See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305347688

Design Thinking and QFD: two faces of the same coin?

Conference Paper · July 2016

CITATION READS

1 2,963

1 author:

Patrícia Moura Sá
University of Coimbra
99 PUBLICATIONS 1,032 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vulnerability issues within the context of quality measurement and assessment View project

TIMES – Institutional Trajectories and Social Enterprise Models in Portugal View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrícia Moura Sá on 18 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Design Thinking and QFD: two faces of the same coin?

Patrícia Moura e Sá

Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra

Affiliated Researcher at CICP
pmourasa@fe.uc.pt

ABSTRACT
Purpose - Organisations put considerable efforts into developing innovative products and
services, capable of delivering value to customers and users. The existence of “wicked problems”
calls for the creation of multidisciplinary teams and to the early incorporation of users’ feedback.
A wide range of methodologies and tools have been developed to guide the design of (new)
solutions with the purpose of making the process as effective and efficient as possible. Among
those, Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Design Thinking (DT) are particularly relevant. The
aim of this paper is to explore possible connections and overlaps between DT and QFD.
Design/Methodology/Approach – Based on a critical review of the literature, this paper
compares the two approaches by analysing their core principles, main stages and associated
tools.
Findings - Many similarities exist in what concerns the customer-centric approach and the way
creativity is embedded in the whole design process. Yet, if, on one hand DT is more in line with
the dynamic and interactive nature of value creation, QFD is more robust in terms of quality
planning, feasibility assessment and documentation.
Originality/Value – A considerable body of the literature on innovation presents case studies
describing the application of methodologies to develop new products/services, but very few
studies discuss the interaction that might exist between different approaches. Understanding how
some methodologies and tools can be combined is of major importance to organisations that
want to develop their own projects.
Keywords: QFD, Design Thinking, Innovation
Paper type: General review

87
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

INTRODUCTION
Taking into account the importance of regularly developing new products/services and
introducing new solutions to address emerging problems and to remain competitive, individuals,
organisations and countries have been particularly interested in studying innovation processes
and better understanding why certain projects succeed, whereas so many others fail. Reducing
the risks of failure and development costs, while improving time-to-market performance, have
been major concerns for decades. Within such period, several approaches and methodologies
have been proposed. Due to their importance, in practical and academic terms, this paper is
focused on two of them: Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Design Thinking (DT).
In general terms, any new product/service development project aims to design a solution to a
problem that has been identified based on information collected from potential users/customers.
The quality of such information is critical. For example, faulty assessment of customer
preferences will result in incorrect product attributes and likely lead to product failure. Moreover,
organisations have long been forced to recognise that customers do not buy product/service
features, but rather the functionalities and benefits associated with them (Beckman and Barry,
2007). This fact has at least two important consequences: first, organisations need to
understand how value is created and, second, within their commercialisation strategies, they
need to effectively communicate such benefits rather than stressing the features and
specifications of a given product/service. Thus, the classic ‘technology-push view’, according to
which organisations start with solutions and then place those solutions in the market to see
whether or not there is a need to be addressed, has been replaced by a ‘market-in approach’
(Beckman and Barry, 2007).
Broadly, the development of any new product/service involves four major stages: (1)
understanding customer’s needs; (2) arriving at the final concept of the design; (3) define the
major characteristics of the new product/service; and (4) analyse and improve the performance
and usage profile of the new product/service. Yet, considerable differences exist in the way this
broad process is carried out.
As more complex problems arise, a wider set of competencies is necessary to arrive at a good
solution. Therefore, new product/service design has become a project of interdisciplinary teams.
In order to be successful, these teams need to apply methodologies and tools that assist them in
their creativity processes, ensure that they keep focused on the problems and document the
whole design.
The aim of this paper is to explore possible connections and overlaps between DT and QFD in
order to propose a certain degree of integration that makes the new product/service
development process as effective and efficient as possible, reducing the time-to-market,
associated costs and risks of failure.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, based on the literature
review, QFD and DT are described. Then, by critically reflecting upon each methodology, the
main strengths and shortcomings of each approach are discussed. Finally, in the conclusion
some implications are derived on how to combine them to better take advantage of their relative
advantages.

88
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

QFD AND DT IN BRIEF

QFD is a methodology used for translating customer requirements into appropriate technical
requirements across each stage of product development (Rogers and Salustri, 2009). Everything
starts with the Voice of the Customer (VOC) and product specifications derive from customer
needs rather than from the feelings of the firm technicians or marketers. Therefore, considerable
effort is put in collecting the VOC, usually by means of qualitative methods, such as non-
structured interviews, and other observational techniques. The QFD approach recognises the
importance of observing the customers in their own environment (“ ”).
In order to ensure that the VOC guides the whole process and that decisions on the new
product/service are consistent with each other and adequately deployed, a series of different
matrices is used throughout QFD. The House of Quality (HoQ) is the central matrix of the QFD
methodology. It helps to translate requirements into product/service/process specifications
(Hauser and Causing, 1988). The HoQ simultaneously addresses the following questions (Sá
and Sá, 2014):
WHAT does the customer want?
What is the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of each customer requirement?
HOW can the product/service respond to customer requirements?
How does each product/service feature RELATE TO others?
The answers to these questions are given in the various “rooms” of the HoQ (see Figure 1),
namely:
Room 1 – Customer Requirements (obtained through open interviews and observational
techniques and translated into a technical language)
Room 2 – Product/Service Features (characteristics that the product/service must have
to satisfy customer requirements)
Room 3 – Relationships Matrix (which evaluates how each Product/Service Feature
affects each Customer Requirement based on expert engineering experience, customer
responses and tabulated data from statistical studies or controlled experiments)
Room 4 (Roof) – Relationships among Features (which analyses the impact (positive or
negative) that Product/Service Features have on each other and, thus, helps to
understand which features must be improved/changed in parallel in order to have a net
positive effect on the overall design)
Room 5 – Competitive Analysis (customer evaluations of competitors in relation to the
new product/service that is under development)
Room 6 – Technical Importance
Room 7 – Features Planning
Room 8 – Target Values (Specifications)

89
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Figure 1 – House of Quality (HoQ)

Associated with QFD, several tools can be applied. For instance, to understand how each
requirement affects customer satisfaction the Kano survey can be used. In fact, as the Kano
model proposes the relationship between the performance of product/service attributes and
customer satisfaction is non-linear, and therefore it is important to classify them as “must-be”,
“one-dimensional”, “attractive” and “neutral” (Tontini et al., 2013). “Must-be” attributes are
related with the basic functions of the product/service and, consequently, must be integrated into
the new design. On the other hand, “attractive” attributes are unexpected features, which, if
absent, do not lead to dissatisfaction, but, if included in the new design, can cause customer
delight. Having one or two attractive attributes in the new product/service is essential to
differentiate it and to develop a competitive advantage. The attributes classification is based on
the way the customer reacts to presence/absence of a given attribute and therefore for each
attribute the Kano survey has two questions. At the concept development stage, Pugh
methodology (Pugh, 1996) can be useful to make emerge a concept that, by means of an
iterative process, successively combines competing ideas, in order to exploit their relative
advantages and obtain in the end a ‘winner concept’.
By means of a good documentation system, QFD facilitates coordination and communication,
highlights interrelationships and creates a common quality focus across all functions (Smith et
al., 2007)
The application of QFD is expected to contribute to (Terninko, 1997, cited in Rogers and Salustri,
2009): shorter development times, fewer engineering changes, high customer satisfaction,
improved product manufacturability and a language shared among the various functions.
90
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Design Thinking has become an academic and scientific subject of study due to the
overwhelming success of two schools: the d.school at Stanford University (US) and the D-School
at Potsdam (Germany).
There is not a unique definition of design thinking, since its meaning varies according to the
context where it is applied. Yet, briefly, design thinking can be defined as “how designers go
about thinking and doing things” (Kimbell, 2009, cited in Edman, 2009).
Although the origins of ‘design thinking’ go back to the architecture and arts field in the 1960s,
its use has become rather popular in the management field, especially from the late 1990s on,
being regarded as an excellent way to be creative and innovate (Johansson-Sköldberg et al.,
2013) in a broad spectrum of contexts, from developing a new piece of furniture to creating
public policies. As Brown (2009) highlights, design principles have been applied not just to
physical products, but also to consumer experiences, to production and interaction processes,
and to improvements that make existing products more appealing or functional. Indeed,
according to Simon (1996, cited in Edman, 2009), “everyone designs who devises courses of
action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones”. In such cases, designers are
expected to understand not only the technical aspects of a given problem, but also a wide range
of social, economic and psychological impacts of the design decisions proposed. Consequently,
as Brown (2008) highlights, designers, who formerly were associated with making selected ideas
aesthetically attractive and more desirable to consumers (performing basically late-stage add-
ons), have in the twenty first century moved to the core of the process, creating ideas that better
meet consumers’ needs and desires (having, thus, a strategic role). Thus, DT is a constructive
and experimental approach that incorporates consumer insights in depth and rapid prototyping
aimed at finding effective solutions to complex problems (Brown and Wyatt, 2010).
The appropriation of the term by the management field is a result of the growing interest of
managers for the world of the designers and their way of thinking when creating artefacts, objects
and projects. Some case studies – such is the case of the IDEO in particular – raised particular
interest among managers and researchers. In fact, the characteristics of a design thinker have
great potential of driving successful innovative solutions to many managerial problems, by
assuring a focus on actual needs and problems, encouraging creativity and fostering good
communication across a range of disciplines. Such characteristics have been summarised by
Razzouk and Shute (2012) and include: human- and environment- centred concern, ability to
visualise, predisposition toward multifunctionality, systemic vision, ability to use language as a
tool, affinity for teamwork, and avoiding the necessity of choice (since they search for new
configurations that combine best attributes of different alternatives). Brown (2008) adds some
other features to this picture, such as: attention to detail (“great design thinkers observe the
world in minute detail; they notice things that others do not and use their insights to inspire
innovation” (Brown, 2008:3)), integrative thinking (as an alternative to simple analytical
processes), experimentalism (“design thinkers pose questions and explore constraints in creative
ways that proceed in entirely new directions” (Brown, 2008:3), and collaboration with other
disciplines. As Beckman and Barry (2007) stress, DT calls, at different stages, for the application
of different learning styles, which combine at various degrees concrete experience, abstract
conceptualisation, reflective observation and active experimentation.

91
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Among the DT meanings closely associated with the management field one is particularly
interesting for the purpose of the current paper – design thinking as problem solving activity
(Buchanan, 1992, cited in Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). In fact, Buchanan’s paper calls
attention to the importance of overcoming the split between the problem definition and the
problem solution stages when wicked problems are to be addressed. Due to their complexity,
wicked problems call for high levels of creativity and, both to formulate and to solve them, it is
necessary to identify the views of all those involved. When transposed to the management field,
DT has also different meanings. One of the most appealing ones is associated with Roger Martin,
Dean of the Rotman School of Business at the University of Toronto, who argues that design
thinking is an essential management skill based on “an ongoing cycle of generating ideas
(abduction), predicting consequences (deduction), testing, and generalising (induction)”
(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013: 128).

The whole design thinking process is managed by an interdisciplinary project team that
incorporates multiple perspectives and works collaboratively, making use of fluid communication
tools.
The design thinking process is often iterative and comprises three main spaces (DT prefers the
use of the term ‘spaces’ rather than that of ‘stages’ to stress that there is some overlapping and
steps are not always taken sequentially) (Brown, 2009):
1. Inspiration (when a problem or opportunity is identified);
Innovation must be based on users’ experiences/problems. During this stage, the team
must get an insight into how people actually use things or experience situations. This
requires empathy so that team members experience things as customers do rather than
looking at them as simply subjects. Making use of ethnographic observational
techniques, the team must inhabit the user’s perspective and feel what that person feels.
A key purpose is to elicit and listen to stories and that is more likely to happen when the
observer is naïve and asks probing questions.
2. Ideation (when ideas are generated and tested);
The team goes through a process of synthesis in which they distil what they saw and
heard into insights that can lead to solutions or opportunities for change. It is necessary
to make sense of the data collected, framing and reframing it to identify patterns and
develop a focus on what is most important to the customer/user (Beckman and Barry,
2007). The main goal is to come up with a new way to see the problem which in turn will
allow the team to come up with new solutions.
At this stage, it is important to use first “divergent thinking” (questioning assumptions
and generating many different alternatives to the present reality) and next “convergent
thinking” (sorting options and deciding which is best). Analysis and synthesis need also
to be applied to understand patterns. The process is likely to be iterative, with the team
moving back and forth, as the options are examined in practice and new ones emerge.
An attitude of experimentation and openness to risk are essential in this regard.
Value propositions (that describe the tangible benefits that customers will derive from
using a product or service) are an outcome of this stage and provide a very high-level
specification for the design of the new product/service.
3. Implementation (when the innovation moves from the project room to the market).
92
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Within these three stages five major steps can be identified (see Figure 2):

Figure 2 – Design Thinking – Steps (Brown, 2009)

Empathy: to obtain information on the users and the overall situation that needs to be
addressed by getting into closer contact with them;
Define: to characterise a typical user (persona) to whom the solution is going to be
designed;
Ideate: to generate as many ideas/alternatives as possible;
Prototype: to build basic prototypes of the most promising ideas;
Feedback: to learn from the users’ reactions to the prototypes.
The design thinking process must take into account three main constraints (Brown, 2009):
Feasibility (what can be done);
Viability (what can be done successfully)
Desirability (what people want or will come to want)
Wrapping up these constraints, Brown (2008: 2) affirms that DT “is a discipline that uses the
designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible
and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity”.
Associated with the design thinking process are four major cognitive operations (Razzouk and
Shute, 2012): generation, exploration, comparison and selection. As the authors note, the first
two widen a problem space whereas the last two do the opposite.
A multitude of techniques and methods are recommended when carrying out design thinking
projects. Some of the most popular include:
Persona profiles (including physical, psychological and sociological description of
potential users, based on what was actually observed);
Story-telling (stories put “ideas into context and give them meaning” and narratives can
help “create multiple touchpoints” along the user’s experiential timeline; later on the
process, as Brown and Wyatt (2010: 35) explain, “storytelling, particularly through
multimedia, helps communicate the solution to a diverse set of stakeholders inside and
outside of the organization, particularly across language and cultural barriers”);
Customer journey maps (oriented graphs that describe the journey of a user by
representing the different touchpoints that characterise his/her interaction with the
service);

93
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Experience blueprints (multidimensional diagrams that build on the persona and journey
by layering on elements of the ecosystem (people, processes, technology, and data)
responsible for making interactions);
Role-playing (some actors, the sample users or the designers themselves perform a
hypothetical service experience)
Mind maps (visual representations that show multidirectional connections);
Brainstorming (taking one provocative question at a time, the group may generate
hundreds of ideas ranging from the absurd to the obvious. Each idea can be written on a
Post-it note and shared with the team. Visual representations of concepts are
encouraged as this generally helps others understand complex ideas);
Prototypes: As Brown (2008:3) puts it, the goal of prototyping is “to learn about the
strengths and weaknesses of the idea and to identity new directions that further
prototypes might take”. Through prototyping, the design thinking process seeks to
uncover unforeseen implementation challenges and unintended consequences in order
to have more reliable long-term success. Prototypes facilitate communication by making
ideas tangible and should be as simple and inexpensive as possible at early stages, just
enough to get useful feedback and see if something is viable);
DT naturally comprises costs and risks. Observing the user in the natural environment of usage
requires time and financial resources. Moreover, the competency and skills necessary to capture
relevant data are not easy to find. Usually, organisations that apply DT reward risk taking and do
not demonise failure. Staff training in the tools of design thinking and partnerships with clients
are also important.

DISCUSSION: COMPARISON OF KEY CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES OF QFD AND DT

Based on the literature review conducted it is possible to find similarities and differences between
QFD and DT. Looking at the way each methodology regards the design process, the level of
users’ involvement, the nature of the project team and the embedded problem solving approach,
Table 1 summarises the results of such comparison.

Table 1 – QFD and DT features in comparison

View of the design process
User-centred design (both
understand and integrate
end-user data during the
design process)
QFD DT
Concurrent engineering: Problem formulation and
some design activities can solution go hand in hand
occur at the same time rather than as sequential
(parallel); the process is steps; the process is iterative
iterative and continual refinement is
pursued.
Listens to customer needs Human-centred design ethos;
early in the process; observational techniques and
observational techniques empathic design: not only
“diving into the aquarium” listening to customer needs
and expectations, but also
experiencing the
products/services from the
94
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Nature of the project team
Participation of users in the
project team
Focus
Problem solving approach
Functional representation:
design, manufacturing,
marketing, financial and other
functions are integrated;
users may be part of the
team
Users can be part of the
engineering team and are at
least involved in determining
requirements (HQ-R1) and
evaluating the project in
comparison to other
competitors offerings (HQ-R5)
Both B2C and B2B projects
Except for the earlier stages
of VOC collection, where
methods are rather open and
creative, the process calls for
a quite structured and
rational reasoning.
customers’ perspective.
Tends to consider all who will
be affected by the
product/service (not only the
customer/final user)
Interdisciplinary project team
to work collaboratively.
Members are expected to
have different personality
types and backgrounds.
Users can be involved
throughout the entire design
process or during certain
phases, such as determining
requirements and testing.
The more the user becomes
an active part of the entire
design process the closer we
are of co-design.
THE USER is typically the
end-user; not much emphasis
on B2B projects
The whole design process
calls for creativity, as well as
for human intuition and
emotion.

QFD and DT share a view of the design process that fights the traditional step-by-step, sequential
approach. QFD uses the idea of concurrent engineering to call attention to the importance of
developing some tasks in parallel, both to speed up the process and to integrate simultaneously
the expertise of different functions when taking some decisions. In DT, as Brown (2008: 4)
highlights, “the design process is best described metaphorically as a system of spaces rather
than a predefined series of orderly steps. The spaces demarcate different sorts of related
activities that together form the continuum of innovation”. Both QFD and DT assume that the
process is iterative, but DT goes to the point of assuming that problem formulation and solution
inform each other. Also, the idea of successive refinement is clearer in DT.
Although both QFD and DT are user-centred design approaches, valuing data gathered through
direct observation in close contact with customers in the user’s natural setting, DT ranks higher
in this regard since it incorporates empathic design. Empathic design, as pointed out by Seshadri
et al. (2014), allows the designer to identify with the challenges of the end-user. Both
methodologies acknowledge the superiority of direct observational techniques, considering that
observing the user and the customisation done by her/him during his/her regular routines is
essential to gather information about intangible attributes of a product and unarticulated user
95
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

needs. The use of ethnographic techniques, which are best suited to capture the meaning-based
needs (Beckman and Barry, 2007), is more extensive in DT. Users’ involvement in testing is
more explicit in DT, while it is supposed to occur in both cases. Even if, similarly, users are asked
to evaluate the proposed solutions and provide feedback. DT is a better enabler of co-design.
The nature of the project team is identical: it should be diverse to incorporate a wide range of
perspectives and improve the quality and consistency of decisions. While QFD mentions the
importance of having cross-functional teams, DT potentially has a more open view, by stressing
the importance of involving people with very different skills, ways of thinking and experiences
(independently of their belonging to a particular department/function/area). Thus, DT advocates
not only functional representation, but essentially different learning styles representation
(Beckman and Barry, 2007). The innovation process can clearly benefit from the involvement of
people that take in and transform information quite differently.
In what the problem solving approach is concerned, significant differences exist. The QFD
approach is considerably more linear and well-structured. The sequence of matrices calls for a
logical reasoning often based on deductive, causal-effect links. On the hand, according to Brown
and Wyatt (2010), in DT the whole innovation process is deeply human, since it relies on people
ability to be intuitive, to recognise patterns and to construct ideas that have functional and
emotional meaning.
Table 2 and Table 3 highlight the relative advantages of each approach over the other.

Table 2 – Major Strengths of DT (in comparison to QFD)

QFD (-) DT (+)
Idea of value creation Value creation is not explicitly The need to understand how
addressed; value is regarded use value is created is
as being linked to customer crucial;
assessment of the the value in use perspective
product/service is more explicitly captured
characteristics in relation to and, consequently, a greater
competitors (benchmarking). effort is put in understanding
how value is created (it does
not derive directly from the
product/service features, but
from the way the user makes
use of them).
Concept generation stage and Concept selection tends to There is room for more
selection of the winner follow a logical approach, intuitive techniques. Extensive
concept where alternative concepts use of users’ feedback. A
are rated against a set of comprehensive approach to
criteria based on the test the concept with the
product/service imperatives. users is suggested.
Pugh methodology is complex
and not clearly grounded on
users’ preferences.
Testing Apart from internal testing Testing is much more
procedures to assess interactive. Prototypes are
96
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

compatibility among features tested in real-context

(HoQ R4), prior to full scale situations by means of role-
production the customer playing and other techniques.
evaluates the
product/service
characteristics in relation to
competitors (benchmarking –
HoQ R5).

Table 3 – Major Strengths of QFD (in comparison to DT)

Documentation system
Guidance on how to go from The set of matrices proposed The DT ‘toolbox’ is very rich
the prototype to full-scale facilitates the process of up to the stage when the
production/provision
QFD (+) DT (-)
QFD system of matrices A set of pictures, graphics
provides a process for and transcriptions are
planning recorded and kept. However,
and for formally recognising they are not integrated and it
and managing trade-offs is difficult to keep track of the
between product/service path followed to arrive at the
elements. solution or how decisions
were taken.
establishing adequate value propositions for the new
controlling and monitoring product/service are
procedures. The deployment identified, but not much
process promotes assistance is given on how
consistency and alignment. they guide the remaining
activities in the innovation
process, especially on how to
conduct the implementation
stage.

Given the relative advantages of each methodology, it is interesting to find ways to combine
them, especially by applying them at different stages of the new product/service development
process.

CONCLUSIONS

As the life-cycle of the products/services shortened, competition increased and the nature of the
problems become more complex, designing new products and services in line with users’ needs,
as quickly and as efficiently as possible has emerged as a major topic in the management
literature. As a response to these concerns, several methodologies were proposed and various
successful case studies of their implementation reported. Yet, most papers present the
potentialities of given approach without exploring its possible integrations with other tools that
might be already in place in some organisations. The current paper, explores the possibilities of
combining two of the most popular new product/service development approaches: QFD and DT.

97
Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

By carefully analysing their principles, stages and associated tools it is possible to conclude that
each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses. In fact, DT offers more guidelines on how to
capture the users’ views on the problem to be addressed and, by proposing a more
comprehensive approach to test with the users the concept to be developed, makes it easier for
an organisation to find a strategy to work “hand-in-hand” with their users throughout the
product/service development process. QFD is also based on a customer empathy principle, but
tends to overestimate the possibility of making the customer an active member of the QFD team,
especially when end-users are at stake. On the contrary, by comparison with DT, QFD facilitates
more the transition from prototype to full-scale production/service provision by going a step
further in what process and control planning is concerned. Integrating QFD deployment matrices
at the later steps of DT can lead to better results.
Thus, DT should be preferably used at the earlier stages of the development process, especially
when interaction with users is particularly critical, whereas QFD is stronger at later stages, after
the product/service concept has been chosen and production/delivering processes need to be
designed in order to prepare full scale implementation. QFD can benefit from the lessons given
by DT in what concept and prototype testing is concerned, integrating tools that call for users’
involvement at these critical stages. Innovation demands experimentation and DT is clearly
ahead in this regard.
A final note of caution must be made. In spite of the strong arguments in favour of listening to
users’ needs and expectations when developing new products and services, stressed both in QFD
and DT, as well as the importance of replacing solutions imposed from the top with solutions that
bubble from bellow when the organisation works closely with the clients and customers, it is
important to acknowledge some limitations of these approaches. In fact, users are often
inexperienced in imagining and articulating possible innovation for new products and services.
Even if empathic design tries to overcome these limitations, it is clear that sometimes radical
innovations come from the expertise and creativity of R&D teams. What, in any case, cannot be
neglected is the importance of putting ideas into test to understand how they can be converted in
value as perceived by those who use the products and services that result from innovation
processes.

REFERENCES
Beckman, S. and Barry, M. (2007), “Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design
Thinking”, California Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 25-56.
Brown, T. (2008), “Design Thinking”, Harvard Business Review June, pp. 1-10.
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design HarperCollins e-books, USA.
Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010), “Design Thinking for Social Innovation”, Stanford Social
Innovation Review Winter, pp. 30-35.
Edman, K. (2009), “Exploring Overlaps and Differences in Service Dominant Logic and
Design Thinking”, Paper presented at the First Nordic Conference on Service Design and
Service Innovation 24-26 November Oslo, Norway available at
http://servdes.org/pdf/2009/wetteredman.pdf (accessed 23 February 2016).

98
View publication stats

Proceedings of the 2nd ICQEM Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, 2016

Johansson-Skoldberg, U.; Woodilla, J. and Çetinkaya, M. (2013), “Design Thinking: Past,

Present and Possible Futures”. Creativity and Innovation Management Vol. 22, No.2, pp.
121-146.
Pugh, S. (1996), Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design: The Living Legacy of
Stuart Pugh, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston, MA.
Razzouk, R. and Shute, V. (2012), “What is design thinking and why it is important?”, Review
of Educational Research Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 330-348.
Rogers, D. and Salustri, F. (2009), “A Quality Function Deployment Method Pattern
Language for Efficient Design”, Paper presented at the International Conference on
Engineering Design ICED’09 24-27 August, Stanford, USA, available at
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/I/Papers/QfdPlICED09.pdf (accessed at 22 February 2016).
Sá, A. and Sá, P. M. (2014), “Redesigning a job using the QFD approach: the case of the
customer service in a call center”, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Quality
Engineering and Management, Guimarães, Portugal, 14-16 September, ICQEM, pp. 879-
889.
Seshadri, P.; Reid, T and Booth, J. (2014), “A Framework for Fostering Compassionate
Design Thinking During the Design Process”, Paper presented at the 121st ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, 15-18 June Indianapolis, USA, available at
https://www.asee.org/public/conferences (accessed at 29 February 2016)
Smith, A.; Fischbacher, M. and Wilson, F. (2007), “New Service Development: From
Panoramas to Precision”. European Management Journal Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 370-383.
Tontini, G.; Søilen, K. and Silveira, A, (2013), “How do interactions of Kano model attributes
affect customer satisfaction? An analysis based on psychological foundations”. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence Vol. 24, No. 11, pp. 1253-1271.

99