence consulting projects are:
T O P 3 C A PA B I L I T I E S
Gathering and clustering insights about users/clients 12.8%

Thinking outside of the box and proposing original ideas 12.7%
Divergent thinking by generating many new ideas 12.6%
Running market tests and learning from them 14.9%

SPRINT EXECUTION
Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 14.7%
Iteratively defining the problem to deeply understand the faced challenge and identify new solutions 12.4%
Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources in order to properly engage all stakeholders 23.9%
Sensing emerging cultural trends 10.5%

Thinking outside of the box and proposing original ideas 13.9%
• Gathering and clustering insights about users/clients generate new solutions

• Sensing emerging cultural trends • Transforming ideas into tangible and working prototypes
10 DESIGN THINKING • Iteratively defining and redefining the problem to deeply • Running market tests and learning from them
understand the faced challenge and identify new solutions • Identifying appropriate customer segments and business
CAPAB ILITIE S • Divergent thinking by generating many new ideas models
• Thinking outside the box and proposing original ideas • Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources
• Clustering and selecting different ideas in order to in order to properly engage all stakeholders
Figure 02.12 Capabilities in Design Thinking projects [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
• “Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources in order to proper-

ly engage all stakeholders” (23.9%);
• “Gathering and clustering insights about users/clients” (10.9%);
• “Sensing emerging cultural trends” (10.5%).
The most important attitude in developing Creative Confidence projects is “Ask-
ing questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the
reasoning” (27.2%).
Finally, in the case of Innovation of Meaning projects, the top three capabilities
positively influencing project success are partially in line with the Creative Prob-
lem Solving approach:
• “Sensing emerging cultural trends» (17.0%);
• “Thinking outside the box and proposing original ideas” (13.9%);
• “Divergent thinking by generating many new ideas” (12.2%).
The attitude with the greatest impact on the success of Innovation of Meaning
projects is “Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply under-
stand the addressed challenge” (24.0%).
T O P AT T I T U D E
Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images 24.7%
SPRINT EXECUTION Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end
24.7%
projects [Sample = 63] of the process
C R E AT I V E C O N F I D E N C E Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in

27.2%
projects [Sample = 72] the reasoning
I N N O VA T I O N O F M E A N I N G Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply understand the

24%
projects [Sample = 59] addressed challenge
• Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to es and images

deeply understand the addressed challenge • Looking at problems from the standpoint of other
5 DESIGN THINKING
• Accepting to work on solutions that are not com- people (typically the end user)
AT T I T U D E S pletely defined up to the end of the process • Asking questions and providing effective feedback in
• Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketch- order to dig deeper in the reasoning
Figure 02.13 Attitudes in Design Thinking projects [Sample = 291]

SPRINT EXECUTION
% Revenues in Europe: 32.6% Significant increase 2017-2018 according to 8.9% of respondents
TOP GOAL IN
C R E A T I V E P R O B L E M S O LV I N G Designing new user experiences 5.9
projects
T O P C A PA B I L I T Y I N
C R E A T I V E P R O B L E M S O LV I N G Gathering and clustering insights about users/clients 12.8%
projects
T O P AT T I T U D E I N
C R E A T I V E P R O B L E M S O LV I N G Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images 24.7%
projects
SPRINT EXECUTION
TOP GOAL IN
SPRINT EXECUTION Designing new user experiences 5.8
projects
SPRINT EXECUTION Running market tests and learning from them 14.9%
projects
T O P AT T I T U D E I N Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end
SPRINT EXECUTION 24.7%
projects of the process
TOP GOAL IN
C R E AT I V E C O N F I D E N C E Fostering new values, attitudes, behaviors 5.9
projects
T O P C A PA B I L I T Y I N Mobilizing human, cultural and technological resources in order to properly

C R E AT I V E C O N F I D E N C E 23.9%
projects engage all stakeholders
T O P AT T I T U D E I N Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in

C R E AT I V E C O N F I D E N C E 27.2%
projects the reasoning
TOP GOAL IN
I N N O VA T I O N O F M E A N I N G Identifying and formulating a new vision 6.2
projects
I N N O VA T I O N O F M E A N I N G Sensing emerging cultural trends 17.0%
projects
T O P AT T I T U D E I N Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply understand the

I N N O VA T I O N O F M E A N I N G 24.0%
projects addressed challenge
Figure 02.14 Main figures related to the 4 kinds of Design Thinking [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 2 . 3 Organizing Design Thinking
As briefly introduced at the beginning of the present Chapter and described

in-depth in Chapter 5, the analyzed consulting organizations show significant
variety in terms of size, annual revenues, and organizational structure. The focus
on the unit (e.g., business unit, service line, department) specialized in consult-
ing projects based on Design Thinking also highlights interesting nuances along
the same dimensions.
The data on the 291 consulting projects are interesting in this respect. On aver-
age, they lasted 7.8 months and involved 20.2 team members, 5.8 belonging
to consulting organizations and 14.4 belonging to clients. The industries where
clients operate that are most represented in the sample are Finance and In-
surance (16.2%), Healthcare (12.4%), Public Administration (7.2%). Focusing on
the function leading the consulting project based on Design Thinking from the
client side, the sample highlights three main functions: Business Development
(16.5%), Board (14.1%) and Marketing (13.4%). Marketing (60.8%) is also the
function more frequently involved in the team of consulting projects based on
Design Thinking, Operations (57.7%) and Information Technology (56.7%) show
slightly lower percentages (see Figure 02.15). Figure 02.16 identifies the main
differences across the four countries: Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom.
To properly explain the variety of the dimensions previously described, the
section is organized in four different subsections according to the approaches
introduced in Chapter 1: Creative Problem Solving, Sprint Execution, Creative
Confidence, and Innovation of Meaning.
Figure 02.15 Leading and Participating client functions in consulting projects based on Design Thinking [Sample = 291]

ORGANIZING DESIGN THINKING TEAMS
AVERAGE PROJECT DURATION AVERAGE TEAM SIZE
7.8 months 20.2 people

(CONSULTING ORGANIZATION: 5.8 CLIENT: 14.4)
Business Development 16.5%

Leading Client Function Board 14.1%
Marketing 13.4%
Marketing 60.8%
Participating Client Function Operations 57.7%
Information Technology 56.7%
Figure 02.16 Organizing Design Thinking Teams across Europe [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
Organizing Creative Problem Solving Teams
The consulting projects based on Creative Problem Solving are slightly longer
in duration than the others (7.9 months), but smaller in terms of team size (17.6)
with 6.5 members from the consulting organization and 11.1 from the client.
Focusing on the function leading the consulting project based on Creative Prob-
lem Solving from the client side, the sample highlights three main functions:
Board (23.7%), Marketing (13.2%), and Business Development (11.8%). Marketing
(64.5%) is the function most frequently involved in the team of consulting proj-
ects based on Creative Problem Solving; Board (61.8%) and Information Tech-
nology (47.4%) show slightly lower percentages (see Figure 02.17).
Figure 02.17 Leading and Participating client functions in consulting projects based on Creative Problem Solving [Sample = 291]

Organizing Sprint Execution Teams
The consulting projects based on Sprint Execution are shorter in duration than
the others (6.6 months), and quite aligned in terms of team size (21.2), with 6.0
members from the consulting organization and 15.2 from the client.
Focusing on the function leading the consulting projects based on Sprint Exe-
cution from the client side, the sample highlights three main functions: Human
Resources (16.7%), Information Technology (15.3%), and Business Develop-
ment (11.1%). Operations (71.4%) is the function most frequently involved in the
team of consulting projects based on Sprint Execution; Information Technolo-
gy (65.1%), and Marketing (58.7%) show slightly lower percentages (see Figure
02.18).
Figure 02.18 Leading and Participating client functions in consulting projects based on Sprint Execution [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
Organizing Creative Confidence Teams
The consulting projects based on Creative Confidence are slightly shorter in du-
ration than the others (7.5 months), but larger in terms of team size (23.9), with
5.3 members from the consulting organization and 18.6 from the client.
Focusing on the function leading the consulting project based on Creative Con-
fidence from the client side, the sample highlights three main functions: Busi-
ness Development (47.6%), Marketing (14.3%), and Information Technology
(9.5%). Operations (18.1%) is the function most frequently involved in the team
of the consulting projects based on Creative Confidence; in reality, these kinds
of projects are characterized by the significant involvement of different func-
tions (see Figure 02.19).
Figure 02.19 Leading and Participating client functions in consulting projects based on Creative Confidence [Sample = 291]

Organizing Innovation of Meaning Teams
The consulting projects based on Innovation of Meaning are longer in duration

than the others (8.8 months), but smaller in terms of team size (18.2), with 5.5
members from the consulting organization and 12.7 from the client.
Focusing on the function leading the consulting projects based on Innovation
of Meaning from the client side, the sample highlights three main functions:
Business Development (25.4%), Marketing (22%), and Research and Develop-
ment (16.9%). Marketing (72.9%) is the function most frequently involved in the
team of the consulting projects based on Innovation of Meaning; Business De-
velopment (67.8%) and Board (61%) show slightly lower percentages (see Figure
02.20).
Figure 02.20 Leading and Participating client functions in consulting projects based on Creative Innovation of Meaning [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 2 . 4 Applying Design Thinking Practices
The analysis of the Design Thinking practices adopted by consulting organiza-

tions is organized in three main clusters:
• 25 practices associated with the Phases of the Design Thinking process:
Understanding, Reframing, Conceiving, Prototyping, and Testing;
• 23 practices associated with the Capabilities characterizing the Design
Thinking paradigm: Imagination, Creativity, Recombination, Business Mod-
elling, and Engagement;
• 22 practices associated with the Attitudes characterizing the Design Think-
ing paradigm: Holistic Thinking, Embracing Ambiguity, Visualization, Em-
pathy, and Criticism.
To properly analyze the three clusters of practices, the section is organized in
three subsections.
Practices and Phases of the Design Thinking process
The analysis of the 25 practices associated with the phases of the Design Think-
ing process show the following as the three most adopted (see Figure 02.21):
• “Thinking about the problem from multiple perspectives” (6.0), part of the
Reframing phase;
• “Interviewing users about their needs” (5.9), part of the Understanding
phase;
• “Involving team members with different expertise in idea generation ses-
sions” (5.9), part of the Conceiving phase.
The three practices least adopted by consulting organizations in the develop-
ment of Design Thinking projects are:
• “Using 3D printing and other prototyping technologies” (2.7), part of the
Prototyping phase;
• “Avoiding experimenting with solutions that are not “tried and true” (3.2),
part of the Prototyping phase;
• “Frequently creating and releasing mock-ups and “beta versions” of the
solution to real users” (4.5), part of the Prototyping phase.
Aggregating the 25 practices in the five Phases previously introduced enables
identifying different levels of adoption of Design Thinking practices along the
process (see Figure 02.20):
• Understanding: 5.5
• Reframing: 5.6
• Conceiving: 5.3
• Prototyping: 4.2
• Testing: 5.4
Also interesting to note is that the adoption of the practices changes according
to the kind of Design Thinking adopted in the consulting project.

Figure 02.21 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking activities [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
In the consulting projects based on Creative Problem Solving, the three practic-
es most adopted are “Thinking about the problem from multiple perspectives”
(6.1), “Interviewing users about their needs” (6.0), “Identifying hidden, unex-
pressed user needs” (6.0). In the consulting projects based on Sprint Execution,
the three practices most adopted are “Interviewing users about their needs”
(5.7), “Involving team members with different expertise in idea generation ses-
sions” (5.7), “Identifying hidden, unexpressed user needs” (5.6). In the consult-
ing projects based on Creative Confidence, the three practices most adopted
are “Involving team members with different expertise in idea generation ses-
sions” (6.2), “Interviewing users about their needs” (6.1), “Thinking about the
problem from multiple perspectives” (6.0). In the consulting projects based on
Innovation of Meaning, the three practices most adopted are “Thinking about
the problem from multiple perspectives” (6.1), “Defining the problem more
broadly” (5.8), “Involving team members with different expertise in idea gener-
ation sessions” (5.8) (see Figure 02.23).
Aggregating the practices along the five phases of the Design Thinking process
shows that the practices that are part of the Understanding phase are most
adopted in Creative Problem Solving (5.7) and Creative Confidence (5.6) proj-
ects. Design thinking practices that support the Reframing phase are extensive-
ly adopted in different categories of consultant projects: only Sprint Execution
projects are characterized by a lower adoption of these practices (5.4). The
Conceiving practices are particularly adopted in different categories of con-
sulting projects. The Design Thinking practices that are part of the Prototyping
phase are significantly diffused in Creative Problem Solving (4.4) and Sprint Ex-
ecution (4.4) projects. Finally, the Testing practices appear particularly relevant
in the Creative Problem Solving (5.5) projects (see Figure 02.22).
Figure 02.22 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking phases across different approaches [Sample = 291]

Figure 02.23 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking activities across different approaches [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
Practices and Capabilities of the Design Thinking paradigm
The analysis of the 23 practices associated with the Capabilities characterizing

the Design Thinking paradigm shows that the three most adopted are the fol-
lowing (see Figure 02.24):
• “Getting stakeholders committed to the project vision and plan” (5.8),
part of the Engagement capability;
• “Thinking in a divergent way” (5.7), part of the Creativity capability;
• “Developing a new value proposition for users” (5.7), part of the Business
Modelling capability.
• “Selecting the best ideas based on intuition” (3.9), part of the Recombina-
tion capability;
• “Designing a new value chain from suppliers to end-users” (4.1), part of the
Business Modelling capability;
• “Developing future scenarios for society“ (4.1), part of the Imagination ca-
pability.
Aggregating the 23 practices in the five Capabilities previously introduced en-
ables identifying the different level of adoption of Design Thinking practices
(see Figure 02.24):
• Imagination: 4.3
• Creativity: 5.3
• Recombination: 4.8
• Business Modelling: 4.8
• Engagement: 5.4
Also interesting to note is that the adoption of practices changes according to
the kind of Design Thinking adopted in the consulting project.

Figure 02.24 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking capabilities [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
In the consulting projects based on Creative Problem Solving, the three prac-
tices most adopted are “Getting stakeholders committed to the project vision
and plan” (5.8), “Combining different ideas to develop an integrative solution”
(5.8), “Developing a new value proposition for users” (5.7). In the consulting
projects based on Sprint Execution, the three practices most adopted are “Get-
ting stakeholders committed to the project vision and plan” (5.8), “Asking
questions that prompt colleagues to think outside the box” (5.3), “Championing
the solution to stakeholders” (5.3). In the consulting projects based on Creative
Confidence, the three practices most adopted are “Thinking in a divergent way”
(5.9), “Asking questions that prompt colleagues to think outside the box” (5.8),
“Developing a new value proposition for users” (5.6). In the consulting projects
based on Innovation of Meaning, the three practices most adopted are “Devel-
oping a new value proposition for users” (6.3), “Thinking in a divergent way”
(6.0), “Getting stakeholders committed to the project vision and plan” (5.8) (see
Figure 02.26).
Aggregating the practices along the five Design Thinking capabilities enables
showing that the practices that are part of the Imagination capability are most
adopted in Innovation of Meaning (4.7) and Creative Problem Solving (4.4)
projects. Design thinking practices associated with the Creativity capability are
extensively adopted in different categories of consultant projects, especially in
those based on Innovation of Meaning (5.6) and Creative Confidence (5.4). The
Recombination practices are particularly adopted in consulting projects based
on Creative Problem Solving (5.1). The Design Thinking practices associated
with the Business Modelling capability are significantly diffused in Innovation
of Meaning (5.3) and Creative Problem Solving (4.9) projects. Finally, the En-
gagement practices appear particularly relevant in all categories of consulting
projects (see Figure 02.25).
Figure 02.25 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking capabilities across different approaches [Sample = 291]

LIMITED EXTENSIVE
ADOPTION ADOPTION
Identifying hidden, unexpressed user needs

5.7
Addressing new, unmet user needs

5.3
Directly observing what happens in real use environments

5.2
Interviewing users about their needs

5.9
Being responsive and adaptive to customer requests

5.3
Spending time trying to understand the deep nature of the problem

5.6
Thinking about the problem from multiple perspectives

6.0
Deconstructing the problem into smaller parts

5.5
Defining the problem more broadly

5.5
Repeatedly asking questions to understand the essence of the problem

5.6
Generating a significant number of alternative ideas

before selecting the optimal one
5.3
Looking for connections with solutions used in seemingly diverse areas

5.0
Involving users in idea generation sessions

5.0
Involving team members with different expertise in idea generation sessions

5.9
Consulting a wide variety of information from multiple domains

5.3
Trying out early, rough versions of the solution to see what happens
5.0
Concretely representing solution ideas through prototypes

5.4
Frequently creating and releasing mock-ups

and "beta versions" of the solution to real users
4.5
Avoiding experimenting with solutions that are not "tried and true"
3.2
Using 3D printing and other prototyping technologies

2.7
Running tests with real users to collect information

about the quality of the solution ideas
5.2
Using input from other professionals to refine the initial solution ideas
5.3
Looking for feedback from stakeholders as early as possible

5.8
Revising a solution every time new feedback is collected

5.0
Looking for feedback from peers and users on ideas

as early as possible, even if the ideas are very rough
5.4
Creative Problem Solving Sprint Execution Creative Confidence Innovation of Meaning Total
Figure 02.26 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking capabilities across different approaches [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
Practices and Attitudes of the Design Thinking paradigm
The analysis of the 22 practices associated with the Attitudes characterizing

the Design Thinking paradigm show that the three most adopted are the fol-
lowing (see Figure 02.27):
• “Communicating information in a visual manner” (6.1), part of the Visual-
izing attitude;
• “Putting ourselves in the shoes of the users” (6.1), part of the Empathy at-
titude;
• “Sketching ideas in a visual form, even if incomplete” (5.8), part of the Vi-
sualizing attitude.
• “Sticking to the original plan, independently of changes in contextual con-
ditions” (2.9), part of the Embracing Ambiguity attitude;
• “Postponing the moment when the team commits to and freezes the solu-
tion as late as possible” (4.2), part of the Embracing Ambiguity attitude;
• “Mapping the information collected in flowchart diagrams“ (4.6), part of the
Visualizing attitude.
Aggregating the 22 practices in the five Attitudes previously introduced enables
identifying the different level of adoption of Design Thinking practices (see Fig-
ure 02.27):
• Holistic Thinking: 5.4
• Embracing Ambiguity: 4.5
• Visualization: 5.4
• Empathy: 5.8
• Criticism: 5.4
Also interesting to note is that the adoption of practices changes according to
the kind of Design Thinking adopted in the consulting project.

Figure 02.27 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking attitudes [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
In the consulting projects based on Creative Problem Solving, the three prac-
tices most adopted are “Communicating information in a visual manner” (6.1),
“Putting ourselves in the shoes of the users” (6.0), “Listening to the needs of all
stakeholders” (6.0). In the consulting projects based on Sprint Execution, the
three practices most adopted are “Putting ourselves in the shoes of the users”
(6.1), “Communicating information in a visual manner” (6.0), “Sketching ideas
in a visual form, even if incomplete” (5.7). In the consulting projects based on
Creative Confidence, the three practices most adopted are “Communicating in-
formation in a visual manner” (6.2), “Putting ourselves in the shoes of the users”
(6.1), “Sketching ideas in a visual form, even if incomplete” (6.0). In the consult-
ing projects based on Innovation of Meaning, the three practices most adopted
are “Communicating information in a visual manner” (6.1), “Putting ourselves in
the shoes of the users” (6.1), “Discussing project challenges with stakeholders”
(5.8) (see Figure 02.29).
Aggregating the practices along the five Design Thinking attitudes enables
showing that the practices that are part of the Holistic Thinking attitude are
largely adopted in all categories of projects. Design thinking practices associat-
ed with the Embracing Ambiguity attitude are extensively adopted especially in
Creative Confidence (4.6) and Creative Problem Solving (4.6) projects. Similar-
ly, Visualization practices are particularly adopted in consulting projects based
on Creative Confidence (5.6) and Creative Problem Solving (5.5) projects. The
Design Thinking practices associated with the Empathy attitude are significantly
diffused in different categories of consulting projects. Finally, Criticism practic-
es appear particularly relevant in Creative Confidence (5.7) and Creative Prob-
lem Solving (5.5) projects (see Figure 02.28).
Figure 02.28 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking attitudes across different approaches [Sample = 291]

Figure 02.29 Adoption of practices associated with the Design Thinking attitudes across different approaches [Sample = 291]
02 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 2 . 5 Generating Value through Design Thinking
As briefly introduced at the beginning of this Chapter and described in-depth

in Chapter 5, the value generated through Design Thinking projects has been
modeled along two main dimensions: (i) Value for the consulting organization,
captured through 8 items, and (ii) Value for the client, captured through 8 items.
According to the data collected, the three dimensions of the value for the Con-
sulting Organizations with the best scores are (see Figure 02.30):
• Expectations (5.9), where the investigated item is “The project has satisfied
the expectations of the consulting organization”;
• Business Impact (5.8), where the investigated item is “In terms of business
impact for the consulting organization, the project has been a success”;
• Engagement (5.6), where the investigated item is “The project has engaged
the colleagues to the point they would suggest the adoption of Design
Thinking in other consulting projects”.
Segmenting the 291 consulting projects according to the adopted approach en-
ables identifying the following particularities:
• Consulting projects based on Creative Problem Solving show higher scores
in terms of Benefits vs Costs (5.7, “From the perspective of the consult-
ing company, the benefits of the project have outweighed the cost”), and
Learning (5.6, “The project has significantly increased knowledge and con-
fidence with Design Thinking in the consulting organization”);
• The Sprint Execution approach shows positive effects in terms of Expec-
tations (6.0, “The project has satisfied the expectations of the consulting
organization”);
• Creative Confidence projects show higher scores in terms of Business Per-
formance (5.0, “The project has seriously improved the overall business
performance of the consulting organization”);
• Finally, Innovation of Meaning outperforms in terms of Brand Positioning
(5.5, “The project has significantly improved the brand positioning of the
consulting organization”), Expectations (6.1, “The project has satisfied the
Figure 02.30 Value for Consulting Organizations [Sample = 291]

expectations of the consulting organization”), and Learning (5.5, “The proj-
ect has significantly increased the knowledge and the confidence with De-
sign Thinking in the consulting organization”).
According to the data collected, the three dimensions of the value for clients
with the best scores are (see Figure 02.31):
• Expectations (6.0), where the investigated item is “The project has satisfied
the expectations of the client”;
• Benefits vs Costs (5.7), where the investigated item is “From the perspec-
tive of the client, the benefits of the project have outweighed the cost”;
• Business Impact (5.7), where the investigated item is “In terms of business
impact for the client, the project has been a success”.
Segmenting the 291 consulting projects according to the adopted approach en-
ables identify the following particularities:
• Consulting projects based on Creative Problem Solving show higher scores
in terms of Business Performance (5.1, “The project has seriously improved
the overall business performance of the client”);
• Consulting projects based on Sprint Execution show higher scores in terms
of Business Impact (5.7, “In terms of business impact for your client, the
project was a success”)
• The Creative Confidence approach outperforms in terms of Benefits vs
Costs (5.8, “From the perspective of the client, the benefits of the project
have outweighed the cost”), Engagement (5.7, “The project has engaged
the employees of the client to the point they would suggest the adoption
of Design Thinking in other projects”), and Culture (5.5, “The project has
significantly changed the innovation culture of the client”);
• Finally, the Innovation of Meaning approach shows positive effects on Busi-
ness Impact (5.8, “In terms of business impact for your client, the project
has been a success”), Brand Positioning (5.4, “The project has significantly
improved the brand positioning of the client”), Expectations (5.9, “From
the perspective of the client, the benefits of the project have outweighed
the cost”), and Culture (5.5, “The project has significantly changed the in-
novation culture of the client”).
Figure 02.31 Value for Clients [Sample = 291]
03 R E S E A R C H R E S U LT S
Applications of Design Thinking

developed by Innovators
Stefano Magistretti
Senior Research Team
Claudio Dell’Era
Research Director
Applications of Design Thinking

developed by Innovators
Stefano Magistretti and Claudio Dell’Era
Chapter 5 on the Research Methodology provides more information on the

structure of the investigation adopted to map the applications of Design Think-
ing developed by Innovators. In particular, this research line benefits from col-
laborations with the Observatories’ network collecting data on so-called inno-
vators and their Design Thinking experience.
More specifically, the empirical results reported in this 3rd chapter rely on 282
responses collected in the last quarter of 2018. In particular, the responses de-
rive from 215 different companies operating in various industries in the Italian
market. The particularity of the investigation here reported is that we asked the
key informants about their experience with Design Thinking, and depending on
their responses, redirected them to two slightly different surveys that allowed
us to cluster them into Adopters and Wannabes. The former have more than 1
year’s experience in adopting Design Thinking, while the latter have less than 1
year’s experience. As Figure 03.1 shows, the number of Adopters is 156, while
that of Wannabes is 126. This is quite interesting, as it shows that 56% of the
sample are experienced adopters and therefore that the application of Design
Thinking in Italy is vast, albeit not universal. On average, the Adopters have 3.4
years’ experience in adopting Design Thinking, while Wannabes have 0.53. Fur-
thermore, the average number of employees is equal to 654.49 in Adopters and
510.63 in Wannabes, reflecting the different revenues obtained in 2018 that, on
average, were 546.29 million € for the former and 441.75 million € for the latter.
ADOPTERS [156]
AVERAGE N° OF EMPLOYEES: 654.49
AVERAGE REVENUES: 546.29 Million €
AVERAGE EXPERIENCE IN DESIGN THINKING: 3.42 Years
WANNABES [126]
AVERAGE N° OF EMPLOYEES: 510.63
AVERAGE REVENUES: 441.75 Million €
Figure 03.1 Sample size and main differences between Adopters and Wannabes

The research line «Applications of Design Thinking developed by Innovators»
focuses on the previously reported distinction between Adopters and Wan-
nabes. In particular, this distinction is used to focus attention on the different
industries and different roles that already adopt or are willing to adopt Design
Thinking soon.
Similarly to personal experience, the presence of Designers in the company is
in line with whether the firm adopts Design Thinking or not. Thus, Adopters on
average have 9.04 designers, while non-adopters have only 3.42 designers.
A particularly interesting aspect is that Adopters can generate higher revenues

and have a larger number of employees compared to Wannabes, but when con-
sidering the investments in Innovation, the spread is significantly higher. Adopt-
ers invest on average 1847.72 million € in Innovation and 480 million € in De-
sign Thinking, while Wannabes just 739.84 million €. This means that Adopters
invest 149% more in Innovation.
Figure 03.2 reports other interesting elements regarding Adopters and Wan-
nabes, such as the size of firms in the two samples. In particular, the left side
shows the Adopters, indicating that large companies comprise 60% of this sam-
ple, and hence the majority. On the contrary, the right side shows that among
the sample of Wannabes, 56% are in SMEs. Another interesting difference in
the two samples is that Adopters in small companies equal 9% while Wannabes
19%, implying that small companies are more willing to adopt this approach than
other types of SMEs were the percentage of Adopters and Wannabes is more
balanced.
ADOPTERS [156] WANNABES [126]
17% 9% 21% 19%

MICRO SMALL MICRO SMALL
MEDIUM
14% LARGE
60% MEDIUM
16% LARGE
44%
Figure 03.2 Size of companies [Adopters sample 156; Wannabes sample 126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
The structure of the questionnaire differs slightly depending on whether the

respondent is an Adopter or Wannabe: 5 sections for the former, 4 for the latter,
the difference being the Project section:
• The Profile section aims to understand the Design Thinking experience

of respondents, the company’s maturity in the adoption of the method-
ology, and general information on size, revenues, industries addressed,
role covered;
• The Project section aims to collect information on the length of the project,
the functions involved, the team compositions (for Adopters only);
• The Goals section aims to identify the primary objectives addressed by the
selected innovators’ projects or those expected in the case of Wannabes;
• The Value section aims to capture the value generated by the project or the
adoption of Design Thinking in both the company and client perspective;
• The Brief section aims to gather respondents’ insights on the capabilities
and attitudes in the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking.
Figure 03.3 reports in detail the list of Innovator companies that supported the
research, providing us the opportunity to analyze the Italian market. The first sec-
tion compares the Design Thinking market in terms of Adopters and Wannabes.
In the remainder of this chapter, we divide the analysis into Adopters and Wan-
nabes. Moreover, for each, we report the results by industry and role. In par-
ticular, we consider only the most significant industries in our sample and the
most common roles. In more detail, the industries analyzed are Finance and
Insurance, Energy, Information and Communication, Retail, and Public Admin-
istration. In terms of roles, we considered the most relevant according to the
area of competence: Design, Information Technology, Innovation, and Market-
ing & Sales. In addition, we consider CxOs, in other words, the Chief Officers that
responded to our survey, clustering them by specialization (e.g., CHRO, COO,
CEO, CIO, CTO).

1° I.C. Nocera Inferiore (SA) Enel Spa Parmalat spa
A2A Energia SpA Engie Italia PayDo Srl
ABB SpA Engineering Pelliconi
Aboca Spa Eni (8) Personalive
Accademia di Belle Arti di Frosinone Eni Gas e Luce (2) Phoenix QC SA
Accenture Eni SpA Pirelli Tyre Spa
AdB Spa Aeroporto Guglielmo Marconi Epoca srl PMProgetti srl
Bologna E-Viewing Engineering Poste Italiane (5)
Agenzia per il trasporto pubblico locale Evway Primark Italy
del bacino di Cremona e Mantova Excelpay Proges scarl (ONLUS)
Agenzia strategica per lo sviluppo Exprivia S.p.A. Progetti e Soluzioni spa
ecosostenibile del territorio – Regione FALPI srl Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano
Puglia Fastweb Provincia Autonoma di Trento
Agos Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane (2) PwC (2)
AKQA Fideuram Intesa Sanpaolo Private Quantcast
Alessandro Gianni Banking QUIXA
ALIDAYS Fiorentino Management Consultants RadioMilanoInternational
Alitalia Loyalty Firstech Innovation Srl Randstad
Alpenite Futuro & Impresa srl RCS Mediagroup
Alpitour spa Generali Italia Reale Group
Amministrazione Provinciale Gi Group Spa REAL-TIME S.R.L.
Ansaldo Energia S.p.A. Giemme Stile spa Robert Bosch S.p.A.
Aptar Inc Giorgio Armani (3) Roche SpA
Argotractors Giovanardi Pototschnig & Associati Rolls-Royce Bergen Engines Srl
ARTEA Global & Local, Srl S4win
Artsana (4) Gruppo Sella spa SAEP ICT Engineering s.r.l.
ASL RIETI GSK Consumer Healthcare (2) Saes Getters
Assiom HAVI Logistics Same Deutz-Fahr Italia Spa
AUTOMOBILE CLUB ITALIA HDI Holding Dolciaria Italiana Spa SEW-EURODRIVE
AXA Helvetia Shardana Tours
Azienda USL di Bologna Humanitas spa SIA
Bamakò IBM Siemens Spa
Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena IBM Italia Silvano Chiapparoli Logistica S.p.A.
Banca Popolare di Sondrio (2) IKEA SIMONELLI GROUP SPA
Barilla Illycaffè (2) SI-PMA
Basis Engineering Inail Siram by Veolia
BCON ING Bank Sisal Entertainment S.p.A
BearingPoint Innext Sisal Group SpA
BNL Innose Conseil SISAL SPA
Boehringer Ingelheim Integer Skillfor
Bottega Veneta International Paper Italia Sky Italia
Bottega Verde S.r.l. Intesa Sanpaolo (10) Società Unipersonale Donatella Bollani
Bper banca IREN SOGEGROSS Spa
Business processing engineering ISMB Sorgenia (2)
Camera di Commercio di Vibo Valentia Istituto Italiano Desing Sostanza SRL
Candy Hoover Group Italgas S.p.A. Spark Reply
Casinò di Venezia Gioco Spa IURI RIVA STEF Italia spa
Chiara2rent IVAR SPA Studio Campanile & Ceschi
Cigierre spa Jinglebell Communication Studio di Comunicazione Gardella
CINECA Jointly - Il welfare condiviso Srl Tailoradio Srl
Co.M.Media srl Keter Talent Garden S.p.A.
COCA-COLA ITALIA Keter Italia SPA Tea Spa
Collegio interprovinciale Agrotecnici La Consolazione ETAB Teamsystem
Agrotecnici laureati AL BI VC Lazio Innova Spa Tech Life
Comune di Borgia Leroy Merlin TECRES S.p.A
Comune di Fanna Levitas Spa TFB srl
Comune di Milano Libero professionista TheDigitalBox
Comune di Origgio Ligatus Thegira
Comune di Sappada Lindbergh srl TicketOne S.p.A.
Comune di Terre del Reno LinearAssicurazioni TIM (3)
Comune di Palermo M&M forgings s.r.l. Trentino Digitale (2)
Comunità Montana Valtellina di Mor- Mail Boxes etc Unicoop Firenze (2)
begno Mediobanca Unipolsai
Confindustria Vicenza Med-use Uqido
Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro MENNEKES USR LAZIO MIUR
Consorzio Dras Metarete Srl Valsoia spa
Creacasa srl (3) Midori Verti Assicurazioni
Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche SPA Moncler (3) VIMAR SPA
Danieli NeurOne Vodafone (2)
Desivero.com Neodata Group Vodafone Italia spa
DigitalGO (2) Neosperience Webads
Domec S.p.A. Nexive Webraanking
Dompé farmaceutici S.p.a NTT DATA Whirlpool (2)
Edenred NTT DATA Italia XeniaLab International
Edison OMG Zambon (2)
Edita Sidera OMRON ELECTRONICS SPA ZeraTech s.r.l.
Electrolux (2) OTB SpA - holding di OTB group Zucchetti spa
Enel (8) PACO Design Collaborative
Enel Italia s.r.l.(2) Pagani Pens SA
Figure 03.3 Companies and Organizations partaking in the research [Sample = 215]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 3 . 1 Market of Design Thinking
The data that the 282 innovators provided on their Design Thinking applications
allowed us to understand the market addressed along several dimensions, the
two most important being industry and role. Industry relates to where the inno-
vators operate, and hence whether a particular sector is more advanced in the
adoption of design thinking. Role instead shows the segmentation of respon-
dents according to the roles covered.
Starting from industry, the data show that Design Thinking is applied in several
different sectors. The adoption ranges from Finance and Insurance to Transpor-
tation and Logistics, Public Administration, and Retail. Extremely interesting is
the comparison between Adopters and Wannabes: with a total 15% of the overall
sample, the Finance and Insurance industry is first. Figure 03.4 reports the in-
dustries representing at least 5% of the overall sample of responses. Interesting
to note are the instances were Wannabes are higher than Adopters, signalling
industries were in the near future greater adoption of Design Thinking is likely
to occur. The data show that in the Finance industry, the number of Adopters
(average 21%) is more than double that of Wannabes (average 9%), and consid-
ering that this is first industry, they are probably the most advanced adopters of
Design Thinking. The second industry is Energy with a more even distribution:
15% Adopters and 13% Wannabes. Finally, Information and Communication, and
Public Administration show a higher presence of Wannabes (respectively 16%
and 14%) compared to Adopters (12% in Information and Communication, and
8% in Public Administration).
Figure 03.4 Adoption of Design Thinking by industry [Sample 282]

Turning to Role, the data gathered show that the most represented job titles in
our samples are CxOs and Information Technology experts. Figure 03.5 reports
the distribution of the different roles in the samples. Interesting insights deriving
from the data are that CxOs are equally present in both Adopters and Wannabes
with an average 16% in the samples. On the other hand, Information Technolo-
gy experts are the second most represented with 25%, but are more frequent
in Adopters (18%) than Wannabes (13%). An aspect the survey corroborated
but already foreseen by the research team is that this role is largely present in
Adopters, although some are non-adopters of Design Thinking, 4% of the over-
all sample. Finally, interesting to note is that both Innovation and Marketing &
Sales show a higher presence of Wannabes than Adopters.
If we compare these data with the evidence regarding Adopters in terms of years
of experience with Design Thinking, an even more interesting factor emerges.
Indeed, the most experienced role in the adoption of such methodology is De-
sign, with an average 4.7 years of adoption. The second most experienced role
in the firms is Marketing, with 4.12 years, despite that the number of Adopters is
smaller than Wannabes, a proxy of the immaturity of the role. Although Informa-
tion Technology shows a high adoption of Design Thinking, the average expe-
rience of managers is among the lowest with 2.9 years. This is even lower than
the average of total Adopters, which is around 3.4 years. This evidence can be
considered a proxy of the fact that in Information Technology, Design Thinking
was adopted later, but the speed of adoption is higher given that the number of
Adopters is greater than Wannabes.
Figure 03.5 Adoption of Design Thinking by role [Sample 282]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 3 . 2 Capabilities and Attitudes of the Design Thinking paradigm across Adopters
This section introduces some overarching considerations concerning Design

Thinking Adopters. In particular, it first reports the analysis of the 10 capabilities
associated with the 4 different Kinds of Design Thinking (see Figure 03.6).
In Creative Problem Solving, the two most adopted are:
• Thinking outside the box and proposing original ideas with 72.4%; this is
part of the ideation phase and especially the sphere of creativity;
• Gathering and clustering insights about users/clients with 66.0%; this is
fully in line with the empathy attitude.
In Sprint Execution, the two most adopted are:
• Transforming ideas into tangible and working prototypes with 73.7% is the
predominant capability and is fully in line with the aim of this approach;
• Running market tests and learning from them with 55.8% is the second
most important capability that focuses on execution.
In Creative Confidence, the two most adopted are:
• Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly en-
gage all stakeholders with 75.6% scores highest in this kind of Design Think-
ing; indeed, engaging people is the core of Creative Confidence;
• Identifying appropriate customer segments and business models with just
25.6% is the second capability, and interestingly, scoring considerably less
than the first.
In Innovation of Meaning, the two most adopted are:
• Sensing emerging cultural trends with 48.1% is the first capability in this
kind of Design Thinking. Due to the aim of envisioning new directions, this
capability is crucial;
• Divergent thinking by generating many new ideas with 44.9% is the second
most important capability in Innovation of Meaning.
Figure 03.6 Capabilities of Adopters associated with the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking [Sample 156]

Shifting from capabilities to attitudes enables analyzing and understanding the
state of mind that should be adopted to make Design Thinking more effective. In
particular, the 5 attitudes here investigated are differently adopted by Adopters
across the 4 different Kinds of Design Thinking.
The first, combining a wide variety of perspectives to deeply understand the

addressed challenge is recognized as highly relevant in Creative Problem Solv-
ing with 49.4%, and less relevant in Creative Confidence with 34%.
The second, accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up
to the end of the process is more embraced by Adopters in Creative Problem
Solving with 53.2%, and Sprint Execution with 50%. This is in line with the ten-
sion of these two approaches toward iterative prototyping and testing.
The third, communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images
is essential in Creative Problem Solving with 67.3%, but is less relevant in the
strategic approach, such as Innovation of Meaning, where it only reaches 21.2%.
The fourth, looking at problems from the standpoint of other people (typically
the end user) with 62.8% is the backbone of every Creative Problem Solving
project due to the strong link with the creation of empathy. Surprisingly, in Cre-
ative Confidence, this attitude does not seem to be largely adopted with only
26.3%.
Finally, asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig

deeper in the reasoning with an even distribution between 33% and 40% is the
most balanced attitude over the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking. In other words, this
is essential to leverage developmental criticism every time Design Thinking is
adopted.
Figure 03.7 Attitudes of Adopters associated with the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking [Sample 156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 3 . 3 Capabilities and Attitudes of the Design Thinking paradigm across Wannabes
This section introduces a few overarching considerations concerning Design

Thinking. Wannabes. In particular, it first reports the analysis of the 10 capabili-
ties associated with the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking (see Figure 03.8).
In Creative Problem Solving, the two most adopted are:
• Thinking outside the box and proposing original ideas with 65.1%; this is
part of the ideation phase and especially the sphere of creativity;
• Divergent thinking by generating many new ideas with 57.1% is fully in line
with the empathy attitude.
In Sprint Execution, the two most adopted are:
• Transforming ideas into tangible and working prototypes with 61.1% is the
predominant capability and is fully in line with the aim of this approach;
• Running market tests and learning from them with 52.7% is the second
most important capability that focuses on execution.
In Creative Confidence, the two most adopted are:
• Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly en-
gage all stakeholders with 67.5% is the highest in this kind of Design Think-
ing. Indeed, engaging people is the core of Creative Confidence;
• Identifying appropriate customer segments and business models with just
36.4% is the second capability. Interestingly, scoring less than the first.
In Innovation of Meaning, the two most adopted are:
• Sensing emerging cultural trends with 42.1% is the first capability in this
kind of Design Thinking; due to the aim of envisioning new directions, this
capability is crucial;
• Divergent thinking by generating many new ideas with 42.1% is the second
most important capability in Innovation of Meaning.
Figure 03.8 Capabilities of Wannabes associated with the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking [Sample 126]

Regarding the attitudes, we investigated 5 different constructs. In particular, in this
section, we analyze the attitudes that are deemed relevant for the future adoption
of Design Thinking by innovators that in this report we label as Wannabes.
Starting from the first kind of Design Thinking, Creative Problem Solving, it is
evident that communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and imag-
es is the attitude deemed to have the highest impact by Wannabes in Design
Thinking projects with a score of 58.7%.
Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end
of the process is the attitude that Wannabes consider extremely relevant in
Sprint Execution with a score 49.2%, the highest for this approach.
In Creative Confidence, these attitudes are considered less relevant compared

to the previous two Kinds of Design Thinking, with the highest score not reach-
ing 50%. Indeed, asking questions and providing effective feedback in order
to dig deeper in the reasoning with 40.5% is the most relevant for Wannabes.
Finally, combining a wide variety of perspective in order to deeply understand

the addressed challenge is assumed to be most relevant attitude in Innovation
of Meaning with a score of 41.3%, the highest in this approach. This result is co-
herent with the theory and history of this approach, starting from humans and
especially from trends that reside in the socio-cultural domain.
Figure 03.9 Attitudes of Wannabes associated with the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking [Sample 126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 3 . 4 Current Investments in Design Thinking: an Industry perspective
As introduced in Chapter 1, the research line «Applications of Design Thinking

developed by Innovators» investigates the adoption of this methodology across
the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking: Creative Problem Solving, Sprint Execution, Cre-
ative Confidence, and Innovation of Meaning. In other words, this research line
intends to understand what the most diffused application of Design Thinking is
by investigating among Adopters the number of projects pertaining to each area
and the budget allocated to each kind of Design Thinking.
As Figure 03.10 shows, the Sprint Execution approach is the most adopted
among the Innovators. 29.5% of projects undertaken in 2018 followed this kind
of Design Thinking. However, the other 3 Kinds of Design Thinking also show a
good adoption rate. Indeed, Creative Problem Solving covers 25.6% of projects,
Creative Confidence 23.7%, and Innovation of Meaning 17.9%.
Analyzing the industries, what clearly emerges is that Sprint Execution is widely
adopted by Information and Communication with 42.1%, while in this sector,
very few projects apply the Creative Confidence phases and structure, with just
10.5%. On the contrary, in Public Administration, Creative Confidence is the first
with 33.3%, while Innovation of Meaning is the lowest with just 8.3%. The En-
ergy sector shows the highest number of Innovation of Meaning projects with
26.1%, while Creative Problem Solving is highly present in the Retail industry
with 38.9%.
Figure 03.10 Distribution of the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking by industry [Sample 156]

The analyzed industries also show some particularities in the percentage of bud-
gets allocated to each kind of Design Thinking (see Figure 03.11). Despite that the
most diffused kind of Design Thinking is Sprint Execution, the data highlight that
Creative Problem Solving shows the highest budget. In particular, with 32.2%, this
is the Design Thinking approach with the largest investments. The investments
then follow a decreasing path from this kind of Design Thinking to its new evolu-
tions.
Analyzing the total 156 responses from Adopters, some interesting elements
emerge in relation to budget by industry. For instance, in the Retail industry, the
budget allocated to Sprint Execution is quite relevant with almost 32.8%, despite
that the previous chart shows that Sprint Execution is not the most diffused type
of project in this industry. This could imply that the occurrence of this type of
project is lower as the financial resources needed in this sector are higher. On
the contrary, in the Finance and Insurance sector, the budget allocated to Sprint
Execution is higher, and lower in the others, and this is more in line with the per-
centage of occurrences reported in Figure 03.11. This likely means that there is
a more linear correspondence between the financial resources needed and the
number of projects undertaken in this sector. In terms of the Energy sector, the el-
ement that is very evident is that this sector shows the highest budget in Creative
Problem Solving projects with 32.6% despite that it shows the lowest occurrence
at around 13%. The Information and Communication sector is the most balanced.
Indeed, moving from the first kind of Design Thinking to the other three shows
an average decrease of 6% in each. Concerning the Public Administration sector,
investments in terms of budget allocated in 2018 are concentrated in Creative
Problem Solving for 35.4%, Sprint Execution for 27.1%, and Creative Confidence
for 25.0%, with marginal investments in projects regarding the creation of new
directions with 7.9%.
Figure 03.11 Budget allocation to the different Kinds of Design Thinking in 2018 [Sample 156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
To estimate the growth of the adoption of the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking over
the years, we compared the budget allocated to each in 2017 and in 2018 accord-
ing to the following categorization: Significant decrease, Moderate Decrease,
Stable, Moderate Increase, Significant Increase and, Not Available. As shown in
Figure 03.12, about 25% is stable in the shift from the 2017 to the 2018 Budget.
Extremely interesting in the chart below is that Innovators that adopted Design
Thinking in 2017 did not decrease the budget allocated to Design Thinking in
2018. This is clear by looking at the almost zero difference in both significant and
moderate decreases. Analyzing the data collected in each industry, the following
interesting particularities emerge:
• In the Finance and Insurance industry, despite being the sector with the
highest investments, a significant decrease of around 3% to 5% occurred for
both Sprint Execution and Innovation of Meaning;
• In the Energy industry, the growth is more evident. Indeed, both in Creative
Problem Solving and Sprint Execution, the informants reported an increase
of over 10% from 2017 to 2018;
• In the Information and Communication industry, a significant increase is de-
tected in Innovation of Meaning for 26.3%;
• The Retail industry saw a moderate increase of over 20% in both the Cre-
ative Problem Solving and Creative Confidence approaches;
• In the Public Administration industry, both Creative Problem Solving and
Sprint Execution saw greater stability in growth compared to the Italian
market, respectively 58.1% and 50%.
Figure 03.12 Growth in the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking [Sample 156]

0 3 . 5 Adopting Design Thinking: an Industry perspective
In this section, we report some insights emerging from the data analysis pertain-
ing to the 30 different goals achieved by the 156 Innovators through adopting
Design Thinking in projects in 2018.
Figure 03.13 reports the top 3 goals achieved by Adopters independently of the
industry and the top three goals for each industry.
Considering the overall sample of Adopters, the top three goals are:
• Designing new user experiences 5.7
• Predicting technological trends 5.4
• Developing an innovation platform/ecosystem 5.3
Particularly interesting in Figure 03.14 is the overall perception of Adopters of the

set of 30 goals. For example, it seems that entering new markets and develop-
ing new brands are not goals that Adopters recognized as achievable with Design
Thinking. This is in line with the traditional Creative Problem Solving perspective
that is generally deemed useful only for incremental and not radical innovation.
The figure also reports an overview of the most relevant goals in the different in-
dustries. Despite the dominant recognition of Designing New User Experiences
as the most important (e.g., in Public Administration reaching 6.5), some differ-
ences emerge in the other two top goals.
Starting from the Finance and Insurance industry, boosting business growth is
the third top goal with a score of 5.4 even if not recognized as relevant by other
industries. In the Energy sector, development of a new product or service emerg-
es instead as the platform goal. Concerning the Information and Communication
industry, addressing a specific need is recognized by Adopters as a top goal in
this industry. The Retail sector, differently from the others, is fully aligned in the
entire sample of Adopters. Finally, the Public Administration sector shows that
fostering collaboration among stakeholders as crucial with a score of 6.2.
TOP 3 GOALS BY:

DESIGN THINKING
Predicting technological trends 5.4
A D O P T E R S [Sample = 156]
Developing an innovation platform/ecosystem 5.3

FINANCE AND INSURANCE
[Sample = 32]
Boosting business growth 5.4

ENERGY
[Sample = 23]

I N F O R M AT I O N A N D C O M M U N I C AT I O N
[Sample = 19]
Addressing a specific user needs 5.0

R E TA I L
[Sample = 18]

P U B L I C A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
Fostering collaboration among stakeholders 6.2
[Sample = 12]
Figure 03.13 Top goals in Design Thinking projects by industry [Sample=156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
Figure 03.14 Goals in Design Thinking projects [Sample=156]

When turning attention from Adopters to the industry were Design Thinking is
adopted, some interesting elements emerge.
Starting from the Finance and Insurance industry, the main differences are in Cre-
ative Problem Solving and Innovation of Meaning. Indeed, the Adopters in this in-
dustry perceive divergent thinking by generating many ideas as a more relevant
capability for the former, and identification of appropriate customer segments
and business models for the latter.
In the Energy sector, there is complete alignment between the top capability iden-
tified by expert Adopters in the sector and the overall sample. One interesting
element is that the energy experts see more value in sensing emerging cultural
trends with 60.9% compared to the overall sample.
Moving to the Information and Communication industry, Creative Problem Solv-

ing sees a prevalence of gathering and clustering insights about users/clients
over thinking outside the box. This is likely due to the particularity of the sector in
which customers needs are essential.
Regarding the Retail industry, also in this case, the only difference with the overall
market of Adopters is in the first kind of Design Thinking. As for the Information
and Communication sector, also in this sector, gathering insights is crucial to suc-
ceeding in proposing new solutions to clients.
Finally, in the Public Administration sector, a crucial capability that emerges is

framing and reframing the problem with 83.3% in Creative Problem Solving, and
divergent thinking by generating many new ideas with 66.7%.
T O P C A PA B I L I T Y I N E AC H K I N D O F D E S I G N T H I N K I N G :
Thinking outside the box and proposing original ideas 72.4%

DESIGN THINKING Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 73.7%
A D O P T E R S [Sample = 156] Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakeholders 75.6%
FINANCE AND INSURANCE Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 81.3%
[Sample = 32] Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakeholders 81.3%
Identifying appropriate customer segments and business models 65.6%

ENERGY Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 69.6%
I N F O R M AT I O N A N D C O M M U N I C AT I O N Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 78.9%
R E TA I L Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 66.7%
Iteratively defining and redefining the problem to deeply understand the faced challenge and identify new solutions 83.3%
P U B L I C A D M I N I S T R AT I O N Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 75.0%
Figure 03.15 Capabilities in Design Thinking projects by industry [Sample=156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
Focusing on the attitudes that are relevant in each industry, in the Finance and
Insurance sector, the top attitude for adopters is fully aligned. Indeed, in this
sector, the distribution and identification of key attitudes are overall the same for
all 156 respondents.
Turning to the Energy sector, the only difference in attitudes is ranking looking at
problem from the standpoint of other people as the most important with 69.6%
in the Creative Problem Solving approach. For a sector that has recently been
liberalized, this aspect is crucial to solving user needs.
Regarding the Information and Communication sector, there is complete con-

sistency between the relevant attitudes and those relevant in the overall market.
The only difference is that the percentages of relevance of the four attitudes in
this sector are higher than in the overall market.
Moving to the Retail industry, the differences in attitudes from the overall market
are present in Creative Problem Solving, where the empathy aspect is more im-
portant than communicating ideas, and in Creative Confidence, where the ability
to communicate ideas through sketches is recognized as important to engage
people with the new innovation.
Finally, the Public administration sector shows the relevance of changing the
mindset to create empathy in Creative Problem Solving, while the others show
no differences.
T O P AT T I T U D E I N E A C H K I N D O F D E S I G N T H I N K I N G :

DESIGN THINKING Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 50.0%
A D O P T E R S [Sample = 156] Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 42.3%
Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply understand the challenge 41.7%
FINANCE AND INSURANCE Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 56.3%
[Sample = 32] Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 43.8%
Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply understand the addressed challenge 50.0%
Looking at problems from the standpoint of other people (typically the end user) 69.6%
ENERGY Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 56.5%
I N F O R M AT I O N A N D C O M M U N I C AT I O N Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 63.2%
R E TA I L Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 55.3%
[Sample = 18] Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images 38.9%
P U B L I C A D M I N I S T R AT I O N Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 66.7%
[Sample = 12] Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply understand the addressed challenge 41.7%
Figure 03.16 Attitudes in Design Thinking projects by industry [Sample=156]

In terms of the projects undertaken by Adopters, the following data concern proj-
ect duration, sponsors, and their function in the project.
On average, the duration of the Design Thinking projects undertaken by Adopters

was 7.58 months. In this period of time, around 4 different collogues within the
respondent’s same business unit took part in the project, supported by 9 employ-
ees from different functions, and 4 consultants. Thus, on average, 13 employees
on the innovator’s side were involved in the Design Thinking project.
Figure 03.17 reports Design Thinking demand by sponsor and industry. In the
overall sample, the main sponsor is the Board with 23.7%, while the other relevant
sponsors are Marketing, Information Technology, and Business Development with
respectively 15.4%, 14.1%, and 12.8%.
In terms of the industry, some interesting insights emerge. In the Finance and In-
surance sector, the main sponsor is Marketing with 25%. Differently, in the Energy
sector the main sponsors are two divisions, the Board and Information Technolo-
gy with the same percentage of 17.4%.
Regarding the Information and Communication sector, the main sponsor is Busi-
ness Development with more than 36.8%. This is completely unbalanced with the
overall sample, were this sponsor is at the lowest level of sponsorship.
In the Retail industry, one of the two main sponsors is Marketing that with 27.8%
is at the same level as Business Development.
Finally, in the Public Administration sector, the main sponsors are Marketing and
Information Technology, both with 25%. What is really interesting in this sector is
that Boards marginally cover this role.
Figure 03.17 Design Thinking Sponsors by industry [Sample 156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
The different industries are also characterized by different lengths in Design

Thinking project duration and the involvement of functions in the projects (see
Figure 03.18).
The Finance and Insurance industry shows an average duration of projects of 7.3
months, and the functions involved were principally Information Technology with
75.0% and Business Development with 65.5%.
The Energy industry shows an average duration of projects of 9.3 months, and
the functions involved were principally Marketing and Information Technology
with 56.5%.
The Information and Communication industry shows an average duration of

projects of 8.1 months, and the functions involved were principally Information
Technology with 63.2% and Marketing with 57.9%.
The Retail industry shows an average duration of projects of 5.5 months, and
the functions involved were principally Marketing and Information Technology
with 72.2%.
The Public Administration industry shows an average duration of projects of 6.4

months, and the function involved was primarily Information Technology with
66.7%, with the others significantly less involved to the point that the second, the
Sales function, shows only a 25% occurrence.
Figure 03.18 Functions involved in Design Thinking by industry [Sample 156]

The value generated by Design Thinking has been modeled along two main di-
mensions: (i) value for the company with 10 items; and (ii) value for clients with
5 items. According to the data collected, the three dimensions receiving the best
scores in value for companies (see Figure 03.19) are:
• Function Expectation (5.4)

• Engagement (5.3)
• Company Expectation (5.3)
When turning from the overall sample to the industry, some interesting elements
emerge:
• The Finance and Insurance industry saw the highest score in value for En-
gagement with 5.7;
• The Energy industry shows the highest value in both Function Expectation
and Function Positive Effect with 7.0;
• The Information and Communication industry reports a high value for the
Learning dimension with 5.3;
• The Retail industry highlights high values in both Function Expectation and
Function Positive Effect with 6.0;
• The Public Administration industry shows the highest value in both Function
Expectation and Function Positive Effect with 7.0.
Figure 03.19 Value for Companies [Sample 156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
Moving to value for clients by industry, the data show the following raking in the
five dimensions monitored (see Figure 03.20) :
• Customer Added Value (5.3)

• Customer Expectations (5.2)
• Acquisition of new Customers (4.9)
• Increase Customer Loyalty (4.7)
• Customer Perception (4.7)
When turning from the overall sample to the industries, some interesting ele-
ments emerge:
• The Finance and Insurance industry saw the highest score in value for end
customers in Customer Added Value with 5.6;
• The Energy industry shows the highest score in value for end customers in
Customer Added Value with 5.7;
• The Information and Communication industry reports high value for cus-
tomers in Acquisition of new Customers with 5.6;
• The Retail industry shows the highest score in value for end customers in
Customer Added Value with 5.2;
• The Public Administration industry shows the highest score in value for end
customers in Customer Added Value with 6.3.
Figure 03.20 Value for Customers [Sample 156]

0 3 . 6 Current Investments in Design Thinking: a Role perspective
This section focuses on the Adopters of Design Thinking using an industry per-
spective in relation to the understanding of Design Thinking of different pro-
fessional roles.
To do so, as reported in Chapter 5, we categorized different roles under the

same umbrella aiming to understand the interpretation and subsequent appli-
cation of Design Thinking by different roles: CxOs, Design, Information Technol-
ogy, Innovation and, Marketing & Sales.
The first category aims to analyze the perspectives of C levels. This is of primary
importance considering their strategic role in decision-making processes. The
second looks at all the roles emerging in the Design sphere that are becoming
more and more relevant, e.g., service design lead or senior design manager. The
third clusters the experts in the field of Technology development. The fourth re-
lates to invention and exploitation of new ideas, as in the case of R&D managers,
and the last to managers in the Marketing & Sales department.
Figure 03.21 reports the Design Thinking market related to the 4 Kinds of Design
Thinking introduced in Chapter 1. Interesting to note is that CxOs undertook
the vast majority of Innovation of Meaning projects for 31%. Then, the Design,
Information Technology, and Marketing & Sales roles show a higher number
of Creative Problem Solving (32.0%, 34.4%, 32.0%) projects compared to the
total 25.6% detected in our survey. Finally, Innovation managers widely adopted
the Sprint Execution approach for 37.5%.
Figure 03.21 Distribution of the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking by role [Sample 156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 3 . 7 Adopting Design Thinking: a Role perspective
After reporting the distribution of investments in the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking

by role, here we look at the actual goals achieved through the adoption of such
approaches (see figure 03.22).
In particular, interesting to note is that CxOs show an overturned order of the

first three top goals compared to the entire market. For these, developing an
innovation platform/ecosystem with 6.2 is paramount compared to designing a
new user experience for the overall sample.
For the Design community, the third top goal in terms of significance is even
higher than the first overall top goal with understanding changes in users’ be-
haviors and expectations for 5.8 among the most important.
In the Information Technology area, the goals are lower than the overall goals,
and especially tech trends are more relevant than all the others.
The Innovation role within the company recognizes as a top goal changing the
corporate culture with a score of 5.4. This goal is quite interesting, as it is in line
with the growing interest in Design Thinking as an approach to foster employee
engagement.
Finally, for Marketing & Sales, aside from the goals envisioned by the other roles,
they see value in predicting market trends. With a score of 5.3, this is the third
top goal for this role, which is understandable when considering that market
trends are key to the success of their campaigns.
TOP 3 GOALS BY:

DESIGN THINKING
A D O P T E R S [Sample = 156]

CxO
[Sample = 29]

DESIGN
[Sample = 25]

I N F O R M AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
[Sample = 32]

I N N OVAT I O N
Changing Corporate Culture 5.6
[Sample = 16]

MARKETING & SALES
Changing Corporate Culture 5.4
[Sample = 17]
Predicting Market Trends 5.3
Figure 03.22 Top Goals in Design Thinking Projects by role [sample 156]

Which capabilities do the different roles think are relevant to achieving the previ-
ously discussed goals? This question is crucial and is part of what we focus on in
this section of the chapter.
Starting from CxOs, the capabilities recognized by Italian Adopters overlap con-
siderably. In particular, CxOs recognize more than the overall market that mo-
bilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all
stakeholders is of primary importance in the Creative Confidence approach.
Differently, the Design community identifies the crucial role of framing and re-
framing in the Creative Problem Solving approach, signaling in more than 80% of
cases the capability of iteratively defining and redefining the problem to deeply
understand the faced challenge and identify new solutions.
In the Information Technology area, the divergent thinking by generating many

new ideas capability seems to be relevant in the Creative Problem Solving and
Innovation of Meaning approaches.
Concerning the Innovation role, the capabilities they recognize as valuable in the
4 different Kinds of Design Thinking are the same as those identified by the overall
market. One interesting element is the recognition of the primacy of mobilizing
human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakehold-
ers in Creative Confidence with 87.5%.
Looking at Marketing & Sales, the human dimension is recognized as a crucial

capability in the new evolutions of Design Thinking.

A D O P T E R S [Sample = 156] Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakeholders 75.6%
CxO Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 75.9%
Iteratively defining and redefining the problem to deeply understand the faced challenge and identify new solutions 80.0%
DESIGN Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 84.0%
Identifying appropriate customer segments and business models 60.0%
I N F O R M AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 56.3.%
I N N OVAT I O N Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 75.0%
MARKETING & SALES Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 76.5%
Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakeholders 35.3%
Figure 03.23 Capabilities in Design Thinking projects by role [Sample=156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
Moving to the softer skills labelled in this analysis as attitudes, the data reported
in this area on the differences proposed by the roles are intriguing.
The CxO cluster shows that asking questions and providing effective feedback
in order to dig deeper in the reasoning is an attitude of primary importance in
the new evolutions of Design Thinking, especially in those that deal more with
internal people (i.e., Creative Confidence and Innovation of Meaning).
The Design role reports a complete overlap of attitudes with those deemed rel-
evant by the entire sample. Interestingly, the higher occurrence of the commu-
nicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images is higher in Creative
Problem Solving, reaching almost 90% in the responses of designers.
In the Information Technology area, the looking at problems from the stand-
point of other people (typically the end user) attitude emerges as top in Cre-
ative Problem Solving.
As concerns the Innovation role, the attitude they recognize as valuable in the
Innovation of Meaning approach is accepting to work on solutions that are not
completely defined up to the end of the process. This is in line with the con-
tinuous iteration of the process the leads to convergence and connotes the in-
side-out perspective.
Regarding Marketing & Sales, an interesting element is the inversion of the top
attitudes in Creative Confidence and Innovation of Meaning. It seems that these
experts see more value in unlocking creativity in combination with different per-
spectives and in asking reflective questions in envisioning new directions.

A D O P T E R S [Sample = 156] Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 42.3%
CxO Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 55.2%
Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 44.8%

DESIGN Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 52.0%
I N F O R M AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images 53.1%
I N N OVAT I O N Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 56.3%
Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 56.3%
MARKETING & SALES Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 64.7%
[Sample = 17] Combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply understand the addressed challenge 41.2%
Figure 03.24 Attitudes in Design Thinking projects by role [Sample=156]

The last interesting elements in terms of the adoption of Design Thinking by differ-
ent roles concerns the actual value that these approaches generated. In particular,
in this section we report in detail the differences among the actual value that the
analyzed roles reported after the adoption of Design Thinking.
Figure 03.26 reports the value for companies by role, pointing out the differences
in scores.
Starting from CxOs, the analysis of the data shows the highest score in Function
Expectation and Function Positive Effect with 6.0. This is interesting, as it seems
that C-levels see more value in the impact on functions rather than on business.
Concerning Design, all informants in this area recognize the value for companies
in the Function Positive Effect with 7.0.
In the Information Technology cluster, Business Impact with 5.6 is perceived by

Adopters as the most important value for companies achieved through the adop-
tion of Design Thinking.
The Innovation experts recognize in Engagement with 5.6 the highest value for
companies. This is an emerging recognition of the value of design within compa-
nies.
Marketing & Sales allocated a high score to Function Expectation and Function
Positive Effect with 6.0.
Figure 03.25 Value for Companies by role [Sample 156]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
Moving to the value for customers by role, the data show the following raking
of the five dimensions in the survey of Italian Adopters of Design Thinking (see
Figure 03.26):
Starting from CxOs, the data show the highest score in value for end customers
in Customer Expectations with 5.7.
The Design role shows the highest score in Customer Added Value with 5.7. In-
deed, Design Thinking for designers is considered the best way to create more
value for end users.
Information Technology managers indicated Customer Expectations with 5.7. as

the most important Design Thinking value for customers.
The Innovation adopters indicated the highest value of Design Thinking for end
customers in Customer Added Value 5.2.
The Marketing & Sales cluster shows the primacy of the value of increasing Cus-
tomer Loyalty with 5.4., which is coherent with the expected and actual value
that Design Thinking can create for this particular role within organizations.
Figure 03.26 Value for Customers by role [Sample 156].

0 3 . 8 Expected Investments in Design Thinking: an Industry perspective
This part of the chapter focuses on Wannabes, and the analysis by industry and
role of these particular types of innovators who do not have expertise in the
adoption of Design Thinking but see value in its future adoption.
In particular, the 126 responses collected through the survey derive from differ-
ent industries, as previously reported in Figure 03.27.
The first evidence we collected in this particular subsample is on the budget

that Wannabes allocated in 2018 for projects based on Design Thinking to be
undertaken in 2019. Figure 03.27 reports this information.
When the analysis is shifted from the total 126 responses of Wannabes to in-
dustries, some interesting elements emerge from the data. In the Retail indus-
try, the budget allocated to Creative Confidence is quite relevant with almost
32.5% of the budget. On the contrary, in the Finance and Insurance sector, the
budget allocated is higher in Sprint Execution with around 31.8%. In the Energy
sector, an element that is very evident is that Creative Problem Solving and
Sprint Execution projects cover around 46.3% of the expected investments in
Design Thinking, thus seemingly more willing to focus on solutions rather than
on people or visions. In the Information and Communication sector, Innovation
of Meaning has the highest expectations with 26%. Concerning the Public Ad-
ministration sector, the investments in terms of budget allocated for 2019 are
mainly concentrated in Creative Confidence with 30%.
Figure 03.27 Budget allocated for 2019 to the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking by industry [Sample 126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 3 . 9 Expected impact of the Adoption of Design Thinking: an Industry perspective

by role, here we look at the actual goals achieved through the adoption of such
approaches.
In particular, interesting to note is that CxOs show an overturned order of the

first three top goals compared to the entire market. For these, developing an
innovation platform/ecosystem with 6.2 is paramount compared to designing a
new user experience for the overall sample.
For the Design community, the third top goal in terms of significance is even
higher than the first overall top goal with understanding changes in users’ be-
haviors and expectations for 5.8 among the most important.
In the Information Technology area, the goals are lower than the overall goals,
and especially tech trends are more relevant than all the others.
The Innovation role within the company recognizes as a top goal changing the
corporate culture with a score of 5.4. This goal is quite interesting, as it is in line
with the growing interest in Design Thinking as an approach to foster employee
engagement.
Finally, for Marketing & Sales, aside from the goals envisioned by the other roles,
they see value in predicting market trends. With a score of 5.3, this is the third
top goal for this role, which is understandable when considering that market
trends are key to the success of their campaigns.
TOP 3 GOALS BY:

DESIGN THINKING
W A N N A B E S [Sample = 126]

Identifying emerging scenarios 5.8
[Sample = 11]

ENERGY
[Sample = 16]
Developing a new user experiences 5.8
Changing corporate culture 6.1

I N F O R M AT I O N A N D C O M M U N I C AT I O N
[Sample = 20]
Interpreting signals from the external environment 5.9
Designing new product or service 5.8

R E TA I L
[Sample = 12]
Revitalizing an existing product/service line 6.5

P U B L I C A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
[Sample = 18]
Boosting business growth 6.0
Figure 03.28 Top expected goals in Design Thinking projects by industry [Sample=126]

Figure 03.29 Expected goals in Design Thinking projects [Sample=126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
We now turn to the capabilities that Wannabes in each industry expect to be rel-
evant in adopting Design Thinking.
Starting from Finance and Insurance, the main differences are in Sprint Execution
and Innovation of Meaning. Indeed, Wannabes in this industry expect that cluster-
ing and selecting different ideas in order to generate new solutions and thinking
outside the box and proposing original ideas are the two top capabilities.
In the Energy sector, there is complete alignment between the top capability giv-
en by the entire sample of Wannabes and that of respondents pertaining to this
industry. An interesting element is that the energy sector Wannabes value sens-
ing of emerging cultural trends for 60.9%, which is significantly higher than the
overall market.
Moving to Information and Communication, Creative Problem Solving sees a

prevalence in gathering and clustering insights about users/clients over thinking
outside the box. This is likely due to the particularity of the sector where customer
needs are essential.
Regarding Retail, also in this case, there is equal correspondence between the
overall Wannabes sample and that pertaining to this industry. Significant in terms
of the score is the Creative Confidence capability increasing from 67% to 75%.
Finally, in Public Administration, a crucial capability that emerges is running mar-

ket tests and learning from them for 50% in Sprint Execution. This is likely due to
the need in this industry to directly validate innovations with citizens.

W A N N A B E S [Sample = 126] Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakeholders 67.5%
FINANCE AND INSURANCE Clustering and selecting different ideas in order to generate new solutions 63.6%

ENERGY Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 68.8%
I N F O R M AT I O N A N D C O M M U N I C AT I O N Running market tests and learning from them 70.0%
R E TA I L Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 58.3%
P U B L I C A D M I N I S T R AT I O N Running market tests and learning from them 50.0%
[Sample = 18] Gathering and clustering insights about users/clients 55.6%
Identifying appropriate customer segments and business models 100%
Figure 03.30 Capabilities expected in Design Thinking projects by industry [Sample=126]

Focusing on the attitudes that are expected to be relevant in each industry, the
Finance and Insurance sector shows the only difference in expectations between
the overall Wannabes sample and the future adopters in the Creative Confidence
kind of Design Thinking. Indeed, the looking at problems from the standpoint of
other people (typically the end user) attitude is ranked top in the future adop-
tion of Design Thinking.
Moving to the Energy sector, the only difference is in the looking at problems
from the standpoint of other people attitude that is expected to be the most
important in the Sprint Execution perspective with 56.3%.
Regarding the Information and Communication sector, the expected relevant

attitudes and those expected to be relevant in the overall market completely
overlap. The only element that differs is that the percentages of relevance of
the four attitudes in this sector are higher than in the overall market, except for
Creative Confidence.
Turning to the Retail industry, the differences in attitudes from the overall Wan-
nabes sample are in Creative Problem Solving and Sprint Execution. For the for-
mer, combining a wide variety of perspectives in order to deeply understand
the addressed challenge is considered the top attitude. For the latter, commu-
nicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images seems to supersede
accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined.
Finally, the Public Administration sector shows the relevance of changing the
mindset to create empathy and gather insights only in Innovation of Meaning,
with no significant differences for the other Kinds of Design Thinking.

W A N N A B E S [Sample = 126] Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 40.5%
FINANCE AND INSURANCE Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 63.6%
[Sample = 11] Looking at problems from the standpoint of other people (typically the end user) 36.4%
Combining a wide variety of perspectives to deeply understand the addressed challenge 54.5%

ENERGY Looking at problems from the standpoint of other people (typically the end user) 56.3%
[Sample = 16] Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images 50.0%
Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 43.8%
I N F O R M AT I O N A N D C O M M U N I C AT I O N Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 60.0%
R E TA I L Communicating ideas and intuitions through sketches and images 50.0%
P U B L I C A D M I N I S T R AT I O N Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 50.0%
Figure 03.31 Attitudes expected in Design Thinking projects by industry [Sample=126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
The last section in the analysis of Wannabes by industry concerns the value that
these future adopters see in the adoption of Design Thinking. We first analyze
the expected value for companies in 2019 projects. In particular, the value gen-
erated through Design Thinking has been modeled along two main dimensions:
(i) value for the company with 6 items; and (ii) value for customers with 4 items.
According to the data collected, the three dimensions receiving the best scores
in value for companies (see Figure 03.32) are:
• Company Positive Effect (5.1)

• Business Performance (5.0)
• Engagement (4.9)
When turning from the overall sample of Wannabes to those in each industry,
some interesting elements emerge:
• In the Finance and Insurance industry, the data shows that, on average, the
scores are lower compared to the other industries with Company Positive
Effect receiving the highest score with 5.1;
• The Energy industry shows the highest value in both Company Positive Ef-
fect and Engagement with 5.6;
• The Information and Communication industry reports a high value recog-

nized to Business Performance with 5.6;
• The Retail industry highlights high values for both Company Positive Effect with 5.3
and Company Expectation with 5.2. In other words, this industry perceives that Design
Thinking can help on the company level rather than on the business and brand level;
• Finally, in the Public Administration sector, the highest value is given to

Business Performance with 5.3.
Figure 03.32 Expected value for Companies by industry [Sample 126]

Turning to the value for customers by industry, the data show the following raking
of the dimensions monitored (see Figure 03.33):
• Customer Expectations (5.3)

• Customer Positive Effect (5.3)
• Acquisition of new Customers (5.2)
• Increase Customer Loyalty (5.0)
Evident from the scores is that there is no significant difference between the dif-
ferent values for customers recognized by Wannabes, but all agree on the fact
that the impact on customers is quite significant in Design Thinking projects.
Each industry has a different connotation of expected value for customers in

adopting Design Thinking.
In the Finance and Insurance industry, the responses show the highest scores in
Customer Expectations and Acquisition of new Customers with 5.5.
The Energy industry shows the highest score in Customer Positive Effect with 5.9.
The Information and Communication industry reports high values for Customer
Expectations with 5.8 and Acquisition of new Customers with 5.9.
The Retail industry shows the highest value score for end customers in Customer
Positive Effect with 5.9.
In the Public Administration sector, no predominant value for customers emerg-

es, as all four are equally relevant with an average score from 5.1 to 4.9.
Figure 03.33 Expected value for Customers by industry [sample 126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 3 . 1 0 Expected Investments in Design Thinking: a Role perspective
This section focuses on the Wannabes’ Design Thinking perspective. After indus-
tries, the researchers identified an interesting subset of firms where the different un-
derstanding of Design Thinking by different professional roles could be valuable for
the community. Thus, an analysis of the different roles and their perspective on the
value and benefits generated by the future adoption of Design Thinking is offered.
In so doing, as reported in Chapter 5 and in section 05.2, we collected insights

from the different roles: CxOs, Design, Information Technology, Innovation, and
Marketing & Sales.
Figure 03.34 reports the Design Thinking market related to the 4 Kinds of De-
sign Thinking introduced in Chapter 1. Interestingly, CxOs show interest in un-
dertaking in 2019 Creative Problem Solving, Sprint Execution, and Creative Con-
fidence projects for, on average, 27%, while Innovation of Meaning seems less
relevant with below 10%.
The Design community on the other hand is more focused on the solution-driv-
en kind of Design Thinking, especially Creative Problem Solving and Sprint Exe-
cution with almost 35% in both cases.
In Information Technology, the highest score is reported in Sprint Execution for 35%,
and this is fully in line with the nature of the approach and the industry considered.
Innovation and Marketing & Sales similarly show more interest for 2019 in Sprint
Execution and Creative Problem Solving, and less in the other two kinds. Interesting
in terms of Marketing & Sales is that this is the only cluster where the expectation
for Innovation of Meaning projects (21.3%) exceeds the total average of 16.7%.
Figure 03.34 Expected Distribution of the 4 Kinds of Design Thinking by role [Sample 126]

0 3 . 1 1 Expected impact of the adoption of Design Thinking: a Role perspective

by role, here we consider the goals expected by Wannabes from adopting De-
sign Thinking in projects.
In particular, interesting to note is that CxOs see as the most important expect-
ed goal fostering new values, attitudes, behaviors with a score of 5.7, the sec-
ond most important is changing corporate culture with score of 5.6, which is in
line with the expected goals that CxOs see in the adoption of Design Thinking
that increasingly concerns the leadership area.
For the Design community, designing new user experiences is recognized as

paramount by all Wannabes with a full score of 7 out of 7. The second goal is
understanding changes in users’ behaviors and expectations with 6.8.
In the Information Technology area, the expected goal with the highest score
is changing the corporate culture with 5.5., which is fully in line with the idea
that Design Thinking would completely reshape the way companies approach
innovation in the future.
Moving to the Innovation role, Wannabes recognize as a top goal introducing

new product/service lines with a score of 5.9. This goal is rather interesting, as
it is in line with the growing interest in Design Thinking as an approach useful to
creatively propose product or service innovations.
Finally, for Marketing & Sales, differently from the goals envisioned by the oth-
ers roles, they see value in creating a new business model with a score of 5.5 as
the second top expected goal.
TOP 3 GOALS BY:

DESIGN THINKING
W A N N A B E S [Sample = 126]

CxO
[Sample = 24]
Improving process efficiency 5.5

DESIGN
[Sample = 5]
Interpreting signals from the external environment 6.2

I N F O R M AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y
[Sample = 18]
Developing new user experiences 5.3
Designing a new product or service 6.0

I N N OVAT I O N
Introducing new product/service lines 5.9
[Sample = 19]
Designing a new product or service 5.6

MARKETING & SALES
Creating a new business model 5.5
[Sample = 16]
Figure 03.35 Expected top goals in Design Thinking projects by role [Sample=126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
This section details the capabilities that Wannabes consider relevant to achieving
the previously reported goals.
Starting from CxOs, the capabilities recognized by the overall sample and the Ital-
ian Wannabes overlap considerably. In particular, CxOs recognize that divergent
thinking by generating many new ideas is of primary importance in Innovation of
Meaning.
The Design community identified as crucial gathering and clustering insights

about users/clients in the Creative Problem Solving kind of Design Thinking in
more than 80% of cases. This is fully in line with the idea of empathizing in this
approach.
In the Information Technology area, divergent thinking by generating many new

ideas seems to a relevant capability in Innovation of Meaning. Moreover, these ex-
perts recognize mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to prop-
erly engage all stakeholders in Creative Confidence as relevant in 77.8% of cases.
Concerning Innovation, the capabilities that they deem valuable in the 4 different
Kinds of Design Thinking are the same as in the overall market of Wannabes. An
interesting element is the recognition of the primary role of thinking outside the
box and proposing original ideas in Creative Problem Solving with 84.2%.
Looking at Marketing & Sales, mobilizing human, cultural, and technological re-
sources to properly engage all stakeholders is recognized as a crucial capability
in both Creative Confidence and Innovation of Meaning.

W A N N A B E S [Sample = 126] Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakeholders 67.5%
CxO Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 62.5%

DESIGN Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 60.0%
I N F O R M AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 72.2.%
I N N OVAT I O N Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 63.2%
MARKETING & SALES Transforming ideas in tangible and working prototypes 80.0%
Mobilizing human, cultural, and technological resources to properly engage all stakeholders 46.7%
Figure 03.36 Expected capabilities in Design Thinking projects by role [Sample=126]

Turning the analysis to the softer attitudes that can help in the adoption of De-
sign Thinking paradigms, the data show intriguing differences in the roles also
in this area.
The CxO cluster shows a one-to-one correspondence in the attitude recognized

as crucial by Wannabes in the overall market and in CxOs. The only difference is
that, on average, the final percentage is slightly higher in the CxOs’ perception
than in the overall markets’.
The Design role shows the highest occurrence of looking at problems from the
standpoint of other people (typically the end user) in the Creative Problem Solv-
ing approach with 80%. This attitude is entirely in line with the traditional view of
Design Thinking 1.0 that sees in the creation of empathy by looking at solutions
from the perspective of users the starting point of every project.
In the Information Technology area, asking questions and providing effective

feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning emerges as top in both Creative
Confidence and Innovation of Meaning.
In terms of the Innovation role, interestingly, the top attitudes across the differ-
ent Kinds of Design Thinking do not show very different percentages to the point
that the highest is 57.9% in Creative Problem Solving and Innovation of Meaning,
and the lowest is 47.4% in Creative Confidence. Thus, the top attitude in each
kind does not significantly exceed 55%.
Regarding Marketing & Sales, an interesting element is that asking questions and
providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning is recog-
nized as the top attitude in Sprint Execution, differently from the overall Wan-
nabes market.

W A N N A B E S [Sample = 126] Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 40.5%
CxO Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 66.7%
DESIGN Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 20.0%
I N F O R M AT I O N T E C H N O L O G Y Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 61.1%
I N N OVAT I O N Accepting to work on solutions that are not completely defined up to the end of the process 52.6%
[Sample = 19] Combining a wide variety of perspectives to deeply understand the addressed challenge 47.4%
MARKETING & SALES Asking questions and providing effective feedback in order to dig deeper in the reasoning 46.7%
Figure 03.37 Expected attitudes in Design Thinking projects by role [Sample=126]
03 RESEARCH RESULTS
The last interesting element to identify the expected benefits generated by the
adoption of Design Thinking by different roles concerns the value that these
approaches can generate. In particular, in this section, we report in detail the
differences among the values that the roles expect to achieve after the adoption
of Design Thinking.
Figure 03.38 reports the value for companies by role, pointing out the differenc-
es in scores given by the informants.
Starting from CxOs, the analysis of the data shows the highest score for Com-
pany Positive Effect with 5.1. The overall figure shows that CxOs are quite con-
servative in the overall impact that Design Thinking can have on the value for
companies.
Concerning Design, all the informants in this area recognize the highest value
for companies in Business Performance with 6.2. Moreover, the gave the differ-
ent indicators the highest scores.
The Information Technology cluster indicates that brand positioning is likely

the value that Design Thinking can impact the least after its adoption.
The Innovation experts recognize in Business Performance with 5.0 the highest
value for companies, an emerging recognition of the value of Design Thinking
for companies.
Marketing & Sales indicate a high score for Engagement with 4.9. However, the
data seem to indicate that these Wannabes are somewhat more skeptical com-
pared to others in relation to the value that Design Thinking can generate for
companies.
Figure 03.38 Expected value for Companies by role [Sample 126]

Turning to the value for customers by role, the data collected shows the follow-
ing raking of the four dimensions of Design Thinking of Italian Wannabes (see
Figure 03.39).
Starting with CxOs, the data show the highest score in value for end customers
in Customer Positive Effect with 5.3. Interestingly, the value for customers per-
ceived by CxOs is on average lower than that expected by the entire sample.
The Design role shows the highest value score in Customer Positive Effect with
6.2. Indeed, Design Thinking for designers is considered the best way to create
more value for end-users.
Information Technology managers indicated as the most important Design

Thinking value for customers meeting Customer Expectations with 5.6. Indeed,
for IT, Design Thinking is considered an instrument to ensure the final proposal
meets customer needs.
The Innovation Wannabes did not indicate any significant differences across the
four separate values for customers. Consequently, the average score is a little
above 5, but without any significant differences.
The Marketing & Sales cluster shows Acquisition of new Customers with 5.3 as
primary in the value for customers. This is coherent with the expected value that
Design Thinking can generate for this particular role within organizations.
Figure 03.39 Expected Value for Customers by role [Sample 126]
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
Evolution of Design Thinking enabled

by emerging Startups
Cabirio Cautela
Research Director
Luca Gastaldi
Research Director
Evolution of Design Thinking enabled by emerging

Startups
Cabirio Cautela and Luca Gastaldi
If the analysis of companies in a sector provides a litmus test of their competitive

dynamics, the study of startups active in the same sector often helps in under-
standing how these dynamics are likely to evolve over time.
1.
For the previous results For this reason, the Observatory continued with the effort initiated last year1
of this research stream, of analyzing the ecosystem of international startups that could complement
see the report «Startups
in the Design Thinking providers of Design Thinking solutions as well as support innovators that aim
Ecosystem», available at
www.osservatori.net to implement the Design Thinking approaches. Given the flexible, creative, and
lean approaches of these startups, they may constitute a significant driver of the
field’s development.
The ecosystem of startups active in the field of Design Thinking is still immature,
especially compared to other fields, such as fintech, big data, or blockchain. How-
ever, several factors indicate that a form of consolidation is emerging, driven by
new trends that will be looked at in-depth in the remainder of this chapter.
An extensive analysis conducted on Cruchbase2 – the leading source of start-
2.
www.cruchbase.com up-related content – revealed 145 startups offering tools, solutions, and services
that cover the phases of the various Design Thinking approaches described in
Chapter 01.
As Figure 04.1 shows, almost all these startups were created in:
• North America (80 startups), with the United States continuing to show the
highest number of Design Thinking startups (73 out of 145, equal to the 50%
of the overall ecosystem);
• Europe: 40 startups, mostly in the United Kingdom (15) and Scandinavian
countries (6; more precisely, 3 in Denmark and 3 in Sweden).
Figure 04.1 Geographic distribution of Design Thinking startups

These numbers are quite similar to those found last year1. However, we have also
seen the increasing presence of Design Thinking startups in other continents.
For instance, 19 startups have been created in Asia, mostly in India (9) and Israel
(5), while Australia provided fertile terrain for the birth of 5 startups (2 of which
founded in 2017). Interestingly, no startup has been launched in South America.
Similarly, no startups in the field are Italian, testifying to the fact that:
• Design Thinking service providers in Italy must search internationally for
potential partners through which to enhance their value propositions;
• Italian innovators have to look abroad for potential solutions through which
to foster their Design Thinking initiatives.
Beyond this specific evidence, what emerges is that the Design Thinking eco-
system is progressively becoming global, and no longer centered on the geo-
graphic poles in which it was formed (United Stated) or sharpened (Europe).
San Francisco remains the city with the highest number of startups founded (16
out of 145). More generally, the overall area around Stanford University – where
the concept of Design Thinking was initially developed – hosts most of the start-
ups analyzed (26 out of 145; 16 in San Francisco, 5 in Menlo Park, and 4 in Palo
Alto). New York and London are becoming new entrepreneurial aggregators of
Design Thinking initiatives, with respectively 10 startups that have their head-
quarters in these cities.
As shown in Figure 04.2, the remainder of the chapter is organized in five sec-
tions as follows:
• Funding gathered by the startups in the Design Thinking ecosystem (§04.1);
• Organizational structure of these startups (§04.2);
• Design Thinking approaches supported by the startups (§04.3);
• Meta-phases supported by the startups (§04.4);
• Startups exploiting Artificial Intelligence (AI) to support Design Thinking
(§04.5).
In each section, we will present some startups to provide concrete examples of
interesting solutions that might be useful to adopt.
Figure 04.2 Organization of the chapter
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 4 . 1 Funding of the Design Thinking startups
Overall, the 145 Design Thinking startups received 1,033 million dollars in fund-
ing, with an increase (+14%) compared to the amount registered last year (908
3. million dollars)3. To put this number into perspective, interesting to consider is
See the report «Startups
in the Design Thinking that (Figure 04.3):
Ecosystem», available at • The order of magnitude is one lower than all startups in the fintech industry
www.osservatori.net
(26 billion dollars)4;
4.
According to the latest • Startups active in the big data domain received five times the funding in the
results of the Fintech and
Insuretech Observatory same timeframe (4.7 billion dollars)5;
5.
• Startups active in the blockchain domain received six times the funding in
According to the latest the same timeframe (6.2 billion dollars) 6.
results of the Big Data
Analytics and BI Observatory Since the overall values are biased by the size of each domain in the ecosystem
6. (730 fintech startups, 443 big data startups, and 633 blockchain startups), it is
According to the latest
results of the Blockchain
more appropriate to consider the average funding per startup.
Observatory As Figure 04.3 shows, Design Thinking startups received, on average, 7.1 mil-
lion dollars of funding, slightly more than the value registered last year3. The
amount is still:
• One fifth of the funding received by the average startup operating in the
fintech industry (35 million of dollars);
• Lower than the those received by big data (10.6 million dollars) and block-
chain startups (9.8 million dollars).
Figure 04.3 Overall and average funding received by the startups in different ecosystems

As Figure 04.4 shows, the average funding received by Design Thinking startups
is highly biased by 9 startups, each of which gathered more than 40 million dollars
of investments:
• Canva: A digital environment that facilitates graphic design by providing a
drag-and-drop design tool, and a library of stock photos, graphic elements,
and fonts that allow designers to easily and quickly visualize their ideas;
• Playbuzz: A platform that provides publishers and brands with interactive
tools to craft engaging editorial and commercial content (for more information
on this startup, see Box 04.3);
• Veritone: An AI-based platform that understands and transforms multiple
forms of data to create actionable intelligence on products and services;
• Pendo: A digital solution that provides insights from product usage patterns
and user sentiment with the final aim of making better product decisions
during prototyping (for more information on this startup, see Box 04.2);
• Amplitude: Provides real-time, simple to use product analytics to help compa-
nies to better understand user behaviors and improve their engagement and
retention;
• Iguazio: A continuous analytics platform offering data science as a service and
simplifying the development and deployment of high-volume, real-time, da-
ta-driven applications;
• Quip: A platform that combines docs, spreadsheets, and communication tools
to help Design Thinking teams get work done faster and smarter, building a
culture of action;
• Figma: A collaborative solution to jointly design and prototype user interfaces,
simplifying the process to handle feedback and updates within design teams;
• Applitools: An AI-powered solution that automatically tests, validates, and moni-
tors all the visual aspects of any digital interface across every app, browser, oper-
ating system, and screen size (for more information on this startup, see Box 04.1).
Figure 04.4 Most funded startups in the Design thinking ecosystem
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
Excluding these startups, the average funding per startup decreases to 3.5
million dollars, indicating an ecosystem that is still in a pre-paradigmatic stage
compared to others. In any case, the presence of big rounds of investments in
7. several core startups – almost absent in last year’s analysis7 – testifies to the
in the Design Thinking progressive confidence of investors, not only in the development of the field,
Ecosystem», available at but also in its ability to produce returns in the medium term.
www.osservatori.net
Indeed, as shown in Figure 04.4, the nine most funded Design Thinking startups
received most of their funding in the last round of investments in either 2017
or 2018 in nearly all cases. More generally, as Figure 04.5 illustrates, the whole
ecosystem shows entrepreneurial vibrancy in the last years. In fact, out of the
145 Design Thinking startups:
• 97 (67%) received their last investment since 2017;
• 44 (30%) received their last investment in 2018.
This means that – despite the current immaturity of the whole ecosystem – in
the near future, we may see progressive consolidation and, hopefully, further
investments and solutions.
Figure 04.5 also validates that the barycenter of the ecosystem of Design Think-
ing startups is no longer exclusively in the United States or Europe. In fact:
• 70% of the 23 Design Thinking startups that received funding in 2015 had
their headquarters in North American countries (mostly the United States);
this percentage decreased to 56% (14 out of 25) in 2016, 55% (29 out of 53)
in 2017 and 48% (21 out of 44) in 2018;
• 23% (10 out of 44) of the Design Thinking startups that received funding
in 2018 had their headquarters outside the United States and Europe; this
percentage was below 5% (1 out of 23) in 2015;
• 18% (8 out of 44 and 9 out of 53) of the Design Thinking startups that re-
ceived funding in 2017 and 2018 had their headquarters in Asia; this per-
centage was below 5% in 2015 (1 out of 23) and 2016 (1 out of 25).
Figure 04.5 Last year of funding of the Design Thinking startups

DESCRIPTION INFO
Applitools is an AI pow-
Year of Foundation: 1/1/2013
ered visual testing which
automatically run visual Number of Employees: 51-100
tests at scale across
every app, browser, OS, Number of Founders: 3
and screen size.
Website Address: http:/applitools.com
OFFERING/SOLUTION
L O C AT I O N FUNDING
DESIGN THINKING APPROACH D E S I G N T H I N K I N G M E TA P H A S E S
Team Building and

Task Management
Launching Sensing and

and Measuring Empathizing
Prototyping Interpreting
and Learning and Framing
Collaborating Ideating
and Co-Design and Conceiving
Box 04.1 Description of Applitools startup
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 4 . 2 Organizational structure of Design Thinking startups
Figure 04.6 intersects startup funding with number of employees. First, interesting
to note is that 19% of startups (27 out of 145) received more than 10 million dollars
of investments, confirming a progressive development of the whole ecosystem.
Importantly, the analysis of startup employees (see Figure 04.7) shows that out of
the 145 Design Thinking startups:
• 64 have fewer than 10 employees. This number corresponds to 44% of the
whole ecosystem, a percentage that is exactly the same as registered last
8. year8;
in the Design Thinking
• 19 startups have a number of employees between 50 and 250. This number
Ecosystem», available at corresponds to 13% of the whole ecosystem, a percentage that has almost
www.osservatori.net
doubled since the last survey8;
• 5 startups have a number of employees between 100 and 250. This number
corresponds to 3% of the whole ecosystem, a percentage that has almost tri-
pled since the last survey8. Pendo, described in Box 04.2, is an example of
these startups that are highly consolidated from an organizational perspective;
• No startup in the ecosystem has more than 250 employees.
If the overall ecosystem is still immature in structure, the related startups seem to
progressively rely on consolidated organizational structures. This is likely related
to the multidisciplinarity required by Design Thinking endeavors, as confirmed by
an analysis of the curricula of startup funders. Out of the 145 startups in the Design
Thinking ecosystem:
• Only 51 (35%) have a single funder, mostly with an information science
background;
• 94 (65%) have at least 2 funders; in most cases, one with an information sci-
ence and the other with a design background;
• 14 startups (10%) have more than 4 funders with a mixture of expertise in infor-
mation science, design, and business.
Figure 04.6 Last year of funding of the Design Thinking startups

As further evidence of the progressive consolidation of the ecosystem from an
organizational perspective, interesting to highlight is that 16 startups deliber-
ately use Design Thinking terminology to convey their value proposition. In last
year’s survey8 , this number was equal to 6, showing the increasing pervasive-
ness of Design Thinking also in the entrepreneurial sphere.
Interestingly, 7 of these 16 startups do not offer a product, an app, or more gen-
erally, a digital artefact supporting and/or enhancing a specific Design Thinking
phase. Instead, they configure themselves as providers of generic Design Think-
ing services. The startups are the following:
• Lollypop: An Indian UX/UI design agency specialized in the development of
web, mobile, wearables, and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms;
• Quantion: A Spanish digital factory providing end-to-end digital transfor-
mation services;
• Cosmic Info Ventures: An Indian studio that builds cross-platform digital
experiences, brand strategies, and automated enterprise processes;
• Rokk3r: A digital studio headquartered in Miami that specializes in block-
chain, AI, IoT, and big data with an emphasis on the fintech sector;
• Differential: A digital boutique from Cincinnati providing software development
and design consultancy for middle-market or enterprise level organizations;
• DevOpsGroup: A Cardiff-based consultancy focused on digital transforma-
tion in both the public and private sectors, with a main emphasis on the
United Kingdom;
• Innovation360: A Swedish agency supporting organizations in establishing
an adaptable innovation process and fostering a culture of innovation.
These startups are generally small in terms of both number of employees and
funding: only Rokk3r has more than 50 employees, and, all together, the 7 start-
ups received only 11 million dollars of funding (5 of which went to Rokk3r).
Despite these small numbers, it seems that investors have started financing the
creation of new service providers of Design Thinking solutions that comple-
ment existing ones or increase the level of competition in the field.
Figure 04.7 Evolution of the employees of the Design Thinking startups
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
DESCRIPTION INFO
Pendo is a platform that helps

in building, delivering and
maintaining products that Number of Employees: 101-250
customer love by capturing
their experiences and analys- Number of Founders: 4
ing their satisfaction through
Website Address: http:/www.pendo.io
analytics.
OFFERING/SOLUTION
Team Building and

Task Management

Box 04.2 Description of Pendo startup

0 4 . 3 Support to Design Thinking approaches
As Figure 04.8 shows, out of the total 145 startups analyzed:

• 41 offer solutions related to the Creative Problem Solving approach;
• 41 offer solutions related to the Sprint Execution approach;
• 50 offer solutions related to the Creative Confidence approach;
• 13 offer solutions related to the Innovation of Meaning approach.
The dispersion of data around the different approaches highlights a fermen-
tation phase, where there is no evidence of one specific way of applying and
delivering Design Thinking. These results are similar to, and thus confirm, those
registered last year 9. 9.
Even if relating to the origin and first cultural roots of Design Thinking, the Creative in the Design Thinking
Ecosystem», available at
Problem Solving approach does not constitute the biggest cluster of startups. www.osservatori.net
This is symptomatic of the fact that Design Thinking – as a managerial phenome-
non – in less than 20 years, has rapidly evolved according to different streams. De-
sign Thinking, as the figures show, assumes a first form of contextualization when
operating in a digital environment: here the weight of fast digital services execu-
tion and interfaces reflects the old original Design Thinking approach – stressing
the activities of building, learning, and iterating in the Sprint Execution approach.
On the other hand, the consistent number (almost half the sample) of solutions
applied to the organizational context (Creative Confidence) shows that Design
Thinking has made a sort of leap in scale: born as an innovation approach deal-
ing with a product domain (then evolving towards services and digital apps), it
seems to have scaled up to an organizational level. This means that many new
ventures see in Design Thinking the potential to change the innovation culture
in organizations rather than simply addressing single product innovation issues.
Lastly, a small but emerging trend shows that Design Thinking is applied to the
strategic vision (Innovation of Meaning). Here, solutions relate to challenging
the “reason to buy” or the reason why people love (or hate) the specific “mean-
ings” and cultural messages attached to products and services.
Figure 04.8 Distribution of startups on the four Design Thinking approaches
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
Interesting to consider is not only the number of startups for each Design Think-
ing approach, but also the distribution of funding among them. As highlighted
in Figure 04.9:
• Startups supporting Sprint Execution received most of the funding: both
comprehensively (329 out of the 1,033 million dollars characterizing the
overall value of the ecosystem), and on average (9.6 million dollars per
startup). Applitools, described in Box 04.1, is an interesting example of
these startups.
• Creative Problem Solving continues to gather a great deal of funding: the
41 startups in the ecosystem supporting this Design Thinking approach
gathered 326 million dollars, which correspond to an average 8 million dol-
lars per startup. An example of these startups is Pendo, presented in Box
04.2.
• Creative Confidence is the approach with the least funding per startup:
while the overall funding is equal to 233 million dollars, on average, each
startup received only 4.7 million dollars. GainX exploits Artificial Intelligence
to lead data-driven enterprise transformations and change programs, as il-
lustrated in detail in Box 04.3.
• The few startups supporting Innovation of Meaning received interesting
funding: even if overall the 13 startups supporting this Design Thinking ap-
proach received the smallest amount of investments (82 million dollars), on
average, each collected 6.3 million dollars. PlayBuzz, depicted in Box 04.4,
is an example of a storytelling platform to create, distribute, and monetize
interactive stories driving audience engagement, conveying new meanings,
and analytically measuring their success.
Figure 04.9 Funding per Design Thinking approach

DESCRIPTION INFO
GainX uses Artificial Intelli-

gence, Advanced Organi-
zational Design Theory and Number of Employees: 11-50
Social Network Analytics to
deliver deep, accurate and Number of Founders: 1
unprecedented insights for
Website Address: http:/www.gainx.com
their customers.
OFFERING/SOLUTION
Team Building and

Task Management

Box 04.3 Description of GainX startup
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
Figure 04.10 classifies the startups based on number of employees. As shown:

• Most of the startups with fewer than 10 employees focus on Creative Prob-
lem Solving and Creative Confidence. These seem to be the approaches
that capture most interest from brand new startups, likely due to the fact
that these approaches are, on the one hand, quite established and well
known (Creative Problem Solving), on the other hand, highly necessary in
modern organizations (Creative Confidence).
• The startups that are somewhat more structured from an organizational
viewpoint (from 11 to 50 employees) tend to focus on Sprint Execution and
Creative Confidence, emphasizing that these are probably the approaches
that allow gaining momentum and growth in the current business scenario
characterized by many digital experiences to be reimagined in very short
timeframes, and enabling employees to become energized and engage in
digital transformation projects.
• Most of the startups with 100 to 250 employees support Creative Prob-
lem Solving, testifying to the fact that the traditional approaches to Design
Thinking continue to dominate in more structured entrepreneurial endeav-
ors; this results will likely change in the near future.
When considering all the results (number of startups, employees, organization)
of the various approaches in an overall perspective, what emerges is that the
ecosystem of startups is slowly moving from the traditional approaches to De-
sign Thinking to progressively embracing new (but not necessary alternative)
ways of providing Design Thinking, mostly focused on efficient and effective
service design and democratization of the innovation efforts.
Interestingly, no startup supports true criticism, showing a gap that will likely
be filled through a progressive diffusion of the Innovation of Meaning approach.
Most of the startups support this approach by simplifying the positioning and
diffusion of new meaning. As an example, consider PlayBuzz, described in Box
04.4.
Figure 04.10 Distribution of the 145 startups subdivided by the various Design Thinking approaches

DESCRIPTION INFO
Playbuzz is storytelling
platform that provides
publishers and brands Number of Employees: 101-250
with interactive tools to
craft engaging editorial Number of Founders: 2
and commercial content.
Website Address: http:/www.playbuzz.com
OFFERING/SOLUTION
Team Building and

Task Management

Box 04.4 Description of Playbuzz startup
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 4 . 4 Support to Design Thinking metaphases
The ecosystem of startups has also been clustered according to some “meta-
phases” that can be considered common to the different Design Thinking ap-
proaches. This enables, on one hand, better grasping which elements of Design
Thinking startups and investors mainly consider, and on the other hand, provid-
ing a picture of the metaphases that remain less considered due to the intrinsic
features of the specific metaphase itself or the existence of a wide offering al-
ready provided by incumbents.
The metaphases used to represent this picture are the following:
• Sensing and empathizing: where discovery and exploratory research activ-
ities are aimed at gaining greater confidence and empathy with users and
the “problem context” itself;
• Interpreting and framing: where design thinkers are pushed to frame the
design challenges and problems, tackling them from different promising
perspectives, and challenging the dominant views;
• Team building and task management: where teams are formed, and collec-
tive and individual tasks are attributed according to cultural diversity and
cross-disciplinary principles;
• Ideating and conceiving: where design thinkers propose novel solution areas;
• Collaborating and co-designing: where the solution areas are developed in
detail with individual and teamwork contributions;
• Prototyping and learning: where solutions materialize, and learning points
are reached through testing activities.;
• Launching and measuring: where beta-solutions are placed in experimental
marketplaces or user labs to assess first-hand impressions.
Figure 04.11 Distributions of startups on the various Design Thinking metaphases

As shown in Figure 04.11, the ecosystem of startups concentrates on “sensing
and empathizing” and “interpreting and framing”, generally considered key ac-
tivities in all Design Thinking approaches. Many startups support the metaphase
of “team building and task management”, even if this is a wide area that is not
strictly linked to Design Thinking, thus including wider project management ser-
vices and tools with or without specific design nuances. An interesting example
from this viewpoint is Simpplr, described in Box 04.5.
Going more in depth and intersecting the metaphases with the four Design
Thinking approaches, Figure 04.12 shows:
• In the “sensing and empathizing” metaphase, the majority of startups relate
to the Creative Problem Solving and Creative Confidence approaches, with
slightly fewer relating to the Sprint Execution approach;
• A relevant number of startups support the “interpreting and framing” meta-
phase; these startups offer services and tools mostly centered on the Cre-
ative Problem Solving and Creative Confidence approaches;
• A relevant group of startups offers services and tools related to the “col-
laboration and co-design” metaphase where most relate to the Creative
Confidence approach; indeed, the activities related to collaboration and
employee engagement constitute a key activity pertaining to this approac;.
• Fewer startups instead cover the “ideating and conceiving”, “prototyping
and learning”, and “launching and measuring” metaphases; there are no
specific reasons for this, some – such as “prototyping and learning” and
“launching and measuring” – seem to be consolidated and offered by many
incumbents; others, such as “ideating and conceiving”, seem to be con-
text-dependent and difficult to fully outsource.
B12, described in Box 04.6, is an interesting example of a startup exploiting Arti-
ficial Intelligence to create highly responsive websites in a very short timeframe,
which are then refined by design experts and regularly assessed and improved
to attract more visitors.
Figure 04.12 Distribution of startups on the various Design Thinking metaphases
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
DESCRIPTION INFO
Simpplr is the modern

employee intranet that
helps companies connect, Number of Employees: 51-100
align, and engage their
entire workforce across Number of Founders: 2
the enterprise.
Website Address: http:/www.simpplr.com
OFFERING/SOLUTION
Team Building and

Task Management

Box 04.5 Description of Simpplr startup

DESCRIPTION INFO
B12 offers a human-assist-

DESCRIPTION INFOYear of Foundation: 1/1/2015
ed A.I. approach to build,
manage
B12 offersand optimize
a human-as- Year of Foundation:
Number 1/01/2015
of Employees: 11-50
sisted A.I.and
beautiful approach to
professional
build, manage and Number ofof
Employees: 11-50
websites.
optimize beautiful and Number Founders: 2
professional websites.
Number of Founders: 2
Website Address: http:/www.b12.io
Website Address: http:/www.b12.io
OFFERING/SOLUTION
OFFERING/SOLUTION
LOCATION FUNDING
WA
ME 14,000,000
MT ND MN 12,400,000
OR
ID NV 12,000,000
SD MI NV
WY
Money raised [$]
NF IA PA 10,000,000
NV OII
UT IL IN
CO VA
CA KS MO NV 8,000,000
TN NC
AZ NM OK NV SC 6,000,000
MS AL GA
IX
LA 4,000,000
FL
2,000,000
AK 0
Round 1
7/25/2016
New York, New York, United States Data and type of funding
DESIGN THINKING APPROACH DESIGN THINKING METAPHASES

Team Building
and Task
Team Building and
Management
Task Management

Prototyping
Interpreting
and Learning
and Learning and
andFraming
Framing
Collaborating
Ideating
andand Co-Design
Co-Design and
andConceiving
Conceiving
Box 04.6 Description of B12 startup
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
0 4 . 5 Design Thinking startups leveraging Artificial Intelligence
66 of the 145 startups related to the Design Thinking ecosystem leverage Arti-
ficial Intelligence (AI) in their offering and attracted 418 million dollars of fund-
ing. This data leads to a different reasoning on the evolutionary paths of Design
Thinking. In fact, AI can serve Design Thinking processes in different ways, for
instance:
• Combining different channels during data collection;
• Constructing a framework linking some data;
• Assisting user research, compressing and accelerating some time-consum-
ing activities;
• Supporting prototyping and testing, providing data-based interpretations
of the collected data.
Moreover, the data on size confirm that, as in the overall ecosystem, these start-
ups are not in the seeding or early stages. Indeed, out of the 66 AI-based start-
ups in the Design Thinking ecosystem:
• 25 count 1–10 employees;
• 1 has between 101 and 250 employees.
Furthermore, the startups leveraging AI have been clustered according to the
above-mentioned metaphases. As shown in Figure 04.12, AI-based startups are
mostly concentrated in the same three metaphases of the remainder of the De-
sign Thinking ecosystem: “sensing and empathizing”, “interpreting and framing”,
“team building and task management”. Moreover, the Design Thinking approach
to which they mainly refer is Creative Confidence.
Figure 04.13 Distribution of AI-based startups on the various Design Thinking metaphases

DESCRIPTION INFO
Eyesover uses machine

learning to discover trends
as they are developing and Number of Employees: 1-10
tell you if those trends are
impacting your customer Number of Founders: 2
or support base.
Website Address: https://www.up-ai.com
OFFERING/SOLUTION
Team Building and

Task Management

Box 04.7 Description of Eyesover startup
04 RESEARCH RESULTS
AI finds fertile terrain in “sensing and empathizing”, as it helps search for and
integrate different sources of data and organizing these according to some spe-
cific criteria, as described in Box 04.7 regarding EyesOver. This evidently helps
increase empathy with the problem-context, reducing effort and time. On the
other hand, AI is also leveraged – as one might expect - in “interpreting and
framing” where it provides different evidence connecting “dots” and data, of-
fering a specific view of the problem-context as described in Box 04.8 featuring
UpYourGame. In “team building and task management” instead, AI intervenes to
create – given some profiles and backgrounds – the “right mix” of competences
and abilities that each Design Thinking team should have.
The use of AI in the other metaphases is instead less pronounced. In “ideat-
ing”, AI does not seem to substitute the human contribution, confirming - at the
current state - that AI remains mainly in the field of analytics and intelligence.
A certain level of use relates to “collaborating and co-designing”, where AI en-
ables data sharing, decision-making support, info alignment among the team
members. In an alternative vein, AI supports “prototyping and learning” activi-
ties - mainly referring to the Sprint Execution approach – where it offers cues for
prototyping, and serves as a data collection and mining tool in testing phases.

DESCRIPTION INFO
Up Your Game redefines

performance management
with real time performance Number of Employees: 51-100
tracking, sentiment analystics,
machine learning algorithms Number of Founders: 2
and data-driven insights.
Website Address: http:/www.simpplr.com/
OFFERING/SOLUTION
Team Building and

Task Management

Box 04.8 Description of Up YourGame startup
05 R E S E A R C H A P P R O A C H
Methodology and
Forthcoming Reports
05 R E S E A R C H A P P R O A C H
Overall Research Objectives
The second edition of the Observatory Design Thinking for Business has the
main objective of exploring more in depth the different aspects and players
characterizing the current Design Thinking environment. Starting from the in-
terpretative framework developed in the previous edition (see Figure 05.1), the
investigation has been structured according to a reinterpretation of the existing
research lines:
Thinking: This research line, in collaboration with Delft University of Tech-
nology, Imperial College Business School, Reykjavik University, and Stock-
holm School of Economics, provides a global overview of the approaches,
practices, and capabilities of Design Thinking developed by the consultants;
• Applications of Design Thinking by innovators: This research line investi-
gates the similarities and differences in the pioneering adoption of Design
Thinking by innovators across industries (e.g., Finance, Energy, Information
and Communication, Public Administration) and professional roles (e.g.,
C-levels, Design, Research and Development, Marketing, IT) on the Italian
scale;
• Evolutions of Design Thinking enabled by emerging startups: This research
line identifies those emerging startups in the Italian market that provide in-
teresting technological solutions (e.g., Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Rap-
id Prototyping) to empower the Design Thinking processes.
The following pages describe in more detail the different research lines (see
Figure 05.2) and the main methodologies adopted in each.
C O N S U LT I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S I N N O VAT O R S
providing advisory services based on Design Thinking adopting (looking for) advisory services based on Design Thinking
startup design
startup design
startup thinkers
strategic
thinking
consultants design
centers
design thinkers
studios
technology design
developers thinking
digital startup centers
design
startup agencies design thinking
thinkers centers
startup
S TA R T U P S
providing solutions that support Design Thinking
Figure 05.1 Design Thinking Ecosystem

R E S E A R C H L I N E 1 : T R A N S F O R M AT I O N S
startup
startup
startup
strategic
consultants
design
studios
NUMBER OF CONSULTING
technology
ORGANIZATIONS:
developers
digital
agencies
startup
239
startup

startup
R E S E A R C H L I N E 2 : A P P L I C AT I O N S
design
design
thinkers
thinking
design
centers
thinkers
design
NUMBER OF INNOVATORS:
thinking
centers
design 215
design thinking
thinkers centers
RESEARCH LINE 3: EVOLUTIONS
startup
startup
startup
strategic
consultants
design
studios
technology NUMBER OF STARTUPS:

developers
digital startup 145
startup agencies
startup
Figure 05.2 Research Lines
05 RESEARCH APPROACH
0 5 . 1 Transformations in the way Consulting Organizations interpret Design Thinking
The first focus concerns the research line “Transformations in the way consult-
ing organizations interpret Design Thinking”. The label “Consulting Organiza-
tions” includes all those players that provide Design Thinking services, such as
design studios, design agencies, strategic consultants, and technology develop-
ers. While the first edition of the Observatory analyzed and mapped the Design
Thinking offering in Italy, the current edition has the objective of analyzing the
consulting organizations field at a global level. To do so, fruitful collaborations
with four foreign universities have been undertaken (see Figure 05.3): Delft Uni-
versity of Technology (Netherlands), Imperial College Business School (United
Kingdom), Reykjavik University (Iceland), and Stockholm School of Economics
(Sweden).
In addition to the overall investigation of several aspects of Design Thinking
practices, the goal of this research line is to attain useful insights on three main
topics:
• The main approaches adopted by consulting organizations and the related
Design Thinking practices;
• How design thinking practices impact Project Value;
• How project goals moderate the impact of Design Thinking practices on
Project Value.
Aiming to collect a significant amount of qualitative and quantitative data from
the Consulting Organizations operating in different countries, the research team
designed an extensive questionnaire structured in twelve main sections:
• Introduction
• Profile
• Project
• Information
• Goals
• Phases and Practices
• Capabilities and Practices
• Attitudes and Practices
• Value
• Briefs
• Portfolio
• Closing
The questionnaire is composed of different typologies of questions that on av-
erage took respondents 45 minutes to complete. The following pages provide a
more detailed description of the questionnaire structure.
Figure 05.3 Research Partners

The overall structure of the questionnaire consists in two introductory sections,
seven sections referring to consulting projects based on Design Thinking that
the respondents completed in 2018 and with which they were familiar, two sec-
tions focusing on the portfolio of all consulting projects based on Design Think-
ing completed by the units the respondents are a member of, and one final
section dedicated to conclusions.
Introduction and Profile

The first section of the questionnaire, called “Introduction”, has the main aim
of presenting the Design Thinking For Business research project and provides
some instructions for compiling the questionnaire (see Figure 05.4 – left page).
Subsequently, the “Profile” section aims to collect overall data on the respon-
dents’ (educational background, job title, years of experience in the firm) and
the Consulting Organizations they works at (location, number of employees,
revenues in 2018). The profile section allowed the research team to capture im-
portant information on the sample and cluster it according to organization size,
location, and experience in the Design Thinking field (see Figure 05.4 – right
page).
Figure 05.4 «Introduction» and «Profile» sections of the questionnaire
Project Information
These two sections aim at identifying and outlining the consulting projects
based on Design Thinking that the respondents selected, are familiar with, and
completed in 2018. The projects are identified by the name the respondents
provided in the ”Project” section (see Figure 05.5 – left page) and then used in
the questions in the subsequent sections.
The “Information” section is composed of two groups of questions (see Figure
05.5 – right page). The first has the goal of framing the consulting projects in
terms of duration and organizational and team structure. The second instead
aims to frame the projects according to the client’s characteristics. In particular,
these questions aim to investigate the industry in which the client operates, the
size, the number of employees involved in the project, the functions involved
in the project, the function sponsoring the project, and the function leading it.
Figure 05.5 «Project» and «Information» sections of the questionnaire

Goals
This section aims to investigate the primary objectives addressed by adopt-
ing Design Thinking in the consulting projects selected by the respondents;
moreover, it aims to frame the project context that the consulting organizations
faced (see Figure 05.6).
This section is composed of two Likert-scale questions aimed at measuring the
respondents’ opinion of, or attitude toward, the aforementioned topics. A Likert
scale, typically at five, seven, or nine points, measures respondents’ level of
agreement with a variety of statements. This typology of question was chosen
for this section as it allows respondents to provide more detailed and nuanced
responses than in the case of a simple yes/no choice.
The research team applied a seven-point Likert scale [1 – Strongly disagree; 2 –
Disagree; 3 – Somewhat disagree; 4 – Neither agree or disagree; 5 – Somewhat
agree; 6 – Agree; 7 – Strongly agree], and based on the design and manage-
ment literature, determined a set of possible statements for each question. The
question on the primary project goals is composed of 30 statements, while the
question on project context includes 9 statements.
Figure 05.6 «Goals» section of the questionnaire
Practices
This module is composed of three sections aiming to identify the main practices
adopted in the selected consulting projects from different viewpoints: Phases,
Capabilities, and Attitudes. Similarly to the previous Goals section, the question
is based on a Likert scale to allow respondents to exhaustively communicate
their viewpoint on the topic. Below is a detailed description of the three afore-
mentioned sections.
• Phases and Practices: Consisting of 26 statements relating to the set of
practices that mark the different phases of the Design Thinking process:
Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test (see Figure 05.7 – left page);
• Capabilities and Practices: Consisting of 23 statements reporting the prac-
tices characterizing typical Design Thinking capabilities, such as: Under-
standing the future context, creativity, business modelling, and stakeholder
engagement (see Figure 05.7 – right page);
• Attitudes and Practices: Composed of 22 statements about the practices
identified with the main Design Thinking attitudes, such as: Holistic think-
ing, embracing ambiguity, visualizing, empathy, and criticism (see Figure
05.8 – left page).
Figure 05.7 «Phases and Practices» and «Capabilities and Practices» sections of the questionnaire

Value
The goal of this section is to collect information on the value generated by the
consulting projects selected by the respondents. This topic is investigated from
two different perspectives: the value generated for the consulting organizations
and that generated for their clients (see Figure 05.8 – right page).
To do so, the research team designed two Likert scale questions, the first inves-
tigating the value for the consulting company, the second focusing on the value
for the innovator. Each of the questions counted 8 statements describing the
different dimensions that value can assume.
In terms of the consulting companies, the value of the project is intended as:
positive business impact, improved business performance, better brand posi-
tioning, satisfaction of expectations, positive relation between costs and ben-
efits, high level of employee engagement, increased confidence with Design
Thinking, overall positive effect on the firm.
Considering the client firm, the value of the project is assessed through slightly
different indicators: positive business impact, improved business performance,
better brand positioning, meeting expectations, positive relation between costs
and benefits, high level of client employee engagement, stronger innovation
culture, overall positive effect on the firm.
Figure 05.8 «Attitudes and Practices» and «Value» sections of the questionnaire
Briefs
This section opens the second part of the questionnaire whose unit of analysis is
the portfolio of all consulting projects based on Design Thinking completed by
the units the respondents are members of (see Figure 05.9).
To investigate the composition of the business units’ portfolio, the question-
naire relies on four exemplar briefs capturing the essential elements of the
Design Thinking approaches described in Chapter 1 (Creative Problem Solving,
Sprint Execution, Creative Confidence, and Innovation of Meaning). Aiming to
link the first and the second part of the questionnaire, the first question of
the Briefs section asks respondents to classify the selected consulting project
described in the previous sections according to the four categories proposed
in the exemplar briefs.
Subsequently, two questions explore the % revenues obtained by the unit in
2018 across the four Design Thinking approaches and the average revenue
change deriving from each approach comparing 2018 to 2017.
Finally, two questions investigate the capabilities and attitudes that had the
largest positive influence on the success of consulting projects in the four
categories.
Figure 05.9 «Briefs» section of the questionnaire

Portfolio
The “Portfolio” section has the goal of analyzing the main characteristics of the
portfolio of all consulting projects based on Design Thinking completed by the
units the respondents are members of (see Figure 05.10).
Indeed, the first group of four questions focuses on the business unit, inves-
tigating its size and revenues, highlighting the percentage of employees and
revenues related to Design Thinking projects.
Subsequently, a set of three questions of a “Constant sum” typology aims to
directly analyze the project portfolio structure. This purpose is achieved by ask-
ing the respondents to break down the total revenues from the overall portfolio
according to different variables.
The first of these questions scans the portfolio structure in terms of industries
in which the client firms operate. The second, regarding the project Sponsors,
requires respondents to break down the total revenues according to the client
function representing the sponsor of each project in the portfolio. Finally,
the total revenues are broken down according to the main project domain
addressed.
Figure 05.10 «Value» section of the questionnaire
Closing
The concluding section of the questionnaire has the main goal of collecting re-
spondents’ personal and contact information in order for the research team to
be able to re-contact them with the research results (see Figure 05.11).
The section opens with a short text thanking the participants and informing
them on how the collected responses will be used. Thereafter, a set of four
questions relates to contact information, in particular: name, surname, com-
pany, and e-mail address. Two further questions refer to personal information
(age and gender).
The questionnaire closes with the Information Notice on Processing of Personal
Data (GDPR) asking respondents whether they give their consent to processing
their personal information.
Figure 05.11 «Closing» section of the questionnaire

The questionnaire was distributed by the four research partners in their respec-
tive countries: Politecnico di Milano in Italy, Delft University of Technology in the
Netherlands, Stockholm School of Economics in Sweden, and Imperial College
Business School in the United Kingdom (UK).
The data collection, lasting from the beginning of November until the end of
January, gathered a total 291 responses from consulting organizations (see Fig-
ure 05.14). In detail, 218 responses were collected from Italy, 50 from the Neth-
erlands, 46 from Sweden, and 49 from the UK; the remaining 18 responses came
from other countries (see Figure 05.12). This research sample shows significant
variety among the analyzed countries along different dimensions.
In terms of consulting organizations, the average number of employees in 2018
was 325.8. Nevertheless, the organizations’ size varies considerably among dif-
ferent countries, counting 359.4 employees in Italy, 192.1 in the Netherlands,
289.8 in Sweden, and 309.8 in the UK. The average revenues obtained by the
organizations in 2018 were equal to 240.1 million €, but they significantly differ
by individual countries: 241.4 million € in Italy, 163.9 million € in the Netherlands,
195.1 million € in Sweden, and 244.8 million € in the UK. Focusing on the busi-
ness units specialized in Design Thinking consulting projects, the sample shows
that the average number of employees in the unit in 2018 was 73.6; of these,
61% were involved in Design Thinking projects in 2018. Moving to individual
countries, the average number of employees in the units was 89.9 in Italy, 31.5 in
the Netherlands, 81.8 in Sweden, and 65.4 in the UK. Of these, those involved in
Design Thinking consulting projects in 2018 were 48% in Italy, 72% in the Nether-
lands, 68% in Sweden, and 75% in the UK. Similarly, total unit revenues obtained
in 2018 were on average equal to 50.4 million €, of which 51% generated by
consulting projects based on Design Thinking. Evaluating individual countries,
the total unit revenues in 2018 were equal to 52 million € in Italy, 4.8 million € in
the Netherlands, 62.3 million € in Sweden, and 83.8 million € in the UK.
Figure 05.12 Consulting organizations and unit Size and Revenues [Sample = 291]
Of these, the percentage generated by Design Thinking projects was 40% in

Italy, 64% in the Netherlands, 48% in Sweden, and 73% in the UK.
Finally, taking into account the individual respondents, the sample can be ana-
lyzed through variables such as Educational Background, Job Title, and Design
Thinking Experience (see Figure 05.13).
The sample, on average, shows that the respondents’ top 3 Educational Back-
grounds are Design (29.2%), Engineering (18.2%), and Economics (19.3%), fol-
lowed by Business Administration (10%), and Communication & Media (7.6%).
Looking at the individual countries, the Educational Backgrounds are main-
ly: Engineering (21.9%), Economics (21.1%) and Design (19.5%) in Italy; Design
(62%), Engineering (16%) and Information Technology (6%) in the Netherlands;
Engineering (23.9%), Business Administration (21.7%) and Design (17.4%) in
Sweden; Design (30.6%), Business Administration (18.4%) and Engineering
(8.2%) in the UK.
Considering Job Titles, on average, most of respondents work as Senior Consul-
tant (17.9%), Partner (10.3%) and Managing Director (9.6%). Focusing on single
countries, the top 3 Job Titles are: Senior Consultant (18.7%), Senior Manager
(10.9%) and Chief Executive Officer (10.9%) in Italy; Senior consultant (22%)
and Managing Director (16%) in the Netherlands; Senior Consultant (13%), Ser-
vice Designer (10.9%) and UX Designer (10.9%) in Sweden; Managing Director
(26.5%), Senior Consultant (16.3%) and Partner (14.3%) in the UK.
Turning to the Design Thinking Experience, the respondents, on average, have
personally adopted Design Thinking for 6.3 years, while the Design Thinking
Experience in consulting organizations has a lifespan of 5.4 years. Taking into
account national data, individual Design Thinking Experience is 4.6 years in Italy,
8.1 in Netherlands, 6.4 in Sweden, and 8.1 in the UK. Company Design Thinking
Experience, instead, is 4.2 years in Italy, 4.9 in Netherlands, 6 in Sweden, and 7
in the UK.
Figure 05.13 Respondents’ Profiles [Sample = 291]

I T A LY
12/06/1987 DCA Consulting GreatPixel Publicis.Sapient

3M (2) Dedagroup SpA HITACHI VANTARA PwC
Accenture DEGW - L22 HPE Quantility Srl
Alessandro Gianni Deloitte Digital Hub Innovazione Trentino Realtà Srl
Assist Design Italy IBM (2) Reload Srl
B.digital (Blueit Group) Digital Seed SRL Idea-re di Paolo Franceschini Reply
Baboul DINN! Il prisma (2) RINA
BCF Srl Doing Intesys SAP
BCG (2) e-Novia KPMG Advisory Shifton
Bemind Interactive EcoSafe srl Lenovys Sketchin SAGL (3)
Beople Srl ENGINEERING INGEGNERIA Logotel Sogei SpA
Bep business e persone Srl INFORMATICA Makiohasuike & co Souffl (2)
Bip (2) Envision Reply Material Connexion Italia Spark Reply
BTS Design Innovation EPAM Continuum Med-use Strategic Management
Caffeina SpA ESTECO SpA MIDA (3) Partners
Capgemini Eustema SpA MJV TECNOLOGIA E IN- Treehouse Innovation
Cedfor Service Everis NOVAZIONE Tribe Communication
CONSULTANT Evoluzione Telematica Srl Munogu Srl Triplesense Reply
CONSULTEAM Excellence Nautes Università degli Studi di Trento
Contactlab Exprivia SpA NiEW DESIGN Srl Value Partners
Costa Consulenza Modulare Fjord OpenKnowledge Var Group Spa
Integrata Frog Oracle WebRatio Srl
CRMpartners Srl Futureberrry Partners4Innovation Xenia Lab International
Davide Vercelli Studio Gaia (2) Porsche Consulting Zavolta&Partners
NETHERLANDS
6’4 design manufactory Freedomlab NextGenners Studio Dumbar

Accenture Fronteer Npk design Studio Koos
Achilles Design Happen Group Osudio The Incredible Machine
Branddoctors Hoog+Diep Pilotfish The Young
Capgemini IBM pinkoliv Think+DO
Cognizant Interactive Ideate Reframing Studio VanBerlo
contextqueen INK Strategy Remember to play Vanderveer Designers
Deloitte Digital Innovation Booster Spark Xplane
ELP Livework Springtime Yellow Ball
Exact MOBGEN STBY Zuiderlicht
Fabrique Muzus Strategiemakers
SWEDEN
Above Agency Daresay Itch SAP

Another Tomorrow Doberman Kairos Future Söderhavet
Backelite (Capgemini) EITHealth Making Waves Tankeapoteket AB
Berge EVRY NextGen Value AB Tieto
Boid Fjord Openlab Usify (2)
Brand Manual Googol Pollen Valtech (2)
Capgemini Invent Grow Pond Veryday/McKinsey
Cartina Hyper Island PriorityGroup Zenit Design
Centigo IBM Repeat Studio
Crearum Innoproach RISE
Curlabs Inuse (3) SAM
UNITED KINGDOM
Barclays Fjord (2) McKinsey & Company Special Projects

Capco Fluxx Method Spotless
Dalberg Design Frog Design (3) Modern Human TEN by Anatomy HCD ltd
Deloitte Digital Future Tonic Noddingdog LTD Think Plan Thrive
Designit Futurice Normally Ltd Thinkersblock Ltd
Door Idea Couture Nucleus Thinkpublic
DotLabel IDEO Pancentric Treehouse Innovation
EY Seren Livework RetroFuzz Ltd We Are Unstuck
Fahrenheit 212 LSG Group SPARCK.io
OTHER
Barco Ondesign Ernst and Young Nope

European Commission Context Studio DTI Sistema de Ensino Energia
Altran Accenture GUIX Isobar
AVANADE Australian Government Myra SOPRASTERIA
*ANONYMOUS RESPONSES: 46
Figure 05.14 Consulting Organizations partaking in the research [Sample = 291]
0 5 . 2 Applications of Design Thinking by innovators
The second research line aims at studying “Applications of Design Thinking

by innovators”, namely, investigating how Design Thinking is adopted and in-
terpreted by innovative Italian companies within the boundaries of the firm. In
particular, the research examines the similarities, differences, and potentially the
development of patterns, in the practice of Design Thinking and its approaches,
both across industries (Finance, Energy, Information and Communication, Pub-
lic Administration) and across professional roles (C-levels, Design, Innovation,
Marketing, IT).
The goal of this research stream is to attain useful insights on the following
topics:
• The main approaches adopted by Innovators;
• How Design Thinking practices impact on Project Value;
• How project goals moderate the impact of Design Thinking practices on
Project Value;
• Whether similarities and differences can be found by industry and profes-
sional role in Design Thinking practice.
To collect a significant amount of data to answer the latter questions, the re-
search team designed a questionnaire structured in several sections.
Moreover, depending on the respondents’ experience in Design Thinking, the
questionnaire is subdivided into two streams: one for respondents who have
already developed a project based on Design Thinking (a), and another for those
who will develop one in 2019 (b).
The starting sections, common to the two streams, are:
• Introduction
• Profile
Successively, for respondents with more than one year’s Design Thinking expe-
rience, the sections are the following:
• Project
• Goals
• Value
• Brief
While for respondents with less than one year’s Design Thinking experience, the
sections are:
• Goals
• Value
• Brief
To be answered with a future perspective in relation to the expectations and
opinions of a project to be developed in 2019.
Closing is the end section for both streams.
The questionnaire required 30 minutes to be completed. The following pages
will present a more detailed description of the questionnaire structure.

The overall structure of the questionnaire consists in one introduction section,
three sections referring to projects based on Design Thinking that the respon-
dents completed in 2018 (stream a) or two sections referring to projects based
on Design Thinking that the respondent swill complete in 2019 (stream b), one
section focusing on the portfolio of all projects based on Design Thinking com-
pleted in 2018 (stream a) or to be developed in 2019 (stream b), and one final
section dedicated to conclusions.
Introduction and Profile

The first section of the questionnaire, called “Introduction”, presents the Ob-
servatory Design Thinking for Business and provides respondents with some
instructions to compile the questionnaire (see Figure 05.15 – left page).
Subsequently, the “Profile” section aims to collect overall data on the respon-
dents (educational background, job title, years of experience in the firm), the
company they are working at (industry, number of employees, revenues in 2018,
budget for innovation), the Design Thinking experience of the company and the
unit they work for. The latter section allowed the research team to capture im-
portant information on the sample and then cluster it according to organization
size, industry, sector, and experience in the Design Thinking field (see Figure
05.15 – right page).
Figure 05.15 «Introduction» and «Profile» sections of the questionnaire
Project
This section is present only in stream (a) of the questionnaire for respondents
with more than one year’s experience in Design Thinking who have already de-
veloped a project based on Design Thinking that will be the focus of several
subsequent questions.
Indeed, the ‘Project’ section aims at identifying a project based on Design
Thinking, completed in 2018, and which is the most representative for respon-
dents (see Figure 05.16).
To frame the project, some information on the duration and the related organi-
zational and team structure is requested.
In particular, questions on the company’s unit promoting the project, those in-
volved in it, and the members of the team in terms of number of colleagues
of own function, of other functions, and external consultants supporting the
project.
Figure 05.16 «Project» section of the questionnaire

Goals
This section aims to understand the objectives pursued in the project devel-
oped in 2018 (stream a) or the objectives of the project to be carried out in 2019
(stream b).
This section, as in the questionnaire for Consulting Organizations, is composed
of Likert-scale questions aimed at measuring respondents’ opinion of, or atti-
tude toward, the aforementioned topics in terms of their level of agreement with
a variety of statements (see Figure 05.17).
The research team applied a seven-point Likert scale [1 – Strongly disagree; 2 –
Disagree; 3 – Somewhat disagree; 4 – Neither agree or disagree; 5 – Somewhat
agree; 6 – Agree; 7 – Strongly agree] in the questionnaire.
The topics covered in the questions concern different fields, from the analysis
of users to the organizational culture, from the development of a product line to
cost reduction, in order to:
• Understand the objectives pursued by innovators;
• Compare the objectives of a future and past project;
• Compare the characteristic objectives of different industries;
• Compare the objectives pursued by a certain professional role, and conse-
quently a company function with those of another function.
Figure 05.17 «Goals» section of the questionnaire
Value
This section aims to collect information on the kind of value generated by the
project developed in 2018 and selected by the respondents (in the case of
stream a) or the respondents’ opinion of the future value generated by projects
to be developed in 2019 (in the case of stream b).
For both streams, this topic is investigated from two different perspectives: the
value generated for the company and that generated for the clients. To do so,
the research team designed two Likert-scale questions, similar to those used to
investigate Goals in the previous section: the first related to ‘internal’ and the
second to ‘external’ value (see Figure 05.18).
Each statement describes one among the different dimensions and perspec-
tives that value can assume. In terms of the company, the value of the project is
measured with indicators such as positive business impact, improved business
performance, better brand positioning, meeting expectations, positive relation
between costs and benefits, high level of employee engagement, increased con-
fidence with Design Thinking, overall positive effect on the firm. The second part
concerns the impact of the adoption of Design Thinking on clients’ expectations,
their engagement, loyalty, and perception.
Figure 05.18 «Value» section of the questionnaire

Briefs
To investigate the composition of the portfolio of innovation projects based
on Design Thinking to be developed in 2019 (stream b) or completed in 2018
(stream a), the questionnaire, as in the case for Consulting Organizations, re-
lies on four exemplar briefs of the Design Thinking approaches described in
Chapter 1 (Creative Problem Solving, Sprint Execution, Creative Confidence, and
Innovation of Meaning) (see Figure 05.19).
In the case of respondents with experience in Design Thinking (stream a), the
questionnaire presents two further questions: the first asks respondents to clas-
sify the selected project described in the previous sections according to the four
categories proposed in the exemplar briefs, while the second asks how the 2018
budget for innovative projects based on Design Thinking for each of the four
briefs has changed compared to 2017.
Subsequently, the three following questions, common to both streams, collect
information on:
• How the innovation budget was subdivided across the four exemplar briefs
considering the projects completed in 2018 by the respondents’ unit (stream
a) or for the future projects to be developed in 2019 (stream b);
• Which capabilities and attitudes have had the largest positive influence on
the success of the project in the four categories.
Figure 05.19 «Briefs» section of the questionnaire
Closing
Similarly to the questionnaire for Consulting Organizations, this concluding sec-
tion of the questionnaire has the main goal of collecting respondents’ personal
and contact information to enable the research team to re-contact them with
the research results (see Figure 05.20).
The section opens with a short text thanking participants and informing them on
how the collected responses will be used. Subsequently, a set of five questions
relates to personal information, in particular: name, surname, e-mail address,
year of birth, and gender.
The questionnaire closes with the Information Notice on Processing of Person-
al Data (GDPR), asking respondent whether they consent to the processing of
their personal information.
Figure 05.20 «Closing» section of the questionnaire

The questionnaire was distributed by the Politecnico di Milano in Italy to sev-
eral companies and organizations. Similarly to the questionnaire for consulting
companies, the data collection lasted from the end of October until the end of
December, gathering 282 responses in total, of which 156 from respondents
with more than one year’s experience in Design Thinking (Adopters) and 126
with less than one year’s experience (Wannabes).
Concerning the adopters, the average number of employees in 2018 was 589.9;
within the business units, the average number of employees in 2018 was 113.9.
The average revenues obtained by the organizations in 2018 were equal to
500.9 million € but differed significantly by industry (See Figure 05.21). For ex-
ample the average revenues in Finance and Insurance are comparable with the
Energy and Public Administration but are significantly higher than Information
and Communication and Retail.
The average budget assigned in 2018 to innovation projects was 1.3 Million €,
of which 19% used for projects based on Design Thinking, while across indus-
tries , there is a significant difference between Finance and Insurance, Energy
and the other industries. As a matter of fact, the first two on average assigned
3.1 Million € while the remaining three industries invested one third.
Respondents affirmed that, on average, their company started adopting Design
Thinking 2 years ago. Considering the Adopters and the differences across in-
dustries we can see that the one with the highest experience is the Information
and Communication with on average 4.1 years while the other industries shows
on average 3.2 years of experience. Indeed these five industries are the most
advanced one in the overall market and they are 104 Reponses out of the overall
sample of 156.
Focusing on the business units, the average number of employees involved in

Design Thinking projects in 2018 was 23.0%.

AVERAGE N° OF EMPLOYEES: 867.5 AVERAGE BUDGET DEDICATED TO INNOVATION: 3.0 Million €
AVERAGE REVENUES: 775.3 Million € AVERAGE % OF INNOVATION BUDGET DEDICATED TO PROJECTS BASED ON DESIGN THINKING 45%
ENERGY
AVERAGE N° OF EMPLOYEES: 776.2 AVERAGE FUNCTION BUDGET DEDICATED TO INNOVATION: 2.6 Million €
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

AVERAGE REVENUES: 374.3 Million € AVERAGE % OF INNOVATION BUDGET DEDICATED TO PROJECTS BASED ON DESIGN THINKING
RETAIL
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Figure 05.21 Adopters: Company Size, Revenues in 2018, Design Thinking Experience, and Innovation Budget in 2018 [Sample = 156]
Finally, taking into account the individual respondents, the sample can be ana-
lyzed through variables such as Educational Background, Function, and Design
Thinking Experience (see Figure 05.22).
Considering the C-Levels, the sample shows that the respondents’ top 3 Educa-
tional Backgrounds are Information Technology (30.2%), Engineering (20.7%),
Economics (13.2%), while the top 3 Functions are Information Technology
(37.7%), Board (28.3%), and Business Development (7.5%). Turning to the aver-
age individual Design Thinking experience, C-Levels respondents, on average,
have personally adopted Design Thinking for 2 years. Considering the Design
business unit, the sample shows that the respondents’ top 3 Educational Back-
grounds are Design (43.3%), Communication and Media (20.0%), Engineering
(13.3%), while the top 3 Functions are Design (66.7%), Information Technology
(13.3%), Research and Development (6.7%). Design Thinking has been adopted
on average by this sample for 3.8 years.
With regard to the R&D Department, the respondents’ top 3 Educational Back-
grounds are Engineering (38.1%), Information Technology (23.8%), Economics
(14.3%), while the top 3 Functions are R&D (33.3%), Information Technology
(33.3%), Marketing (9.5%). Design Thinking has been adopted on average by this
sample for 1.9 years.
Considering the Marketing unit, the respondents’ top 3 Educational Back-
grounds are Economics (28.1%), Engineering (18.7%), Business Administration
(6.2%), while the top 3 Functions are Marketing (71.9%), Business Develop-
ment (12.5%), Sales (6.2%). In terms of individual Design Thinking experience,
C-Level respondents, on average, have personally adopted Design Thinking
for 2.18 years.
As concerns the IT Department, the respondents’ top 3 Educational Back-
grounds are Information Technology (43.5%), Mathematics (26.1%), Engineering
(13.4%), while the top 3 Functions are Information Technology (78.3%), Board
(17.4%), Research and Development (4.5%). Design Thinking has on average
been adopted by this sample for 1.1 years.
C-LEVELS (Chief Design Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Technology Officer)
TOP 3 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Information Technology (30.2%), Engineering (20.7%), Economics (13.2%)
TOP 3 FUNCTION: Information Technology (37.7%), Board (28.3%), Business Development (7.5%)
AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL DESIGN THINKING EXPERIENCE: 2 years
DESIGN (Chief Design Officer, Business Designer, Experience Designer, Service Designer, UI Designer, UX Designer)
TOP 3 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Design (43.3%), Communication and Media (20.0%), Engineering (13.33%)
TOP 3 FUNCTION: Design (66,7%), Information Technology (13.3%), Research and Development (6.7%)
AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL DESIGN THINKING EXPERIENCE: 3.8 years
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Chief Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer, Software Engineer)
TOP 3 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Information Technology (43.5%), Mathematics (26.1%), Engineering (13.4)%
TOP 3 FUNCTION: Information Technology (78.3%), Board (17.4%), Research and Development (4.5%)
INNOVATION (R&D Managers, Business Analyst)

TOP 3 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Engineering (38.1%), Information Technology (23.8%), Economics (14.3%)
TOP 3 FUNCTION: Research and Development (33.3%), Information Technology (33.3%), Marketing (9.5%)
MARKETING & SALES (Chief Marketing Officer, Marketing Manager, Account Manger, Data Scientist)
TOP 3 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Economics (28.1%), Engineering (18.7%), Business Administration (6.2%)
TOP 3 FUNCTION: Marketing (71.9%), Business Development (12.5%), Sales (6.2%)
Figure 05.22 Respondents’ Profiles [Sample = 282]

1° I.C. Nocera Inferiore (SA) Enel Spa Parmalat spa
A2A Energia SpA Engie Italia PayDo Srl
ABB SpA Engineering Pelliconi
Aboca Spa Eni (8) Personalive
Accademia di Belle Arti di Frosinone Eni Gas e Luce (2) Phoenix QC SA
Accenture Eni SpA Pirelli Tyre Spa
AdB Spa Aeroporto Guglielmo Marconi Epoca srl PMProgetti srl
Bologna E-Viewing Engineering Poste Italiane (5)
Agenzia per il trasporto pubblico locale Evway Primark Italy
del bacino di Cremona e Mantova Excelpay Proges scarl (ONLUS)
Agenzia strategica per lo sviluppo Exprivia S.p.A. Progetti e Soluzioni spa
ecosostenibile del territorio – Regione FALPI srl Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano
Puglia Fastweb Provincia Autonoma di Trento
Agos Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane (2) PwC (2)
AKQA Fideuram Intesa Sanpaolo Private Quantcast
Alessandro Gianni Banking QUIXA
ALIDAYS Fiorentino Management Consultants RadioMilanoInternational
Alitalia Loyalty Firstech Innovation Srl Randstad
Alpenite Futuro & Impresa srl RCS Mediagroup
Alpitour spa Generali Italia Reale Group
Amministrazione Provinciale Gi Group Spa REAL-TIME S.R.L.
Ansaldo Energia S.p.A. Giemme Stile spa Robert Bosch S.p.A.
Aptar Inc Giorgio Armani (3) Roche SpA
Argotractors Giovanardi Pototschnig & Associati Rolls-Royce Bergen Engines Srl
ARTEA Global & Local, Srl S4win
Artsana (4) Gruppo Sella spa SAEP ICT Engineering s.r.l.
ASL RIETI GSK Consumer Healthcare (2) Saes Getters
Assiom HAVI Logistics Same Deutz-Fahr Italia Spa
AUTOMOBILE CLUB ITALIA HDI Holding Dolciaria Italiana Spa SEW-EURODRIVE
AXA Helvetia Shardana Tours
Azienda USL di Bologna Humanitas spa SIA
Bamakò IBM Siemens Spa
Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena IBM Italia Silvano Chiapparoli Logistica S.p.A.
Banca Popolare di Sondrio (2) IKEA SIMONELLI GROUP SPA
Barilla Illycaffè (2) SI-PMA
Basis Engineering Inail Siram by Veolia
BCON ING Bank Sisal Entertainment S.p.A
BearingPoint Innext Sisal Group SpA
BNL Innose Conseil SISAL SPA
Boehringer Ingelheim Integer Skillfor
Bottega Veneta International Paper Italia Sky Italia
Bottega Verde S.r.l. Intesa Sanpaolo (10) Società Unipersonale Donatella Bollani
Bper banca IREN SOGEGROSS Spa
Business processing engineering ISMB Sorgenia (2)
Camera di Commercio di Vibo Valentia Istituto Italiano Desing Sostanza SRL
Candy Hoover Group Italgas S.p.A. Spark Reply
Casinò di Venezia Gioco Spa IURI RIVA STEF Italia spa
Chiara2rent IVAR SPA Studio Campanile & Ceschi
Cigierre spa Jinglebell Communication Studio di Comunicazione Gardella
CINECA Jointly - Il welfare condiviso Srl Tailoradio Srl
Co.M.Media srl Keter Talent Garden S.p.A.
COCA-COLA ITALIA Keter Italia SPA Tea Spa
Collegio interprovinciale Agrotecnici La Consolazione ETAB Teamsystem
Agrotecnici laureati AL BI VC Lazio Innova Spa Tech Life
Comune di Borgia Leroy Merlin TECRES S.p.A
Comune di Fanna Levitas Spa TFB srl
Comune di Milano Libero professionista TheDigitalBox
Comune di Origgio Ligatus Thegira
Comune di Sappada Lindbergh srl TicketOne S.p.A.
Comune di Terre del Reno LinearAssicurazioni TIM (3)
Comune di Palermo M&M forgings s.r.l. Trentino Digitale (2)
Comunità Montana Valtellina di Mor- Mail Boxes etc Unicoop Firenze (2)
begno Mediobanca Unipolsai
Confindustria Vicenza Med-use Uqido
Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro MENNEKES USR LAZIO MIUR
Consorzio Dras Metarete Srl Valsoia spa
Creacasa srl (3) Midori Verti Assicurazioni
Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche SPA Moncler (3) VIMAR SPA
Danieli NeurOne Vodafone (2)
Desivero.com Neodata Group Vodafone Italia spa
DigitalGO (2) Neosperience Webads
Domec S.p.A. Nexive Webraanking
Dompé farmaceutici S.p.a NTT DATA Whirlpool (2)
Edenred NTT DATA Italia XeniaLab International
Edison OMG Zambon (2)
Edita Sidera OMRON ELECTRONICS SPA ZeraTech s.r.l.
Electrolux (2) OTB SpA - holding di OTB group Zucchetti spa
Enel (8) PACO Design Collaborative
Enel Italia s.r.l.(2) Pagani Pens SA
Figure 05.23 Companies and Organizations partaking in the research [Sample = 227]
0 5 . 3 Evolutions of Design Thinking enabled by Emerging Startups
The third research line Evolutions of Design Thinking enabled by Emerging

Startups is based on a desk research conducted on the startups characteriz-
ing the Design Thinking ecosystem. The aim, on one hand, is to re-analyze the
emerging factors and trends shaping this ecosystem at an international level to
explore and understand the changes and differences compared to the previous
year. On the other hand, this year, a more focused and deeper analysis has been
undertaken to better understand how AI-based startups impact on, and might
affect, the future of Design Thinking.
The research was performed by leveraging Crunchbase (https://www.crunch-
base.com), a leading database consisting of investors, incubators, and start-
ups, comprising around 500,000 data points profiling companies, people, and
funds. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were adopted. First, only startups with
the following three features were considered:
1. Founded after 1 January 2012;
2. Received at least one fund;
3. Received their last funding after 1 January 2015.
Next, we engaged a pool of 4 Design Thinking experts to skim the database,
filtering tags, and consider only startups related to the Design Thinking domain
as follows:
• Tags related to design topics: UX design, web design, human computer in-
teraction, industrial design, graphic design, product design, mechanical de-
sign, social innovation, interior design, furniture;
• Tags related to organization and innovation topics: usability testing, CAD,
3D technology, augmented reality, video chat, 3D printing, creative agen-
cy, video editing, collaboration, innovation management, product manage-
ment, project management, intellectual property, management consulting,
advanced materials, document management, meeting software, artificial
intelligence.
Overall, this process reduced the startups to be examined in depth to 4,266. To
further reduce the sample of startups, we analyzed their websites and, where
necessary, articles in specialized and general press. This analysis allowed ex-
cluding several startups that were not aligned with DT approach, reducing the
number of startups belonging to the Design Thinking ecosystem to 487. To go
further in depth, we divided the startups into two categories:
• Core (160 startups): directly supponting and centered on Design Thinking;
• Peripheral (327 startups): indirectly supporting and centered on Design
Thinking.
All core startups were studied in detail, highlighting:
• The countries where the startups were founded;
• The number, typology, and amount of funding received;
• The number of founders and employees;
• The different Design Thinking approaches and phases supported;
• Their use of Artificial Intelligence technology;
• Their business models and the industries in which they operate.

Abos Labs Gravity Sketch Proggio
AdMobilize HAAARTLAND Pymetrics
AirCTO Heek Quantion
AlignMeeting IdeaFlow Quip
All Turtles Ideakeep Rainbird Technologies
Alpha iGenius RapidUI
Amplitude iguazio Raw Shorts
Applitools Imperative Remesh
Appvance.ai Innovation 360 Retainable
Attentiv intelliHR Holdings Retrium
Aubry Intraboom Rever
Avocode iTiZZiMO Robin
B12 jaco Rokk3r
Braingineers Jatana Saberr
Canva Journey Sales ScopeAI
ClearVoice JourneyXP SD3D
Cnverg Karbon Sentiance
Cobraine Klydo Simpplr
Cognisess Konsus Smartlook
Coophi kpibsc.com Stitched
Cosmic Info Ventures LaunchBoard Studio XID
Crobox LaunchLeap Swae
Crowd4Test LaunchPad Central Synapbox
Crystal Apps Leena AI Talentoday
Daisee Legit test.ai
Daitum LiveStories TestingTime
data.world LMNSOFTSOLUTIONS Testsigma
DevOpsGuys LogFuze The Vision Lab
Differential Lollypop The Wild
DreamItReel Lookback ThinkLab
Dreamler Magnetic Software Tika.ai
EdGE Networks Mecenato Torch 3D
Eigen Technologies methinks Technologies uMake
Eightfold Microweber Up Your Game
Enswarm Mindesk Ursa
Escreo MintM UXTesting
Espressite Mirra Vectr
Eyesover Morf3D Veritone
Fetch.AI MyChannel Virtualitics
Figma Overcast HQ vPhrase Analytics Solutions
Focoosin Pagedraw Wazoku
Forecast Parabol Wazombi
ForwardLane Part-up Wyzerr
Frrole Pendo Your Data Consulting
GainX Perceptive AI ZAPIENS
Gamalon Pixoneye zeroheight
Give and Take Playbuzz Zoomdata14
Gooroo Prodsight
Graffity productboard
Figure 05.24 Core Design Thinking startups analyzed in details
0 5 . 4 Forthcoming Reports
In the following months, three different vertical reports will be drafted by the
Observatory research team. These publications aim to share with the design
thinking community more insights on the three aforementioned research lines.
As explained in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, a great deal of data and interesting evi-
dence has been collected, and this Booklet is only a first outlet reporting some
of these.
The first report concerns the Adoption of Design Thinking across Industries
(see Figure 05.25). This document provides a more in-depth exploration and
documentation of the evidence emerging from the national and international
surveys briefly proposed in Chapters 2 and 3. In particular, the focus of the re-
port is to triangulate the descriptive information previously reported to provide
more insights on the different adoptions of design thinking across industries.
Indeed, our samples include a considerable variety of industries mapped, and a
more accurate explanation of the results will benefit consulting organizations
as well as innovators. The former would gain knowledge on the areas where
the methodology is unknown, and directly address those that are more in line
with their business. The latter, for example, can gain knowledge on the level of
adoption of this powerful methodology in their industry, and through a self-as-
sessment, evaluate whether they should invest in this methodology to empow-
er their employees. These are just two of the key takeaways that readers can
obtain from this report.
Figure 05.25 Forthcoming Report “Adoption of Design Thinking across Industries”

The second is titled Interpretation of Design Thinking by CxO (see Figure
05.26). This report aims to shed light on the adoption of, and value generated
by, the design thinking methodology in the Italian market. In particular, it will
provide a specific interpretation of design thinking as proposed by the C-levels
in companies. In this year of research, we had the opportunity to collect data
from several managers from different industries, and in this report (forthcoming
in May), we will share the evidence emerging from the analysis conducted. In
more detail, we received responses from Chief Executive Officers (18 respons-
es), Chief Information Officers (23), Chief Design Officers (36), Chief Human Re-
sources Officers (10), Chief Marketing Officers (32), Chief Operation Officer (11).
Leveraging this unique database, the report will provide details of the different
perceptions that these C-levels have on the value that the design thinking meth-
odology can generate in projects, the primary goals that this methodology can
achieve, and the various investments that different business units are planning
for future design thinking innovations. Thus, the report will map the perspec-
tives of adopters, in other words, the interpretations of C-levels who adopted
design thinking in 2018, as well as the perspectives of future adopters. Indeed,
the survey was also structured to grasp the expected value of design thinking
and thus the value, goals, and investments that C-levels planned for 2019.
Figure 05.26 Forthcoming Report “Interpretation of Design Thinking by CxO”
The last report that will enrich the evidence reported in this booklet is titled Em-
powering Design Thinking through Startups (see Figure 05.27). This report is in
continuity with the previous report Startups in the Design Thinking Ecosystem
published last June by the Observatory, which reviewed more than 100 startups.
In particular, in this edition of the report, the investigation enriches the analysis
of TechCrunch with secondary resources based on an overview of startups that
support Design Thinking. In more detail, the report will shed light on the role
that startups from all over the world can have in empowering Design Thinking
processes.
This will benefit consulting organizations, enabling them to identify in which

part of the Design Thinking process new businesses are introduced, as well as
innovators who can leverage those services to add new practices and tools to
their daily Design Thinking processes. In sum, this report will play the role of a
compass for firms to navigate the overcrowded world of startups. The report
will help companies spot the startups that are more relevant to the phase of the
process they are facing, as it will assist them in identifying which services to pro-
pose and how those solutions would empower the Design Thinking processes.
Figure 05.27 Forthcoming Report “Empowering Design Thinking through Startups”

06 C O M M U N I T Y
DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVES
Kick-off, Design Thinking Jams

and Convention
06 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
06 C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E T I N I T I AT I V E S
Kick-off, Design Thinking Jams and Convention
The community development initiatives of the 2nd edition of the Design Think-
ing for Business Observatory have been based on 6 main events: the Kick-off
(09th May 2018), 4 Design Thinking Jams (on 02nd July 2018 dedicated to Cre-
ative Problem Solving; on 23rd October 2018 dedicated to Sprint Execution Jam;
on 4th February 2019 dedicated to Innovation of Meaning) and the Convention
(29th March 2019).
The Observatory of Design Thinking has theorized and clustered the research
on Design Thinking for service providers into 4 main kinds, each with different
characteristics, actors, and final objectives, which are briefly summarized below:
• Creative Problem Solving: the methodology pillar of Design Thinking, is
used to resolve problems in a user-centric approach that permits creating
solutions focused on rapid prototyping and testing;
• Sprint Execution: born as an evolution of Creative Problem Solving, it fo-
cuses on delivering products in an inside-out approach. “Making” more
than “ideating” enables the team to cut timewasting and focus on creating
a Minimum Viable Product;
• Creative Confidence: its focus is first on people rather than on solutions,
paying attention to changing the strict organizational structure through en-
gagement and involvement. People are the center of innovative products;
• Innovation of Meaning: the last kind focuses attention on creating a new
meaningful direction that can revise old processes based on designing a
new solution. Changing the point of view with an outside-in approach en-
ables criticizing and not only ideating.
9 T H M AY 2 0 1 8 2 N D J U LY 2 0 1 8 2 3 RD O C T O B E R 2 0 1 8
Design Thinking Jam dedicated Design Thinking Jam dedicated

Kick-off Meeting
to Creative Problem Solving to Sprint Execution

Based on these 4 kinds of Design Thinking, the research team developed and
proposed 4 “Jams” intended to explain the different purposes and clarify to ser-
vice providers how to approach and implement the concepts and practices with
different actors to facilitate the internal introduction and development of Design
Thinking according to type.
Each Design Thinking Jam day included two distinct phases. The morning was
dedicated to speeches related firstly to techniques, skills, principles of the kind
of Design Thinking specific of the Jam and, on the second hand, to Design Think-
ing experiences of companies partners of the Observatory Design Thinking for
Business. While the afternoon was dedicated to Workshops, each facilitated by
a partner company. For each Jam, specific tools have been developed for each
type of Design Thinking, useful for conducting the Workshop.
The convention explores Design Thinking along three different perspectives:
Thinking: this research line benefits from the collaboration with Delft Uni-
versity of Technology, Imperial College Business School, Reykjavik Univer-
sity and Stockholm School of Economics in order to provide a global over-
view about the approaches, practices and capabilities of Design Thinking
developed by the consultants;
• Applications of Design Thinking by innovators: this research line investi-
gates the similarities and differences in the pioneering adoption of Design
Thinking by innovators across industries (e.g., Finance, Energy, Information
and Communication, Public Administration) and professional roles (e.g.,
C-levels, Design, Research and Development, Marketing, IT);
• Evolutions of Design Thinking enabled by emerging startups: this research
line identifies those emerging startups that provide interesting technolog-
ical solutions (e.g., Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Rapid Prototyping) to
empower the Design Thinking processes.
2 3 RD N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 8 4 TH F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 9 2 9 TH M A R C H 2 0 1 9
Design Thinking Jam dedicated Design Thinking Jam dedicated

Convention
to Creative Confidence to Innovation of Meaning
0 6 . 1 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Creative Problem Solving
On July 2, 2018 the first Design Thinking Jam took place dedicated to the first
type of Design Thinking approach (see Figure 06.1), whose main characteristics
will be briefly explained below. According to Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, Design
Thinking can be defined as “a human-centered approach to innovation that
draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibili-
ties of technology, and the requirements for business success”. Design Thinking
employs divergent thinking as a way to ensure that many possible solutions are
explored in the first instance, and then convergent thinking as a way to nar-
row these down to a final solution. Although since its birth Design Thinking has
stimulated different interpretations, four elements represent the fundamental
ingredients:
• Wicked problems: Design Thinking is a problem solving methodology ad-
opted to address very ambiguous problems; a wicked problem is defined
as a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve due to incomplete, con-
tradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize;
• Human-centered perspective: Design Thinking adopts the human perspec-
tive in all steps of the problem-solving process; human involvement typ-
ically occurs in observing the problem within the context, brainstorming,
conceptualizing, developing, and implementing the solution;
Creativity in the problem diamond: reframing and nailing a problem worth solving
Biography
Mattia Bianchi is Associate Professor of Business Administration at the House of Innovation Mattia Bianchi
of the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE). Mattia holds a PhD in Management, Economics Associate Professor of
Business Administration
and Industrial Engineering from Politecnico di Milano and an International Diploma in
Management from Imperial College London, UK.
2
nd
Observatory DESIGN THINKING FOR BUSINESS JULY 2018 Mattia is a passionate teacher and researcher on open innovation, design thinking, lean and
h 9.00 – 17.30 agile product development. His research has been published in leading journals such as House of Innovation
Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, R&D Stockholm School of Economics
DESIGN THINKING JAM Management, Technovation and Journal of Business Research (www.mattiabianchi. com).
NHOW MILAN
Via Tortona 35
20144 Milano
Experiencing Creative Problem Solving: Laboratories facilitated by Partners
CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
Powered by Laboratory 1 Lab 1A | Miami
the Founder
Digital Lovers: Revitalizing the in-store-experience of Service Retailers FACILITATED BY
• Experience: In-store-experience of service retailers

• Challenge: Digital technologies are radically transforming the Retail experiences. The
09.00 Welcome Coffee possibility to access desired products and services is not anymore enough to engage people in Lab 1B | Cape Town
visiting stores. For this reason, Retailers (especially the Service ones such as banking,
09.30 Principles and practices of the Creative Problem Solving, Cabirio Cautela insurance, telecommunication, etc.) need to re-conceptualize and revitalize the in-store- FACILITATED BY
10.00 Skills, competences and attitudes in the Creative Problem Solving, Claudio Dell’Era experience
• People: Considering the challenge mentioned above, focus on digital lovers. Independently by
10.30 Engaging through Creative Problem Solving stories, Partners
the age (millennials, X generation, Y generation, etc.), focus on those people confident with
digital technologies to the point they usually prefer to search, assess and consume digital retail Lab 1C | Dubai + Panama
experience instead of in-store ones
• Output: Focusing on a specific category of Service Retail (eventually a specific brand), design a FACILITATED BY
new in-store-experience that can engage digital lovers in visiting stores
11.15 Tasting different Creative Problem Solving blends

12.15 Creativity in the problem diamond: reframing and nailing a problem worth solving, Mattia Bianchi Laboratory 2
13.00 Light Lunch Millenials: Personalizing Fast Moving Consumer Goods

• Experience: Product personalization
14.00 Experiencing Creative Problem Solving: Laboratories facilitated by Partners • Challenge: Over the past two decades, there has been a slow, but powerful, shift back toward
Lab 2D | Hong Kong
17.00 Wrap up and Next steps valuing personalization of consumer goods, enabled by the opportunities provided by digital
technologies. According to several researches, especially Millennials value customization when
FACILITATED BY
shopping. In addition to the more rational benefits of a personalized product, there are
emotional ones as well. When customers are empowered with input, they form a connection
to the product
• People: Considering the challenge mentioned above, focus on Millennials, and especially those
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, in collaboration with who value the opportunity to express themselves through the products they consume
• Output: Focusing on a specific category of Fast Moving Consumer Goods such as Food,
Beverage, Fashion (eventually a specific brand), design a new service supporting the
personalization of fast moving consumer goods
Laboratory 3
Sustainable Citizens: Energy Consumption in Smart Cities
• Experience: Energy consumption
Partners Sponsors • Challenge: The Energy industry is significantly transforming for several reasons. Utilities need to
change their business model in order to escape price-based competition. The evolution of digital
technologies is a game changer for enabling new services and new value proposition even in the
energy field. More companies even from different sectors are looking at the energy field for Lab 3E | Parigi
FACILITATED BY
complementing their service-based business model with a full package contract that includes
FACILITATED BY
energy commodities for a complete end-user lock-in process
• People: These disrupting changes enable the birth of new paradigms such as Smart Cities, which
require a complete reinterpretation of the roles covered by players that operate in the energy
… industry. More specifically citizens are looking for new services that enable more sustainable and
convenient consumption
• Output: Focusing on the residential context and leveraging on the opportunities provided by
digital-intelligent technologies, design a new service supporting the Smart Cities paradigm
Figure 06.1 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Creative Problem Solving (2nd July 2018)

• Abductive reasoning: Design Thinking integrates analytical thinking (de-
ductive and inductive logical thinking that utilizes quantitative methodol-
ogies to arrive at conclusions) and intuitive thinking (knowing without rea-
soning); the ideation process in Design Thinking projects aims to support
creativity by generating a large quantity of ideas that the team can then
filter to extract the best, most practical or innovative ones;
• Prototyping: Design Thinking makes use of artefacts, drawings, role-play-
ing and more to create preliminary models leading to a testable solution;
experimentation forces asking questions and making choices; the most im-
portant goal of prototyping is to obtain feedback from the ultimate users. In
other words, prototypes are rapid and effective sources of communication
and learning among stakeholders
Creative processes are usually characterized by the combination of a divergent

phase, where several ideas and proposals can be created, and a convergent
phase, where ideas and proposals need to be refined and narrowed down to
identify the most promising ones (see Figure 06.2). Three tools have been spe-
cifically developed for each phase, considering the involvement of team mem-
bers and end users, fostering creativity and individual opinions, in a step-by-
step process throughout the phases. The use of these three tools opens the door
to new applications of Creative Problem Solving in contexts in which this meth-
odology is not clear or when the team is so heterogeneous and variable that it
doesn’t allow creating internally developed methodologies. The three tools are:
• User Profiling: Tool developed to integrate the end user within the process,
fostering the user-centricity of the solution created;
• Problem Reframing: Tool created to reframe the current problem and val-
ues that emerged in the Discover phase, helping to set the stage;
• Creative Ideating: Tool designed to foster the creativity of team members
after problem setting through visualization and specific explanations.
LEGEND: DISCOVER DEFINE DEVELOP DELIVER
designer
user
Figure 06.2 Process of Creative Problem Solving
USER PROFILING / Name Surname:

…
Company:
…
MY EXPERIENCE
NAME:
“General information” …
This box concerns the
user and can be useful LOVE / I love the current experience because …
AGE:
for clustering and
targeting the research.
… Picture
…
Only personal
information is needed LOCATION:
that is useful in the …
identification process,
avoiding additional info.
WHO I AM
THE OBJECT THAT BETTER DESCRIBES ME:

… HATE / I hate the current experience because …
MY SOURCE OF HAPPINESS: …
…
FACEBOOK FOR ME IS:

…
TECH SAVVY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(scale 1 to 7)
Observatory «Design Thinking for Business»

Creative Problem Solving © School of Management – Politecnico di Milano
“Who I am” “My Experience”

The clear objective of this box is to create This box is focused on the main argument.
empathy with the end user and reveal personal It offers two opposite perspectives helping
insights. Statements in this box are also helpful the user to express extreme views, feelings,
to vary the topics during the interview and and values useful for future investigations
detect interesting links with the main argument. and changes.

PROBLEM REFRAMING / Team:
….
FROM TO
Describe in short claims the dominant values perceived by the user in Reframe in short claims the emerging values that can be appreciated by
the current experience the user in the innovative experience “From To”
The first part of the
… … tool is based on the
concept of “translating”
values from the old and
depreciated values of
the current experience
to the innovative and
emerging values that
… … must be present in the
final solution. The values
that a solution brings
are more important than
anything else.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Describe in a synthetic way the specific problem you would address considering the emerging values previously identified

“Problem Statement”
Concluding the first converging phase and developing the consequent
solution requires a clear view of the problem to solve and tailor an ad hoc
solution that will satisfy the end user. The team works together to highlight
in few words the core of the problem to work on in the future.
CREATIVE IDEATING / Team:

…
DRAW
Sketch a significant stage of the innovative experience highlighting the proposed changes in comparison to the current experience
“Draw”
The first box of the
tool focuses on the
real change linked to
the new experience
through sketching
it. Highlighting
the differences
and exploiting the
possibilities are the two
pillars of this box.
CONTEXT REASON WHY

Describe the context of use where the significant sketched stage Describe the motivations that guide you in sketching the
happens significant stage
… …

“Context” “Reason Why”

Each change has to be recognized within This box focuses on the motivations that lead
the whole experience, understanding the the designer to arrive at the solution sketched;
boundaries. Here it is important to provide focusing attention on the values and problems
a clear description and choose the correct determined in the previous tool to maintain a flow
words to use. of continuity during the development process.

2 ND
JUL 2018 175 PARTICIPANTS 35 COMPANIES
PA R T N E R S
SPONSORS
GUESTS
0 6 . 2 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Sprint Execution
On October 23, 2018 the second Design Thinking Jam took place dedicated to
the second type of Design Thinking approach (see Figure 06.3), whose main
characteristics will be briefly explained below.
As Govindarajan and Trimble underline in the book The Other Side of Innovation:
Solving the Execution Challenge published by Harvard Business Press in 2010,
companies can’t survive without innovating, but most place far more empha-
sis on generating big ideas than on executing them. According to the authors
this is because “ideating” is energizing and glamorous. By contrast, execution
seems like humdrum, behind-the-scenes dirty work. The execution challenge is
becoming even harsher because of the opportunities that digital technologies
provide. On the one hand, crowdsourcing and idea management platforms, but
also mock-up software and 3D printing greatly support both the development of
new concepts and access to ideas generated by someone else to the point that
conceiving is no longer the real challenge that companies face in the innovation
arena. In the last two decades, both education and the economic systems have
lavished great efforts on nurturing individual and team creativity. On the other
hand, the opportunities provided by this incredible amount of ideas frequently
don’t correspond to effective results due to the issues associated with execution.
The role of startups in nurturing and accelerating the innovation process
Biography
Stefano Mainetti is the Chief Executive Officier of PoliHub, the business incubator of Stefano Mainetti
Politecnico di Milano. He is graduated from Politecnico di Milano and he is Adjunct Professor Chief Executive Officer
of the Faculty of MIP Politecnico di Milano in the area of "Management of Information
23rd OCTOBER 2018 System". He is founder and chairman of WebScience srl (www.webscience.it) a company born
Observatory DESIGN THINKING FOR BUSINESS with the goal of emphasize knowledge and research in complementary sectors, translating PoliHub
h 09.00 - 17.30
them into digital transformation projects for its clients. WebScience is a spin-off of the EBLab Innovation District
DESIGN THINKING JAM Research Centre of Politecnico Innovazione (Politecnico di Milano). & Startup Accelerator
NHOW MILAN
Via Tortona 35
SPRINT EXECUTION 20144 Milano
Experiencing Sprint Execution: Laboratories facilitated by Partners
LABORATORY 1 Lab 1A | Dubai
Digital Native: Supporting the Retail Experience Recommending Your Best Product FACILITATED BY
• Experience: Digital experience provided by product retailers

09.00 Welcome Coffee • Challenge: We live in a world awash with ideas. Thanks to open innovation, crowdsourcing, and especially
to digital technologies, we have easy access to an unprecedented amount of novel opportunities. This is
especially through in the retail context where allowing people to access the product they need is not
09.30 Principles, practices and capabilities of the Sprint Execution, Claudio Dell’Era anymore enough
Lab 1B | Miami
10.00 Accelerating the innovation process through experimentation and MVP, Stefano Magistretti • People: Especially digital native are looking for new digital systems that, leveraging on the emerging FACILITATED BY
10.30 Engaging through Sprint Execution stories, Partners opportunities provided by Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, allow them to easily compare
several alternatives and receive personalized advices
• Output: Focusing on a specific category of product retail (eventually a specific brand), design a new digital
application that can reccomend digital natives in identifying, selecting and buying the desired products
11.15 Tasting different Sprint Execution blends

12.15 The role of startups in nurturing and accelerating the innovation process, Stefano Mainetti LABORATORY 2 Lab 2C | Parigi
Healthy Lovers: Personal Assistant for Your Nutrition FACILITATED BY
13.00 Light Lunch • Experience: Digital experience supporting daily nutrition
• Challenge: Digital technologies are embedded in the contemporary world. By playing a fundamental role
14.00 Experiencing Sprint Execution: Laboratories facilitated by Partners in the life of many people, digital technologies are ubiquitous: entrenched in every aspect of modern life,
17.00 Wrap up and Next steps they have become a necessary mean for the most part of the population. They offer a vast array of uses,
supporting people daily: wanting a healthy body and mind, solving problems with search, being productive
on the go, feeling never too old (or young) to learn, getting smarter with their finances, etc.
• People: Modern society values health more than ever before. From the body to the mind, people want to
nurture their health, and they are determined to do so with the help of technologies. “Bodybuilding” and
“weightlifting” apps searches have increased by 190%
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, in collaboration with • Output: Design a new digital application developed by a startup able to personally assist healthy lovers in
their daily choices about nutrition
LABORATORY 3 Lab 3D | Panama

Smart Citizens: Mobility across Cities FACILITATED BY
• Experience: Digital experience supporting your urban mobility

• Challenge: Cities and mobility services are changing; more and more digital services are offered within and
Partners Sponsors among cities. People, fed up with congested cities, are innovating smart mobility with new mobile
technologies and intuitive apps which integrate public transportation, better infrastructure, and car
Lab 3E | Cape Town
sharing
• People: People can pay their metro ticket with a contactless card or order their food through their FACILITATED BY
smartphones. These are just two example of solutions that aim at reducing barriers to access services and
easily move across cities. In this context, people are looking for smart and flexible solutions supporting
their mobility
• Output: Focusing on a specific urban context, design a new digital application that can support the smart
citizens in moving across cities
Figure 06.3 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Sprint Execution (23rd October 2018)

The analysis of more than 40 organizations providing advisory services based
on Design Thinking shows that an intriguing evolution of this paradigm is the
shift from conceiving to executing. This kind of Design Thinking, called Sprint
Execution (Design Thinking 2.1), emerges from the hybridization between the
original Creative Problem Solving (Design Thinking 1.0) and the lean movement.
The book Sprint – How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five
Days by Jake Knapp, former design partner at Google Ventures, is probably
the key reference in this debate where Design Thinking can accelerate creative
processes.
Sprint Execution is an evident evolution of Creative Problem Solving, focused

even more on the final solution, cutting timewasting and involving the end user
only at the end to test the MVP that emerged from the process (see Figure 06.4).
Speed and clear communication are the pillars of this kind of Design Thinking
for which three tools have been developed to facilitate the integration and ef-
fectiveness of the Sprint Execution processes. The tools accompany the team
during the dedicated days starting from the outside environment of interest go-
ing through different views of different team members to arrive at the solution
expressed through the Minimum Viable Product. The three tools are:
• Product Landscape: Tool developed for personal inspiration in the land-
scape of reference to evaluate the possibilities and existing solutions;
• Crazy Provocation: Tool created to go deep inside ideas, defining details
and boundaries. Similar to Crazy 8s, it allows expanding the possibilities;
• Sprint Embodiment: Tool designed to clarify the final scheme of the solu-
tion following step-by-step the story the team wants to tell the end user
through the solution.
LEGEND: MAP/DECIDE BUILD MEASURE LEARN BUILD MEASURE
designer
user
expert
Figure 06.4 Process of Sprint Execution
PRODUCT LANDSCAPE / Name Surname:

…
Company:
…
PRODUCT COMPANY UNIQUENESS (what are the distinctive features provided by the product?)
… … …
“General information”
In this box, the team WEB REFERENCE (optional) DESIGNER (optional)
member places all the … …
information about the
product. Especially
interesting is the
presence of images
that also permits PERSONAL EVALUATION (what are the product features that you like? why?)
their visualization to …
other members and
to highlight some
“aesthetics” or choices
that can be helpful
in the analysis of the
Image(s)
product to extract the
value it conveys.
INSPIRATION (why do you consider the product an inspiration for the laboratory?)
…

Sprint Execution © School of Management – Politecnico di Milano
“Characteristics”
The box is sub-divided in 3 statements
Uniqueness: Underline the features that make
the product original and diverse.
Personal evaluation: Also important to
understand the different perceptions of
different members.
Inspiration: The value the product brings,
useful to evaluate future solutions.

CRAZY PROVOCATION / Team:
…
REFLECT (describe your idea clarifying the addressed NEED, the involved STAKEHOLDERS and the SKETCH (draw here the digital interface supporting your idea. We
(eventual) enabling TECHNOLOGIES) aim for quantity and not for perfection!)
“Sketch”
Here creativity becomes
Need (what are the needs you are addressing through the present idea?) the fundamental
… weapon of the
developer who must
represent the digital
characteristics of the
solution. The box can
also be used for physical
solutions to expand the
Stakeholders (what are the stakeholders involved by your idea?)
possibilities, maintaining
… the “quantity”
prerogative. Here it is
better to acquire a large
amount of information
beyond qualitative and
precise information.
Technologies (what are the enabling technologies required by your idea?)
…

“Reflect”
The first box is dedicated to the three main areas to
explore to complete the analysis:
Need: Understanding the end user’s needs referable
to the idea proposed.
Stakeholders: Identifying the market niche and
potential interest for the solution developed.
Technologies: Selecting the way to express the
greatest potential of the idea proposed.
SPRINT EMBODYMENT / Team:

…
Evocative Story (Sketch the most significant moments of the innovative digital experience)
“Evocative Story”
In these three
complementary boxes,
the team member
has the opportunity
to describe in detail
the three steps of the
utilization story, not
only transmitting how
and why the solution
is innovative, but also
underlining differences
with previous and
existing solutions.
Images and sketches
evoke real situations
in order to completely
immerse the end user
in the experience, while Description Description Description
the description is useful … … …
to clarify the reader’s
doubts. Words should
be carefully chosen to
express the meaning
behind each solution
choice.

23 RD
OCT 2018 180 PARTICIPANTS 38 COMPANIES
PA R T N E R S
SPONSORS
GUESTS
0 6 . 3 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Creative Confidence
On November 23, 2018 the third Design Thinking Jam took place dedicated to
the third type of Design Thinking approach (see Figure 06.5), whose main char-
acteristics will be briefly explained below.
Organizations are facing new and relevant challenges in engaging and keep-
ing their employees motivated for several reasons. On the one hand, the digital
revolution has enabled incredible entrepreneurial opportunities for individuals
and small businesses. Technological developments in the last few decades have
undeniably reshaped our current economy. The past ten years have seen a small
number of young start-ups develop into billion dollar businesses. In this new era
of entrepreneurship, such businesses will no longer be the exception. Small start-
ups are becoming increasingly important in our society not only for economic
reasons, but also for aspirational ones. On the other hand, people are giving
more and more importance to work-life balance or the possibility to discover a
personal and intimate purpose in their job. According to Forbes, as employees
continue to log more hours every week and stay connected to work well after
they’ve left the office, the need for work-life balance is changing to the point that
some prefer “work-life integration” or “work-life flexibility”.
In this scenario, innovation and leadership are becoming fundamental in every
organization. In a world that keeps changing, innovation and leadership are two
fundamental ingredients to succeed.
Boosting organizational innovativeness through strategic design practices
Biography Giulia Calabretta

Giulia Calabretta (PhD) is Associate Professor in Strategic Value of Design at Faculty of Associate Professor in
Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Giulia believes that design Strategic Value of Design
practices are the right way to go for making companies more innovative in their DNA and
26th NOVEMBER 2018 prepare them for the future. Thus her current research focus is on understanding how design
Observatory DESIGN THINKING FOR BUSINESS practices can be effectively and permanently integrated in the innovation strategy and
h 09.00 - 17.30 Delft University
processes of companies. Additionally, she is interested in what makes a great Chief Design Of Technology
DESIGN THINKING JAM Officer and why each company (and institution) should have one. She teaches and coaches
NHOW MILAN students, design professionals, and executives on these topics.
Via Tortona 35
CREATIVE CONFIDENCE 20144 Milano
Experiencing Creative Confidence: Laboratories facilitated by Partners
LABORATORY 1 Laboratory 1A
Generation Z: Corporate Program aimed at Attracting and Recruiting Talents FACILITATED BY
• Experience: Corporate program addressing talents

09.00 Welcome Coffee • Challenge: Across factors such as social impact, job stability, work-life balance, and compensation, Gen Z
ranks professional development as the most important factor when it comes to choosing a job. Gen Z likes
to challenge the status quo and considers themselves to be competitive and extroverted. Gen Z is intrigued
09.30 Principles, practices and capabilities of the Creative Confidence, Francesco Zurlo by fluid organizations in which they could have multiple roles
10.15 Mapping your stakeholders with colors, Tommaso Buganza • People: One of the most defining characteristics of Gen Z is its diversity: they are the first non-White
majority generation. Gen Z is the first digital native generation: they are the biggest consumers of media,
11.00 Tasting different Creative Confidence blends and have consumed media since a very young age, including streaming movies, shopping, social media,
etc.
• Output: Focusing on a specific company, design a corporate program aimed at attracting and recruiting
11.30 Engaging through Creative Confidence stories, Partners new talents belonging to the Generation Z
12.00 Boosting organizational innovativeness through strategic design practices, Giulia Calabretta LABORATORY 2 Laboratory 2B
Inter-generations: Workplace stimulating the Collaboration among different Generations FACILITATED BY
13.00 Light Lunch • Experience: Collaboration among colleagues belonging to different generations
• Challenge: Each Generation shares common experiences, feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. Organisations in
14.00 Experiencing Creative Confidence: Laboratories facilitated by Partners today's rapid growth context are faced with the challenge of understanding a multi-generational workforce
17.00 Wrap up and Next steps and devising policies and processes able to stimulate collaboration between them. The workplace plays a
crucial role in supporting collaboration. More specifically organizations need to provide employees with a
multitude of flexible office space designs and layouts in which to accomplish two key goals: (i) collaborate
with colleagues (in person or virtually) and (ii) concentrate as a group or independently
• People: There are now three distinct generations making up the workforce: Baby Boomers, Generation X
and Millennials. Many companies are finding themselves grappling with the issue of how to effectively
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, in collaboration with manage their workforce to ensure these different groups can operate together as an effective team.
• Output: Focusing on a specific company, identify the main features embedded in an innovative workspace
able to stimulate and enable the collaboration among different generations
LABORATORY 3 Laboratory 3C
Chief Officers: Leadership Program aimed at transforming the Innovation Culture FACILITATED BY
• Experience: Leadership addressing chief officers

• Challenge: In an increasingly complex world overcrowded by information and ideas, the engagement of
Partners Sponsors people is one of the critical success factor in any innovation journey. Without the engagement of people,
at all levels, innovation and change do not happen. Leadership represents the key capability in shaping and
Laboratory 3D
FACILITATED BY
transforming the organizational culture able to promote innovation
• People: While senior executives cite innovation as an important driver of growth, few of them explicitly
lead and manage it. The way leaders behave sends strong signals to employees. Innovation is inherently
associated with change and takes attention and resources away from efforts to achieve short-term
performance goals. More than initiatives for any other purpose, innovation may therefore require leaders Laboratory 3E
to encourage employees in order to win over their hearts and minds FACILITATED BY
• Output: Focusing on a specific company, design a leadership program addressing chief officers aimed at
transforming the innovation culture
Figure 06.5 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Creative Confidence (26th November 2018)

Innovation and leadership are becoming fundamental in every organization.
In a world that keeps changing, innovation and leadership are the two funda-
mental ingredients to succeed. They are intrinsically connected to people, more
than methodologies and tools. Several consultancies are reinterpreting Design
Thinking through organizational lenses leveraging its particular features, human
centrality, and empathy. Design Thinking is increasingly adopted not only to
innovate products and services, but also with the aim of reshaping the organiza-
tional culture and enabling digital transformations. Leveraging the core features
of Creative Problem Solving and fine-tuning complementary traits, the Creative
Confidence approach is overwhelmingly emerging. In this vein, human-cen-
teredness and deep empathy have always constituted the core elements of De-
sign Thinking and are even more relevant in projects that aim to change the
organizational culture and mentality. While entrepreneurs face the challenge of
creating an organizational culture and mindset through a bottom-up approach,
intrapreneurs usually challenge established and shared beliefs, assumptions and
practices through a top-down approach. As a consequence, successful intra-
preneurs need to create a shared sense of purpose that inspires action across
employees. From a process perspective, the core ingredients are empowering
individuals to create change, and fostering collaboration (see Figure 01.5):
• Engage: In the initial phase, it is crucial to engage key stakeholders who can
become intrapreneurs in driving the change;
• Co-design: Using the information collected in the first phase, identify the
strongest cultural barrier that is holding back innovation in the organiza-
tion; engaging employees in co-designing the new organizational model
reduces traditional inertia towards change;
• Involve and Co-develop: In the last phases, the involvement of larger por-
tions of the organization and the identification of “small wins” are funda-
mental practices to successfully drive the change.
designer
user (employee)
expert (internal
stakeholder)
Figure 06.6 Process of Creative Confidence
LEADERSHIP STYLE / Name Surname:

…
Company:
…
“Whole Brain Model” Please, select 8 out of the 20 different statements about working in
a team that describe you better
The model is very
easy to use: people 1. Deadlines have to be respected, no matter what
decide which of these 2. I always think out of the box
sentences are more 3. I am always enthusiastic in doing what people ask me
representative of 4. I am good in influencing my teammates’ mood
their way of working 5. I don’t like changes, it’s hard for me to handle them
and acting. A color is 6. I don’t like schemes and procedures, it’s hard for me to handle them
linked to each answer 7. I don’t like to be on my own
representing a quarter 8. I don’t like to have unproductive time
of the model. The 9. I have tons of innovative ideas
highest number of 10. I just consider facts, not opinions
same-colored answers 11. I like schemes and logical thinking
defines the main 12. I like to experience unconventional approaches
personality of the 13. I like to fix problems
people interviewed. 14. I think rules are important
Of course, the model 15. I like to go in depth in what I’m doing
is inaccurate and 16. I like to plan my activities
generalized, also 17. I like to share my personal experiences
because people don’t 18. I like to work in team
behave in the same way 19. I need time to take decisions in order to be completely sure about that
each time. In fact, the 20. I take decisions leveraging on my intuitions
tool achieves its highest
utility when integrated
with other data that
can enhance the view Observatory «Design Thinking for Business»
Creative Confidence
of people and their real © School of Management – Politecnico di Milano
personality and traits.

PICTURING PEOPLE / Team:
…
DIGITAL APPLICATIONS (6-10 digital applications that she/he will love)

“Digital Applications”
To enable a Digital
Transformation, it is
important to understand
Picture people’s relationship
with digital applications
WEEK DIARY (typical working week she/he will live) and those they will love.
Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Evening
FULL NAME “Week Diary”

Monday
… People are fundamental
AGE resources for the
… company, especially
Tuesday
for service providers.
FAMILY STATUS For this reason, a
… complete analysis
Wednesday
WORK must include a week
… diary to contextualize
Thursday each change in the
QUOTE (capturing her/his renewed personality) company’s normal
… working week.
Friday

Creative Confidence © School of Management – Politecnico di Milano
“Personal Information”
The first box includes all
the personal information
useful for employee
analysis. Beyond the
name, age, work, and
photo, it places attention
on “Status” and “Quote”
that can enhance the
team’s reflections.
ENGAGING PEOPLE / Team:

…
WORKSPACE (design the Workplace stimulating the Collaboration among different Generations)
“Worskspace”
The model is very ICONS (using the following icons or the ones conceived by your team design the Workplace stimulating the Collaboration among different Generations)
easy to use: people
decide which of these Discussion Meeting Creativity Making Data Visualization Social
Space Space Space Space Space Space
sentences are more
representative of
their way of working
and acting. A color is
linked to each answer
representing a quarter
of the model. The
highest number of
same-colored answers
defines the main
personality of the
people interviewed.
Of course, the model
is inaccurate and
generalized, also
because people don’t
behave in the same way
each time. In fact, the
tool achieves its highest
utility when integrated
with other data that
can enhance the view
of people and their real
personality and traits. Creative Confidence © School of Management – Politecnico di Milano

26 TH
NOV 2018 195 PARTICIPANTS 37 COMPANIES
PA R T N E R S
SPONSORS
GUESTS
0 6 . 4 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Innovation of Meaning
On February 4, 2019 the last Design Thinking Jam took place dedicated to the
fourth type of Design Thinking approach (see Figure 06.7), whose main charac-
teristics will be briefly explained below.
The incredible opportunities provided by digital technologies allow accessing
an unprecedented amount of novel solutions. Idea Management Systems and
Crowdsourcing Platforms significantly support both the creation of and access
to innovative ideas. As a consequence, in a world overcrowded with ideas, real
value comes from a different kind of innovation. Innovation of Solutions is about
better ideas to solve established problems. It’s a new ‘how’, a new way to ad-
dress the challenges that are considered relevant. A novel solution may provide
incremental or even radical improvements, but always in the same direction:
they are “more of the same” innovations. Instead, Innovation of Direction is
about a novel purpose that redefines the problems worth addressing. It takes
innovation one level higher – not only a new how, but especially a new why. A
new value proposition. A new interpretation of what is meaningful.
As Roberto Verganti argues in his book Overcrowded – Designing Meaningful
Products in a World Awash with Ideas, in a world where options are abundant,
without a shared purpose companies fall into the paradox of ideas: the more
ideas they create, the more they move in different directions, the less innova-
tion happens.
Leadership by Design: Finding Meaning in a World without Direction
Biography Roberto Verganti

Roberto Verganti is Professor of Leadership and Innovation at the School of Management Professor of
of Politecnico di Milano, where he is a founder of Leadin’Lab, the laboratory on the Leadership and Innovation
LEAdership, Design and INnovation. He has been a visiting scholar at the Harvard Business
04th FEBRUARY 2019 School twice, at the Copenhagen Business School and at the California Polytechnic
Observatory DESIGN THINKING FOR BUSINESS University. Roberto is the author of Design-Driven Innovation, by Harvard Business Press,
h 09.00 - 17.30 School of Management
nominated by the Academy of Management as one of the 6 best business books of 2008- Politecnico di Milano
DESIGN THINKING JAM 2009. His latest book is Overcrowded, by MIT Press. He is also an advisor to Carlos Moedas,
the European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation.
NHOW MILAN
Via Tortona 35
INNOVATION OF MEANING 20144 Milano
Experiencing Innovation of Meaning: Laboratories facilitated by Partners
LABORATORY 1
Living at home: Renewing the Interaction Home-Humans through Digital Technologies
09.00 Welcome Coffee • Experience: Living at home (Eating, Sleeping, Housekeeping, Working, etc.)
• Challenge: According to Zion Market Research, the global smart home market is likely to grow at a CAGR (compounded annual growth
09.30 Principles and capabilities of the Innovation of Meaning, Claudio Dell’Era rate) of 14.5% between 2017 and 2022 and reach $53 billion by 2022. Further, interaction of Voice Assistants (such as Amazon Echo or
10.00 Deep dive into Innovation of Meaning, Stefano Magistretti Google Home) with devices such as lights, security systems and appliances is the key to convenience. On the one hand digital
technologies such as Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things are providing incredible opportunities; on the other hand the actual
10.30 Engaging through Innovation of Meaning stories, Partners
impact and influence on people behaviors and lifestyles need to be further investigated
• People: If the market of Smart Home Technologies is significantly growing, several trends are influencing new lifestyles and behaviors:
growing attention towards security and privacy; higher cross-compatibility standards; increased efficiency, control and customization;
greater role for Artificial Intelligence; data sharing of homeowners
• Output: Design new experiences enabled by digital technologies people can love to live at home
11.15 Tasting different Innovation of Meaning blends
12.00 Leadership by Design: Finding Meaning in a World without Direction, Roberto Verganti
Lab 1A | Panama Lab 1B | Parigi Lab 1C | Dubai
FACILITATED BY FACILITATED BY FACILITATED BY
13.00 Light Lunch
14.00 Experiencing Innovation of Meaning: Laboratories facilitated by Partners

17.00 Wrap up and Next steps
LABORATORY 2
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, in collaboration with Design Thinking for Business: Rethinking the Next Edition of the Observatory
• Experience: Participating to the Design Thinking for Business Observatory

• Challenge: The Design Thinking Jam dedicated to the Innovation of Meaning approach represents the last one in the 2018/2019
edition. If Design Thinking is becoming very popular in different industries, it is fundamental to interpret both the transformations
described by this paradigm and the new challenges can be faced through its adoption
• People: The Design Thinking Community is responsible for identifying both the limits and the emerging challenges that can be faced
through the robust application of the Design Thinking paradigm. The identification of pioneering research challenges, innovative
collaboration modalities, new players to be involved can bring more value to the Design Thinking Community
• Output: Design the new architecture (topics, research questions, initiatives aimed at developing the community) of the Design
Thinking for Business Observatory (Edition 2019/2020)
Partners Sponsors
Lab 2D | Miami Lab 2E | Cape Town

FACILITATED BY FACILITATED BY
Figure 06.7 Design Thinking Jam dedicated to Innovation of Meaning (4th February 2019)

Furthermore, in a rapidly and continuously changing world, what is meaningful
to people also changes.
Focusing on solutions, companies inevitably end up solving problems that mean-
while have become meaningless. Innovating the meaning of things (products,
services, business models, etc.) is an emerging challenge for established Design
Thinking. The process to design a new meaningful direction (Innovation of Mean-
ing) is completely different, even opposite, to the process of designing a new
solution (Creative Problem Solving) (see Figure 06.8).
Innovation of Meaning is the last kind of Design Thinking developed based on

direction more than solutions, and with the aim of innovating through meaning,
creating something that radically changes peoples’ lives. The main question isn’t
“what?” but “why?” to find a direction that allows designers, with the help of
internal and external experts, to navigate in this world awash of ideas. The three
tools have been developed also considering the radical change in practices re-
quired by this kind of Design Thinking compared to the previous ones, helping
in communicating with all players who take part in the creative process from
Envision to the final solution. The three tools are:
• Change of Meaning: Tool developed to focus attention on the core of the
problem, changing the current meaning to a new meaning;
• Metaphors: Tool created to convey the new meaning through simple but
effective images that include all the changes required;
• Interpreters: Tool designed to maximize the utility of interpreters, increas-
ing the opportunities, and enhancing their effectiveness.
designer
user (employee)
expert (internal
stakeholder)
expert (outsider)
Figure 06.8 Process of Innovation of Meaning
CHANGE OF MEANING / Name Surname:

…
Company:
…
LABORATORY 1 - Living at home: Renewing the Interaction Home-Humans though Digital Technologies
Please, select the Laboratory you would join as first option
LABORATORY 2 - Design Thinking for Business: Rethinking the Next Edition of the Observatory
CURRENT MEANING NEW MEANING

(Why people love the current experience? What are the addressed values or needs?) (Why people would love the new experience? What is the change in values or needs?)
“Current Meaning”
The box consists of two … …
parts: the first to write
down the values and
needs perceived in the
current situation and
that attract attention,
both negatively and
positively. The blank box Introduce an image or picture that symbolically represents the current meaning Introduce an image or picture that symbolically represents the new meaning
below is dedicated to an
image that better than
others describes the
current experience. This
image can be evocative
or real but has to be in
line with the meaning
described above.

Innovation of Meaning © School of Management – Politecnico di Milano
“New Meaning”
This second part is practically the same
as the first, with the same rules to follow.
Comparing it with the current meaning, the
sense of the proposed change has to be
well-defined. For this reason, it is preferable
to use words and images that derive from
the same field of interest.

“New Meaning”
This second part is
practically the same
as the first, with the
same rules to follow. In
comparing it with the
current meaning, the
sense of the proposed
change has to be well-
defined. For this reason,
is preferable to use
words and images that
derive from the same
field of interest.
“Cuurent Meaning”
The box can be considered as a continuation
of the same box of the previous tool, but the
focus differs. The metaphor has to evoke in
the reader’s mind the exact meaning that in
your opinion is most representative of the
experience. For this reason, it is useful to
compare ideas with other members of the
team to analyze this choice in all its parts,
and then sketch the solution.
“Interpreters Information”
The presence of
interpreters is one of
the main changes of
this kind of Design
Thinking compared to
the others analyzed. The
interpreters have to be
chosen considering their
different proximity to
the field of interest and
the different positions
occupied in field of
reference to effectively
receive interesting
and above all diverse
insights useful for the
final development of
the solution. The box
consists of two simple
but necessary sets of
information to cluster
these and a “why”
sentence space to be
completed with the
insight linked to the new
meaning selected by the
interpreter

4 TH
FEB 2019 208 PARTICIPANTS 37 COMPANIES
PA R T N E R S
SPONSORS
GUESTS
0 6 . 5 Convention
On March 29th, 2019, the “Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applica-

tions and Evolutions” Convention takes place, exploring how Design Thinking
is interpreted by consulting companies, adopted by innovators and developed
thanks to the startup. Each perspective is deepened through the data collected
during the research process and the experience of several protagonists in the
ecosystem of Design Thinking. The programme is the following one:
PROGRAMME
09:00 Registration and Welcome Coffee
09:30 Introduction
Roberto Verganti - Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano
Francesco Zurlo - Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano
09:40 Finding Meaning in a World without Direction

Roberto Verganti - Scientific Committee, Politecnico di Milano
TRANSFORMATIONS
10:00 Transformations in Design Thinking

Claudio Dell’Era - Research Direction, Politecnico di Milano
10:20 New Consulting Paradigms enabled by Design Thinking

moderated by
Francesco Zurlo - Research Direction, Politecnico di Milano
Peter Newbould Marco Giglio

Partner & Industrial Service Design Director CEO and Creative Director
Design Group Italia Gaia
Antonio Grillo Lara Ermacora

UX and Service Design Director Customer Engagement & Design Italy Lead
Digital Entity IBM iX
Paolo Giordano Andrea Pivetta

Strategy and Consulting Director Senior Manager and Design Thinker
DOING PwC
PANEL DISCUSSION 1

APPLICATIONS
11:00 Applications of Design Thinking

Stefano Magistretti - Senior Research Team, Politecnico di Milano
11:20 Pioneering Adoption of Design Thinking

moderated by
Emilio Bellini - Senior Research Team, Politecnico di Milano
Michele Cadamuro Fabio Salierno

Head of Design Head of Service Design
Electrolux Intesa Sanpaolo
Elisa Franzini
Alessandro Pucci
Digital Design
UX & Service Designer
Mobile & Digital Payment
Enel
Poste Italiane
Alessandra Fidanzi Lorenzo Fabbri

SVP Digital Delivery Unit Content Designer
ENI Team per la Trasformazione Digitale
PANEL DISCUSSION 2
EVOLUTIONS
12:00 Evolutions of Design Thinking: Emerging Startups

Luca Gastaldi - Research Direction, Politecnico di Milano
12:20 The Future of Design Thinking

moderated by
Cabirio Cautela - Research Direction, Politecnico di Milano
Fabrizio Lo Presti Alessandro Piana Bianco

Design & Innovation Senior Manager Experience Design Director
Accenture Digital Deloitte Digital
Silvia Soccol Francesco Milanesio

Experience Design Italy Lead Senior Manager
Avanade Reply Triplesense
Alessandro Spotorno Monica Gabrielli

Principal Head of Digital Trasformation
BCG Sogei
PANEL DISCUSSION 3
13:00 Future Initiatives and Closing

Claudio Dell’Era - Research Direction, Politecnico di Milano
07 TEAM
Research Team,
Partners and Sponsors
07 TEAM
Research Team, Partners and Sponsors
The research carried on each year by the Observatory Design Thinking for Busi-
ness sees the joint collaboration between the School of Management, the De-
partment of Design and PoliHub. The combination of these three entities is cru-
cial for the success of the initiative. Indeed, the strong knowledge brought by
each of them to research shows the commitment of the observatory in bridging
management aspects with design ones in addition to looking at growing start-
ups within the ecosystem.
The School of Management was established formally in 2003 and groups to-
gether MIP (the Graduate School of Business founded in 1979) and DIG (the De-
partment of Management Engineering - Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale),
established in 1990, bringing together all research and education operations in
the field of management
In 2007, the School of Management first achieved the prestigious EQUIS ac-
creditation (European Quality Improvement System) and joined the circle of
around 140 leading business schools accredited by EFMD. Since first joining the
Financial Times’ rankings of best European Business Schools in 2009, today the
School is in the list with: Executive MBA, Full-Time MBA and Master of Science
in Management Engineering. In 2015, the Financial Times’ Executive Education
Custom Rankings, includes the School in its rankings of the top 85 customised
executive education programmes worldwide. These programmes are designed
by business schools jointly with client companies for their managers and high
potential employees. In 2017 the School is included also in the Executive Edu-

cation Open Rankings. In 2013, the School has received accreditation from the
Association of MBAs (AMBA) for achieving what AMBA describes as the highest
standard in Postgraduate Business Education for EMBA and MBA programmes.
The School is member of PRME (Principles for Responsible Management Ed-
ucation), Cladea (Latin American Council of Management Schools) and QTEM
(Quantitative Techniques for Economics & Management Masters Network).
From 2015, the School is a member of AACSB International - The Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. AACSB International is a membership
association of educational institutions, business, not-for-profit, and government
organizations devoted to the advancement of higher education in business.
Membership does not imply accreditation. In 2017, the School is the first Italian
business school to receive endorsement from the EOCCS (EFMD Online Course
Certification) for the quality of its digital learning courses taught within its Ex-
ecutive MBA programmes. The school is also included in the Bloomberg Busi-
nessweek Ranking 2018 of the best global business schools and in the QS World
University Rankings by program 2019.
The School is composed of:
• the Department of Management Engineering;
• Management Engineering Degrees and PhD Programmes
• MIP Graduate School of Business, which focuses mainly on executive learn-
ing and Masters programmes.
Within the field of digital innovation, the School of Management’s work consists of:
• Observatories for Digital Innovation, where research falls under the umbrel-
la of the Department of Management Engineering;
• Executive education and Masters programmes, delivered by MIP.
The Department of Design was created in 2013 from the InDACo (Industrial De-
sign, Arts, Communication and Fashion) department as part of the reorgani-
zation of the Politecnico di Milano departments. This unity stems from having
internalized the lessons of masters who have come before us: teaching, which
07 TEAM
comes from looking at the world with an always informed, critical view that does
not content itself with what is there, but is continuously driven by the search for
new balance in relations between people, objects and environments.
In 2017 QS World University Rankings place Politecnico di Milano seventh in
the world, third in Europe and first in Italy in the area of Art & Design In recent
years the Department of Design – which operates in unison with the School of
Design and POLI.design and complement it naturally – has come to represent
the largest design department in Italy.
Part of an extensive network of relationships, in a local context that is conducive
to design and steeped in history, the department conducts research and pro-
vides training and consulting services in fields ranging from intangible design
to the concrete artefacts that populate our world.
What sets the department apart is a combination of the following elements:
• The Significance of Design and its Practices, as a key element of research
and education, design has the peculiarity of giving shape to ideas and mak-
ing them solid, in harmony with contemporary design languages;
• The Capacity to Act Within the Various Processes of Production of Tangible
and Intangible Goods, focusing on the central role of the individual, the
group, the community, and society as a whole: in its research and prac-
tice, the department works in the sectors of interior design, product design,
communication, fashion, services and sustainability;
• The Sharing of Methods and Tools, which are continuously evolving, as a
key design supporting element: the various cores of the different areas of
research cross-pollinate each other with regard to methods of analysis, nar-
ration, representation, communication, planning and production;
• History and Culture, as Founding Elements of Design, in an ongoing dis-
course between the contemporary and historical roots;
• A Polytechnical Approach, that is, virtual and concrete coexistence with an
extremely broad, diverse range of polytechnical subjects, in which design
not only plays a mediating role but is also a critical element which steers
activities towards design ends and methods.

PoliHub is the Innovation District & Startup Accelerator of Politecnico di Mla-
no, managed by Fondazione Politecnico di Milano. PoliHub sprang from the
Business Accelerator’s years of experience, founded in 2000, thanks to contri-
butions from important public and private entities, including the City of Milan,
which has always been an active supporter of youth and technological develop-
ment. The Politecnico di Milano, one of the best in Italy, felt the urge to create
an entity which could host and foster young high-tech businesses able to trans-
form scientific research into industrial applications. FluidMesh, Laserbiomed,
Neptuny, ResTech have been particularly successful. Our most recent successes
have been Empatica and FABtotum, companies that have grown remarkably
over the years, earning significant national and international market recogni-
tion. PoliHub’s mission is to support highly innovative startups with scalable
business models to foster cross-fertilization between the academy, the various
startups and consolidated companies focused on innovation. PoliHub facilitates
the exchange of experiences, knowledge, reciprocal contamination and entre-
preneurial networking, making available Politecnico di Milano’s enormous store
of information and centers of excellence: MIP, PoliDesign and Cefriel; aimed at
collaborating with businesses. What PoliHub does:
• Scouting, Entrepreneurial idea and innovative project selection;

• Tutorship, Team consolidation and prototyping;
• Mentorship, Business model design and market analysis;
• Advisory, Support in search for financing and scale-up;
• Open Innovation, we help companies find the best new ideas out there and
to collaborate with the startups.
07 TEAM
RESEARCH TEAM
Emilio Bellini Eliana Bentivegna

Senior Research Team Senior Research Team
Silvia Castellazzi Cabirio Cautela

Senior Research Team Research Direction
Claudio Dell’Era Luca Gastaldi

Research Direction Research Direction
Stefano Magistretti Silvia Magnanini

Senior Research Team Senior Research Team
Alessandro Perego Roberto Verganti

Scientific Committee Scientific Committee
Francesco Zurlo
Scientific Committee

SUPPORT TEAM
Behshid Baradaran Piervito Biondo

Junior Research Team Junior Research Team
Livia Failoni Lucia Ferretti

Junior Research Team Junior Research Team
Carlotta Todaro
Junior Research Team
Accenture Digital
Partner www.accenture.com
At Accenture Digital we help clients pivot from thinking digital to being digital
at the core. From interactive experiences that captivate customers, new intelli-
gence that is applied across every industry, function and process, and the Digi-
tal Reinvention of Industry through smart, connected, products, services, plants
and workers – that’s NEW APPLIED NOW. ACCENTURE INTERACTIVE Helping
clients create the best customer experiences on the planet, across the entire
customer journey. ACCENTURE APPLIED INTELLIGENCE Embedding intelli-
gence at the core of business to drive transformative outcomes. ACCENTURE
INDUSTRY X.0 Using advanced digital technologies to transform businesses’
core operations, their worker and customer experiences and ultimately their
business models.
P E O P L E I N V O LV E D I N T H E O B S E R VA T O R Y
Francesco Casale Roberto Longhin

Manager Principal Director
Fabrizio Lo Presti Stefano Pedrioli

Senior Manager Manager

Avanade
Partner www.avanade.com
Avanade, founded in 2000 as a joint venture by Accenture LLP and Microsoft

Corporation, is the leading provider of innovative digital and cloud services. Our
professionals bring bold, fresh thinking combined with technology, business and
industry expertise to help transformation and growth for our clients and their cus-
tomers. Today Avanade has 35,000 connected professionals across 24 countries,
more than 900 of them are in Italy dislocated between Cagliari, Florence, Rome
and Milan. Our professionals work aims for providing the best solutions through a
collaborative culture that honors diversity and reflects the communities in which
we operate. We were among the first companies operating in information technol-
ogy to believe in the value of Human-Centered-Design and now, we are part of a
global network of over eight hundred experience design professionals scattered
across 13 Digital Studios throughout the world, including one in Milan. The Digital
Studios combine the reliability of technology consulting with the agility and creativ-
ity of a digital agency. Our solutions are based on the idea that the people we are
planning for are our guide to innovation. We firmly believe that to bring business
results to our customers we need to fully grasp their whole ecosystem, composed
by the complex intertwining of the surrounding context, people and technologies.
We use Design Thinking methodology in the various technological fields in which
we are called to operate, with the specific aim of understanding people and taking
them with us throughout the whole design phase. We consider Design Thinking a
creative and problem-solving process that can revolutionize any industry and es-
tablish a competitive advantage for the companies that have adopted it.
Maria Celestina Cirasole Gaia Nardello

Studio Manager Marketing & Communication
Silvia Soccol Francesca Tassistro

Experience Design Italy Lead Experience Design Global Lead
Get to know the point of view of Silvia Soccol, Experience Design Lead at Avanade,
in relation to the opportunities offered by Design Thinking
Boston Consulting Group
Partner www.bcg.com
Boston Consulting Group, Inc. (BCG) is a multinational management consult-

ing firm with more than 90 offices in 50 countries.Founded in 1963 by Bruce
Henderson, it advises clients in management decisions across private, public,
and Nonprofit organization sectors around the world, including more than two-
thirds of the Fortune 500.
Andrea Benasso Giuseppe Casagrande

Consultant Consultant
Andrea Fedeli Alessandro Spotorno

Consultant Principal
Discover the opinion of Andrea Benasso, Consultant at BCG, about the

principal limit of Design Thinking

Deloitte Digital
Partner www.deloitte.it
Deloitte Digital is a bold and innovative part of Deloitte. We offer everything

digital from strategy, multi-channel, bespoke development and managed solu-
tions. Deloitte Digital is an innovative leader in online and mobile strategy, de-
sign and development, offering world-class knowledge and resources from the
leading global business and technology consultancy. We work with a wide range
of iconic local and global organisations, helping them understand and profit
from the online and mobile revolution. Our focus is on the areas of digital strat-
egy, mobile, social/web, content management and managed services. Under-
pinned by digital tech architecture, application implementation and develop-
ment expertise. We approach our work with great energy and passion as we
align our client’s business aspirations to the goals of the end user.
Linda Covino Gianluca Loparco

Service design Manager Partner Deloitte
Alessandro Piana Bianco

Experience Design Director
The interpretation of the Innovation of Meaning approach by

Alessandro Piana Bianco, Eperience Design Director at Deloitte Digital
Design Group Italia
Partner www.designgroupitalia.com
We are a design innovation consultancy with a 50-year track record of creating

value for local and global companies. Our offices are in Milan and New York. We
work in several industries ranging from healthcare, consumer goods, tourism
to technology, with a diverse group of clients including Italian classics, Silicon
Valley start-ups, non-profits and global Fortune 500 companies. Our team con-
sists of 60 professionals, who represent 16 nationalities, working on projects all
over the world. Leveraging our experience and following a multi-disciplinary
approach, we provide effective strategic design solutions that combine creative
thinking with project management tailored to each client’s needs. At the center
of everything we do is design thinking. We believe that design has a unique
ability to understand people, problems, and situations, leading us to create in-
novative solutions to complicated challenges.
Edgardo Angelini Sara Bellini

Partner & Managing Director Service Design Lead
Gianandrea Giacoma Peter Newbould

Psychologist & Partner & Industrial
Design Research Director Service Design Director
The Creative Confidence

Sigurdur Thorsteinsson approach at Design Group
Partner & Chief Creative Officer Italia, by Sara Bellini

Digital Entity
Partner www.digitalentity.design
As one of Italy’s leading design and innovation studios, we believe that the value
of an idea should be measured by its degree of adoption. That is why we create
and lead each of our projects up to their full realization, after which we contin-
uously follow up, evolve and seek to improve them. When designing, our goal is
to create meaningful products and services that contribute to building a more
inclusive and sustainable society. Digital innovation, diversity, and the synergy
created by sharing ideas are what we breathe every day. As part of the NTT
DATA Design Network, we are proud to work in multinational and multidisci-
plinary teams with a shared design methodology that allows us to create highly
competitive products on a global scale. All without losing the individuality of our
local identities. We are Digital Entity.
Andrea Abascià Michele Danti

Customer Experience
Creative Director
Strategy Director
Antonio Grillo
Service & UX Design Director
Discover the experience of Antonio Grillo, Service & UX Design Director

at Digital Entity, about the main challenge faced with Design Thinking
DOING
Partner www.doing.com
Doing is a Digital Agency part of Capgemini, with 4 offices, of which 1 in the

United Arab Emirates, a turnover of 29 million euros, more than 200 talents
and an international network formed by the best independent agencies in the
world, is one of the largest Italian players in the digital environment. DOING
combines data analysis, service design, creativity and content, technology to
offer its customers the best marketing, communication, digital transformation
and data solutions.
Alessandro Confalonieri Paolo Giordano

Head of Service Design Strategy and Consulting Director
Chiara Monteleone Cristina Pham

Lead Consultant Consultant
Discover the experience of Alessandro Confalonieri, Head of Service Design

at Doing, about the main challenge faced with Design Thinking

Electrolux
Partner www.electroluxgroup.com
Electrolux is a Swedish multinational home appliance manufacturer, headquar-

tered in Stockholm. As a leading global appliance company, we place the con-
sumer at the heart of everything we do. Through our brands, including Elec-
trolux, AEG, Anova, Frigidaire, Westinghouse and Zanussi, we sell more than
60 million household and professional products in more than 150 markets every
year. Together with the B2C business our professional sector provides products
for commercial kitchens, beverage and laundry solutions.
Davide Benvenuti Michele Cadamuro

User Discovery&Experience
Head of Design
Innovation Leader
Andrea Malausa Claudio Pillon

Controls System
Modules Design Expert
Development Manager
Discover the challenges Electrolux

Matteo Simioni faced with Design Thinking,
Modules Planning Manager with Michele Cadamuro
Enel
Partner www.enel.com
We are a multinational energy company and one of the world’s leading integrat-
ed electricity and gas operators. We work in 35 countries across 5 continents,
generating energy with a managed capacity of more than 89 GW, selling gas
and distributing electricity across a network spanning approximately 2.2 million
km.
With almost 73 million end users around the world, we have the biggest custom-
er base among our European competitors, and we are one of Europe’s leading
energy companies by installed capacity and reported EBITDA.
The Enel Group is made up of approximately 69,000 people from around the
world whose brilliant work is based on our values of Responsibility, Innovation,
Trust and Proactivity. Together we are working on the same goal. We are Open
Power and our aim is to overcome some of the greatest challenges facing the
world. This is to be achieved through a new approach which combines attention
to sustainability with the best in innovation.
Sara Carretta Valeria D’Amato

UX & Service Designer Senior Digital Marketing
Giuseppe Madia Marcella Maltese

Strategy Design Thinking Service & UX Design Lead
Alessandro Pucci
UX & Service Designer

Eni
Partner www.eni.com
Eni is one of the global oil and gas super-players employing nearly 33.000 people in
71 countries in the world. As of March 31, 2018, the company’s market capitalisation
was calculated at $64 billion. Eni is consistently ranked among the top 150 companies
on the Fortune Global 500 list according to revenue. Eni engages in oil and natural
gas exploration, field development and production, as well as in the supply, trading
and shipping of natural gas, LNG, electricity and fuels. Through refineries and chem-
ical plants, Eni processes crude oil and other oil-based feedstock to produce fuels,
lubricants and chemical products that are supplied to wholesalers or through retail
networks or distributors. Eni’s strategies, resource allocation processes and conduct
of day-to-day operations underpin the delivery of sustainable value to all of our stake-
holders, respecting the countries where the company operates and the people who
work for and with Eni. Integrity in business management, support the countries de-
velopment, operational excellence in conducting operations, innovation in developing
competitive solutions and renewable energy sources, inclusiveness of Eni’s people
and development of know-how and skills, integration of financial and non-financial
issues in the company’s plans and processes drive Eni in creating sustainable value.
These elements lead to wise investment choices, prevention of risks and the achieve-
ment of strategic objectives in the short, medium and long term. Eni is working to
build a future where everyone can access energy resources efficiently and sustain-
ably. Eni’s work is based on passion and innovation, on unique strengths and skills,
on the quality of the people and in recognising that diversity across all aspects of the
operations and organisation is something to be cherished. Eni believes in the value of
long term partnerships with the countries and communities where it operates.
Gregorio Antonino Giorgio Ceccon

Manager Factory Responsabile Academy
Management & Design Eni Corporate University
Alessandra Fidanzi Stefania Novello

ICT Business Partner - Power &
SVP Digital Delivery Unit
Gas LNG Power Data Governanc
Discover how Eni applies the

Fabio Parmigiani Creative Confidence approach
Manager Special Initiatives with Alessandra Fidanzi
Gaia srl
Sponsor www.gaia.is.it
Gaia has a seat amongst the Italian Design Thinking pioneering studios. Our mis-
sion is to support our customers to innovate their processes, systems and services;
promoting a strongly Human Centred Design point of view. Indeed, finding scalable
solutions that both customers and their clients will love and use is truly a challenge.
Design Thinking is a proven way to come to better solutions, faster. Considering prob-
lems and solutions as an ongoing conversation, and divergence as an opportunity of
growth, Design Thinking provides the foundation for delivering solutions capable of
bringing together what is desirable from a human point of view with what is techno-
logically feasible and economically viable. “Great experiences don’t just happen”. We
empower our clients to build their story of innovation and find meaning, understand-
ing the present and envisioning the future. Through Codesign and Open Innovation
methods, we allow people who aren’t trained as designers to use creative tools to
address a vast range of challenges. We strive to speak to our clients’ teams hearts
and heads: observing, reflecting and making, together. We carefully explain organisa-
tions the value of keeping people at the center of their work. We actively help them
develop both technical and soft skills, moving towards internal transformation and
personal / professional growth of their resources. Our services framework:
Innovation Design: partecipative design solutions, people and organisation develop-
ment, innovation programs management.
Experience Design: end to end service & touchpoint design projects.
Innovation Services: user & customer research, live prototyping e testing, design as a
service, innovation hub, innovation sandbox.
Ana Carolina Falcao Marco Giglio

Strategic designer CEO and Creative Director
Franco Guidubaldi Maria Cristina Tamburello

Managing Director Experience designer
Get to know the point of view of Marco Giglio, CEO and Creative Director
at Gaia, in relation to the key strength of Design Thinking

IBM Italia S.p.A.
Partner www.ibm.com
With a history of 107 years, IBM is a leader in innovation serving companies

and organizations throughout the world. It operates in 175 countries with about
380,000 employees. The turnover for 2017 was 79.1 billion dollars, 36.5 billion of
which, equal to 46%, was made in the so-called “Strategic Imperatives”, which in-
clude the Cognitive /Artificial Intelligence, Cloud, Security and Mobile solutions.
In the Cloud, in particular, the company can now boast a dominant position. The
revenue generated here was 17 billion dollars, with a 24% increase over the previ-
ous year. Moreover, IBM is positioning itself among lead organizations, also with
the new Blockchain paradigm. The company boasts a long tradition of projects,
initiatives and partnerships that are based on innovative solutions for the digi-
tal transformation of enterprises and institutions. Investments, implemented to
support long-term competitiveness, represent a substantial annual figure from
sales. In 2017, IBM earmarked almost 6 billion dollars for research and develop-
ment activities, carried out in 12 centers world-wide, with over 8,500 engineers,
scientists and designers from 47 countries and as many American states. Since
1993, the company has continuously led the ranking of patents filed in the United
States: in 26 years they have reached 105 thousandth unit. The inventions reg-
istered in 2018 alone amounted to 9,100. IBM has been operating in Italy since
1927, and during these 92 years, it has contributed to the innovative develop-
ment for each industry sector and the economy of the country.
Lara Ermacora Andrea Facchini

Customer Engagement Digital Experience Lead,
& Design Italy Lead IBM iX Digital Strategy & iX
Laura Massobrio Gianluca Meardi

Enterprise Design Thinking Executive Partner,
Chapter Lead IBM iX Digital Strategy & iX Lead
Laura Massobrio, Enterprise Design Thinking Chapter Lead at IBM iX,

explains how they apply Design Thinking in their organization
Intesa Sanpaolo
Partner www.group.intesasanpaolo.com
Intesa Sanpaolo is the banking group which was formed by the merger of Banca
Intesa and Sanpaolo IMI. The merger brought together two major Italian banks
with shared values so as to increase their opportunities for growth, enhance ser-
vice for retail customers, significantly support the development of businesses
and make an important contribution to the country’s growth.
Intesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a mar-
ket capitalisation of 34.9 billion euro(1).
Intesa Sanpaolo is the leader in Italy in all business areas (retail, corporate, and
wealth management). The Group offers its services to 11.9 million customers
through a network of over 4,200 branches well distributed throughout the
country with market shares no lower than 12% in most Italian regions.
Intesa Sanpaolo has a strategic international presence, with approximately 1,100
branches and 7.5 million customers, including subsidiaries operating in com-
mercial banking in 12 countries in Central Eastern Europe and Middle Eastern
and North African areas, and an international network of specialists in support
of corporate customers across 25 countries, in particular in the Middle East and
North Africa and in those areas where Italian companies are most active, such as
the United States, Brazil, Russia, India and China.
(1) As at 31 January 2019
Adriana Amato Emanuele Bianchi

Service Designer Service Designer
Daniela Rovere Fabio Salierno

Interaction Designer Head of Service Design
Discover the experience of Fabio Salierno, Head of Service Design

at Intesa Sanpaolo, about the main challenge faced with Design Thinking

Moncler
Partner www.moncler.com
Moncler was founded at Monestier-de-Clermont, Grenoble, France, in 1952 and

is currently headquartered in Italy. Over the years the brand has combined style
with constant technological research assisted by experts in activities linked to
the world of the mountain. The Moncler outerwear collections marry the ex-
treme demands of nature with those of city life. In 2003 Remo Ruffini took over
the company, of which he is currently Chairman and CEO. Moncler manufactures
and directly distributes the clothing and accessories collections under the brand
Moncler through its boutiques and in exclusive international department stores
and multi-brand outlets.
Matthieu Rinville Cristiana Sabbadin

WW Omnichannel and
IT Service Senior Manager
Performance Director
Reiko Sahara Luca Spinelli

WW Senior Store Organization Development
Operations Manager Manager
Poste Italiane
Partner www.posteitaliane.it
The Poste Italiane Group is the largest service distribution network in Italy. Its
activities range from letter and parcel delivery to financial and insurance ser-
vices, payment systems and mobile telecommunications. With a history going
back more than 150 years, a network of more than 12,800 post offices, a work-
force of over 134 thousand, total financial assets of €513 billion and over 34
million customers, Poste Italiane is an integral part of Italy’s social and economic
fabric, occupying an unparalleled position in the country in terms of size, recog-
nisability, reach and customer loyalty. In February 2018 Poste Italiane presented
its new five-year Strategic Plan, Deliver 2022, which aims to maximise the val-
ue of the distribution network and take advantage of the market opportunities
offered by digital transformation. This will involve a reorganisation of the mail
and parcels segment, the expansion of financial services, consolidation of our
leadership in the insurance sector and the development of payment systems.
The Plan envisages investment of €2.8 billion, focusing on innovation in order to
assist citizens, businesses and the Public Administration through the transition
to the digital economy and offering increasingly innovative services. Listed on
the Milan Stock Exchange since 2015, Poste Italiane is 64.26%-owned by the
Ministry of the Economy and Finance and Cassa depositi e prestiti. Since April
2017, Maria Bianca Farina has been the Company’s Chairwoman and Matteo del
Fante its Chief Executive Officer and General Manager.
Elisa Franzini
Digital Design - Mobile & Digital Payment
Vlad Mihalca
Head of Digital – Mobile & Digital Payment

PwC
Partner www.pwc.com
The purpose of PwC is to build trust in society and solve important problems.
We’re a network of firms in 158 countries with more than 250,000 people who
are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory, tax and legal services.
PwC’s services are offered on a global level and clearly express the quality on
which our profound knowledge of the various market sectors and the use of ad-
vanced technology is based. Demonstrating genuine leadership is more important
to us than size or short term revenue growth. To achieve our aim to be recognized
as the ‘the leading professional services firm’ we must be innovative, responsible
and attract outstanding people. PwC’s professional services include audit and
assurance, tax and consulting that cover such areas as Cyber security and Privacy,
Human Resources, Deals, Forensics and Customer Experience Design. We rely on
our people and on our Global Excellence Centers, such as the PwC’s Experience
Centre. The Experience Centre is a physical space that combines the Imagination
of an Innovation Design Agency, the Technology Expertise of an Emerging Tech
Lab and the Business Strategy Capability of a Global Consulting Firm. It’s home
to a team of “Explorers” –The Experience Team. We co-create with clients, rapidly
prototype digital and physical products, and continuously test and improve them
with end-users to ensure that both business objectives and user needs are met
(before writing one line of code). PwC Italy is able to offer its clients co-working
opportunities to help them understand, accept and solve their most challenging
problems in the PwC’s Experience Center based in Rome –realized in 2016 in part-
nership with Google– and in a twin location based in Milan. Let’s combine your
aspirations with our world-class capabilities to achieve your goals.
Andrea Amico Massimo Ferriani

Senior Manager and Partner and
Customer Experience Customer Leader
Tommaso Nervegna Andrea Pivetta

Senior Manager and Senior Manager and
Service Design Lead Design Thinker
Andrea Pivetta, Senior Manager and Design Thinker at PwC, explains how
they apply Design Thinking in their organization
Sogei S.p.A.
Partner www.sogei.it
Sogei is the IT company fully owned by the italian Ministry of Economy and
Finance operating as an in-house provider: it plays a central role in the digital-
isation of the PA delivering innovative solutions to simplify the administrative
procedures and for the integration among Administrations.
Over 2,100 people, with consolidated know-how and a strong tendency for in-
novation, and a powerful technological infrastructure allow the operation of
87,000 workstations in tax offices connecting external bodies, citizens, compa-
nies and professionals to the Tax Information system.
Decision-making systems to support fiscal policies are provided together with
the implementation of the Digital Strategy with high standards of quality and
security.
Our business model generates value for our customers: Sogei highly values all
investments in technologies and professional growth of its human resources.
As a reference model for e-Government solutions, Sogei is engaged in strategic
projects such as, for the Digital Agenda, E-invoicing, National Registry of res-
ident Population (ANPR), supporting the processes of expenditure rationalisa-
tion and efficiency of public information systems.
Luisa Astegiano Monica Gabrielli

Innovation Manager Head of Digital Transformation
Andrea Isidori
Head of Digital Strategy and Innovation
Luisa Astegiano, Innovation Manager, and Andrea Isidori, Digital Strategy

and Innovation, explains how they apply Design Thinking at Sogei

Triplesense Reply
Partner www.reply.com/triplesense
We are a Creative and Design Consulting Agency. We help companies manage

change and get the best benefits from Digital Transformation. Our goal is to
improve interactions between people and products through creativity, an us-
er-centred approach to design and digital communication. We bring together
services of great International Group with the versatility of a dynamic reality.
Silvia Ghezzi Niccolò Magnani

Senior Consultant Associate Partner
Francesco Milanesio Claudio Papetti

Senior Manager Partner
Get to know the point of view of Francesco Milanesio, Senior Manager

at Triplesense Reply, in relation to the key strength of Design Thinking
Artsana
Sponsor www.artsana.com
Artsana Group, founded in 1946 by Cavaliere del Lavoro Pietro Catelli, is head-
quartered in Grandate, Como (Italy). It is a leader in the baby care with brands
such as Chicco, Neo Baby, Boppy, Fiocchi di Riso and Fisiolact. Since 2017,
Artsana also owns 100% of Prenatal Retail Group, which is active in the baby
Veronica Borghi
explains how
and children’s products sector through the brands Prénatal, Toys Center, Bimbo
they apply Design Store and, in France and Switzerland, King Jouet. The Group markets its brands
Thinking in Artsana
in over 150 countries. Artsana Group has more than 8,500 employees at its 21
subsidiaries worldwide and at its 4 production units in Europe, two of which are
in Italy - Verola Nuova (BS) and Gessate (MI). Consolidated annual turnover in
2017 exceeded 1,600 million euros Since June 2016, Artsana Group, run by Clau-
dio De Conto as CEO and chaired by Michele Catelli, is owned 40% by Catelli
family and 60% by Investindustrial, a European investment firm with capital of
over €6.8 billion deriving from investments in its funds.
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Veronica Borghi Valeria Bullo Franco Pierluigi
Innovation Juvenile Quality & Compliance R&D Director Medical
and Sustainability & Nursing
E.ON
Sponsor www.eon.it
E.ON is an international energy Group with private capital, which is active within
the energy grids, the energy solutions and renewables industry. The Group sup-
plies power and gas to more than 31 million customers and it is one of the main
traders in the renewable energies’ segment thanks to a wind park that can pro-
duce up to 7 GW. In Italy E.ON is established among the leaders of the energy
and gas market with more than 800,000 customers and an overall wind energy
production of 328 MW.
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Michela Cocco Francesca Lavagnoli
Customer Experience Manager Head of Customer Experience

Edenred Italia
Sponsor www.edenred.it
Edenred is the world leader in transactional solutions for companies, employ-

ees and merchants, with business volume of more than €26 billion generated in
2017, of which 78% through digital formats. Whether delivered via mobile, online
platform, card or paper voucher, all of these solutions mean increased purchas-
Alessandra Vultaggio
ing power for employees, optimized expense management for companies and explains the point of
additional business for affiliated merchants. view of Edenred on
Sprint Execution
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Luca Palermo Alessandra Vultaggio
CEO and Managing Business Development
Director & Innovation Manager
Engineering
Sponsor www.eng.it
Engineering is one of the world’s leading specialist providers of services, software

development and digital platforms that support both public and private companies
or organisations through digital transformation. With around 11,000 professionals in
50 locations, the Engineering group designs, develops and implements innovative
Andrea Di Leonardo
solutions for the business areas in which digitalization is having the biggest impact, explains the strengths
including digital finance, smart government & e-health, augmented cities, digital in- of Design Thinking
leveraged by Engineering
dustry, smart energy & utilities, digital media & communication. The group aims to help
change the way in which the world lives and works by combining its specialist expertise
in next-generation technology with its outstanding proprietary infrastructure for cloud
computing. This includes four data centres that meet the highest technology, quality
and safety standards. With significant investments in R&D, Engineering coordinates
national and international projects thanks to its team of 420 researchers and a network
of academic partners and universities throughout Europe.
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Carlo Cicognini Andrea Di Leonardo
Innovation Manager Innovation Manager
NiEW Design Srl
Sponsor www.niew.it
NiEW Design is a consulting firm of Design Thinking and User Experience De-
sign specialized in the industrial automation domain and based in Modena right
at the heart of the Packaging Valley. We design enterprise-class products and
services for professional context, including IDE, HMI, SCADA, MES, MOM, WMS,
Daniele De Cia
explains the strengths
ERP, and IoT systems with a human centered approach.
of Design Thinking
leveraged by NiEW
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Daniele De Cia Andrea Violante
Partner & CEO Partner & Design Lead
Roche S.p.A
Sponsor www.roche.it
About Roche Roche is a global pioneer in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics fo-

cused on advancing science to improve people’s lives. The combined strengths
of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics under one roof have made Roche the leader
in personalized healthcare – a strategy that aims to fit the right treatment to
Denis Dina
explains the strengths
each patient in the best way possible. Roche is the world’s largest biotech com-
of Design Thinking pany, with truly differentiated medicines in oncology, immunology, infectious
leveraged by Roche
diseases, ophthalmology and diseases of the central nervous system. Roche is
also the world leader in in vitro diagnostics and tissue-based cancer diagnostics,
and a frontrunner in diabetes management. Founded in 1896, Roche continues
to search for better ways to prevent, diagnose and treat diseases and make a
sustainable contribution to society. The company also aims to improve patient
access to medical innovations by working with all relevant stakeholders. For
more information, please visit www.roche.it.
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Denis Dina Norma Giussani Marco Gritti Daniele Panigati
IT Business Partner IT Business Partner IT Business Partner Informatics Director Italy
Mediterranean IT Cluster Head

Tetra Pak
Sponsor www.tetrapak.com
Together with our customers we make food safe and available, everywhere.
Since the start in 1951 we have taken pride in providing the best possible pro-
cessing and packaging solutions for food.
Nicoletta Marangoni
explains the biggest
limit of Design Thinking
for Tetra Pak
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Gabriele Molari
Ideation and Concept Development Manager
UnipolSai
Sponsor www.unipolsai.it
Gruppo Unipol is the second insurance group in the Italian market and the first in
the Non-Life business. It has over 14,000 employees and serves nearly 15 million
customers. It implements an extended services strategy, to provide the widest
range of insurance and financial products and services, and is particularly active
Marco Mastromarino
in the areas of supplementary pension insurance and health insurance. explains why they
apply Design Thinking
in UnipolSai
PEOPLE
I N V O LV E D
Marco Mastromarino Marco Sammaria
Head of Experience Head of Experience Design
Design&Analytics
Copyright 2019 ©
Politecnico di Milano - School of Management
Stampa: Tipografia Litografia A, Scotti | www.ascotti.it
PA R T N E R S
SPONSORS
follow us
ISBN 979-12-200-4684-8
9 791220 046848

DTB19 Booklet Online PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DTB19 Booklet Online PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping Design Thinking:

Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

RESEARCH PLATFORM DEVELOPED BY IN COLLABORATION WITH

Leadership by Design: Finding Meaningin a World without Direction 3

0 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Leadership by Design: Finding Meaning

Leadership by Design: Finding Meaning

Nowadays, technologies are providing incredible options; we live in a world

4 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

In a time when Design Thinking is spreading into the business community, we

Claudio Dell’Era Alessandro Perego Roberto Verganti Francesco Zurlo

6 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

NUMBER OF RESPONSES: 291

RESEARCH LINE 3: EVOLUTIONS

technology NUMBER OF STARTUPS:

Figure 00.1 Research lines

Design Thinking: Approaches and Players

business technology people

people technology business

Business as purpose People as purpose

Figure 01.1 Perspective embedded in Design Thinking

10 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

Figure 01.2 4 kinds of Design Thinking

0 1 . 1 Creative Problem Solving

The Creative Problem Solving approach is based on three fundamental princi-

12 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

LEGEND: DISCOVER DEFINE DEVELOP DELIVER

Figure 01.3 Process of Creative Problem Solving

14 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

LEGEND: MAP/DECIDE BUILD MEASURE LEARN BUILD MEASURE

Figure 01.4 Process of Sprint Execution

The Creative Confidence approach is one of most interesting evolutions of the

16 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

LEGEND: ENGAGE CO-DESIGN INVOLVE CO-DEVELOP

Figure 01.5 Process of Creative Confidence

Similarly to the Creative Confidence approach, the Innovation of Meaning ap-

18 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

LEGEND: ENGAGE CO-DESIGN INVOLVE CO-DEVELOP

Figure 01.6 Process of Innovation of Meaning

0 1 . 5 Design Thinking Ecosystem

Considering the complexity of the ecosystem an interpretative framework is in-

20 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

Transformations in Consulting Paradigms

As described in Chapter 5 regarding the Research Methodology, the research

24 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

The second part of the questionnaire is organized in 2 sections:

26.1% 21.7% 24.7% 20.3%

26 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

12/06/1987 DCA Consulting GreatPixel Publicis.Sapient

6’4 design manufactory Freedomlab NextGenners Studio Dumbar

Above Agency Daresay Itch SAP

Barclays Fjord (2) McKinsey & Company Special Projects

Barco Ondesign Ernst and Young Nope

Figure 02.4 Consulting Organizations partaking in the research [Sample = 291]

0 2 . 1 Understanding the Design Thinking Market

28 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

The analysis of the domains addressed by consulting project based on Design

30 Mapping Design Thinking: Transformations, Applications and Evolutions

Top 3 Industries Finance and Insurance 13.6%

Top 3 Client Functions Board 21.2%

Top 3 Domains Strategy 21.1%

Figure 02.8 Understanding the Design Thinking market

0 2 . 2 Interpreting the Design Thinking Approaches