Dokumen - Pub Research Handbook On Design Thinking 1802203125 9781802203127

Research Handbook on Design Thinking
Research Handbook on
Design Thinking
Edited by
Karla Straker
Senior Lecturer of Design, School of Architecture, The University of
Queensland, Australia
Cara Wrigley
Professor of Design, Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and IT, The
University of Queensland, Australia
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Karla Straker and Cara Wrigley 2023
Cover image: Kimmi Ko
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or
otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
Published by
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
The Lypiatts
15 Lansdown Road
Cheltenham
Glos GL50 2JA
UK
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

William Pratt House
9 Dewey Court
Northampton
Massachusetts 01060
USA
A catalogue record for this book

is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930299
This book is available electronically in the

Business subject collection
http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781802203134
ISBN 978 1 80220 312 7 (cased)

ISBN 978 1 80220 313 4 (eBook)
EEP BoX
Contents
List of contributorsvii
Introduction to the Research Handbook on Design Thinking1

Karla Straker and Cara Wrigley
PART I PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGNERS
1 A design thinker’s mind: insights on the neurocognitive processes of ideation 7

John Gero and Julie Milovanovic
2 Design facilitation practice: an integrated framework 25

Genevieve Mosely and Lina Markauskaite
3 Who gets to wear the black turtleneck? Questioning the profession of

design thinking 45
Sally Cloke, Mark Roxburgh and Benjamin Matthews
4 Method case study – Making design thinking tactile: unlocking meaning

and experiences with tactile tools and generative prototypes70
Rowan Page and Leah Heiss
PART II PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN THINKING AS A PROCESS
5 The agile landscape of design thinking 80

Katja Thoring and Roland M. Mueller
6 Bridging the academia–industry gap through design thinking: research

innovation sprints 102
Ivano Bongiovanni, Peter Townson and Marek Kowalkiewicz
7 Design4Health: developing design thinking bootcamps in the Middle East 127

Carlos Montana and Thomas Boillat
8 Design thinking to improve student mental well-being 142

Jane E. Machin
9 From gas to green: designing a social contagion strategy for the energy
transition in Rotterdam, the Netherlands 164
Jesal Shah, Rebecca Anne Price and Jotte de Koning
v
vi Research handbook on design thinking
10 Method case study – A design thinking toolkit for framing market conditions 190
Ilya Fridman, Robbie Napper, Amrik S. Sohal and Sairah Hussain
PART III PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN THINKING AS A PRACTICE
11 The fragility of design thinking: applying symbolic interactionism to

promote shared meaning 201
Jan Jervis and Jeffrey E. Brand
12 Dealing with the difficulties of policy formulation in policy design: the

merits and demerits of the application of design thinking to the policy realm 220
Michael Howlett
13 The weakest link: the importance of problem framing in design thinking 232
Martin Meinel, Tobias T. Eismann, Sebastian K. Fixson and Kai-Ingo Voigt
14 Factor structure, validity, and reliability of an instrument for assessing

design thinking 246
Elena Novak and Ilker Soyturk
15 Using action research to facilitate and teach design thinking in graduate

management education 265
Judy Matthews
16 Method case study – The transmedia journalism design thinking toolkit 281
Dilek Gürsoy
17 Conclusion—Beyond normal design thinking: reflections on the

evolution of a paradigm and ideas for the new incommensurable 294
Philip Ely
Index315
Contributors
EDITORS
Karla Straker (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer of Design in the School of Architecture at The
University of Queensland, Australia. Her research is in the field of Design Innovation, with
a specific focus on understanding how emotions can inform design practice and methods, con-
tributing to positive behavioural changes in individuals. She has developed research methods
that support designers in their attempts to understand the relationship between cognition,
affect and behaviours, most notably through her book Affected: Emotionally engaging with
customers in the digital age (2018), co-authored with Professor Wrigley. In her most recent
book, Design Innovation and Integration (2021), co-authored with Dr Nusem and Professor
Wrigley, design processes and methods for product innovation are outlined and the mindset
required to integration design within organisations.
Cara Wrigley (PhD) is a Professor of Design Innovation at The University of Queensland,
Australia. In 2018, she established and directed the Design Innovation Research Group, leading
a research team that focused on design-led exploratory research, conducting applied and the-
oretical research into people, emotions, strategy and business. Cara has published extensively
on the application and adoption of design, which has been disseminated through a number of
books, including Design innovation and integration (2021), Design innovation for health and
medicine (2020), co-authored with Dr Straker and Dr Nusem; Affected: Emotionally engaging
customers in the digital age (2018), co-authored with Dr Straker; and Design thinking peda-
gogy: Facilitating innovation and impact in tertiary education (2022) with Genevieve Mosely.
Cara has more than 80 refereed papers in outlets such as Design Issues, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Energy Policy, California Management Review, ASAIO Journal, and Journal of
Cardiovascular Nursing. She is currently the editor-in chief of the Journal of Design, Business
& Society.
AUTHORS
Thomas Boillat (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in health technologies at the Mohammed

Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences. He designs and evaluates digital
health solutions in view of increasing patient satisfaction, experience, and safety. He is also
a Human-centred advocate and teaches Design Thinking to undergraduates, postgraduates and
medical professionals. In addition, he facilitates Design Thinking workshops and projects with
medical professionals, designers, and engineers to equip them with the skills that make them
actors of change. He earned an MSc and a PhD from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
vii
viii Research handbook on design thinking
Ivano Bongiovanni (PhD) is a Lecturer in Information Security, Governance, and Leadership

& Design Thinking with the UQ Business School and the UQ Cyber team. He has developed
his research and practice in the fields of cybersecurity management and design thinking. Since
his time with the PwC Chair in Digital Economy at QUT, he has been running design-led pro-
jects for public and private sector organisations. His current focus of work is on human-centred
physical and cyber security.
Jeffrey E. Brand is a professor of communication and media at Bond University, where he
develops and teaches undergraduate and postgraduate programmes on digital media, digital
transformation, and research methodology. Jeff’s research generates policy-changing evi-
dence of media audience demographics, attitudes, and behaviours, such as his 18-year-long
panel studies entitled Digital Australia and Digital New Zealand on video game audiences. He
has served as a consultant to organisations such as the Australian Communications and Media
Authority and the Australian Classification Board.
Sally Cloke is a design researcher at PDR International Centre for Design & Research,
Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK. Sally has a PhD in design from the University
of Newcastle (Australia). She has been a teacher and practitioner of design thinking and has
published on design-related topics including critical/speculative design, design for sustainable
behaviour and aesthetic theory. Her current research interests include how design can address
the social and economic factors that impact on sleep quality.
Jotte de Koning (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Design for Sustainability Transitions at
the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Jotte conducts
research at the intersection of design and systems thinking; looking at how design can contrib-
ute to societal challenges or how to change complex systems through design. Her expertise lies
in strategic design, service design, co-creation, behavioural change, transition management
and sustainable innovation. Her work spans different contexts: the agri-food system, energy
systems and cities-as-a-system.
Tobias T. Eismann (PhD) is a researcher and practitioner in creativity and innovation
management. In his work he supports people, teams, and organisations to make the most out
of their creative potential. His research focuses on the role of creativity for organisational
success, how approaches such as design thinking can help people and teams become more
creative, and how physical and digital spaces impact the creative process of people.
Philip Ely (PhD, FRSA) is a design practitioner and researcher currently at Curtin University.
Having led design-led innovation initiatives at IBM, Telstar Entertainment Group, Granada
Media and Design Bridge developing new interactive products and services, his work in
academia has focussed on the theoretical and practical role of design to affect positive change.
Operating at the nexus of practice and theory, his most recent book, The Climate Domesday
Book, was a publicly exhibited hybrid digital-print book that brought together over twenty
contributors tackling the climate crisis.
Sebastian K. Fixson (Dipl.-Ing., PhD) is Professor of Innovation and Design and Associate
Dean of Graduate Programs & Innovation at Babson College. In his work he focuses on helping
organisations and individuals to build innovation capabilities. His recent research studies how
innovation performance is impacted through choices in process governance (open vs. closed
Contributors ix
innovation), through the use of digital design tools, and through the use of innovation practices
such as design thinking. His work stretches across large enterprises and entrepreneurial firms.
Ilya Fridman (PhD) is a designer, researcher and educator. As part of the Emerging
Technologies Research Lab, his work explores how design thinking and making can con-
tribute to interdisciplinary research contexts and what role designers might play in collab-
oratively reimagining future possibilities for sustainable development. As a lecturer within
the Department of Design, Ilya teaches Design Thinking to aspiring entrepreneurs within the
Monash Business School and Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture at Monash University.
John Gero (PhD) is a Research Professor in Computer Science and Architecture at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He is a member of the Charlotte Neuro-Cognitive
Interaction Lab. He is the author or editor of 54 books and over 750 papers and book chap-
ters in the fields of design science, design computing, artificial intelligence, computer-aided
design, design cognition and design neurocognition (citations = 26,000, h-index = 73,
i10-index = 370).
Dilek Gürsoy is Assistant Professor in visual communication design at Istanbul Bilgi
University, Turkey. Her research interests include experience design, design thinking and
transmedia studies. Her research background merges design, media, and journalism studies.
Her last book, Transmediality in independent journalism: The Turkish case (Routledge,
2020) reflects this intertangled perspective. She is also an advisory committee member of the
Interdisciplinary PhD Communication Conference (IPCC), which takes place every year at
Istanbul Bilgi University.
Leah Heiss is the Eva and Marc Besen International Research Chair in Design at Monash
University. Her design work has been recognised with six Australian Good Design Awards,
the CSIRO Design Innovation Award and the 2022 Women in Design Award. Her co-design
methods have been used to evolve new models of care for cancer, eating disorders, aged care,
voluntary assisted dying and acquired brain injury and she is using design strategies with the
World Health Organisation to improve the uptake and implementation of WHO guidelines.
Michael Howlett, FRSC is Burnaby Mountain Professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier
1) in the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver BC,
Canada. He specializes in public policy analysis, political economy, and resource and envi-
ronmental policy. His most recent books are The dictionary of public policy (2022), Policy
consultancy in comparative perspective (2020), Designing public policies (2019), and the
Policy design primer (2019).
Sairah Hussain holds a PhD in Business & Management from the University of South
Australia and is a consultant for the Australian government’s AusIndustry’s Entrepreneurs’
Programme. Prior to this, she was a research fellow at Monash Business School, focusing on
Industry 4.0, sustainable supply chains and innovation ecosystems. Sairah has gained both
industry and government experience, having worked in the telecom and not-for-profit sectors
in London, and also for the Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry based in Saudi Arabia.
Jan Jervis has a PhD in design and communication and researches strategies for optimising
design in business. Her interdisciplinary research has been informed by careers in multimedia
and fashion design connected with teaching cross-disciplinary communications. A recipient
x Research handbook on design thinking
of three teaching awards, Jan is a lecturer at Bond University in the Faculty of Society and
Design. She is the author of papers on project-based learning in capstones, and the polysemy
and primacy of design.
Marek Kowalkiewicz (PhD) is a Professor and Chair in Digital Economy at QUT Business
School. He joined QUT after a substantial commercial career, culminating in Silicon Valley as
head of global innovation teams at the multinational software corporation, SAP. His career at
SAP spanned other senior roles, including research manager of SAP’s largest Asian research
lab and the lead of one of SAP’s main global research programmes. Prior to this, Professor
Kowalkiewicz was a research fellow at Microsoft Research, Asia.
Jane E. Machin (MFA, PhD) is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Radford University.
Her research, which examines the intersection of mental health, stigma, and consumer well-
being, has been published in top journals in her field, such as the Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, Journal of Business Research, and Appetite. Jane is the recipient of numerous
awards for her research and teaching, including the Thomas C. Kinnear Best Paper Award and
the Donald N. Dedmon Distinguished Professor Award.
Lina Markauskaite is a Professor of Learning Sciences at the University of Sydney,
Australia. Her research spans three related areas: students’ and teachers’ digital capabilities;
professional learning for complex knowledge work and innovation; and technology-enhanced
research methods. Her recent research projects have mainly focused on understanding the
nature of complex professional knowledge work and learning, in inter-professional and
inter-disciplinary contexts, and how to facilitate knowledge co-creation on emerging knowl-
edge frontiers.
Benjamin Matthews is a Lecturer in Design at the University of Newcastle, Australia with
over 15 years’ experience in creative industries with multidisciplinary teams, guiding Human
Centred Design as a strategist, facilitator and producer. His research is transdisciplinary
and focuses on emerging technology and patterns of innovation in network cultures. He is
a member of the Virtual & Augmented Reality Research Network (VARRN) based at Sunway
University, Malaysia and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology (CoeSB).
Judy Matthews (M Social Work, PhD) is a senior academic in the QUT Business School,
researching innovation management and design-led innovation. Using action research, she
facilitates and teaches problem framing for creative action, design thinking and design-led
innovation to experienced professionals and managers in MBA and corporate education
programs, and assists MBA alumni in design thinking practices. Her recent research focuses
on design and circular economy initiatives in construction, identifying good processes and
practices in modern methods of construction.
Martin Meinel (PhD) is a researcher and practitioner in creativity and innovation manage-
ment. In his work he supports people, teams, and organizations to make the most out of their
creative potential. His research focuses on the role of creativity for organizational success,
how approaches such as design thinking can help people and teams become more creative, and
how physical and digital spaces impact the creative process of people.
Julie Milovanovic (M. Arch., PhD) is a post-doctoral Fellow in Computer Science at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on design cognition, design
Contributors xi
neurocognition and design learning. Through her research, she aims at bridging design science
and neuroscience to explore novel ways to design and teach design.
Carlos Montana (PhD) is the founding faculty, former assistant dean, and current chair of
research in the Dubai Institute of Design and Innovation DIDI, the first specialised design
university in the UAE, in collaboration with MIT and Parsons. A multi award-winning design
and academic leader, he has 30+ years’ experience in Colombia, Italy, Japan, Singapore,
Australia and the UAE. His transdisciplinary research in design, innovation and entrepreneur-
ship focuses on sustainable development, with expertise in biomimicry and design for health.
Genevieve Mosely is a PhD candidate at The University of Queensland, Australia. Genevieve’s
research focuses on design education and the application of design thinking to help capture
new value through better understanding users and their needs. She has practical experience
working in partnership with industry, including the Royal Australian Air Force, the Australian
Defence College and TAFE NSW. Her PhD research utilises a qualitative approach to inves-
tigate current design discourse on design practice, through specifically drawing attention to
design facilitation.
Roland M. Mueller (PhD) is Professor of Information Systems, especially Business
Intelligence at the Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany. There he is co-director of
the Institute of Data-Driven Digital Transformation (d-cube). He also has a visiting professor-
ship appointment at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. His research areas are in the
fields of data thinking, user-driven innovation methods, meta-theoretical analysis as a research
method, as well as the use of ontologies and knowledge graphs for information extraction.
Robbie Napper (PhD) is an Industrial Designer, Researcher and Senior Lecturer with the
Department of Design at Monash University. Robbie is an expert in the design and manu-
facture of vehicles, services, systems and objects for mobility, especially examining themes
of modularity, mass customisation, user experience and user-centred design in zero and
low-carbon transport. Robbie is a standing member of the US National Academy of Science’s
Transportation Research Board in Bus Transit Systems and Deputy Director of the Mobility
Design Lab.
Elena Novak is an Associate Professor of Educational Technology at Kent State University.
Her research centres on innovative uses of technology to support learning, teaching, and
design. Elena’s current research projects focus on the integration of learning technologies such
as 3D printing, robotics, video games, and simulations in education to provide educators with
research-informed guidelines on how to integrate technology in various educational settings.
She designs curricula, assessments, and tools to support and evaluate students’ learning and
creativity.
Rowan Page (PhD) is the Program Director of Industrial Design at Monash University.
His PhD research collaborated with Cochlear to embed user experience design practices to
improve human factors and usability in medical device design. His current research explores
how design and product development can support the translation of fundamental research
into commercial devices. He works closely with interdisciplinary teams (Monash Institute of
Medical Engineering, SensiLab), and industry product development projects with organisa-
tions such as Cabrini, Blundstone, Circadian Health Innovations.
xii Research handbook on design thinking
Rebecca Anne Price (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Transition Design at the Faculty of
Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. Dr Price
works with public and private organisations to support the application of design upon complex
innovation challenges in various domains ranging from mobility, public health to energy tran-
sitions. As a Senior Comenius Fellow, Dr Price is further tasked by the Netherlands Initiative
for Education Research to advance design education through development of the concept of
‘designer resilience’.
Mark Roxburgh is Honorary Associate Professor in Design at the University of Newcastle,
Australia. He retired from full-time academia in 2021 and now works as an open-source free
range academic and fading failed indy rock star. His research interests cover design research,
visual communication, and photography. He has grown suspicious of the instrumentalisation
of the anthrochauvinist bandwagon known as human-centred design and has recently headed
to the hills to dig the bunker and prep for the zombie apocalypse.
Jesal Shah has a background in Industrial Design and a master’s degree in Strategic Design.
She works as a lead venture builder and business designer at oneUp, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. Jesal applies her expertise in strategic design theory and methodology, service
design, design for behavioural change and systemic design to help private and public sector
organisations with sustainable innovation challenges. She has been involved in academic
research and consultancy projects within the domains of healthcare, energy transition,
city-making, aviation, agri-food systems and fashion.
Amrik S. Sohal is a Professor at Monash University. He holds a PhD in Operations
Management from the University of Bradford (UK). His research focuses on process improve-
ment and innovation, supply chains and the circular economy. He has authored/co-authored
over 250 papers, as well as three books and a number of chapters contributed to books. He has
received numerous grants and awards for his research. In 2011 he was awarded Life Fellow of
the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management.
Ilker Soyturk received his master’s and doctoral degree in the Research, Measurement and
Statistics program at Kent State University, USA. He is currently a National Education Expert
in the Ministry of National Education in Turkey. Since 2008, he has collaborated on many
research projects with field experts across disciplines. His research interests include math edu-
cation, factors affecting students’ success, (short) test development and validation studies. His
technical areas of interest include Structural Equation Modelling, Rasch, and Item Response
Theory.
Katja Thoring (PhD) is Professor for Integrated Product Design at the Technical University of
Munich, Germany and Visiting Professor at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.
She has a background in Industrial Design and researches on topics such as creative work-
spaces, technology-driven design innovation, design methodologies, and design education.
Her main quest is to understand how the work environment can influence creativity, and to
turn these insights into tools and techniques for improving the innovation process.
Peter Townson (MRes) is a design innovation catalyst for the Centre for the Digital Economy
and the Centre for the Future Enterprise at Queensland University of Technology. Since 2015,
Peter has led research innovation sprints with businesses, institutions, and government depart-
Contributors xiii
ments. Peter’s specialty is in managing and facilitating high-functioning teams of researchers

and clients through the use of design methods. His work focuses on the relationship between
design and organisational change, disruption, and digital transformation in complex and highly
regulated industries.
Kai-Ingo Voigt has a PhD in Business Administration and is Full Professor and holder of the
Chair of Industrial Management at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Since
2010, he also has a Guest Professorship at the University of Business and Economics (UIBE)
in Beijing. Coming from intensive research about innovation and especially idea management,
his research scope encompasses empirical studies about creativity-enhancing methods such as
design thinking and activity-based workspaces.
Introduction to the Research Handbook on Design
Thinking
Karla Straker and Cara Wrigley
Good design is invisible, hidden from conscious observation by the untrained eye. Good design
fits seamlessly and integrates completely, delivered through an understanding of the end user.
Bad design is overt, being perceptible to the end user, and often making a lasting impression.
Beyond the lasting negative impressions bad design can introduce faults that can lead to fatal
outcomes. Design thinking is even more difficult to distinguish within the landscape of ‘good’
and ‘bad’ design. The qualitative nature of design thinking leads to a broader spectrum of
the definition of ‘good’. The global field of design thinking is outcome focused, rarely using
comparative analysis to draw conclusions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’. This book serves to
move beyond the outcome-focused orientation to examine the diversity of methodologies and
processes employed, to deepen knowledge of the ‘how’ to extend beyond the present ‘what’.
The design thinking process is an iterative (back and forth) traversing loop of question
and answer. Drawing concepts, building models, experimenting with elements, reframing
problems – underpinned by the requirement for continual learning. This abductive approach
to thinking is fuelled by curiosity. Enterprises and ecosystems without a background or
education in design thinking often miss this critical point, looking to distil the field into one
‘design recipe’ that can be applied generically to all problems. If only this was that simple. The
extraction and dilution of this ‘design recipe’ is attractive in the short term but will ultimately
lead to poor long-term results. This conundrum led us to the compilation of this book. Through
a global search for best practice, we aimed to extend the understanding of design thinking
through the inclusion of uncommon debates, bespoke methods and the continual questioning
of the field.
A key part of any design process is critical feedback and this Research Handbook explores
this feedback loop and its criticisms further. It does so by examining arguments and critiques
throughout the spectrum of assertive and contradictory definitions. The Research Handbook
seeks to unpick the creative process by isolating process frames and examining them in detail.
Debate is raised through these examinations, tracing success through empirical evidence back
to design origins. It also raises the observation of the key tenet of design thinking – iteration
– and the lack of this in poorly applied design thinking ‘recipes’. The underlying premise for
this Research Handbook is to present and debate these different perspectives traversing theory
through to practice globally. The outcome of this book should be to stimulate and drive further
discussion on the field of design thinking.
Preparing a book on design thinking, which has multiple definitions, processes, methods,
applications and experiences, was not an easy task. When we thought we had a grasp on what
it was a new chapter would arrive and shift our positions, raising more questions than answers.
1
2 Research handbook on design thinking
This Research Handbook aims to illustrate the constant reimagining of what design thinking is
and can be. This collection of work continues to challenge current perspectives and practices
now and into the future. Each chapter in isolation provides a novel perspective of design
thinking; however, when read as a collective work, it should challenge the reader to reposition
their own perspectives continuously.
This Research Handbook provides an overview of the field’s design thinking history,
theoretical approaches, key concepts, perspectives, and methods across a board range of
applications. It offers a comprehensive international exploration of design thinking from inter-
disciplinary perspectives. Researchers from design, education, policy and business provide an
overview of the diversity in application of design thinking through theoretical and practical
case studies. This book has specifically selected work from established and emerging scholars
and practitioners to pursue a lively debate throughout the chapters, encouraging aspirational
developments for future research studies.
HOW THIS RESEARCH HANDBOOK IS STRUCTURED
The Research Handbook comprises a total of 36 authors globally, representing a diverse eco-
system of distinct disciplines. Demonstrating the multidisciplinary, multisector, and diverse
group of contributors that the field of design thinking now comprises. It is structured into
three main sections, organised into 17 chapters, each of which focuses on a common theme or
topic. Each main section concludes with a novel case study which outlines the development of
bespoke design thinking methods in unique project contexts. The section introduction is not
meant as a summary or critique of the chapters in that section; rather, it incorporates a reflec-
tion of the editor on the topic and, as such, it is meant to be thought-provoking.
Part I is focused on the Perspectives on Designers. In this part we highlight the fundamental
challenges that have emerged regarding the professionalisation of the field of design thinking.
Such expertise is required to facilitate this emerging practice and the types of cognitive loads
required to successfully deliver in the transdisciplinary arena.
This section begins with John Gero and Julie Milovanovic’s chapter, ‘A design thinker’s
mind: insights on the neurocognitive processes of ideation’ (Chapter 1), which highlights an
emerging field bridging design thinking and neuroscience – design neurocognition. Using
scientific medical research methods, they analyse the cognitive load of the design thinking
process to highlight the challenges and implications of studying ideation, a foundational com-
ponent of design thinking, through the lens of neuroscience. As the title suggests, this provides
a unique insight into the design thinking mind and what makes it tick.
Genevieve Mosely and Lina Markauskaite (Chapter 2, ‘Design facilitation practice: an inte-
grated framework’) present a novel framework on design facilitation. This construct borrows
from the seminal theories of practice architecture to move the needle on design thinking
practice and who, more importantly, practices it successfully. This chapter contributes to the
debate surrounding the facilitation practice of design thinking and future capabilities of such
a thinker.
Chapter 3 presents ‘Who gets to wear the black turtleneck? Questioning the profession
of design thinking’ by Sally Cloke, Mark Roxburgh and Benjamin Matthews. It focuses on
the profession of a designer and questions the role of accreditation on this newly established
role. They ask three fundamental questions; whether problems of the Anthropocene could be
Introduction 3
better addressed through a less anthropocentric, less ‘problem-solving’ oriented approach to

thinking and designing than permitted by current orthodoxies? And what if it matters less who
gets to ‘wear the turtleneck’ than who dares to pick up the mantle of some of design history’s
less-heeded prophets? They explore these questions via the history of thinking that informs
common criticisms of Design Thinking and conclude with calls-to-action for designers.
Part I concludes with the case study by Rowan Page and Leah Heiss, ‘Making design think-
ing tactile: unlocking meaning and experiences with tactile tools and generative prototypes’
(Chapter 4). In this case study the practice of design thinking is explored through tactile
activities embodied in physical manifestations used to integrate end-user participation hosted
by designers in a medical design project context.
Part II is focused on Perspectives on Design Thinking as a Process. A quick online search
under the terms ‘design thinking process’ will yield a deep dataset of different process models
and approaches. These different perspectives on the field have generated a worthy platform
for debate. The section includes five chapters that raise fundamental issues related to the
nature of different design thinking processes and their implications on broader design thinking
principles.
Katja Thoring and Roland M. Mueller present ‘The agile landscape of design thinking’
(Chapter 5), detailing the crossover between design thinking and agile design processes.
In this chapter they explore the conceptual influence and impact these two related process
models have on each other as well as the debated differences in approach. This amounts to the
culmination of a newly titled innovation approach – the agile design thinking process. This
contributes to a better theoretical understanding of the design thinking process and allows for
more agile innovation processes.
In Chapter 6, ‘Bridging the academic–industry gap through design thinking: research inno-
vation sprints’, Ivano Bongiovanni, Peter Townson and Marek Kowalkiewicz examine this
difference in detail. Focusing on a demand-driven model for design thinking research they
dissect the different approaches, methods, and even funding arrangements for delivering
real-world impact. Research innovation sprints are discussed in more detail as a way to bridge
the gap between both parties.
Carlos Montana and Thomas Boillat (Chapter 7), ‘Design4Health: developing design think-
ing bootcamps in the Middle East’ present an intensive, multi-disciplinary, multi-collaborator
design thinking programme conducted in Dubai, UAE, in 2019 and 2021. This medical-design
focused bootcamp brings universities and hospitals together in the Middle East, seeking to
implement design thinking approaches and improve outcomes in health systems. This chapter
discusses design thinking in relation to experiential learning through the evolution of the
Design4Health Bootcamp. This contextually novel chapter contributes to a global conversa-
tion on design thinking processes and applications.
Jane E. Machin (Chapter 8), author of ‘Design thinking to improve student mental
well-being’, considers not only a design thinking approach within the underexplored context
of mental health issues but also the difference in perspective from a marketing disciplinary
home. Meriting inclusion in this book, this chapter presents lessons from design thinking pro-
cesses and practices utilised in a multidisciplinary student cohort in order to better understand
design thinking’s value in the mental health problem context.
‘From gas to green: designing a social contagion strategy for the energy transition in
Rotterdam, the Netherlands’ (Chapter 9), by Jesal Shah, Rebecca Anne Price and Jotte de
Koning, finds inspiration at the nexus of design, psychology and sociology to influence
greener behaviour in Dutch energy consumers. The results presented in this chapter derived
from the project demonstrate how design can play a critical role in shaping sustainable sys-
temic transitions needed for the future and how this novel scaled-up version of the design
thinking process can be utilised for such success.
The case study ‘A design thinking toolkit for framing market conditions’ by Ilya Fridman,
Robbie Napper, Amrik S. Sohal and Sairah Hussain (Chapter 10), concludes Part II by pre-
senting a research partnership with Volgren – Australia’s largest bus manufacturer. This
unique project disseminated new design thinking methods by way of a toolkit to provide
managers with the ability to frame market conditions and collectively explore different
opportunities presented by a technological transition within their industry. This is another
example of a differing research perspective of design thinking methods and approaches in the
automotive sector.
Part III is focused on Perspectives on Design Thinking as a Practice. In this part of the
book we explore the individual components of this field and how challenging these constructs
can lead to further developments. It is only through drawing on these global multidisciplinary
perspectives we begin to understand the collective shared practice of design thinking.
Jan Jervis and Jeffrey E. Brand in ‘The fragility of design thinking: applying symbolic
interactionism to promote shared meaning’ (Chapter 11) build upon the previous work that
showcased disparity between the vocabulary used by design professionals and business and
management professionals and thus the need for such a shared meaning. In this chapter they
present the Acceptance, Vocabulary and Acknowledgement (AVA) model for design thinking
as it provides a united lexicon in order to cross disciplinary boundaries.
Chapter 12 by Michael Howlett, ‘Dealing with the difficulties of policy formulation in
policy design: the merits and demerits of the application of design thinking to the policy
realm’, examines the role and contributions design thinking practice has towards policy
invention and innovation. It is concluded that such a unique approach can indeed contribute in
a way that more traditional policy generation techniques fall short. This methodology serves
to produce policies more likely to resolve important social problems and concerns in a concise
and efficient way.
Martin Meinel, Tobias T. Eismann, Sebastian K. Fixon and Kai-Ingo Voight (Chapter 13,
‘The weakest link: the importance of problem framing in design thinking’) discuss a critical
point in the design thinking process, transitioning from inspiration to ideation. Highlighted in
this chapter is the lack of literature on this process which has led them to question how this
is done. From their analysis on problem framing, they explain the effects of different framing
to provide advice for users of design thinking in business and academia. They conclude their
chapter by speculating on how highly topical trends may impact problem framing in design
thinking in the future.
Elena Novak and Ilker Soyturk (Chapter 14, ‘Factor structure, validity, and reliability of
an instrument for assessing design thinking’) examine instruments that assess design thinking
skills, an under-studied aspect of design thinking, stating there is a limited array of tools
for measuring quantitative variables. Their study provides empirical evidence regarding the
Design Thinking Scale factor structure and its internal consistency and validity. Overall, the
findings suggest that the Design Thinking Scale has a promising validity and reliability and
Introduction 5
can be used for assessing the outcomes of design thinking education and investigating the
impacts of various interventions that aim to enhance design thinking skills.
Judy Matthews in Chapter 15, ‘Using action research to facilitate and teach design thinking
in graduate management education’ adopts an action research model to explore the benefits
and challenges of adding design thinking and design methods to a Masters of Business
Administration, also known as an MBA, programme. This chapter contributes to design
thinking practice and more importantly reflects on experienced professionals and managers in
a graduate higher education context, presenting their reaction, learning, changes in behaviour
and outcomes to a new perspective to corporate innovation approaches.
The method case study, ‘The transmedia journalism design thinking toolkit’ (Chapter 16)
by Dilek Gürsoy, concludes Part III, providing insights into the challenges of teaching trans-
media journalism and details the development of the Transmedia Journalism Design Thinking
Toolkit to overcome some of these difficulties. Inspired by IDEO’s design thinking process,
the toolkit is designed to act as a guide for students to use during each stage of a transmedia
news story production.
The Conclusion is written by Philip Ely, ‘Beyond normal design thinking: reflections on
the evolution of a paradigm and ideas for the new incommensurable’ (Chapter 17), and draws
upon the work of Thomas Kuhn and the notion of paradigms and normal science. The design
thinking paradigm is conceptualised as a disciplinary matrix of symbolic representations, met-
aphysics and models, values and exemplars, identifying the controversies around its origins
and its continued development. Ely states that we are in a state of great expansion in the field
of design making, so it is increasingly hard to make sense of the paradigms we align ourselves
with, questioning what will become the new design thinking.
Designers look at the world in a different and unique way. They are creative experts, bal-
ancing artistic flare with rigour. After decades straddling multiple faculties, disciplines, and
research institutes we have always felt like we didn’t fit. Our value and contributions were
evident but the discipline silos in which universities structure themselves and apply them-
selves is cumbersome to the field of Design Thinking. This Research Handbook came about
as we felt a greater understanding was required in a field that has often been overlooked by the
hard sciences and more structured academic disciplines. The field of design thinking requires
more rigorous debate, more transparency, ultimately building to a more respected position
similar to other transdisciplinary fields.
In summary, we as editors wish to thank the authors for sharing their unique perspectives
on the ever-growing field of design thinking, and hope that you, the reader, will learn as much
as we have in editing it.
PART I
Perspectives on Designers
1. A design thinker’s mind: insights on the
neurocognitive processes of ideation
John Gero and Julie Milovanovic
INTRODUCTION
Design thinking stands as a common approach adopted by companies to develop innovative

products (Brown, 2008; Carlgren, Rauth et al., 2016; Norman, 2013). In the design process,
designers execute several steps where they empathize with users to clarify their needs con-
cerning the artefact to design – the process of framing. This is a prerequisite to defining
design goals before ideation begins. The development of prototypes to be tested by users
provides feedback to the design team to refine their designs. Designing occurs in iterative
cycles through convergent and divergent thinking processes involving a range of stakeholders.
This chapter will focus primarily on the ideation phase of the design process, when designers
generate concepts to address a design task. During ideation, designers will seek to generate
a possible novel solution to a design task, while responding to constraints (e.g., functional,
technical, ethical). Here, we approach ideation from the lens of neurocognition. Tools from
neuroscience offer a potential to better understand designers’ brains while ideating that could
lead to a new family of design tools to assist designers in their ideation phase.
Design science research on ideation has grown in the past decades, and findings have
helped build a clearer picture of the underlying cognitive processes of ideation (Hay et al.,
2017a, 2017b). Designing was first understood through an information processing model
(Simon, 1969; Simon, 1973) which led to the definition of the design activity as consisting
of specific phases or steps (Alexander, 1964; Asimow, 1962; Pahl et al., 2007). A comple-
mentary approach to designing positioned it as a social process (Bucciarelli, 1988) situated
within a specific context (Clancey, 1997; Schön, 1983). Design cognition is only one aspect
of designers’ behaviour while ideating. Designers’ brain behaviour and physiological reaction
also provide information about the ideation process (Gero & Milovanovic, 2020).
Researchers draw upon different research fields such as cognitive psychology and behav-
ioural sciences to develop methodologies to study design thinking (Coley et al., 2007). For
example, the protocol analysis methodology relies on designers’ verbal utterances to infer cog-
nitive processes (Ericsson & Simon, 1984; Gero & McNeill, 1998; Van Someren et al., 1994).
Other methods include the observation of sketching behaviour (Suwa & Tversky, 1997; Yang
& Lee, 2020), ethnography and diary methods (Baird et al., 2000), retrospective interviews
(Dorta et al., 2018) and surveys (Blizzard et al., 2015; Coleman et al., 2019). Recent research
started approaching the study of design thinking and ideation through studying the neurophys-
iology of designers as they designed (Borgianni & Maccioni, 2020; Gero & Milovanovic,
7
2020; Hu & Shealy, 2019; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2016). The seminal work of Alexiou
et al. (2009) provided a first example of this novel dimension to define underlying neurocog-
nitive processes of ideation. Design neurocognition has emerged as a promising direction in
design research that could lead to the development of new models of design thinking and new
tools to assist designers (Gero & Milovanovic, 2020).
Research in neurocognition aims at exploring relationships between cognitive behaviours
and their neural correlates. The interest in approaching research on ideation through neurocog-
nition is to gain a better understanding of designers’ mind and brain behaviours while design-
ing. The development of relatively low-cost brain scanning devices has made neuroscience
methods to study the cognition of design thinking more accessible (Borgianni & Maccioni,
2020). Initial findings supported our cognitive understanding of design ideation. For example,
neurological patterns of designing tend to differ from problem-solving ones (Alexiou et al.,
2009; Vieira et al., 2020). Still, little is known about the underlying neural process of design
thinking and more research is needed.
Creativity and divergent thinking have been widely studied by neuroscientists (Beaty et al.,
2016; Dietrich, 2019; Fink et al., 2009; Pidgeon et al., 2016), but their findings only provide
partial information about the neurocognition of design thinking. We argue that creativity
is one aspect of design thinking, out of many (Gero, 1990; Visser, 2009). From a design
research perspective, creative thoughts are embedded within the design activity. The neu-
roscience approach to studying divergent thinking is usually limited to discrete constrained
tasks and tests, such as the Alternate Uses Task (Guilford, 1967). The situated dimension of
design thinking does not fit within the discrete approach taken by most creativity research in
neuroscience. Experiments exploring the neurocognition of ideation need a more naturalistic
environment to gain better insights about the underlying neural correlates of design thinking.
The aim of this chapter is to describe a new area of research at the intersection of design
thinking and neuroscience, by illustrating how studies from design neurocognition have
common research questions in design research, and expanding our understanding of the
cognition of ideation. Some of the challenges in implementing design thinking are acquiring
design skills and communicating with other team members (Carlgren, Elmquist et al., 2016).
Measuring designers’ brain behaviours, allows us to gain access to information about ideation
that has not yet been widely explored in design research that could address those challenges. In
this chapter, we will explore differences in brain patterns based on designers’ domain knowl-
edge and lay foundations for the development of tools to assist designers in developing design
skills. A better understanding of designers’ brain patterns will provide inputs to develop novel
types of design aids that have the long-term potential to revolutionize how we design and lead
to new forms of design thinking.
NEUROCOGNITION OF IDEATION PROCESSES IN DESIGN

THINKING
In this section, we tackle common questions explored by researchers to better understand

underlying processes of ideation. The first one deals with examining whether thinking pro-
cesses in designing differ from thinking processes in solving structured problems. Design
thinking provides a method to address problems through an iteration of intuitive and analytical
processes that differentiate it from a goal-oriented approach. The second research question
A design thinker’s mind 9
tackled deals with domain knowledge effects on designing processes. Design teams are
composed of members from different backgrounds which can be a challenge for the team.
A better understanding of how domain knowledge impacts ideation processes could provide
insights on ensuring team cohesion. The third topic explores the effect of using different idea
generation techniques on the design activity. Finally, we will reflect on using design tools to
assist designers and the implication of design neurocognition in the development of new types
of design tools.
Each example uses different tools to measure brain activity. The three most commonly used
brain scanning devices used in design research are fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging), fNIRS (functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy) and EEG (Electroencephalography).
Each is non-invasive and uses different approaches to measure activations in the brain. Aside
from its cost, a significant limitation of using fMRI machines to study designers’ brains is
that designers are enclosed in a tube and their heads need to remain fixed. However, today
a designer in an fMRI machine can sketch, verbalize and interact with a computer. fMRI
machines provide measurements of the whole brain compared with fNIRS and EEG devices
that only captures brain surface or near-surface activations. Some fNIRS and EEG headsets
are portable, thus allowing experiments in more realistic settings (Brockington et al., 2018;
Mayseless et al., 2019; Nguyen & Zeng, 2010; Vieira et al., 2020).
COGNITION AND NEUROCOGNITION OF PROBLEM-SOLVING

AND DESIGNING
One core research question in design studies on ideation is whether designing and
problem-solving involve different cognitive processes or if design is a specific case of
problem-solving (Cross, 2006; Dorst, 2011; Gero, 1990; Visser, 2006). Designing can be
considered as a form of problem-solving where problems are ill-structured (Simon, 1973).
In problem-solving, the problem is defined, meaning that the boundaries of the problem and
solution spaces are known. In this case, the variables within the problem and solution space
are constant, and the outcome can be predicted (Simon, 1969). Design problems are a specific
type of problem as they are situated within a context and the context can vary as the design
progresses (Gero, 1990; Schön, 1992).
Since the design problem space and design solution space are not defined, designers first
have to frame and structure the problem to propose a design solution within that frame.
Empirical studies comparing basic design with defined requirements and open-ended design
tasks highlighted differences in approaches to designing (Jiang et al., 2014; Kan & Gero,
2017). Open-ended design tends to require more focus on reframing the design problem during
the design task, while this process does not occur when design requirements are well defined
(Jiang et al., 2014).
Alexiou et al. (2009) studied the relation between designing and problem-solving using
a neurocognition approach. They compared designers’ brain activations while problem-solving
with those while designing for an open design task. Findings support that designing and
problem-solving involve distinct cognitive functions that are associated with distinct brain
networks (Alexiou et al., 2009). Moreover, analysing the design task compared with the
problem-solving task recruited a more extensive network of brain areas (Alexiou et al., 2009).
This finding aligns with the necessity to start by framing the design problem when engaging
in a design task (Dorst, 2015).
Similar results were found from another study comparing problem-solving and designing
while exploring behaviour differences of designers from diverse backgrounds – architects,
mechanical engineers and industrial designers (Vieira et al., 2019a, 2019b). In this study,
participants engaged in four tasks: (1) problem-solving, participants were asked to arrange
furniture in a room following a set of precise requirements; (2) basic design, participants were
asked to place the furniture inside the room according to their notions of functionality and
comfort; (3) open design, participants were told to create a space and arrange the furniture
to provide a functional and comfortable space; and (4) open sketching design, a freehand
sketching design task (Vieira et al., 2019a, 2019b). Participants were equipped with a portable
14-channel EEG headset to collect continuous signals of electrical activity on the surface of
the brain. A common approach to analysing EEG data is to break the signal into its constit-
uent frequency bands, which are associated with a particular range of cognitive activities in
a similar manner to the way white light can be broken into its constituent colours based on
their wavelength frequency. Higher power in specific bands is indicative of different activities
in the designing brain (Nguyen & Zeng, 2014). For more details on these measures and data
processing, see Vieira et al. (2020, 2022).
Mechanical engineers had a higher brain activation during the open sketching task com-
pared with the other tasks (Vieira et al., 2019b). They engaged more cognitive effort for the
open sketching design task than for the problem-solving task, specifically in the occipital and
temporal cortex. The mechanical engineers and the industrial designers both showed signifi-
cant differences of activation in the secondary visual cortex, on the left hemisphere of the brain
(Vieira et al., 2020). This region is significantly more activated during the open design task
than for the problem-solving task. The secondary visual cortex is usually recruited for visual
mental imagery (Pearson, 2019). For architects, they also displayed higher activation in their
brain for the open design task than for the other tasks, especially in the first half of the open
design task (Vieira et al., 2019b). Here again, structuring and framing the design problem
while engaging in the development of a design solution tend to require more cognitive effort.
The analysis per EEG band also highlights differences between layout elements in the
problem-solving task and sketching in the open sketching design task (Vieira et al., 2022).
Significant differences in activation were found for multiple channels for alpha and beta
waves, as illustrated in Figure 1.1. The results from this study support that the neurocognition
of designing is different from the neurocognition of problem-solving (Vieira et al., 2019a,
2020). Yet, it is not clear whether designing involves a similar brain pattern activation to
problem-solving with a different intensity or if it relies on a unique set of brain pattern
activations.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MECHANICAL ENGINEERS AND

ARCHITECTS DURING IDEATION
Another focus of design research is the study of factors that influence ideation patterns based
on discipline-specific knowledge (Gericke & Blessing, 2012; Kan & Gero, 2011; Purcell &
Gero, 1996). For instance, in some domains requirements and performance can be assessed
through more objective measurements (structural load) than other domains where the artefact
Source: Vieria et al. (2022); base of brain image © Society for Neuroscience (2017).
Figure 1.1 Top view of the brain showing the position of channels with significant
differences in activation between layout (problem solving task) and sketching
(open sketching design task), in alpha 2, beta 1, beta 2 and beta 3 frequency
bands that were observed for industrial designers and mechanical engineers
is evaluated through aesthetic considerations (Visser, 2009). The evaluation method for the
design artefact shapes how the designer engages in design tasks. Architects, compared with
engineers, rely on a greater number of alternatives in their exploration of design solutions
(Akin, 2001).
Differences in design patterns based on disciplines found in cognitive studies suggest that
different brain activation patterns could relate to specific discipline knowledge. Exploratory
results confirm this, as significant differences in the design neurocognition between mechani-
cal engineers and architects have been found (Vieira et al., 2019b). When comparing the four
tasks presented above, namely problem-solving, basic design, open design and open sketching
design, activation differences appeared between mechanical engineers and architects. More
specifically, architects show higher brain activation than mechanical engineers, especially in
the first half of the tasks as illustrated in Figure 1.2 on the left-hand graphs. Architects also
show more differences in brain activation between the problem-solving and designing tasks
compared with mechanical engineers (Vieira et al., 2019b). Overall, engaging in design tasks
had different effects on designers’ brain activations depending on domains. Mechanical engi-
neers tended to have similar activations for the pretask and Tasks 1, 2 and 3, with Task 4 being
different, while the architects showed a higher activation for all tasks than the mechanical
engineers. Further, for the architects the pretask was different to the other tasks.
Between mechanical engineers and industrial designers, differences in activation ampli-
tudes were found in the open sketching design (Vieira et al., 2020). The differences found
between domains in this study could represent differences in the confidence in sketching
between those disciplines, as sketching skills might differ between mechanical engineers,
architects and industrial designers.
Note: The spider graph is oriented so that it illustrates the approximate position of the channels (i.e., AF4, F4) on the
brain viewed from the top, with the frontal part on the top.
Source: Vieira et al. (2019b); © Society for Neuroscience (2017).
Figure 1.2 Graph comparing the brain activation of (a) mechanical engineers and (b)
architects across time for all the problem-solving and design tasks
Cognitive studies have highlighted that even though commonalities are found in how design-
ers from different domains engage in ideation (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2014), differences in
cognitive focus appear (Jiang et al., 2014; Kan & Gero, 2011). For example, architects tend to
engage more in synthesis design processes compared with mechanical engineers where design
activity involves more analysis (Kan & Gero, 2011). Findings from neurocognitive studies
are comparable to the ones from cognitive studies as different patterns of design cognition
and neurocognition unfold but offer considerably more details and are in the form of objec-
tive measurements that do not require any human judgement in their production. Continuing
research on the effect of task and the effect of design domain is needed to determine their
significance. Findings from such research could help address cognitive dissonance in design
teams with members from different discipline backgrounds.
EXPLORING THE NEUROCOGNITION OF IDEATION WITH

THREE CONCEPT GENERATION TECHNIQUES
Many techniques and strategies can support designers in generating concepts (Camburn et al.,
2017; Kannengiesser et al., 2013; Smith, 1998; Tang et al., 2011). Brainstorming is widely
used in design thinking and involves suspending judgement and criticism during the fluid
ideation of concepts (Osborn, 1993). Other techniques are well-structured such as TRIZ (the
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving), which provides a set of procedures to generate inventive
solutions by defining the problem and looking at existing solution principles at a conceptual
level, before developing a solution (Altshuller, 1997; Ilevbare et al., 2013).
Characteristics of concept generation techniques have an impact on the design processes
engaged by designers (Chulvi et al., 2012; Gero et al., 2013; Kannengiesser et al., 2013). In
the following, we examine the effect of three concept generation techniques (brainstorming,
morphological analysis and TRIZ) on ideation processes. These techniques provide different
levels of structuredness in their approach (Table 1.1). Brainstorming is unstructured and
more intuitive than the other two techniques. When using morphological analysis and TRIZ,
designers follow a set of steps to generate creative ideas (Allen, 1962; Altshuller, 1997). TRIZ
intentionally elicits a cognitive behaviour more focused on the problem compared with brain-
storming. More structuredness in the concept generation technique, as in morphological analy-
sis and TRIZ, leads to more reasoning about and on the problem space than the solution space
(Gero et al., 2013; Kannengiesser et al., 2013). Using these techniques affects the evolution of
design cognition when generating concepts. Over time, the first half of a concept generation
session using morphological analysis looks similar to a TRIZ session, and its second half looks
like a brainstorming session (Gero et al., 2013; Kannengiesser et al., 2013).
Using these concept generation techniques also impacts design neurocognition (Milovanovic
et al., 2021a; Shealy & Gero, 2019; Shealy, Gero, Hu et al., 2020). In this study, 30 graduate
engineering students engaged in three different concept generation tasks using one of the
concept generation techniques presented in Table 1.1. Their brain activities were monitored
while participants engaged in (1) designing a device to assist the elderly with raising and
lowering windows; (2) designing an alarm clock for the hearing impaired; and (3) designing
a kitchen measuring tool for the blind.
In this experiment, engineering students were equipped with an fNIRS cap (Figure 1.3(a)).
This tool does not measure electrical activity but changes in blood flow. Changes of blood
Table 1.1 Characteristics of concept generation techniques
Techniques Brainstorming Morphological analysis TRIZ

Intuitiveness Intuitive Intuitive Logical
Motivation Inner sense driven Problem-driven Problem-driven
Structure Unstructured Partially structured Structured
1. Generate as many solutions 1. Define and decompose the 1. Define the problem
as possible and suspend problem 2. Search for standard engineering
evaluation 2. Generate multiple sub-solutions parameters
Steps
to each sub-problem 3. Search for standard catalogued
3. Generate final solutions solutions
4. Generate final solutions
flow are accounted by tracking changes of oxygen in the blood, and changes in oxygen in
the blood of the cells in the brain are directly related to cognitive activity. Using the fNIRS
cap, designers could engage in the task in a naturalistic position, sitting in front of a computer
screen. Here, the frontal part of the brain is monitored (Figure 1.3).
The findings from this experiment highlighted that using TRIZ requires less cognitive effort
in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) compared with the other two concept generation techniques
(Shealy, Gero, Hu et al., 2020). Brainstorming and morphological analysis tend to require
similar cognitive effort in the right part of the PFC while using TRIZ reduces the cognitive
load in that part of the PFC. Generating concepts with morphological analysis significantly
increases cognitive effort in the right part of the PFC.
The structuredness of TRIZ might help reduce cognitive load. With TRIZ, participants
engaged in one activity at a time, breaking down the problem, then focusing on one possi-
Source: Base of brain image © Society for Neuroscience (2017).
Figure 1.3 (a) Placement of fNIRS cap on a participant and (b) frontal view of channel
placement of the fNIRS cap
ble solution. Shifting attention between problem and solution through TRIZ can reduce the
cognitive complexity in design, compared with using brainstorming. During brainstorming,
participants consider the problem and solution concurrently. This has a direct effect on design
thinking.
Designing evolves over time. Time dynamics appear as an essential aspect of ideation. The
temporal dimension of design relates to the situatedness of design, anchored in a particular
context. Depending on the concept generation techniques used, the focus of the activity differs
over time (Gero et al., 2013). Looking at the temporal neurocognition of designing with brain-
storming, morphological analysis or TRIZ, we observed different patterns depending on the
concept generation technique being employed (Milovanovic et al., 2021a). For example, over
time, the highest activated part of the PFC changed in a different pattern when participants
used brainstorming (Figure 1.4(a)) compared with using TRIZ (Figure 1.4(b)). During brain-
storming, the activation tends to switch between the left and the right part of the PFC whereas
for TRIZ, higher activation changes between the left part of the PFC and the medial part of the
PFC (see arrows in Figure 1.4). The temporal dynamics of brain activation during brainstorm-
ing and TRIZ differs and the cognitive functions associated with regions of activation agree
with previous findings from cognitive studies (Shealy & Gero, 2019).
Knowledge of the neurocognitive behaviour associated with design techniques can form
the basis of strategic guidance as to what techniques to employ during ideation. This phase is
crucial in the design process. Innovation can be supported by using the right tool at the right
time. Design thinking can benefit from the insights provided by neurocognitive studies on
ideation techniques.
Note: The black numbers refer to the time periods; the circles refer to the measurement channels.
Source: Base of brain image © Society for Neuroscience (2017).
Figure 1.4 Transition paths of the highest activated channels across time for (a)
brainstorming and (b) TRIZ
USING NEUROFEEDBACK TO BOOST DESIGN CREATIVITY
In the previous section, we expanded on the effect of using techniques to help designers gener-
ate concepts on brain activation. With more knowledge about designers’ brain behaviour while
generating concepts, tools based on neurofeedback could be developed. Such tools would act
as thinking caps and assist designers in generating creative ideas. In an exploratory study, we
explored the use of neurophysiology as an input to assist designers in brainstorming ideas.
The motivation of this study was to investigate the prospective use of neurocognitive feedback
to enhance creativity. Designers’ generation of new ideas tends to decrease over time and
providing a cue on their process can positively impact their creativity (Hu et al., 2021; Shealy,
Gero, Milovanovic et al., 2020).
To explore the effects of neurocognitive feedback on idea generation, we studied graduate
engineering students while brainstorming to generate solutions to design problems. The design
ideation task focused on the first/last mile mobility problem about transporting people between
mass transit stops and their residential dwellings. Before the task began, students were outfit-
ted with the fNIRS instrument presented in Figure 1.3. Changes in activation in the prefrontal
cortex (PFC) were measured during the brainstorming task. Half of the students received
real-time feedback about their brain activation. The purpose of providing this feedback was to
raise self-awareness about their cognitive activation patterns and help them sustain activation
through self-regulation. Participants were instructed to look at their feedback and to sustain
activation in their brain.
The participants who received the neurocognitive feedback produced twice as many ideas in
the same time period as the group who received no feedback (Shealy, Gero, Milovanovic et al.,
2020). One focus of this experiment was to investigate the effects of neurocognitive feedback
on hemispheric lateralization (which half of the brain was used the most) during brainstorm-
ing (Hu et al., 2021). Hemispheric lateralization plays a role in creative design, and relies
on both halves of the brain to solve real-world problems (Goel, 2014). For the participants
who did not receive neurofeedback, more than half of the participants had a left-hemispheric
dominance. In contrast, all the participants that received neurocognitive feedback displayed
right-hemispheric dominance.
These findings are illustrated by the representation of the average activation of the partici-
pants’ PFC during the brainstorming tasks (Figure 1.5). In Figure 1.5(a), the higher activation
appears on the left and the medial right part of the PFC for the participants who did not receive
neurofeedback. On the other hand, there is a higher activation on the right part of the PFC for
the participants who received the neurofeedback during the brainstorming task (Figure 1.5(b)).
The right part of the PFC tended to be recruited for divergent thinking (Aziz-Zadeh et al.,
2013; Goel & Grafman, 2000) and results in a higher originality in solution generation (Fink
et al., 2009). The left part of the PFC is associated with rule-based design and goal-directed
planning as well as making analytical judgement (Aziz-Zadeh et al., 2013; Gabora, 2010).
These findings suggest neurocognitive feedback alters hemispheric lateralization and leads
to right-hemispheric dominance during brainstorming. It changes brain patterns related to
designing and potentially enhances creativity.
A positive relationship was found between the brain behaviour and cognitive behaviour
while generating ideas. A higher percentage of dominance of the right hemisphere positively
correlates with better idea fluency and the production of more ideas. This exploratory experi-
Note: The dark colour represents a higher activation while the light colour represents a lower activation.
Source: © Society for Neuroscience (2017).
Figure 1.5 The average brain activation in the PFC for a brainstorming task shown
as a heatmap: (a) participants who did not receive feedback and (b)
participants who received neurofeedback
ment opens avenues for research to develop new types of ideation tools that embed neurophys-
iological information as inputs and potentially brain–computer interfaces.
IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN THINKING
The studies presented in this chapter provide examples of experiments that tackle common
research questions in design thinking studies focusing on the ideation phase: designing com-
pared with problem-solving, discipline-based difference in ideation, effect of concept gener-
ation techniques and effect of design tools on ideation. Such studies provide new knowledge
about design thinking, explored through the lens of neurocognition, with research methods and
tools from neuroscience. The new knowledge stemming from design neurocognition studies
has the potential to support the development of new models to describe design thinking, spe-
cifically design cognitive processes through the integration of cognition and neurophysiology.
A holistic approach to design thinking through designers’ mind and brain behaviour can open
an avenue for new tools for designers and design researchers, and lead to the development of
new research questions (Gero & Milovanovic, 2020).
IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNERS
Designers face challenges in their practice as demands for creativity, innovation, collabora-
tion, efficiency and management increase. One challenge on implementing design thinking
in industry relates to acquiring design skills (Carlgren, Elmquist et al., 2016). A better
understanding of how designers’ brains function while designing could provide a means to
increase designers’ performance, skill development and enhance creativity. Using neuro-
feedback appears as a promising avenue for the development of tools to enhance designers’
creativity. We can draw a parallel between neurofeedback to increase sports performance and
neurofeedback to increase a designer’s performance and skills. For example, neurofeedback is
proposed as a way to improve soccer goalkeepers’ visual spatial attention (Jeunet et al., 2020).
These types of innovative sports training methods can be mapped onto a designer’s situation.
Neurofeedback to designers could be given in real time concerning their design processes
to enhance creativity (Hu et al., 2021), divergent or convergent thinking, or to provide the
inspirational stimuli for idea generation (Goucher-Lambert et al., 2019). Moreover, ideation
is partly driven by emotions that can affect decision-making processes while designing.
Using models to monitor designers’ emotions based on neurophysiological signals (Balters &
Steinert, 2017; Liu et al., 2014) could provide direct feedback to designers on their affective
state. Such feedback can help designers self-regulate to enhance their ideation process.
Another challenge of implementing design thinking deals with supporting communication
and collaboration between team members (Carlgren, Elmquist et al., 2016). Domain knowl-
edge influences one’s mode of thinking and engaging in project development. Neurocognitive
studies highlight that domain knowledge leads to different brain patterns. A better understand-
ing of those patterns can provide insights on cognitive misalignments between team members
and be put in use to provide better support for collaboration in design teams. For instance,
neurofeedback provides input to a design team in collaborative settings. Whether a designer
collaborates with an AI design tool (Davis et al., 2017) or other designers (Meinel & Leifer,
2020), the measure of affective and cognitive states can offer more information to better adapt
to the design situation in real-time. Measuring inter-brain synchronization in design teams
assesses brain dynamics between team members (Mayseless et al., 2019; Reinero et al., 2021).
Gaining knowledge of designers’ brain behaviour in teams opens directions for the develop-
ment of tools integrating BCI (Brain Computer Interface), which could render team design
more seamless. The current GUI (Graphical User Interface) used for designing tools is limited.
BCI can provide an interface that would suit designers’ tasks better (Esfahani & Sundararajan,
2012; Huang & Chen, 2017). For instance, manipulating 3D objects (zoom in and out, rotate
and scale) by thought alone and using gestures to draw and model in virtual spaces offer
a more natural way to design than current GUI-based tools. Tools used by designers such as
design software (CAD, BIM) and their interfaces (Graphical User Interface, Tangible User
Interface) affect the design activity. With tools and methodologies from neuroscience, we
can question what would be the effect of using design tools with BCI and neurofeedback on
ideation processes.
IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN RESEARCHERS
Bridging neuroscience and design science is a way to expand knowledge on design thinking,
to develop new methods to analyse design thinking and to develop new research questions. For
example, researchers in design science are confronted with problems related to the feasibility
of large-scale studies on design thinking. Using protocol analysis is time and resources con-
sumptive that are hindrances to the development of wider experiments. Using neurocognitive
data to study design thinking can be a more efficient way to analyse design situations, espe-
cially as the cost of the brain measurements tools keeps dropping. We exemplified possibilities
to study the ideation phase of design thinking in this chapter.
Current models of design thinking processes are grounded in the design cognition paradigm
(Hay et al., 2017a, 2017b; Meinel & Leifer, 2020). Cognitive processes of design thinking
include problem framing, problem structuring, concept generation, visual reasoning to name
a few. One aim of studies in design neurocognition is to move toward a mapping between
cognitive processes and neurological measurements to generate objective knowledge about the
designing mind (Chrysikou & Gero, 2020). The discrete approach to neurocognition is limited
when analysing higher-order cognitive processes such as designing. Recent advances in neu-
rocognition suggest considering brain networks to analyse neurocognitive processes (Fornito
et al., 2016). Ideation uses multiple regions of the brain that coactivate during the design
process (Lazar, 2018; Milovanovic et al., 2021b). Studies suggest that two types of networks
are engaged during concept generation, the executive network and the default mode network
(Beaty et al., 2016, 2020). The executive network is usually solicited during a cognitive task
while the default mode network accounts for brain activity while resting or mind wandering
(Raichle, 2009). We can question whether designing implies a unique association of common
cognitive brain activation and networks, or if designing equates to the solicitation of a specific
network of brain region activation. Exploring such design questions can help us refine current
ideation models to integrate cognition and neurophysiology within a unique framework.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we highlighted the challenges and implications of studying ideation, a founda-
tional component of design thinking, through the lens of neuroscience. Approaching this topic
using tools, method and knowledge from another field of study enriches our understanding
of it. Research on design cognition in the past 50 years generated in-depth knowledge of the
underlying cognitive processes engaged in design thinking. Creativity has been a prolific
research topic in neurocognitive studies but creative cognition represents only a fraction of
the neurocognition of design thinking processes. The emergence of affordable and portable
tools to monitor brain behaviours opened a novel field of research for design researchers. The
emergence of design neurocognition as a field of research within the design science field is
promising as new knowledge emerges from it.
Several studies were presented to provide examples of studies in design neurocognition that
support and augment current knowledge of ideation processes. The illustration of the findings
from these exploratory studies gave an overview of the type of results one can obtain from
this kind of research. These examples represent only the tip of the iceberg of what can be
found and more research is needed to provide a holistic view of design thinking that integrates
designers’ mind and brain behaviours. Continuing research in design neurocognition will
likely lead to updates of current models of design thinking. More importantly, it could lead to
the development of new tools to support designers in their ideation process, and mediate team
collaboration and synchronization.
This chapter focused on the ideation phase of design thinking but could be extended to
other phases of the design process. Designing is a social process and multiple stakeholders
collaborate on a project bringing challenges along the way. Synchronization between team
members fosters a suitable environment for performance and innovation. Recent studies used
brain imaging methods to monitor brain synchronization between team members in a creative
task. Inter-brain synchrony studies offer an interesting approach to studying teams across all
phases of design thinking.
REFERENCES
Akin, O. (2001). Variants in design cognition. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.),
Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. Elsevier.
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press.
Alexiou, K., Zamenopoulos, T., Johnson, J. H., & Gilbert, S. J. (2009). Exploring the neurological basis
of design cognition using brain imaging: Some preliminary results. Design Studies, 30(6), 623–647.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.05.002
Allen, M. S. (1962). Morphological creativity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Altshuller, G. (1997). 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation (Technical Innovation Center,
INC.).
Asimow, M. (1962). Introduction to design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Aziz-Zadeh, L., Liew, S.-L., & Dandekar, F. (2013). Exploring the neural correlates of visual creativity.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(4), 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss021
Baird, F., Moore, C. J., & Jagodzinski, A. P. (2000). An ethnographic study of engineering design
teams at Rolls-Royce Aerospace. Design Studies, 21(4), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142
-694X(00)00006-5
Balters, S., & Steinert, M. (2017). Capturing emotion reactivity through physiology measurement as
a foundation for affective engineering in engineering design science and engineering practices.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 28(7), 1585–1607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1145-2
Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network
dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004
Beaty, R. E., Chen, Q., Christensen, A. P., Kenett, Y. N., Silvia, P. J., Benedek, M., & Schacter, D. L.
(2020). Default network contributions to episodic and semantic processing during divergent creative
thinking: A representational similarity analysis. NeuroImage, 209, 116499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2019.116499
Blizzard, J., Klotz, L., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., & Godwin, A. (2015). Using survey questions
to identify and learn more about those who exhibit design thinking traits. Design Studies, 38, 92–110.
Borgianni, Y., & Maccioni, L. (2020). Review of the use of neurophysiological and biometric meas-
ures in experimental design research. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
Manufacturing, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060420000062
Brockington, G., Balardin, J. B., Zimeo Morais, G. A., Malheiros, A., Lent, R., Moura, L. M., & Sato,
J. R. (2018). From the laboratory to the classroom: The potential of functional near-infrared spectros-
copy in educational neuroscience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
.2018.01840
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, June.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Design Studies, 9(3),
159–168.
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., & Wood, K.
(2017). Design prototyping methods: State of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design
Science, 3, e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The challenges of using design thinking in industry—
experiences from five large firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 344–362. https://doi
.org/10.1111/caim.12176
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enact-
ment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153
Chrysikou, E. G., & Gero, J. S. (2020). Using neuroscience techniques to understand and improve design
cognition. AIMS Neuroscience, 7(3), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2020018
Chulvi, V., Sonseca, Á., Mulet, E., & Chakrabarti, A. (2012). Assessment of the relationships among
design methods, design activities, and creativity. Journal of Mechanical Design, 134(11), 111004.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007362
Clancey, W. J. (1997). The conceptual nature of knowledge, situations, and activity. Human and
Machine Expertise in Context, 247–291.
Coleman, E., Shealy, T., Grohs, J., & Godwin, A. (2019). Design thinking among first-year and senior
engineering students: A cross-sectional, national study measuring perceived ability. Journal of
Engineering Education, jee.20298. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20298
Coley, F., Houseman, O., & Roy, R. (2007). An introduction to capturing and understanding the cogni-
tive behaviour of design engineers. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09544820600963412
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.
Davis, N., Hsiao, C.-P., Singh, K. Y., Lin, B., & Magerko, B. (2017). Creative sense-making: Quantifying
interaction dynamics in co-creation. Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and
Cognition, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059478
Dietrich, A. (2019). Where in the brain is creativity: A brief account of a wild-goose chase. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.001
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.
Dorst, K. (2015). Framing innovation, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https:// doi.org/
10
.7551/
mitpress/10096.001.0001
Dorta, T., Beaudry-Marchand, Emmanuel, & Pierini, D. (2018). Externalizing co-design cognition
through immersive retrospection. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition DCC’18
(Springer, pp. 101–119).
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, A. H. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.
Esfahani, E. T., & Sundararajan, V. (2012). Classification of primitive shapes using brain–computer
interfaces. Computer-Aided Design, 44(10), 1011–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2011.04.008
Fink, A., Grabner, R. H., Benedek, M., Reishofer, G., Hauswirth, V., Fally, M., Neuper, C., Ebner,
F., & Neubauer, A. C. (2009). The creative brain: Investigation of brain activity during creative
problem-solving by means of EEG and FMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 30(3), 734–748. https://doi
.org/10.1002/hbm.20538
Fornito, A., Zalesky, A., & Bullmore, E. (2016). Fundamentals of brain network analysis. Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407908-3.00001-7
Gabora, L. (2010). Revenge of the ‘Neurds’: Characterizing creative thought in terms of the struc-
ture and dynamics of memory. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10400410903579494
Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. T. M. (2012). An analysis of design process models across disciplines.
DESIGN2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine,
11(4), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v11i4.854
Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2014). Commonalities across designing: Evidence from models of
designing and experiments. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition’12, 285–302.
Gero, J. S., & McNeill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(1),
21–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00015-X
Gero, J. S., & Milovanovic, J. (2020). A framework for studying design thinking through measuring
designers’ minds, bodies and brains. Design Science, 6(e19). https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.15
Gero, J. S., Jiang, H., & Williams, C. B. (2013). Design cognition differences when using unstructured,
partially structured, and structured concept generation creativity techniques. International Journal
of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(4), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.801760
Goel, V. (2014). Creative brains: Designing in the real world. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00241
Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (2000). Role of the right prefrontal cortex in ill-structured planning. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 17(5), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432900410775
Goucher-Lambert, K., Moss, J., & Cagan, J. (2019). A neuroimaging investigation of design ideation
with and without inspirational stimuli—understanding the meaning of near and far stimuli. Design
Studies, 60, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.07.001
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
Hay, L., Duffy, A. H. B., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L. M., Vuletic, T., & Grealy, M. (2017a). A systematic
review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration. Design
Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.11
Hay, L., Duffy, A. H. B., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L. M., Vuletic, T., & Grealy, M. (2017b). Towards
a shared ontology: A generic classification of cognitive processes in conceptual design. Design
Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.6
Hu, M., & Shealy, T. (2019). Application of functional near-infrared spectroscopy to measure engi-
neering decision-making and design cognition: Literature review and synthesis of methods. Journal
of Computing in Civil Engineering, 33(6), 04019034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487
.0000848
Hu, M., Shealy, T., Milovanovic, J., & Gero, J. (2021). Neurocognitive feedback: A prospective
approach to sustain idea generation during design brainstorming. International Journal of Design
Creativity and Innovation, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2021.1976678
Huang, Y.-C., & Chen, K.-L. (2017). Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) based 3D computer-aided design
(CAD): To improve the efficiency of 3D modeling for new users. In D. D. Schmorrow & C. M.
Fidopiastis (Eds.), Augmented Cognition. Enhancing Cognition and Behavior in Complex Human
Environments (Vol. 10285, pp. 333–344). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-58625-0_24
Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R. (2013). A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in
practice. Technovation, 33(2–3), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.003
Jeunet, C., Tonin, L., Albert, L., Chavarriaga, R., Bideau, B., Argelaguet, F., Millán, J. del R., Lécuyer,
A., & Kulpa, R. (2020). Uncovering EEG correlates of covert attention in soccer goalkeepers:
Towards innovative sport training procedures. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1705. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-020-58533-2
Jiang, H., Gero, J. S., & Yen, C.-C. (2014). Exploring designing styles using a problem–solution divi-
sion. In Design Computing and Cognition’12 (pp. 79–94). Springer.
Kan, J. W., & Gero, J. S. (2011). Comparing designing across different domains: An exploratory case
study. 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’11).
Kan, J. W., & Gero, J. S. (2017). Quantitative methods for studying design protocols. Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0984-0
Kannengiesser, U., Williams, C., & Gero, J. S. (2013). What do the concept generation of TRIZ,
morphological analysis and brainstorming have in common? Proceedings of the 19th International
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Design for Harmonies, Vol.7: Human Behaviour in
Design, Design Society, pp. 297–306.
Lazar, L. (2018). The cognitive neuroscience of design creativity. Journal of Experimental Neuroscience,
12, 117906951880966. https://doi.org/10.1177/1179069518809664
Liu, Y., Ritchie, J. M., Lim, T., Kosmadoudi, Z., Sivanathan, A., & Sung, R. C. W. (2014). A fuzzy
psycho-physiological approach to enable the understanding of an engineer’s affect status during CAD
activities. Computer-Aided Design, 54, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2013.10.007
Mayseless, N., Hawthorne, G., & Reiss, A. L. (2019). Real-life creative problem-solving in teams:
FNIRS based hyperscanning study. NeuroImage, 203, 116161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage
.2019.116161
Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds). (2020). Design thinking research: Investigating design team perfor-
mance. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28960-7
Milovanovic, J., Hu, M., Shealy, T., & Gero, J. (2021a). Temporal dynamics of brain activation during
three concept generation techniques. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, 2961–2970. https://doi.org/
10.1017/pds.2021.557
Milovanovic, J., Hu, M., Shealy, T., & Gero, J. (2021b). Characterization of concept generation for
engineering design through temporal brain network analysis. Design Studies, 76, 101044. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101044
Nguyen, T. A., & Zeng, Y. (2010). Analysis of design activities using EEG signals. Volume 5: 22nd
International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical
Vibration and Noise, 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2010-28477
Nguyen, T. A., & Zeng, Y. (2014). A physiological study of relationship between designer’s mental
effort and mental stress during conceptual design. Computer-Aided Design, 54, 3–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cad.2013.10.002
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded edition). Basic Books.
Osborn, A. F. (1993). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving, 3rd
edition (3rd Rev edn). Creative Education Foundation.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd
edn). Springer.
Pearson, J. (2019). The human imagination: The cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(10), 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0202-9
Pidgeon, L. M., Grealy, M., Duffy, A. H. B., Hay, L., McTeague, C., Vuletic, T., Coyle, D., & Gilbert, S.
J. (2016). Functional neuroimaging of visual creativity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain
and Behavior, 6(10), e00540. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.540
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4), 363–383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00023-3
Raichle, M. E. (2009). A paradigm shift in functional brain imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(41),
12729–12734. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4366-09.2009
Reinero, D. A., Dikker, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021). Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective
performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(1–2), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/
scan/nsaa135
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple Smith.
Schön, D. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research
in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580516
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Huotilainen, M., Mäkelä, M., Groth, C., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016). How
can neuroscience help understand design and craft activity? The promise of cognitive neuroscience in
design studies. FORMakademisk – Forskningstidsskrift for Design Og Designdidaktikk, 9(1). https://
doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1478
Shealy, T., & Gero, J. S. (2019). The neurocognition of three engineering concept generation techniques.
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1, 1833–1842.
https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.189
Shealy, T., Gero, J., Hu, M., & Milovanovic, J. (2020). Concept generation techniques change patterns of
brain activation during engineering design. Design Science, 6, e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020
.30
Shealy, T., Gero, J., Milovanovic, J., & Hu, M. (2020). Sustaining creativity with neuro-cognitive
feedback: A preliminary study. In Boujut, J-F., Gaetano, C., Ahmed-Kristensen, S., Georgiev, G. &
Iivari, N. (Eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2020),
Design Society, pp. 84.91. https://doi.org/10.35199/ICDC.2020.11
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Dunod.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201.
Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea-generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 32(2), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00810.x
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches?
A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18.
Tang, H.-H., Chen, Y.-L., & Gero, J. S. (2011). The influence of design methods on the design process:
Effect of use of scenario, brainstorming, and synectics on designing. In P. Israsena, J. Tangsantikul
and D. Durling (eds), Proceedings Design Research Society 2012, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, pp. 1824–1838.
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical
guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.
Vieira, S, Benedek, M, Gero, JS, Cascini G and Li, S., (2022) Design spaces and EEG frequency band
power in constrained and open design. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, doi:
10.1080/21650349.2022.2048697
Vieira, S., Gero, J. S., Delmoral, J., Fernandes, C., Gattol, V., & Fernandes, A. (2019a). Insights from an
EEG study of mechanical engineers problem-solving and designing. In Y. Eriksson and K. Paetzold
(eds), Human Behavior in Design, UniBw M, Germany, pp. 23–34.
Vieira, S., Gero, J. S., Delmoral, J., Gattol, V., Fernandes, C., & Fernandes, A. (2019b). Comparing the
design neurocognition of mechanical engineers and architects: A study of the effect of designers’
domain. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), 10.
https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.191
Vieira, S., Gero, J. S., Delmoral, J., Gattol, V., Fernandes, C., Parente, M., & Fernandes, A. A. (2020).
The neurophysiological activations of mechanical engineers and industrial designers while designing
and problem-solving. Design Science, 6, e26. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.26
Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Visser, W. (2009). Design: One, but in different forms. Design Studies, 30(3), 187–223. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.004
Yang, E. K., & Lee, J. H. (2020). Cognitive impact of virtual reality sketching on designers’ concept
generation. Digital Creativity, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2020.1726964
2. Design facilitation practice: an integrated
framework
Genevieve Mosely and Lina Markauskaite
INTRODUCTION
Throughout history, the design discipline and profession has constantly reformed in response
to numerous disruptive changes and innovations, such as technological advances and pan-
demics of new scales. Globalisation, rapid technological developments, and unsustainable
economic growth have resulted in complex, wicked problems that require new collaborative
problem-solving approaches. This evolution has changed the role of the designer and their
skills, knowledge and values (Heskett, 2002; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Since the early
2000s, design practices, and more specifically design thinking, have become increasingly
prevalent outside of the professional design field as a way to help solve complex problems
and take advantage of the innovative potential of both people and technologies (Brown, 2008).
Design thinking is commonly known as a human-centred approach to problem-solving with
the goal of creating innovative products, services, environments, processes, and organisations
(Brown, 2008; Wrigley & Mosely, 2022). While design thinking has attracted considerable
attention from practitioners and academics, many questions remain unsolved. As the applica-
tion of design thinking is so broad, there are many definitions of design thinking within the
literature. The views about what is entailed in design thinking are diverse and fragmented,
which often hinders its effective application in research and practice (Micheli et al., 2019).
Co-design and participatory design that draw on a design thinking approach often involve
workshops with key stakeholders and users to develop solutions to complex problems. Design
thinking methods focus on being human-, user- or customer-centred. Therefore, exploring
and understanding concerns and motives of people are at the centre of problem solving
(Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Brown, 2008; Micheli et al., 2019; van der Bijl-Brouwer & Dorst,
2017). These methods encourage the user to be a part of the design process, changing the role
of the designer (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Design facilitation plays an essential role in the
effective implementation of design thinking within organisations, particularly in the context
of co-design and participatory design. With the expanding practice of design, the ability to
effectively facilitate design thinking processes and use professional facilitation methods is
now becoming essential for professional designers. However, currently, designers are not
specifically taught facilitation (Napier & Wada, 2016), and it is a significantly underlooked
area within design research (Granholt & Martensen, 2021). Design practice, including design
thinking practice, is both relational and situated. A designer may have the capabilities to suc-
25
cessfully facilitate design thinking in one context with a particular group of people, but not in
another, and may need different tools and skills in different contexts.
Therefore, this chapter explores the evolving practice of design facilitation aiming to
construct an integrated framework for conceptualising design facilitation practice and the
capabilities that professional designers need in different contexts. Specifically, it focuses on
co-design and participatory design practices where designers take the roles of facilitators of
collaborative design thinking processes. First, the chapter briefly introduces design thinking
and the emergence of design facilitation. Then, it explores the meanings of facilitation across
three other fields in which facilitation practices play a critical role: management, deliberation,
and education. By expanding the focus outside the field of design, it offers a fresh perspective
on facilitation, teasing out what the practice of design facilitation can draw on from these
perspectives to inform future research directions in the field. From here the chapter utilises
the theoretical ideas of practice architectures to propose a novel framework through which
design facilitation can be conceptualised as a situated and relational practice and empirically
explored. By doing this, the chapter makes a unique contribution to the theory and methods in
the field of design.
DESIGN THINKING AND THE EMERGENCE OF DESIGN

FACILITATION
The present popularity of design thinking is most often attributed to IDEO, a design and inno-
vation consultancy firm founded by Tim Brown and David Kelley, and the Stanford d.school.
They offered a process-oriented representation of design thinking, where one moves through
a sequential series of steps and methods to solve the problem at hand. This approach has led
to its popularity, across a diverse range of fields outside of design, including business, man-
agement, education, law, food, policy and the military (for example, Hagan, 2020; Howlett,
2014; Koh et al., 2015; Martin, 2009; Olsen, 2015; Wrigley et al., 2021). As Manzini (2015)
points out, design has become a ubiquitous practice in present times, where the terms “design”
and “the designer” are found in contexts beyond the field of design (p. 29). Although this
escalation has had some positive effects on the design field, it has also brought ambiguities
and challenges. An increased number of non-design professionals talking about and applying
design thinking across a range of activities has contributed to a wide range of meanings and
misunderstandings of design thinking processes and methods (Manzini, 2015). In order to
assist non-designers to gain a “threshold understanding” of design thinking needed for them to
apply it in their own context, it is often simplified and reduced down to its “bare bones”. For
example, Foster (2021) presents an experiential design thinking learning activity specifically
designed for both instructors and students who have limited design thinking experience. The
activity adopts IDEO’s terminology and graphics as they are easy to comprehend and visually
appealing.
Scholarly literature that addresses these challenges is also absent, particularly in the field of
design. For example, Wrigley and Mosely (2022) observe that there is currently no historical
literature review of design thinking. While systematic reviews exist (for example, Micheli
et al., 2019; Razzouk & Shute, 2012), beyond two PhD dissertations (Camacho, 2020; Di
Russo, 2016) that have reviewed the antecedents of design thinking since the 1950s, a review
examining the origins and evolution of design thinking in the design discipline is absent. This
Design facilitation practice: an integrated framework 27
absence contributes to the ambiguities around design thinking, particularly for those from
non-professional design backgrounds who refer to design thinking as a suite of tools, skills and
mindsets for a step-by-step problem-solving process.
In order to overcome these ambiguities, some design scholars distinguish between two
discourses: design thinking and designerly thinking. Design thinking is used to refer to “dis-
course where design practice and competence are used beyond the design context (including
art and architecture), for and with people without a scholarly background in design, particu-
larly in management” (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013, p. 123). Comparatively, designerly
thinking is used to refer to the professional designer’s practice, “founded on the design
research community’s longstanding desire to understand design practice and to establishing
itself as a discipline in its own right” (Laursen & Haase, 2019, p. 815). Succinctly, design
thinking is described as “a simplified version of designerly thinking or a way of describing
a designer’s methods that is integrated into an academic or practical management discourse”
(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013, p. 123). However, this terminology has not been used
consistently within the literature, and “designerly thinking” is often referred to as “design
thinking”. Ultimately, to non-designers, design thinking can be seen as expert designers’ ways
of thinking that are rooted in designerly thinking (Laursen & Haase, 2019). Additionally,
design thinking is practised by a spectrum of people ranging from novices and non-designers,
who often rely on pre-existing tools and heavily scaffolded methods to work through a design
process, through to expert designers who have developed their own unique style to approach
complex problems.
Further, with the uptake of design thinking across diverse fields, it is increasingly used in
more complex environments for large-scale system-level design including policy design, social
infrastructure and public service. Therefore, the role of the design professional, their level of
design expertise, has become even more important and is now expanded to include facilitation,
specifically the role of “design facilitator” or “designer as facilitator”, where designers are
expected to guide collaborative design processes within heterogeneous interdisciplinary con-
texts (Lee, 2008; Manzini, 2015; Wahl & Baxter, 2008). Mosely et al. (2021) explain design
facilitation as “the act of drawing on and applying design processes and approaches to enable
dialogue and ideas to emerge within participatory design contexts, in order to develop novel
solutions to complex problems” (p. 11). This role requires a distinct skill set and capabilities,
such as relational qualities, impartial mediation and the ability to create collaborative condi-
tions (Mosely et al., 2021). However, this role has only recently emerged and what constitutes
design facilitation or how designers are taught and learn facilitation is not well established.
Some literature claims that there is a difference between generalist facilitators and design
facilitators, as design facilitators are guided by a clear aim to produce a specific design
outcome and take “a group through a collaborative process of design thinking to create
a picture of a future state that doesn’t yet exist” (Body et al., 2010, pp. 63–64). While this
literature acknowledges that there are some shared characteristics between general teamwork
facilitation and design facilitation, there is limited research in the field that explores this
link and the facilitation literature deeper. This inward focus and insulation could hinder the
development of the field. We believe design facilitation could benefit from drawing on the
broader literature on facilitation. Therefore, in the next section, we take a broader perspective
and explore the meanings, conceptualisations and practices of facilitation by drawing on the
literature from diverse disciplinary and professional fields.
FACILITATION AS A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE
Meanings of Facilitation
Facilitation has a long history which, as Hogan (2002) observes, spans many fields, including
education, experiential learning, health, business management, organisational learning, public
engagement, and community development. There are many different kinds of facilitation and,
similarly with many “evolving phenomena, there is no single agreed definition” (Hogan, 2002,
p. 10). Facilitation comes from the French verb faciliter “to render easy”, which stems from
Latin facilis “easy to do” (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2022). Most definitions agree that
facilitation is concerned with encouraging open dialogue among individuals with different
perspectives so that diverse assumptions and options may be explored (Hogan, 2002, p. 10).
Ultimately, facilitators are experts at leading a process (Havergal & Edmonstone, 2003).
However, as Hogan (2002) states, facilitation sounds “simple” and is at times “straightfor-
ward” but “at other times it may be very complex and may involve some of the highest levels
of human interaction and communication skills” (p. 10). Jenkins (2005) extends this by focus-
ing on the power of the facilitator to make a difference in how people work and think, “facil-
itation is about enabling change – change in organisations, teams and individuals” (p. 474).
Schwarz (2005) focuses on the distinct role of the facilitator and defines group facilitation as,
a process in which a person whose selection is acceptable to all members of the group, is substantively
neutral, and has no substantive decision-making authority diagnoses and intervenes to help a group
improve how it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, to increase the group’s effective-
ness. (Schwarz, 2005, p. 21)
Facilitators carry out a variety of roles and responsibilities within facilitative contexts; as well
as this, there are a variety of different principles that influence facilitation practice. Kaner
(2014) states a facilitator has four functions: (1) to encourage full participation, (2) to promote
mutual understanding, (3) to foster inclusive solutions, and (4) to cultivate shared responsi-
bility. Wayne (2005) presents the facilitator’s role differently by highlighting the importance
of the connection between the facilitator’s theoretical understanding and situated action: “the
effective facilitator integrates methods (the philosophy of the facilitator and specific tools in
achieving a set objective) with a process (the important dynamics of how we all function as
individuals and as groups)” (p. 36). Havergal and Edmonstone (2003) identify a variety of
principles that govern facilitation. These include equality, empathy and mutual trust among
participants, group focus, sharing decision-making and ensuring participants can make free
and informed choices. What is less clear across the literature is if facilitation is a discrete field
of expertise, or if it is a skill set that complements expertise in other disciplinary fields.
Facilitation is becoming a recognised practice across many industries. Hogan (2002)
attributes the rise of facilitation to an increase in participatory approaches and acknowledging
the value users and stakeholders can bring to solutions. Escobar (2019) states facilitation is
“learned by doing, imitating and adapting, in a developmental process in which personality
traits and contextual demands are entangled” (p. 179). No facilitative experience is ever the
same, different facilitators and different participants bring their set of experiences, skills,
values and other personal resources to facilitation practice resulting in a unique outcome that
emerges from the design facilitation process (Havergal & Edmonstone, 2003). As such, every
Table 2.1 Typology of design facilitation
Level Typology Description

1 Tool Material components used in participatory design activities
2 Activity Individual and collective exercises that support an event phase
3 Event phase Overarching theme of a series of activities
4 Event An entire participatory session
5 Series of events The sequence of multiple events over time
Source: Aguirre et al., 2017, p. 208.
facilitative practice varies depending on the content, context, and participants as well as the
facilitator themselves.
Facilitation in Design Contexts
Facilitation is an emerging aspect of design practice, and the majority of literature on design
facilitation focuses on the emergence of the new role of the “designer as facilitator” and the
skills required for design facilitation practice (Body et al., 2010; Howard & Melles, 2011;
Napier & Wada, 2016). Wahl and Baxter (2008) identify designers as “having the potential
to act as transdisciplinary integrators and facilitators” (p. 72). Building on this, Howard and
Melles (2011) argue that designer roles are diversifying, which requires new skills in order
to fulfil these new roles, including design for learning, active listening, mindfulness and
coaching. However, often design facilitation is referred to as many things across the literature,
making it hard to locate. Mosely et al. (2021) in their critical review on design facilitation,
identify ten key constructs of design facilitation practice, which demonstrate design facilitation
as an interdependent and dynamic practice between the expertise and behaviours of the design
facilitator and the shared characteristics of joint activity and the environment. The facilitator’s
characteristics and behaviours include core design competencies (design knowledge and skills,
visualisation), design expertise (reflective practice, problem setting and complexity), creative
process (improvisation, adaptability), design tasks (workshop preparation and planning) and
relational qualities (the ability to tolerate ambiguity, empathy and leadership). The shared
characteristics encompass design dialogue (conversation and discussion), design tools and
objects (deign materials and artefacts), design infrastructure and spaces (physical space and
environment), impartial mediation (neutrality, bias and power) and collaborative conditions
(group dynamics, trust and building relationships).
The implementation and application of design thinking in different contexts requires
engagement with users and stakeholders. Often this takes the form of workshops; however,
it can also extend to broader design interventions across organisations. Design facilitation,
therefore, spans different scales. Aguirre et al. (2017) propose a five-level typology that spans
from contextually designed facilitation tools at the micro-level to a series of design facilitation
events at the macro-level (Table 2.1). The typology reveals the different levels of interactions
required for design facilitators to work across demonstrating facilitation ranging from small
interactions over group activities to larger project implementation within organisations.
The emergence of the role of designer as facilitator and the requirement of a new skillset
is well established in the literature. However, what is entailed in design facilitation is far less
Table 2.2 Six dimensions of design facilitation tools
Category Dimension Description

Core facilitation tools Functional Considers usability, and logistics, ergonomics, and
implementation feasibility
Intentional Purpose-seeking; differentiates between intermediary and
final outcomes
Participatory Enables collaboration, conversation, and action among
diverse stakeholders
Designerly facilitation tools Creative Promotes abductive and lateral thinking; produces novel
design material
Experiential Uses immersive, extraordinary, multi-sensorial, and aesthetic
interactions
Human-perspective Prompts empathetic insights; embodies relational
perspectives
Source: Aguirre et al., 2017, p. 203.
established. In terms of facilitation methods and processes, Aguirre et al. (2017) identify
six dimensions of design facilitation tools, across two categories: core facilitation tools and
designerly facilitation tools (Table 2.2). Core facilitation tools include operational and func-
tion logistics of organising an event, such as scheduling and project management. Designerly
facilitation tools create contextual experiences, make use of the diverse human perspectives
the participants bring along with them and elicit participants’ creative potential. Designerly
facilitation tools cannot occur without core facilitation tools being in place first. This taxon-
omy makes some aspects of the design facilitation practice explicit.
Building on the understanding of design facilitation from Aguirre et al. (2017), Starostka
et al. (2021) present a taxonomy of two approaches to design facilitation based on four
dimensions: (1) understanding of design thinking, (2) focus, (3) process and (4) leadership
(Figure 2.1). These four parameters guide a design facilitator’s approach to design thinking
workshops and interventions. Starostka et al. (2021) found design facilitation is practised
differently due to diverse interpretations of design thinking and the facilitator’s approach to
the workshop. The taxonomy presents two extremes for each dimension – a method approach,
or a co-facilitation approach – but it acknowledges that each dimension is a continuum,
which can change throughout the workshop (Figure 2.1). For example, a design facilitator
might go into a workshop with a clear plan for how the workshop will progress; however,
due to the unpredictability of group dynamics, the process may change and become more
emergent. As Mosleh and Larsen (2020) describe, participation is uncontrollable, meaning
design workshops “can act as powerful invitations for new conversations to emerge, yet the
outcome remains unpredictable” (p. 15). Emergent design facilitation processes require design
facilitators to be flexible and possess the ability to improvise and think on the spot (Granholt
& Martensen, 2021).
There is a limited amount of research investigating the level of design expertise, the
relevance of facilitator design skills and the success of the facilitation activity in co-design
settings. Luck (2007) explores how design expertise impacts the performance of facilitation
and conversational behaviour, arguing facilitation expertise is performed and displayed during
design dialogue and conversation. Mosely et al. (2018) expand on this, comparing how the
Source: Starostka et al., 2021.
Figure 2.1 Taxonomy of two design facilitation approaches
design facilitator’s expertise and the complexity of the problem being solved in the workshop,
impact the outcome of the co-design workshop.
Overall, research on design facilitation is limited, leaving much to be learnt from facilitation
practice in different contexts, including management, deliberation practice and education,
which will be explored in the next three sections.
Facilitation in Management Contexts
Facilitation within organisational management contexts started to rise and become a central
process for group problem solving during the 1970s and 1980s (McFadzean & Nelson, 1998).
Facilitation is now conceived as a key competency for managers, which “enables increasing
integration of managers and knowledge workers in decision making and implementation”
(Hogan, 2002, p. 12). Within management literature, Wardale (2013) observes that “facilita-
tion” is often used interchangeably with mediation, moderation, negotiation, training, coach-
ing, intervention, group work, chairing and process consultation. Schwarz (2017) similarly
argues that organisations now use this term to refer to a whole spectrum of activities. The
term “facilitator” has become particularly multifaceted over recent years. The key defining
characteristics of a group facilitator in an organisation include not being a member of the
group, being content-neutral, having no decision-making authority and the ability to improve
how the group works together (Schwarz, 2017, p. 14). Thomas (2008) identifies facilitators as
requiring self-awareness and self-management to understand their relationships with groups
and self-reflect on their practice. On a more practical side, Mann (2013) identifies facilitators
as having “a comprehensive catalogue of: approaches, models, tools and techniques” (p. 61).
Facilitators within management contexts seek to enable people to work in collaborative and
participatory ways, to understand what makes groups productive, challenge key issues and
make fundamental decisions (Mann, 2013; McFadzean & Nelson, 1998).
Within management contexts, McFadzean and Nelson (1998) assert four phases in the
facilitation process: (1) pre-session planning, (2) running the group session, (3) producing
a post-session report, and (4) holding a post-session review. However, the ability of the facil-
itator to construct and develop these phases requires an understanding of learning design and
instruction. Schwarz (2005) breaks down general facilitation activity by discussing process
and structure. Process refers to interactions within a group and how they work together,
including “how members talk to each other, how they identify and solve problems, how they
make decisions and how they handle conflict” (p. 22). Structure refers to stable and recurring
group features, such as group membership or group roles. Overall, facilitation in manage-
ment contexts seeks to develop and maintain a meaningful dialogue with team members for
effective group problem-solving. However, Kirk and Broussine (2000) in their reflections of
working as facilitators within organisations recognise facilitators and facilitation as political,
requiring awareness, where the position of the facilitator is never neutral.
Facilitation in Deliberation Contexts
Deliberation studies explore the discursive dimension of participation in decision-making

processes aiming to ensure that they are just and free from the distortions of unequal power
and other biases. Within these participatory contexts, facilitation practitioners are required to
facilitate deliberation as a mode of decision-making. While facilitation is an “indispensable”
aspect of deliberation practice, Moore (2012) highlights that it is “largely absent from deliber-
ative theory” (p. 147). Molinengo et al. (2021) identify three distinct strands of facilitation in
deliberation practice literature: the first strand focuses on the skills that support collaborative
work, the second strand focuses on uncovering the rationale, which guides the facilitator’s
actions, and the third strand focuses on facilitators’ activities and approaches to shape the com-
municative process with norms and rules (p. 3). True to general facilitation, in the context of
public participation, the “facilitator must be perceived as an honest broker by all participants,
the facilitator’s focus is on shaping the deliberative process, rather than the substantive argu-
ments of deliberation” (Escobar, 2019, p. 184). The facilitator is an expert in decision-making
processes. Molinengo et al. (2021) refer to the expertise underpinning bespoke strategies for
collaboration as process expertise, where “researchers engage with other kinds of knowledge
in the room and use their expertise to create an arena of productive interaction” (p. 9).
Facilitators seek to ensure the discussion and process are kept on track, by maintaining
inclusivity through responding to situations that might close down dialogue, reframing ques-
tions, drawing threads together or enforcing ground rules. Within participatory contexts, facil-
itators are impartial, “facilitators are charged with maintaining a studiously impartial stance on
the topic, but they are not expected to be neutral about the process” (Escobar, 2019, p. 184). As
facilitators are not neutral about the process, they use their process expertise to establish and
foster collaborative, participatory environments (Molinengo et al., 2021). Within deliberation
contexts, facilitation is about ensuring all voices are heard, by turning “diverse communication
patterns into aligned and public-spirited dialogue and deliberation” (Escobar, 2014, p. 248).
Facilitation in Educational Contexts
Within the learning sciences and educational practices, the role of teacher as facilitator is
well acknowledged. There is a large body of literature on orchestration, moderation, and
facilitating productive dialogues which represent different approaches to facilitation (King,
1993; Roschelle et al., 2013; Schwarz & Asterhan, 2011). Here, we focus on two prominent
pedagogical approaches in which the role of a facilitator is seen as central: problem-based
learning (PBL) and knowledge creation.
PBL focuses on a student’s learning – where the learning and teaching are structured
through engaging with and solving problems “centring learning around domains, themes, and
issues rather than disciplinary silos” (Bridges et al., 2020, p. 285). Within PBL, the teacher
acts as a facilitator modelling “good strategies for learning and thinking, rather than provid-
ing expertise in specific content” (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006, p. 24). The role of the
facilitator “is crucial, as the facilitator must continually monitor the discussion, selecting and
implementing appropriate strategies as needed” (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006, p. 24). The
main argument is that facilitators of PBL do not need to know content; rather, the facilitator’s
role is to “model good strategies for learning and thinking, rather than providing expertise
in specific content” (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006, p. 24). However, more recent research
suggests facilitators need to have, at minimum, a “threshold level of content understanding”
(Hmelo-Silver et al., 2019, p. 301). Their role is to ensure that PBL is effective, and to monitor
learners’ interactions and discussions, intervening and probing as necessary. Specifically, as
Hmelo-Silver et al. (2019) synthesise, within PBL contexts the facilitator,
• guides the development of higher-order thinking skills,

• externalises self-reflection by directing appropriate questions to individuals,
• models the problem-solving and self-directed learning skills needed for self-assessing
one’s reasoning and understanding,
• helps students to learn to collaborate effectively,
• helps the group to identify the limits of their understanding by pushing students to explain
their thinking and define terms that might be used without understanding (Hmelo-Silver et
al., 2019, pp. 299–301).
As students begin to take responsibility and agency over their learning, the scaffolding of the
facilitator gradually decrease (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2019). Examples of facilitation strategies
within PBL learning contexts include: open-ended questioning, pushing students for an expla-
nation, revoicing, summarising, generating and evaluating hypotheses, documenting the dis-
cussion and focusing (divergent and convergent), identifying learner’s gaps in understanding
and encouraging visual representation of ideas (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2019).
Facilitation is also used broadly in pedagogical strategies of knowledge creation (Paavola et
al., 2004). Knowledge creation is a “collaborative, systematic development of common objects
of activity” (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005, p. 536). This perspective emphasises the authentic
collaborative co-construction of knowledge as a way of learning. Here, teachers primarily
have the roles of both designers and facilitators. First, they design tasks and pre-configure the
environment in ways that support learning through collaborative construction of shared knowl-
edge objects. Second, they facilitate and mediate joint knowledge-building processes and help
learners master collaborative knowledge creation practices (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017).
Different from PBL, teachers’ role as a “knowledge expert” is highly valued, but the focus is
less on teachers’ content knowledge and more on their epistemic expertise in knowledge con-
struction. Further, knowledge objects play a critical role in this process. Objects support shared
focus between different people, enabling them to externalise ideas, establish connections and
learn through collaboratively creating a tangible artefact. Objects include a range of material/
digital things that mediate joint meaning making, such as notes, databases, models and other
embodiments of knowledge. Similarly, as in PBL, the teacher’s role is not simply to be the
“sage on the stage” who has the knowledge and transmits it to learners but to be the “guide on
the side” who facilitates collaborative knowledge co-creation (King, 1993).
Generally, the purpose of facilitation in teaching and learning contexts is to ultimately
design a learning environment that mediates students’ learning processes and promotes deep
engagement of students with knowledge. Similar to facilitation in management and delibera-
tion, teachers as facilitators guide collaborative processes and group work.
Synthesising Different Perspectives on Facilitation
Facilitation as a domain of practice has some common functions, features, and values, such as
promoting participation, mutual understanding, and inclusive solutions. Simultaneously, the
facilitation approaches explored within the different domains above have distinct goals, pur-
poses, and other characteristics. While the approaches are all different, they are highly com-
plementary and often relevant to the designer’s work in participatory design contexts. Table
2.3 shows a comparison of the main aspects. Facilitation in management contexts is directed
towards group problem-solving through the integration of knowledge that different people
within the organisation bring. Within deliberation practice, facilitators are process experts,
enabling different voices to be heard through ensuring inclusivity, preventing distortion from
unequal power, and enabling democratic decision-making. Facilitation in educational contexts
focuses on how people learn individually and as a group, aiming to design for and ensure pro-
ductive social interaction and engagement with the construction of shared knowledge objects.
Facilitation in design contexts brings a unique focus on design of innovative user-centred
products. Such work requires design expertise to produce a professional design solution,
however it also requires the capabilities that are central for facilitation in other domains,
such as facilitation of group problem-solving in organisational management (e.g., integration
of knowledge brought by different people), decision-making in deliberation (e.g., enabling
voices of all users to be heard) and learning in education (e.g., developing users’ capabilities
to participate in the co-construction of a solution). From this review it is evident that while
design facilitation has distinct features, it has also strong “family resemblance” (Wittgenstein,
2009 [1953]) with facilitation practices in other domains and could benefit from a broader
cross-disciplinary view. This broader view of facilitation needs further conceptualisation and
integration with design practice, to which we turn next.
CONCEPTUALISING DESIGN FACILITATION PRACTICE
While design thinking emphasises thinking or a cognitive dimension, the literature demon-
strates that co-design and participatory design practices are not only about thinking but also
social interaction, individual values, and relational qualities (Oak, 2011). As such, design
Table 2.3 Comparison of different perspectives on facilitation
Aspects of facilitation
Management Deliberation Education Design
practice
Goal of facilitative Group problem-solving Democratic decision Individual and group Design of innovative
activity making learning user-centred products,
services, environments
Purpose of facilitation Integrating workers’ Enabling different Designing Enabling participatory
knowledge voices to be heard, arrangements for and and co-design practices
preventing distortion orchestrating learning
from unequal power
Who does it? Manager, team leader Expert in decision Teacher, educator Designer
making process
Required expertise Facilitation is An expert and authority An expert and role An expert in
a component of in the democratic model in thinking collaborative design
a manager’s domain process, but impartial and learning who has process, including
expertise to include, about the topic/domain threshold domain visualisation,
how groups work knowledge and improvisation, design
together, and expertise in knowledge facilitation tools and
understanding of group construction design dialogue
roles
Role of facilitator Not a member of the Has decision power A guide on the side. Guides the design
group, neutral, has about the process, but Designs learning tasks process to understand
no decision-making not the topic/issue. and environments, the problem at hand
power, self-reflection Keeps discussion orchestrates and and to develop
and self-management and process on track, monitors learners’ a solution. Takes
ensures inclusivity, interactions and responsibility for the
prevents close of discussions and final product
dialogue, reframes intervenes with probing
questions, draws or guidance when
threads, enforces necessary
ground rules
Characteristics of Interactions within A communicative Indirect involvement Design dialogue that
practice groups focusing on process with shared in learning through, requires toleration of
different roles of norms and rules scaffolding, guidance ambiguity
participants in these and feedback
groups
What is distinct to Focus on social Focus on the process Focus on how people Focus on the design
facilitation relationships within an through dialogue, learn and creation process and guiding
organisation ground rules of space-time towards a specific
arrangements design outcome
facilitation is a multifaceted practice that encompasses a number of different aspects (Mosely

et al., 2021). The existing literature describes design facilitation in a somewhat piecemeal
way and rarely looks deeper into how this practice could be conceptualised and empirically
investigated.
Therefore, here, we draw on practice theories and use the practice architecture framework
as a way to identify and map out the critical aspects of design facilitation practice and bring
them together. Practice theory is not often drawn on in the field of design and is even less
prevalent in design thinking research, Rylander Eklund et al. (2021) even go so far as to state,
“practice theory is virtually absent in the design thinking nomenclature” (p. 13). Therefore,
here, we first introduce the main concepts of practice theories and practice architectures. Then,
we briefly review how design practices have been conceptualised and we then expand this to
design facilitation.
Practice Theory and Practice Architectures
Contemporary practice theories encompass a broad family of theoretical approaches which are
connected through historical and conceptual similarities (Nicolini, 2013, p. 1). Practice theory
as described by Trowler (2020) encompasses “the context-specific nature of knowing, saying,
doing and relating” (p. 36). Mahon et al. (2017) define practice architectures as “an account of
what practices are composed of and how practices shape and are shaped by the arrangements
with which they are enmeshed in a site of practice” (p. 7). Practice architectures place the focus
on what practices are and how they are enacted as opposed to one’s expertise and what one
needs to know in order to practise them (Kemmis & Edwards-Groves, 2018, p. 134). Kemmis
et al. (2014) explain practice architectures as encompassing three interrelated characteristics
of practice, sayings, doings and relatings.
A practice is a form of socially established cooperative human activity in which characteristic

arrangements of actions and activities (doings) are comprehensible in terms of arrangements of
relevant ideas in characteristic discourses (sayings), and when the people and objects involved are
distributed in characteristic arrangements of relationships (relatings), and when this complex of
sayings, doings and relatings “hangs together” in a distinctive project. (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 31)
As illustrated in Figure 2.2, characteristics of practice are shaped and preconfigured by

intersubjective spaces (semantic, physical space–time and social) which are enabled and con-
strained in three arrangements – cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political
(Kemmis, 2022). Sayings are the shared languages and discourses that shape how we interpret
the world, these include discursive and cognitive aspects or arrangements of practice (ideas,
thinking, understanding, etc.). They occupy the semantic space and are realised through
language (Kemmis et al., 2014). Doings are the modes of action or work and activity realised
through material things which include material and economic aspects of practice (objects,
tools, special arrangements, etc.). They are realised through space–time arrangements in
activity. Relatings are the social aspects and the ways of relating to one another and the world
through social groups and relationships that point to power and solidarity. These include social
and political aspects of practice (norms, values, personal relationships, power, etc.) and are
realised through social arrangements and ways in which people interact and relate with each
other and the world.
These interconnected actions of saying, doing and relating are “bundled together in the
projects” of practices and the “dispositions (habitus) of practitioners” (Kemmis et al., 2014,
p. 38). The theory of practice architectures recognises the complexity of practice through
acknowledging that “people learn the dispositions appropriate to the practices into which
they are being initiated” but people also learn through “the process of being initiated into
a practice” by engaging with and drawing “upon the practice architectures in a particular
Source: Adapted from Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 38.
Figure 2.2 Practice architectures
site” (Kemmis et al., 2014 p. 38). Wilkinson and Kemmis (2015) explain practices as being
ecologically arranged in two ways, they arise in relation to one another in a particular site and
they are interdependent and interrelated. Through considering these interdependent aspects
of practice, a holistic conceptual framework of design facilitation can be developed. We first
review current conceptualisations of design practice through the lens of practice theories and
then build on this work further to develop a conceptual framework of design facilitation.
The Practice of Facilitation and Design
It is well acknowledged that design practice is a social process that involves interaction and
negotiation with a range of participants, including communication with each other (designers
and members of the design team) as well as clients and stakeholders. Kimbell (2012), in
a seminal work, Rethinking design thinking, explores design practice and activity through two
key aspects of practice theory; first, through the way knowledge is constructed (Schatzki, 2001)
and second, through paying attention to the role of objects in constituting practices (Knorr
Cetina, 2001). Kimbell (2012) uses these two perspectives on practice to develop the concepts,
“design-as-practice” and “designs-as-practice”. Kimbell (2012) describes design-as-practice
as mobilising “a way of thinking about the work of designing that acknowledges that design
practices are habitual, possibly rule-governed, often shared, routinised, conscious or uncon-
scious, and that they are embodied and situated” (p. 135; emphasis added). The first concept
highlights the verb of design, demonstrating it as a situated and distributed process beyond the
individual designer. Comparatively, designs-as-practice “acknowledges the emergent nature
of design outcomes as they are enacted in practice”, specifically through drawing “attention
to the impossibility of there being a singular design (Kimbell, 2012, p. 135; emphasis added).
The second concept of design activity acknowledges,
designs (the noun) are constituted in relation to professional designers, customers, and identifiable
known end-users as well as other people who are not known, but also to other elements of practice
such as knowledge, feelings and symbolic structures. (Kimbell, 2012, p. 136)
These two concepts are not mutually exclusive, they are interconnected, moving our under-
standing of design thinking from the individual designer or the participatory group, towards
a relational, embodied understanding showing how they work together (Kimbell, 2012). As
design and facilitation can be considered social practices (see, for example, Schön, 1988),
design facilitation sits at the intersection of facilitation practice and design practice (Figure
2.3). Social construction focuses on how social and cultural forces construct knowledge
and how meanings are formed through the kinds of knowledge they construct (Burr, 2015;
Creswell, 2013). By considering design facilitation through this lens, a link can be made
between what design facilitators say, do and relate to the materials and objects found in the
environment of design facilitation practice (Kimbell, 2012).
Figure 2.3 Design facilitation at the intersection of facilitation practice and design
practice
Design Facilitation Practice: A Conceptual Framework
Design facilitation practice can be conceptualised by drawing on the theory of practice archi-
tectures and Kimbell’s (2012) conceptualisation of design-as-practice and designs-as-practice.
The framework focuses on: (1) the design facilitator, and (2) the environment and arrange-
ments of design facilitation practice (Figure 2.4). A brief overview of the two sides of the
framework is discussed below before a discussion of the framework as a whole.
Source: Synthesised from Kemmis et al., 2014 and Kimbell, 2012.
Figure 2.4 Design facilitation practice conceptual framework
The design facilitator and the practice of design facilitation

The left-hand side of Figure 2.4 depicts the design facilitator and design-as-practice as the
individual enacting design facilitation practice. The knowledge and identity of the individual,
their understandings and self-understandings (mediated through communication, sayings),
their skills, capabilities and capacities (mediated through production, doings) and their values,
behaviour and emotions (mediated through social connection, relatings) form their design
facilitation practice (Kemmis & Mahon, 2017, pp. 230, 235). Arguably, the design expertise
of the design facilitator, affects their forms of understanding, modes of action and ways of
relating. As Kimbell (2012) suggests, design facilitators’ sayings, doings and relatings are
contingent and they change and evolve; additionally, one design facilitator’s practice will
be different to another’s, raising the question: what role does design expertise play in design
facilitation practice?
The environment of design facilitation practice

The right-hand side of Figure 2.4 demonstrates that design facilitation practice extends
beyond the individual design facilitators and what they bring to the environment (e.g., design
expertise, personal attributes, beliefs) to also encompass the arrangements and structures,
discursive-cognitive, material-embodied and relational-affective found in and brought to the
environment by others (Mahon et al., 2017). Design facilitation practice is “enmeshed” within
the arrangements of the environment, which recognised the “fluidity and volatility with which
practice engages with the particularities of arrangements in sites, and also recognise the var-
iation, improvisation and innovation with which practices are enacted” (Mahon et al., 2017,
p. 11).
As the role of a facilitator is to guide group processes, including interactions that occur
within an environment, the design facilitator and their practice are interrelated with the site
where design facilitation is occurring as well as with the individuals, artefacts and symbols of
that site. As Mahon et al. (2017) explain, the dialectal relationship between the practitioner and
practice architectures is demonstrated through the infinity symbol which
is intended to be read a kind of flow, holding together bundled-together sayings, doings, and relatings,
on the one side, with, on the other, the cultural-discursive [discursive-cognitive], material-economic
[material-embodied] and social-political [relational-affective] which make them possible. (Mahon et
al., 2017, p. 13)
The two sides of the framework are mutually constituted through practice (Kemmis & Mahon,
2017). The conceptual framework demonstrates the relationship between the design facilitator
and the environment of design facilitation practice by connecting the roles that the facilitator
and material objects and artefacts play in constituting design facilitation practice (Kimbell,
2012).
Mosely et al. (2021) categorise constructs of design facilitation across three practice dimen-
sions: discursive-cognitive (sayings), material-embodied (doings), and relational-affective
(relatings). These dimensions sit across the personal characteristics and behaviours of the
facilitator and the shared characteristics of joint behaviour and the environment. Drawing on
the cross-disciplinary perspectives of facilitation presented, design facilitation in participatory
design contexts does not only require an understanding of design practices and processes but
also establishing an environment that promotes deep engagement (similar to in education),
consensus-seeking (similar to in deliberation) and effective teamwork (similar to in manage-
ment). While not exclusively, facilitation practices in education historically had a stronger
focus on creating space–time arrangements for supporting students’ activities for autonomous
sense making, facilitation in deliberation primarily focused on language and creating a seman-
tic space for democratic dialogue, and facilitation in management had a stronger focus on
social arrangements that enable the realisation of organisational potential. Therefore, much
could be learnt from facilitation in these fields about how to assemble space–time arrange-
ments and create semantic and social spaces during design facilitation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY, PRACTICE AND FUTURE

RESEARCH
This chapter aimed to present an integrated conceptual framework of design facilitation that
helps address the conceptual challenges within this emerging field and to explore design facil-
itation practices holistically. In order to do this, it explored diverse perspectives of facilitation
and showed how they could inform and broaden current understandings of design facilitation.
It is clear across the design literature that design facilitation is often seen as a distinct domain,
while in fact it shares features with facilitation practices in other professional domains. Taking
a broader cross-disciplinary perspective on design facilitation helps see similarities and
differences, understand unique features of design facilitation and learn from other domains.
This analysis also helps understand why not every facilitator who has developed facilitation
expertise in other domains necessarily has capabilities to facilitate participatory, co-design
processes and design thinking. It also helps understand why not every designer has such
capabilities as well. In short, while the rise in popularity of design thinking can be attributed to
non-design fields and professionals, applying a basic knowledge of design thinking does not
make someone a professional designer. The effective facilitation of design requires a profes-
sional designer who has an understanding of design practice, theory, and methods as well as
facilitation skills and techniques. The explored perspectives lead to further questions such as,
• What are the characteristics (sayings, doings and relatings) that distinguish design facili-
tation practice?
• What are the arrangements (discursive-cognitive, material-embodied and
relational-affective) that distinguish the environment of design facilitation practice?
• How does the environment of design facilitation practice and design facilitation character-
istics influence and impact each other?
• How can different disciplines contribute to the future development of design facilitation
practices, including skills, methods and techniques?
• What and how can facilitation processes from management, deliberation practice and
education be used to inform effective design facilitation?
• What role does design expertise play in the effective design facilitation?
• How can design facilitation practice enable cross-disciplinary collaboration?
Design facilitation practice also lacks a cohesive theoretical foundation. We, therefore, pro-
posed to embrace practice theories and suggested how the framework of practice architectures
can be used to conceptualise design facilitation and integrate key aspects of this practice in
a coherent whole. We aimed to provide a foundation for further application of this framework
to better understand design facilitation practice and open new directions for development of
design facilitation theory, practice, and research. Through drawing on diverse perspectives
from the management, deliberation and educational literature, much remains to be discovered
about design facilitation practice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP)
Scholarship. The work of Lina Markauskaite was part-funded by the Australian Research
Council through Discovery Project grant DP200100376 (Developing interdisciplinary exper-
tise in universities).
REFERENCES
Aguirre, M., Agudelo, N., & Romm, J. (2017). Design facilitation as emerging practice: Analysing
how designers support multi-stakeholder co-creation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and
Innovation, 3(3), 198–209.
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary par-
ticipatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.
Body, J., Terrey, N., & Tergas, L. (2010). Design facilitation as an emerging design skill: A practice
approach. In K. Dorst, S. Stewart, I. Staudinger, B. Paton, A. Dong (Eds.), DTRS Interpreting Design
Thinking, Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium, pp. 61–70.
Bridges, S. M., Hmelo, Silver, C. E., Chan, L. K., Green, J. L., & Saleh, A. (2020). Dialogic intervisu-
alizing in multimodal inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
15, 283–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09328-0
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the social
and behavioural sciences (2nd ed., pp. 222–227). Elsevier. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086
-8.24049-X
Camacho, M. (2020). An integrative model of design thinking (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Di Russo, S. (2016). Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/
Escobar, O. (2019). Facilitators: The micropolitics of public participation and deliberation. In S. Elstub &
O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance (pp. 178–195). Cheltenham,
UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Escobar, R. (2014). Transformative practices: The political work of public engagement practitioners
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://era.ed.ac.uk/
Foster, M. K. (2021). Design thinking: A creative approach to problem solving. Management Teaching
Review, 6(2), 123–140.
Granholt, F. M., & Martensen, M. (2021). Facilitate design through improv: The qualified eclectic.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 1–11.
Hagan, M. (2020). Legal design as a thing: A theory of change and a set of methods to craft
a human-centred legal system. Design Issues, 36(3), 3–15.
Havergal, M., & Edmonstone, J. (2003). The Facilitators Toolkit (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Heskett, J. (2002). Toothpicks and logos: Design in everyday life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21–39.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Bridges, S. M., & McKeon, J. M. (2019). Facilitating problem-based learning. In
M. Moallem, W. Hung & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning
(pp. 297–319). San Francisco: Wiley.
Hogan, C. (2002). Understanding facilitation: theory and principle. London: Kogan Page.
Howard, Z., & Melles, G. (2011). Beyond designing: Roles of the designer in complex design projects.
In C. Paris, W. Huang, V. Farrell, G. Farrell, & N. Colineau, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Australian
Computer–Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI). Association for Computing Machinery, United
States of America, pp. 152–155.
Howlett, M. (2014). From the “old” to the “new” policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and
collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47, 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
Jenkins, J. C. (2005). Operational dimensions of the profession of facilitation. In S. Schuman (Ed.),
The IAF handbook of group facilitation: Best practices from the leading organisation in facilitation
(pp. 473-494). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and
possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22, 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim
.12023
Kaner, S. (2014). Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kemmis, S. (2022). Transforming practices: Changing the world with the theory of practices architec-
tures. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kemmis, S., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2018). Understanding education: History, politics and practice.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Kemmis, S., & Mahon, K. (2017). Coming to “practice architectures”: A genealogy of the theory. In K.
Mahon, S. Francisco & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring education and professional practice: Through
the lens of practice architectures (pp. 219–238). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014).
Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer.
Kimbell, L. (2012). Rethinking design thinking: part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129–148. https://doi
.org/10.2752/175470812X13281948975413
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. http://
www.jstor.org/stable/27558571
Kirk, P., & Broussine, M. (2000). The politics of facilitation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12(1),
13–22.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hing, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions
and applications in teaching and learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practive. In K. Knorr Cetina, T. R. Schatzki & E. Savigny (Eds.), The
practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.
Laursen, L. N., & Haase, L. M. (2019). The shortcomings of design thinking when compared to design-
erly thinking. The Design Journal, 22(6), 813–832. doi:10.1080/14606925.2019.1652531
Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: The challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design
process, CoDesign, 4(1), 31–50. DOI: 10.1080/15710880701875613
Luck, R. (2007). Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, 28(3),
217–242.
Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory and the theory
of practice architectures. In K. Mahon, S. Francisco & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring education and
professional practice (pp. 1–30). Singapore: Springer.
Mann, T. (2013). Facilitation in management. Training Journal, August, 60–64.
Manzini, E. (2015). Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30(1), 57–66.
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation,
knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
McFadzean, E., & Nelson, T. (1998). Facilitating problem-solving groups: A conceptual model. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 19(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739810368785
Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking:
Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
36(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466
Molinengo, G., Stasiak, D. & Freeth, R. (2012). Process expertise in policy advice: Designing collabo-
ration in collaboration. Humanities and Social Sciences Communication, 8, 1–12. https://doi.org/10
.1057/s41599-021-00990-9
Mosely, G., Markauskaite, L., & Wrigley, C. (2021). Design facilitation: A critical review of conceptu-
alisations and constructs. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 1–13.
Mosely, G., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2018) Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design
expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 177–189.
Mosleh, W., & Larsen, H. (2020). Exploring the complexity of participation. CoDesign, 1–19. https://doi
.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1789172
Napier, P., & Wada, T. (2016). Defining design facilitation: Exploring and advocating for new, strategic
leadership roles for designers and what these mean for the future of design education. Dialectic, 1(1),
154–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/dialectic.14932326.0001.110
Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Oak, A. (2011). What can talk tell us about design? Analyzing conversation to understand practice.
Design Studies, 32(3), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.003
Olsen, N. V. (2015). Design thinking and food innovation. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 41(2),
182–187.
Online Etymology Dictionary (2022). Facilitation (n.). Retrieved from, https://www.etymonline.com/

word/facilitation
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – an emergent epistemological
approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535–557.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovation knowledge communities and
three metaphors of learning. Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational
Research, 82, 330–348.
Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers &
Education, 69, 523–526.
Rylander Eklund, A., Navarro Aguiar, U., & Amacker, A. (2021). Design thinking as sensemaking –
Developing a pragmatist theory of practice to (re)introduce sensibility. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 39, 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12604
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscape of design. CoDesign, 4(1),
5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: practice theory. In K. Knorr Cetina, T. R. Schatzki & E. Savigny
(Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0142-694X(88)90047-6
Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational
settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395–442.
Schwarz, R. (2005). The skilled facilitator approach. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The IAF handbook of group
facilitation: Best practices from the leading organisation in facilitation (pp. 21–34). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Schwarz, R. (2017). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators,
coaches and trainers (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Starostka, J., Evald, M. R., Clarke, A. H., & Hansen, P. R. (2021). Taxonomy of design thinking facilita-
tion. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1–9. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/caim.12451
Thomas, G. (2008). Facilitate first thyself: The person-centred dimension of facilitator education.
Journal of Experiential Education, 31(2), 168–188.
Trowler, P. (2020). Accomplishing change in teaching and learning regimes: Higher education and the
practice sensibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., & Dorst, K. (2017). Advancing the strategic impact of human-centred design.
Design Studies, 53, 1–23.
Wahl, D. C., & Baxter, S. (2008). The designer’s role in facilitating sustainable solutions. Design Issues,
24(2), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.2.72
Wardale, D. (2013). Towards a model of effective group facilitation. Leadership & Organisational
Development Journal, 34(2), 112–129.
Wayne, D. (2005). Facilitation: beyond methods. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The IAF handbook of group
facilitation: Best practices from the leading organisation in facilitation (pp. 35–54). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Wilkinson, J., & Kemmis, S. (2015). Practice theory: Viewing leadership as leading. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 47(4), 343–358.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009 [1953]). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J.
Schulte, Trans. P. M. S. Hacker & J. Schulte Eds., 4 ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wrigley, C., & Mosely, G. (2022). Design thinking pedagogy: Facilitating innovation and impact in
tertiary education. London: Routledge.
Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Mosely, M. (2021). Defining military design thinking: An extensive, critical
literature review. She Ji: International Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation, 7(1), 104–143.
3. Who gets to wear the black turtleneck?
Questioning the profession of design thinking
Sally Cloke, Mark Roxburgh and Benjamin Matthews
INTRODUCTION
One of the authors recently attended a Design Thinking (DT) workshop held at an Australian
university for academics and industry practitioners of design. During the refreshment break,
a User Experience (UX) designer employed by a large bank expressed a great passion for the
formulaic nature of their approach, insisting on its consistent reliability and efficiency. To
drive home the point, they lifted a shirt sleeve and sure enough, there inscribed on the deli-
cate flesh of the inner left wrist was a tattoo in red ink: the hallowed ‘double diamond’. This
focus on suggestions for action, tools and techniques has been well documented elsewhere,
notably in Laursen and Haase’s (2019) excellent literature review, the ‘Shortcomings of design
thinking’, where the authors conclude that unlike the more adaptive paradigm of ‘designerly
thinking’, DT adopts a singular methodological approach, namely, ‘explorative learning’
(p. 9). The authors argue for an expanded engagement with the methodological frame for
design thinking, since it is ‘too easy to simply say that design thinking is nonsense’ (p. 17). Not
exactly a stirring call to action, but certainly an acknowledgement of the fact that practitioners
of designerly thinking are compelled by the rise and rise of design thinking into a conversation
they would perhaps rather avoid. This is an ambivalent dialogue with history that seeks to
define the boundaries to certain categories on which scholars, teachers and practitioners of
design frequently call, and on behalf of which they ultimately decide a definitional position –
however conditional – and a defence thereof.
In this chapter we will provide a very brief history of key ideas about design, and how in
turn this history has informed critiques of DT. Here, the kind of thinking ‘artificial’ designers
use is often set against what ‘real’ designers rely upon in a manner that frames strong criticism
of the ubiquity of DT. Kimbell (2011) characterises this distinction broadly as being between
designerly thinking and DT, with ‘real’ designers using the former and ‘artificial’ designers
the latter. When framed from the designerly thinking perspective, DT is understood to be the
unfortunate by-product of businesses that would package and sell design thinking beyond the
usual circuits of design. From this position, DT and its proselytes are cast as representative
of the post-industrial circumstances that have accompanied the rise and rise of neoliberalism,
and the modes of capitalism it promotes. Here, design is considered instrumental to processes
of industry, and completed in the reductive modes of speed and efficacy. This cultural narra-
tive would eventually become branded and succeed in the market as DT, its adherents often
elevating the processes of design to the status of ritual, and simultaneously reducing them to
45
the function of an algorithm that sets out to address ‘wicked problems’. In other words, DT
is understood to have become part of the systems that now present us with an overwhelming
array of challenges, rather than the means by which to address them.
There is a certain hypocrisy in this designation, because designerly thinking has played its
role in the creation of the circumstances we currently experience. Indeed, there is something
revealing in the way design as a professional institution has responded to the rise and rise of
DT, and to better understand this reaction it is useful to take a brief journey through the history
of design theory. Ours is an to attempt to determine what is most useful in this history as
a defence against what may be genuinely dangerous approaches to design in the time of major
existential threats thrown up as the Anthropocene progresses. What are these learnings, and
what are some ways of thinking and designing that could broaden and enrich how DT is taught
and practised? It is our contention these deserve more attention from designers and thinkers of
any persuasion, and our purpose is to encourage diversity and discussion.
The context we emphasise is the welter of accelerating crises endangering the future of
life on earth, and our provocations can be framed as follows: what if the problems of the
Anthropocene could be better addressed through a less anthropocentric, less ‘problem-solving’
oriented approach to thinking and designing than permitted by current orthodoxies? And what
if it matters less who gets to ‘wear the turtleneck’ than who dares to pick up the mantle of
some of design history’s less-heeded prophets? We explore these questions via the history of
thinking that informs common criticisms of DT, and conclude with three calls-to-action, or
turns, for designers en masse. Yes, it’s our very own listicle:
• A move away from a narrow paradigm of problem solving that fails to recognise design’s
contribution to the multiple social and ecological crises confronting the planet – toward
‘discursive’ design that opens new possibilities and bolder futures.
• A move away from human-centred design that uncritically multiplies human wants, and
toward designing for and with our more-than-human world.
• A move away from seeing empathy as a panacea, and toward understanding design as
a mode of caring.
‘REAL’ DESIGN VERSUS DT
But why the turtleneck, or more specifically the black turtleneck, and why the question over
who gets to wear it? Whether sartorial, metaphorical, or the basis to outright caricature, the
turtleneck has long been the mark of the ‘real’ designer. Think Steve Jobs, perhaps its most
famous exponent. Today we see this sacred garment on the backs of bankers and civil engi-
neers, supermarket executives and public health consultants. It’s not always easy these days
to tell the ‘real’ designer from the copy (aka artificial designer). But does that matter? Only
in the sense that it is emblematic of the co-option of a poorly understood aspect of creative
professional activity (the designerly thinking used by ‘real’ designers) by a managerial class
(our ‘artificial’ designers) in ‘accounts of design thinking’ that ‘do not draw extensively on
research in either design studies or management and organization studies’ (Kimball, 2011,
p. 294).
But just in case the ‘real’ designers out there feel smug about the alleged thinness of the
intellectual foundations of DT, it’s worth noting that Kimball (2011, p. 294) also argued that,
a decade ago, research into such designerly thinking had ‘not yet generated a definitive or
Who gets to wear the black turtleneck? 47
historically-informed account of design thinking.’ Over its shortish lifespan, ‘real’ design has
given shelter to a host of diverse and sometimes contradictory ways of designing and think-
ing. This situation is in part a consequence of the diversity of practices that emerged in the
early days of the ‘professionalising’ of ‘real’ design practices – such as furniture and product
design, graphic design, fashion and textile design, architectural design, etc. – and the attendant
ideological contexts and material and historical legacies of their ‘pre-industrial’ equivalents.
Despite this diversity, the nature of both design and thinking are often treated reductively –
and our history is a modest attempt to respond to this absence. We will consider such closely
related and contested fundamental questions as what design is, what kind of practices it
might encompass, and its significance and purpose in society and human experience. For the
moment, though, it is worth noting the problem-solving model for design practice emerged
from and is much more closely related to product design and urban planning, which are much
more deeply connected to processes of manufacturing and large ensembles of technologies,
than say fashion design and visual communication that have closer connection to the craft
skills of making by hand (Roxburgh, 2021).
In sum, the kind of thinking used by people we call designers to design things has a history,
and likewise, that history has been informed by its unfolding context. That history has recently
led us to a moment when theories about the kind of thinking that people we will call ‘real’
designers use to design things (historically objects or communications) has been purportedly
appropriated by people we will call ‘artificial’ designers – that is, people who don’t design
objects or communications but instead design things such as services, business strategies or
processes.1 Thus, the rise of the modern-day phenomena, and attendant theories, of DT. The
apparent ubiquity of DT outside of the world of ‘real’ design has inspired critique from those
that create and live within the ‘design world’. Whilst that critique, and the growing criticism
that defines it is interesting, one can’t help but feel it is yet another in the long list of grievances
that ‘real’ designers have expressed in the period that ‘real’ design has underpinned a distinct
area of professional practice. Most of those grievances relate to ‘real’ design’s inextricable
links to market capitalism, and while this is not the focus of the current chapter, it will be
touched upon for those links are a part of ‘real’ design’s history.
We assume design to be defined broadly as the activities through which people purposefully
create things that have not previously existed in their experience. For a more detailed discus-
sion on that front, we refer you to the oft-cited and seminal text on the topic, Herbert Simon’s
(1996 [1969]) The Sciences of the Artificial. We also argue that for its history as a profession,
design has been inextricably tied to consumer culture and market capitalism, governed by
technocratic and anthropocentric logic. The ubiquitous practice of design is such that as
a species we have decreasingly adapted to our planet in order to survive, and increasingly
reshaped it to provide us with convenient, virtual and more survivable habitats – if only in
the very short term. In this manner we have moved away from what one might describe as the
natural world and created an artificial (human made – not fake) world. Whether or not this is
a good thing remains to be seen.
The ‘Problem’ of Professional Design
The response of ‘real’ designers to the rise of DT mirrors that of any professional group whose
boundaries feel threatened. And professions are all about boundaries. The role of a typical
professional body focuses on setting and upholding the educational, technical and ethical
standards of its members (Chellew et al., nd). This protects the public from unsound work,
untested claims and unscrupulous practitioners: those who fail to meet the profession’s stand-
ards are barred from (re)entry. Just as importantly, these boundaries protect the professionals
themselves by safeguarding the specialist mana – body of knowledge, tacit know-how, cultural
norms, etc. – and securing livelihoods and reputations. Two situations place professional
boundaries under particular stress. In the first, the specialist mana has become devalued. For
whatever reason, going to a professional for a particular service is no longer seen as worth the
cost or effort, while the risks of going elsewhere are regarded as less significant. The digitisa-
tion of ‘real’ design and the accessibility of affordable computer software and hardware and
the rise of the DIY designer in the late 1990s and early 2000s is emblematic of the first situa-
tion.2 This trend has more recently been exacerbated with the emergence of machine learning
and AI and its application in design. Entirely new businesses have emerged that offer design
services done by machines not ‘real’ designers (Matthews et al., 2020). In the second situation,
the specialist mana has become over-valued, so that more people want a share of it, and the
approved routes of acquiring it are seen as too arduous or artificially prohibitive. Kelly (2018),
for example, argues that for communication design there is a huge volume of ‘workshops and
lessons on YouTube, Skillshare, Lynda, and Inlearning’ providing ‘a certain amount of train-
ing’ with industry-leading tools ‘for a fraction of the cost’ of a formal degree. Moreover, the
rise of non-standard patterns of work examined in countless reports on the future of work note
that the economic contribution of workers is becoming increasingly detached from the formal
qualification system (Pennington & Stanford, 2019).
A thorough exploration of why design currently has cachet – why so many people want to
wear the turtleneck – is beyond the scope of this chapter. Nevertheless, we would like to posit
two suggestions. Some blame could be placed at the feet of uber turtlenecker, Steve Jobs and
Apple. More than any other company, Apple has raised consumer expectations that products
are ‘well designed’ (Boradkar, 2010). But this is ‘design’ in the narrow sense of aesthetics, and
a particular modernist/minimalist aesthetic at that (de Moncheau, 2007). We will return to the
matter of aesthetics shortly, but aesthetics in this form is principally concerned with how the
designed artefacts (be they objects or forms of communication) look. This pre-occupation with
formal aesthetics promotes the view that design is a superficial matter rather than a founda-
tional principle – and hence is something anyone with a bit of flair and a working knowledge
of Adobe products can achieve. ‘Real’ design shares responsibility for this situation, having
founded its professional ideology and pedagogy on art and craft skills, and the romantic ideal
of the ‘real’ designer as a species of creative genius (Forty, 1986). Roxburgh (2005) calls this
delusion the ‘myth of creativity’.
Apple’s success also fuels the belief that the addition of ‘design’ to an artefact can command
a significant financial premium: X + design = $. Hence, design thinking. But we cannot blame
Jobs and Apple alone for this effect. ‘Real’ designers have long been promoting the virtue
of the idea that good design is good business. Indeed, the formalisation of design education
programmes in the UK in the mid-19th century, and a range of accompanying design reforms,
were ‘initially bound to British colonial trade’ (Huppatz, 2015). It is telling that the UK’s
first design school was established in 1837 ‘under the superintendence of the Board of Trade’
with the board establishing the Department of Practical Art in 1852 (UK National Archives)
to oversee art, design and technical education. A government agency, principally concerned
with catalysing the commodity market, was tasked with overseeing design education in Great
Britain. This can be seen as the result of the conviction ‘in government circles since the 1830s’
that good design means good business, and that ‘Sir Robert Peel had attributed the decline
in her [sic] exports to poor standards of design in British manufacture’ (Woodham, 1997,
p. 12). If we examine the emergence of the prototypical ‘real’ design profession, as Adrian
Forty (1986) has done, we can observe it was an entrepreneur – Josiah Wedgewood – who in
the mid-1700s tasked artists with creating drawings and models for crafts people to base their
work on during the manufacture of pottery ware. Bremner (2010) argues this signalled the sep-
aration of ‘idea from manufacture and turned the imagination of change into an image’ (p. 48).
Into the bargain, the image became the hallmark of ‘real’ design in a manner that clearly
tied its birth to an entrepreneurial innovation and to consumer-driven market capitalism. It is
also noteworthy that long before Fredrick Winslow Taylor commenced his time and motion
studies, and Ford developed the assembly line in his Detroit factories, Wedgewood tasked
different crafts people to make different parts of a product – for example, one was tasked with
making spouts, another making lids, and so on – in a pre-industrial form of the production line,
thus ‘making machines of men’ (Forty, 1986, p. 44). Given that the artist/designer is a part of
the production line it is evident that an instrumental logic is also at play.
Setting aside the commercial imperative for design, its desirability may also be related to
something anthropologist David Graeber pointed out about the nature of modern work. He
argued that jobs in which people actually produce or make things are increasingly rare in late
capitalist society. Instead, large proportions of the middle class spend their lives in jobs they
recognise as being little more than bureaucratic busy work. This leads, argues Graeber, to
a feeling of resentment toward anyone who makes or does something with evident, tangible
results (Graeber, 2013, 2020). Perhaps the popularity of DT is in part based on a desire to
experience the satisfaction of making without having to acquire the requisite technical skills.
Such appropriation of the terminology of design serves to emphasise just how apt the thinking
in the phrase DT is. Meanwhile, the related growth of service economies has started to sup-
plant manufacturer economies and the need to design those services has become more pressing
(Roxburgh & Cox, 2016). This demand has catalysed the success of DT through its application
in this rapidly growing area of professional endeavour.
Whatever the reasons for its rise, it is evident from a quick survey of trade and professional
media that ‘real’ designers feel the need to assert themselves against the encroachment of
DT. Here we read such headlines as: ‘Design Thinking is bullshit’ (99U, 2017) and ‘Design
Thinking is kind of like syphilis: it’s contagious and rots your brains’ (Vinsel, 2017). The
common themes are that DT is over-simplified and reductionist, lacks evidence for its effec-
tiveness beyond the anecdotal, it overpromises, overcharges and fosters a naïve over-optimism
that fails to consider political, social or and economic complexities beyond the narrowly
defined ‘problem’.
Scholarly publications use more measured language but offer similarly stinging criticism.
Hernández-Ramírez (2018) argues that DT curriculum and discourse is often full of obfus-
cating jargon that equates superficial technical improvement with innovation and excludes
any acknowledgement of design methodologies, past or present, beyond the ‘tasteless echo
chamber of [its] five-step design process’ (p. 54). Laursen and Haase (2019) criticise DT’s
‘bias towards action’ and emphasis on ‘tools and techniques’ for its failure to ground its
impatient drive to ‘do something’ in any explicit theoretical foundation (p. 15). Carlgren and
colleagues (2016) chastise DT proponents for their slippery use of terminology – ‘discipline
vs. approach vs. way of thinking’ – arguing this suggests such acolytes are not sure precisely
what DT is (p. 40). Iskander (2018) questions DT’s reputation for creativity, arguing instead
that it is ‘fundamentally conservative and preserves the status quo’.
Mosely et al. (2018) argue that DT ‘has been over-simplified in many industry realms,
leaving behind a trail of design thinking experts and a frustrated design research community’
(p. 177). Gregory (2018) accuses DT of appropriating tools and terminology not just from
‘real’ design but from anthropology, making a mockery of the skills and scholarship of profes-
sional social scientists. Ironically enough, others have argued ‘real’ design itself has plundered
ethnography for its own purposes, with a similar lack of regard for its theoretical framework
(Roxburgh & Bremner, 2015).
We could go on, but it suffices for now to conclude that such criticism asserts the superi-
ority of ‘real’ design from a vantage point positioned outside the market system. However,
as Whitely (1993) has argued, ‘real’ design’s propensity for ‘repacking and re-designing’
(which is tantamount to superficial technical improvement and a bias towards action) is ‘part
of a socio-economic system that assumes limitless growth’ that ‘goes far beyond the idea of
meeting human needs’ and ‘seeks to create and constantly stimulate human desires’ (p. 3;
emphasis in original). This is the same socio-economic system that DT has emerged in and
helps to perpetuate. The squabbling about what is and isn’t design misses the point as ‘real’
design and ‘artificial’ design (aka DT) are two sides of a coin that circulates in a shared
socio-economic system. They are both a product of that system, and both work to perpetuate it.
One can visualise the ultimate futility of such squabbling by using the diagram (Figure 3.1)
developed by Victor Papanek (1972, p. 68), a pioneering practitioner and theorist of sustain-
able design.
Papanek sought to visualise his concern that ‘real’ designers were too often restricted to
‘solving’ tiny, often visually and aesthetically-defined ‘problems’, when their talents could
be more usefully applied to addressing larger underlying issues. Too many of the criticisms
of DT raised by ‘real’ designers – or defences mounted by DT’s proponents – boil down to
Figure 3.1 Papanek’s Triangle

quarrelling over who has the right to the tip of the triangle. Questions of what design could
be – increasing the designer’s share – are not addressed, as we will discuss below.
At this point, we note that some ‘real’ designers take the opposite path, withdrawing from
the turf wars and claiming different ground from DT’s advocates. This may involve reposi-
tioning or rebranding themselves as offering niche or boutique creative services. We might
characterise this response as William Morris-lite. Morris (1834–1896) was a designer and
political theorist who sought to counter the tawdrifying effects of burgeoning industrialisation
and market-capitalism on both producer and consumer alike by refusing to accept that either
the making or the enjoyment of beauty and quality were only for the rich (Morris, 1885).
Morris took this position, not because he had found some market niche to exploit, but as the (to
him) inevitable out-workings of his deep-held political and economic – socialist – principles.
He sought to overturn capitalism, not find a safe bolthole within it. Of course, the market won
in the end: Morris’s political legacy is far overshadowed by his formal aesthetic one, and the
Arts and Crafts movement and its heirs have ironically become yet one more way of signalling
‘middle class supremacy’ (Morris, 1884) in taste and budget.
The differences between Morris and Morris-lite are clear. Boutique design does nothing to
counter the general perception that ‘real’ design is all about/restricted to the formal aesthetic.
Additionally, and more concerning, it buys into ‘capitalist realism’, Mark Fisher’s term
describing the prevailing mindset in which ‘it is easier to imagine the end of the world than
it is to imagine the end of capitalism’ (Fisher, 2009, p. 2). This latter point matters, not for
some purely ideological reason, but because limiting the scope of potential political/economic
arrangements for a society necessarily limits the range of solutions to the ‘real problems’
Papanek believed designers should be addressing. Then again, maybe confining design’s
purview to solving problems, whether consumer or existential, is itself a problem – a question
we will discuss in some detail below. Neither fighting over turf nor abandoning the field are
helpful approaches. So instead of focusing on what DT has allegedly co-opted from ‘real’
design, let’s consider what it’s left out, as well as what they have in common.
THE HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGN
It is impossible to analyse the various kinds of thinking deployed by ‘real’ designers in the
work of designing without giving a very brief history of design. Before the industrial revo-
lution, the designer as a separate profession simply didn’t exist. But that doesn’t mean there
was no designing – everyday objects that couldn’t be made at home were created in small
workshops by artisans and craftspeople. They learned their skills as apprentices by copying
the practices of their masters. Although tacit knowledge, practical know-how and workplace
culture were passed on as well as craft skills, design was primarily about doing.3 In the 19th
century the birth of the machine age and growth of consumer capitalism called for more effi-
cient modes of production. As we outlined earlier, the work of the single skilled craftsperson
was broken down into stages and parcelled out to more specialised and lower paid workers –
the origins of the production line. ‘Modellers’ – artisans who designed the model for the item
that would go into mass production – emerged as the first recognisable ancestors of the modern
professional designer (Forty, 1986). Recognising the significance of this, the 1830s Cole
reforms saw the British government establish the first dedicated ‘schools of design devoted
to the education of artists designing specifically for manufactured goods’ (Raizman, 2003)
with drawing, painting and sculpture regarded as the appropriate basis for their education. As
industrialisation escalated, various schools of thought on design pedagogy began to formalise
to support and develop this nascent profession. Some, such as those employed by Morris’s
Arts and Crafts movement, emphasised the importance of artistic ability, creative thinking,
aesthetic taste and manual craft skills. Sketching and drawing were seen as key competencies
for both developing design concepts and communicating them to others. It also had a broader
agenda of educating the public at large about the value of aesthetic taste and judgement and
the dehumanising aspects of industrialisation – for example Wedgewood’s desire to make
machines of men. However, apart from garnering ‘interest amongst progressive designers and
critics of the industrialization process’ its ‘actual impact upon the majority of manufacturers
involved in the mass-production of consumer goods was extremely limited’ (Woodham, 1997,
p. 11).
As the 20th century progressed, the dominant approach, however, was the one promulgated
by such august names as the Bauhaus, the ULM School and eventually the Design Methods
movement. Where the Bauhaus could be seen, to some extent, as continuing aspects of the
philosophy of the Arts and Craft movement,4 in terms of its focus on workshop and craft
skills, its students were also trained in ‘science and theory’ (Findeli, 2001, p. 6), marking
something of a departure. However, it is worth noting that the Bauhaus in particular contin-
ues to have an impact on ‘real’ design pedagogy to this day, which plays into the continued
preoccupation with the formal aesthetic aspects of design artefacts. The ULM School of
design was established as a kind of new Bauhaus in Germany in the 1950s. An ideological
split developed, though, between adherents of the Bauhaus model of design and those that
rejected its emphasis on the acquisition of workshop skills. Led by Thomas Maldonado, the
rebels pushed for a design curriculum that included ‘mathematical, statistical and analytical
methods, together with sociology, anthropology, physical and behavioural psychology and
20th century social history’ (Woodham, 1997, p. 178). This ‘new educational philosophy’
had as its foundation ‘scientific operationalism’ (Maldonado 1958, p. 40). The ULM School
was in turn hugely influential in the development in the UK of what became known as Design
Methods whose adherents argued that old fashioned pen and pencil thinking was not up to the
demands of modern industry and systems. Like the ULM school, Design Methods drew on
ideas from social science, management and engineering to promulgate an approach to design
that privileged logic, rationalism and method. Educating designers was about training the brain
to think systematically, to follow step-by-step procedures and to mimic the scientific method
of hypotheses and test. It is ULM and Design Methods where the systematic evaluation of the
design process and the notion of problem solving took a route that led to the inevitable rise of
the notions of design and/or designerly thinking.
We could call this model thinking as design because of the clear priority it places on think-
ing over doing. In contrast, the Morris approach, and indeed that of the Bauhaus, could be
labelled designing to think because it regards the embodied practices of design as tools with
which to think. Viewed like this, these two models may seem almost opposites, but in fact they
are closely related: they are both anchored in a problem-solving paradigm. They both centre
on using design to solve a problem. The difference lies in whether intellectual or embodied
processes are seen as having priority (we’ll talk more below about the problem of problems).
DT appears to be firmly in the camp of thinking as design. Method, system, step-by-step
procedures – it all happens in the head. As noted above, Laursen and Haase (2019)
call this singular methodological approach, ‘explorative learning’ (p. 9). In this way
the DT curriculum focuses on mental techniques such as brainstorming, lateral think-
ing and empathetic imagination. Diagramming and mind mapping are encouraged – but
these are very different activities to drawing and sketching. While there can be an
element of physical making in the prototyping stage, the focus is on quick and dirty,
low-resolution prototypes intended to test functionality and usability. No craft or studio
skills are taught, or required, and questions of aesthetics are rarely if ever considered.5
Does this matter? It certainly leaves out a very large chunk of what historically both lay people
and designers have considered ‘real’ design to be about: that the activity of designing leads
to the creation of some material product. More than that: it is not unreasonable to expect
that a product be judged on its formal aesthetic qualities or on the sensory satisfaction it
provides (which relates to the broader conception of aesthetics being embodied), not just its
functionality. This is especially applicable to the design of consumer goods, visual commu-
nication and the built environment. Design is not art, yet as Prasad Boradkar argues, ‘design
considers aesthetics one of its core duties and values’ (Boradkar, 2010, p. 128). DT can of
course participate in the design of such material products, and even work to countermand the
prevailing forces the market asserts over design processes, but can it do this without reference
to a history explorative learning cannot encompass? This is a question further complicated by
the products of design becoming less tangible with outcomes such as interactions and systems
growing in prevalence (Buchanan, 2001). Experiences and interactions can also be aestheti-
cally rich in terms of broader sensory experience, and there is evidence that paying attention
to the aesthetic quality of interactive design can create experiences that are deeply rewarding,
significant and valuable (Wright et al., 2008). Yes, emphasising the formal aesthetic side of
design risks collapsing into that designer’s bugbear: a reductionist identification between
design and (surface) decoration (Folkmann, 2010). But the opposite is equally problematic
and more of a pressing reality, as Mario de Liguori (2017) argues, for in ‘design research and
training we are facing a sort of a neo-social-functionalism devoid of aesthetics, risking erasing
the goals painstakingly achieved over design history [and] relegating the aesthetics of products
to a minor executive phase’. The result: ‘an ugly world’ (p. 313).
THINKING ABOUT DT
Roxburgh (2010) argues a broader conception of aesthetics, beyond a preoccupation with the
visual or formal property of things, that encompasses embodied sensory experience is a press-
ing issue all forms of design have to come to terms with. Given the rise of the Anthropocene
and the impact our actions as a species have on the planet, and given that these actions are all
designed, this issue extends beyond whether or not the world is ugly and goes to the heart of
the question: ‘what kind of world do we want to create and live in/experience?’ This is funda-
mentally a question of aesthetics more broadly conceived, and in turn is concerned with ethics.
Roxburgh (2010) discusses this in terms of the design imperative which urges designers to take
responsibility for how they see and imagine the world, and to think through the consequences
of this, for each design action, no matter how small, transforms the world in some way.
Fundamental questions such as whether one can claim to be a designer without making
anything, or how important formal aesthetics are, are complex matters that force a return to
an examination of the boundaries to design. Another combination of the terms design and
thinking are required to respond to this challenge: thinking about design, or design theory. In
a nutshell, design theory is concerned with mapping and ‘expand[ing] the ‘mental space’…
of design/ing’ (Rodgers & Bremner, 2021, p. 1). Design theory attempts to answer such ques-
tions as: what design is and what it does (ontology of design), what design has been (history
of design), what design could be (speculative design), what design means and how it creates
knowledge and meaning (epistemology and semiotics), what design could or should do (ethics
of design) and how to teach people to become designers (design pedagogy).
As outlined above, authors from scholarly and grey literature note the lack of any
significant discussion of these important topics in DT (99U 2017; Carlgren et al., 2016;
Hernández-Ramírez, 2018; Iskander, 2018; Laursen & Haase, 2019; Vinsel, 2017). Most
egregiously, DT discourse fails to acknowledge the existence of the questions of what design
is, could be. There is talk of social responsibility or being human-centred (something we will
return to below) but this is unanchored in any articulated ethical or philosophical framework.
This means DT offers the practitioner little resistance to going with the flow, and in con-
sumer capitalism, the tide favours a market-driven, pragmatic, instrumentalist and short-term
outcomes-focused approach to design. In other words, design without thinking. Does this
sound too harsh?
Perhaps the one exception to this is Mosely et al.’s (2021) systematic review of literature
concerning the skills required by those working in the participatory/co-design/design thinking
space as design facilitators. Their research has identified three key characteristics the literature
argues are required to work in this space, these being:
• Discursive-cognitive – an understanding of design processes.

• Material-embodied – an understanding of the material dimensions of designing.
• Relational-affective – an ability to manage relationships.
However, whilst they acknowledge the discursive and contested nature of design facilitation
– and two of the authors have critiqued shortcomings of DT (Mosely et al., 2018) – their
review of the literature reveals that the fields of participatory and co-design are wedded to
a problem-solving paradigm.
To sum up our thoughts so far, as far as the thinking part of design thinking goes, we
observe a lack of what we have labelled designing to think, a time-honoured method of
designing by doing based on embodied practices and studio skills. On the other hand, we
see an exclusive focus on what we have called thinking to design, in which design is seen as
a matter of performing out the correct intellectual processes. DT’s dearth of theoretical appa-
ratus gives its proponents no standpoint from which to reflect on or evaluate this imbalance, or
to critique DT’s wholesale adoption of the mantra that design is or should be a (commercial)
problem-solving activity. So, what are we suggesting? It’s our belief that the way to give more
substance to the thinking part of design thinking is for all designers – ‘real’ or ‘artificial’ – to
widen the kinds of designing beyond those currently associated with the DT brand.
As we’ve touched upon, when it comes to practice, ‘real’ design has long been a broad
church. In contrast, DT has a narrower canon of design orthopraxy. In the following discus-
sion, we will single out three doctrines of DT which we see as foundational in shaping and
constraining how DT designs: problem solving, human-centredness and empathy. None of
these seem particularly pernicious in theory and would certainly be less so in practice if they
were deployed on an a posteriori needs basis rather than as a priori assumptions. However,
there is a circular relationship between the DT’s approach to practice and the kinds of think-
ing used (or not used). In particular, the widespread lack of thinking about design, or design
theory, means that questions about what design could be or do are left unasked. This enables
hegemonic assumptions about design practice to become rapidly entrenched and reified (see
Figure 3.2). As we signposted above, we are optimistic that formulating some arguments for
new ways of practice might stimulate increased activity and acuity in theoretical debate.
Figure 3.2 The circular relationship between ways of thinking and designing in DT
In this section of the chapter, we will explore some suggestions which we believe will broaden
the designing aspect of DT: a move beyond problem solving to a more discursive understand-
ing of design; less focused on human-centred or anthropocentric design to designing for and
with the more-than human world, and a shift from empathy as a foundation of the DT process
to exploring the potential of care.
FROM PROBLEM SOLVING TO DISCURSIVE DESIGN
One of the key tenets – and selling points – of DT is its purported worth as a problem-solving
tool. Google ‘What is design thinking?’ and phrases such as ‘a problem-solving approach’,
‘a process for creative problem solving’, or a method that ‘approaches problems from a human
perspective’ appear repeatedly. The appeal of such claims is obvious, particularly in the
management and business environments which have been so enthusiastic in their adoption of
DT. No-one likes a problem, especially shareholders, and anything that promises an edge in
solving them is worth a try.
To be fair, defining itself around its ability to create solutions is not just a quirk of DT but
a characteristic of much ‘real’ design – at least since the early 20th century when, as we dis-
cussed above, leading design schools and theorists increasingly adopted ideas from science,
management and engineering to create what we have called the thinking to design approach.
Design became less about artistic ability, formal aesthetic taste or craft skills than learning to
systematically follow step-by-step procedures and mimic the scientific method of hypothesise
and test.
So what’s our issue with DT (or design more broadly) and problem solving? After all, it
could be argued that anything is preferable to the dilemma that Papanek (1972) visualised with
his triangle diagram (see above), that of design’s purview being constrained to putting the
aesthetic icing on the cake, leaving untapped the discipline’s potential to make more substan-
tive contributions to human social life. It comes down to how problems are defined and who
defines them. Since the mid-20th century, the dominant problem-solving paradigm in business
and organisational theory has been the so-called ‘deficit model’ (Cooperrider, 2011). A system
or process is analysed to find the weakest link in the chain or bottleneck in the flow and that
part is ‘fixed’ to bring it up to the same level of operational efficiency as the rest.
This model deserves critique on both pragmatic and epistemological levels. It makes the
focus of problem solving ‘what is’ and ‘what’s wrong’ rather than ‘what’s possible’. It leaves
little room for imagination and creativity – arguably some of the best qualities ‘real’ design
has to offer. It also requires that the systems or processes that make up the problem space to
be analysed are pre-and-narrowly defined, with all variables as controlled and measured as in
a laboratory experiment. There’s little room for complexity, uncertainty and interconnected-
ness – the hallmarks of human societies and natural ecosystems.
This paradigm also presupposes a positivist understanding of knowledge that has long fallen
from favour even within ‘hard science’ (Lee, 1987). Positivism is based on the assumption that
knowledge exists objectively ‘out there’: human researchers just have to discover it. Maybe,
when it comes to chemistry or physics – though quantum mechanics has thrown doubt on the
idea that it’s possible to observe anything without influencing the outcome – but very unlikely
when it comes to understanding human social behaviour. The idea of the designer (or anyone)
as an impassive, unbiased observer able to get ‘outside’ a situation has been unmasked as
a fallacy (Dudovskiy, n.d.), especially in reaction to the ‘wicked’ or systemic problems which
are threatening the future of life on this planet.
Just as designers aren’t impassive observers, nor are they innocent actors. The emphasis
on problem solving fails to acknowledge the extent to which design is culpable for the very
crises it purports to be able to address (Whitely, 1993). We – humans more broadly, and
designers in particular – are problem creators as much as solvers. As Papanek put it: thanks to
this instrumental, dominionist mindset which positions human rationality over against nature,
the designer ‘shares responsibility for… nearly all of [the west’s] environmental mistakes…
either through bad design or by default’ (Papanek, 1972, p. 56). As designer David Rudnick,
noted, it’s ‘[h]ard to love a design industry that monopolises the privilege of [finding] a solu-
tion whilst structurally rejecting responsibility for the problem’ (quoted in Peart, 2017, n.p.).
Framing design as problem solving fosters a baseless optimism that clouds our ability to grasp
the seriousness of our current global crises. It perpetuates the myth that ‘tech will save us’:
with enough large-scale, sophisticated and massively expensive interventions humans can
resolve all the planet’s problems – or leave them behind by moving to Mars. Such thinking
acts as a barrier to demonstrably more effective small-scale actions and fails to question the
underlying ideology of unlimited economic growth (Alexander & Floyd, 2015).
Rather than identifying closely with such a problematic proposition we suggest a recon-
ceptualising of design as ‘transform[ing] the world in our image through acts of human
imagination’ (Roxburgh, 2021). This is far from a modest proposal – transformation can
cover any sized change from the microscopic to the seismic. But by avoiding the value-laden
term problem solving, it permits a more clear-eyed consideration of what design has done
or could be. This redefinition offers multiple advantages. First, the term ‘transformation’ is
broad enough to admit that, far from the neat, cause-and-effect model presupposed by the
problem-solving mindset, some if not most of a design intervention’s effects may be unex-
pected, counter-productive or destructive in ways which may not be evident for decades.
Second, the rather Old Testament phrase ‘in our image’ recognises that design has an inbuilt
bias to the anthropocentric and anthropomorphic, as we will discuss below. Third, the juxta-
position of ‘acts’ and ‘imagination’ neatly gestures at a rapprochement between two models
of conceptualising design: the traditional craft/aesthetic driven understandings we’ve labelled
design as thinking and the all-in-the-mind approach favoured by DT which we’ve called think-
ing as design. It is here the design imperative brings these together in a more all-encompassing
conceptualisation of embodied perceptual aesthetic experience and action.
This brings us back to DT. What ways of designing would we like introduce to the DT
curriculum which would help move from a problem-solving to a transformational mindset?
The last few decades have seen the emergence of various sub-disciplines of design that seek
to raise possibilities, spark conversations and imagine alternative realities rather than solve or
sell anything. They include speculative and critical design, or SCD (Dunne & Raby, 2013),
design fiction (Bleecker, 2009) and design futuring (Fry, 2009). Tharp and Tharp (2019) use
‘discursive design’ as an umbrella to bring together the commonalities of these approaches and
we will make use of this expression in what follows.
Discursive design employs methods of explorative making that contest ‘“official reality” in
order to… give form to the multiverse of worlds our world could be’ (Dunne & Raby, 2013,
p. 159). This makes it a potentially powerful tool for positing social, political and ethical
alternatives rather than mere consumer choice: the illusory agency of choosing between brands
of soap powder. Discursive design can encourage people to explore questions such as ‘what
do I really want’? This enables us to interrogate the ‘capitalist realist’ ideology that the good
things we desire can only be satisfied through consumer capitalism (Fisher, 2009).
Futurists working in design and other fields, such as Charles Taylor (1990), Joseph Voros
(2001), Stuart Candy (2010) and Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby (2013) have employed
concentric cone diagrams to visualise the relationship between present and futures. (For our
own simplified two-dimensional version, see Figure 3.3.) As the diagram shows, the further
we move forward in time, the number of potential futures available to us narrows. Unless we
deliberately keep widening out vision of the possible, we will take the shortest line between
two points and end up with the probable.
As Dunne and Raby (2013) note, ‘most design methods, processes, tools, acknowledged
good practice, and even design education are oriented toward [the probable]’ (p. 3). Discursive
design seeks to counteract this, by populating the realm of the possible with tangible artefacts
and scenarios that are neither utterly fantastical nor logically unfeasible out-workings of the
present (we could get there from here). These concretised imaginings are not about predicting
the future but opening space for ‘all sorts of possibilities that can be discussed, debated, and
used to collectively define a preferable future’ (Dunne & Raby, 2013, p. 6).
What does it look like in practice? Discursive design can take a multitude of forms. Here
we’ll focus on the work of Paulo Cardini from Rhode Island Design School. His Global
Futures Lab has run a series of workshops called ‘Souvenirs from the Future’. These four-day
intensives invite design students from the two-thirds world to create artefacts and narratives
from imagined futures as if they have emerged from a reverse time capsule. The project
Figure 3.3 Concentric cone diagram of probable, plausible and possible futures
enables students to explore non-Western and post-colonial viewpoints to visualise scenarios

which, whether dystopic or utopic, are certainly far from the mainstream dreams manufactured
by Hollywood or big tech. Participants are encouraged to remix local craft practices with
existing or imagined digital innovations to use design in ways that challenge viewers, start
conversations and disrupt expectations (Tharp & Tharp, 2019, pp. 502–516). One project that
speaks directly to ecological challenges is ‘Listening to the Trees’, created by students from
Iran. It imagines a future in which trees are honoured as wise, sentient creatures, individuals
with their own long memories and unique songs. Humans can listen to a tree’s music using
a transmitter that connects to a home speaker that based on the organic shape of a traditional
Iranian wooden instrument (Global Futures Lab, n.d.).
This idyllic vision, in which communication, respect and understanding between species
replaces dominion, chauvinism and exploitation, may not ‘solve’ any of pressing problems
such as deforestation, habitat destruction and climate change. What it does do is push those
who are willing to engage out of the model of deficit thinking – ‘What’s wrong?’ – and into
the realm of the creative imagination – ‘What could be? What could we?’.
Beyond Human-centred Design
Along with ‘problem solving’, the other great DT catchphrase is ‘human-centred’. In fact, DT
and human-centred design (HCD) are frequently described as if they were one and the same.
According to IDEO’s website: ‘Human-centered design is about cultivating deep empathy
with the people you’re designing with; generating ideas; building a bunch of prototypes;
sharing what you’ve made together; and eventually, putting your innovative new solution out
in the world’ (IDEO, n.d.). HCD has its origins in the work of Don Norman in the 1980s in
the fields of human–computer interaction and usability studies/ergonomics (Cruickshank &
Trivedi, 2017, p. 562). Norman’s aim was to design new products ‘physically, perceptually,
cognitively and emotionally intuitive’ (Giacomin, 2014, p. 610). All this, whilst prioritising
‘the needs and capabilities of the people for whom they are intended’ (Norman, 2013, p. 9).
HCD represented a huge step forward from the previous technology-driven design paradigm
(Giacomin, 2014, p. 607). In the latter, design innovation was a matter of giving a cosmetic
facelift to an existing product or bolting on whatever new ‘feature’ the R&D department
produced with scant consideration of the potential ‘benefit’ to the end user (Boradkar, 2010,
pp. 167–168).
HCD’s foundational principle – the ‘belie[f] that the people who face… problems every
day are the ones who hold the key to their answer’ (IDEO, 2015) – is entirely laudable and
lies at the foundation of other participatory approaches such as co-design. At its best, HCD
can genuinely be empowering for ‘the people involved [by] obtaining an understanding of
their needs, desires and experiences which often transcends that which the people themselves
actually realised’ (Giacomin, 2014, p. 610). We agree that ‘[t]here are excellent reasons why
HCD or some version of it has become the de facto approach to professional design’ and DT
alike (Cruickshank & Trivedi, 2017, p. 564).
But we do have some criticisms to offer. Our first is that HCD employs ‘a somewhat
reductive representation of ‘the human’’ (Coulton & Lindley, 2019, p. 465). Although its
former name of ‘user-centred design’ has largely become outmoded, in HCD humans are at
root always users. Designers don’t care about their taste in music or what they had for break-
fast – unless they’re designing a new streaming service or cereal. Conversely, the users of the
product or service are the most significant humans. The potential consumers of a new gadget
are observed, surveyed, turned into personas and stuck on the designer’s pinboard, but what
about the workers who will make the gadget or the communities affected by the sourcing of
the resources or the disposal of the waste at the end (Sherwin, 2018)?
Our second criticism concerns HCD’s focus on prioritising human needs. Papanek attempted
to differentiate between ‘the genuine needs of man [sic]’ and ‘evanescent wants and desires’
(Papanek, 1972, p. 15). Guess which one he felt design was more interested in satisfying? But
the difference between the two is not that obvious. A basic need such as thirst could easily be
met by a glass of water – so why do we pay through the nose for a can of sugar-laden fizzy
drink with a famous red logo? Maslow’s famous hierarchy may over oversimplify things, but
it makes the point that psychological needs such as belonging, self-esteem and status are just
as real as physiological ones.
Whether drinking a particular brand of soda pop will satisfy any of them is another ques-
tion. Our understanding of human needs and wants has been so ‘manipulated’ by consumer
capitalism that ‘it has come to the nonsense of believing in consumption and consumption
theories as the obvious and logic[al] way of solving our wellbeing as a specie[s]’ (Acosta &
Romeva, 2010, p. 30). In all this, design has too frequently played the role of ‘handmaid to
commerce, not merely meeting our “evanescent wants and desires” but fuelling them’ (Stairs,
2020, p. 95). ‘Do designers create products to satisfy people’s needs, or do they actually design
new needs that can only be satisfied with by the acquisition of new products’ (Boradkar,
2010, p. 162)? We suspect the answer is both. Amongst all the research carried out by HCD
practitioners, the question as to whether anyone really needs ‘Product X’ is rarely investigated
(Boradkar, 2010, p. 168).
This takes us to the issue of HCD and sustainability. Apart from offering no intrinsic resist-
ance to the production of wasteful, unnecessary, and even blatantly destructive goods, HCD
has other drawbacks. It encourages designers to focus on making the purchase and use of
a product ‘frictionless’, ‘intuitive’ or ‘delightful’, but is less concerned with making recycling
or other sustainable end-of-life behaviours more user-friendly (Sherwin, 2018). And where
does a HCD practitioner turn if their research finds their users are quite happy to keep using up
the Earth? As designer Jusi Pasanen bluntly expresses it,
human-centred design is literally anthropocentric design. By focusing only on humans, we frame

out the rest of the living planet. Mountains, rivers, oceans, rivers, wildlife and other animals, insects,
bacteria and the rest of the bio- and geosphere become irrelevant. If their destruction is required to
improve the human experience, so be it. (Pasanen, 2019, n.p.)
We believe that both DT practitioners and ‘real’ designers need more than human-centred
design. A number of different design approaches are beginning to take shape in this area,
using terms such as multi-species design (Metcalfe, 2016; Gatto & McCardle, 2019), design
for multispecies cohabitation (Roudavski, 2020), non-anthropocentric design (Rosińska &
Szydłowska, 2019) and interspecies design (Hook, 2019). They exhibit a diversity of stand-
points and objectives. Some aim to facilitate mutually non-destructive ways for humans, plants
and animals to live together in the face of habitat loss and increased urbanisation (Roudavski,
2020). Others take a more political perspective, seeking to create ways to give non-human
actors a voice in their own self-determination in an attempt not just to design for other living
entities, but with them (Rosińska & Szydłowska, 2019).
So far, most instances of design for and with the more-than-human world are experimental
and provocative rather than mainstream or commercial: the project we discussed above under
discursive design, ‘Listening to the Trees’, could arguably do double duty as an illustration
here. A more fully realised example is a prize-winning student project from the University
of Oregon. In ‘Co-Creation with Animals’, Toni Talbott sought to ecologically rehabilitate
a section of vacant land by co-designing with local wildlife. She built a variety of roosting
and feeding structures that would attract native creatures – primarily birds but also rodents
and other small animals – and provided them with a range of habitat-appropriate food seeds.
Not only did the animals aid in seed dispersal and plant propagation, they contributed to pol-
lination, soil aeration, stormwater management and a host of other pro-environmental actions
(ASLA, 2019).
‘Co-Creation with Animals’ is cost effective, sustainable and low-tech. It recognises
non-human actors as agents of systems transformation and allows them to exercise agency and
autonomy in shaping the outcome of the project. This represents a significant shift in power
relations from the instrumental, dominionist – western – mindset which has driven much of
mainstream ‘real’ design and contributed to the world’s environmental crises. Instead of the
hubristic positioning of human rationality over/against nature, we see here a stepping back,
space-making or withdrawal to allow room for non-humans to act as co-producers of design
and knowledge in ways that don’t assume simplistic binary distinction between the so-called
‘natural’ world and the ‘artificial’ world that humans have created through their propensity to
design in the endless pursuit of adapting the planet to our needs.
FROM EMPATHY TO CARE
Our critique of the human-centredness of DT brings us to a discussion of empathy. Empathy,

which gives its name to the first stage in the IDEO DT model, has been described as ‘an
essential element in today’s views of design thinking’ (Liedtka, 2015, p. 927) and ‘[o]ne of
the most powerful tools designers offer’ (Cooper et al., 2014 quoted in Heylighen & Dong,
2019, p. 108). It is foundational, not just to DT’s emphasis on HCD, but to its approach to
problem solving (Carlgren et al., 2016). To quote a d.school handbook: ‘as a design thinker,
the problems you are trying to solve are rarely your own – they are those of a particular group
of people; in order to design for them, you must gain empathy for who they are and what is
important to them’ (Stanford d.school, n.d.). In DT, empathy is the key to bridging this gap
between designer and the user of the product or service concerned, offering ‘a means for
gaining deep insight and understanding… [by unlocking] knowledge that is rich and qualita-
tive’ (Hamington, 2019, p. 95).
Despite its apparent power as a concept, empathy is a relative newcomer to design discourse
(Liedtka, 2015, p. 927). Although Nigel Cross includes empathy on a list of values associated
with ‘design culture’ in 1982 (Cross, 1982), it is not until 1997 that Leonard and Rayport coin
the term ‘empathic design’ and what was once seen as a character trait or soft skill is deployed
as part of a step-by-step technique to ‘spark innovation’ (Leonard & Rayport, 1997).
Also interesting is how hard the concept of empathy is to pin down. Common-sense defi-
nitions include ‘understanding [another person’s] emotions as our own’ (Goleman, 2008,
n.p.) and ‘coming to experience the world as you think someone else does’ (Bloom, 2016,
p. 16). A review of more scholarly literature, such as that carried out by Heylighen and Dong,
endorses the view that ‘there are probably nearly as many definitions of empathy as people
working on this topic’ (Heylighen & Dong, 2019, p. 110). Some proponents of empathy, such
as author Brené Brown, painstakingly differentiate it from sympathy, which they characterise
as an attempt to distance ourselves from another’s pain or problems (RSA 2013). But discrim-
inating between the two in practice is not so clear cut, as we tend to experience them together
(Heylighen & Dong, 2019).
We have several criticisms to offer when it comes to the privileged role empathy is given
in DT. First, there are questions as to whether we can ever exercise it. As Weiner and Auster
argue, ‘to think one is experiencing or feeling what another is experiencing or feeling… is
an ungrounded assumption’ especially when based on a ‘brief sojourn’ in another’s world
(Weiner & Auster, 2007, p. 125). How do we know we are not projecting our own emotional
state or extrapolating from what we would feel in a similar situation? And if we struggle to
achieve empathy with another human, where does that leave the more-than-human world?
How can we possibly know what a bird or a tree is feeling, let alone understand what it might
be like to experience that state?
Second, empathy may not be the ‘bridge builder’ with other humans that DT claims. Far
from it enabling us to ‘walk in the shoes of’ those we view as different or may experience
antipathy towards, it appears we naturally empathise with people we already like or see as
similar to us (Bloom, 2016). This innate empathy with ‘our kind of people’ can encourage
conformity to group norms, reinforce existing prejudices and actually shore up boundaries
between ‘us and them’ (Szanto & Krueger, 2019, n.p.).
Third, the concept of empathy in no way implies or impels the taking of action, let alone one
that is better informed or likely to produce more effective results (Weiner & Auster, 2007). It
may even lead to worse outcomes: as Heylighen and Dong (2019, p. 117) argue, ‘[e]mpathy
is a spotlight focusing on certain people in the here and now; this makes you care more about
them than about the long-term consequences of your acts or the suffering of those you do
not or cannot empathise with’. This is a particular concern in DT: stressing the importance
of empathising with ‘the (human) user’ downplays the necessity of incorporating the needs
or perspectives of other human or non-human actors into the design process (Mesut, 2018).
DT’s reliance on empathy ultimately calls into question its utility in addressing systems-wide
challenges with multitudes of human and non-human actors, such as such as climate change
(Bloom, 2016) – the ‘wicked’ problems it purports to be most suited to solving.
Instead of a focus on empathy, we suggest DT practitioners (and ‘real’ designers) explore
the possibilities of care. Care as an ethical approach developed from the work of pioneering
feminist scholars Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings, among others, who investigated whether
there were differences in how men and women undertook ethical decision making (Gilligan,
1982; Noddings, 1985). As with empathy, care has numerous, and not always easy to harmo-
nise, definitions – something which theorists have argued is productive as much as problem-
atic: ‘to try to summarise the plurality of the contradictory viewpoints would be a reductive act
at odds with the liveliness of care’ (Pennington, 2018, p. 583). Nevertheless, we will follow
political theorist Joan Tronto, who identifies two key dynamics: ‘First, care implies a reaching
out to something other than the self: it is neither self-referring nor self-absorbing. Second, care
implicitly suggests that it will lead to some type of action’ (Tronto, 1993, p. 103). These two
aspects encapsulate why we believe that care is so relevant.
In reverse order, first, unlike empathy, the concept of care implies action, and particular
types of action at that. As Tronto puts it: ‘We can recognise care when a practice is aimed at
maintaining, continuing, or repairing the world’ (Tronto, 1993, p. 103). This is of particular
interest when we consider our discussion of designing for and with the more-than-human
world. Eco-feminists such as Carol J. Adams have worked on establishing an ecological ethics
build on care, recognising ‘that [the] ‘other’ isn’t just another so-called ‘human being,’ but is
potentially any part of this planet’ (Adams, 2018, n.p.). In contrast to empathy, caring does
not require putting ourselves through any mental gymnastics to try to get inside others’ heads
– they don’t even need heads. We can care for a person, a flower or a bee. We (arguably) may
not be able to care for a rock, but we can certainly care for a landscape.
Second, care entails a commitment to the other and the other’s wellbeing that may be
entirely absent in empathy. We can genuinely feel (or think we feel) empathy for a person we
have never met or never will: that’s what human interest news stories are for. But care involves
paying ‘attention’ to the other (Adams 2018) and is ‘based on knowledge and responsiveness
to the one cared for’ (Hamington, 2019, p. 92). Care is situated: in caring we cannot defer to
overarching principles but deal with specifics (Collins 2020). Such attentiveness and insights
require an investment of time, of getting to know the other in a range of contexts, and a degree
of trust and vulnerability. As post-human theorist Donna Haraway notes: ‘caring means
becoming subject to the unsettling obligation of curiosity, which requires knowing more at
the end of the day than at the beginning’ (Haraway, 2007, p. 36). Contrast this mindset with
the ‘design sprint’ mentality pervasive in DT, during which completing an empathy map takes
less than half an hour.
The ‘engrossment’ of caring, as Noddings (1985) puts it, leads to a recognition of mutuality
and a degree of what we might call ‘altruistic selfishness’. In a caring relationship, the care
giver and receiver are ‘in it together’. The entangled nature of caring in turn shapes the nature
of caring acts. I am less likely to act in ways that are paternalistic, exploitative or instrumental-
ising if I understand that ‘your liberation is bound up with mine’, to quote Aboriginal activist
Lilla Watson. Care works to curb human exceptionalism and dominionism in other ways.
Theorists assert that the fundamental driving force in care is our recognition of ourselves as
cared-for beings (Noddings, 1985). We do not have to descend into anthropomorphism to
recognise the ways in which the more-than-human world cares for us.
Care has much to offer our critique of the problem-solving mindset dominant in DT and
‘real’ design. If care is about ‘maintaining, continuing, or repairing the world’ (Tronto, 1993,
p. 103), a designing grounded in care would be a much more humble and less interventionist
activity than has generally been practiced. The designer’s work might be more about literal
maintenance or repair, or the creation of products designed to be mended, repurposed or
simply cared for by their owners. This would have significant ecological impact: ‘If consumers
would… nurture what they have, rather than looking for something new, then that already
owned would be used and not be found in landfills’ (Lastovicka & Sirianni, 2011, p. 339).
Care may foster a more partnership-like relationship between designers and consumers such
as that envisioned by models of the circular economy. The attentiveness and investment of
time required by care may encourage the growth of ‘slow design’ in a cycle of longer research
and development phases leading to products with longer lifespans that are both physically and
‘emotionally durable’ (Chapman, 2005).
Design Might Be …
At this point we turn to Clive Dilnot’s ‘The Science of Uncertainty’ (1999) where he sug-
gests an openness in how design might be conceived and practised, characterised design as
being concerned with what might be, and posited that it operated in the realm of uncertainty
and contingency. It is a given that this chapter, and the volume in which it sits, is concerned
with both current and future states of design thinking – what it might be. We note that in any
design exploration many things might be, but choices are made as to which of the many things
that might be come into being and we suggest that the increasingly formulaic nature of the
human-centred DT agenda has limited what DT might be, its choices being circumscribed by
the application of the formula. In keeping with Dilnot’s embrace of openness, uncertainty and
contingency, we will resist a conclusion that presents a declarative set of statements or call to
action, for that too risks circumscribing choice. Instead we will summarise what we consider
to be optimistic shifts for readers to consider (to take up or ignore) in an effort to expand the
DT agenda beyond a reductive and (inescapable) anthrochauvinism. To summarise they are
shifting DT from:
• seeing empathy as a panacea… to understanding design as a mode of caring;

• human-centred design that uncritically multiplies human wants… to designing for and
with our more-than-human world;
• a narrow paradigm of problem solving that fails to recognise design’s contribution to the
mess we’re in… to discursive design that opens new possibilities and bolder futures.
… Caring
We emphasise that while empathy is synonymous with the first stage of the DT process, we
can envisage integrating care into every step of the model, from defining to ideating to proto-
typing and finally testing. Furthermore, focusing our attention on care may prompt us to look
beyond the five steps, to what DT leaves out. As we’ve discussed, DT operates on the principle
of thinking as design: the head takes priority over the hand. So while the singular methodology
of DT may be ‘explorative learning’, the focus is on logic, rationalism and method, not making
and doing. Yes, prototypes are produced, but the emphasis is on usability and testing, not
materials or aesthetics be they formal or sensorial. A care-based DT may help counteract this
imbalance, leading to a rebirth of design as thinking in which making and doing are means of
thinking not merely the results.
… More than Human
A refocus on design-as-doing may also prompt a return of craft to ‘real’ design and a discovery
of it in DT. Craft, after all, is ‘not only… a way of making things by hand, but… a way of think-
ing through the hand manipulating a material’ (Nimkulrat, 2012). A refocus on craft could also
counter the prevailing fetishising of (a particular modernist/minimalist) visual aesthetic which
encourages the conflation of design with decoration. It may also contribute to a rediscovery
of the delights of designing for the tangible/analogue as a form of respite from the intangible/
digital. The rise of interest in craft during the period that saw the digitisation of ‘real’ design
is indicative of the pull of the embodied experience of making. Care and craft have much in
common: both are practiced-based, context-specific and time-intensive. Both have been stig-
matised as ‘women’s work’ then reclaimed and revalued by feminist thinkers. And both care
and craft have the potential to be rewarding to the practitioner as well as demanding.
Craft brings us back to sustainability. In considering ‘how we might redirect our societies
out of the unsustainable situations design has created’, Cameron Tonkinwise argues that ‘the
kinds of societies that have craft at their core will be sustainably slower and local while still
being creative and diverse’ (Tonkinwise, 2021). Craft, argues Tonkinwise, ‘is an expertise that
comes from experience, from having encountered a broad range of contexts from which a store
of patterns has been drawn… This would suggest that, in an era of pervasive complexity, the
leaders we need are craftspeople’.
So what does a careful (and crafts-based) design look like in practice? William Morris,
whom we discussed earlier in this chapter, was a pioneer in this area. Care underpinned his
philosophy of design. In contrast to the exploitative production lines of the industrial revo-
lution, Morris established a workshop in which artisans were valued, paid decent wages and
were given autonomy in using their skills. Instead of chasing profits with cheap and crude
mass production, Morris’s objects were designed with care, combining beauty and utility as
a way of expressing care for the dignity and worth of those who bought and used them.
… Discursive
In case this seems too backward looking, care also has a role to play in the experimental prac-
tices of discursive design. We can see care in operation in both the projects we have used as
exemplars in this chapter, ‘Listening to trees’ and ‘Co-creating with animals’. Feminist schol-
ars and practitioners such as Maria Puig de la Bellacasa (2011; 2017), Luiza Prado (2014) and
Sarah Pennington (2018) have all argued for using discursive design to explore care, and for
using design to widen the scope of those we care beyond other living things to include objects
and artefacts (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017).
Care and discursive design make sense together because care is fundamentally future-oriented.
Implicit in caring for something is imagining a future for it that is worth persevering for and
investing in. As Imrie and Kullman (2016, p. 15) argue, ‘within every moment of caring there
is a possible future in the making’. Creating and holding space for these futures and nurturing
them as they come into being is part of the transformative work of design.
A FEW LAST WORDS
We finish with Vilém Flusser (1995) who in one of his philosophical provocations steps back
5,000 years to offer a quick sketch of those who ‘stood on the hills of Mesopotamia… predict-
ing floods and droughts’ sketching out plans for levees and canals: ‘At that time, these people
were seen as prophets, but today we would call them designers’ (p. 53).
Our discussion has explored ambivalence that arises when we attempt to set down bounda-
ries to the various professional and scholarly contexts of design, the history of which has given
rise to the dialectical opposition of designerly thinking and DT. Regardless of your position on
this matter, we contend that the turns prescribed in our listicle are enabling for all designers. Is
it possible to make these few alterations to the turtleneck… and even turn it into a new garment
all together? Perhaps. This would be no bad thing, in our opinion. Arguments over who can
wear it only get us so far: a more pressing question is whether we can equip people to take up
the prophetic mantle. We hope the answer is yes.
NOTES
1. We are aware that this stark distinction between people that design things that have some material
form (real designers) and those that design things that have no obvious material form (artificial
designers) is an over simplistic binary distinction that is not borne out by the complexities of prac-
tices that work across this apparent divide. However, we highlight this binary to draw attention to
the simplistic rhetoric that has prevailed to date. Our choice of the terms real and artificial are also
by no means happenstance. They are a nod to the work of Herbert Simon and thus an acknowledge-
ment that all things that designers create, be they material or immaterial are artificial in the sense
that they are human made but simultaneously real because the design of these things transforms both
our material and social realities.
2. To be fair, the impact of that was not felt evenly across ‘real’ design professions with those accred-
ited practices such as architecture far less vulnerable than say visual communication. Nonetheless,
the history of DIY design predates the digital and cuts across many practices (Atkinson, 2006).
3. See Forty (1986); Jones (1970).
4. This link can be traced back to Herman Muthesius, German cultural attaché from 1896–1903,
who brought back many of its ideas when he returned to Germany, ‘was appointed to the Prussian
Ministry of Trade and Commerce, and was charged with particular responsibility for art and design
education’ (Woodham, 1997, p. 18).
5. See Roxburgh and Irvin (2018) for a critique of the paucity of interest in visual aesthetics of design
practices such as service design, which we might characterise as a form of ‘artificial’ design.
REFERENCES
99U. (2017, August 2). Natasha Jen: Design thinking is bullshit [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/
228126880
Acosta, G. G. & Romeva, C. R. (2010, May 17–20). From anthropocentric design to ecospheric design:
Questioning design epicentre [Paper presentation]. Design Theory and Research Methodology
International Design Conference: Design 2010, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Adams, C. J. (2018). About ecofeminism. Carol J. Adams. https://caroljadams.com/about-ecofeminism
Alexander, S., & Floyd, J. (2015, August 28). The ‘green-tech’ future is a flawed vision of sustain-
ability. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-green-tech-future-is-a-flawed-vision-of
-sustainability-46681
ASLA. (2019). Co-creation with animals. ASLA. https://www.asla.org/2019studentawards/ 679945_
Cocreation_With_Animals.html
Atkinson, P. (2006). Do it yourself: Democracy and design. Journal of Design History, 19(1), doi:10
.1093/jdh/epk001
Bleecker, J. (2019, March 17). Design fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction. Near
Future Laboratory. http://blog.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2009/03/17/design-fiction-a-short-essay-on
-design-science-factand-fiction
Bloom, P. (2016). Against empathy: The case for rational compassion. Harper Collins.
Boradkar, P. (2010). Designing things: A critical introduction to the culture of objects. Bloomsbury.
Bremner, C. (2010). ‘Image residue.’ In M. Roxburgh (ed.), Light Relief (Part II), 48–61. Sydney:
DABDOCS.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.
Candy, S. (2010). The futures of everyday life: Politics and the design of experiential scenarios [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Hawai’i]. ResearchGate. https:// www.researchgate
.net/
publication/
305280378
ment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57.
Chapman, J. (2005). Emotionally durable design: Objects, experiences and empathy. Earthscan.
Chellew, J., Rogers, J., & Kingsford Smith, D. (n.d.). Professionalism. Professional Standards Councils.
https://www.psc.gov.au/sites/default/files/1b.%20Professionalism.pdf
Collins, S. (2020, March 25). Why we should care about ‘care ethics’. ABC Religion and Ethics. https://
www.abc.net.au/religion/why-we-should-care-about-care-ethics/12087656
Cooperrider, D. (2011). Beyond problem solving to AI. David Cooperrider and Associates. https://www
.davidcooperrider.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BeyondProblemSolving-x.pdf
Coulton, P., & Lindley, J. G. (2019). More-than human centred design: Considering other things. The
Design Journal, 22(4), 463–481.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Issues, 3(4), 221–227.
Cruickshank, L., & Trivedi, N. (2017). Beyond human-centred design: Supporting a new materiality in
the internet of things, or how to design when a toaster is one of your users. The Design Journal, 20(5),
561–576.
de Liguori, M. (2017, April 12–14). Returning the aesthetics to the heart of the design process: On the
conflict between social design and product beauty [Paper presentation]. Design for Next, 12th EAD
Conference, Sapienza University of Rome.
de Moncheau, T. (2007, April 25). What if Apple is bad for design? Design Observer. https://
designobserver.com/feature/what-if-apple-is-bad-for-design/5437
Dilnot, C. (1999). The science of uncertainty: The potential contribution of design to knowledge. In R
Buchanan et al. (eds), Doctoral Education in Design: Proceedings of the Ohio Conference, October
8–11, 1998, pp. 65–97. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
Dudovskiy, J. (n.d.). Positivism research philosophy. Business Research Methodology. https://research
-methodology.net/research-philosophy/positivism
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press.
Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and
ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), Winter.
Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? Zero.
Flusser, V. (1995). Three essays and an introduction. Design Issues, 11(3), 50–61.
Folkmann, M. N. (2010). Evaluating aesthetics in design: A phenomenological approach. Design Issues,
26(1), 40–53.
Forty, A. (1986). Objects of desire: Design and society 1750–1980. Thames and Hudson.
Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring. Berg.
Gatto, G., & McCardle, J. R. (2019). Multispecies design and ethnographic practice: Following
other-than-humans as a mode of exploring environmental issues. Sustainability, 11(5032), 1–18.
Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centred design? The Design Journal, 17(4), 606–623.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard
University Press.
Global Futures Lab. (n.d.). Listening to the trees. Global Futures Lab. https://www.globalfutureslab.com/
the-tree-of-life
Goleman, D. (2008, March 1). Hot to help: When can empathy move us to action? Greater Good
Magazine. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hot_to_help
Graeber, D. (2013, August). On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs: A work rant. Strike! Magazine. https://
www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs
Graeber, D. (2020, May 27). Lessons from Coronavirus: Not all jobs are bullshit (but yours might be).
Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/lessons-from-coronavirus-covid19-confinement-crisis-not
-all-jobs-are-bullshit
Gregory, S. (2018). Design anthropology as social design process. Journal of Business Anthropology,
7(2), 210–234.
Hamington, M. (2019). Integrating care ethics and design thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 155,
91–103.
Haraway, D. (2007). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
Hernández-Ramírez, R. (2018). On design thinking, bullshit, and innovation. Journal of Science and
Technology of the Arts, 10(3), 45–57.
Heylighen, A., & Dong, A. (2019). To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design.
Hook, A. (2019). Exploring speculative methods: Building artifacts to investigate interspecies intersub-
jective subjectivity. Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media, 17, 146–164.
Huppatz, D. J. (2015). Globalizing design history and global design history. Journal of Design History,
28(2), 182–202, https://doi-org.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/10.1093/jdh/epv002
IDEO. (n.d.). What’s the difference between human-centred design and design thinking? IDEO. https://
designthinking.IDEO.com/faq/whats-the-difference-between-human-centered-design-and-design
-thinking
IDEO. (2015). The field guide to human-centred design. Design Kit. https://www.designkit.org/
resources/1
Imrie, R., & Kullman, K. (2016). Designing with care and caring with design. In C. Bates, R. Imrie & K.
Kullman (eds.), Care and design: Bodies, buildings, cities. John Wiley & Sons.
Iskander, N. (2018). Design thinking is fundamentally conservative and preserves the status quo.
Harvard Business Review, Digital Articles 9/5/2018, pp.1–9.
Jones, J.C. (1970) Design Methods: Seeds of human futures. John Wiley and Sons.
Kelly, R. (2018) Design in decline: Breathing new life into an industry through education. Design
Management Journal, 13(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12041
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, November. DOI:10.2752/
175470811X13071166525216
Lastovicka, J. L., & Sirianni, N. J. (2011, August). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of
material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 323–342.
Laursen, L. N., & Haase, M. (2019). The shortcomings of design thinking when compared to designerly
thinking. The Design Journal, 22(6), 813–832.
Lee, A. S. (1987). Positivism: A discredited model of science still in use in the study and practice of
management. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279176586
Leonard, D., & Rayport, J. F. (1997). Spark innovation through empathic design. Harvard Business
Review, November–December, 102–113.
Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive
bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, (32)6, 925–938.
Maldonado, T. (1958). New developments in industry and the training of the designer. Ulm 2, October,
25–40.
Matthews, B., Shannon, B. and Roxburgh, M. (2020). The robot ate my homework: A primer. Presented
at Design Research Society 2020, available at www .academia.edu/ 90263833/ UON _DRS2020
_ROBOT_PRIMER_V3
Mesut, J. (2018, December 10). The dilemma of designers’ empathy delusions. Shaping designers
and design teams. https://medium.com/shapingdesign/the-dilemma-of-designers-empathy-delusions
-a61f0663deaf
Metcalfe, D. J. (2016). Principles of multispecies design [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Arts
London/Falmouth University]. Falmouth University research repository. http://repository.falmouth.ac
.uk/3223/1/D_Metcalfe%20Multispecies%20Design%20PhD%20Thesis%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Morris, W. (1884, March 15). Art or no art? Who shall settle it? Justice, 1(9), 2. https://www.marxists
.org/archive/morris/works/1884/justice/06artno.htm
Morris, W. (1885, April). The worker’s share of art. Commonweal, 1(3), 18–19. https://www.marxists
.org/archive/morris/works/1885/commonweal/04-workers-art.htm
Mosely, G., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2018). Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design
expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 177–189.
Mosely, G., Markauskaite, L., & Wrigley, C. (2021). Design facilitation: A critical review of conceptu-
alisations and constructs. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100962.
Nimkulrat, N. (2012). Hands-on intellect: Integrating craft practice into design research. International
Journal of Design, 6(3). http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1228/521
Noddings, N. (1985). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of
California Press.
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (revised & expanded edition). Basic Books.
Papanek, V. (1972). Design for the real world. Bantam Books.
Pasanen, J. (2019, January 28). Human centred design considered harmful. Jussi Pasanen. https://www
.jussipasanen.com/human-centred-design-considered-harmful
Peart, R. (2017, January 19). Why design is not problem solving & design thinking isn’t always
the answer. AGDA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/why-design-is-not-problem-solving
-design-thinking-isnt-always-the-answer
Pennington, S. (2018). Taking care of issues of concern: Feminist possibilities and the curation of
speculative and critical design. In C. Storni, K. Leahy, M. McMahon, P. Lloyd & E. Bohemia (eds),
Proceedings of Design Research Society (DRS) 2018 International Conference, Limerick, Ireland.
Pennington, A. & Stanford, J. (2019). The Future of Work for Australian Graduates: The Changing
Landscape of University-Employment Transitions in Australia. Canberra: Centre for Future Work,
The Australia Institute.
Prado, L. (2014). Privilege and oppression: Towards a feminist speculative design. In Y.-K. Lim, K.
Niedderer, J. Redstrom, E. Stolterman & A. Valtonen (Eds.), Proceedings of Design Research Society
(DRS) 2014 International Conference, Umeå, Sweden.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social
Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106..
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds.
University of Minnesota Press.
Raizman, D. (2003). History of modern design: Graphics and products since the Industrial Revolution.
Laurence King Publishing.
Rodgers, P., & Bremner, C. (eds) (2021). Introduction. In P. Rodgers & C. Bremner (eds), Theories of
designing. Vernon Press.
Rosińska, M., & Szydłowska, A. (2019). Zoepolis: Non-anthropocentric design as an experiment in
multi-species care. Proceedings of Nordes 2019: Who Cares? Espoo, Finland.
Roudavski, S. (2020). Multispecies cohabitation and future design. In S. Boess, M. Cheung & R. Cain
(eds), Proceedings of Design Research Society (DRS) 2020 International Conference, Brisbane.
Roxburgh, M. (2005). Seeing and seeing through the crisis of the artificial. DESIGNsystemEVOLUTION
European Academy of Design Conference Proceedings, Bremen.
Roxburgh, M. (2010) Photography and the design imperative. Light Relief (Part II), DAB DOCS,
Sydney, Australia, 7–16.
Roxburgh, M. (2021). Design does/does not solve problems. In E. Igoe (ed.), Textile design theory in the
making. Bloomsbury.
Roxburgh, M. & Bremner, C. (2015). A photograph is evidence of nothing but itself. The Routledge
Companion to Design Research, 203214. Oxon: Routledge.
Roxburgh, M. & Cox, S. (2016). Visualisation and the service sector: Why visual communication design
is central to designing the immaterial. Studies in Material Thinking, 15, 1–19.
Roxburgh, M. & Irvin, J. (2018). The future of visual communication design is almost invisible or why
skills in visual aesthetics are important to service design. In ServDes2018 - Service Design Proof of
Concept. Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
RSA. (2013, December 10). Brené Brown on empathy [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw
Sherwin, C. (2018, October 11). Sustainability means shifting from human-centred to ‘humanity-centred’
design. Design Business Association. https://www.dba.org.uk/human-centred-humanity-centred
-design
Simon, H. (1996 [1969]) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stairs, D. (2020). Designing ourselves to death: The politics of progress versus an ethics of survival
in a diminishing world. In L. Scherling & A. DeRossa (eds), Ethics in design and communication:
Critical perspectives. Bloomsbury.
Stanford d.School. (n.d.). An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. Stanford d.School. https://
web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf
Szanto, T., & Krueger, J. (2019). Introduction: Empathy, shared emotions, and social identity. Topoi,
(38), 153–162.
Taylor, C. (1990). Creating strategic visions. Strategic Studies Institute.
Tharp, B. M., & Tharp, S. M. (2019). Discursive design: Critical, speculative, and alternative things.
MIT Press.
Tonkinwise, C. (2021, October 5). Making futures VI – not complex [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/
623942400
Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge, Chapman
and Hall.
UK National Archives. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C810 accessed 4 October
2021.
Vinsel, L. (2017, December 7). Design thinking is kind of like syphilis: It’s contagious and rots your
brains. Noteworthy. https://blog.heyday.xyz/design-thinking-is-kind-of-like-syphilis-its-contagious
-and-rots-your-brains-842ed078af29
Voros, J. (2001). A primer on futures studies, foresight and the use of scenarios. The Voroscope. https://
thevoroscope.com/publications/foresight-primer
Weiner, J. J., & Auster, S. (2007). From empathy to caring: Defining the ideal approach to a healing
relationship. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 80, 123–130.
Whitely, N. (1993). Design for society, London: Reaktion Books.
Woodham, J. M. (1997). Twentieth century design, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Wright, P., Wallace, J., & McCarthy, J. (2008). Aesthetics and experience-centred design. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(4), Article 18.
4. Method case study – Making design thinking
tactile: unlocking meaning and experiences
with tactile tools and generative prototypes
Rowan Page and Leah Heiss
INTRODUCTION
Design thinking can be seen as a series of tools and practices for separating the processes of
design from the activity of (traditional) design and making. Often conceived as having five
stages – empathise, ideate, define, prototype, and test – design thinking is defined by the
Interaction Design Foundation as “a non-linear, iterative process that teams use to understand
users, challenge assumptions, redefine problems and create innovative solutions to prototype
and test” (Interaction Design Foundation, 2021). Countering this separation, Lucy Kimbell
proposes a way forward for an approach to design thinking that focuses on “situated and
embodied routines of designers” and does not fall into a dualism between thinking/knowing
and acting in the world (Kimbell, 2011). “Design thinking” and “design doing” are inextrica-
bly linked as part of the design practitioner’s creative process (Neubauer et al., 2020). Through
building or modifying a prototype, articulating an idea, or role-playing a scenario, participants
can embody and externalise abstract ideas allowing them to be shared, evaluated and improved
(Stappers, 2013). The tactile experience of creating, evaluating, and interrogating an idea
provides a different level of understanding than simply thinking about it, and the materiality
of co-design tools has a marked impact on social and cognitive processes (Clatworthy, 2011).
In our experience in designing healthcare services and technologies, we have found value in
engaging diverse groups of participants through design thinking activities. Yet, as traditionally
trained object designers we couldn’t resist the urge to augment these collaborative thinking
sessions with situated, embodied, and object-oriented activities centred on tactile artefacts.
Representing design concepts in tangible form allows people to interact with ideas during the
development process in ways that approximate how they use and think about finished design
products, systems and services. Across all scales of work, we focus extensively on the design
and development of physical artefacts to support and engage users. Our projects aim to bring
participants and end-users into the richness of the material, haptic, and tactile elements of the
design process, enriching design thinking with elements of design doing.
Throughout the stages of design thinking, particularly in the five-stage models described
above, it can be difficult for people to have the language to express ideas around complex
systems and product design with words alone. Without participants having the language
to express ideas, user experience insights are often not unlocked until very late in the
70
Making design thinking tactile 71
design process, when change is difficult. ‘Traditional’ fast-paced design thinking workshop
approaches tend to move from ideation to prototyping very quickly and are not always appro-
priate in complex healthcare projects, where iteration often takes place over a longer duration.
We find that this tacit and experiential knowledge can be foregrounded through conversations
and activities grounded in physical engagement with tactile artefacts. By integrating this tac-
tility into design thinking activities we open people up to processes of making, enacting, and
exploring through embodied practices. We see this as bringing design doing into the design
thinking process.
By centring the active role of tactile artefacts within design thinking we explore the potential
of artefacts to facilitate engagement and support collaboration. In this case study we propose
two ways of integrating ‘tactile thinking’ into complex healthcare design projects. The first is
a tactile co-design method used in the define stage of design thinking in contexts where the
understanding of a problem is not yet developed and shared – and there is a need to balance
up big picture ‘systems’ thinking with lived experience in the design of new models of care.
In the second context, where the design problem is more defined – such as in the design and
development of wearable medical devices – we propose the use of ‘generative prototyping’
(Figure 4.1) as a way to further integrate end-user participation and design thinking within the
later stages of the product development processes.
Source: Adam R. Thomas.
Figure 4.1 Physical prototypes and tactile artefacts embedded in design thinking
engagements
CONTEXT 1: DEFINING COMPLEX PROBLEMS
The development of technologies and services in the healthcare industry is a complex under-
taking requiring sophisticated interdisciplinary expertise. Additionally, there is a strong imper-
ative for end-user consultation and collaboration, in order to engage with and represent the
lived experiences of often marginalised groups across all stages of the design process. While
a lot of interest has been paid to the potential of design thinking approaches in the healthcare
industry over the last decade, these design thinking interventions often focus on engagement
at the ‘fuzzy front end’ of idea generation, representing user insights in service blueprints,
journey maps and other communications. Yet the complexity of healthcare challenges neces-
sitates a longer-term engagement, scaffolded by tactile co-design methods to engage partici-
pants throughout the entirety of the design process.
Furthermore, in the context of medical device development, there are necessary trade-offs
between what people want and what is technologically, scientifically, and medically possible.
For example, when designing hearing aids, people ‘just want to hear’. They want a cure for
their hearing loss, not hearing aids. This conflict raises a challenge around how to scope
end-user engagement, and how to include articulations of what is possible and probable while
still allowing creativity, engagement, and idea generation.
To enable interdisciplinary collaboration in the co-design of new models of care, Heiss
evolved the Tactile Tools to help coalesce interdisciplinary teams and break down complex
healthcare journeys into their constituent parts (Heiss & Kokshagina, 2021). The method
enables groups to collaboratively prototype the lived experience of healthcare journeys.
Interdisciplinary conversations are facilitated by tactile engagement with a toolkit of physical
tiles (Figures 4.2 and 4.3) that represent elements of the healthcare journey, including goals
(large rectangles), roadblocks (hexagons), workarounds (large circles), stakeholders (small
circles), moments of empathy (petals) and pathways (small rectangles). The tiles are accom-
panied by personas that are co-created with health experts to capture the story and medical
history of the person seeking care. The tiles have weight and substance, facilitating different
modes of engagement than paper-based tools; participants slide the tiles, hold them, and build
care pathways with them.
The tactile mapping of the problem space supports participants to view challenges from
a variety of perspectives. Participants report viewing roadblocks and workarounds as shiftable
and changeable, rather than immovable, that the method “allowed us to iteratively mindmap
the issues and their interrelationships”. The tactile nature of the tools provides participants,
particularly those with lived experience, with a medium through which to discuss healthcare
challenges. In a workshop with cancer staff and patients, a cancer survivor, her oncologist
and a nurse were able to record their thoughts on tiles and find new ways for them to weave
together and create new narratives. In this way, the method facilitates each member of a group,
irrespective of seniority, to record roadblocks from their unique perspective, prior to spatially
negotiating the location of these on the work surface. A participant in a maternal health work-
shop suggested this was “a positive way to give the whole group a voice”.
Such ‘playful’ methods enable interdisciplinary teams and lived experience advocates to
engage with emotionally charged topics in a way that is neither grave nor irreverent and this
promotes empathy with health seekers. The power of tactile thinking was highlighted by
a participant in an end–end of life workshop with an aged care industry partner. While holding
Figure 4.2 Tactile Tools used in co-design settings (left) and generative prototypes of
hearing aids being handled by participants in co-design sessions (right)
Figure 4.3 The Tactile Tools toolkit with persona, and tiles that represent goals,
roadblocks, workarounds, stakeholders, empathy and pathways
an ‘empathy tile’ in his hand the participant suggested, “in this activity, Vera’s life is in our
hands”.
CONTEXT 2: GENERATIVE PROTOTYPING
There is an established acceptance of the importance of using artefacts and tools to enable deep
collaboration with users in the front end of design projects (Sanders & Stappers 2008, 2014;
Sanders et al., 2010). These generative engagements, such as card-sorting activities, can act
to foster collaboration between diverse groups by focusing on tools that assist people in gen-
erating ideas and discussions. These discussions give people a voice and agency in the design
process. Yet, the ways in which we can engage and direct the generative involvement of users
as design thinkers in the middle to later stages of design processes are less well understood.
Involving users in these later stages is critical when designing products in the healthcare space,
where issues of usability, human factors, user experience, and empowerment and expression
are critical. Such design, user experience, and usability issues are nuanced and manifest in
physical details and micro-interactions.
Through our work, we have found that using ‘generative prototyping’ promotes engagement
with participants through physically engaging them in the artefacts of the design process. The
process we term ‘generating prototyping’ allows participants to explore, generate, and debate
a wide range of possibilities and visualise potential futures scaffolded by speculative technol-
ogies. This physical engagement through prototypes enables us to encourage the participation
of diverse groups, embrace experimentation across fidelity, speculate on possible futures,
enact user experiences along with end-users, and scaffold and scope collaboration. These
ideas were tested through the development of two devices to aid with hearing loss undertaken
with medical device manufacturers: a cochlear implant technology, undertaken by Page with
a large multinational company (Figure 4.4); and the design of a novel modular hearing aid,
undertaken by Heiss, in an Australian-based SME (Figure 4.5).
We approached these projects by holding regular collaborative sessions with end-users and
diverse stakeholder groups throughout all stages of the product development process.
Within these sessions, we foreground the role of both low- and high-fidelity prototypes as
active participants in co-design processes, not just embodiments of final design ideas. We mix
these artefacts with card sorting, collage, group discussion, and mapping to centre artefacts
Source: Narelle Portanier.
Figure 4.4 Speculative cochlear implant devices

Source: Narelle Portanier.
Figure 4.5 The modular hearing aid
and tactility within co-design and design thinking processes. We focus on not just tools of
early-stage idea generation, and abstract idea expression, but bring participants along further
into the design process by co-investigating physical artefacts, enacting use and encouraging
discussion about the nuanced decision making designers make in the later stages of executing
a design. Through this phase we seek to shift the design thinking phases of ideating, defining
and prototyping to move towards a more generative and iterative model.
The sessions bring together five to ten end-users in conversation for two to four hours.
Within these conversations, generative prototyping plays a central role in mediating and
directing the conversation. Early in the process, generative prototypes consist of existing prod-
ucts, found objects (such as stones, minerals, and wooden blocks), image collages, and card
sorting activities that invite open-ended speculation. As the development progresses, abstract
3D printed forms are designed and introduced to be explored together with the users. As users
enact use and try things on, these speculations highlight probable and possible directions for
the technology. Ultimately, high-resolution prototypes are presented to allow users to explore
early versions of design proposals for nuanced feedback.
The location of generative prototypes in the design thinking process is not determined by
fidelity or resolution but rather by their ability to engage the participation and imagination of
stakeholders (see the outer ring of Figure 4.6). For instance, high-fidelity speculative probes
are used in the early stages of the design process while low-fidelity found objects are used in
the mid-stage of designing (Figure 4.6).
KEY FINDINGS AND INSIGHTS
As a creative process, design thinking relies on synthesis, iteration, and interdisciplinary col-
laboration, playing a central role in mediating complex interdisciplinary projects (Neubauer
et al., 2020). In healthcare projects, designers must engage with and synthesise a broad range
Figure 4.6 The use of generative prototyping across all phases of the design process
of inputs from diverse stakeholders including technical inputs from engineering, clinical
information, and subjective insights developed with co-design participants. This collage of
objective, subjective, tacit, and abstract inputs and creative insights forms an acquired design
knowledge iteratively built upon within the design process. Through our projects, we have
discovered the importance of translating these diverse collages of information into coherently
designed artefacts, to share with others.
As Akama and Prendiville (2013, p. 31) suggest, “Knowledge is active, created in the
‘living’ moment and affective, bodily encounters in our world”. Within our projects, tactile
thinking artefacts can be grasped, held, explored in context and use can be acted out with
participants. In the Tactile Tools example (Context 1), the tiles support sensitive conversations
between health providers and patients and provide a tangible way for teams to break down
complex healthcare journeys. Through these engagements we find that active engagement
with tactile thinking artefacts helped to stage a common ground for the participants, enabling
them to engage more easily with one another and facilitate the co-creation of a shared possible
future (Brodersen et al., 2008).
Participants bring a variety of lived experiences to co-design sessions, layering external
experiences on top of the prototypes and artefacts (Halskov & Dalsgaard, 2007). A participant
in the hearing aid project (Context 2), while holding a regular flesh tone hearing aid responded,
“It’s still such an icky skin colour … it looks like a bedpan”. This provoked nuanced reflections
on colour from other participants, highlighting the association of hearing aids with ageism and
the complexities of designing for disability. While trying on other wrist-mounted wearable
technologies in the cochlear project one participant remarked ‘why does it [hearing device]
have to be on the ear, I find it insulting!’ This challenged fundamental assumptions about the
design of these devices in ways that more general discussions, without the artefacts, had not.
Figure 4.7 Engaging with prototypes and other tactile thinking artefacts to tell stories
and communicate ideas about hearing loss, personal identity and hearing aid
use (left); participants in a Tactile Tools workshop using the toolkit to map
the end-of-life journey (right)
KEY LEARNINGS
These two contexts illustrate how tactile artefacts aided in stimulating engagement and
empathy with healthcare technology and service users. The use of tactile artefacts and pro-
totypes in co-design processes provides participants with a prompt to communicate ideas
and feelings in response to the artefacts. The tactility of design thinking artefacts enabled
participants to communicate complex ideas in a playful way (Figure 4.7). In the device project
(Context 2) participants interacted with generative prototypes and tested them on the body
and in handbags and pockets, exploring the possibility of these speculations integrating with
their lived experience. This engagement with tactile thinking artefacts supported the telling of
stories but also the deepening of bonds between participants. Participants could see beyond the
tools and generative prototypes, using the artefacts to see and create meaning. We have learnt
that using tactile thinking artefacts in co-design contexts enables a non-verbal mode of inter-
action and expression to promote diverse and equitable engagement. The artefacts operated as
mnemonic devices to surface memories that were then shared with other participants and with
the designers, in turn creating trust. They also provided a common ground for all participants
to interact. Across all contexts the representational artefacts ‘scaffolded’ participation, “pro-
viding support for interaction and performance” (Morrison & Dearden, 2013, p. 184).
The examples presented in these case studies highlight design thinking approaches that
go beyond the translation of design methods and processes of thinking to other disciplines.
Rather, we emphasise the importance and centrality of craft and object-centred design prac-
tices, artefacts, and ‘design doing’ as key components of designerly thinking in collaborative
contexts. Physical artefacts and designed prototypes were essential to engaging users in the
beginning, middle, and end of projects. These tactile artefacts and prototypes – at various
levels of fidelity – invited participants into the world of design, encouraging generative con-
versations. We found novelty, and value, in injecting these intentionally designed prototypes
into conversations and co-design sessions. The artefacts elicited unexpected feedback that
meaningfully informed the development of our projects.
Through a focus on artefacts and materiality, we direct participants to the rich world of
possibility and expression that exists within materiality, tactility, weight, colour, form, affor-
dances and interaction. By way of this tactile focus, we engage with a diverse range of exper-
tise and lived experience and enable collaboration across disciplinary and experiential divides.
REFERENCES
Akama, Y., & Prendiville, A. (2013). Embodying, enacting and entangling design: A phenomenological
view to co-designing services. Swedish Design Research Journal, 1(1), 29–41.
Brodersen, C., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2008). Staging imaginative places for participatory proto-
typing. CoDesign, 4(1), 19–30.
Clatworthy, S. (2011). Service innovation through touch-points: Development of an innovation toolkit
for the first stages of new service development. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 15–28.
Halskov, K., & Dalsgaard, P. (2007). The emergence of ideas: The interplay between sources of inspira-
tion and emerging design concepts. CoDesign, 3(4), 185–211.
Heiss, L., and Kokshagina, O. (2021). Tactile co-design tools for complex interdisciplinary problem
exploration in healthcare settings. Design Studies, 75, 1–42.
Interaction Design Foundation. (2021). What is design thinking? Accessed July 2021. https://www
.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. DOI: 10.27
52/175470811X13071166525216
Morrison, C., and Dearden, A. (2013). Beyond tokenistic participation: using representational artefacts
to enable meaningful public participation in health service design. Health Policy, 112(3), 179–186.
Neubauer, R., Bohemia, E., & Harman, K. (2020). Rethinking design: From the methodology of innova-
tion to the object of design. Design Issues, 36(2), 18–27.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Codesign,
4(1), 5–18.
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making
in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183.
Sanders, E. B. N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010, November). A framework for organizing the tools
and techniques of participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design
Conference (pp. 195–198).
Stappers, P, J. (2013). Prototypes as a central vein for knowledge development. In L. Valentine (Ed.).
Prototype: Design and craft in the 21st century. New York: Bloomsbury.
PART II
Perspectives on Design Thinking as a Process

5. The agile landscape of design thinking
Katja Thoring and Roland M. Mueller
INTRODUCTION
The world is becoming volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. This phrase, known
under the acronym VUCA, was originally coined by the US military (Stiehm, 2002) but
nowadays describes the need for organizations to adapt to changing requirements (Lawrence,
2013; Mack, 2016). Such changes could be caused either by external circumstances, for
example changing markets caused by disruptive technologies (Bower & Christensen, 1995),
or simply because a client has changed their mind and added new requirements to the briefing.
Companies need to be able to react to such changes in a fast and flexible way, especially when
they want to be at the forefront of innovation. This capability for operational flexibility is
widely known under the term “agile”.
It comes as no surprise that companies are desperately relying on agile methods to keep
up with these requirements. Today, they are offered a potpourri of tools and methods that are
believed to make them faster, more flexible, and more innovative; for example, lean startup,
design thinking, and agile principles, such as scrum. These methods may appear as buzzwords
to some, but as the holy grail of innovation to others. But how do they work? What are their
differences and which method is the right one for what situation? Does it make sense to use
them in combination, and if yes, how? This chapter1 aims to shed light on these emerging
concepts that promise to deal with unpredictable and rapidly changing situations in order for
a company to be more innovative.
Since the mid-1990s, design thinking was considered the central driver of innovation and
change for organizations (Brown, 2009; Liedtka, 2015; Martin, 2009). It can be argued that
this user-centred design approach also involves agile concepts because it suggests the testing
of early prototypes and iterative feedback loops (Mueller & Thoring, 2012). Simultaneously,
other agile concepts emerged in the area of software development (e.g., scrum, extreme pro-
gramming), that for quite some time had little to no overlap to design thinking (Mueller &
Thoring, 2012). However, more recently, the different concepts converged and those methods
from the software development field were adopted by other disciplines. This situation leads to
the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the characteristics and historical roots of design thinking, lean startup, and
agile principles?
RQ2: How can the innovation process be improved by merging design thinking, lean startup,
and agile principles?
80
The agile landscape of design thinking 81
In order to answer these questions, we need to take a look at innovation processes in general.
According to Koen et al. (2002), the innovation process can be distinguished into three stages:
the fuzzy front end (FFE), the new product development (NPD), and the commercialization of
an idea. Agile approaches are believed to decrease the cycle time of innovation processes from
idea to market (Griffin et al., 2019). Traditional innovation processes often follow a linear
process; for example, the stage-gate or waterfall process that focuses on the NPD process
and is divided into distinct stages (Cooper, 1986). However, these processes typically do not
address the FFE or the commercialization stage (Ajamian & Koen, 2002). Design thinking,
on the other hand, typically focuses on the FFE and does not address the commercialization
stage as well, but often ends with a prototype (Mueller & Thoring, 2012). By contrast, lean
startup focuses on the commercialization stage; more specifically on customer development
and business integration (Ries, 2011).
We argue that managers need a comprehensive overview and a deep understanding of the
different methods in order to apply them to their respective context and requirements. This
can become a challenge because each of these methods has a different focus, such as identi-
fying user needs, efficiently developing features, or developing a successful business model.
Consequently, an integration of the different methods may result in a more comprehensive
approach that covers all stages of the innovation process – a view that is also shared by other
researchers (Micheli et al., 2019).
Literature that discusses the integration of agile methods into the design thinking process
or that compares different agile approaches is surprisingly scarce (Lichtenthaler, 2020).
There is a substantial amount of research that aims at improving the traditional stage-gate
innovation process through agile concepts (Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Sommer et al., 2015).
Other research focuses on the possible benefits of agile NPD processes in general product
development projects (Fekri et al., 2009; MacCormack et al., 2001), or in virtual product
development projects (Enkler & Sporleder, 2019). Furthermore, some authors have suggested
that agile concepts can improve cycle times in the NPD process (Griffin et al., 2019). Karlsson
and Åhlström (1996) have explored the potential of lean principles to improve NPD processes
and suggested a lean product development process.
The integration of agile concepts into user-centred innovation processes, such as design
thinking, is discussed by a few authors. For example, Tessarolo et al. (2019) have suggested
combining user-centred co-design and agile methodology for developing ambient assisting
technologies. Combining design thinking with agile approaches has been suggested for
software engineering (Corral & Fronza, 2018) and data modelling (O’Driscoll, 2016). Some
authors have tried to integrate lean startup and design thinking and suggested a combination
of both methods (Koen, 2015; Lichtenthaler, 2020; Mueller & Thoring, 2012). Others call
for better integration of agile concepts into the design thinking process to address the entire
innovation process (Micheli et al., 2019), which is what we aim for with the work presented
in this chapter.
In summary, the literature on the topic of agile innovation processes is scattered. A holistic
perspective that provides an overview of the available concepts and integrates them into
a comprehensive model is lacking. However, such a holistic model would provide practition-
ers with the required knowledge to select the appropriate method for their innovation project,
as well as with actionable advice and prescriptive guidelines to follow.
The contribution of this chapter is threefold. First, we present an overview of the three core
concepts – design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles – and discuss several related
influences. We present short descriptions and process models of each introduced concept and
align them on a historical timeline. Second, we analyse an existing agile case study according
to its use of and interplay with design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles. Finally,
based on the case analysis, we develop a novel process theory of “agile design thinking” that
integrates relevant aspects of the three core concepts in a prescriptive process model. We argue
that following the suggested process model can enhance the innovation processes of organi-
zations. In summary, the insights presented in this chapter constitute a holistic perspective on
the agile landscape of design thinking that contributes to a better understanding of agile inno-
vation methods and guides companies who want to employ an agile design thinking process.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Our main goal is to understand the relationships between the three core concepts of (1) design
thinking, (2) lean startup, and (3) agile principles, and to identify differences, similarities, and
potentials for integrating their benefits into a merged process model. In order to understand
the historical roots of the concepts as well as their influences, additional concepts are explored
as well, namely scrum, service design, engineering design, design sprints, lean manufacturing,
customer development, the agile manifesto, extreme programming, customer development,
and business model generation.
For re-engineering the various concepts, we analyse two types of data sources: (1) published
literature and case studies, and (2) process models for the different concepts, where available.
The process models were analysed by method engineering (Brinkkemper, 1996; Welke &
Kumar, 1992). Originated in the Information Systems discipline, method engineering is con-
cerned with the description, design, adaption, and evaluation of methods, using engineering
principles (Brinkkemper, 1996; Welke & Kumar, 1992). Method engineering allows easier
method adaption to project-specific needs, so-called method tailoring (ter Hofstede & Verhoef,
1997). Method fragments can also be combined to create new methods, so-called method com-
position (Blom et al., 2010). The formal description of a method allows the reproducibility of
methods by other researchers and therefore the testability of the method’s utility claims. Also,
method engineering is able to support the teaching of methods. For the formal description of
methods, different elements are recommended – the purpose and scope, the process model, and
the involved constructs of the methods (Blom et al., 2010). Typically, a method has specific
testable utility claims based on the purpose of the method (Blom et al., 2010; Brinkkemper et
al., 1999). Sometimes these utility claims are based on kernel theories (Walls et al., 1992). The
utility of the method should also be evaluated (Moody, 2003). However, in this chapter, we
will not discuss any evaluation. We focus on the process model and the involved concepts. For
the modelling process we refer to the Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN) (White,
2004).
We are aware that the discussed concepts are not just processes but also consist of tacit
elements, such as practices, experiences, specific mindsets, and company cultures. These
intangible elements are important and not everything in those methods can be made explicit
and reduced to a process description. However, we think that a detailed comparison of the
process steps is still useful to better understand the discussed innovation approaches.
The insights from our two data sources (literature review and process model comparison)
are summarized in a conceptual map and a structured table overview that highlights similar-
ities and differences. Following this step, we compare the derived insights with an existing,
published case study that involves agile concepts (Hildenbrand & Meyer, 2012). The case
was selected because it presents the attempt to combine aspects of agile methods (here scrum)
with design thinking in order to improve the innovation process. Through this comparison, we
identified opportunities to further improve the innovation process through design thinking and
agile concepts.
The results from this comparison are then transferred into a novel process theory. Theories
in the social sciences can be classified into either variance theories or process theories (Mohr,
1982). A variance theory is a graph of nodes (constructs or variables) and directed links (prop-
ositions or hypotheses) that predict the level of the dependent variables based on the level of
independent variables (Crowston, 2000). Variance theories are the dominant paradigm in the
social and management sciences (Chiles, 2003). Process theories, on the other hand, represent
typical sequences of events over time (Mohr, 1982). Therefore, they can show rich details and
interactions that are not possible to represent in a variance theory (Chiles, 2003).
The following section introduces our theoretical framework of related agile concepts that
will guide our development of an agile design thinking process theory.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In order to better understand the interplay of the different concepts, it is helpful to see them
from a historical perspective. Therefore, we outline them chronologically (see Figure 5.1) and
discuss each concept in more detail in the following subsections.
Figure 5.1 Chronological overview of relevant concepts

Design Thinking
Design thinking is a user-driven innovation strategy that has become popular during the last
few decades. Based on designerly methods and principles, a systematic user-centred design
approach is employed to solve complex engineering and design problems. Nowadays, the
approach has also been adopted by neighbouring disciplines, such as management, medicine,
and the public sector (Junginger, 2013).
There have been various publications that outline the historical roots of design thinking
along with descriptions of its development process (Buchanan, 2009; Johansson-Sköldberg et
al., 2013). For this reason, we will not go into detail regarding the history of design thinking in
this chapter but outline only some core incidents that define its historical development.
It can be argued that the core principles of design thinking have been in place since the late
1960s (for example in the engineering design class ME310 at Stanford University (Carleton &
Leifer, 2009)). Later, in the early 1980s, the concept of service design emerged. Service design
employs similar principles as design thinking, such as a user-driven approach and iterative
testing cycles, but with a focus on the design of intangible services along with their tangible
touchpoints (Shostack, 1982, 1984). In 1984, the Stanford Center for Design Research (CDR)
was established at Stanford University, which focused on engineering design innovation
and design education (Stanford University, n.d.). Simultaneously, a movement originated
in Europe that explored designerly methods and processes under the term “design thinking
research”. Several Design Thinking Research Symposia (DTRS) were held at various loca-
tions; the first one was in 1991 in Delft (Cross, 2018).
The starting point of the design thinking movement that focuses on facilitating innovation
processes in organizations can be located in the early 1990s. Design firm IDEO coined the
term “design thinking” which was widely promoted through their founder David Kelley and
later CEO Tim Brown (Brown, 2008, 2009; Kelley & Littman, 2001). Also, in the educational
field, design thinking gained a lot of interest. In 2005, the first “School of Design Thinking”
(for short: D-School) was founded at the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI) in Stanford. The found-
ing of the D-School was mainly initiated by Hasso Plattner, CEO of global software company
SAP, who was introduced to and intrigued by the user-centred design approach of design firm
IDEO. The Stanford D-School was later complemented by a second institution – the D-School
in Potsdam, Germany in 2007.
It is important to distinguish these two streams of design thinking that both use the same
term but address slightly different goals. The DTRS symposia on design thinking focus specif-
ically on a descriptive analysis of designerly activities, whereas design thinking as originated
in the US introduced a novel prescriptive process of how to design something, which consti-
tutes more of a practitioner’s perspective (Badke-Schaub et al., 2010).
Design thinking aims at solving complex (wicked) problems (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel,
1972) and at generating innovative solutions, based on a user-centred approach with
multi-disciplinary teams. Design thinking makes use of extensive user research, feedback
loops and iteration cycles. It is becoming more and more popular among business schools (e.g.
the Rotman School of Management (Martin, 2009; Martin & Christensen, 2013)), and it is
applied in R&D departments of companies to foster innovation.
The model of the design thinking process (based on Plattner et al., 2009) describes the six
steps of the process and the iteration loops that result from the last step ‘test’. Notably, this
process does not start with an idea, but with a problem or a question, instead. Usually, the ideas
are developed within the process, in the fourth step ‘ideation’. Before that, there is an extensive
focus on the research, where ‘understand’ means secondary research and ‘observe’ means user
research. Here, design thinking makes use of research methods from other disciplines such
as ethnographic methods and other qualitative methodology. The acquired knowledge is then
condensed into a sort of micro-theory about the problem or the user needs, the ‘point of view’
(POV) that is afterwards used to develop solution concepts in the ‘ideation’ step. It is here
where innovative ideas are developed that aim at solving the previously identified problem or
addressing the users’ needs. The selected idea is then visualized or built (‘prototype’) in order
to test it and gather feedback from prospective users (‘test’). According to the feedback the
concept is iterated, by returning to one of the previous steps.
Figure 5.2 presents a more detailed process model of design thinking based on method
engineering. The model illustrates the input for and outcome of each process step as a separate
layer, as well as the conditions that lead to an iteration loop. See Thoring and Müller (2011)
for a more detailed description of the design thinking process model, including all mentioned
concepts in the figure.
Only recently, a direct relationship between design thinking and service design was
established and a collection of similar methods and tools have been presented (Stickdorn &
Schneider, 2011).
Lean Startup
Lean startup (Ries, 2011) is based on the concept of lean manufacturing but transfers this to
the creation of a startup company. It is an innovation method that claims that the most efficient
innovation is the one for which there is an actual demand by the users. Or, in other words,
the biggest waste is creating a product or service that nobody needs. This concept is highly
relevant for any strategy or method that aims at creating innovations. Although the term “lean
startup” was developed in the IT industry for software startups, it is more and more commonly
used also for other sorts of innovation projects in other disciplines (Ries, 2011). A startup is
defined as “a human institution designed to create new products and services under conditions
of extreme uncertainty” (Ries, 2011, p. 8). Therefore, not all new companies are classified as
a startup and also an established department in a big company could be a startup.
Unlike the design thinking process, which begins with the “understand” phase, the lean
learning cycle has no clear beginning or ending – the circular alignment of the steps sug-
gests that they are supposed to be executed continuously and repetitively. The goal of the
build–measure–learn cycle is learning (Ries, 2011). What is built is based on a problem or
solution hypothesis. The test of a hypothesis is therefore the intended learning step. For testing
the hypothesis, appropriate metrics must be defined (measure). For generating these metrics
and then testing the hypothesis, an experiment has to be designed (build). Therefore, the
build–measure–learn cycle could also be regarded as a classical scientific hypothesis–metric–
experiment cycle that starts with the learning goal (theory or hypothesis) and ends with an
experiment (prototype) to test the hypothesis.
When comparing the individual steps of design thinking and lean startup, some interesting
similarities with the design thinking process become obvious: e.g., “learn” in lean startup
could be interpreted as “understand” or as “point of view” in design thinking. “Build” in lean
86
Source: Thoring & Müller, 2011.
Figure 5.2 Detailed process model for design thinking

Research handbook on design thinking
startup might be similar to “prototype” in design thinking. And “measure” in lean startup can
either be “observe” or “test” in design thinking. This is in line with the before-mentioned
assumption that the lean learning cycle could start at any step of the process model.
Finally, the lean learning cycle might be applied to different levels of a project. On
a meta-level, it could be applied to the entire process, and on a micro-level, it could be applied
to specific details (such as the colour of a signup button). That means, it is possible to zoom
into sub-processes and execute the lean learning cycle also for smaller design decisions. The
design thinking process model, however, seems to be only applicable to the entire problem;
not to specific sub-problems.
Lean startup aims to build a continuous feedback loop with customers during product
development cycles (Maurya, 2012). It tries to test the core business assumptions early in the
product development process, sometimes even before any product is built at all.
Lean startup is a trademark by Eric Ries and combines customer development with ideas
of agile software development, lean management (Womack, 2003), and open source software
(Ries, 2011).
Customer Development
Lean startup (see the previous subsection) evolved from the “customer development” method
(Blank, 2006). The idea behind this method is that, in addition to a process for “product devel-
opment”, a startup also needs a process for “customer development” to find and understand
the customers. This goal mainly addresses the commercialization stage of the innovation
process (Koen et al., 2002). Customer development leads to developing solutions based on
a user-centred approach and adapting to customer needs.
The customer development process consists of four steps: “customer discovery”, “customer
validation”, “customer creation”, and “company building” (Blank, 2006). In the customer
discovery phase, the founders discover the appropriate customer group and market segment
and validate if the product solves a problem for the customer group. This phase tries to find
indications of a so-called ‘problem-solution fit’. The goal is to discover a customer problem
and to test if the problem is worth solving (Blank, 2006). Central to this is finding the minimal
set of features for solving the core problem: the so-called minimal viable product (MVP). An
MVP “is that version of the product that enables a full turn of the build-measure-learn loop
with minimum amount of effort” (Ries, 2011, p. 77). In the early stages of the process, this can
be tested, and feedback from potential customers can be gathered with, for example, minimal
landing pages, paper prototypes, or early working prototypes. In the customer validation
phase, it will be checked if the market is reachable and large enough for a viable business
(Cooper & Vlaskovits, 2010). The goal is to find some validation of a “product-market fit”
and to answer the question if the developed product is something that people want (Maurya,
2012). A product-market fit means that (1) a customer is willing to pay for the product, (2)
there is an economically viable way to acquire customers, and (3) the market is large enough
for the business (Cooper & Vlaskovits, 2010). After this step, the innovation is validated. The
company creation phase is concerned with building a scalable business through a repeatable
sales and marketing roadmap (Cooper & Vlaskovits, 2010). In the company building phase,
departments and business processes are defined to support scale (Blank, 2006).
The concept of lean startup is based in large parts on “customer development” and, thus, its
main goal lies on company building and customer development, which entails testing the user
demand and the product-market fit. Therefore, the process model for customer development
also applies to the lean startup process.
Lean Manufacturing
The concept of agile processes can be traced back to the early 1970s. Lean principles were
developed by Toyota in Japan, called lean manufacturing, to optimize production processes
(Womack, 2003). The idea of lean principles is to make the production process more efficient
by reducing any sort of waste in the process – this could mean either the reduction of resources
(human or material) or the elimination of needless or redundant activities or expenses, such as
the reduction of storage space. This strategy revolutionized production processes in the auto-
motive industry. By now, lean principles have also become important for general management,
and other disciplines such as IT development, which makes use of lean concepts but transfers
them to non-manufacturing contexts.
Business Model Generation
Lean startup makes use of Osterwalder’s Business Model methodology (Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2010) that helps to systematically align stakeholders (partners, customers), value
propositions, required resources, cost and revenue structure, and channels, etc., for a startup
business model. The elements of the introduced business model canvas are considered hypoth-
eses that must be tested as early as possible (Blank & Dorf, 2012). Maurya suggests an adapted
business model framework called ‘lean canvas’ (Maurya, 2012). By contrast, design thinking
does not suggest such a focus on the business model of an idea.
Agile Principles
We use the term “agile principles” for the entirety of agile methods, including scrum, the agile
manifesto, and extreme programming. In the following subsections, each of these concepts is
briefly described and illustrated as a process model.
Scrum
Scrum addresses the problem that customers sometimes might change their minds (Schwaber,
1997). Therefore, scrum offers an iterative approach that tries to maximize the speed of deliv-
ery of working code by incrementally developing and deploying the application (Schwaber,
1997; Schwaber & Beedle, 2002). Within the scrum process, there are three distinct roles: (1)
the product owner, who should represent the needs of the end-user, (2) the scrum master who
coaches the team in the scrum method, and (3) the team. The list of all features for the project
is managed and prioritized by the product owner in the product backlog. The software is
developed in so-called sprints that can last one to four weeks. For each sprint, there is a sprint
planning phase in which the product owner and the team decide what features from the product
backlog should be developed and put into the sprint backlog. During the time-boxed sprint, the
sprint backlog will be not changed anymore. In short daily stand-up meetings, the team shares
their progress and roadblocks. After each sprint, the team reflects on the last sprint and tries to
come up with improvements in their work routines according to discovered problems. Similar
to extreme programming (see next subsection), scrum focuses on improving the speed of the
development and deployment of individual features of the software. However, scrum does not
address the question of whether the product to be developed is the right one. This decision
is out of the scope of the scrum method but is directed to the product owner’s responsibility,
instead. In addition, scrum is not addressing any concerns about finding a viable business
model for the product.
To better understand the development of the three core concepts and their historical influ-
ences, we take a closer look at several related concepts: design sprints, lean manufacturing,
the agile manifesto, extreme programming, customer development, and business model
generation.
Agile Manifesto
In 2001, the so-called Agile Manifesto was published (Beck et al., 2001). Among the authors
were the inventors of “extreme programming” (Ken Beck) and “scrum” (Ken Schwaber and
Jeff Sutherland) and other thought leaders in the emerging field of agile software develop-
ment. The principles advocated in this manifesto suggest a continuous and iterative delivery
of software to the customer. This has multiple benefits. Compared with the waterfall model,
the customer gets the benefits of the software earlier, even though maybe not all features are
finished. The customer should be able to change the requirements after the start of the project.
The focus is not on a long list of specifications and plans but a working software prototype.
Extreme Programming
Extreme programming was, together with scrum, one of the early methods of agile software
development (Beck, 2000). Extreme programming proposes several best practices. Test-driven
development suggests writing automatic tests for pieces of software code before implementing
the software. Automatic (unit and integration) tests enable fast refactoring (changing) of the
code, without introducing unrecognized errors. This allows postponing a large-scale architec-
tural design of the code upfront and starting with the simplest design that is necessary. This
reduces waste because often the scope of a project may change later on anyway and the work
for the upfront design is wasted. Knowledge sharing is done mainly face-to-face through, for
example, pair programming (two programmers work next to each other on the same code) and
stand-up meetings (short meetings for synchronizing teams). The customer representative is
regularly testing the working prototypes (acceptance tests).
Ken Beck developed extreme programming during his work at Chrysler during the devel-
opment of their internal payment program “C3” (Beck, 2000). Based on this origin, there are
a couple of assumptions baked in. One assumption is that there is a customer representative
available who fully understands the problem the software should solve and can also describe
and prioritize the requirements for the final solution. That means extreme programming does
not focus on finding the problem or developing solution ideas. These questions are out of the
scope of extreme programming and are delegated to the customer representative.
Design Sprint
The design sprint, developed at Google Ventures by Jake Knapp, combines agile principles
with design thinking. It compresses the design thinking steps of user research, ideation, pro-
totyping, and testing into a compact five-day workshop (Knapp et al., 2016). The different
steps in the five days are timeboxed. The participants of the workshop should include relevant
stakeholders, such as the decision-makers of the company, and represent a diverse set of
competencies, such as design or marketing. At the beginning of the workshop, interviews are
conducted with experts to learn about the problem context. The team should develop a mul-
titude of different ideas and build upon and combine the ideas of different team members.
Similar to design thinking, the ideas are prototyped quickly with low fidelity paper prototypes
or high fidelity click-dummies, without programming anything. Then the prototypes and their
assumptions are tested. The goal of the design sprint is to learn about the problem and solution
before already building and launching the product. That means the design sprint constitutes
a shortcut between the idea and the learning, while the build and launch steps are skipped.
The different concepts described in this section are summarized in a conceptual map that is
presented and discussed in the next section.
CONCEPTUAL MAP OF DESIGN THINKING AND AGILE

PRINCIPLES
To summarize the previously presented concepts, we present a comparative overview in the

form of a conceptual map. Figure 5.3 illustrates the overlaps and interrelationships between
the discussed concepts. We can identify the three core concepts: design thinking, lean startup,
and agile principles.
Agile principles stem from methods for IT agility, especially scrum and extreme pro-
gramming. Lean startup is influenced by the Japanese concept of lean manufacturing but
transferred to a business context. It has a stronger focus on the business side of a company
as it is influenced by the concept of business model generation and customer development.
By contrast, design thinking has originated from the engineering design and service design
disciplines. Agile design thinking is our suggested approach to merging the best of the three
worlds. A design sprint is a specific condensed instantiation of design thinking that follows
agile principles and therefore is positioned at the intersection.
Figure 5.3 illustrates the relationships and influences for the three core concepts (design
thinking, lean startup, and agile principles), whereas Table 5.1 juxtaposes the main goals,
methods, and process steps in comparison for the three core concepts.
In summary, we argue that design thinking aims at “doing the right thing” in terms of
identifying the user need and solving a problem for a user. Design thinking is the only method
among the discussed concepts that specifically addresses the FFE stage of the innovation
process because it presents a structured approach for identifying user needs and framing the
problem context. However, design thinking is not specifically focusing on the commercializa-
tion stage of the innovation process but often ends with a prototype.
By contrast, agile principles aim at “doing things right” by replacing the traditional waterfall
model with smaller iterations that allow feedback about individual features of a concept and
Figure 5.3 Conceptual map of agile design thinking
its implementation. Scrum does not question the identification of the problem or ideation of
solutions, though. These issues are delegated to the customer representative.
Finally, lean startup aims at company building and developing the customer. This strategy
addresses the goal of “how to make the company or the innovation viable”. Often, the devel-
opment of a business model and the use of the Business Model Canvas is part of lean startup
approaches.
All of the three discussed concepts involve agile elements, for example iteration cycles,
albeit in different degrees, at different stages of the process, and with different names.
However, the table overview also highlights fundamental differences, for example regarding
the target group and the employed methods.
COMPARISON WITH AN INDUSTRY CASE
In order to show possible interconnections of agile methods, we look into a published practice
case and analyse how design thinking and scrum are used together in an agile project. This
should validate the theoretical analyses of the last section and show the need for further inte-
gration of different agile methods.
Hildenbrand and Meyer (2012) describe a case study in SAP that combines design think-
ing and scrum. We will analyse this published case study through the theoretical lens of
our previously developed comparison. The case describes the use of design thinking within
SAP for developing an application for the Audi Sailing Team Germany. The project goal
was to develop software that improves the knowledge transfer between trainers and sailors.
The project had three phases. The first phase combined the “understanding” and “observe”
phases of design thinking. The developers researched books and papers, interviewed sailors,
Table 5.1 Comparison of design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles
What Design thinking Lean startup Agile principles

Goal Doing the right thing Making it viable Doing things right
Scope, Focus General innovations High-tech innovations for startups Software development
Approach User-centred Customer-oriented Time-boxed development
Uncertainty User need Viable customer demand Technical feasibility
Testing Fail early to succeed Pivoting is at the heart of the ‘fail Test driven development
sooner fast’ concept. The sooner you
realize a hypothesis is wrong, the
faster you can update and retest it
Iteration Yes (“Iteration”) Yes (“Pivoting”) Yes (“Sprint”)
Ideation Ideation is part of the Ideation is not part of the process; Not part of the process. Product
process; solutions are product vision is initially provided vision comes from product
generated in the process by company founders manager.
Qualitative methods Strong focus: elaborated Not a focus No
ethnographic methods, user
research, observations, etc.
Quantitative methods Not a focus Strong focus: metric-based Burn down chart
analysis; provides matrices, and
testing
Business model Not a focus Focus Not focus
Adaption of Not a focus Five whys method Continuous integration
deployments
Typical methods Shadowing, Qualitative Qualitative interview, Smoke test, Sprint planning, Daily standup,
interview, Paper Paper prototyping, Innovative Test driven development, User
prototyping, Brainstorming accounting, Split (A/B) tests, story mapping
(with specific rules), Cohort analysis, Funnel metrics,
Synthesis, etc. Business model canvas, Five
whys, etc.
Hypothesis testing Not a focus Focus No
Prototype testing Yes Yes Partially (user should get a working
prototype after each sprint)
Rapid iteration Yes Yes Yes
Target group Users (usually end Customers (distinguished among Users/stakeholders
users, sometimes other users, influencers, recommenders,
stakeholders) economic buyers, decision makers)
trainers, and experts, and even tried sailing themselves. The second phase was conducted as
a three-day workshop, similar to a design sprint. The workshop included the synthesis of the
observations and interviews, ideation, paper prototyping, testing, and the creation of a user
story map. The user story map was the main input for the backlog of the scrum-based devel-
opment in the third phase (Hildenbrand & Meyer, 2012). For specific user stories, the team
conducted additional ideation and prototyping. After only three months, the first prototype was
deployed to the sailing team and received positive feedback.
We use this case study to compare it with our juxtaposition of different aspects of the three
methods, design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles (Table 5.1), in order to identify
the potential for an improved innovation process. This comparison reveals that in the case
study some potentials from different methods were already employed, but other aspects were
not utilized to their full potential. More specifically, design thinking was used for filling the
backlog in scrum (Hildenbrand & Meyer, 2012). Furthermore, there was a clear division of
responsibilities between design thinking and scrum. Design thinking focused on solving the
right problem with the right idea (“doing the right thing”), scrum helped with the efficient
execution of the idea (“doing the thing right”). The process is illustrated in Figure 5.4.
Source: Based on Hildenbrand & Meyer, 2012.
Figure 5.4 Innovation process as employed at SAP sailing boat challenge
However, several aspects of the case study show that further development of the combination
of design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles warrants further research.
The case demonstrates a typical situation of a design thinking or scrum project: the initial
problem definition (in this case, to develop software that improves knowledge transfer
between trainers and sailors) was taken for granted and not questioned anymore. Similarly,
the main synthesis results and assumptions were not tested or iterated during the later stages
of the project, even though ideation and prototyping were also partly used during the third
phase. Added to that, aspects of the lean startup method were not considered at all. Developing
a business model for the application (“making it viable”) was not mentioned and the question,
of whether the developed software would have a market, other than the internal client, was out
of the project’s scope.
The analysis of the presented case exemplarily demonstrates the drawbacks of current
attempts to integrate different agile methods, lean startup, and design thinking. Although the
benefits of the combined approach were evident, comprehensive integration of different agile
methods was lacking. However, we argue that only through such an integrated approach would
a company be able to address the entire innovation process, including the FFE, the NPD, and
the commercialization of the idea. Based on these insights, we see a need for an integrated
process that combines design thinking, lean startup, and scrum.
In the following section, we present our suggested “agile design thinking process model”
that constitutes a process theory that combines aspects of design thinking, lean startup, and
agile principles.
AGILE DESIGN THINKING PROCESS MODEL
Based on the insights from our theoretical framework and the analysed case study, we see
potential to improve the innovation process by merging design thinking with lean startup, and
by integrating agile principles.
In order to address the entire innovation process with the three distinct stages (FFE, NPD,
and commercialization, as defined by Koen et al. (2002)), we suggest a novel process theory
that constitutes a more “agile design thinking process model”. This process model integrates:
(1) Design thinking elements to identify user needs and problems at the FFE and to rapidly
ideate and prototype solution ideas. Design sprints could be integrated to develop strate-
gic iterations of the idea, for example to react to changing requirements.
(2) The innovation process could be further improved by integrating agile principles, such
as scrum. Scrum offers a process of iteratively developing and deploying ideas on
a technical level. On the one hand, the scrum sprints provide agility because after each
sprint the direction can be changed. On the other hand, it offers accountability because
the team gets feedback on how fast they can go and they can reflect on any roadblocks
during the project.
(3) Elements of the lean startup method could be added to the innovation process in order
to identify a potential customer and develop a viable business model. We argue that the
difference between a creative idea and an actual innovation is the successful implemen-
tation of the idea. Just having a lot of Post-It notes is not in itself a sign of successful
innovation. Without the deployment in a market, the many ideas from a design thinking
process are not creating any value for the organization or society.
Design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles address adjacent questions and partially
share common mindsets and methods. Together they represent answers to different questions.
(1) Design thinking offers answers to the question of “how to do the right thing” in terms
of serving an actual need or solving an actual problem. (2) Scrum provides answers to the
question of “how to do the things right” in terms of technical features and functionality. The
method suggests test and iteration loops that improve a new product idea or features thereof.
And (3) lean startup answers the question of “how to make the thing viable” in terms of gener-
ating a target audience and a profitable business model. Consequently, we argue that an agile
innovation process needs to combine all the three approaches. Figure 5.5 shows our suggested
process theory, called the “agile design thinking process model”.
The process model suggests a combination of design thinking, lean startup, and agile prin-
ciples. In addition to the integration of the main process steps of each method, we also include
several smaller aspects from each of the three concepts.
Pivoting as it is practised in lean startup seems to be a promising opportunity to strengthen
the design thinking part of the agile innovation process. This means implementing feedback
testing and iteration loops earlier in the process, even before there is a prototype. This could
happen for example after the Point of View or after Ideation. The testing of early problem
The agile landscape of design thinking
Figure 5.5 Suggested agile design thinking process model

95
hypotheses, which can be falsified or validated, might save time and resources and could
result in a better output of successful project results. Design sprints would be an appropriate
method for this purpose, because they offer a systematic approach to develop, test and, reframe
problem hypotheses.
Moreover, we suggest implementing metric-based evaluation techniques as they are
commonly used in lean startup. For example, testing in design thinking is mostly performed
qualitatively, according to the analysed literature. Therefore, checklists or specific test
environments that allow for quantitative measuring of user feedback (such as landing page
design, etc.) could be implemented in the design thinking part of the agile innovation process.
Moreover, we suggest developing a business model in addition to the prototype, to validate the
viability of the concept.
Vice versa, the lean startup part of the agile innovation process can also be improved
through elements from design thinking. Unlike design thinking, lean startup does not describe
specifically how customer input could be collected. Qualitative research methods – e.g. ethno-
graphic methods – could be applied to improve the definition of the targeted customers and to
identify their needs and problems. Similarly, we suggest adapting the synthesis methods from
design thinking. Structured frameworks or the generation of a qualitative persona might help
lean startup to better understand and develop their customers and their respective needs and
problems. Both should be scheduled at the beginning of the process.
Lean startup could also benefit from the use of ideation techniques, as they are applied in
design thinking, to develop concept variations. Although lean startup usually starts with a con-
crete business idea, it might be helpful to use structured ideation methods to iterate that idea
within the process, specifically before the problem–solution fit is achieved. Consequently,
pivoting should be applied earlier (already on the initial concept). And finally, qualitative
feedback evaluation, such as qualitative user interviews, could be implemented in the pivoting
steps, in addition to the metric-based evaluation techniques.
Based on the analysis of the literature review and process model comparison, as well as on
the before-mentioned ideas to improve the discussed strategies, a more radical merging of the
three processes suggests itself. As a consequence, we propose an interlaced process theory that
combines the main aspects of the three innovation strategies, called “agile design thinking”.
This suggested adaptation combines the most promising aspects of the three strategies and
addresses the identified gaps. Figure 5.5 shows this model of agile design thinking and high-
lights the relevant aspects adapted from the three source processes.
IMPLICATIONS
The work presented in this chapter has implications for both theory and practice. Our extensive
theoretical framework described at the beginning of this chapter brings clarity into the land-
scape of agile principles. The different concepts are each described in detail and explained in
relation to the bigger picture of the innovation process, which advances the field of innovation
management further. Moreover, our comparative analysis of design thinking, lean startup,
and agile principles indicates that the three concepts evolved in different communities that
have similar mindsets but do not interact much with each other. The insights presented in
this chapter may contribute to spillover effects between the three communities and facilitate
learning from each other. The introduced process model of agile design thinking can be used
to facilitate descriptive analyses (as, for example, conducted by the DTRS community) of
successful or failed innovation projects and the respective processes employed therein.
Practitioners can benefit from the insights presented in this chapter in two ways. First, we
argue that companies need to understand the entire innovation process including the FFE, the
NPD, and the commercialization of an idea. The conceptual map of agile principles brings
clarity to the fuzzy potpourri of different methods and concepts that might facilitate this goal,
so that each method can be applied and utilized more deliberately in the appropriate situation.
Second, the introduced agile design thinking process model constitutes a prescriptive model
that enhances innovation processes through agile concepts. We argue that the introduced
model is able to decrease the cycle times of an innovation process from ideation and problem
validation to company growth and deployment.
The work presented in this chapter may contribute to a better understanding of the three
concepts – design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles – and it may help entrepreneurs to
utilize any of the three strategies for improving their innovation projects. Practitioners familiar
with only one of the three concepts can use the model as a source of inspiration to enrich their
innovation strategies by adopting the identified relevant tools and methods of each of the other
concepts. For entrepreneurs, innovators, and startup companies who may want to develop
high-tech innovations, the model provides a more complete view of innovation strategies in
general. For researchers, this chapter provides an analytical deconstruction of both methods
through method engineering, including a comparison, a mapping of both methods, and the
identification of gaps, differences, and intersections. Educators who may want to teach one of
the two methods will also benefit from the detailed analysis. And finally, the chapter highlights
the relevance of innovation strategies in general for management, business innovation, and
user-centred design.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter aims to bring clarity to the agile landscape of design thinking. According to
our research questions stated in the introduction, we presented descriptions of nine different
approaches that each involve some kind of agile concepts (design thinking, lean manufac-
turing, the agile manifesto, lean startup, customer development, business model generation,
extreme programming, scrum, and design sprints), as well as process models for most of them.
These insights were summarized in a conceptual map that outlines the different agile methods
in terms of their relationships, overlaps, proximities, and historical roots, with a particular
focus on how they relate to design thinking (RQ1). Finally, we introduced the “agile design
thinking process model” that constitutes a novel process theory and a prescriptive model to
guide and enhance innovation processes (RQ2).
Through the combination of design thinking, lean startup, and agile principles, the intro-
duced process allows companies to follow a more agile and flexible innovation process that
addresses all stages, from the FFE to the NPD and to the commercialization of an innovation,
as well as to react quickly to any occurring changes. We argue that a successful innovation
process needs to address three kinds of questions: (1) “How to do the right thing” in terms of
serving an actual need or solving an actual problem, which is addressed through design think-
ing. (2) “How to do the things right” in terms of frequent test and iteration loops that improve
a new product or features thereof, mainly in terms of technical functionality. And (3) “making
the thing viable” in terms of generating a target audience and a profitable business model.
These three aspects can be achieved by integrating design thinking, lean startup, and agile
principles into one process model. To the best of our knowledge, until now there has been no
innovation process model that addresses all of these aspects. Consequently, we argue that the
suggested agile design thinking process provides a novel contribution to improving innovation
processes for established companies and startups.
A few limitations apply to this study. First, we rely in our analysis and suggestions mainly
on the mentioned literature and available published process models. These sources may not
adequately reflect the actual practices and applications of the respective processes in practice.
It is possible that, for example, qualitative ethnographic methods are already well established
in lean startup, or that design sprints are already implemented to reframe design problems.
However, since these aspects are not yet explicitly defined in a comprehensive process model,
they are not yet available in a prescriptive form for others to adapt. Second, the introduced
process model of agile design thinking is developed based on evidence from literature and
insights from a published case study. Future studies will have to apply and validate the process
model through empirical studies or action research.
NOTE
1. Parts of this chapter are based on two previously presented conference papers (Mueller & Thoring,
2012; Thoring & Müller, 2011).
REFERENCES
Ajamian, G. M., & Koen, P. A. (2002). Technology Stage-GateTM: A structured process for managing
high-risk new technology projects. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Badke-Schaub, P., Roozenburg, N., & Cardoso, C. (2010). Design thinking: A paradigm on its way from
dilution to meaninglessness. Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium, 19–20.
Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J.,
Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., & Jeffries, R. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. https://
agilemanifesto.org/
Blank, S. G. (2006). The four steps to the epiphany. Cafepress.
Blank, S. G., & Dorf, B. (2012). The startup owner’s manual: The step-by-step guide for building a great
company (1. ed). K&S Ranch Press.
Blom, S., Bub, U., & Offermann, P. (2010). Proposal for components of method design theories—
increasing the utility of method design artefacts. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2(5),
295–304.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard
Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.
Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods
and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38, 275–280.
Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., & Harmsen, F. (1999). Meta-modelling based assembly techniques for
situational method engineering. Information Systems, 24, 209–228.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires inno-
vation. Harper Business.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10
.2307/1511637
Buchanan, R. (2009). Thinking about design: An historical perspective. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy
of Technology and Engineering Sciences (pp. 409–453). North-Holland.
Carleton, T., & Leifer, L. (2009). Stanford’s ME310 course as an evolution of engineering design.
Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference – Competitive Design.
Chiles, T. H. (2003). Process theorizing: Too important to ignore in a kaleidic world. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 288–291. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2003.10932145
Cooper, B., & Vlaskovits, P. (2010). The entrepreneur’s guide to customer development: A cheat sheet
to The Four Steps to the Epiphany. Cooper-Vlaskovits.
Cooper, R. G. (1986). Winning at new products. Addison-Wesley.
Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). The Agile–Stage-Gate hybrid model: A promising new approach
and a new research opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513–526.
Corral, L., & Fronza, I. (2018). Design thinking and agile practices for software engineering: An oppor-
tunity for innovation. Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIG Conference on Information Technology
Education, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3241815.3241864
Cross, N. (2018). A brief history of the Design Thinking Research Symposium series. Design Studies,
57, 160–164.
Crowston, K. (2000). Process as theory in information systems research. In R. Baskerville, J. Stage, &
J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Organizational and social perspectives on information technology (Vol. 41,
pp. 149–164). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35505-4_10
Enkler, H.-G., & Sporleder, L. (2019). Agile product development—Coupling explorative and estab-
lished CAx methods in early stages of virtual product development. Procedia CIRP, 84, 848–853.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.221
Fekri, R., Aliahmadi, A., & Fathian, M. (2009). Predicting a model for agile NPD process with fuzzy
cognitive map: The case of Iranian manufacturing enterprises. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 41(11), 1240–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1565-7
Griffin, A., Langerak, F., & Eling, K. (2019). The evolution, status, and research agenda for the future
of research in NPD cycle time. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 263–280. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12484
Hildenbrand, T., & Meyer, J. (2012). Intertwining lean and design thinking: Software product devel-
opment from empathy to shipment. In A. Maedche, A. Botzenhardt, & L. Neer (Eds.), Software for
people: Fundamentals, trends and best practices (pp. 217–237). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978
-3-642-31371-4_13
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and
possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/
caim.12023
Junginger, S. (2013). Design and innovation in the public sector: Matters of design in policy-making and
policy implementation. Annual Review of Policy Design, 1(1), 1–11.
Karlsson, C., & Åhlström, P. (1996). The difficult path to lean product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 13(4), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1340283
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s
leading design firm (3497). Currency/Doubleday.
Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just
five days (Export). Simon & Schuster.
Koen, P. (2015). Lean startup in large enterprises using human-centered design thinking: A new approach
for developing transformational and disruptive innovations. Howe School Research Paper, 2015–46.
Koen, P., Ajamian, G. M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., Johnson, A., Puri, P.,
& Seibert, R. (2002). Fuzzy front end: Effective methods, tools, and techniques. In P. Belliveau, A.
Griffin, & S. Somermeyer (Eds.), The PDMA ToolBook for new product development (p. 32). John
Wiley & Sons.
Lawrence, K. (2013). Developing leaders in a VUCA environment. UNC Executive Development, 1–15.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2020). Agile innovation: The complementarity of design thinking and lean startup.
International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET),
11(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.2020010110
bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jpim.12163
MacCormack, A., Verganti, R., & Iansiti, M. (2001). Developing products on “Internet time”: The
anatomy of a flexible development process. Management Science, 47(1), 133–150.
Mack, O. (Ed.). (2016). Managing in a VUCA world. Springer.
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage (3570).
Harvard Business Press.
Martin, R., & Christensen, K. (Eds.). (2013). Rotman on design: The best on design thinking from
Rotman Magazine. University of Toronto Press.
Maurya, A. (2012). Running lean: Iterate from plan A to a plan that works (2nd ed). O’Reilly.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. Jossey-Bass.
Moody, D. (2003). The method evaluation model: A theoretical model for validating information
systems design methods. ECIS 2003 Proceedings. ECIS.
Mueller, R. M., & Thoring, K. (2012). Design thinking vs. lean startup: A comparison of two user-driven
innovation strategies. Leading innovation through design: Proceedings of the DMI 2012 International
Research Conference, 151–161.
O’Driscoll, K. (2016). The agile data modelling & design thinking approach to information system
requirements analysis. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(sup1), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/
12460125.2016.1189643
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game
changers, and challengers. Wiley.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Weinberg, U. (2009). Design thinking. mi-wirtschaftsbuch.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radi-
cally successful businesses. Crown Business.
Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations.
Bedriftskonomen, 8, 390–396.
Schwaber, K. (1997). Scrum development process. In Business object design and implementation
(pp. 117–134). Springer.
Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with Scrum. Prentice Hall.
Shostack, L. (1982). How to design a service. European Journal of Marketing, 16(1), 49–63.
Shostack, L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133–139.
Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product
development performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids: The next-generation stage-gate process?
Research-Technology Management, 58(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5801236
Stanford University. (n.d.). The Center for Design Research | Mechanical Engineering. Retrieved
February 8, 2020, from https://me.stanford.edu/research/labs-and-centers/center-design-research/
center-design-research
Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (2011). This is service design thinking. Wiley.
Stiehm, J. (2002). The U.S. Army War College: Military education in a democracy. Temple University
Press.
ter Hofstede, A. H. M., & Verhoef, T. F. (1997). On the feasibility of situational method engineering.
Information Systems, 22, 401–422.
Tessarolo, F., Nollo, G., Conotter, V., Onorati, G., Konstantinidis, E. I., Petsani, D., & Bamidis, P.
D. (2019). User-centered co-design and AGILE methodology for developing ambient assisting
technologies: Study plan and methodological framework of the CAPTAIN project. 2019 IEEE 23rd
International Symposium on Consumer Technologies (ISCT), 283–286. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCE
.2019.8901003
Thoring, K., & Müller, R. M. (2011). Understanding design thinking: A process model based on method
engineering. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design
Education (E&PDE). London, UK.
Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory
for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.36
Welke, R. J., & Kumar, K. (1992). Method engineering: A proposal for situation-specific methodology
construction. In S. Cotterman (Ed.), Systems analysis and design: A research agenda (pp. 257–268).
Wiley.
White, S. A. (2004). Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Version 1.0. Business Process
Management Initiative, BPMI.Org.
Womack, J. (2003). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation (2nd ed.). Free
Press.
6. Bridging the academia–industry gap through
design thinking: research innovation sprints
Ivano Bongiovanni, Peter Townson and Marek
Kowalkiewicz
INTRODUCTION
Calls for a closer relationship between academic researchers, and industry partners and
research end-users have been multiplying in recent years, to strengthen the translation of
scientific results into usable and useful applications for organisations and society in general
(Perkmann et al., 2021). This is the symptom of an underlying misalignment between how
academia conceives the research activity and how industry and society at large do. The former
is traditionally associated with concepts such as fundamental or pure knowledge, academic
freedom, peer recognition, and free dissemination of research results. The latter responds
to commercial dynamics in which research activities are instrumental to the elaboration of
solutions for perceived problems (applied research). These differences have been brilliantly
synthesised as conflicting logics (Sauermann & Stephan, 2013), whose root cause resides in
the orientation asymmetry (Estrada et al., 2016; He et al., 2021) that arises when academics
collaborate with industry partners and other external stakeholders: different goals and interests
mean different approaches, incentives, timeframes, adopted methods, and, ultimately, arising
challenges.
Responses to these challenges have been proposed for a long time. In particular, the aca-
demic side has elaborated several strategies to escape the ivory tower (Haeussler & Colyvas,
2011) and approach industry partners, government organisations, and society in general to
foster fruitful collaboration. Among others, innovative engagement and research methods
have been suggested to bridge the gap between academia and industry. In business and organ-
isational studies (and in the information systems discipline in particular), a non-exhaustive
list includes, among others, engaged scholarship (Van de Ven, 2007), action research
(Baskerville & Myers, 2004), design science research (Gregor & Hevner, 2013), action design
research (Sein et al., 2011), and last research mile (Nunamaker et al., 2015).
At the same time, the proliferation of innovative methodologies at the intersection between
scholarly inquiry, R&D, and business consulting has offered new avenues for academics and
industry partners to collaborate. Among these, lean management (Hildenbrand & Meyer,
2012), the agile software movement (Highsmith & Cockburn, 2001; Schwaber & Beedle,
2001), and design-led innovation (Wrigley, 2017) have facilitated the creation of multidisci-
plinary teams composed of scholars and industry partners.
102
Bridging the academia–industry gap through design thinking 103
We propose in this chapter a novel approach to doing research with practice (Rai, 2019)
called Research Innovation Sprints (RIS). The conceptual and procedural approaches adopted
in the RIS are guided by Design Thinking: the priority is satisfying end-user and stakehold-
ers’ needs, whilst meeting the business requirements of client organisations and, where
suitable, leveraging the affordances of digital technologies (Verganti, 2009). After initial
problem-framing, user and stakeholder needs are unpacked through data collection, solutions
are ideated and co-designed (creative divergence), selected (creative convergence), then pro-
totyped and tested with end-users, before the solution specification is delivered to the client
organisation for implementation. Design Thinking also informs the toolset and techniques
utilised by the research team. We present a selection of our RIS to illustrate the suitability of
Design Thinking and design-led approaches in bridging the academia–industry collaborative
gap. In the next section, we outline the main components of our innovative method. Then, we
offer an overview of 30 RIS conducted by our team, the QUT Centre for the Digital Economy1
(Queensland University of Technology), in the timeframe December 2015–December 2020.
Subsequently, we extract learnings from our experience with running RIS on team composi-
tion and roles. We then conclude by illustrating how RIS can help bridge the gap between aca-
demia and industry by leveraging the potential of Design Thinking and design-led approaches.
RESEARCH INNOVATION SPRINTS: THE METHOD
RIS are a type of commercial or contract research (The University of Queensland, 2021) –
they differ from traditional research projects for several reasons, which can be summarised
as follows: (1) research is applied; (2) they generate income; (3) the university may make
some in-kind contributions; (4) publications are likely, but they are not the main purpose of
engagement. In RIS, the client organisation commissions the research team to conduct an
intervention on a specific problem or sets of problems, to be addressed within a given time
(typically between six to eight weeks) and within a certain budget.
At the same time, our RIS method differs from similar initiatives executed, for example,
by consulting companies. Conducted in a university environment, RIS employ researchers
that are experts in academic research and who strive to maintain the methodological rigour
typical of scholarly investigation. This encompasses the need for researchers to obtain ethical
clearance before collecting data; carefully consider qualitative research criteria (e.g., credibil-
ity, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln et al., 2011)); and compare and
contrast their findings with existing literature. At the same time, the RIS team can leverage the
subject matter expertise of fellow academics on specific topics, increasing the knowledge that
leads the problem-solving approach typical of RIS. For further differences between research
conducted in RIS and similar methods adopted by consulting firms, see the section entitled
“Eight Lessons Learned from Running Research Innovation Sprints” below (in particular,
Lesson 7).
As the RIS developed over time, so did our attempts to apply the method to different classes
of problems. We refer to four types of RIS in this chapter, product, process, strategy, and
system, based on the framed problems and focus, as detailed in Table 6.1.
RIS are constituted of three chronological phases (Pre-Sprint, Sprint, and Post-Sprint), and
seven procedural stages (Incubate, Research, Design, Ideate, Validate, Implement, Integrate).
From the perspective of the research team, RIS require alternating between part-time and
Table 6.1 RIS types
Type of RIS Summary

Product Focus on the development and re-design of products, services, and user experiences
Focus on the development and re-design of organisational business processes and the management, technologies
Process
and policies that drive them, as they relate to products, services, and user experiences
Strategy Focus on the development and re-design of organisational, civic, and technology-led strategies
System Focus on the development and re-design of sectors, ecosystems, and legislative change
Source: The authors.
Figure 6.1 The Innovation Lab at QUT
full-time engagement. The central weeks of the RIS are those in which the team mostly works
in a full-time capacity. RIS are also characterised by the regular presence in the research team
of staff members of the client organisations, who are “seconded” to the project to corroborate
relevance, maximise impact, and rapidly connect with the client organisation, when needed.
Generally, RIS take place in a dedicated Innovation Lab at QUT (Figure 6.1), but various
phases and activities can take place elsewhere on, or off the university campus.
The Innovation Lab is a physical space free from the distractions of normal business prac-
tice (McGann et al., 2021). A recurring feature of the RIS is the provocation and presentation
Figure 6.2 Typical RIS timeline
workshops, aimed, respectively, at supporting the framing of the problems (Beckman, 2020)
and presenting relevant stakeholders with the solutions elaborated during the RIS. Figure 6.2
illustrates the typical structure and the three chronological phases of a RIS.
During the Pre-Sprint, the focus is on unpacking the problem space; familiarising the
research team with the investigated topics (e.g., through desktop research); consolidating the
engagement format with the client organisation; reviewing and selecting the most appropriate
research methods to achieve the intended goals; and preparing for the provocation workshop.
The latter usually marks the formal start of the Sprint phase.
In the Sprint phase, the team works on further comprehending the problem space; “clean-
ing”, analysing, and drawing conclusions from, the data gathered during the provocation work-
shop; conducting qualitative and desktop research; mapping customer journeys; co-designing
the solutions; visualising and prototyping them; testing them with client organisations and
external stakeholders; and preparing the presentation workshop. Typically, the latter repre-
sents the end of the Sprint phase.
Finally, the Post-Sprint phase is intended to “clean”, analyse, and draw conclusions from,
the data gathered during the presentation workshop; set the next steps of the project, by pre-
paring the integration of the solutions into the client organisation; report on the whole Sprint;
and deliver the final outputs.
Figure 6.3 illustrates the RIS process and its seven stages (Tate et al., 2018). The RIS is built
on the model proposed by Google Ventures (2019; Knapp et al., 2016) in both terms of scope
(complexity of the problem space) and duration (from 5 days to 6–8 weeks). Conceptually,
they both follow a design-led approach to solving complex organisational problems and
largely draw from a broad range of tools typically used in Design Thinking (Straker et al.,
2021).
During a RIS, the research team is composed of a variety of professionals with different
roles. At a minimum, the team is composed of design innovation catalysts (from now, cata-
lysts) (Wrigley, 2016), researchers, problem/solution owners (from the client organisation)
and digital designers. A more detailed discussion on RIS roles is found in the “Focus on the
Research Team” section.
Source: Adapted from Tate et al. (2018).
Figure 6.3 RIS stages
Stages of the RIS
During the central weeks of the Sprint phase, the catalysts in the team lead the project stake-
holders through a problem divergence process that results in concept convergence (UK Design
Council, 2019). A detailed analysis of the stages of the RIS is reported in Table 6.2. As shown
in Figure 6.3, the RIS process is not entirely linear. The Incubate and Integrate stages open
and close the process which, from Research to Implement, tends to be cyclical. In line with
the typical development of design-led projects (Wrigley et al., 2020), the understanding of
the problem space, the design of the engagement activities, the ideation of solutions and their
validation, and the implementation stage are often iterated, based on collected data, feedback
from end-users, and emerging needs.
However, time availability, the commitment by the client organisation, the complexity
of the addressed problem, and resource constraints can enable only one iteration (e.g., from
Implement to Integrate, and not back to Research). Further, the seven stages of the process do
Table 6.2 Overview of RIS stages
Stage Purpose Method Approach Example from RIS

Incubate The first (often informal) engagement Adopted methods in this stage include Incubate is considered concluded In RIS 6 (Attracting digital
milestone in a RIS is an introductory desktop research, stakeholder mapping, when the problem is framed in businesses), problem framing
meeting with the client organisation, problem scoping, and, in general, a version upon which the research stretched into the second week
in which details of mandate, process, preparation to the provocation workshop, team and the most relevant of the Sprint phase, due to
methods, and various technicalities are usually the first deliverable for the client stakeholders from the client a particularly complex problem
discussed. organisation. organisation agree. Based on our space.
The Incubate stage is an exploratory experience, in several instances, the
exercise and allows research team Incubate stage concludes well into the
members to reach an alignment in Sprint phase.
terms of knowledge of the problem
space. This is particularly necessary,
considering the diverse backgrounds
and areas of expertise of the team.
Research As an expansion of the previous Qualitative data collection methods The Research stage usually occurs During RIS 3 (Supporting
Incubate stage, desktop research are most frequently applied in the at different phases of the RIS, not Families at Risk. Citizen First
(academic as well as grey literature Research stage. For example, in empathy only in the initial ones. Research is Responders), the starting problem
analysis) is conducted to improve the interviews(Straker et al., 2021; Tripp, also conducted to test prototypes space and focus of the project
team’s understanding of the problem 2013), the team conducts semi-structured and solutions and collect feedback was on contributing solutions to
Bridging the academia–industry gap through design thinking
space, by narrowing down its scope to interviews with stakeholders, clients, from end-users. Along these lines, mitigate child protection authority
more defined areas and theories. and end-users to immerse themselves in the provocation and presentation interventions. Iterations of problem
their reality and capture data (Marshall & workshops always have a research framing allowed the team to land
Rossman, 2011). component, more emphasised for the on a specific question to address:
former than the latter. How do we digitally enable
community responders to support
families at risk?
107
108

Design This stage begins with the provocation Collected data are cleaned and organised In these workshops, most facilitation A common activity during the
workshop, during which the and visuals are often utilised for the team activities are performed by the provocation workshop is the
participants contribute their “solutions” to more immediately conceptualise the catalyst, whose main task is to drawing of customer journey
to the problem under investigation. potential directions of the project (Liedtka, ensure the participants appropriately maps (Solis, 2015) to gauge
Provocation workshops are designed 2018). As in most qualitative methods, understand the problem space and end-users pain points (e.g., RIS
and facilitated by the research team data analysis can include coding around actively provide their views on 11, Re-imagining the future
and attended by internal (employees, emerging themes (Marshall & Rossman, both the problem and the potential of record-keeping). Similarly,
managers) as well as external 2011). Frequently, the provocation solutions. At the end of the workshop, user personas are elaborated,
stakeholders (customers, regulators, workshop also offers data to help the team the research team moves the collected stereotypical customer categories
etc.) of the client organisation. identify design criteria (Liedtka, 2017) data and the produced artefacts to the to facilitate the subsequent Ideate
and high-level principles to inform the Innovation Lab and sets the stage for stage (e.g., in RIS 15, several
solutions that will be co-created during the following steps. examples of gig-economy workers
the project. were conceived by participants).
Ideate Within the central Sprint phase, after Ideate is facilitated through thinking These solutions “mature” along the Solutions can take different forms:
the team has processed the information patterns such as ideation lenses (Recker & RIS process until they are presented a proof-of-concept (Nunamaker et
collected around the problem space Rosemann, 2015). to the client organisation. al., 2015) for further development
and is ready to transition to solution (e.g., RIS 13, Digital strategy),

ideation and co-design. a prototype, or a Minimum Viable
Product (e.g., RIS 8, Grants and
assistance or RIS 2, Starting
a café).
Validate In the Validate stage, the team tests The Validate phase encompasses critical This phase marks a transition from During RIS 9 (Youth leadership
with external and internal stakeholders research components, for instance, an essentially customer-focused summit) the team presented the
the validity of the proposed solutions, identifying how similar solutions have approach to a more organisational proposed solution (a platform to
mainly from a user experience and user been proposed in other contexts and one. As RIS incorporate the presence engage students in an international
interface perspective. organisations and with what outcomes. of professionals from the client sports event through a large-scale
In Validate, professionals from the client organisation throughout most of the idea and voting mechanism) to
organisation and external stakeholders project, validation and relevance of the students of one high school,
(e.g., end-users) are usually invited for the proposed solutions are also built through a simple paper prototype.
an informal session of feedback on the in the process itself. As a result, The students offered their feedback
solutions. our experience with running RIS on the prototype, which was then
demonstrates that the Validate adjusted accordingly.
phase usually results in minor (if
any) adjustments to the proposed
solutions.
109
110

Implement Despite the name, this phase does not After approval of the proposed solutions, The implementation roadmap Requirements: (e.g., RIS 14,
indicate the roll-out of the solutions or the team carries out two essential tasks: recommends the client organisation Proactive University: the need to
their launch by the client organisation, first, assumptions and constraints for a staged action plan for the proposed directly involve students in the
but more the establishment of a process the client to implement the solution are solutions to become reality. Such an proposed solutions).
by the client to do so. identified; second, a roadmap to do so action plan can span over different Limitations: (e.g., RIS 9, Youth
is drawn. Assumptions and constraints timeframes (a 100-day scale, leadership summit: the temporal
help the client organisation realise a three-year horizon, etc.) and can constraints represented by the
what requirements and limitations the take different forms (a dedicated international sports event).
proposed solutions could have during report, a slide deck, or a visual
implementation. representation).
Integrate The final stage of the RIS (and first In this phase, outputs and deliverables In the Integrate phase the team In the past, for example,
step into the Post-Sprint phase), from the RIS are finalised. This phase is focuses on preparing the final this included a high-level
Integrate is, chronologically and initiated by the presentation workshop, overarching report, a written/visual presentation to a group of strategic
conceptually, the closest phase to the which summarises and illustrates the document with a twofold purpose: decision-makers of one client
proposed solutions migrating into the works conducted during the RIS. Designed as an accountability and learning organisation (RIS 20: Process
client organisation. by the research team in the last days tool, to report on the initiative; Transformation Sprint: Payroll
Besides the larger presentation of the Sprint phase, the presentation and as a communication tool, to Tax).
workshop, the Integrate phase may workshop is attended by internal and provide the client organisation with
require the team to hold smaller-scale external stakeholders, who, following a comprehensive document that can
presentations for the client presentations by the research team on the be shared internally and externally.
organisation. solutions elaborated during the project, In the two weeks of the Post-Sprint
offer their final feedback. Similar to the phase, the research team is often
provocation workshop, data collected from engaged on a part-time basis, and
the presentation are cleaned and migrated team members from the client
into the Post-Sprint phase for re-design and organisation are engaged on an ad
reporting purposes. hoc basis, as they transition back to
full-time work. Formally, a RIS is
considered concluded once the final
version of the report is approved by
the client organisation.
not necessarily reflect the chronological phases of Pre-Sprint, Sprint, and Post-Sprint. As an
example, elements of the Incubate stage can stretch well into the Sprint phase, or components
of the Research stage can still be present in the Post-Sprint phase.
The next section offers an overview of the 30 RIS analysed in this chapter.
RIS TEAM MEMBERS
Since the first RIS run in December 2015, one recurring element has been the changing nature
of the research team involved. RIS teams have also changed in terms of size, from smaller RIS
run by three team members to larger ones where the team was composed of up to 14 profes-
sionals (see Table 6.3), based on the different phases of the RIS, addressed topics, availability
of resources, strategic or technical nature of the project, etc. This section presents an overview
of the typical roles (see Figure 6.4) in the research team, bearing in mind that each role can be
played by more than one team member.
Figure 6.4 Typical roles of RIS team members
Design innovation catalysts are the experts in RIS. Working in close contact with the client
organisation, the catalyst operates at the intersection between the customer, the business, and
the design “to translate abstractions of research and the realities of practice into value for the
organization” (Price et al., 2018, p. 322).
Researchers in the team complement the role of the catalysts in facilitating engagement
with the client organisation. Their number per RIS varies from one to four, based on the
addressed topic and their areas of expertise. Compared with the catalysts, the researchers’ role
is more specific, and instrumental to the research component of the RIS. They lead all data
collection phases and, due to their familiarity with research, are often in charge of the reporting
component of the RIS (Integrate).
Problem/solution owners are selected by the client organisation and have a commercial
interest in utilising the outcomes of the projects; they are therefore usually well versed in inno-
vation and co-design projects. They work closely with the research team and become part of it
for the duration of the RIS. Usually, the client organisation commits up to three staff members
to a RIS, part-time (Pre-Sprint and Post-Sprint) or full-time (Sprint).
Executive Leadership acts as the steering committee for the RIS. They are typically leaders
within the client organisation and their primary role is to act as a sponsor for the problem/
solution. Problem/solution owners usually report directly to one or more of the executive lead-
ership members. The executive leadership are active in four distinct stages of the RIS, namely
Incubate, Design, Validate, and Integrate.
Digital designers, despite not always being experts in design thinking, have a background
similar to the catalysts and are quite familiar with the format and the engagement model.
Among the research team, digital designers have the widest range of tasks. First, the affiliation
of the digital designers is variable in the RIS. Often, they belong to a service provider of the
client organisation (usually, a digital agency). Sometimes, however, the QUT Centre for the
Digital Economy hires digital designers, tapping into its reservoir of graduates with digital
design skills. Second, the engagement of the digital designers varies based on the topic, the
strategic or technical nature of the RIS, and within the same project. Digital designers have in
fact a typically secondary role in the Pre-Sprint (and, often, they are not involved in this phase
at all).
OVERVIEW OF 30 RESEARCH INNOVATION SPRINTS (2015–2020)
In the timeframe 2015–2020, the QUT Centre for the Digital Economy conducted 30 RIS
based on contractual agreements with the following client organisations: a State government
agency in charge of innovating and streamlining public services (with the involvement of
numerous other departments from the State government) (14 RIS); a State government agency
in charge of economic and financial matters (7); a State government agency in charge of
environmental and science matters (2); a local government agency responsible for marketing
(1); a government-funded organisation responsible for the uptake of precision healthcare
technologies (1); a public university (1); financial service providers (2); a large timber man-
ufacturer (1); and a large processed food manufacturer (1). The first block of three RIS was
delivered in the timeframe December 2015–February 2016. Over the years, the growth in the
number of RIS and client organisations proved the success of this programme of research and
engagement, which is still running to date. Depending on RIS requirements and specific out-
comes needed for each project, a variety of organisations have been involved as partners in the
projects. For half (15) of the RIS, the collaboration between academia, industry/government,
and design agencies made up the foundation of the research teams. Where specific technology
insights and outcomes were critical to the outcomes of the project, software vendors were also
brought into the team. As an additional demonstration of the quality and success of the RIS,
of the 30 analysed in this chapter, 19 projects have progressed or are progressing towards
implementation by the client organisation, indicating a 63% success rate. It is worth noting that
even when the solutions elaborated during a RIS have not been implemented, key learnings
and recommendations have nonetheless had a significant impact on the participants and their
organisations. Table 6.3 provides an overview of the 30 RIS analysed in this chapter, including
details on topics, client organisations, concepts summary, and outcomes.
EIGHT LESSONS LEARNED FROM RUNNING RIS
Each of the 30 RIS described in this chapter adopted a mixed-methods approach to collect
and analyse data for the purposes of each project, with the different involved organisations
(detailed in Table 6.3). In addition, sprint retrospectives were conducted with each RIS team.
Table 6.3 Overview of the 30 RIS
No of No in Client
RIS No Key research Type of
Topic Clienta b c
Stakeholders RIS education Sprint concept summary Implemented?
(Year) team partners RIS
engaged Team with RIS
1 State Gov. Digital Design Interface-less government
Youth homelessness Prod. 25 7 N –
(2015) Dept. A Agency services
Establishing and
2 State Gov. Digital Design
running a café and Prod. 20 8 N Proactively starting a café Yes
(2016) Dept. B Agency
restaurant business
Mitigating child
3 State Gov. Digital Design MyVillage: Community first
protection authority Prod. 18 7 N –
(2016) Dept. C Agency responders
interventions
4 Internal ICT and State Gov. Digital Design Government
Syst. 19 6 N –
(2016) comms. challenges Dept. D Agency knowledge-sharing manifesto
Personalisation Recommender, Assistant,
and convergence in Prod. 25 9 N Autopilot of government Yes
(2016) Dept. E Agency
service delivery service delivery
Where smart, creative, and
6 Attracting digital State Gov. Digital Design
Syst. 30 5 N productive people want to live –
(2016) businesses Dept. F Agency
and work
Digital performance
7 Measuring a state State Gov. Digital Design
Prod. 36 6 N measurement of government –
(2016) through digital Dept. G Agency
services
Improving business
Government acting as
8 access to innovation State Gov. Digital Design
Strat. 70 9 N a cluster producer for Yes
(2016) assistance across the Dept. D Agency
innovation
state
A scaling youth engagement
9 Youth Leadership State Gov. Digital Design mechanism for the
Prod. 26 7 N –
(2016) Summit Dept. H Agency Commonwealth Games to
generate actionable insights
113
114
No of No in Client
Topic Clienta Stakeholders RIS education Sprint concept summary Implemented?
(Year) team partnersb RISc
Digital Design
Reimagining From recordkeeping to record
10 State Gov. Agency,
the future of Prod. 41 10 Y using. To generate hindsight, Yes
(2017) Dept. D Software
recordkeeping insight, and foresight
Vendor
Transforming
Using job skill clusters to
11 youth employment State Gov. Digital Design
Prod. 21 8 N create future of employment –
(2017) outcomes through Dept. I Agency
services
digital
12 Process State Gov. A digital platform for Land
– Prod. 41 5 Y Yes
(2017) re-design 1 Dept. J tax
Empowering residents
13 Digital Strategy Local Gov. and businesses to thrive in
– Syst. 25 5 N Yes
(2017) of a city Dept. a globally connected, digitally
enabled world
14 Proactive Prototype your life at
University – Prod. 192 14 N Yes
(2017) University university
A superannuation company
15 Superannuation Superannuation
– Prod. 12 4 N that integrates into gig-job –
(2017) and the gig economy Company
platforms
Development
Food
of an integrated
16 Food manufacturer, A global distribution model
Australian-made Prod. 24 10 N –
(2017) consultancy food package from ready-eat meals
ready meals business
design agency
for export markets
No of No in Client
Topic Clienta b c
Stakeholders RIS education Sprint concept summary Implemented?
(Year) team partners RIS
Building information
17 Managing building State Gov. Digital Design
Syst. 62 8 N management to building –
(2018) information Dept. D Agency
information value
18 State Gov. Client and land profiling for
Process re-design: 2 – Proc. 57 5 Y Yes
(2018) Dept. J economic contribution
Timber
19 Timber revenue Timber economy: demand
manufacturing – Prod. 25 5 Y -
(2019) resilience slave to demand mastery
company
20 Process State Gov. Making it easy to grow my
– Proc. 55 7 Y Yes
(2019) re-design 3 Dept. J business and pay its tax
21 Process State Gov. Front-loading compliance
(2019) re-design: 4 Dept. J across the royalties lifecycle
Using protocols to enable
22 Process State Gov.
– Proc. 57 8 Y a network of duties service Yes
(2019) re-design: 5 Dept. J
providers
Using informational artefacts
23 Process State Gov. Software as boundary objects to
Syst. 19 4 Y Yes
(2019) re-design: 6 Dept. J Vendor translate and implement
digital transformation change
Reimagining public The cascading pyramid

record appraisal and Syst. 80 8 Y of digital recordkeeping Yes
(2019) Dept. D Agency
disposal processes retention and disposal
25 State Gov. Digital Design Living digital strategy
Digital strategy Strat. 25 9 N Yes
(2019) Dept. K Agency framework
Financial
26 Reducing scam Scams do not discriminate,
services – Prod. 33 6 Y Yes
(2019) victimisation and nor do we
company
115
116
No of No in Client
Topic Clienta Stakeholders RIS education Sprint concept summary Implemented?
(Year) team partnersb RISc
Whole-of-government
customer experience
27 Proactive government State Gov. transformation to give
– Syst. 40 6 N Yes
(2019) service delivery Dept. D our customers choice and
convenience while remaining
responsive and secure
Waste-considered government
procurement and recovery
28 Plastic waste policy State Gov.
– Syst. 40 4 N processes to initiate and lead Yes
(2019) tools Dept. K
shifts in the circular economy
of a state
29 Genomics and Research State-wide Genomics
– Sys. 144 7 N Yes
(2020) precision medicine Institution Governance Mechanism
Engage Early and Engage
30 Process State Gov. Often, for the delivery of

(2020) re-design:7 Dept. J an end-to-end penalty debit
process
Note: a The Client column indicates the funding partner associated with each research project; b In addition to the QUT Centre for the Digital Economy, based on RIS
requirements; c Type of RIS = Product, Process, Strategy, System.
A sprint retrospective is a common process reflection activity embedded in agile methods

for software development (Dingsøyr et al., 2018). We conducted sprint retrospectives within
one month of the Post-Sprint phase; they lasted up to one hour and were carried out either in
a face-to-face group or via video conferencing. Each Sprint retrospective discussion revolved
around three main topics, namely: what worked well; what could have been improved; and
what the team would want to change for the following RIS (Scrum.org, 2022). This process
aligns with the action research framework (Susman & Evered, 1978). Data were collected
through documented participant observation in RIS, as well as the Sprint retrospectives
themselves and RIS project documentation. Data were then coded by chronological sorting
of RIS iterations and a thematic analysis of key themes relating to lessons learnt. Building on
this retrospective analysis, the following sections outline eight lessons learnt from running our
RIS, to help researchers and other professionals replicate our method.
Lesson 1: Appoint the design innovation catalyst as RIS leader and project manager
The catalyst in the team has a boundary-spanning role tasked with “building a bridge” among
client organisations, partner institutions, and end-user communities. This role requires the
catalyst to be cognisant of the different attitudes, cultures, norms, and beliefs within their con-
stituencies (Siegel et al., 2004). Whilst academics may be uniquely positioned to facilitate this
knowledge transfer (Kunttu et al., 2018), additional design and innovation skills are required
to support the translation between research and practice (Norman, 2010). As project manag-
ers, catalysts facilitate, and coach the RIS by leveraging their expertise in the use of design
methods and tools (Townson et al., 2015; Wrigley, 2016). Among the catalyst’s main tasks,
we include the design and lead of both the provocation and the presentation workshops, as
well as other internal, ad hoc workshops. Given their skillsets, catalysts often also contribute
to the digital design component of the RIS. The catalysts’ role naturally drives them towards
product/project ownership (internal to the research team) and makes them the leaders in the
engagement with the client organisation.
Lesson 2: Support the solution owner to become the design champion

The problem/solution owners are the representatives from the client organisation tasked with
managing the RIS and actively contributing to its outputs and outcomes. The problem/solution
owners are selected by the client organisation based on their expertise and knowledge of the
problem space, their ownership of the proposed solutions (once integrated back to their organ-
isation), and their position in an internal team (for example, a manager can participate in a RIS
together with their employees).
Through an evaluation of the 30 RIS projects, the most successful projects were those
where the solution owner became a design champion, advocating for the outcomes of the RIS.
A design champion can leverage their knowledge, position, and power within an organisation
to advocate, engage and disseminate RIS insights with staff and executive management alike
(Wrigley, 2016). New design champions require mentorship to overcome siloed constraints,
develop closer cross-functional links and challenge and grow mindsets within their organisa-
tion (Bucolo et al., 2012).
Design innovation catalysts need to support solution owners on the RIS journey, helping
them challenge institutional beliefs and uncover stakeholder insights to develop new innova-
tions. Researchers can also facilitate the development of the solution owner with the reassur-
ance of a rigorous research project, comprehensive primary and secondary research, and an
authoritative voice on the subject matter.
Lesson 3: Be deliberate in questioning systems thinking boundaries

Good practice in any design-led method is to question the boundaries assumed in any situation.
Wrigley’s Assumption Testing Principle (Wrigley, 2017) encourages practitioners to under-
stand that systems thinking approaches alone only enable understanding of a problem through
its parts, and that there is benefit in questioning the existence and location of the systems’
parts. The risk of not questioning these boundaries assumes that interactions, processes, tech-
nologies, policies, and regulations are fixed, and the impacts of future signals and trends are
not considered, leaving the RIS at a high risk of failing. The issue emerges when this boundary
questioning is not formally discussed with the client organisation beforehand. If the value in
this activity is not understood, stakeholders may disregard the activity or discussion topic, or
even fundamentally question the contractual scope of the RIS. We have found that methods
that draw on exploring uncertainties, such as futures thinking (Buehring & Bishop, 2020),
scenario planning (Colombi & Zindato, 2019), or provocations (Ozkaramanli et al., 2016)
help legitimise the discussion within client and stakeholder groups and advance strategic
decision-making beyond short-term market needs (Buehring & Liedtka, 2018). By deliber-
ately assigning these conversations to formal and tested future-focused methods, stakeholders
gain confidence in the approach and are provided with authority to carry out the discussions.
Lesson 4: Instil design thinking learning styles in executive leadership

While the executive leadership of an organisation may not be present for the entire RIS, their
role is critical in ensuring the RIS are free from unnecessary complications and are provided
with agency to challenge current thinking. Mismanaged project expectations, interpersonal
conflicts, and misaligned priorities can quickly erode the relationship between executive
leadership and the RIS. The RIS team must utilise project resources, stakeholder insights, and
facilitation techniques to build the capabilities required to address leadership gaps that are
common in design-led projects (Bucolo et al., 2012):
• Capability 1: Provide the necessary conditions to maximize the design thinking learning
styles of a cross-functional team;
• Capability 2: Align the identified competitive advantage to company strategy and brand
values;
• Capability 3: Scaffold team with the necessary internal resources and guidance to enhance
productivity of the process.
Based on our learnings, to build these leadership capabilities we must understand the learning
styles needed from the executive leadership at each stage of the RIS that they are actively
engaged in (Incubate, Design, Validate, and Integrate). Beckman and Barry’s (2008) four
design thinking learning styles of diverging, assimilating, converging and accommodating
provide the foundation to frame engagement and education for executive leaders during the
RIS. Table 6.4 presents the key lessons to design executive leadership engagement across four
stages of the RIS, as they align to the design thinking learning styles. These lessons refine
attempts to instil design thinking learning styles in executives as well as gaps in organisational
leadership found in design-led projects.
Table 6.4 Lessons for executive leadership roles and learning styles
RIS Stage Design thinking learning RIS: RIS:

style (Beckman & Barry, executive leadership roles engagement lessons to develop
2008) executive leadership capabilities
Offer initial perspectives of the
Diverging: problem/solution space and provide Education of design thinking learning
Incubate See concrete situations from broader organisational and external styles; Multiple points of engagement
many perspectives context for the research team to and collaboration early on
consider
Assimilating:
Leaders may participate in or observe Facilitate group articulation of
Understand a broad range
Design stakeholder workshops where competitive advantage, brand values,
of data and information and
appropriate and future uncertainties
synthesising it logically
In course correction workshops, the The use of underpinning academic
Converging:
executive leadership contributes to theories as justification has a polarising
Find practical uses for ideas
Validate further understanding the insights effect on stakeholders; test early on
and use theories to address
gathered and providing feedback, how much academic theory is used in
problems
direction, and inspiration discussion
The executive team receive the Road mapping, concepts to solutions,
Accommodating:
presentation, implementation plans, further prototyping needs, key issues to
Support integration by
Integrate and reports and make decisions overcome and success metrics are key
sharing their hands-on
on how best to progress the RIS internal resources executive teams need
experiences
outcomes within the organisation to engage with RIS outcomes
Lesson 5: Pre-empt and design-in mindsets to learn from failure

Disciplines that have learnt to manage failure effectively understand that a culture of learning
is important, highlighting that exportation-based and hypothesis-testing “failures” are in many
ways successful (Edmondson, 2011). As RIS explore innovative concepts within uncertain
futures, failure is quick, and the learning potential is high. However, many RIS face organisa-
tional blockers impeding the projects’ ability to properly succeed and fail. For managers and
executives alike, a number of cognitive traps cloud the ability to learn from failure, including:
the dissonance of new ideas conflicting with the status quo, leading to denial and self-justifica-
tion; narrative fallacy which creates a story where there isn’t one; confirmation bias, which
looks for supporting evidence of existing decisions; and retrospective biases, which affirm
past successes (Catalano et al., 2018).
Research teams in RIS and their client organisations should learn to pre-empt these traps
as they are ubiquitous to all RIS. As these run for only a few weeks, the ability to facilitate
the psychological safety of staff involved is limited. In innovation teams, psychological
safety influences the ability for individuals, teams or organisational cultures to contribute to
novel innovations (Edmondson & Mogelof, 2006). Of the 30 RIS, 11 projects involved the
client organisation in a “Disruptive innovation leadership course” (Queensland University
of Technology, 2021) prior to the RIS commencement, to develop innovation mindsets and
practical skills commonly used in RIS. This approach yielded far greater “implemented” RIS
than those that did not receive this training (see Table 6.3). This lesson is to add additional time
to educate and develop psychological safety for innovation before commencing RIS activities.
Table 6.5 Common visualisation languages used in RIS types
RIS type Common visualisation languages Reference (example)

User journey mapping Lewrick et al. (2018)
Product RIS Personas Solis (2015)
Experience prototyping Keane & Nisi (2014)
Process mapping Damelio (2011)
Process RIS
Service blueprints S. Gibbons (2017)
Golden circles Sinek (2009)
Strategy RIS Business model canvas Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010)
Scenario planning Wright & Cairns (2011)
Ecosystem mapping Vink et al. (2021)
System RIS
Program logic Goertzen et al. (2003)
This creates organisational mindsets more willing to explore and learn from project successes
and, more importantly, perceived failures.
Lesson 6: Visualise and communicate intangible and complex concepts

Digital designers mainly create the visuals for a RIS. Their skillset can include service,
product, UX, and UI design, software development, communication, etc. The relevance
of the digital designers grows as the RIS progresses, peaking in the final days, where they
are required to produce the visuals of the final artefacts. Digital designers are also actively
involved in the design of the presentation and provocation workshops. For product design,
service design and user experience projects, Lesson 6 is well known with many authors
highlighting sketching, visualisation, mock-ups, and prototyping as core activities throughout
design thinking methods (Knapp et al., 2016; Straker et al., 2021). For these types of RIS,
the visualisation and communication of physical and digital concepts is well known, utilising
journey maps, wireframes, and canvasses to convey ideas. As RIS explore different innovation
types across a technology/strategy spectrum, effective visual commutation of intangible and
complex concepts becomes more difficult and, as a result, ideas can get lost or misinterpreted.
We extracted the following, associated lessons. First, engaging in the visual communication
throughout the entire RIS, including the project plan, data analysis, and verbal discussions,
is fundamental. Second, there is a need to find common visual languages that the project
audience relates to, and to use them consistently. Table 6.5 exemplifies the most common
visualisation languages based on the different RIS types we conducted.
Third, the research team needs to learn from problem/solution owners, executive leadership,
and other external stakeholders what visual language resonates with them. A good starting
point is the exploration of published literature and industry reports in similar industries.
Lesson 7: Supercharge collaborative researcher practice

Researchers, especially upon joining their first RIS, tend to be the least familiar with this type
of project. First, the speed and variety of research carried out is usually much higher than in
more traditional research projects. This is seen in varying data collection methods; the ambi-
guity in the several phases of a RIS; and the emergent nature of the findings (Bongiovanni &
Louis, 2021). The second challenge sees researchers as a contributing team member in the
RIS, where they do not typically manage the overall process themselves. The third frustration
for the researchers comes with the scheduling issues of balancing their workload with the
full-time requirements of a RIS. Over time, researchers do become more accustomed to this
type of engagement as they gain confidence and experience the multi-disciplinarity and team-
working of an RIS, two recurrent imperatives in contemporary research policy (M. Gibbons,
1994; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 2000). Overall, research conducted through the RIS enables
a closer relationship between researchers and end-users, which numerous researchers and
stakeholders have been recently calling for (Rau et al., 2018; Toe, 2021; Tsey et al., 2019).
The role of the research component in RIS deserves a separate discussion, as it represents the
most dramatic difference between RIS and other design-led engagement formats. Conducted
within an academic environment and by professionals that are either academics themselves or
have an affiliation with academic institutions, RIS are deeply intertwined with the practices
of scholarly research. From a research team perspective, researchers involved in RIS have
their performance measured against typical academic KPIs (e.g., quality and quantity of pub-
lications). As a result, RIS are structured in a way to also promote theoretical contributions,
besides practical impact. The following features are designed into the RIS, to achieve this goal:
1. Client organisations are made aware of the scholarly research requirements of the RIS and
the process of publishing all or part of the data collected during RIS is agreed upon ex ante;
2. Ethical clearance is obtained prior to the RIS for data and findings to be published in aca-
demic and non-academic outlets;
3. Data collection, as a result, follows academic standards (e.g., informed consent; etc.);
4. Especially during the problem framing phase (Incubate and Research), abundant literature
is explored to gain a better understanding of the issues at stake; this then supports the
write-up of the literature review section in ensuing publications;
5. Knowledge is typically built over series of RIS (concatenation; Nunamaker et al., 2017),
especially when these revolve around similar topics.
Despite these features in-built in the RIS, our experience with running these initiatives has
taught us that it is not always possible to extract sufficient knowledge from one or a limited
number of RIS to lead to an academic publication. There are several reasons for this: first,
the prominent focus on problem-solving and elaboration of solutions through creativity, and
the search for a prototype (with just enough features to make it testable by end-users), can
lead to cutting the research phase short of achieving saturation typical of scholarly research
(Ando et al., 2014). Second, and associated with the previous point, the commercial nature
of the engagement underlying the RIS makes client organisations’ goals a priority, in which
academic publications can, at times, take a secondary role. Third, time constraints require the
research team to investigate a particular field of study just as much to achieve an understanding
sufficient to then elaborate solutions and test them with end users. In this sense, RIS are exer-
cises in innovative exploration, where knowledge acquisition is instrumental to incrementally
solving existing problems, and not so much answering research questions (Stebbins, 2001).
Nonetheless, the aforementioned strategies developed by the authors proved helpful in cor-
roborating the solidity of the research component of the RIS and allowed us to publish some
good-quality journal articles (Dootson et al., 2021; Scholta et al., 2019; Tate et al., 2018).
On this note, over the years, we have reflected on the attractiveness that the RIS format has
for client organisations. We concluded, supported by explicit mentions from client organisa-
tions’ involved in RIS, that clients highly value the academic rigour fostered by the work of
the research team. This is line with recent calls for academic research to expand its services
towards an entrepreneurial model (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017). In addition, this separates the
work conducted by the RIS team from more traditional business consulting tasks and prevents
the research team from running into competition from more established players.
Lesson 8: Bridge the academia–industry gap

As an external engagement and research format, the RIS constitute an attempt to address
criticism that the university sector has been receiving in the last decades. The main point of
contention is the capability of universities to produce research with an impact, which is to say
“the contribution that research makes to the economy, society, environment or culture, beyond
the contribution to academic research” (Australian Research Council, 2021). High-impact
research guides design and practice and produces improvements in outcomes of interest across
its field and in the society; despite the growing number of published research papers, there is,
however, a shortage of such high-impact research (Nunamaker et al., 2017). This is in stark
contrast with the dramatically rapid business and social changes that are currently driven by
digital technologies: in this dynamic and competitive environment, the need for impactful and
consumable research to assist businesses and society is more pressing than ever.
The friction between the ability of scholars to produce impactful research and the demand
of society for the same has several root causes that, for the purpose of brevity, we will only list
here: scholars’ performance is mainly measured against criteria that do not necessarily reflect
how impactful their research is2 (e.g., publication on academic outlets); academic research
often takes too long to be completed in a timeframe acceptable and consumable by industry
and society in general; academic outputs are often made available to academic audiences only,
contributing to a self-referential system; the nature itself of academic enquiry seems to prefer
“answering questions” rather than “producing solutions”; fruitful collaborations between aca-
demia and industry face important hurdles, magnified by intrinsic, structural differences in the
modi operandi of the two; and so on.
As a response to these different challenges, similar to some of the approaches discussed
at the beginning of this chapter (Hevner & Chatterjee, 2010; Nunamaker et al., 2015; Sein et
al., 2011; Van de Ven, 2007), RIS leverage a practice-focused, design-led approach which
is demonstrably effective in bringing industry partners and academics together, to propose
solutions to real-world problems through the tools and techniques typical of Design Thinking.
One last positive aspect of RIS makes them a great approach to strengthen academia–industry
collaboration: RIS are topic-agnostic, as their structure and format can be applied to most
business and societal problems, multiplying opportunities for multi-stakeholder collaboration
across a variety of disciplines and business domains.
CLOSING REMARKS
Conceptually, Research Innovation Sprints “live” at the intersection of traditional business

research and Design Thinking. They certainly “belong” to the realm of design-led innovation
approaches, but see the active, and crucial, participation of researchers that have a solid
background in conducting scholarly enquiry. This makes RIS a suitable approach not only to
ideate solutions to solve client organisations’ problems, but also to expand current knowledge
around complex phenomena. The eight Lessons presented in this chapter offer learnings from
extensive application of RIS in the nexus between Design Thinking, academia, and industry.
We hope to have laid the foundations for other research teams to join us in continuously
experimenting with this approach and more effectively bridging the gap between academia
and industry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The RIS described in this chapter were financially supported by the client organisations out-
lined in this chapter.
NOTES
1. https://research.qut.edu.au/cde/; until 2020, the team’s name was PwC Chair in Digital Economy at
QUT.
2. Current trends in how research councils and funding partners assess quality of research indicate that
this is changing. In the UK, for example, the Research Excellence Framework (https://www.ref.ac
.uk/) evaluates the quality of research produced by higher education institutions in the country. In
the latest editions (2014 and 2021), the impact criterion has gained progressively more weight. The
pace of change, however, stays slow.
REFERENCES
Ando, H., Cousins, R., & Young, C. (2014). Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: Development and
refinement of a codebook. Comprehensive Psychology, 3(3). CP. 03.04.
Australian Research Council. (2021). Research impact principles and framework. Retrieved from https://
www.arc.gov.au/policies-strategies/strategy/research-impact-principles-framework
Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems:
Making IS research relevant to practice: Foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 329–335.
Beckman, S. (2020). To frame or reframe: Where might design thinking research go next? California
Management Review, 62(2), 144–162.
Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2008). Developing design thinking capabilities. Step Inside Design, 24(4), 82.
Bongiovanni, I., & Louis, C. P. (2021). Theory and practice of Design Thinking: Perspectives of
designers and business consultants. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 9(3),
174–191. doi:10.1080/21650349.2021.1929501
Bucolo, S., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2012). Gaps in organizational leadership: Linking strategic
and operational activities through design-led propositions. Design Management Journal, 7(1), 18–28.
Buehring, J., & Bishop, P. (2020). Foresight and design: New support for strategic decision making. She
Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation, 6(3), 408–432.
Buehring, J., & Liedtka, J. (2018). Embracing systematic futures thinking at the intersection of strategic
planning, foresight and design. Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 134–152. doi:10.24840/
2183-0606_006-003_0006
Catalano, A. S., Redford, K., Margoluis, R., & Knight, A. T. (2018). Black swans, cognition, and the
power of learning from failure. Conservation Biology, 32(3), 584–596.
Colombi, C., & Zindato, D. (2019). Handbook of anticipation (pp. 821–842). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Damelio, R. (2011). The basics of process mapping. CRC Press.
Dingsøyr, T., Mikalsen, M., Solem, A., & Vestues, K. (2018). Learning in the large: An explora-
tory study of retrospectives in large-scale agile development. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Agile Software Development.
Dootson, P., Tate, M., Desouza, K. C., & Townson, P. (2021). Transforming public records management:
Six key insights. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(5), 643–648.
doi:10.1002/asi.24429
Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Strategies for learning from failure. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 48–55.
Edmondson, A. C., & Mogelof, J. P. (2006). Explaining psychological safety in innovation teams:
Organizational culture, team dynamics, or personality. Creativity and Innovation in Organizational
Teams, 21, 28.
Estrada, I., Faems, D., Cruz, N. M., & Santana, P. P. (2016). The role of interpartner dissimilarities
in industry–university alliances: Insights from a comparative case study. Research policy, 45(10),
2008–2022.
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and
entrepreneurship (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge the dynamics of science and research in contem-
porary societies. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Gibbons, S. (2017). Service blueprint. Retrieved from https:// www .nngroup.com/articles/
service
-blueprints-definition/
Goertzen, J. R., Fahlman, S. A., Hampton, M. R., & Jeffery, B. L. (2003). Creating logic models using
grounded theory: A case example demonstrating a unique approach to logic model development. The
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 18(2), 115.
Google Ventures (2019). The design sprint. Retrieved from http://www.gv.com/sprint/
Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum
impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01
Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life
sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41–54.
He, V. F., von Krogh, G., Sirén, C., & Gersdorf, T. (2021). Asymmetries between partners and the
success of university-industry research collaborations. Research Policy, 50(10), 104356.
Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design science research: Looking to the future. In Design research
in information systems: Theory and practice (pp. 261–268). Boston, MA: Springer US.
Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile software development: The business of innovation.
Computer, 34(9), 120–127. doi:10.1109/2.947100
Hildenbrand, T., & Meyer, J. (2012). Intertwining lean and design thinking: Software product devel-
opment from empathy to shipment. In A. Maedche, A. Botzenhardt, & L. Neer (Eds.), Software for
people: Fundamentals, trends and best practices (pp. 217–237). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Keane, K., & Nisi, V. (2014). Experience prototyping: Gathering rich understandings to guide design.
In Emerging research and trends in interactivity and the human–computer interface (pp. 224–237).
IGI Global.
Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just
five days. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kunttu, L., Huttu, E., & Neuvo, Y. (2018). How doctoral students and graduates can facilitate boundary
spanning between academia and industry. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(6), 48–54.
doi:10.22215/timreview/1164
Lewrick, M., Link, P., & Leifer, L. (2018). The design thinking playbook: Mindful digital transformation
of teams, products, services, businesses and ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons.
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (2000). “Mode 2” and the globalization of “national” systems of inno-
vation. The triple helix model of relations between university, industry, and government. Sociologie
et sociétés, 32(1), 135–156.
Liedtka, J. (2017). Evaluating the impact of design thinking in action. Paper presented at the Academy
of Management Proceedings.
Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72–79.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qual-
itative research (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
McGann, M., Wells, T., & Blomkamp, E. (2021). Innovation labs and co-production in public problem
solving. Public Management Review, 23(2), 297–316. doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1699946
Norman, D. (2010). Design thinking: A useful myth. Core77. Retrieved from https://www.core77.com/
posts/16790/design-thinking-a-useful-myth-16790
Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., Derrick, D. C., & Schwabe, G. (2015). The last research mile: Achieving
both rigor and relevance in information systems research. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 32(3), 10–47. doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1094961
Nunamaker, J. F., Twyman, N. W., Giboney, J. S., & Briggs, R. O. (2017). Creating high-value
real-world impact through systematic programs of research. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), 335–351. doi:10
.25300/MISQ/2017/41.2.01
changers, and challengers (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
Ozkaramanli, D., Desmet, P. M. A., Lloyd, P., & Bohemia, E. (2016). Provocative design for unpro-
vocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas. Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design +
Research + Society – Future-Focused ThinkingDesign, 1.
Perkmann, M., Salandra, R., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., & Hughes, A. (2021). Academic engagement:
A review of the literature 2011–2019. Research Policy, 50(1), 104–114.
Price, R. A., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2018). Action researcher to design innovation catalyst: Building
design capability from within. Action Research, 19(2), 318–337. doi:10.1177/1476750318781221
Queensland University of Technology. (2021). Disruptive innovation leadership course. Retrieved from
https://www.qut.edu.au/study/professional-and-executive-education/courses/disruptive-innovation
-leadership-course
Rai, A. (2019). Editor’s comments: Engaged scholarship: research with practice for impact. MIS
Quarterly, 43(2), iii–viii.
Rau, H., Goggins, G., & Fahy, F. (2018). From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and
societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research. Research Policy, 47(1), 266–276.
Recker, J. C., & Rosemann, M. (2015). Systemic ideation: A playbook for creating innovative ideas more
consciously. 360° – The Business Transformation Journal, 13, 34–45.
Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and
academic science. Organization Science, 24(3), 889–909.
Scholta, H., Mertens, W., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Becker, J. (2019). From one-stop shop to no-stop shop:
An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 11–26.
Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum: Prentice Hall PTR.
Scrum.org. (2022). What is a sprint retrospective? Retrieved from https://www.scrum.org/resources/
what-is-a-sprint-retrospective
Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS
Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective
transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the
commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
21(1), 115–142. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2003.12.006
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Penguin.
Solis, B. (2015). X: The experience when business meets design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Straker, K., Wrigley, C., & Nusem, E. (2021). Design innovation and integration. Amsterdam: BIS
Publishers.
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603. doi:10.2307/2392581
Tate, M., Bongiovanni, I., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Townson, P. (2018). Managing the “fuzzy front end”
of open digital service innovation in the public sector: A methodology. International Journal of
Information Management, 39, 186–198.
The University of Queensland. (2021). Contract research and tenders. Retrieved from https://research.uq
.edu.au/research-support/research-management/contract-research-and-tenders
Toe, L. P. (2021). We need to redefine the relationship between science and its end-users. Nature Human
Behaviour, 5(2), 176–177.
Townson, P., Matthews, J., & Wrigley, C. (2015, 6–9 December). Customer inspired innovation with
designer as innovation catalyst. Paper presented at the ISPIM Innovation Symposium – Changing the
Innovation Landscape, Brisbane, Australia.
Tripp, C. (2013). No empathy – no service. Design Management Review, 24(3), 58–64.
Tsey, K., Onnis, L.-a., Whiteside, M., McCalman, J., Williams, M., Heyeres, M., . . . Baird, L. (2019).
Assessing research impact: Australian Research Council criteria and the case of Family Wellbeing
research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 73, 176–186.
UK Design Council. (2019). The design process: What is the double diamond? Retrieved from https://
www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovat-
ing what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Vink, J., Koskela-Huotari, K., Tronvoll, B., Edvardsson, B., & Wetter-Edman, K. (2021). Service eco-
system design: Propositions, process model, and future research agenda. Journal of Service Research,
24(2), 168–186.
Wright, G., & Cairns, G. (2011). Scenario thinking: Practical approaches to the future. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Wrigley, C. (2016). Design innovation catalysts: Education and impact. She Ji: The Journal of Design,
Economics and Innovation, 2(2), 148–165. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2016.10.001
Wrigley, C. (2017). Principles and practices of a design-led approach to innovation. International
Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5(3–4), 235–255. doi:10.1080/21650349.2017.1292152
Wrigley, C., Nusem, E., & Straker, K. (2020). Implementing design thinking: Understanding organiza-
tional conditions. California Management Review, 62(2), 125–143.
7. Design4Health: developing design thinking
bootcamps in the Middle East
Carlos Montana and Thomas Boillat
INTRODUCTION
For years, healthcare has been facing several challenging issues, such as limited resources,
increasing demand and increasing expectations, as well as increasing pressure on medical
professionals (Kelly & Young, 2017). More recently, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and
associated consequences brought another level of complexity to healthcare, requiring fast
and agile adaptations to cope with unknown situations. To solve these complex challenges,
being able to identify user needs, understand constraints, find ideas, and quickly test and
refine them, are the skills required to maximise the chance of successful adaptation and
innovation. In this regard, design thinking, often defined as a human-centred design approach
to innovation, has received increasing attention from healthcare stakeholders (Ku & Lupton,
2020). In this chapter, we briefly describe the evolution of design thinking and human-centred
design, to provide the reader with a background for a better understanding of its development
and relevance. We then present the pedagogical approach taken for the development of the
Design4Health Bootcamps, leading to a description of the programme developed in Dubai by
multiple collaborating higher education institutions. The aim was to include students from dif-
ferent disciplines (health, engineering, and design) to explore the art and science behind health
innovation, through multidisciplinary collaborative workshops with multiple stakeholders. We
then introduce the Design Thinking Journey Map (DTJM), a methodology and tool designed
and developed by one of the authors, to facilitate the implementation of design thinking in this
context and explain its use in the Design4Health Bootcamp. We end this chapter with some
recommendations on how to implement our findings in health innovation training.
MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN THINKING APPROACHES IN

HEALTHCARE
Design thinking is a practical approach to innovation that offers an iterative process to solve
complex problems, building upon collaborative co-creation activities. It has been widely used
to innovate in industry, and academia as a tool for collaborative, problem-based learning
towards innovation. Design thinking combines convergent and divergent thinking, visualis-
ation techniques, multidisciplinary teams, and a structured approach to human-centred design.
This human-centred approach to overcoming challenges has direct and relatable advantages to
future health professions, by encouraging and providing strategies to empathise with different
127
stakeholders: being a patient, their family, a nurse, or a medical practitioner, among others.
Design thinking can be at the centre of healthcare innovation and applied to different aspects
of healthcare practice, be it in situ or remotely, as exemplified in the now ubiquitous e-health,
digital health, and telemedicine practices. In this section, we summarise the evolution of
user-centred and human-centred design practices, as a background to better understand the
design thinking process as applied to healthcare.
Human-Centred Design (HCD)
User-Centred Design (UCD) or Human-Centred Design (HCD) are terms closely associated
with design thinking. Related topics such as human factors, ergonomics and anthropometrics
were some of the seminal approaches of design and engineering focused on the wellbeing of
people, developed mostly in the last decades of the 20th century, and focused on the user.
While human factors and ergonomics are often interchangeable, one of the simplest definitions
is proposed by Dempsey et al. (2000, p. 6.), as “Ergonomics is the design and engineering of
human–machine systems for the purpose of enhancing human performance”. Early pioneers
of industrial design such as Norman Bel Geddes and Henry Dreyfuss also pioneered a focus
on people, exemplified by the 1955 classic Designing for People, a book by Dreyfuss and
Associates, which included many anthropometric charts where different dimensions of men
and women were compiled. This focus of design towards people has been evolving from
initial physiological approaches to subsequent psychological and emotional approaches. For
example, initial physiological approaches included ergonomic studies where the postures
of workers and their interaction with furniture and machines were studied with the aim of
enhancing comfort and minimising human risk. With the advent of computers and a new HCI
field of study, authors as Donald Norman formalised a user-centred approach to design, by
placing end-users at the forefront of the design process (Norman, 2013). In this new approach,
psychological and emotional aspects became a focus. Related topics, such as “usability” or
“user-friendliness” were also developed, especially in the digital realm. While there are many
discussions around differences or similarities between UCD and HCD, we will argue that
a user-centred approach focuses on individuals as “users” (or even consumers) of products
and technologies, while a human-centred approach is more holistic. According to Giacomin
(2014, p. 3), “Today’s human centred design is based on the use of techniques which commu-
nicate, interact, empathize and stimulate the people involved, obtaining an understanding of
their needs, desires and experiences which often transcends that which the people themselves
actually realized”. Furthermore, Steen (2011) describes six human-centred design approaches,
including participatory design, ethnography, the lead-user approach, contextual design,
co-design and empathic design. A main component of Human-Centred Design, as well as
design thinking, is empathy. According to The Greater Good Science Centre at the University
of California, Berkeley (2021), “the term empathy is used to describe a wide range of expe-
riences. Emotion researchers generally define empathy as the ability to sense other people’s
emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling”.
In simpler terms, empathy is often described as “being able to walk in other’s shoes”.
In current design and innovation approaches, participatory design, co-design and HCD tools
are still desirable, valid, and widely used both in industry and academia. However, contempo-
rary academic discourse and research also critique the “human-centric” design and innovation
Design4Health: developing design thinking bootcamps in the Middle East 129
approaches, as part of an “anthropocentric” view, which is the root of many problems derived
from the industrial revolution, such as environmental and complex problems of our times.
Thus, researchers are proposing a “post-human” design and innovation approach, which is not
human-centric, but focused on protecting all forms of life, including fauna and flora. While the
critiques of anthropocentric approaches to human-centred design are valid and timely, espe-
cially around topics of sustainability and the depletion of natural resources, it could also be
said that a human-centred approach to design is also in line with the social aspects of sustaina-
bility. Such approaches to design in healthcare also include salutogenic design (or design that
focuses on a positive impact of the build environment in human health) and biophilic design,
where people are connected to nature in the built environment, also to improve people’s health.
Design Thinking and Healthcare
Design thinking can be understood in different ways. From an academic perspective, as pro-
posed by design theorists Nigel Cross (2011) and Brian Lawson (1997) among many others,
design thinking is the “designerly” way in which design practitioners think. However, from
a more applied perspective, design thinking has become an approach to innovation, popular-
ised by design consultancies such as IDEO and institutions such as the UK Design Council.
To explain design thinking, many models of the process have been developed, ranging in
a number of steps or phases, from two steps to seven or more. In a widely cited 2008 Harvard
Business Review article, Tim Brown describes the process as “iterative cycles of prototyp-
ing, testing and refinement” (Brown, 2008, p. 4). The cyclic nature of the process is widely
described as the core of the design thinking process, and can be visualised as one overall
cyclic, iterative process. Design thinking is also said to be a combination of both divergent
and convergent thinking. Two of the most widely used models are five-step visualisations,
popularised by IDEO and the Stanford d-school. We will not discuss these models here, as
these have been widely discussed, and are not the focus of the paper. However, it is worth men-
tioning the development of numerous tools to facilitate the design thinking process, including
the IDEO Method Cards, and the Stanford d.school bootleg.
For the Design4Health Bootcamps described in this chapter, we used the Double Diamond
model developed by the British Design Council in 2005 as a basis for the adapted model we
will describe below. The Design Council “double diamond” model proposes four steps in
the creative process: (1) discover, (2) define, (3) develop and (4) deliver (Design Council,
2005). In summary, different design thinking models and approaches are relatively similar and
comparable in their phases, as well as the overall iterative process and divergent-convergent
approaches.
In healthcare, many papers report the use of design thinking, co-design, UCD, HCD and
design with empathy focused on healthcare innovation around the world, especially since
the first decade of the last century, and coinciding with some of the dates when the models
described above were developed. Some of the most relevant topics as described through
highly cited papers are social innovation (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), healthcare management
(Roberts et al., 2016), and education for healthcare (Altman et al., 2018; Badwan et al., 2018;
MacLoughlin et al., 2019), among others. Relevant to the Middle East region, which is the
focus of our chapter, is the study by Traifeh and others (2021), which maps design thinking in
the Arab world, tracing the first translation to Arabic language of the term “design thinking”
to 2010.
LEARNING APPROACH TO DESIGN THINKING BOOTCAMPS
In the early 1970s, Roskilde University in Denmark developed a program to modify the educa-
tional system, which at the time was based on traditional memorisation and rote learning. This
new model, named Problem-oriented Project Learning (PPL), emerged to address complex
problems in more broad multidisciplinary groups (Blomhøj & Kjeldsen, 2009; Olesen &
Jensen, 1999; Olsen & Pedersen, 2008). Although sometimes interchanged, PPL is related,
although not identical to Problem-Based Learning (PBL). In both methods, students learn
by actively engaging with real-world problems which don’t have right or wrong solutions,
but rather less or more adequate solutions according to the situation, time, context and user.
Students also work in teams, and through relatively long periods of time that may vary from
an intense week to a whole semester. These learning methods develop and require critical
thinking, collaboration, communication, and problem-solving skills. More recently, Kolb
(2014) has developed the idea of Experiential Learning (EL), explained through his cyclical
model that illustrates how learners draw upon experience (feeling) that can be reflected upon
(watching) to conceptualise a theory or model (thinking) before implementing said theory or
model (doing). Experiential Learning can be achieved through educational techniques as such
PPL, PBL, action learning and team-based learning.
In our Design4Health Bootcamps, which will be described in more detail in the next section,
we used EL, PPL and PBL techniques to enhance inter- and multidisciplinary collaborative
co-design, to address challenges around Health and Digital Health, especially in the local
context in Dubai. Real-life challenges were posed by local collaborators, such as hospitals
and the health authorities, including institutions such as Mediclinic and Kings Hospital in the
first bootcamp, and the Dubai Health Authority in the second bootcamp. Participants were
provided with selected topics around Design4 Health, which were considered as relevant
immediate problems by the collaborating institutions. They were then given the background
and context of the issue by representatives of the institutions. Working in multidisciplinary
groups, participants focused on specific areas, and conducted both primary and secondary
research around the topics, for example benchmarking best international practices around
a topic, and then conducting unstructured interviews with doctors and nurses who were facing
a specific challenge in one of the collaborating institutions.
In terms of the facilitation of the Bootcamps, the three main tutors (including the two
authors) provided their specialised points of view (medicine, design, and computer science)
as well as a structure for the Bootcamps through a pre-established curriculum which included
short “knowledge capsules” as a theoretical basis for participants to engage in the design
thinking process. While there were some short lectures involved and the tutors adopted an
instructor role in the process (often related to passive learning), the main core of the experience
was around active learning, where the tutors mainly acted as facilitators, mentors, and expert
consultants.
DESIGN4HEALTH BOOTCAMPS
The first Design4Health Bootcamp in Dubai was initially designed in 2019 to introduce stu-
dents to the concept of Health Innovation. To build on each other’s knowledge, experience,
and skills, three universities from the United Arab Emirates collaborated, namely two new
institutions, the Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medical Sciences (MBRU), the Dubai
Institute of Design and Innovation (DIDI), and the more established American University
of Sharjah (AUS). The Design4Health bootcamp has been built on three main concepts: (1)
Multidisciplinarity, (2) Immersion and (3) Impact.
Multidisciplinarity has many advantages. First, it allows for viewing the world from dif-
ferent perspectives. Sharing opinions, assumptions and ideas creates opportunities for the
students to debate and converge towards a single, but a common view. Second, multidiscipli-
nary work allows participants to complement each other’s skills, competencies, strengths, and
weaknesses. Design thinking requires a set of skills and abilities that cannot come from one
single individual or discipline. Each participating team in the Design4Health Bootcamps was
purposely assembled to include medical students, students in design and students in engineer-
ing. We believe that these three disciplines represent the core of what a design thinking project
focusing on health, requires.
Immersion: though there is no single format to teach design thinking, we believe that
immersing students in an intensive programme provides the best outcomes for the following
reasons: (a) students do not know each other and require some time to understand the specific-
ity of each discipline and to build trust. (b) Challenges addressed with design thinking are very
often weakly defined. Participants thus need time to capture information about the challenge
and to navigate ambiguity. It would therefore not be appropriate to interrupt the participants
in the middle of an interview and data analysis session. (c) To keep the momentum and the
participants engaged, we have experienced that short but intense teaching modes are more
appropriate.
Impact: the choice of the challenges was also very important to maximise the outcomes. As
the name suggests, the Design4Health Bootcamp has a strong emphasis on health. We always
make sure that the challenges have a high impact, and the environments are easy to access, to
enable participants to interview and observe stakeholders. We thus work with real-world local
challenges through collaborations with local hospitals and health authorities.
To better engage students and participants with the process of design thinking, we created
our own model of the process, inspired by the Double Diamond model proposed by the Design
Council (2019), mainly because of its clarity and an emphasis on iterations of both the diver-
gent and convergent phases. While the Double Diamond model originally has four distinct
steps, which we will call phases – Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver – we integrated addi-
tional visual elements to provide more support to design thinking learners. As shown in Figure
7.1, our design thinking process has two main spaces: (1) the problem space, which includes
the steps Understand & Empathize and Define; and (2) the solution space, which is separated
from the problem space by the step Problem definition. The solution space consists of three
steps, which are Ideate, Prototype and Test. Following the Design Council’s model, our model
has four phases, two are divergent and two are convergent. Additionally, we integrated two
explicit iterations, visualised as arrows; one between the steps Define and Prototype and the
other between Prototype and Test.
Source: Adapted from the UK Design Council Double Diamond.
Figure 7.1 Design4Health Bootcamp design thinking process
2019 Bootcamp 1
In the first edition of the Bootcamp in 2019, 14 students formed three groups, each composed
of two medical students, two computer engineers and one designer (except for one group
that only had one engineer). Each team worked independently of the other teams, focusing
on one challenge. Although three hospitals participated, two suggested the same challenge –
i.e., decreasing the number of no-shows in outpatient clinics, while the other hospital asked
a team to investigate how to increase satisfaction feedback from outpatients. The curriculum
was planned around introductory content delivered through 10–20-minute mini-lectures,
or knowledge capsules, followed by discussion and implementation sessions of at least 30
minutes. This initial Bootcamp was conducted over a week and planned to allow participants
to experiment with roughly one phase of the Double Diamond design thinking model per day
(during the first four days) and then allocate the final day for final presentations of solutions
in front of experts in the fields of medicine, design, and engineering, as well as representatives
from the participating hospitals. In this first iteration, participants were required to provide
multiple solutions, based on effort and impact matrices for evaluation of solutions. All groups
proposed low-effort high-impact solutions (short-term improvements); for example, minor
improvements in text messages to patients to improve communication and avoid now-shows
to previously booked medical appointments. Some of these solutions were so simple that rep-
resentatives from the participating hospitals stated they would implement them shortly. The
other, more interesting type of solutions were high-effort high-impact solutions (futuristic or
long-term improvements), which included more exploratory, future-oriented, and potentially
costly solutions, such as robotic hosts for hospitals to improve the patient experience.
While a proposed second version of the Bootcamp was planned for 2020, due to the
COVID-19 global pandemic and consequent lockdowns and restrictions, the face-to-face
Bootcamp could not be conducted and was replaced by different efforts from the institutions,
including a Hackathon around COVID-19 organised by MBRU, and an Agile Factory,
a response to the pandemic by DIDI, where design students and faculty developed and
produced personal protective equipment and other solutions to the challenges posed by the
pandemic.
2021 Bootcamp 2
The latest edition of the Design4Health Bootcamp took place in August 2021 in Dubai, United
Arab Emirates. It was conducted for two weeks and involved four teams with a final total of
15 students from four different universities: five medical students from MBRU, four design
students from DIDI, three engineering students from AUS, one student in bioengineering from
Trinity College in Dublin, one student in engineering from Imperial College London and one
student in medicine from the same university. Each team worked on one of the following chal-
lenges: (1) support the mental health of frontliners involved in COVID-19 related activities;
(2) improve the journey of preventive medicine in private clinics; (3) improve the manage-
ment of beds across hospitals for critical COVID-19 cases; and (4) improve communication
between frontliners and management in COVID-19 isolation centres.
Unlike the first edition, the 2021 edition ran over two weeks. This duration aimed to provide
students with more time for the collection of data as part of the “understand and empathize”
phase and during the prototyping and testing phases. In total, the participants received 12
knowledge capsules, with varying topics, which ranged from conducting interviews to defin-
ing needs and problem statements, ideating, prototyping, and testing. To provide a deeper
knowledge of practical aspects of digital health, the authors also sourced 11 talks from external
speakers, including entrepreneurs, practitioners, and educators. This second Bootcamp was
planned with an allocation of 30 hours for hands-on activities and 8 hours of field observation.
The Bootcamp ended with the final presentations in front of the collaborating institutions who
proposed the challenges.
Following the design thinking process of iterations for continuous improvements, the
second version of the bootcamp built on what we learnt from the first iteration. Because a lack
of feasibility of many solutions was identified in the first Bootcamp, the second one included
many talks by entrepreneurs in health, looking to better connect participants to the business
and real-world of the health challenges explored. In view of the hybrid communication modes
explored by all academic institutions during the 2020 pandemic, another improvement was
to include international collaborators, who joined from the UK. Finally, one of the most
important improvements in the second edition of the Bootcamp was the creation and use of
the design thinking Journey Map, a methodology and toolkit to support the understanding and
implementation of design thinking.
Development of the Design Thinking Journey Map
As presented above, design thinking is an approach that is often represented through a visual
model of the process. The latter guides the design thinker along with a series of steps and
helps them to know what is expected to be done. It is up to the design thinker to find a way
to complete these steps. Without proper guidance or experience, this task can easily become
cumbersome. To support design thinking learners, specialised companies and educational
institutions have developed tools such as websites and kits that compile and describe tools and
techniques that can be used. For instance, in 2003, IDEO developed Method Cards,1 and the
Stanford d.school bootleg2 developed manuals that support the execution of design thinking
by means of methods and cards. Although these different tools have proven to be very useful,
we argue that their usability limits their impact. The cards are often not linked to the design
thinking process’ steps, while some of the methods tend to be lengthy. For these reasons,
the MBRU Design Lab, led by one of the authors, created the Design Thinking Journey
Map (DTJM), a methodology that aims to help design thinkers plan and execute their design
thinking projects. This tool was built with learners, academics, and practitioners, following the
design thinking process of iterations of testing and refinement. The DTJM tool is based on the
hybrid model of the design thinking process we used for the first Bootcamp, which integrates
elements from the previous models discussed. The DTJM’s development was as described
below.
(1) Understand and empathize (1 month): During the last five years, we have delivered
more than a dozen multidisciplinary Bootcamps and hackathons to introduce partic-
ipants to human-centred design using design thinking. To understand what training
materials are usually given to design thinking learners, we reviewed the work of three
pioneering institutions in design thinking: Stanford d.school, IDEO and Hasso-Plattner
Institute (HPI).
(2) Define (1 month): Our observations revealed that without active guidance, participants
had difficulties applying design thinking effectively. They were often lost in the process
without knowing what to do. Existing research also demonstrates that participants have
difficulties grasping what is expected from them throughout the design thinking process
(Lor, 2017; Valentim et al., 2017).
(3) Problem statement: The DTJM assists learners to effectively learn and apply design
thinking so they can leverage HCD to address weakly defined challenges.
(4) Ideate (2 weeks): After brainstorming many solutions, the idea of combining the con-
cepts of board games and puzzles received the most attention.
(5) Prototype (2 months): The prototype was made up of two elements. (1) A board,
including six design thinking’s key steps – (a) understand and empathize, (b) define, (c)
problem statement, (d) ideation, (e) prototype and (f) testing. For each step, we listed
a set of requirements based on our experience. (2) A set of tools, designed as puzzle
cards, which support the realization of the requirements. These tools were adapted and
compiled from existing copyright-free toolkits.
(6) Test (4 months): For an initial test, we gave the prototype to ten design thinking learn-
ers, five who had used design thinking one time, and five who had never heard of it. For
the latter five, we introduced them to HCD through a 15-minute lecture. Individually,
the participants were asked to plan a fictive design thinking project using our prototype.
To test the usability of our prototype, we relied on the cognitive walkthrough evaluation
technique and asked participants to think aloud about what they were trying to achieve
and how they were using the prototype (Rieman et al., 1995). Feedback was very posi-
tive and supported our design.
Although this first iteration allowed us to validate our concept, the conception of the final
version required additional steps: we conducted interviews with five design thinking experts
from academia and industry to validate and complement the steps’ requirements. In parallel,
we investigated publicly available materials of IDEO, HPI and d.school to gather their require-
ments and learning materials. The number and types of tools were also reviewed and comple-
mented from the expert feedback. After receiving feedback and being modified, the concept
received an additional round of evaluation with end-users. The first evaluation involved 15
students (from different backgrounds, mainly medicine, engineering and design) who used the
DTJM as part of the two-week, onsite, Design4Health Bootcamp described above. At the end
of the two weeks, they filled in a survey to share their experience with the DTJM. When asked
whether they enjoyed using the DTJM, they all replied positively, stating that it helped them
organise their work and thoughts. One participant wrote that the “DTJM used a more struc-
tured way to use DT, compared to what I received in college”. Most of the participants also
responded that the DTJM was easy to use and very intuitive. When asked if the DTJM helped
reduce potential inconsistencies in the execution of DT, participants also all replied positively,
citing that “it’s structured in a consistent way if you follow the steps, it’s difficult to make
mistakes”; “because for each step you know what is expected, it helps”. One participant wrote
“as much as it helped me, I believe sometimes there are other ways to help different people.
No one way of anything will be perfect for everyone”.
The final outcome is the DTJM. We chose this name as we argue that our tool supports
design thinkers in planning and executing their design thinking projects. The DTJM is availa-
ble as a physical box as well as a digital template that is available on the collaborative digital
platform Mural. In its final version, the DTJM’s board is made up of six steps, each described
using key requirements. The latter helps design thinkers know when the step is completed.
Unlike many design thinking implementations, we created a specific step dedicated to the
problem statement. The problem statement is the step that separates the “problem space” from
the “solution space”. We then argue that it plays the role of delimitator and must be explicitly
represented. Each step is represented by a colour that helps DTJM’s users with the selection of
the tools that are available to support its completion. The tools for each step were explained in
physical cards, which were built in a puzzle shape, to guide design thinkers to follow the flow
of the design thinking’s steps. For instance, the cards “Define” cannot be connected with the
cards “Ideate”. Only when a problem statement is defined, are the “Define” and “Ideate” cards
connected. Apart from the sequence, the DTJM does not require the design thinkers to use any
particular tools (i.e., cards) as it will depend on the nature of the challenge and the type of the
project. As shown in Figure 7.2, the steps are displayed horizontally, while we recommend the
users display the cards in the sequence by which they were executed within each step.
The most recent evaluation of the DTJM involved 69 first-year medical students who took
part in a course on innovation, as part of their curriculum. During six weeks, the students learnt
the concept of human-centred design through a challenge aligned with the needs of the local
population. For the year’s cohort, students were asked to design solutions focusing on weight
management and obesity. The course took place on-site, where students worked in teams of six
for two hours each week. The course followed the structure of the DTMJ. We opted for both
quantitative and qualitative measurements through an online questionnaire that was distributed
at the end of the course. With 58 answers received, the participation rate was 84%. Amongst
Figure 7.2 Extract of the board and cards of the Design Thinking Journey Map (DTJM)
the respondents, 54% had never heard of design thinking and 36% had heard about it but had
never applied it. The respondents evaluated the DTJM as is detailed in Table 7.1.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Building on scientific evidence and prior experience, this section aims to reflect upon three
years of bootcamps and hackathons in Dubai, to provide guidance for institutions that plan
to integrate similar programs as part of their offerings. The first question that we faced when
setting up the first edition of the Bootcamp was “How and where to start?” Looking at existing
literature and amongst our network, we could not find much information when it comes to
designing learning objectives, finding teaching materials and identifying suitable teaching
modes. Due to the unavailability of resources, after running and evaluating one iteration
of the Bootcamp, we decided to publish its structure along with its learning objectives for
any institutions that want to embark on a similar journey (Boillat et al., 2020). Finding the
appropriate timing to run the Bootcamp was the second challenge we faced. The intensity of
Table 7.1 Results of online questionnaire to evaluate the DTJM
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree agree
I quickly learnt how to use the DTJM 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 9 (16%) 29 (30%) 17 (52%)
I did not notice inconsistencies with the design of the 3 (5%) 7 (13%) 8 (14%) 24 (43%) 14 (25%)
DTJM
The DTJM has helped me understand and apply design 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 5 (9%) 30 (54%) 20 (36%)
thinking
The DTJM helps to reduce potential mistakes linked to 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 9 (16%) 27 (48%) 19 (34%)
the execution of design thinking
The DTJM improves the quality of the solutions my 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 6 (11%) 29 (52%) 20 (36%)
team and I designed
The DTJM promotes teamwork and collaboration 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 5 (9%) 18 (32%) 31 (55%)
the course (5–10 consecutive days) and its multidisciplinary aspect make its integration into
existing curriculum very difficult. Each institution has its own academic calendar and list of
events. As a result, the editions of the Bootcamp were organised during the second part of the
summer break in the UAE, which is in August. This timing had an impact on the availability
of students.
As explained above, multidisciplinarity is one of the Bootcamp’s core pillars. From a partic-
ipant’s perspective, working with students from other universities and disciplines can be over-
whelming at first. It is thus critical to design ice-breaking activities, to allow participants the
opportunity to get to know each other, as part of the creative activity. These activities required
participants to collaborate, as working alone there was no chance to accomplish the activities.
During the first edition, the participants were challenged to construct, in teams, the highest
possible towers made of spaghetti and marshmallows (popularly known as the “Marshmallow
Challenge”), while in the second Bootcamp, participants had to draw one personality trait,
which their peers had to guess.
To better guide participants along the design thinking process, we realised that methodolog-
ical support was necessary. For this reason, we designed the Design Thinking Journey Map.
Not only did it support instructors and participants, but it also became a common language,
a facilitator of multidisciplinary dialogue between people with different backgrounds and
ways of thinking, to collectively approach complex challenges and propose contextualised
solutions. Although the majority of the participants found the DTJM easy to use and useful,
some still faced some challenges to understand how to use it. As part of our future plans, we
will create a series of video tutorials that explain in-depth the application of the methodology
using use cases. Amongst the evaluation with medical students, only one had previously
applied design thinking. It was interesting to read that the participant found the method helpful
to develop solutions of higher quality and helped to bring more structure to the process. While
from this single answer we cannot make any generalisation, it would be interesting to evaluate
the DTJM with more experienced design thinkers.
The DTJM also helped in rebalancing disparity with existing knowledge and understand-
ing, mostly around design, a word that has different meanings for different people in varied
contexts. While most design student participants were very familiar with the design process,
even if coming from very early years of study, when medical practitioners hear about design
as a general concept, it is usually interpreted as mostly “drawings”, or “making things look

good”. In parallel, design is also a common word used in engineering. For engineers, design
is a method to solve problems. Actually, “engineering design” is taught not only in many
faculties of engineering at the tertiary level, but also in many primary and secondary schools
(NAGB, 2021).
We observed that the DTJM is also very effective in encouraging students to advance pro-
gressively through the design thinking steps, without jumping straight into obvious solutions.
Participants with some knowledge of the process, but with limited experience, will often
tend to jump very quickly into an early or pre-determined solution, without fully exploring
the nature of the problems and the variety of possible solutions. In this case, sometimes we
observed students and participants prototyping very early in the process, before realising
that their solution did not match the identified needs, or was an obvious, and non-innovative
solution.
While the DTJM is accessible online as part of a collaborative platform, we also observed
that its physical alternative is more adequate to nurture dialogue and collaboration. After
experiencing a fully onsite and face-to-face Bootcamp for the first edition, and a hybrid mode
for the second edition, we believe that the former is the most beneficial approach for students
and collaborators. We base our recommendations on two observations: first, the nature of the
challenges makes a hybrid or online version of the Bootcamp very challenging, unless the
remote participants form teams based on their geographic locations. For instance, this year’s
challenges were very specific to the Middle East. Therefore, if online is the only possible
teaching mode, then the challenges must be chosen accordingly. Second, we realised that stu-
dents from different disciplines have difficulties to collaborating with each other and keeping
track of who is doing what. Regardless of the teaching delivery mode, it is important to give
enough time to students to discover the DTJM and to use the appropriate cards depending on
their challenges. As challenge facilitators or faculty, it is always good to know whether the
participants have used design thinking in the past. Accordingly, the facilitators should adapt
the amount of teaching and information to ensure that the participants stay curious and decide
on their own what tools are the most appropriate.
When comparing the first and second editions of our Bootcamp, it is relevant to consider
duration, type of challenges and collaborators, participants, and types of outcomes. In relation
to duration, the 2019 version was relatively shorter, as it was 1 week in duration, versus the
2-week program in 2021. However, the daily work was more intense in 2019 as the schedule
was from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, while in 2021 we worked from 10 am to 4 pm. While the orig-
inal intention of the second bootcamp was to have more time for the in-situ observations and
in-depth interviews with users, we believe this was not necessarily achieved, and think the
ideal duration is still an intensive 1-week, as in our first bootcamp.
In relation to the type of challenges and collaborators, in the first bootcamp we worked
mainly with private institutions (hospitals) who had very specific challenges related to their
business. The pros of this were that the challenges were specific and easy to understand, and
this was reflected in the outcomes too, which in some cases were easily implementable solu-
tions. The cons were mainly from a pedagogical perspective, where student participants did
not have the possibility to explore broader, complex, and meaningful topics. In contrast, in the
second bootcamp we worked with both private hospitals and governmental institutions, such
as health authorities and public institutions. Here the challenges were more open-ended and
complex, which was beneficial for student participants. However, some of the challenges also
dealt with sensitive topics, for example the management by the government of the COVID-19
isolation centres for low-income foreign workers. In both cases, the results and engagement
with collaborators also differed. In terms of results, we observed that the visualisations and
proposals of the first bootcamp were more detailed and refined than the solutions by the par-
ticipants of the second bootcamp. On one hand, the complexity of the challenges affects this.
Simpler challenges meant simpler solutions, which were possibly easier to visualise, while
more complex and open-ended challenges were more difficult to prototype, visualise and
explain.
The complexity and sensitivity of the topics addressed in the second bootcamp also influ-
enced the perception of the solutions by the collaborators. In the first bootcamp, the collab-
orators were very happy with the broad array of ideas, many of them easily implementable,
such as an app, or modifying a text message to make it easier for the patients. However, in the
second bootcamp, the complexity of the challenges also meant that some participating student
groups proposed some generic, or in-progress solutions, which required further thought and
detail. In addition, due to the sensitivity of topics, solutions proposed by students were per-
ceived by members of the collaborating institutions as a critique of their existing procedures.
Therefore, to ensure that the students’ message is presented effectively, it is key to conduct
an internal pre-presentation of solutions, before presenting them to externals. This works as
another “test” and “refine” iteration of the solutions, which can benefit from peer feedback
from all the participants, and can also avoid uncomfortable situations or miscommunications
with collaborators.
Finally, another consideration for future bootcamps and similar programs is the limited
financial viability, lack of continuity, and implementation of solutions. While so far, some
institutions have been interested in implementing some of the ideas, we have not had the
opportunity to validate if they have actually done so, or to follow up on the further refinement
and completion. Such activities would require additional support from one of the universities’
technology transfer offices, which has not materialised yet due to the recent founding of both
institutions. While the main aim of this type of programme is around merging teaching and
learning with applied research, it is desirable to try to extend the duration and further develop-
ment of the initiatives, to create more impact in society. For example, a possible way forward
can be, in the short term, to include students from a business school in a future iteration of the
bootcamp. However, from a long-term perspective, ideally, this programme would be housed
within the existing curricula of the respective universities, or further developed through
research centres and/or entrepreneurship and incubation programmes.
NOTES
1. https://www.ideo.com/post/method-cards
2. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg
REFERENCES
Altman, M., Huang, T. T., & Breland, J. Y. (2018). Peer reviewed: Design thinking in health care.
Preventing Chronic Disease, 15.
Badwan, B., Bothara, R., Latijnhouwers, M., Smithies, A., & Sandars, J. (2018). The importance of
design thinking in medical education. Medical Teacher, 40(4), 425–426.
Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2009). Project organised science studies at university level: exemplarity
and interdisciplinarity. Zdm, 41(1), 183–198.
Boillat, T., Tuffnell, C., Rivas, H., Aloul, F., & Montana, C. (2020). Design4Health Bootcamp: A design
thinking approach to improve the 21st century skills of health, engineering and design students. In
2020 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET) (pp. 1–5).
IEEE.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1),
29–43.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg
Dempsey, P. G., Wogalter, M. S., & Hancock, P. A. (2000). What’s in a name? Using terms from defi-
nitions to examine the fundamental foundation of human factors and ergonomics science. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1(1), 3–10.
Design Council (2005). A study of the design process. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/
files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_Design_Council%20(2).pdf
Design Council (2019). What is the framework for innovation? https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/
news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond Accessed 20
September 2021.
Dreyfuss, H. (1955). Designing for people. Simon and Schuster. New York
Giacomin, J. (2014). What is human centred design? The Design Journal, 17(4), 606–623.
Kelly, C. J., & Young, A. J. (2017). Promoting innovation in healthcare. Future Healthcare Journal, 4(2),
121.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT
press.
Ku, B., & Lupton, E. (2020). Health design thinking: Creating products and services for better health.
MIT Press.
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified. Architectural Press.
Lor, R. (2017). Design thinking in education: A critical review of literature. In Conference
Proceedings Asian Conference on Education & Psychology, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 36–68. ISBN
978-986-5654-23-8.
McLaughlin, J. E., Wolcott, M. D., Hubbard, D., Umstead, K., & Rider, T. R. (2019). A qualitative
review of the design thinking framework in health professions education. BMC Medical Education,
19(1), 1–8.
National Assessment Governing Board NAGB. (2021). Chapter 2, Areas of Technology and Engineering
Literacy. https://www.nagb.gov/naep-frameworks/technology-and-engineering-literacy/2014
-technology-framework/toc/ch_2/design/design2.html
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
Olesen, H. S., & Jensen, J. H. (1999). Project studies: A late modern university reform. Frederiksberg:
Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
Olsen, P., & Pedersen, K. (2008). Problem-oriented project work – A workbook. Roskilde University
Press.
Rieman, J., Franzke, M., & Redmiles, D. (1995). Usability evaluation with the cognitive walkthrough.
In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’95). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 387–388.
Roberts, J. P., Fisher, T. R., Trowbridge, M. J., & Bent, C. (2016, March). A design thinking framework
for healthcare management and innovation. In Healthcare (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 11–14). Elsevier.
Steen, M. (2011). Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign, 7(1), 45–60.
The Greater Good Science Center at the University of California Berkeley. (2021). What is Empathy?
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/empathy/definition
Traifeh, H., Abou Refaei, R., von Thienen, J., von Schmieden, K., Mayer, L., Osman, S., & Meinel, C.
(2021). Mapping design thinking in the Arab world. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 41–60). Cham:
Springer.
Valentim, N. M. C., Silva, W., & Conte, T. (2017). The students’ perspectives on applying design
thinking for the design of mobile applications. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on
Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training Track. ICSE-SEET, 77–86.
8. Design thinking to improve student mental
well-being
Jane E. Machin
INTRODUCTION
Research from around the globe, including Europe (Cao et al., 2021; McCloud & Bann, 2019;
Nurunnabi et al., 2021), Africa (Schreiber, 2018), Australia (Browne et al., 2017; Carter
et al., 2017; Usher, 2020) and China (C. Wang et al., 2020) demonstrates that the growing
number of students in higher education experiencing mental health problems is a worldwide
issue. The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated these trends (Araújo et al., 2020; Fried
et al., 2021; Fruehwirth et al., 2021; Grubic et al., 2020; Nurunnabi et al., 2021; Savage et
al., 2020; Son et al., 2020) as students grapple with remote learning, loss of routines, social
isolation, health fears, and uncertainty about future job prospects. Poor mental health has
significant negative consequences not only for individual students but academic institutions
as a whole (Cunningham & Duffy, 2019; McMahon & Bonilla, 2020; Pilato et al., 2021; Price
Waterhouse Coopers, 2021). However, the inadequate availability and efficacy of current
campus mental health treatments have led to calls for more innovative approaches (Bravo
et al., 2018; Browne et al., 2017; Cohen et al., 2020; Cullinan et al., 2020; Francis & Horn,
2017; Goodman, 2017; Hartrey et al., 2017; Holm-Hadulla & Koutsoukou-Argyraki, 2015;
McMahon & Bonilla, 2020; Murphy, 2017).
The lack of student voices has been identified as a key contributor to such poor outcomes
(Pilato et al., 2021). Engaging students in the creation of solutions to improve their mental
well-being is critical (Carette et al., 2018; Goodman, 2017; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2021). Instead of making assumptions about what students
need to improve their mental health, universities need to listen carefully to the perspectives of
students themselves (Carette et al., 2018; Goodman, 2017). Students are, after all, best placed
to know what is needed to support their mental health. They are frequently the first to witness
worrying behaviour in their peers, and are often the first line of support (Martin, 2010; Prince,
2015; Reavley & Jorm, 2010). In fact, placing students as active collaborators in the fight
against mental health issues parallels the notion of agency in psychotherapy, a key predictor
for therapeutic success (Fried et al., 2021; Schreiber, 2018). Bringing students into the design
process is critical to the co-creation of successful innovations that improve mental well-being
and design thinking is an intrinsically collaborative approach to innovation (Brown, 2008). In
iterative rounds of divergent and convergent thinking that focus first on understanding prob-
lems from multiple perspectives before ideating, prototyping, and testing solutions, design
142
Design thinking to improve student mental well-being 143
thinking is ideally suited to solving wicked problems – socially complex, highly ambiguous
issues that have no clear solution (Crowley and Head, 2017) – such as student mental health.
This chapter explores the implementation of a design thinking project to co-create novel
solutions that improve the mental health of undergraduate students. First, we review the
incidence, consequences, and current solutions to student mental health. In the second section,
we report on the implementation of a design thinking project to generate an integrative
understanding of how students conceive of mental health. In the third section, we identify and
describe some of the novel solutions students designed to improve their mental health before
the chapter concludes with a summary of the benefits of using design thinking to solve the
wicked problem of poor mental well-being.
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH
The age at which most young people are in higher education is the age of peak onset for many
mental health issues, with the first onset occurring before age 25 in 75% of cases (McGorry et
al., 2011). Transitioning into adulthood and living away from home for the first time, college
students often lack the life skills and support networks that are necessary for good mental health
(Usher, 2020). Unfamiliar environments, novel learning experiences, unprecedented freedom
(Francis & Horn, 2017; Iarovici, 2014; Usher, 2020), as well as rising tuition and student debt,
exacerbate existing mental health concerns (Goodman, 2017; McCloud & Bann, 2019; Usher,
2020; Winzer et al., 2018). According to the American College Health Association (ACHA),
over 60% of students felt overwhelming anxiety, and over 40% experienced depression so
severe they had difficulty functioning (American College Health Association, 2018). Eating
disorders such as bulimia, anorexia, and binge eating rapidly increase during the college years
(Ganson et al., 2021; Kelly-Weeder, 2011; White et al., 2011), and the use of alcohol and
illicit drugs, as well as the misuse of prescription medication, peaks in this timeframe (Arria et
al., 2017; Charles et al., 2021; Ganson et al., 2021; Hefner et al., 2019). Prevalence of mental
health issues is even higher among certain student subpopulations, such as first-generation stu-
dents, non-native English speakers, students of colour, student-athletes, and sexual and gender
minorities (Fruehwirth et al., 2021; Reavley et al., 2012; Santomauro et al., 2021; Thornicroft
et al., 2016).
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly exacerbated existing mental health concerns,
leading many scholars to use the term “crisis” to characterize the challenges currently facing
college students (Copeland et al., 2021; Fruehwirth et al., 2021; Grubic et al., 2020; Son et
al., 2020; C. Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Unfortunately, many students with poor
mental health remain untreated due to the stigma that accompanies these disorders (Phelan
& Basow, 2007; Phelan et al., 2000). Both public stigma and self-stigma are major obstacles
to recovery as they prevent students from seeking help for fear of discrimination during their
education and in subsequent employment (Eisenberg et al., 2007; Martin, 2010; Quinn et al.,
2009).
The penalties of not seeking help are severe, both for the student and the institution.
Research clearly demonstrates that student mental wellness is critical for their success
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2021; Pilato et al., 2021).
Poor mental well-being affects a student’s energy level, concentration, dependability, and
optimism, hindering academic performance (Martinez et al., 2018; Tembo et al., 2017). Many
students with untreated mental health conditions struggle to meet university requirements
(Hartrey et al., 2017) since mental health problems are associated with lower grade point
averages, higher rates of absenteeism, breaks in education, longer times to graduate, and
lower graduation rates (Eisenberg et al., 2007; Francis & Horn, 2017; National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2021; Prince, 2015). Dropout rates for students
with a diagnosed mental health problem range from 43% to 86% (Iarovici, 2014; National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2021; Stones & Glazzard, 2019).
Given the global drive to make student retention and degree completion a priority, it’s no
surprise that university administrators increasingly recognize mental health services as an
important element of their strategic and risk management plans (Cunningham & Duffy, 2019;
Lipson & Roy, 2015; Pilato et al., 2021; Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2021). The financial
costs of student attrition due to mental illness run to millions of dollars when lost tuition, fees
and state/federal funds from each non-returning student are included (Raisman, 2013). On
the other hand, investments in student mental health generate increased tuition revenues for
institutions and higher earnings for students who attain a college degree (American College
Health Association, 2018; Bruce-Sanford & Soares, 2019).
In general, support for student mental wellness lies under the remit of student counselling
services (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2021), though
university health centres, student unions, and disability resource offices provide supporting
roles. While the efficacy of counselling varies depending on the type, length of treatment,
and the type of disorder that is being treated, research points in general to successful out-
comes (Conley et al., 2013; Francis & Horn, 2017; Quinn et al., 2009). The issue, then, is
one of access (Francis & Horn, 2017) with increased student demand for counselling services
(Thorley, 2017) forcing under-resourced centres to place limitations on services, such as
shorter sessions, longer waitlists, and increased referrals to off-campus mental health provid-
ers (Prince, 2015). Nevertheless, simply bolstering access to counselling services is unlikely
to be sufficient (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2021)
because the forces affecting student mental wellness extend beyond the purview and resources
that university support services can offer. The numerous sociocultural and contextual causes
and consequences of mental health require holistic, integrated solutions that not only treat
mental illness, but also promote good mental health (Hill et al., 2020; National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2021; Pilato et al., 2021; Prince, 2015; Schreiber,
2018; Thorley, 2017). Good mental health is not merely the absence of mental illness
(Galderisi et al., 2015). The World Health Organization defines mental health as “a state of
well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal
stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his
or her community” (World Health Organization, 2004). This definition recognizes that mental
disease etiology is more than biology and therefore solutions to improve mental wellness must
also consider the broader social, environmental, psychological, behavioural, and emotional
causes as well. Design thinking is a research process particularly well suited to tackling this
multi-dimensional, highly complex problem (Buchanan 1992; McMillan and Overall 2016;
Rittel and Webber 1973).
The research reported in this chapter was conducted at a mid-sized university located in
a small rural city in Appalachia, a cultural region in the eastern United States that stretches
from New York state to northern Alabama and Georgia. The stigma associated with mental
health is particularly strong in this region (Gore et al., 2016) and access to mental health ser-
vices is worse than the national average due to a lack of mental health professionals (Hendryx,
2008). All student services that might influence mental health, from housing to fitness, fall
under the remit of the Division of Student Affairs, a team of 80 full-time employees dedicated
to improving the campus experience of approximately 8,000 undergraduate students. Primary
responsibility for student mental health lies with the office of Student Counselling Services
(SCS), which has six full-time licensed counsellors, two of whom also hold administrative
roles, limiting the number of active patients they see. SCS also has four graduate trainees. Up
to six hour-long individual therapy sessions are available for free to enrolled students. SCS also
offers a drop-in service two hours a day, four days a week, when students can have an informal
consultation with a counsellor without an appointment. Person-centred, solution-focused, and
cognitive behavioural therapy are the dominant counselling approaches used. Medication
evaluations, referrals and tele-behavioural health are also offered. The Substance Abuse office
employs two additional licensed counsellors who provide programming specifically focused
on alcohol and drug addiction. Limited mental health support is also offered by the Center
for Accessibility Services (for neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD), the Center for
Diversity and Inclusion, and the Military Resource Center (for intersectional mental health
issues), and the professional staff and student assistants who oversee life in the 15 on-campus
residence halls. Off campus, students have access to two community mental health centres
and four private counselling practices. This institution recently formed an interdisciplinary
task force with the objective of identifying ways to improve the mental health of the student
population.
DESIGN THINKING PROCESS OVERVIEW
The design thinking process was implemented by 150 students in an introductory creativity
and innovation class. The overarching goal of the course is for students to be able to describe
and apply design thinking as a creative problem-solving technique. Specific learning outcomes
include the ability to identify, understand and frame problems; apply ideation techniques to
generate novel solutions; and to design and build prototypes to evaluate and improve ideas.
The course is required for marketing majors in the business college but is open to all students
across campus. Seventy-two percent of students were from the business college, of whom 62%
were marketing majors. The remaining 28% of students were from non-business disciplines,
including biology, psychology, nursing, history, criminal justice, and cyber security. Less than
5% of students were design majors. Figure 8.1 provides a summary of student demographics.
A majority received federal financial aid, data that are consistent with the overall student
population of this university. All students knew at least one person currently experiencing
a mental health disorder. The most commonly reported issue was substance use disorder
(22%), followed by anxiety (19%), depression (17%) and eating disorders (13%), consistent
with other research on the incidence of specific disorders in this population (Francis & Horn,
2017; Goodman, 2017; Iarovici, 2014).
The semester-long project was led by a professor with a Doctorate in Marketing and
a Master of Fine Arts in Design Thinking. One graduate assistant with design thinking expe-
rience assisted. During the initial four weeks, students practised designerly mindsets such
as experimentation, collaboration, iteration, empathy, and optimism, and were introduced to
Figure 8.1 Student demographics
design thinking as a creative problem-solving process. While many models of design thinking
exist, the process can be conceptualized broadly in two primary phases: first, understand the
problem and second, generate solutions (Figure 8.2). Each phase combines divergent thinking
(gathering information and ideas) with convergent thinking (finding patterns to narrow infor-
mation and ideas using logical inference).
Source: Adapted from UK Design Council (2018) and Brown (2008).
Figure 8.2 Design thinking process to improve student mental health

Phase 1: Problem Understanding
To prepare for the design thinking challenge, guest speakers from the Substance Abuse office
and Student Counselling Services briefed the class about mental health, and students analysed
a comprehensive report on youth mental health (Mental Health America, 2021). Students then
spent five weeks developing a deep, holistic, and empathetic understanding of the issue to
narrow the broad challenge into a more focused problem statement used to launch the solution
generation phase (Brown, 2008). To maintain individual accountability while also fostering
peer learning, students completed each method on their own before sharing key insights with
the whole class via the digital collaboration platform, Mural (https://www.mural.co/). Students
began by identifying individual and institutional stakeholders that they felt influenced their
mental health either positively or negatively. Family (e.g., siblings, parents, and children) and
friends (from college and their hometowns or high schools) appeared on all lists, as did social
media (e.g., TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat) and other forms of entertainment (e.g., video
games, television shows, music). University-affiliated individuals (e.g., professors, coun-
sellors, advisors), services (e.g., the recreation centre, student housing, campus police) and
policies (e.g., attendance and exam requirements, COVID-19 mask and social distancing pro-
cedures) were the second largest category. The marketplace, including brands, services, stores,
advertising, and, especially, food service providers (e.g., campus dining services, Starbucks,
chain restaurants, Uber Eats), affected student mental health. Companies (e.g., car insurance,
credit card, utility), employers, and policies (e.g., loan repayment requirements) related to
their personal finances were also identified as important stakeholders by most students. Other
common categories included church, pets, and the physical campus environment. Students
plotted these key stakeholders (one per virtual “sticky note”) according to the degree of influ-
ence (how much could the person or institution affect student mental health) and interest (how
vested is the person or institution in student mental health) on the collaborative Mural board
(Figure 8.3a). This helped to prevent duplication of identical stakeholders while broadening
perceptions of the range of people and places that might influence student mental health.
Students also colour coded their notes to reflect whether the influencers had a net positive
effect (green), net negative effect (red) or neutral effect (yellow) on their health. University
policies, social media, and part-time employment emerged as areas of high influence, but with
little impact on students’ mental health. On the other hand, socializing with family and friends
emerged as an important positive driver of mental health.
Students used the stakeholder map to identify key individuals with whom to conduct
empathy interviews, the next method used in the problem understanding phase. Empathy inter-
views are a qualitative research technique that seeks to gather stories. Interviews are conducted
more as unscripted conversations than formal question and answer sessions, using open-ended,
probing questions to foster a deeper understanding of the interviewee’s desires, struggles and
opinions (Luma Institute 2012). Each student conducted an interview on their own and then
shared key insights with the whole class on an empathy map, another design thinking tool
used to capture what participants say, hear, see, do, feel and think (Ideo.org, n.d.). Over 260
unique insights were posted on the Mural board (Figure 8.3b). The instructor later helped to
sort these into key clusters to simplify the information. Students also kept a photo journal for
one week, capturing with their cell phones daily experiences they identified as either improv-
ing or harming their mental health. Photography is a participant-centred research approach
Figure 8.3 Screenshots of the mural collaborative discussion board posts for Phase 1:
problem understanding
that provides an unbiased, first-hand perspective of a situation, helping to make the invisible,
visible (Machin et al., 2021). Collectively, over 1,000 photographs were generated through
this exercise, with each student taking on average 10 photographs. Students selected up to five
photographs they felt had the greatest impact on their mental health and posted them on the
shared collaboration board along with a hashtag or comment to summarize the image (Figure
8.3c). Approximately 200 photos were shared and sorted into logical clusters based on key
themes (Luma Institute, 2012). It is interesting to note that most photographs students posted
were of positive experiences. This could be because it is easier to photograph the presence
of something positive than the absence of something negative, but also highlights the need
for solutions that promote mental well-being, not just treat mental illness. Finally, students
conducted a social listening exercise, a form of online observation (Li & Bernoff, 2011). An
additional 160 insights, one per sticky note, were posted on an empathy map on the shared
Mural board (Figure 8.3d). These were colour coded again to indicate whether the insight had
a positive or negative net effect on mental health. It is noteworthy that most of the negative
items aligned with psychological experiences internal to the mind (think and feel section of
empathy map, dark squares), while most of the positive items aligned with tangible actions
external to the mind (say or do section of empathy map, lighter squares).
To synthesize insights from all this research, students created personas, or summary profiles
representing different populations concerned with unique aspects of the broad mental health
challenge (Ideo.org, n.d.). Ten unique personas were generated, including a freshman finding
it difficult to make friends; a faculty member unsympathetic to student mental health concerns;
a student barista who feels ill-equipped to deal with stressed-out customers; a student who
binge drinks at least three days a week; a male student experiencing symptoms of depression
but afraid to seek help; a parent worried about their first-generation student; and a senior
with imposter syndrome. The persona profiles were used to brainstorm specific, actionable
problem statements (Brown, 2008; Luma Institute, 2012), using the popular “How Might
We…(HMW)?” question format to encourage inclusive, solution-focused ideation (Ideo.org,
n.d.). A summary of the themes that emerged from all the research, together with examples of
associated HMW statements is provided in Table 8.1.
Phase 2: Solution Generation
During the last five weeks of the semester students completed iterative cycles of ideation, pro-
totyping, and testing. To kick-off Phase 2, students each chose one specific HMW statement
to focus on and participated in three ideation exercises over sequential weeks to generate mul-
tiple potential solutions. Students first completed a Creative Matrix, a popular design thinking
tool to spark new ideas at the intersection of discrete categories (Luma Institute, 2012). The
matrix columns comprised five different persona profiles of the student’s choice, while five
rows represented different potential categories of solutions. Students posted single-sentence
descriptions of potential solutions at each intersection, resulting in 25 unique ideas. The
second ideation tool adopted was Alternative Worlds (Luma Institute, 2012). Students identi-
fied different contexts, systems, spaces, or businesses that shared underlying attributes of their
specific problem and used these analogues to inspire novel solutions. Students were required
to brainstorm an additional 10 ideas using this technique. Finally, students used the popular
SCAMPER technique to try to improve their solutions by substituting, combining, adapting,
magnifying, putting to another use, eliminating or reversing various attributes of one of their
earlier ideas (Serrat, 2017).
After each weekly ideation session, students posted their favourite individual idea onto the
shared Mural board and provided structured feedback on at least one peer idea each week. In
the first week of ideation, the Rose, Thorn, Bud (Luma Institute, 2012) method was used to
appraise ideas. Students described aspects of the idea they valued on pink sticky-notes (roses),
concerns on blue sticky notes (thorns), and possible extensions on green sticky notes (buds).
The technique encourages specific, constructive criticism rather than vague expressions of
likes and dislikes (Luma Institute, 2012). Potential solutions from the second week of ideation
Figure 8.4 Screenshots of the mural collaborative discussion board posts for Phase 2,
solution generation
were sorted according to novelty, ranging from boring (ideas that already exist) to innovative
(ideas with great potential). Completely outrageous ideas were placed outside the selection
grid (Figure 8.4a). Finally, students plotted ideas on a Feasibility Grid, a design thinking
method used to identify ideas that were not only desirable but also potentially feasible and
viable to produce (Luma Institute, 2012).
Until this point, students had been asked to focus on the desirability of their solutions and
temporarily ignore feasibility and viability constraints in the belief that, to generate truly novel
ideas, it is easier to tame wild ideas than improve boring ideas (Figure 8.4b). Over 1,000
ideas were generated across the three weeks, which represented about 100 unique ideas after
omitting duplicate ideas and combining similar ideas. Students turned their favourite idea into
a paper prototype to solicit feedback from people outside of the class (Figure 8.4c). Feedback
from this research was implemented into a final design solution, presented in the format of
a magazine article reporting on the successful launch of the idea (Luma Institute, 2012).
DESIGN THINKING RESULTS
Results were grouped according to five broad themes that emerged from the student research:
(1) literacy, (2) socialization, (3) access, (4) policy, and (5) marketing. For each theme, we first
discuss insights uncovered by students during their empathy interviews, field visits, and photo
journals and examples of related HMW questions (Phase 1). Short descriptions of the most
popular solutions are then presented (Phase 2). While the ideas have been organized according
to the primary mental health theme they address, innovations frequently solve problems in two
or more domains. Simplified descriptions of solutions are provided in Table 8.1 and examples
of some student prototypes appear in Figure 8.5.
Mental Health Literacy
This theme explored student’s knowledge about mental health issues. For the most part,
students demonstrated high levels of conceptual knowledge about mental health causes,
consequences, symptoms, and solutions. They understood, for example, that toxic friendships
were detrimental to their psychological well-being; that a lack of sleep could lead to depressed
behaviour, while sleeping too much could be a sign of depression; that binge drinking was an
unhealthy coping strategy; and that the university offered counselling. Nevertheless, there was
a belief that if mental health education were more entertaining students might give it more
attention, as expressed in the problem statement: HMW make learning about mental health
more fun? Conceptual knowledge is of little use, however, without the motivation, ability, or
opportunity to apply that knowledge in advantageous ways. For example, while students and
faculty knew the theoretical symptoms of various mental disorders, both groups had trouble
recognizing them in practice, or lacked the procedural knowledge of what steps to take if they
did. Similarly, students lacked practical strategies to extricate themselves from unhealthy rela-
tionships or to refuse an alcoholic drink. They did not know where the university counselling
centre was located or what costs were associated. Poor organizational skills limited the time
available to prioritize self-care activities, including sleep. Problem statements, then, focused
less on ways to acquire declarative knowledge and more on how to improve the motivation
and ability to use existing knowledge. Several solutions, for example, integrated technology
into a variety of common items, including a watch, headband, smart phone app, stress ball,
eyeglasses, and even a hair tie, designed to help students recognize symptoms of poor mental
health in themselves or others, in real time. Another set of solutions focused on ways to help
students prioritize sleep.
Mental Health Socialization
The second theme to emerge from the student research concerned the importance of social
contact for mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic has starkly exposed the devastating
mental health consequences of limited social interaction (Fried et al., 2021; Lewis, 2020; X.
Wang et al., 2020). The desire for interpersonal connection is a fundamental human motiva-
tion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Physically distanced from familiar support networks, then,
students reported struggling with feelings of loneliness and isolation when beginning univer-
sity. Most incoming freshmen are randomly assigned suitemates in a residential building that
houses over 900 students – at an age when students are discovering their identities, finding
a new friend group in such circumstances can be intimidating and exhausting. It is not surpris-
ing, then, that many problem statements and subsequent solutions focused on ways to make
this transition easier. Several ideas focused on how to match students even before they arrived
on campus. Other solutions offered ways to reduce the stress associated with approaching
unknown peers in class. Recognizing the comfort and relief that can be found in family and old
high school friendships, some ideas centred on ways to maintain these connections while away
at college. Not all social experiences were positive for student mental health, however. Several
worried about making friendships they might later have to terminate because they proved
toxic to their psychological well-being. Severe anxiety was felt by many students, especially
first-generation ones, about failing to live up to the expectations of excited family members.
Other students, often the only child from a single-parent home, struggled to overcome per-
ceived guilt for leaving family behind. And almost all students reported feeling pressure to go
out and socialize when they had little money or knew they needed to be studying.
Mental Health Access
Insights in this area concern the perceived and actual accessibility of mental health solutions
at the university. Access to on-campus mental health services is provided through Student
Counselling Services (SCS). In person counselling sessions require advance appointments
which can only be made after an initial consultation with a clinician. Appointments are
typically scheduled for regular working hours, though limited after-hour sessions are avail-
able four days a week to students that demonstrate need (e.g., they work full time). All
enrolled students are entitled to either six 50-minute sessions or 12 30-minute sessions per
year. Tele-behavioural services are also available but again require an initial consultation.
There was an approximately two-week wait for non-emergency initial appointments, though
SCS provided emergency assessments during regular office hours if needed. All after-hour
mental health emergencies are referred to a local community resource centre. Counsellors
also hold informal, first-come, first-served walk-in hours from 3–5pm through a program
called Let’s Talk. While students were aware that SCS existed, they had little sense of how
to utilize its services. Students did not know the physical location nor how to make the initial
appointment. No students were aware of the Let’s Talk program. Unsurprisingly, then, many
problem statements and subsequent ideas focused on ways to improve both perceived and
actual accessibility. These included using social media to communicate information such as
hours and appointment procedures, holding sessions in locations closer to student residential
buildings or dining halls, opening in times more consistent with student schedules and needs,
and removing barriers to access such as proof of full-time employment to receive after-hours
treatment. Other ideas focused on increasing the availability of counselling either through
crowd-sourcing or artificial intelligence. Students also reported being deterred from seeking
treatment by the intimidating sterile environment of SCS. Light, airy, modern spa-like envi-
ronments were suggested as more welcoming surroundings to seek mental wellness. Finally,
the stigma surrounding poor mental health discouraged many students from visiting SCS.
Creative solutions included increasing service access visibility or destigmatizing help-seeking
behaviour. This was particularly important for men, who worried more than women about
being discriminated against for accessing mental health services.
Mental Health Policy
Student research identified policies at the micro (individual professors or classes), meso
(departments or colleges) and macro (institutional) levels that hurt their mental health. Several
described faculty members who believed students needed to “toughen up”, and refused to
honour mental disability accommodations because “you won’t get them in the real world”.
A less overt form of discrimination manifested in policies that inadvertently penalized anxious
students. For example, participation grades based on time spent speaking in full class discus-
sions, unclear or inconsistent grading criteria, poorly organized group projects, last-minute
changes to syllabi, or tardy feedback on assignments. Concurrent class deadlines (e.g., final
project presentation dates or mid-term exam dates) resulted in widely imbalanced stress levels
over the semester. Work–life balance felt non-existent for many students, who expressed
frustration with faculty who seemed oblivious, or indifferent, to competing obligations. Many
students expressed a desire for mental health issues to be incorporated into all classes, rather
like ethics, as part of a broader definition of diversity and inclusion. Policies about distance
learning proved somewhat polarizing. Some students reported a preference for more flexible
instruction, such as asynchronous options, to complement traditional schedules. Others,
however, worried their education suffered in remote learning environments. Sudden changes
in instructional policies, however, as prompted by COVID-19, uniformly stressed students.
Worries about money, and debt after graduating, were an omnipresent source of anxiety.
Some students reported consuming cheaper junk food, or skipping meals entirely, owing
to financial constraints. Finally, student research revealed a universal desire for help with
time-management skills.
Mental Health Marketing
Targeting is a central tenet of marketing management – the idea that no single product or
service can, or should, meet the needs of everyone. However, students found that mental health
services were very much “one-size fits all”. This led to problem statements and ideation ses-
sions focused on unique groups. Some segmented the student population according to the type
of mental health issue – for example, solutions for those experiencing depression versus those
experiencing anxiety. Others segmented the market based on shared demographic characteris-
tics. As noted, earlier, men suffered the stigma associated with mental illness more acutely than
women and wanted solutions that acknowledged differences in how these disorders presented.
Depressed or anxious men, for example, might be more likely to engage in violence rather than
cry (Branney & White, 2008). Other identified demographics included non-traditional stu-
dents, first-generation students, and student-athletes. Populations at the intersection of mental
illness and a second stigmatized characteristic, such as a non-conforming gender identity or
sexual orientation, felt in need of solutions tailored to their unique mental health concerns.
Marketing communications, and particularly social media, share some of the blame for poor
student mental health. Instagram, for example, has recently been criticized for allegedly
knowing the app can contribute to eating disorders in young girls (Wells et al., 2021). Students
developed solutions to curb the negative side of social media, while also using such apps to
promote positive mental well-being. For example, students suggested changes to newsfeed
algorithms that would promote positive wellness content and hide negative content. Other
ideas included a warning feature if someone searched for concerning terms such as suicide or
bulimia and adding automatic limits to minimize time spent engaging with social media sites.
Finally, some students called on brands to use their vast marketing budgets to improve student
mental health in meaningful ways, not just “blues washing”, meaning inauthentic marketing
tactics that exploit mental health concerns for financial gain.
KEY LESSONS OF USING DESIGN THINKING PROCESS TO

IMPROVE STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH
While many diagrams portray the design thinking process linearly, with equal phases of
divergent and convergent thinking, the reality is much messier. Feedback on student paper
prototypes, for example, frequently revealed novel information about the target’s needs, but
students were reluctant to circle back to the problem definition phase because they interpreted
such an iterative step as a failure, rather than an integral part of the innovation process.
Accustomed to the reasoned security of quantitative survey results, students struggled to trust
insights that emerged from the qualitative research methods we used to empathize with the
end-user. Identifying which jargon-laden design method to use at each stage also proved frus-
trating, especially as many methods are effective at both the problem understanding and solu-
tion generation phases of the design thinking process. We found the Luma Institute’s System
of Innovation (2012), which categorizes methods by looking, understanding, and making,
to be beneficial as they are relatively stage-agnostic. From an educator’s perspective, it was
difficult to find time within a 12-week semester to allow multiple iterations of the design cycle
to commence. Students required help identifying key themes from their research findings,
while formulating HMW questions that were broad enough to allow for multiple solutions, but
sufficiently focused to direct ideation efforts, proved especially problematic.
Improving mental health is an example of a wicked problem – a multi-dimensional,
unstructured situation that requires the involvement of numerous stakeholders, often with con-
flicting or shifting agendas (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Design thinking is frequently lauded as
a problem-solving technique particularly suited to such problems (Buchanan, 1992; McMillan
& Overall, 2016). In our experience, one unexpected difficulty emerged conducting a design
thinking project in mental health. Unlike other wicked topic domains, mental health is an invis-
ible disorder and therefore hard to observe or simulate. For participants without mental health
issues, empathizing with someone with depression or anxiety is extremely difficult. People
who are mentally healthy can grossly underestimate the severity of mental illness, attributing
it to a lack of willpower (Borchard, 2016) and may therefore fail to adequately accommodate
those suffering from mental illness when designing solutions. Of the three empathy exercises
the students completed, social listening, a form of online observation (Li & Bernoff, 2011),
proved the most valuable. Students, already familiar with social media, found inspiration in the
memes, photos, and status updates of posters with mental health issues. In the future, virtual
Table 8.1 Themes, insights, example problem statements and solutions
Theme Key insights Example problem statements Example simplified solution descriptions
HMW make learning about mental health fun? An escape room, where success depends on applying healthy tactics.
Knowledge of
HMW motivate students to prioritize self-care? A mood tracking app that provides a visual map of current well-being.
causes
HMW improve faculty ability to identify at-risk students? Smart glasses that monitor others’ facial cues for signs of distress.
HMW help students recognize triggers in the moment? Smart wearable tech that provides early warnings of anxiety triggers.
Mental health Knowledge of
HMW help students support crisis-adjacent friends? A smartphone game that simulates friends’ concerning behaviours.
literacy symptoms
HMW help students manage stress related behaviours? Scooters to navigate across campus more quickly, freeing time for self-care.
HMW increase use of existing mental health resources? A game that rewards students for increasing the amount they sleep.
Knowledge of
HMW minimize use of unhealthy coping solutions? Melatonin tea offered free by the campus dining facilities and local bars.
solutions
HMW match students with underutilized resources? Sleep incubators placed in unused areas (e.g., library) for quick naps.
HMW help new students find their friend group? A Living Learning Community for minority student groups (e.g., LGBTQ+).
Start relationships HMW help students meet people while social distancing? An app that identifies other new students on campus with shared interests.
HMW help classmates better connect with each other? An app that helps students within the same class identify shared study needs.
HMW help students connect with distant friends? Free bus service between campus and train station.
Mental health Maintain
Design thinking to improve student mental well-being
HMW reduce homesickness? A community green space that pairs students with local elderly residents.
socialization relationships
HMW balance time at school with time at home? Dedicated “visitor floor” in residential buildings for friends to stay for free.
HMW relieve (perceived) pressure from family? An on-campus animal rescue centre to connect students with animals in need.
Cancel relationships HMW help students avoid toxic relationships? An AI-driven app that helps students recognize toxic friends.
HMW manage peer pressure to socialize? An automatic excuse generator that provides reasons to avoid going out.
155
156
Theme Key insights Example problem statements Example simplified solution descriptions
HMW make services accessible in the moment? Locations and hours that better reflect student schedules (e.g., after 5 pm).
Convenient access HMW improve awareness of service accessibility? Communication through student-oriented media options (e.g., Instagram).
HMW crowdsource counselling? Apps that use artificial intelligence (AI) to help counsel students in real time.
HMW make mental health spaces more attractive? Self-care lounges with counselling-adjacent services (e.g., yoga classes).
Mental health
Attractive access HMW motivate use of campus mental health services? Human Library where people talk about managing their mental health issues.
access
HMW better incorporate mental health care in the home? Voice-activated smart speaker that specializes in mental health counselling.
HMW decrease visibility of students seeking help? Smart mirror that “talks” to you about your mental health using AI responses.
Destigmatized
HMW normalize talking about mental health? App that connects students to peers with similar issues to share strategies.
access
HMW destigmatize help-seeking behaviours? A temporary tattoo that is a hidden patch dispensing anti-depressant drugs.
HMW help faculty coordinate inter-class work volume? An app to help faculty coordinate exam and final project dates.
Instructor policies HMW make faculty empathetic to mental health? Rewards program where faculty earn points for positive pedagogical policies.
HMW incorporate mental health into every classroom? iBeacon technology that disconnects cell phones in class and study areas.
HMW improve student homework–life balance? College policy giving students mental health days to take each semester.
Mental health
College policies HMW promote class policies for good mental health? Sticker system to help students avoid procrastination and meet deadlines.
policy
HMW restructure classes to meet student schedules? ProfTube with all their lectures posted for students to access at their leisure.
HMW reduce the cost of higher education? App that connects students with un-awarded scholarship funds.
University policies HMW decrease the stress of remote learning? Consistent exam policy that offers an alternative for test-phobic students.
HMW prepare students in high school better for college? A virtual reality game that prepares high school students for college life.
HMW help specific demographic groups (e.g., males)? A sports-themed counselling office with coaches instead of counsellors.
Targeted
HMW help intersectional mental health groups? A student-athlete comfort zone for dealing with sports-related stressors.
communication
HMW help specific disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety)? A game that rewards players for vigorously shaking it to help relieve anger.
HMW reduce unrealistic comparisons on social media? A smart band that detects heart rate changes when user compares self to others.
Mental health Conscious
HMW manage social media to promote mental health? An app that restricts time spent on social media and cannot be overridden.
marketing communication
HMW reduce fear of missing out (FOMO)? An app that delays real-time posts and texts from socializing friends.
HMW use the brand resources to improve mental health? Tasteful branded room décor distributed free to brighten up residential halls.
Branded
HMW blend mental health within the marketplace? A spa that is part nail salon, part hair salon, and part mental health salon.
communication
HMW prevent brand “blues washing”? A sponsored cereal bar that provides free food and wellness resources.
Figure 8.5 Examples of student prototypes
reality simulations, where participants figuratively walk in the shoes of others, offer promising
opportunities to experience and empathize with the mentally ill (Machin et al., 2020).
Campus administrators around the world are being forced to take the mental health of
their students seriously (American College Health Association, 2018; Pilato et al., 2021;
Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2021). The connection between mental health issues and student
retention, particularly for students from historically marginalized groups, has implications
for the economic well-being of students and institutions alike. Services that prioritize student
mental health can help institutions differentiate themselves in the increasingly competitive
higher education marketplace, and innovative approaches to mental health can also reduce
the risk that students will drop out (Bruce-Sanford & Soares, 2019). Design thinking, with its
focus on empathy, visualization, collaboration, and experimentation, is a particularly useful
problem-solving approach for university administrators to consider. The active involvement of
students throughout the ideation phase is of particular importance in designing solutions that
will be adopted effectively.
This chapter extends our understanding of the mental health experiences of Gen Z, the
youngest and most ethnically diverse generation in history (Brown, 2018; Dimock, 2019). At
the broadest level, our results confirm that optimal mental health is more than the absence of
mental illness (Galderisi et al., 2015). While most students did not have a formally diagnosed
disorder, they nevertheless reported levels of distress that hurt their ability to manage daily
college activities. Unfortunately, to receive academic accommodations, class and institutional
policies typically require official documentation. Our findings suggest this prevents students
from addressing issues, which may lead them to stop attending class or even drop out.
Incorporating mental health services into highly visible, and highly trafficked, areas such as
dining halls or recreation hubs helps to normalize conversations around the topic.
Solutions emerging from this research went beyond isolated treatment ideas, such as
increasing counsellor availability, to identifying opportunities that destigmatize mental illness
throughout the entire student experience. One idea was integrating mental health instruction
into all classes, much like the push for curricula to cover ethics 40 years ago (Hosmer, 1988).
Students had several ideas to make mental health education more engaging, ranging from
escape rooms to VR experiences. However, declarative knowledge about mental health
was not the primary concern. The real frustration emerged in a perceived lack of procedural
knowledge and the motivation, opportunity, and ability to apply that knowledge. Solutions
that helped students and faculty recognize, manage, or avoid activities that hurt their mental
health were popular. Unsurprisingly for this tech savvy generation, these included a lot of
technology-based solutions, such as apps or smart wearables, to help students prioritize
sleep, avoid toxic relationships, or crowdsource the advice of mental health peer mentors.
It is worth noting that students tailored many of these solutions to specific subgroups, such
as first-generation students, men, or minority populations, recognizing the need for different
approaches for different segments.
Our research also demonstrates the value of design thinking as a research method to inves-
tigate the wicked problem of mental health (Milroy et al., 2021). Much existing research on
student mental health comprises quantitative surveys examining the prevalence of mental
illness (e.g., Arria et al., 2017; Santomauro et al., 2021), barriers to access (e.g. Cage et al.,
2020; Eisenberg et al., 2007), or the efficacy of mental health interventions or satisfaction with
mental health services (e.g. Conley et al., 2013; Hartrey et al., 2017). These studies remain
rooted in the normative, pathogenic model of mental health, which emphasizes the treatment
of mental illness. Student mental well-being, however, is a shared responsibility and cannot
be limited to the counselling centre alone. A whole university approach that accounts for the
social and emotional influences on mental wellness is required to decrease the stigma associ-
ated with seeking help. The qualitative, participatory research methods embedded in design
thinking are ideally suited to understanding mental health as a holistic, psychosocial phenom-
enon (Galderisi et al., 2015) and to developing desirable innovations that promote wellness,
not just treat sickness.
REFERENCES
American College Health Association. (2018). National College Health Assessment. https://www.acha
.org/documents/ncha/NCHA-II_Fall_2018_Reference_Group_Executive_Summary.pdf
Araújo, F. J. de O., de Lima, L. S. A., Cidade, P. I. M., Nobre, C. B., & Neto, M. L. R. (2020). Impact
of Sars-Cov-2 and its Reverberation in Global Higher Education and Mental Health. Psychiatry
Research, 288, 112977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112977
Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., Allen, H. K., Bugbee, B. A., Vincent, K. B., & O’Grady, K. E. (2017).
Prevalence and incidence of drug use among college students: An 8-year longitudinal analysis.
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 43(6), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990
.2017.1310219
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.117.3.497
Borchard, T. (2016). When Family Members and Friends Don’t Understand Depression. Retrieved from
Everyday Health: https://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/therese-borchard-sanity-break/when
-family-friends-dont-understand-depression
Branney, P., & White, A. (2008). Big boys don’t cry: Depression and men. Advances in Psychiatric
Treatment, 14(4), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.106.003467
Bravo, A. J., Villarosa-Hurlocker, M. C., & Pearson, M. R. (2018). College student mental health:
An evaluation of the DSM–5 self-rated Level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure. Psychological
Assessment, 30(10), 1382.
Brown, T. (2008, June 1). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, June 2008. https://hbr.org/2008/
06/design-thinking
Brown, T. (2018). Design thinking, Harvard Business Review, June, https://readings.design/PDF/Tim
%20Brown,%20Design%20Thinking.pdf
Browne, V., Munro, J., & Cass, J. (2017). The mental health of Australian university students. JANZSSA.
https://doi.org/10.30688/janzssa.2017.16
Bruce-Sanford, G., & Soares, L. (2019). Mental health and post-traditional learners. Higher Education
Today.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5. https://doi.org/10
.2307/1511637
Cage, E., Stock, M., Sharpington, A., Pitman, E., & Batchelor, R. (2020). Barriers to accessing support
for mental health issues at university. Studies in Higher Education, 45(8), 1637–1649. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03075079.2018.1544237
Cao, Q.-T., Vuong, Q.-H., Pham, H.-H., Luong, D.-H., Ho, M.-T., Hoang, A.-D., & Do, M.-T. (2021).
A bibliometric review of research on international students’ mental health: Science mapping of the
literature from 1957 to 2020. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education,
11(3), 781–794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11030056
Carette, L., Schauwer, E. D., & Hove, G. V. (2018). “Everywhere we go, people seem to know”: Mad
students and knowledge construction of mental illness in higher education. Social Inclusion, 6(4),
207–217. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i4.1683
Carter, M. A., Pagliano, P., Francis, A., & Thorne, M. (2017). Australian university students and mental
health: Viewpoints from the literature. https://scholar.sun.ac.za:443/handle/10019.1/105347
Charles, N. E., Strong, S. J., Burns, L. C., Bullerjahn, M. R., & Serafine, K. M. (2021). Increased mood
disorder symptoms, perceived stress, and alcohol use among college students during the COVID-19
pandemic. Psychiatry Research, 296, 113706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113706
Cohen, K. A., Graham, A. K., & Lattie, E. G. (2020). Aligning students and counseling centers on student
mental health needs and treatment resources. Journal of American College Health, 1–9.
Conley, C. S., Durlak, J. A., & Dickson, D. A. (2013). An evaluative review of outcome research on
universal mental health promotion and prevention programs for higher education students. Journal of
American College Health, 61(5), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.802237
Copeland, W. E., McGinnis, E., Bai, Y., Adams, Z., Nardone, H., Devadanam, V., Rettew, J., & Hudziak,
J. J. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(1), 134–141.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaac.2020.08.466
Crowley, K., & Head, B. W. (2017). The enduring challenge of “wicked problems”: Revisiting Rittel and
Webber. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 539–547.
Cullinan, J., Walsh, S., & Flannery, D. (2020). Socioeconomic disparities in unmet need for student
mental health services in higher education. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 18(2),
223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00529-9
Cunningham, S., & Duffy, A. (2019). Investing in our future: Importance of postsecondary student
mental health research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew
Research Center, 17(1), 1–7.
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Gollust, S. E. (2007). Help-seeking and access to mental health care in
a university student population. Medical Care, 45(7), 594–601.
Francis, P. C., & Horn, A. S. (2017). Mental health issues and counseling services in US higher educa-
tion: An overview of recent research and recommended practices. Higher Education Policy, 30(2),
263–277. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0036-2
Fried, E. I., Papanikolaou, F., & Epskamp, S. (2021). Mental health and social contact during the
COVID-19 pandemic: An ecological momentary assessment study. Clinical Psychological Science,
21677026211017840. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026211017839
Fruehwirth, J. C., Biswas, S., & Perreira, K. M. (2021). The Covid-19 pandemic and mental health of
first-year college students: Examining the effect of Covid-19 stressors using longitudinal data. PLOS
ONE, 16(3), e0247999. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247999
Galderisi, S., Heinz, A., Kastrup, M., Beezhold, J., & Sartorius, N. (2015). Toward a new definition of
mental health. World Psychiatry, 14(2), 231–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20231
Ganson, K. T., Murray, S. B., & Nagata, J. M. (2021). Associations between eating disorders and illicit
drug use among college students. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 54(7), 1127–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23493
Goodman, L. (2017). Mental health on university campuses and the needs of students they seek to serve.
Building Healthy Academic Communities Journal, 1(2), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.18061/bhac.v1i2
.6056
Gore, J. S., Sheppard, A., Waters, M., Jackson, J., & Brubaker, R. (2016). Cultural differences in seeking
mental health counseling: The role of symptom severity and type in Appalachian Kentucky. Journal
of Rural Mental Health, 40(1), 63
Grubic, N., Badovinac, S., & Johri, A. M. (2020). Student mental health in the midst of the COVID-19
pandemic: A call for further research and immediate solutions. International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 66(5), 517–518.
Hartrey, L., Denieffe, S., & Wells, J. S. G. (2017). A systematic review of barriers and supports to
the participation of students with mental health difficulties in higher education. Mental Health &
Prevention, 6, 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2017.03.002
Hefner, K. R., Sollazzo, A., Mullaney, S., Coker, K. L., & Sofuoglu, M. (2019). E-cigarettes, alcohol
use, and mental health: Use and perceptions of e-cigarettes among college students, by alcohol use and
mental health status. Addictive Behaviors, 91, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.10.040
Hendryx, M. (2008). Mental health professional shortage areas in rural Appalachia. Journal of Rural
Health, 24(2), 179–182.
Hill, M., Farrelly, N., Clarke, C., & Cannon, M. (2020). Student mental health and well-being: Overview
and future directions. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipm.2020
.110
Holm-Hadulla, R. M., & Koutsoukou-Argyraki, A. (2015). Mental health of students in a globalized
world: Prevalence of complaints and disorders, methods and effectivity of counseling, structure of
mental health services for students. Mental Health & Prevention, 3(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.mhp.2015.04.003
Hosmer, L. T. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum. Business Horizons, 31(4), 9–15. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(88)90062-6
Iarovici, D. (2014). Mental health issues and the university student. JHU Press.
Ideo.org. (n.d.). Design kit. Design Kit. Retrieved May 7, 2020, from https:// www .designkit.org/
methods/45
Kelly-Weeder, S. (2011). Binge drinking and disordered eating in college students. Journal of the
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 23(1), 33–41.
Lewis, K. (2020). COVID-19: Preliminary data on the impact of social distancing on loneliness
and mental health. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 26(5), 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRA
.0000000000000488
Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2011). Groundswell, expanded and revised edition: Winning in a world trans-
formed by social technologies. Harvard Business Press.
Lipson, S. K., & Roy, N. (2015). Data-driven approaches to evaluation and improvement of campus
mental health services and systems. PowerPoint presentation given in the HMN Webinar Series,
session 14, November 2015.
Luma Institute. (2012). Innovating for people: Handbook of human-centered design methods. LUMA
Institute.
Machin, J. E., Mirabito, A., Ross Adkins, N., & Crosby, E. (2020) Stepping in stigmatized shoes.
Proceedings of 2020 AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference, Volume 30 Editors M. Hamilton,
M. Bui and D. W. Stewart. Published by AMA. https://iris.unibocconi.it/retrieve/e31e10d4-2272-31fb
-e053-1705fe0a5b99/1900_ExOrdo-amapublicpolicy20-Version-162.pdf
Machin, J. E., Moscato, E., & Dadzie, C. (2021). Visualizing food: Photography as a design thinking
tool to generate innovative food experiences that improve food well-being. European Journal of
Marketing, 55(9), 2515–2537. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2020-0141
Martin, J. M. (2010). Stigma and student mental health in higher education. Higher Education Research
& Development, 29(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903470969
Martinez, S. M., Frongillo, E. A., Leung, C., & Ritchie, L. (2018). No food for thought: Food insecurity
is related to poor mental health and lower academic performance among students in California’s
public university system. Journal of Health Psychology, 1359105318783028. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1359105318783028
McCloud, T., & Bann, D. (2019). Financial stress and mental health among higher education students
in the UK up to 2018: Rapid review of evidence. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
73(10), 977–984. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-212154
McGorry, P. D., Purcell, R., Goldstone, S., & Amminger, G. P. (2011). Age of onset and timing of
treatment for mental and substance use disorders: Implications for preventive intervention strategies
and models of care. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(4), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO
.0b013e3283477a09
McMahon, A., & Bonilla, J. (2020, January 21). Addressing the shortage of mental health services
on college campuses. HCM Strategists, LLC. http://hcmstrategists.com/resources/addressing-the
-shortage-of-mental-health-services-on-college-campuses/
McMillan, C., & Overall, J. (2016). Wicked problems: Turning strategic management upside down.
Journal of Business Strategy, 37, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-11-2014-0129
Mental Health America. (2021). The 2021 state of mental health in America report. https://mhanational
.org/issues/state-mental-health-america
Milroy, J. J., Oakes, L. R., & Hickerson, B. D. (2021). Design thinking: Assessing the health needs of
college students with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities: JARID. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12882
Murphy, E. (2017). Responding to the needs of students with mental health difficulties in higher educa-
tion: An Irish perspective. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 110–124. https://doi
.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254966
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Policy
and Global Affairs; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Board on Higher Education and Workforce;
Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use, and Wellbeing in STEMM Undergraduate and Graduate
Education. (2021). Mental health, substance use, and wellbeing in higher education: supporting the
whole student (A. I. Leshner & L. A. Scherer, Eds.). National Academies Press.
Nurunnabi, M., Almusharraf, N., & Aldeghaither, D. (2021). Mental health and well-being during the
COVID-19 pandemic in higher education: Evidence from G20 countries. Journal of Public Health
Research, 9(Suppl 1), 2010. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.2010
Phelan, J. E., & Basow, S. A. (2007). College students’ attitudes toward mental illness: An examination
of the stigma process. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(12), 2877–2902. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00286.x
Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., Stueve, A., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2000). Public conceptions of mental illness
in 1950 and 1996: What is mental illness and is it to be feared? Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
188–207.
Pilato, K. A., Law, M. P., Narushima, M., Moore, S. A., & Hay, J. A. (2021). The creation of a mental
health policy in higher education. Educational Policy, 08959048211015613. https://doi.org/10.1177/
08959048211015613
Price Waterhouse Coopers. (2021). Managing risk in higher education: Higher education sector risk
profile 2021. PwC. https://www.pwc.co.uk/industries/government-public-sector/education/managing
-risk-in-higher-education.html
Prince, J. P. (2015). University student counseling and mental health in the United States: Trends and
challenges. Mental Health & Prevention, 3(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2015.03.001
Quinn, N., Wilson, A., MacIntyre, G., & Tinklin, T. (2009). “People look at you differently”: Students’
experience of mental health support within Higher Education. British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 37(4), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880903161385
Raisman, N. (2013). The cost of college attrition at four-year colleges & universities—an analysis of
1669 US institutions [Report]. Educational Policy Institute. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/
10919/83250
Reavley, N., & Jorm, A. F. (2010). Prevention and early intervention to improve mental health in higher
education students: A review. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 4(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1751-7893.2010.00167.x
Reavley, N. J., McCann, T. V., & Jorm, A. F. (2012). Mental health literacy in higher education students.
Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 6(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7893.2011.00314.x
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,
4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Santomauro, D. F., Herrera, A. M. M., Shadid, J., Zheng, P., Ashbaugh, C., Pigott, D. M., Abbafati,
C., Adolph, C., Amlag, J. O., Aravkin, A. Y., Bang-Jensen, B. L., Bertolacci, G. J., Bloom, S. S.,
Castellano, R., Castro, E., Chakrabarti, S., Chattopadhyay, J., Cogen, R. M., Collins, J. K., … Ferrari,
A. J. (2021). Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and
territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 398(10312), 1700–1712. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02143-7
Savage, M. J., James, R., Magistro, D., Donaldson, J., Healy, L. C., Nevill, M., & Hennis, P. J. (2020).
Mental health and movement behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic in UK university students:
Prospective cohort study. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 19, 100357.
Schreiber, B. (2018). Mental health at universities: Universities are not in loco parentis – Students are
active partners in mental health. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/
10.4314/jssa.v6i2
Serrat, O. (2017). The SCAMPER technique. In O. Serrat (Ed.), Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods,
and approaches to drive organizational performance (pp. 311–314). Springer. https://doi.org/10
.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_33
Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on college
students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 22(9), e21279. https://doi.org/10.2196/21279
Stones, S., & Glazzard, J. (2019). Supporting student mental health in higher education. Critical
Publishing.
Tembo, C., Burns, S., & Kalembo, F. (2017). The association between levels of alcohol consumption
and mental health problems and academic performance among young university students. PLoS One,
12(6), e0178142.
Thorley, C. (2017). Not by degrees: Improving student mental health in the UK’s universities. IPPR:
London, UK.
Thornicroft, G., Mehta, N., Clement, S., Evans-Lacko, S., Doherty, M., Rose, D., Koschorke, M.,
Shidhaye, R., O’Reilly, C., & Henderson, C. (2016). Evidence for effective interventions to reduce
mental-health-related stigma and discrimination. The Lancet, 387(10023), 1123–1132. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00298-6
UK Design Council (2018). https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/skills-learning/tools
-frameworks/framework-for-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond/
Usher, W. (2020). Living in quiet desperation: The mental health epidemic in Australia’s higher educa-
tion. Health Education Journal, 79(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896919867438
Wang, C., Cheng, Z., Yue, X.-G., & McAleer, M. (2020). Risk management of COVID-19 by uni-
versities in China. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jrfm13020036
Wang, X., Hegde, S., Son, C., Keller, B., Smith, A., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Investigating mental health
of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e22817. https://doi.org/10.2196/22817
Wells, G., Horwitz, J., & Seetharaman, D. (14 September 2021). Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for
teen girls, company documents show—WSJ. Retrieved October 19, 2021, from https://www.wsj.com/
articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739
White, S., Reynolds-Malear, J. B., & Cordero, E. (2011). Disordered eating and the use of unhealthy
weight control methods in college students: 1995, 2002, and 2008. Eating Disorders, 19(4), 323–334.
Winzer, R., Lindberg, L., Guldbrandsson, K., & Sidorchuk, A. (2018). Effects of mental health interven-
tions for students in higher education are sustainable over time: A systematic review and meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials. PeerJ, 6, e4598. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4598
World Health Organization. (2004). Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice:
Summary report. World Health Organization.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Ma, X., & Di, Q. (2020). Mental health problems during the COVID-19 pan-
demics and the mitigation effects of exercise: A longitudinal study of college students in China.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3722. https://doi.org/10
.3390/ijerph17103722
9. From gas to green: designing a social
contagion strategy for the energy transition in
Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Jesal Shah, Rebecca Anne Price and Jotte de Koning
INTRODUCTION
Due to global warming and frequent earthquakes in the gas-producing north Groningen region
and the dependence on oil and gas from Russia, the Dutch government aims to completely
discontinue the consumption of natural gas by 2050. Currently, about 90% of the homes in the
Netherlands use natural gas for heating purposes (Beckman & van den Beukel, 2019). In 30
years, these 7 million residential homes and 1 million other buildings must transition to using
greener energy alternatives such as solar power, wind power, residual heat from industries and
geothermal energy. Technological innovation in the past two decades has ensured that these
alternative technologies are now mature, viable and widely available. Yet, active adoption by
citizens and associated changes in practices and beliefs within households are proving difficult
to achieve. Adoption by society and institutionalisation of these technologies is essential to
achieve the requisite impact (Geels, 2004). Given this background, the government and local
councils in the Netherlands are faced with the question: ‘how to practically activate a critical
mass of citizens to transition from gas to green energy sources?’. This study was carried out
in 2020; however, the urgency of answering this question and the relevance of this project has
increased due to current geo-political pressures.
The challenge of activating citizens towards the energy transition falls within the purview
of designers since design shapes peoples’ perceptions and behaviours, whether intentionally or
unintentionally (Lockton, 2013). Additionally, as Ceschin & Gaziulusoy (2016) and Buchanan
(2015) outline, methodological maturity in the field of design has led to an evolution in the
nature of challenges designers now concern themselves with – from symbols, physical objects,
services and processes to broader environments, systems and organisations. The application of
design towards these broader environments is more commonly referred to as Design Thinking.
There are other design movements that deal with these new challenges, such as ‘Systemic
Design’, ‘Transition Design’ and ‘Design for Sustainability’. They bring forward a design
approach to intervene in complex systems while striving for long-term sustainable change.
The tools and methods available from these design movements combined with the general
capability of a design thinking process to embrace ambiguity and complexity offer a different
approach to tackling societal problems. In this study, we use a design thinking approach to
164
From gas to green 165
conceive strategic ways of activating citizens to adopt sustainable energy alternatives towards
the socio-technical challenge in the Dutch energy transition context.
We specifically focus on how social influence or social contagion can activate residents to
adopt greener energy alternatives and support the energy transition. The Reyerood neighbour-
hood in Rotterdam serves as our case study context. We follow a ‘research through design’
approach (Stappers & Giaccardi, 2017) wherein our process is inspired by the double-diamond
approach of design thinking. This approach entails that the results from our case study are
multi-layered. The first layer includes what we learn by embarking on a design process, in
co-creation with the municipality, for social contagion and the energy transition. In this we
have identified individual residents’ motivations and apprehensions towards the energy tran-
sition in Reyeroord and the relations between residents within the social networks. Second,
the outcomes of the design process culminate in the development of the ‘Design for Social
Contagion Framework and Toolkit’ which codify a design (thinking) approach for the munic-
ipality to create interventions and shape contagion processes to activate residents. This was
preliminarily tested with the municipality of Rotterdam. Last, by applying design thinking
in the context of the energy transition we learn about the value of such an approach which is
highly relevant give the criticality of gas to green transitions in Europe for sustainability and
geopolitical objectives.
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
There is increasing awareness amongst citizens about the need for and value of sustainable
lifestyles, yet it does not reflect in behaviours and consumption patterns (Frederiks et al.,
2015). The transition from gas to green requires citizens to invest time, money and effort
to make changes and overcome the short-term inconveniences of a technology change. The
return on this investment is marginal in the immediate future and long-term financial savings
are often unclear. There is ambiguity too, as to who will make the decision (together) and ini-
tiate action to change: the tenants, house-owners, housing associations, housing corporations,
the municipality or the national government. Even if citizens have a positive attitude towards
gas discontinuation, achieving the ‘socio’ component of a socio-technical-system change is
highly challenging given this perception of inconvenience and uncertainty.
The challenges described above can be theorised as ‘lock-ins’ that reinforce accepted ways
of thinking, doing and being (Klitkou et al., 2015) and hold citizens (and energy providers)
in the current socio-technical gas system. To overcome lock-ins, governments often turn to
top-down policy mechanisms to stimulate preferred behaviours. These policies are often met
with public resistance. For example, when the city of Barcelona first introduced ‘superblocks’,
where car traffic was permitted only on perimeter roads to curb pollution and car collisions in
2017, car owners and residents from surrounding neighbourhoods took to the streets to resist
the change (O’Sullivan, 2017).
Providing financial incentives is the other commonly opted route. However, a provision of
financial incentives does not imply that citizens will actively opt for the gas to green transition
(Frederiks et al., 2015). For instance, people in Boulder, Colorado did not actively purchase
energy-efficient appliances even though the government provided free home energy audits,
rebates, and other incentives (Simon, 2010). This highlights the need for novel strategies to
overcome societal lock-ins and stimulate changes in citizens’ behaviours.
Looking to transition theories and literature from the domains of technology and inno-
vation diffusion, it is observed that there is limited practical guidance on how to activate
a critical mass of citizens to adopt innovation at the micro-scale. Theories such as the
Multi-Level-Perspective (Geels, 2002), Technology Innovation System theory (Hekkert et al.,
2007) and Strategic Niche Management (Caniëls & Romijn, 2008) are analytic in nature and
provide zoomed-out, meta-level understanding of the dynamics of transitions. These theories
advocate the co-evolution of user practices, norms and technology, but do not offer concrete
strategies to activate individuals and communities. From the domain of policy development
and governance, Transition Management (Loorbach & van de Lindt, 2007) emphasizes the
involvement of stakeholders through transition arenas. These arenas are focused on strategic
activities, limited to select stakeholders and early adopters. The experimentation phase of
transition management, where activation of citizens must happen, provides fewer tools for
practically activating a critical mass.
The diffusion of innovation theory by Rogers (1983) highlights how innovation can spread
within communities through active influencers and front-runners. While this has merit when
it comes to the diffusion of certain products and services, it does not always prove useful for
complex behaviours that need to overcome entrenched routines and beliefs and require a con-
siderable investment in terms of time, money and effort (Centola, 2018). Moving away from
well-functioning technologies (systems) requires intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as
changes in cultures and norms – which cannot be guaranteed simply by diffusion of knowledge
of innovation.
DESIGN THINKING FOR SYSTEMS TRANSITIONS
Today’s societal problems are characterised by the interaction of several socio-technical

systems with high levels of complexity and unpredictability which cannot be controlled or
altered by a single definitive solution. Tackling such problems or transitioning away from
such systems requires an explorative way of working and the creation of a variety of inter-
ventions at different levels in a system (van der Bijl-Brouwer & Malcolm, 2020). Design
thinking provides one such explorative approach towards complex challenges. Its abductive
problem-solving capability and co-creative mandate can help in unveiling and deconstructing
societal lock-ins and devising persuasive strategies for change.
As Drew et al. (2021) highlight, the core capacities of design thinking include inte-
grative thinking, perspective-taking, abductive reasoning, propositionality, reflexivity and
synthesis-through-making. These are valuable not only to understand the existing paradigms
and navigate/visualise system complexity, but also to reimagine futures. These can help in
building the big picture, a shared understanding of desirable futures and states of our systems.
At the granular level, given that the crux of design thinking lies in creativity and abductive
thinking where, at the start of the process, both the ‘WHAT and ‘HOW’ of tackling a problem
are unknown (Dorst, 2011), it is apt that design thinking be applied to shape interventions
towards system change. As Norman (2020) highlights, this includes diving deeper into local
cultures and communities and co-designing solutions with community members. Apart from
their own design expertise, honing diffuse design capabilities (as Manzini (2015) terms it) and
co-designing interventions enable designers to engage in and transverse across different levels
of a system.
Additionally, as Nelson & Stolterman (2012, p. 57) argue, designers are ‘able to create
essential relationships and critical connections in their designs and between their designs and
the larger systems in which they are embedded’. This is the very ethos of systemic design with
its focus on how independent parts become an inter-dependent whole. Thus, design thinking is
inherently systemic in nature and can prove valuable in shaping both, the big picture (interde-
pendent whole) and the interventions (independent parts) towards the big picture for systemic
change.
This application of design thinking in shaping the future states and interventions towards
the future states is captured in the emerging movements of ‘Transition design’ (Irwin et al.,
2015) and ‘Systemic design’ (Drew et al., 2021) with a focus on deep transformation. These
movements emphasise that deep transformation necessities a shift in mindset – a certain ‘way
of thinking’ before ‘doing’ – which is inherent to design thinking. These domains advocate
identifying ‘new ways of designing’ or ‘leverage points’ for intervention to steer change. One
such leverage point for intervention we identify is ‘Designing for behaviour change’, which
we explore in the next part of the chapter and our case study.
DESIGN INTERVENTIONS FOR BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
Design inherently includes a process of change (towards preferable situations) which shapes
practices. Design fulfils peoples’ needs while enabling them or prompting them to do or not
to do something through the tangible and intangible aspects of a product-service system or
socio-technical system. The affordances provided by design or the interactions and emotions
evoked through design intervention influence peoples’ associations, attitudes, decisions and
actions (Lockton, 2013), in turn shaping long-term routines, habits and cultural paradigms.
There is increasing consciousness amongst designers about this (desirable or undesirable;
and intentional or unintentional) impact of design on (consumer) behaviours; and, thus, an
increased sensibility of intentionally and explicitly influencing behaviours. This is captured
within the field of ‘Design for behaviour change’ (Lilley, 2007; Michie et al., 2011; Niedderer
et al., 2014) which draws upon behavioural sciences such as psychology, sociology and
neuroscience to inform design interventions and strategies to trigger certain behaviours. The
interventions either aim at triggering a direct cognitive change in an individual or shaping con-
textual cues which indirectly influence one’s behaviour; or a combination of both (Niedderer
et al., 2014).
More recently, acknowledging the contribution of behaviours (of individuals and groups)
towards social and environmental problems, ‘Design for behaviour change’ is being used
by the private and public sectors alike to prompt healthy, sustainable and socially desirable
behaviours. Examples include interventions to increase energy-saving, reduce littering, reduce
crime, improve compliance with tax laws, continued adherence to medication, exercise rou-
tines and healthy diets (Lockton, 2013; Niedderer et al., 2014).
While strategies of design and behaviour change are a good starting point to trigger sus-
tainable behaviours (be it a one-time behaviour or a continued habit), a focus on shaping
individuals’ behaviours or small groups of individuals is observed; constraining them in scale
of impact. Scaling the behaviours of individuals to the communities they are embedded in is
crucial to achieving a critical mass towards reaching the sustainable development goals. The
need for devising (new) approaches to scale behaviour change beyond individuals while acti-
vating communities and networks is apparent.
SOCIAL CONTAGION TO SCALE BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
Studies on pro-environmental behaviours and habits, energy use and consumption as well
as technology adoption accentuate the role of culture (Lutzenhiser, 1992), social influence
(Goldsmith & Goldsmith, 2011), social norms (Trudel, 2018), social proof (Nolan et al., 2008)
and social diffusion (Costanzo et al., 1986) in positively affecting behaviours. This follows
from people’s tendency to use shortcuts (heuristics) to reduce the effort in evaluating and
comprehending choices while making decisions. One such shortcut is to align one’s choice
with those of similar others; assuming that others have more knowledge, or that if the majority
has chosen something it must be correct.
Social influence also arises from people’s need to conform to and comply with social
norms in order to achieve three self-goals, namely: to act effectively, to build and maintain
social relationships and to manage the self-concept (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). People seek
social comparison evidence (normative guidance), specifically from similar others to evaluate
themselves in terms of the appropriateness of their abilities, behaviours and beliefs. When the
attitudes and actions are shared with the comparison group, they are further reinforced. If there
is a discrepancy, the attitudes and actions are altered (Marsden & Friedkin, 1993). People are
strongly influenced by the (in)action of others, which implies that one would act only if several
others have chosen to act (Buskens & Raub, 2013; Cialdini & Trost, 1998). This also applies
to sustainable behaviours, as exemplified by Trudel (2018). He concludes that one’s ‘personal
and social identities’ and ‘social influence through social norms’ are two key factors that
‘powerfully, predictably, and pervasively influence sustainable behaviours’.
On the downside, this social influence gives rise to the impasse wherein people wait for
others to act first, with no ultimate action. This is problematic as climate science describes
a precipice for significant change to human activity now (Williamson et al., 2018). While
this interdependency in decision-making is a hurdle, it is also an opportunity to gain traction
towards the notion of designing for critical mass. Several ‘Design for behaviour change’
toolkits include ‘providing social proof’, ‘social traces’, ‘social support’ or ‘designing for
collective use’ (Ploderer et al., 2014) as strategies for change amongst others. However, often
these are focused on shaping individuals’ (or small groups of individuals) behaviours, e.g.,
providing neighbours’ energy-saving data to prompt conscious behaviour amongst families,
or giving social proof (e.g. ‘90% of guests who stay in this room reuse the linen and towels’)
to guests in a hotel to reuse linen. The inherent scaling power of social influence, which can be
applied to social networks and communities, stays underexplored.
Building on these strategies and expanding their scope of application, we explore how to
leverage the potential of social influence and social contagion within social networks and com-
munities, using complex contagion theory (Centola, 2018) and a design thinking approach. We
try to understand how citizens can be activated not as individuals but as groups (communities)
and how activation happens within groups in the context of the energy transition.
CASE STUDY: GAS TO GREEN ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE

NETHERLANDS
Historical Context
‘Natural gas is to the Netherlands what oil is to the Gulf States’ (Rapid Transition Alliance,
2021). The discovery of large natural gas reserves in 1960s marked the beginning of the eco-
nomic and industrial legacy of the Netherlands. Amid rising nuclear power, which could slash
energy prices, and cheaper coal imports that rendered Dutch coal unprofitable, the exploitation
of natural gas became a political priority. Through strong coalitions with private sector oil
companies, extensive infrastructure and policy planning and exercise of power by the state,
no alternatives could reach the market, any resistance was avoided, and the natural gas regime
gained a monopoly in the Dutch economy (Correljé et al., 2003; Kemp, 2010; Beckman &
van den Beukel, 2019). Dutch industries transitioned to natural gas and prospered. Export
contracts with neighbouring countries not only gave rise to a positive trade deficit and profits,
it gave the Netherlands a central position in the energy ecosystem in the European Union.
Revenues from gas exports as well as internal supply fuelled the development of the ‘Dutch
welfare state’ (Correljé et al., 2003, p. 16).
Extensive campaigns and cost advantages were designed and citizens were sold the idea of
increased convenience and comfort. The majority of the citizens readily bought into this since
coal was tedious and dirty to use, houses were poorly heated, not insulated and uncomfort-
able. The post-war economic development gave rise to an increase in personal incomes and
well-being, and a widespread sense of modernisation which also contributed to the spontane-
ous buy-in amongst citizens. Consequently, the Netherlands has become one of the few coun-
tries within the European Union with the highest natural gas consumption, especially in the
residential sector. Nine in every ten homes in the Netherlands was heated by gas as of 2018;
natural gas contributed 69.3% to the share of fuels in the energy consumption in the residential
sector in the Netherlands in 2019, as compared with 38.8% in Germany (Eurostat, 2021).
Policy Directives
The Dutch government recognises that transitioning away from natural gas is a social, sus-
tainable and now geopolitical challenge, and acknowledges that acceptance by citizens is
a key condition to achieve the transition. It aims to employ a decentralised, district-oriented
approach wherein local residents, businesses, civic bodies and other relevant stakeholders are
involved in planning and executing the transition (Klimaatakkoord, 2019). It is important to
note that although it is citizens who have to actively adopt greener alternatives, the municipal-
ities and local councils must (and are) play(ing) a key role in facilitating, planning, managing
and supporting the transition by bringing together stakeholders, defending the common inter-
ests of the public, ensuring viability and overcoming uncertainties.
The government also identifies the affordability of greener technologies and feasible
renovation in the built environment as two pillars to drive change. Hence, achieving housing
cost neutrality (which entails that monthly financing costs for the transition do not exceed
the savings on the energy bill for house owners/tenants) is a key point in the energy policy
directive. The government aims to reduce costs by bundling supply and demand, working on
digitization and innovation, combining transition activities with other neighbourhood develop-
ment activities as well as re-designing price structures, energy taxes and subsidies. There are
several funding schemes, loans with low-interest rates and mortgage options being made avail-
able for individual house owners or collective housing associations by the local and central
governments to prompt change. The challenge here is that large-scale adoption is a necessary
condition to regulate prices and have a viable business case for greener technologies, espe-
cially since there are insufficient resources to shape a fully state-funded gas to green transition.
Additionally, the Netherlands and other European countries aim to become independent of
gas imports from Russia. As of 2022, a quarter of the gas utilised in Europe is imported from
Russia (Ministry Responsible Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, 2022). Thus,
the Netherlands is looking for ways to speed up the transition from gas to greener energy
sources, e.g., by installing additional wind turbines in the North Sea, insulating more homes
and increasing the use of green hydrogen gas.
With this backdrop, the Dutch energy transition in the built environment forms an apt
real-world context to apply the theory of social contagion to activate residents.
Case Study Site: Reyeroord, Rotterdam
To gain rich insight into people’s perceptions and their social networks to stimulate social
contagion, we chose to use the neighbourhood scale for our case study. We approached the
Rotterdam municipality to select a neighbourhood. The municipality has chosen five pilot
neighbourhoods (differing in the types of houses, socio-economic backgrounds of residents
and the most suitable type of alternative energy source) to experiment with and learn from.
Reyeroord is one such pilot neighbourhood, chosen for its characteristic of having a majority
of privately owned houses wherein the household incomes lie below average. Due to the
proximity of Reyeroord to the Rotterdam port, and since a part of the heat network already
exists there, district heating is chosen as the most feasible and viable alternative (municipality
recommends it; residents can still opt for other alternatives). For a shift from gas towards dis-
trict heating it is essential to get opt-in from a majority of the homeowners. Getting opt-in from
each homeowner is tedious and difficult, compared with convincing a housing corporation.
The municipality would like to learn how to overcome this challenge.
The Reyeroord community has a diverse demographic composition. Its ethnic composition
includes 63% native Dutch residents, 12% immigrants from eastern European countries
and 25% non-western immigrants. Seventeen percent of the population comprises children
between the ages of 0 and 14 (it is considered a ‘Children’s Kingdom’) and 20% consists of
the elderly (Borgman, 2019). This age-wise composition is reflected in the social interaction
spaces in the neighbourhood, which are mostly directed towards the children or the elderly.
A majority of the people in Reyerood lead traditional lifestyles where they are focused on the
status quo and strongly hold onto traditions and material possessions (ibid., 2019). They find
the concept of sustainability vague and inconsequential to their lives (ibid., 2019). The munic-
ipality is in the initial stages of planning and developing a business case for district heating,
and is faced with the overarching question:
How to motivate the residents to actively participate in the upcoming transition to make
Reyeroord natural-gas free?
The municipality of Rotterdam is actively looking to use a ‘social design’ approach to identify
residents’ needs and design interventions to motivate them. Since the municipality’s planning
and efforts are at a further stage in Reyeroord as compared with other neighbourhoods, and
the municipality is motivated to use social design in its approach within Reyeroord, it makes
an apt case for this study.
Case Study Methodology
The defining feature of case study research is its focus on ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Schoch,
2020) and, hence, it is appropriate to answer our qualitative, exploratory research question
– how can social influence/social contagion activate residents to adopt greener energy alter-
natives and support the energy transition in Reyeroord? We followed a ‘research through
design’ approach (Stappers & Giaccardi, 2017) wherein the process was inspired by the
double-diamond design framework with research and design cross-fertilizing iteratively. The
process was guided by three sub-questions:
1. What are the individual resident’s motivations and apprehensions towards gas
discontinuation?
2. What do the relations within the social networks of residents look like? How can the con-
tagion unfold in the neighbourhood?
3. How can the municipality use social influence/ social contagion to activate residents to
switch to greener energy alternatives?
Table 9.1 gives an overview of the different methods used within the diverging and converging
phases of our double-diamond design approach.
Contextual inquiry
The ‘Discover’ phase started with a literature review and secondary desk research on social
contagion and the energy transition in the built environment in general. This included
understanding the historical context of natural gas, the alternative technologies available,
the government’s plans, strategies, policy directives, efforts until now; tools, frameworks
and strategies being used by different actors, the process of transition for different types
of houses and different information channels available for residents. This was followed by
Reyeroord-specific contextual inquiries. Older reports and documents published by the munic-
ipality as well as other researchers and design agencies working in the neighbourhood were
used to gain insight into the neighbourhood and its social structure. Fourteen semi-structured
interviews were carried out with: (six) municipality officials, (one) technology provider, (two)
other stakeholders who are involved in the energy transition in Reyeroord, (three) researchers/
designers who have previously worked in the neighbourhood and have in-depth knowledge
about the residents and (two) experts on the transition. The participants were recruited by the
authors based on the municipality’s advice and represent an expert sampling of key stake-
holder groups. The interviews were conducted in English and accompanied by sensitizing
exercises to aid the interviewees’ in formulating their answers. These helped to overcome
the language barrier, since some interviewees found it difficult to articulate their thoughts in
English – Dutch being their native language. The interviews were recorded and transcribed for
further analysis.
172
Table 9.1 Overview of the methods used
Phase from Discover Define Develop Deliver

Double (7 weeks) (4 weeks) (8 weeks) (3 weeks)
diamond design
framework
Key Secondary Primary research Analysis of interview Defining design Ideation Synthesis Concept Present outcomes
activity(s) research transcripts, secondary goals, criteria development,
data validation
To answer sub- 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 3 3 3 3
question(s)
Methods used – Desk – 14 Semi- – Thematic Analysis – Reframing – Three ideation – Thematic – Five co-creation – Four
research structured interviews (specific data was sessions (2–2.5 analysis workshops presentations
– How-tos
(1–1.5 hours each; analysed using models hours each) (2–2.5 hours
– Literature – Comparison – One
audio-recorded) from psychologya) each)
review – During each with existing co-creation
– Sensitizing exercises – SWOT Analysis session: ‘Design for – Insights from workshop
– (Search
during the interview • How-tos behaviour each workshop
language – System mapping
(on printed templates) • Brainstorming change’ were used to
– English;
– Personas • Braindrawing strategies and develop the
Dutch – Verbatim transcription
toolkitsb next iteration
resources of interviews (done
of the toolkit –
Google manually by authors)

with five total
translated to
iterations
English)
Location In person at Online via Zoom Online via Zoom
participants’ office; & Miro & Miro
Online via Zoom
Notes: a Models used: Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991); Integrated model of pro-environmental behaviour (Wilson & Dowlatabadi, 2007); MAO (Ölander &
Thøgersen, 1995); Fogg’s behaviour change model (Fogg, 2009); Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 1983).
b
Design for Behaviour change toolkits used: Design for Intent toolkit (Lockton, 2013); Social influence strategies (Cialdini, 2007); The Brains, Behaviour and Design
toolkit (2011); Behavioural intervention design toolkit for service design (van Lieren, 2017); Mindspace framework for behaviour change (Dolan et al., 2011).
Thematic analysis was used in the ‘Define’ phase to analyse the secondary data sources and
interview transcripts to understand:
1. The municipality and energy providers’ current efforts, approach and plan for the transi-
tion in Reyeroord as well as the different barriers, dilemmas, tensions they face. SWOT
Analysis was used identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach.
2. Different residents’ profiles and their motivations, apprehensions and decision-making
criteria towards gas discontinuation. These motivations and apprehensions found from the
interviews were analysed using models from psychology to categorise them into recurring
factors and themes, identify the underlying construction of these themes (as shown in
Figures 9.1, 9.2) and define the relationships between these themes (Figure 9.3 shows one
such example of the relationship between different themes).
3. Meta-level social identities of the population in Reyeroord based on their affiliations in the
neighbourhood and the networks that ensue. Insights about residents’ social identities and
networks were used to visualise how the contagion can unfold in Reyeroord building on
complex contagion theory.
System mapping techniques were used throughout to understand the relationships between
different aspects and to visualise the complexity the energy transition in Reyeroord entails.
Figure 9.4 shows an example of one such map capturing the tensions, dilemmas and interac-
tions between key stakeholder groups.
Design intervention
Insights from thematic analysis were used to define design criteria and ‘how-to’ questions that
were answered in the ‘Develop’ phase through three ideation sessions with different partici-
pants (Session 1: Six design students; Session 2: two design students, two expert designers;
Session 3: Two expert designers). The sessions included a Reyeroord-specific brainstorm to
ideate upon strategies regarding how social contagion can support the transition by overcoming
residents’ apprehensions. Next, these Reyeroord-specific ideas and strategies were translated
into a more generalized design approach (concept) to scale up behaviour change. It resulted in
the design of the ‘Design for Social Contagion’ Framework and Toolkit which define a design
(thinking) approach for the municipality to create interventions and shape the contagion
process with a set of design principles, design components and inspiration strategies.
The toolkit underwent five iterations, wherein each iteration was validated in-use during
a 2–2.5-hour-long workshop, each with a combination of design students, expert designers,
design teachers and municipality officials (in total 23 participants). Design students, teach-
ers and experts were recruited by the authors from their own design practice networks; and
municipal officials based on the municipality’s advice. The validation was carried out by
organizing co-creation workshops wherein participants used the toolkit to design interventions
to stimulate social contagion towards gas discontinuation – just how the toolkit is meant to be
used in practice. The co-creation workshops helped to qualitatively test the usability aspects
of the toolkit – ease of use, the structure and format of the toolkit, intuitiveness, whether it
inspires new ideas and helps municipal officials come up with ways to activate residents and
if they will use it in the future. As a part of the ‘Deliver’ phase, the outcomes were presented
to different clusters within the municipality, to the ENRGISED consortium and at the Dutch
Note: These factors are classified into Motivation, Ability and Trigger factors based on Fogg’s model for behaviour
change to understand whether residents lack motivation or the ability to act towards gas discontinuation. These were
used as input for ideation of interventions.
Source: Fogg, 2009.
Figure 9.1 Residents’ motivations and apprehensions identified from interviews were
simplified into key factors
Design Week 2020. A workshop was organised for a service design agency working on the
transition to use the toolkit and brainstorm interventions.
Limitations
Our study is limited to one neighbourhood, hence future research must be done in different
contexts (of energy transition and other areas of sustainable transitions) to further strengthen
the notion of designing for social contagion towards sustainable lifestyles. Our study is
Note: Seven key themes were identified. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was used to further define which basic needs
these themes cater to. The themes were used to identify the decision-making process of different resident profiles in
Reyeroord.
Source: Adapted from McLeod, 2020.
Figure 9.2 The factors derived from interviews, clustered together to identify recurring
underlying themes that drive residents’ decision-making
Note: Procrastination is the result of three interrelated themes (and their underlying factors) according to our
findings – Trust, Awareness/Understanding and Loss/Risk perceptions.
Figure 9.3 Deconstructing ‘Procrastination’ towards gas discontinuation
a starting point to give a practical form to theory on social contagion and social influence.
Future research should point out which strategies are more effective in achieving which type
of sustainable transition goals, and how the strategies can be further customised. The study
builds on complex contagion theory by Centola (2018); future research can explore other
theories of contagion to strengthen the framework. We take a qualitative approach to intervene
in social networks. This can be complemented by quantitative network mapping techniques to
improve predictability as well as evaluation of the interventions. Since persuasive techniques,
specifically social influence, can alter behaviours, designers must be highly reflexive about
their intentions as persuaders. Ethical considerations and implications of using social influence
strategies must be further researched.
RESULTS
This results section is divided into three sub-sections, where each section answers one
sub-question respectively. The first two sub-sections present the findings from the
Reyeroord-specific contextual inquiry regarding the residents’ motivation and apprehensions
Figure 9.4 Example of a system map showing causal relationships between the efforts
and perspectives of the key stakeholders involved in the energy transition in
Reyeroord
and their social networks. The third sub-section outlines the results of our design intervention
as to how municipalities can use social contagion to activate residents.
Residents’ Motivations and Apprehensions towards the Energy Transition in

Reyeroord
The interviews show that key factors shaping the motivations and apprehensions towards the
energy transition in Reyeroord are affordability, issues of trust, loss/risk perceptions, tradi-
tional lifestyles, concern for the environment and for their children’s future.
Results reveal that affordability is the key constraint in this neighbourhood since average
disposable income is €30,000 per annum; considered to be below average compared with other
regions. Fifty-seven percent of households in the region fall in the low-income category with
13% being below the poverty live. Frugal living is a part of their ethos, which is also exempli-
fied by people’s attraction to discounts, coupons, or offers. Since most people are busy making
ends meet, their minds are preoccupied and other priorities take precedence. People are
unwilling to even hear about the energy transition (e.g., they ignore any letters, mails sent to
them). Specific personal situations further compound this hesitation – for example, when one
is pregnant, or has just moved to the neighbourhood or plans to move out in the near future;
or a common notion amongst the elderly being – ‘This is not going to happen in my lifetime’.
The segment of the population with mid-level incomes (approximately 34%) which can
afford the transition procrastinates decision-making. Apprehension amongst these residents
stems from lack of trust either in the process, the energy alternatives or stakeholders involved.
This lack of trust is due to negative past experiences – say in dealing with the municipality
or a specific energy provider, or general scepticism. Lack of awareness and miscomprehen-
sion (also caused by the lack of a single point of personalised information) is another cause
for procrastination. For example, some residents believe that soon they will get hydrogen
gas through the existing natural gas infrastructure; or in a glimpse residents think that solar
panels are the cheapest and best alternative for them, not knowing the hidden costs involved
or infrastructure requirements for their house. Loss/risk perceptions also fuel procrastination
of decision-making since residents do not want to be the first to make the change and want to
learn from others’ (with similar socio-economic backgrounds or lifestyles) experiences.
Residents have a perception that they are losing their freedom of choice. Currently, based on
competitive pricing, residents can easily switch between different energy providers. However,
with alternatives such as district heating only one provider shall cater to a specific neighbour-
hood, hence the notion that the energy providers shall have a monopoly and quote exorbitant
prices. In reality, the providers are being kept under check by the municipality – a fact that
residents are unaware of, which surfaced in the research. Some residents are waiting for gas
discontinuation to become a law in order to have more certainty. Paradoxically, these residents
also believe that the government cannot force them to change. A few residents consider it the
governments’ responsibility to fund and realise the energy transition.
Some residents in Reyeroord are ready to switch to greener alternatives immediately. For
these enthusiasts, the key motivation is their concern for the environment and for their chil-
dren’s future. This small percentage (approximately 9%) of residents with higher incomes
can easily afford the transition and find it an opportune moment to avail themselves of the
discounts and change infrastructure within their houses at lower costs. On the other hand, there
is a group of residents for whom affordability constraints exceed their motivation. They are
open to knowing the different options available, where some even go the extra mile of getting
advice from the social department of the municipality to find means to fund the transition. If
they find the finances, they will readily opt for gas discontinuation.
It is observed that in previous interventions by the municipality in Reyeroord, residents
often participated or were willing to participate only when their neighbours also participated
or the neighbours invited them. Given that apart from affordability, residents seek certainty
and credibility of change, where they want to learn from their peers’ experiences, we hypoth-
esize that socially-driven interventions can play a key role in overcoming apprehensions and
stimulating behaviour change.
Resident’s Social Networks and the Contagion Process
To understand how the social contagion can unfold in Reyeroord, we probed the residents’
social identities and the social networks that exist within the community. We find that peo-
ple’s social identities in Reyeroord draw on their socio-economic background which has high
correlation with the type of houses they inhabit. People with similar socio-economic back-
grounds live in similar houses (individual bungalows, three-storey apartments, apartments
for the elderly), in close vicinity and know each other well. This gives rise to neighbourhood
micro-networks (based on the vicinity of the house) that can be used to seed the contagion and
activate residents within neighbourhood clusters.
Additionally, people’s social identities follow from the activities they pursue and their
interests. These activities are related to the social spaces in the neighbourhood they visit – e.g.,
church, gym, park, centre for the elderly; or other routine habits, e.g., while walking their dogs,
going for nature walks, picking their kids up from school, etc. Interactions amongst residents
during these activities give rise to practice-based networks where people from different neigh-
bourhood micro-networks interact. These practice-based networks can be used to spread the
contagion across the different neighbourhood micro-networks.
There are some influencers and active people in the community who can serve as the
seed nodes to start the spread of the contagion. Once activated, specific interventions need
to be designed to spark interactions between residents such that these seed nodes can spread
and reinforce the credibility of the target behaviour to others within their neighbourhood
micro-networks. Simultaneously, interventions need also to be designed to enable activated
residents from neighbourhood micro-networks to spread and reinforce the behaviour to other
residents they meet through their practice-based networks (spreading the behaviour across
different neighbourhood micro-networks).
Having identified how social contagion can unfold in Reyeroord, next we present results on
how to design interventions to practically spark interactions and activate residents using social
contagion.
Design for Social Contagion Framework: Using Social Influence To Activate Residents
Based upon the literature of complex contagions (Centola, 2018), our design process and
findings from the Reyeroord case study, we have developed the Design for Social Contagion
Framework presented in Figure 9.5. The framework outlines an overall process to shape con-
tagions within a community, qualitatively. It shows three key elements that need to be defined
(based on the context) to shape social contagions, namely:
1. The WHAT: includes defining the content or the target behaviour that needs to be spread
amongst a population. In the case of gas discontinuation, it relates to the contagion of
a positive attitude or decision towards shifting to greener energy alternatives. The WHAT
can also be determined by understanding the residents’ specific apprehensions.
2. The HOW: refers to the means or mode of contagion – how the contagion of the target
behaviour can unfold in a specific context. This includes visualising and defining the
network dynamics of the contagion – the seed nodes (initiators of social influence), clusters
(social networks of people), bridges, etc. The framework outlines an actionable six-step
process as shown in Figure 9.5 to define the network dynamics. Note that this process is
not explicitly listed or prescribed by Centola (2018). It is derived by the authors based on
the examples provided by him.
3. The WHY STRATEGY (Persuasion): Apart from defining the network dynamics as to
who will spread the target behaviour to whom and when, it is essential to define how
people will spread the behaviour to their peers and what will activate the target behaviour.
This happens in Steps 3, 4 and 5 of the process. It includes devising persuasive and tacti-
cal ways of inducing the behaviour (the strategy of contagion), building upon behaviour
change strategies to enable the contagion within and across networks.
The framework was used as a high-level compass to guide the design project for the case of
Reyeroord. It is developed to guide design processes for municipality officials and designers
who want to stimulate social contagion towards gas discontinuation in the future.
DESIGN FOR SOCIAL CONTAGION TOOLKIT
Next to the framework, we have developed the ‘Design for Social Contagion Toolkit’, which
aids designers in defining the WHY (Persuasion) Strategy element, specifically designing
practical interactions and interventions for social contagion in Steps 4 and 5 of the framework.
The toolkit builds on the ‘Anatomy of an intervention’ (as shown in Figure 9.6) which is the
logic of designing interventions. The anatomy outlines that each intervention aimed at shaping
social contagion needs to fulfil two design criteria, follow four design principles, and can be
designed using four intervention components. This anatomy of an intervention is derived by
analysing and generalising the concepts developed during ideation.
The two design criteria an intervention must fulfil are: (1) enable the target behaviour, and
(2) enable the contagion of the behaviour. The clear distinction between these two steps shows
that the activation of the behaviour in people and the spreading of the behaviour (contagion of
it) are different processes that both need to be designed for in different ways.
Apart from the two criteria, each intervention must follow four design principles: (1)
scale down: translate global to local; (2) three Ss: Simple, Slow and Steady win the race;
(3) comparison is key: enable (sub)conscious comparison; (4) make it desirable, silly! These
principles must be kept in mind while designing interventions and help to ensure that the
interventions have impact on the target group. For example, since people find the concept of
sustainability vague, it is important that the interventions highlight what this global phenome-
non means for people’s daily lives, their kids, their surroundings. Only if people recognise and
From gas to green
Figure 9.5 Design for social contagion framework

181
Figure 9.6 Anatomy of an intervention aimed at stimulating social contagion of target

behaviour
relate to something, they will act upon it. The design principles can also be used as qualitative
evaluation criteria for the intervention.
Last, the anatomy outlines four components that constitute an intervention and give form to
the design principles and criteria: (1) Actions, (2) Spread mechanism, (3) Touchpoints, and (4)
Incentives. Designing the Action and Spread mechanism help to fulfil the two distinct criteria
stated above. These must be complemented with apt incentives and well-designed touchpoints
that make the target behaviour or spreading the target behaviour more easy, intuitive and desir-
able. The four components are not mutually exclusive; however, they are specified as different
components to guide the design process, and to ensure each aspect is explicitly thought about.
The toolkit consists of an inspiration card deck (54 cards), a set of five design canvases
and a handbook (as shown in Figure 9.7). The card deck includes a description of the criteria
(2×), principles (4×) and components (4×). The card deck also includes a set of design for
behaviour change persuasion strategies outlined under each design component (Action, Spread
Mechanism, Touchpoint and Incentive). These provide inspiration for and examples of how
to design specific components in an intervention. The canvases facilitate the process of using
the inspiration cards to design interventions, from problem definition, brainstorming to con-
ceptualisation, evaluation and detailing. These can be used by individuals or in group sessions.
How to use the inspiration cards with the canvases is outlined in a handbook provided with
the toolkit.1
The toolkit was validated with (seven) municipal officials in two different sessions each of
2–2.5 hours. This validation highlighted that the toolkit familiarises people with behavioural
and social constructs of decision-making. It inspires them to think differently and incorporate
social innovation in their approach. Initiating this change in mindset is crucial to live through
and steer transitions. This points to a dual role of the toolkit: (1) it triggers a change in mindset
amongst municipal officials, prompting them to be more empathetic, creative and experimen-
tal; and (2) it provides a foundation for municipality employees to better explore, understand,
design and implement creative interventions to steer the requisite social transitions using the
phenomena of social contagion.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The main research question for this study was – how can social influence/social contagion
activate residents to adopt greener energy alternatives and support the energy transition in
Reyeroord? Our research shows that social influence and social contagion can help municipal-
ities in activating communities and networks of citizens using social interventions. Residents
have many apprehensions and misconceptions towards the energy transition. Social contagion
can help in overcoming these apprehensions, building a positive attitude and commitment
towards gas discontinuation. However, in our study the actual implementation and effects of
interventions have not yet been tested.
Lying at the intersection of design (thinking), sociology and psychology, our research con-
tributes to the emergent transition design and systemic design in two novel ways:
1. Theoretically, the proposal of using the phenomenon of ‘social influence and social
contagion’ to steer transitions adds to the ‘theories of (scaling) change’ within the field
of Transition design (Irwin et al., 2015). With a focus on the collective rather than the
individuals, social contagion inherently is a systemic approach. Hence, our case study is
an example where systemic thinking and design thinking come together. Our methodology
pushes the boundaries of traditional design thinking applications towards what Drew et al.
(2021) term system-conscious and system-shifting design.
2. As a practical contribution, we present insights into the social factors shaping the energy
transition for a specific neighbourhood. We present the first version of a framework and
toolkit to design context-specific interventions to activate networks of people to adopt
greener alternatives using social contagion. This codified method adds to the limited prac-
tical tools and strategies to activate a critical mass by providing local councils and design-
Figure. 9.7 Design for social contagion toolkit
ers with a way of designing, keeping scaling human behaviour in mind. The outcomes add
to the qualitative approaches towards designing and intervening in social networks.
Reflecting on the broader application of design thinking for societal transitions and systemic
change, we see that in the past decade, design thinking has piqued the interest of the business,
management community and public sector institutions alike. It is successfully being applied to
drive innovation, develop value propositions and address open and complex problems faced
by these organisations. However, it has been oversimplified and popularised as a step-wise
formula for creativity or customer discovery. While creativity and abductive reasoning (the
core of design thinking) are important, we need to find new ways to apply design thinking
when dealing with complex societal challenges. Our study shows how design thinking is
much more variant than a step-wise approach in its form and must be adapted to the context.
(Systemic) Design thinking entails drawing on different theories and practices from other dis-
ciplines and translating this transdisciplinary knowledge into actionable tools and strategies.
This is in line with Norman (2020), who highlights the importance of designers’ capability of
combining the skills and knowledge of other disciplines into novel and powerful strategies to
tackle societal problems. Our approach of building on social contagion theory from sociology
and psychology to develop practical strategies for activation exemplifies how a design think-
ing approach can facilitate this combination of transdisciplinary knowledge.
A key aspect of applying design thinking is ‘morphing to the context’, which involves
engaging with the community. This includes identifying active, creative members within
communities who understand the local culture, needs, and capabilities, and co-designing solu-
tions with them. With respect to systemic change, Norman (2020) observes that community
members often have ideas to overcome challenges. However, often these are focused on alle-
viating the symptoms rather than tackling the underlying causes. Here, expert design thinking
can empower these community members to further utilise their creativity (diffuse design
capability) to develop practical solutions to overcome the underlying causes of systemic prob-
lems. In our project, by relying on the theory of social contagion we try to use these diffuse
design capabilities of the community members as well as the municipality officials and spark
them to come up with contextually embedded strategies through our toolkit. Our expert design
practice was combined with co-design methods to develop the strategies. This points to the
need for different types of design thinking (expert, diffuse and co-design), as Manzini (2015)
also argues, to come together to shape deliberate, equitable and just transitions.
In our collaboration with the public sector, we observe that several local councils are
inspired by creative ideas and are enthusiastic about using design thinking for their projects.
While this highlights the ground for design thinking in the public sector, it needs to be taken
seriously and deliberately (and sustainably) incorporated into the approach of local councils to
achieve true impact. More often it is noticed that expert designers are brought in for a project
to develop new ways of approaching problems. However, these ideas are seldom implemented
in practice since the ‘implementers’ lack a sense of ownership with a ‘not invented here’
perception. Designing toolkits and processes (such as ours), which involve municipal officials
through the whole process of designing and implementing ideas, are helpful in building a sense
of ownership and ensuring implementation. We do recognise the irony and limitations of out-
sider designers (us, the authors) having designed this toolkit. This role of the toolkit in building
ownership amongst municipal officials surfaced during validation, and aligns with the fact
that only when ideas are generated by the people themselves, do they tend to be implemented.
Close collaboration between expert designers and the public sector is essential, even while the
latter adopts a design thinking mindset. Moreover, as Niedderer et al. (2014) recommend, it is
essential that policymakers and designers focus on ‘design for behaviour change’ within the
innovation process in order to promote ethical and sustainable practices. Our study provides
one such practical example of application of ‘design for behaviour change’ to prompt sustain-
able practices at scale.
With respect to expert design, we see ‘reframing’ (creation of novel standpoints from which
a problematic situation can be tackled (Dorst, 2011)) as a core quality of design thinking prac-
tice while aiming for systemic change. Systemic problems entail a wide range of paradoxes
and tensions, be it conflicting views and standpoints or conflicting considerations/require-
ments to overcome problematic situations. For example, within the energy transition context,
a common paradox we observed is that on one hand residents procrastinate decision-making
citing the reason that they will discontinue gas only when it becomes a law, whereas on the
other hand they show resistance towards policy-driven, top-down efforts towards change.
Uncovering such paradoxes, diving deeper into the latent aspects that drive these paradoxes
and the causal relationships between these aspects, and then finding novel ‘frames’ or ‘lever-
age points’ to tackle these, is the core capability that design thinking brings to systems change.
Upon uncovering the paradoxes in our study, our reframing process led to using ‘social conta-
gion and peer networks’ as a means to activate communities and to seeing how activation can
happen within communities.
In sum, design thinking for transitions and systemic change is not a mere five-step formula,
rather an integrative, abductive, perspective-taking practice that must be adapted to the context
at hand. It involves explicating the implicit, understanding dynamics between various aspects,
reframing and probing in systems by combining transdisciplinary knowledge and shifting
between the big-picture and detail-oriented mindset. Design thinking can contribute to the stra-
tegic, tactical and operational activities of achieving systemic transitions. It is the pluralism of
design thinking in application and approaches that makes it adept at tackling complex systemic
challenges and contributing to the transition towards sustainable futures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Mr Jacco Kwakman from the Rotterdam Municipality for helping us
gain access to the Reyeroord neighbourhood, giving us the relevant information, connecting us
to the required stakeholders and actively participating in the co-creative process.
NOTE
1. To know more details about the toolkit or to get a physical/digital copy, contact us at jesalshah92@
gmail.com.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Beckman, K., & van den Beukel, J. (2019). The great Dutch gas transition. Retrieved from https://www
.oxfordenergy.org/publications/the-great-dutch-gas-transition/?v=796834e7a283
Borgman, K. (2019). Aardgasvrij Reyeroord plan van aanpak.
Brains, Behavior & Design. (2011). A toolkit to help designers and business leaders understand and
influence consumer decisions. Brains, Behavior & Design. Retrieved 10 October 2021, from http://
www.brainsbehavioranddesign.com/kit.html.
Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the making: Design, management, and the reform of organizational
culture. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 5–21. doi: 10.1016/j.
sheji.2015.09.003
Buskens, V. & Raub. W. (2013). Rational choice research on social dilemmas: Embeddedness effects
on trust. In R. Wittek, T. Snijders & V. Nee (eds), The handbook of rational choice social research
(pp. 113–150). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Caniëls, M. C., & Romijn, H. A. (2008). Strategic niche management: Towards a policy tool for sus-
tainable development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(2), 245–266. doi:10.1080/
09537320701711264
Centola, D. (2018). How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions. Princeton; Oxford:
Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvc7758p
Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design
to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 47, 118–163. doi: 10.1016/j.
destud.2016.09.002
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Rev. ed.1st Collins business essentials
ed. New York: Collins.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D.
T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (eds), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Correljé, A., Linde, C. V., & Westerwoudt, T. (2003). Natural gas in the Netherlands: From cooperation
to competition? Amsterdam: Oranje-Nassau Groep.
Costanzo, M., Archer, D., Aronson, E., & Pettigrew, T. (1986). Energy conservation behavior:
The difficult path from information to action. American Psychologist, 41(5), 521–528. doi:
10.1037/0003-066x.41.5.521
Cruwys, T., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Haslam, C., Jetten, J., & Dingle, G. A. (2016). Social identity
mapping: A procedure for visual representation and assessment of subjective multiple group member-
ships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(4), 613–642. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12155.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I. (2011). Influencing behav-
iour: The mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 264–277. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011
.10.009
Drew, C., Robinson, C., & Winhall, J. (2021). System-shifting design. An emerging practice explored.
Design Council, 19 October. Retrieved 9 January 2022, from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/
resources/guide/download-our-systems-shifting-design-report
Eurostat. (2021, June). Energy consumption in households. Energy consumption in households – Statistics
explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_consumption_in
_households#Energy_consumption_in_households_by_type_of_end-use.
Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Persuasive Technology – Persuasive ’09. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999
Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K., & Hobman, E. V. (2015). Household energy use: Applying behavioural
economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 41, 1385–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.026
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary configuration processes: A multi-level
perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048
-7333(02)00062-8
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy,
33(6-7), 897–920. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
Goldsmith, E.B. & Goldsmith, R.E. (2011). Social influence and sustainability in households.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(2), 117–121.
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlman, S., & Smits, R.E.H.M. (2007). Functions of inno-
vation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 74(1), 413–432.
Irwin, T., Kossoff, G. & Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Transition design provocation. Design Philosophy
Papers, 13, 3–11. 10.1080/14487136.2015.1085688.
Kemp, R. (2010). The Dutch energy transition approach. International Economics of Resource
Efficiency, 187–213. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7908-2601-2_9
Klimaatakkoord (2019). Klimaatakkoord. Retrieved from: https://www.klimaatakkoord.nl/
Klitkou, A., Bolwig, S., Hansen, T., & Wessberg, N. (2015). The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition
processes: The case of energy for road transport. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
16, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.005
Lilley, D. (2007) Designing for behavioural change: Reducing the social impacts of product use through
design. Doctoral thesis, Loughborough University, Department of Design & Technology.
Lockton, D. (2013). Design with intent: A design pattern toolkit for environmental & social behaviour
change. PhD thesis, Brunel University, School of Engineering & Design.
Loorbach, D.A, & van de Lindt, M. (2007). From theory to practice of transition management: The
case of sustainable living and housing in Flanders. Leuven Conference MOPAN, 28-29 June 2007.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/34982
Lutzenhiser, L. (1992). A cultural model of household energy consumption. Energy, 17(1), 47–60. doi:
10.1016/0360-5442(92)90032-u
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs. Cambridge, MA; London, England: MIT Press.
Marsden, P. V., & Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods &
Research, 22(1), 127–151. doi: 10.1177/0049124193022001006
McLeod, S. (2020). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology, 29 December. Retrieved 10
October 2021, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html.
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for
characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science: IS, 6(April),
42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Ministry Responsible Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. (2022). Reducing dependence
on Russia. Less gas from Russia. 12 April. Government.nl. Retrieved 30 May 2022, from https://www
.government.nl/topics/gas/reducing-dependence-on-russia
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world.
2nd ed. MIT Press.
Niedderer, K., Cain, R., Clune, S., Lockton, D., Ludden, G., Mackrill, J., Morris, A., Evans, M.,
Gardiner, E., Gutteridge, R., & Hekkert, P. (2014). Creating sustainable innovation through design
for behaviour change: Summary report. University of Wolverhampton, CADRE.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative
social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691
Norman, D. (2020). To create a better society: The 2020 MP Ranjan Memorial Lecture, 22 November.
jnd.org. Retrieved 24 January 2022, from https://jnd.org/to-create-a-better-society/
O’Sullivan, F. (2017). Barcelona’s car-taming ‘superblocks’ meet resistance. Bloomberg CityLab, 20
January. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-20/barcelona-s-superblocks-expand-but
-face-protests.
Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for environ-
mental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18(4), 345–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01024160
Ploderer, B., Reitberger, W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. (2014). Social interaction
and reflection for behaviour change. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(7), 1667–1676. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0779-y
Rapid Transition Alliance. (2021). The dash away from Gas: How the Netherlands kicked a BIG
fossil fuel habit, 2, June. https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/the-dash-away-from-gas-how-the
-netherlands-kicked-a-big-fossil-fuel-habit/.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Schoch, K. W. (2020). Chapter 16: Case study research. In G. J. Burkholder, K. A. Cox, L. M.
Crawford, and J. H. Hitchcock (eds), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the
scholar-practitioner. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/research-design-and
-methods/book262895#contents)
Simon, S. (2010). Even Boulder finds it isn’t easy going green. The Wall Street Journal, 13 February.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704320104575015920992845334
Stappers, P.J. and Giaccardi, E. (2017). ‘Research through design’. In The encyclopedia of
human-computer interaction, 2nd ed. (Ch. 43). Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from:
https://www.interactiondesign.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction
-2nd-ed/research-throughdesign
Trudel, R. (2018). Sustainable consumer behavior. Consumer Psychology Review, 2, 85–96.
van Lieren, A. (2017). Rational override; influencing behaviour beyond nudging: A service design
approach towards creating behavioural interventions. Retrieved 29 June 2020, from https://repository
.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:234307dd-42e4-43f3-80a8-210240d3325c
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., & Malcolm, B. (2020). Systemic design principles in social innovation –
a study of expert practices and design rationales. She ji – The Journal of Design, Economics and
Innovation, 6(3), 386–407.
Williamson, K., Satre-Meloy, A., Velasco, K., & Green, K., (2018). Climate change needs behavior
change: Making the case for behavioral solutions to reduce global warming. Arlington, VA: Rare.
Available online at rare.org/center
Wilson, C., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2007). Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 169–203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32
.053006.141137
10. Method case study – A design thinking toolkit
for framing market conditions
Ilya Fridman, Robbie Napper, Amrik S. Sohal and
Sairah Hussain
INTRODUCTION
Companies struggle to manage technological transitions due to the difficulty and uncertainty
in understanding upcoming market disruptions (Kaplan, 2008). This stems from the way in
which managers ‘frame’ a situation as it determines the strategy for how a company responds
(Kaplan, 2008, p. 736). A ‘frame’ can be described as someone’s understanding of a situation
or a problem to be solved (Schön, 1984, p.132). These perspectives can also form a ‘collective
meaning’ and coordinate action when shared with others within the organisation (Kaplan,
2008, p. 732). In order to address the ambiguities of a technological transition, it is important
for managers to create collective frames that recognise current market conditions and enable
future possibilities to be explored.
Frame creation – also known as framing – is suggested to be at the ‘core of design think-
ing’ (Dorst, 2011, p. 521). This is typically done early within the process during the problem
definition stage where known information is analysed and synthesised to identify the ‘core
problems’ of a given situation (Dam, 2021, para. 7). Once created, frames provide a ‘common
ground’ for people to ‘discuss the problem and possible solutions’ (Dorst, 2015, p. 64). They
can also allow the situation to be reconceptualised or reframed to ‘explore alternative ways for
approaching the problem’ (Dorst, 2015, p. 78). This is a critical stage within design thinking as
it lays the foundation for creative idea generation; however, it is also a difficult one to achieve
for non-designers who struggle with the complexity of ‘defining the project’ and ‘seeing the
problem in an unfamiliar context’ (Mosely et al., 2018, p. 184) – findings which are also sup-
ported by experiences from this chapter’s lead author, who has been teaching design thinking
to non-designers for over five years. A better understanding is required for how to support
businesses with tools and practices that guide them through this stage of the design thinking
process. Framing market conditions and future possibilities would provide managers with
insights that enable them to plan accordingly during a technological transition.
This case study describes a collaborative research process between business and design
researchers at Monash University working with Australia’s largest bus manufacturer, Volgren.
Through this process, the team developed a design thinking toolkit that was used to explore
barriers and opportunities in Australia’s transitioning public transport bus industry. Research
during this project was conducted through a Monash University Seed Fund Grant scheme
190
A design thinking toolkit for framing market conditions 191
in combination with funding from the Bus Association of Victoria and the City of Greater
Bendigo.
The project’s methods and outcomes demonstrate how a design thinking toolkit can provide
managers at a large manufacturing company with the ability to frame market conditions and
collectively explore different opportunities presented by a technological transition within
their industry. Through this example, it is proposed that design thinking tools and practices
can provide a unique contribution to knowledge development that supports business decision
making.
OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSITIONS IN

AUSTRALIA’S BUS INDUSTRY
Australia’s public transport sector is at a unique moment in time as it begins to transition away
from combustion engines powered by fossil fuels and towards zero-emission electric vehicle
(EV) technologies powered by renewable energy (Napper et al., 2022). Bus services are an
important part of this technological transition because they are essential to all public transport
networks across Australia’s major cities and regions. In some places, buses are the only public
transport available. EV technologies bring many potential benefits, including the ability to
shed our dependency on imported oil and associated market fluctuations by promoting the
local generation of renewable energy (Garnaut, 2019); creating local jobs within Australia’s
developing energy market (Carroll, 2020); reducing noise and exhaust pollution in residen-
tial and commercial areas where bus services typically operate (Honnery et al., 2016). EVs
improve passenger travel experience with smoother ride quality through quieter operation and
reduced vibration (Hildén et al., 2016). At the same time, EV technologies pose numerous
challenges and uptake barriers due to the risks associated with investing in new systems and
their potential to disrupt well-established industry practices (International Association of
Public Transport Australia/New Zealand, 2020; Napper et al., 2022).
The Australian bus industry has developed and evolved over many decades through a close
relationship with the internal combustion engine (ICE). This has led to the development of
a robust industry in which supply chains, infrastructure and approaches to service provision
are all set up around ICE-driven vehicles, commonly powered by diesel fuel. Even current
contractual agreements stipulate a vehicle’s daily service time, allowable dwell time and
expected travel distances that have all been modelled on ICE performance (Fridman, 2016).
This well-established relationship means that it is both difficult for alternative fuel technolo-
gies to enter the Australian market and that any technological change could result in significant
industry-wide disruptions.
EV buses require new supply chains to be established for components such as electric
motors and battery energy storage systems. They demand the deployment of new infrastruc-
tures such as charging stations and associated electrical network upgrades. Consideration must
also be given to new operational approaches that balance a vehicle’s driving distance and
charging time (Napper et al., 2017). These present a unique challenge for businesses due to the
uncertainty of how these technologies will impact the local market. Understanding and plan-
ning for these technologies becomes critical, particularly for large companies such as Volgren
who are at the forefront of this transition.
Design thinking processes can support public transport businesses by enabling managers
to create frames that incorporate technological and economic considerations allowing market
opportunities to be explored conceptually prior to implementation. Fridman and Coxon (2021,
p. 19) have provided an example of how ‘visual conflict framing’ can support designers during
new public transport product development; however, within the current case study a more
collaborative and interactive approach was required to facilitate non-designers through the
frame creation process. It was determined that a design thinking toolkit would be more suitable
for this task.
DEVELOPING A DESIGN THINKING TOOLKIT TO SUPPORT

FRAMING MARKET CONDITIONS
Toolkits are often used in design workshops to facilitate the collaborative generation of ideas
and the development of project insights (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Within these contexts,
they provide a structure that allows participants to creatively engage with the content and each
other by developing a ‘concrete common language’ to discuss specific issues under consider-
ation (Muller et al., 1995, p. 137).
A design thinking toolkit was developed as part of this research project to facilitate the
process of framing current market conditions and creatively exploring different scenarios for
implementing EV buses. The toolkit consisted of a combination of both commonly available
and original elements that served specific purposes in supporting creative exploration. These
included pens, Bostik Blu-Tack, Lego Duplo blocks, multiple lengths of red and blue ribbon,
and four card sets (Figure 10.1).
In order to develop the toolkit, business researchers first conducted a literature review to
understand the implications for EV bus component supply chains and business partnerships
by analysing existing case studies and industry reports from other regions. This review
established a foundation of existing knowledge by identifying potential pathways and consid-
erations for implementing EV buses in Australia. Business and design researchers then dis-
cussed the literature review findings and synthesised them into four key categories that could
describe an EV bus market. These were players, products, relationships, and functionalities
(Figure 10.2). These categories were then translated by the design researchers into four card
sets as part of a design thinking toolkit. Player cards (Figure 10.1, No. 1) represented various
stakeholders such as vehicle manufacturers, energy providers and state road authorities.
Product cards (Figure 10.1, No. 2) represented various products both tangible and intangible
such as batteries, bus stops and subsidies that could be incorporated as part of an EV bus
market. Relationship cards (Figure 10.1, No. 4) represented the different types of relation-
ships that stakeholders could have with one another, such as lease, purchase and partnership
agreements. Functionality cards (Figure 10.1, No. 3) represented the value exchange between
stakeholders, such as inputs and outputs that resulted from certain partnerships. Most cards
were pre-filled with specific terms that could encourage participant discussion; however, each
set also included blank cards and pens that participants could use to introduce new aspects
that researchers had not yet discovered. Halskov and Dalsgaard (2007, p. 203) refer to these
types of contributions as ‘external sources of inspiration’ that may generate ‘emergent’ project
insights that would otherwise be unconsidered.
Figure 10.1 Photograph of the design toolkit components
Lego Duplo blocks (Figure 10.1, No. 7) were selected as part of this toolkit to stimulate
creative thinking by bringing a sense of playfulness within the workshop when prototyping
different market scenarios.
Scharge (2013, p. 70) suggests that playful prototyping is especially important in innovation
contexts where it can stimulate creative thinking by relaxing the rules to ‘explore alterna-
tives’ and ‘give rise to new realities’. Workshop participants could work with the blocks and
construct them in any desired configuration to represent various elements of a bus market
including products, infrastructure and stakeholders.
Multiple lengths of ribbon (Figure 10.1, No. 8) were provided in two different colours to
establish connections between different market elements, such as the connection between bus
operator and energy provider. The blue ribbons were intended to represent functionalities
such as value inputs, while red ribbons were intended to represent relationships such as lease
agreements. Participants could attach the corresponding relationship and functionality cards to
each ribbon using the Bostik Blu-Tack provided within the toolkit.
Figure 10.2 Key categories of an EV bus market
Through these materials, the toolkit embodied information discovered through the literature
review and provided necessary elements for framing market conditions. This would generate
an understanding around key challenges associated with implementing EV bus technologies,
as well as enable them to be reframed by physically manipulating individual system elements
to explore new market opportunities.
IMPLEMENTING THE DESIGN THINKING TOOLKIT DURING

A RESEARCH WORKSHOP
The toolkit was used to facilitate a research workshop that was conducted with representatives
from Volgren and researchers from Monash University. There were seven workshop partic-
ipants in total: two representatives from Volgren’s management team covering Engineering
and Sales, two design researchers specialising in EV technologies, two business research-
ers specialising in Supply Chain Management and a representative from Monash Energy
Institute’s senior leadership team. The workshop was conducted under ethics approval from
Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee number 9648.
Workshop participants used the toolkit to model the current diesel bus market based on
research findings and Volgren’s industry expertise. By doing so, they created a collective
frame of existing market conditions that encompassed bus infrastructure, supply chains and
business partnerships including value flows and operational agreements (Figure 10.3). This
represented the problem identification stage of a design thinking process enabling current
conditions to be analysed through discussion that identified key implementation challenges
related to EV technologies. It also established the foundation for creative synthesis, which was
Figure 10.3 Photograph of toolkit materials in use during the research workshop
achieved as participants remodelled the frame to explore alternative pathways towards estab-
lishing an EV bus market. This was done alongside discussions of potential market barriers
that would impede this transition and opportunities that can be leveraged during the process
(Figure 10.4).
Frames created during the workshop provided a ‘common ground’ for people to ‘explore
alternative ways for approaching the problem’ (Dorst, 2015, pp. 64, 78). One example of this
was when participant discussion focused on the possibility of transport service providers to
enter the energy market by trading energy stored in a vehicle’s batteries. This shift in thinking
from transport provider to energy trader created a new frame through which the market could
then be viewed. Dorst (2015, p. 78) suggests that once framed and understood, situations can
be reframed by considering a simple statement: ‘If the problem of... was approached as if it
was a problem of..., then the solution should be…’. In a similar manner, the toolkit enabled
workshop participants to realise that if the problem of additional investment (view of a trans-
port provider) was approached as if it was a problem of storage capacity (view of an energy
trader), then the solution should be to design vehicles that balance battery capacity for both
vehicle traction and energy trading in order to create a more dynamic market.
Through interactions with the toolkit, Volgren managers engaged collaboratively with
Monash researchers to generate a greater shared understanding of the technological transition
while contributing a speculative industry perspective into the research. This differed from the
typical research approach that would have otherwise relied on stakeholder interviews to gener-
ate primary data, which would have been communicated back to Volgren in a static written and
visual format. On the contrary, the design thinking toolkit encouraged proactive engagement
Figure 10.4 Photograph close-up of workshop outcomes
with the information by asking participants to construct and reconstruct it to expand under-
standing and develop new research insights through the process.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT INDUSTRY FINDINGS
Outcomes from the research workshop found that unique opportunities existed for establishing
new business models and business partnerships to support a transition to EV technologies in
the Australian bus industry. These findings build on what had already been discovered by busi-
ness researchers through literature review and provided a local industry perspective through
the contributions from Volgren’s managers.
Through workshop discussions, it was identified that Volgren could build buses for
Australian operators through three different approaches that depended on establishing part-
nerships with technology and infrastructure original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). It was
also identified that bus operators could enter the energy market as part of a distributed electri-
cal storage network by using their vehicle’s batteries for energy trading while the vehicle was
stationary at the depot. Within this model, operators would store electrical energy in their vehi-
cle’s batteries and then sell this back to the market during times of peak electricity demand,
which would create an additional revenue stream that helped them recuperate their investment
in the technology. This additional energy storage would also help to reduce the strain on
electricity generation within the state. A further opportunity was presented in the second-hand
battery market as vehicle batteries could be on-sold for use as stationary energy storage as
part of the electricity grid once they were no longer suitable for traction application on board
a vehicle. These strategies would require operators and manufacturers, such as Volgren, to
plan for a vehicle’s energy storage requirements and specify component suppliers accordingly
in order to enable this type of trading while also fulfilling transport service demands. They
support the importance of establishing early partnerships between OEMs, bus builders, bus
operators and energy companies in order to leverage financial opportunities presented by this
transition.
Workshop discussions also brought up the potential to consider new ownership models and
lease agreements for EV technologies where certain high-value components such as batteries
or charge stations could be co-owned by multiple businesses or leased from one business to
another. Business partnerships could help to mitigate the risks of investing in new technologies
and generate collective benefits by leveraging that technology’s capabilities. These models did
not currently exist in the local public transport market so they had to be imagined and created
by workshop participants through the speculative and collaborative opportunities offered by
the design thinking toolkit. Ideas like these were modelled using the toolkit and thus tested
out instantly, rather than being ‘noted’ as might be the case in more traditional approaches.
This process aligned with suggestions that design thinking should be applied to support
collaborative ‘big picture thinking’ by enabling ideas to be envisioned in a ‘hands-on way’
(Bjögvinsson et al., 2012, p. 101).
Figure 10.5 Visualisation of workshop outcomes

Workshop outcomes were documented and translated into an illustration (Figure 10.5) that
represented the various connections between infrastructure, supply chains and businesses as
part of a future EV market. These were used to communicate future market opportunities
discovered through the research project.
A NOVEL APPROACH TO FRAMING MARKET CONDITIONS
This case study has presented the development and application of a novel design thinking
toolkit that can help managers frame market conditions and explore new opportunities within
the public transport industry. This approach has demonstrated how research knowledge may
be synthesised into tangible tools that enable collaborative frame creation and has provided
insights for how non-designers may be guided through this process.
The toolkit addressed challenges associated with the problem definition stage of the design
thinking process where non-designers can struggle with ‘defining the project’ and ‘seeing the
problem in an unfamiliar context’ (Mosely et al., 2018, p. 184). This is evidenced by how the
toolkit enabled workshop participants to generate a shared understanding by framing the public
transport bus market, discussing the key challenges of implementing EV technologies and then
reframing them to explore possible alternatives. In doing so, the toolkit assisted problem defi-
nition, as well as creative ideation through framing and reframing during the workshop. This
highlights how design thinking tools and practices can support business decision-making by
enabling complex, interconnected problems to be explored collaboratively to generate a better
understanding of emerging markets and identify opportunities that may be leveraged.
Australia’s transport sector is not alone in facing a technological transition to EVs. While
some countries are at more advanced transition stages others are in a similar position and could
benefit from applying this type of approach to frame market conditions and explore emerging
opportunities. Beyond public transport, this type of approach may also be applied to other
industries facing technological transitions that include complex stakeholder relationships,
such as warehousing and logistics (Cano et al., 2021). Toolkit development and research
outcomes would differ depending on which industry was selected as the focus, which stake-
holders were involved and given that local market factors differ in each region; however, the
advantage of using a design thinking toolkit such as the one described here is the flexibility of
its development and its ability to allow locally relevant knowledge to be constructed through
a design thinking process.
REFERENCES
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary
participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a
_00165
Cano, J. A., Salazar-Arrieta, F., Gómez Montoya, R. A., & Cortés, P. (2021). Disruptive and conven-
tional technologies for the support of logistics processes: A literature review. International Journal of
Technology, 12(3), 448–460. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v12i3.4280
Carroll, S. (2020). The electrical industry’s role in a sustainable future. Electrical Connection, (Summer
2020), 12–15. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.642353069781639
Dam, R. F. (2021). 5 Stages in the design thinking process. Interaction Design Foundation. https://www
.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process
Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.
Fridman, I. (2016). Battery-electric route bus: A platform for vehicle design [Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation]. Monash University, Australia.
Fridman, I. & Coxon, S. (2021). Visual conflict framing in public transport innovation. In S. Coxon &
R. Napper (eds), Advancing a design approach to enriching public mobility (pp. 19–34). Springer.
Garnaut, R. (2019). Superpower: Australia’s low-carbon opportunity. La Trobe University Press.
Halskov, K., & Dalsgaard, P. (2007). The emergence of ideas: The interplay between sources
of inspiration and emerging design concepts. CoDesign, 3(4), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15710880701607404
Hildén, E., Ojala, J., & Väänänen, K. (2016, October 23–27). User needs and expectations for future
travelling services in buses [Paper presentation]. 9th Nordic Conference on Human–Computer
Interaction, NordiCHI’16, Gothenburg, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2996733
Honnery, D., Napper, R., Fridman, I., & Moriarty, P. (2016, November 16–18). Spatially differentiated
energy and environment comparison of diesel and electric buses [Paper presentation]. Australasian
Transport Research Forum, ATRF 2016, Melbourne, Australia. https://www.australasiantransportres
earchforum.org.au/papers/2016
International Association of Public Transport Australia/New Zealand. (2020). Zero Emissions Bus
Forum, report and key findings. International Association of Public Transport. https://cms.uitp.org/
wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/UITPANZ-ZEB-Forum-Report-2021.pdf
Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organisation Science 19(5),
729–752. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0340
expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004
Muller, M. J., Tudor, L. G., Wildman, D. M., White, E. A., Root, R. W., Dayton, T., Carr, R., Diekmann,
B., & Dystra-Erickson, E. (1995). Bifocal tools for scenarios and representations in participatory
activities with users. In J. M. Carroll (ed.), Scenario-based design: Envisioning work and technology
in system development (pp. 135–163). Wiley.
Napper, R., Coxon, S., Fridman, I., & del Canto, J. L. (2022). Transitioning Victoria’s bus industry to
zero emission buses: Handbook for operators. Bus Association Victoria.
Napper, R., Fridman, I., & Reynolds, J. (2017). Balancing level of service for a battery-electric university
intercampus shuttle bus [Paper presentation]. Australasian Transport Research Forum, ATRF 2017,
Auckland, New Zealand, 27–29 November. https://www.australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/
papers/2017
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making
in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183
Scharge, M. (2013). Crafting interactions: The purpose and practice of serious play. In L. Valentine
(Ed.), Prototype: Design and craft in the 21st century (pp. 77–105). Bloomsbury.
Schön, D. A. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4
PART III
Perspectives on Design Thinking as a Practice

11. The fragility of design thinking: applying
symbolic interactionism to promote shared
meaning
Jan Jervis and Jeffrey E. Brand
INTRODUCTION
In 1992, the Design Thinking Research Symposium explored the connection between design
research and methods from the viewpoint of design thinking. Dorst (2011) points out that
various design thinking models appeared thereafter. However, it was not until 2008 that
Harvard Business Review (HBR) published an often-cited article, Design Thinking, by Tim
Brown, the CEO and President of IDEO, introducing a public audience to the details of the
design thinking process and its benefits and applications for business.
Fourteen years after Brown’s article, design thinking lacks prominence in businesses; after
all, what company has an officially labelled ‘Design Thinking Office’? Indeed, some business
managers have retreated from design thinking because they have failed to control or measure
the creative process (Nussbaum, 2011). Similarly, some designers claim that design thinking
is not a complete and applicable design method and have distanced themselves from it (Jen,
2018; Liedtka, 2018).
Nevertheless, Liedtka (2018) examined 50 business projects over seven years for evidence
of changes brought about by design thinking. The results were predominantly positive,
showing that the general methodology of design thinking was helpful to business managers
who, as probable non-designers, were required to adjust to unfamiliar activities required by
the method. These new skills helped organisations innovate by avoiding group biases and
overcoming issues caused by workplace politics (Liedtka, 2018).
Design thinking also helps businesses formalise a process that places more stakeholders at
the centre of business decisions (Brown, 2008; Buchanan, 1992; Liedtka, 2018; Nussbaum,
2011). However, unfamiliarity with the term can result in people discarding it or choosing not
to apply it for fear of ‘getting it wrong’ (Jervis, 2021).
The theory of symbolic interactionism is a lens through which we can examine our under-
standings of ‘things’. Blumer (1969) describes ‘things’ as anything we name and give meaning
to, whether it be a chair, cloud or concept. Our understanding of things illustrates our view of
the world and is thus the foundation of our behaviour. Symbolic interactionism explains how
we assign meanings to our inherently personal and unique social experiences and histories.
Therefore, our understanding of design thinking emerges from our interactions with those
around us (Blumer, 1969).
201
Nevertheless, it seems incongruous to associate design thinking, and its history of more
than 40 years, with the notion of ‘fragility’. However, research shows that people are more
likely to accept a concept if they share an understanding of it (Barnett, 2005; Conklin, 2005).
The authors argue that symbolic interactionism provides a way to develop this acceptance and
strengthen knowledge of design thinking in the collective mindset.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Symbolic interactionism is a perspective that places human communication as the central

element of social structure (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934). It seeks to explain human actions,
meanings, and beliefs. It illustrates the relationship between the meaning we give to something
and how our understanding relates to the people we interact with from the different societies to
which we belong. Words symbolise the physical and abstract objects and ideas of our world,
and these words combine to form our languages, with which we communicate and interact
with others.
Symbolic interactionism has authentic connections to scholars from the Universities of
Chicago, Iowa, and Indiana (Carter & Fuller, 2016). The theory emerged in the early 20th
century from distinguished American pragmatists such as Cooley (1902) and Dewey (1910).
It was a radical departure from positivist and quantitative thinking that, at the time, domi-
nated social research. However, George Herbert Mead, from the University of Chicago, is
credited with progressing and raising the profile of symbolic interactionism in the early 20th
century (Benzies & Allen, 2001). Mead’s work was published posthumously from student
lecture notes and writings under Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist (Mead, 1934). A 2015 anniversary printing of the book pays special tribute to
Mead and his contribution to the development of social philosophy for more than 80 years
(Morris, 2015).
Symbolic interactionism argues that our interactions, i.e., the language we use in commu-
nication, form the foundation of our thinking and behaviour, which affects the societies we
create. Fundamentally, it is a ‘bottom-up’ approach to building communities which contrasts
with widely held positivist thinking that focuses on a top-down approach to social structure
(Carter & Fuller, 2016).
According to Burke (2003), symbolic interactionism acknowledges society and individuals
while simultaneously recognising their different identities. The theory produces ‘insightful
accounts of human interaction in natural settings’ (Huber, 1973, p. 274). To this day, symbolic
interactionism maintains a respected academic presence (Carter & Fuller, 2016).
Premises of Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism reached a peak in the 1920s, but it was not until 1937 that Herbert
Blumer, a former student, and colleague of Mead, named the theory. Blumer (1969) was an
essential contributor to symbolic interactionism. He created three premises to define the view,
published in Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, which have helped keep the
tradition active for more than 50 years (Fine & Tavory, 2019).
However, even though Blumer’s premises had united the theory for more than 50 years,
Fine and Tavory (2019) argue that symbolic interactionism needs to consider the technological
The fragility of design thinking 203
Table 11.1 Premises of symbolic interactionism by Blumer (1969), Fine and Tavory
(2019)
Blumer (1969, p.2) Fine and Tavory (2019, p.458)

Premises of symbolic interactionism Revised premises of symbolic interactionism
Human beings act toward things on the basis of the People act upon meanings while participating in distinctive
1
meanings that the things have for them. communities that, in turn, depend on shared meaning.
Meanings depend on continuing and self-reflexive
The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out
2 interaction, as such interaction refracts actors’ pasts,
of, the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows.
presents, and anticipated futures.
These meanings are handled in and modified through an Situations are linked in patterned ways. They change or
3 interpretative process used by the person in dealing with further ossify as participants recognize this patterning and
the things he encounters. the structures that support these meanings.
changes and ‘non-human’ interactions applicable to the 21st century. To this end, they offer
three revised premises for symbolic interaction. Table 11.1 displays the original three premises
of Blumer (1969) and their revisions by Fine and Tavory (2019).
The first symbolic interactionist premise is that people behave towards things based on
the meanings they have for them. The second premise is that we absorb implications based
on interactions with others in different social settings. For instance, our understanding of
something can come from communications and interactions at home, the workplace, or other
social groups, but fundamentally, other people influence the meaning we give something.
Blumer (1969) considered the third premise the most important for symbolic interactionism:
we modify our understanding of something, and our thoughts about it, based on changing
interactions and situations with people.
Fine and Tavory’s (2019) revision of symbolic interactionism adds the focus on relation-
ships and institutions with a move away from the individual’s viewpoint. Fine and Tavory
(2019) acknowledge the expanded communications of physical and virtual communities that
are part of the present day. At the same time, although the theory of symbolic interactionism
has a respected foundation, longevity, and invigorated status, the theory is not without critics.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AND DESIGN THINKING IN

BUSINESS
Design thinking is a process that encourages problem-solving through cross-disciplinary

collaborations. The concept places ‘people’ at the centre of the problem-solving process and
is therefore closely associated with human-centred design (Buchanan, 1992; Dorst, 2011;
Norman, 2018; Ratinum, 2020).
According to IDEO, a not-for-profit Design consultancy,
Embracing human-centered design means believing that all problems, even the seemingly intractable
ones like poverty, gender equality, and clean water, are solvable. Moreover, it means believing
that the people who face those problems every day are the ones who hold the key to their answer.
Human-centered design offers problem solvers of any stripe a chance to design with communities,
to deeply understand the people they’re looking to serve, to dream up scores of ideas, and to create
innovative new solutions rooted in people’s actual needs. (IDEO.org, 2015, p. 9)
At present, design thinking has supporters who champion the method (Brown, 2008; Buchanan,
1992; Cross, 2011), those who feel it is just a ‘buzzword’ (Jen, 2018), and many professionals
who do not know what design thinking means or what to do with it (Jervis, 2021).
A ‘wicked problem’ is a label given to problems that are not easily defined and have no
‘end’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973); the more exploration of a wicked problem, the more it reveals
additional concerns. For instance, providing help to people living in poverty is a wicked
problem because it has no obvious ‘solution’ (IDEO.org, 2015). A ‘tame’ problem, on the
other hand, has a solution realised through a linear process. Complex variables related to the
problem or solution are not considerations for a tame problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973).
The three premises of Symbolic Interactionism show us that we are responsible for the
meanings we give to things, and our behaviours reflect those meanings. However, we also
apply definitions to things based on our interactions with others in the communities where we
live and work. Because individual experiences differ, we cannot assume another person shares
our knowledge or experience with design thinking. We cannot assume shared understanding
(Blumer, 1969; Fine & Tavory, 2019; Jervis, 2021). As we move through different cultures
and have different interactions, we can amend our understanding.
It is compelling to test the boundaries of our understanding by purposefully and routinely
engaging with others, to manage communication breakdowns and the consequent fragility of
meanings. To illustrate the mission at hand for design thinking and to show how breakdowns
in communication occur from different meanings of design thinking in the workforce, the
authors adapted Cossette’s ‘Model for understanding from a symbolic interactionist stance’
(Cossette, 1998, p. 1363).
Figure 11.1 illustrates how a symbolic meaning of design thinking in a workplace can
emerge from an interactive situation such as a staff meeting discussing design thinking or
a workshop involving design thinking methods. Staff attitudes towards design thinking will
relate to their personal experiences, emotional state, grammatical understanding, their first
spoken language and the environment in which the interactive meeting is held (Cossette,
1998).
The example of a staff meeting illustrates how communication breakdowns occur between
professionals in the workplace (Figure 11.1). During the meeting (Interactive Situation), one
manager (Person 1) promotes design thinking as a strategic and problem-solving method in
the organisation. Participants include management executives, full-time staff, and a group of
self-employed contractors to the company. As the discussion about design thinking begins,
one of the contractors (Person 2), unfamiliar with the term, assumes design thinking must be
associated with design. He begins to feel frustrated that he was required to attend the meeting
and take time from his business to talk about ‘design’. In his mind, he does not work in design,
so the concept of design thinking does not apply to him. This contractor makes an excuse to
leave the meeting; another follows suit and leaves shortly after.
Unfortunately, in this staff meeting, the fragility of design thinking is not apparent. The
manager, who was feeling excited about presenting a design thinking initiative, has trouble
understanding the attitude of the contractors as, in his mind, design thinking is about
problem-solving, which applies to every person connected to the business. The staff meeting
closes with no resolution about how design thinking can benefit the business or how it can be
applied.
Source: Adapted from a ‘Model for understanding language from a symbolic interactionist stance’ (Cossette, 1998,
p. 1363).
Figure 11.1 Understanding design thinking in business through the lens of symbolic
interactionism
The example described above came from a real-world business situation described by
a manager to one of the authors. Figure 11.1 can also apply to other scenarios, such as the
design professions. Jervis (2021) found that professionals in design, people who work in the
different design disciplines, disagreed on whether design thinking offered value to the busi-
ness community. The authors argue that for design thinking to be sustainable, we must first
acknowledge its connection to the word design and any implications that association creates.
THE LEXICAL AMBIGUITY OF DESIGN AND DESIGN THINKING
Thus, the fragility of design thinking is predicated in the ambiguity of design itself. Business
managers oscillate between having abstract interpretations of design or dismissing it as friv-
olous (Boland, 2004). Nussbaum (2007) claims a breakdown between design and business is
caused by ignorance about design, while Rae (2013) says problems stem from business man-
agers’ inability to manage and measure design functions. Even the design disciplines do not
agree on a universal definition of design (Bryant & Wrigley, 2014). Subsequently, a designer
does not command the same professional respect as an engineer or architect (Smith, 2005).
Design can be a noun, verb, and adjective in English. It does not have an academic or pub-
licly recognised definition (Julier, 2008). Therefore, it is possible to view design thinking not
as a compound noun but as an adjective modifying a noun, i.e., ‘design the thinking’ instead
of ‘design thinking’.
Dewey (1910) devoted the first chapter of his book How We Think to the various definitions
people associate with ‘thinking’ and ‘thought’. He summarised human thought processes as:
Everything that comes to mind ‘goes through our heads’. (p. 2)

We think (or think of) only such things as ‘we do not directly see, hear, smell, or taste’. (p. 2)
Dewey’s (1910) research aligns with the premises of symbolic interactionism in that we use
‘evidence’ from our social interactions to give meaning to things. The meaning (of ‘thinking’
or ‘thought’) is limited to beliefs that rest upon evidence or testimony. Furthermore, our mean-
ings change as we ‘think’ about any new information we receive.
It hardly surprises that the meaning of design thinking is confusing when there is so much
lexical ambiguity surrounding the words design’ and ‘thinking’. This state of affairs begs
for investigation and understanding to strengthen the status of design and design thinking in
business. Symbolic interactionism can help us see how breakdowns in communication reduce
the reliability of the words we use to share meaning with others. For instance, improved inter-
actions between the manager and the contractor in Figure 11.1 could result from awareness of
how the other person might be thinking.
Jervis (2021) established a disconnect between the meaning of design for management,
business, and design professionals. Furthermore, Jervis (2021) found a lack of shared under-
standing of design thinking. She used symbolic interactionism to show why the fields of
design and business are not supportive of each other despite evidence that design delivers
substantial economic advantages for businesses (Martin, 2007). To this end, the following
sections present findings from Jervis (2021).
In addition, one of Jervis’s (2021) studies, examining how employers write about design
thinking in their job ads, is replicated to provide new data. The findings presented in the fol-
lowing sections are important knowledge contributing to a communication bridge for design
thinking in professional settings. A discussion of the findings leads to a model of shared
understanding of design thinking through a symbolic interactionist lens.
PREMISES OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM ASSOCIATED

WITH DESIGN THEMES
Jervis (2021) used symbolic interactionism as the foundation for three studies examining
communication and design and design thinking in business. She found that despite substantial
research into the misunderstandings between design and business professionals, there is little
investigation into the vocabulary used to create shared understanding.
The findings were summarised into ten ‘critical points’ and aligned with the premises of
symbolic interactionism by Blumer (1969) and Fine and Tavory (2019) in Figure 11.2. Five
design themes were used to group the ten critical points. Consequently, two critical point
findings align with the theme, Design Confusion; two appear under the second theme, Design
Frustration, one under Design Ingenuity, three under Design Manifestation and two under
Design Translation.
Source: Jervis, 2021, p. 188.
Figure 11.2 Premises of symbolic interactionism associated with design themes
The themes of Design Confusion, Design Frustration and Design Ingenuity link to the first
premise of symbolic interactionism for Blumer (1969) and Fine and Tavory (2019), which
posits that we behave towards something based on the meaning it has for us.
The second premise of symbolic interactionism is that meanings of things are derived
from our interactions with people in our past, present and possible future; all can be associ-
ated with all five themes: Design Confusion, Design Frustration, Design Ingenuity, Design
Manifestation and Design Translation.
The third premise, however, refers to our understanding of how we modify our thinking
based on recognising different encounters. The third premise relates to the themes of Design
Ingenuity, Design Manifestation and Design Translation.
The following sections briefly describe each theme emerging from the Jervis (2021) study.
Design Confusion
The Design Confusion theme registered misunderstandings around design. For instance,
people use the word design in general without connecting it to the professional discipline of
design. Alternatively, they struggled to explain the concept and had more than one meaning
for it. In some cases, design spoken as a verb or adjective had no connection to professional
design.
Indeed, Jervis’s (2021) second study content-analysed more than 18 years of published
articles in business and management journals. She discovered that business authors, writing in
those journals, do not discuss design as though it were a profession. The word design rarely
appeared without another adjective or descriptive word attached. Unexpectedly, a similar
result emerged from published articles written by design authors in professional design jour-
nals. The primary descriptors for all three areas of business, management, and design were:
design activity, design process, product design, and conceptual design.
From a symbolic interactionist perspective, these results invoke Blumer’s first premise in
that these writers are acting towards design based on the meaning it has for them (Blumer,
1969): that is, design is not necessarily professional. Smith (2005) claimed that unless the
public understands design and what designers do, the word will not invoke the prestige
associated with a profession. Therefore, the fragility of design thinking in the workplace is
associated with the impoverished meaning of design.
Design Frustration
The Design Frustration theme emerged from the saturated use of the word design in general
conversation and its vagueness for many people who compare design with art (Jervis, 2021).
In other words, this theme represents the frustration many professional designers feel when
business and management devalue design as purely an aesthetic discipline. A clear division
between design and the other two fields of business and management emerged in the publi-
cations analysed. For instance, business and management had common word combinations:
business enterprise, industrial management, management research, organisation effective-
ness, personnel management, and strategic plan. Tellingly, there were no word combinations
business and management shared with design. Similarly, design publications did not publish
shared word combinations with either business or management. The only connection between
the three areas was the keyword product design, which does not consider the many distinctions
associated with the design profession.
The lack of connection between design, business and management continued with associ-
ated words such as design thinking, creativity, and innovation. In professional design articles,
design cognition substantially overshadowed design thinking. Indeed, design thinking had
a limited presence in business articles and was completely absent from management publi-
cations. The term creativity appeared more often in design articles, whereas innovation had
a more substantial presence in business and management categories.
The theme of Design Frustration aligns with the revised first premise of symbolic interac-
tionism by Fine and Tavory (2019). They argue that distinctive (professional) communities
impact how people act towards the meaning of something. In this instance, design, business
and management are distinctive professional communities that impact how people act towards
the meaning of design.
Design Ingenuity
The theme Design Ingenuity represents our human imagination’s unlimited possibilities
and creative ability. Changeable thinking and the creative process are directly related to
interpretation.
Blumer (1969) states, in the third symbolic interactionist premise, that we interpret the
meaning of things as we encounter them. This meaning cannot be assumed. As people rec-
ognise patterns and structures in their encounters, they can adjust their thinking in turn (Fine
& Tavory, 2019). Jervis (2021) summarised findings under this theme as the different ways
people understand design, design thinking, human-centred design, creativity, or innovation.
Therefore, ingenuity emerging from design thinking is unpredictable.
Design Manifestation
The theme Design Manifestation represents a realisation of something real or imagined; it is an

expressed demonstration. For example, product design is the manifestation of an idea. Product
design was the only design concept that linked published articles in all three publications
covering professional business, management and design. In business, the terms product design
and industrial design are contextually similar. In particular, industrial design is considered an
economic driver (Margolin & Margolin, 2002; Smith, 2005). The business and management
sections of the Jervis (2021) study related to a product outcome in which industrial design was
the most common connection. However, no specific recognition was afforded for design on
its own in business. In other words, design is considered a manifestation of an industrialised
profession.
These findings speak to the first and second premises of symbolic interactionism for Blumer
(1969) and Fine and Tavory (2019). Professional boundaries can define the meaning of design
thinking for both business and design.
Design Translation
The theme Design Translation is an established association for design. In Design Across
Disciplines, Daly (2008) stated that Design Translation was an “organised translation from an
idea to a plan, product, or process that works in a given situation” (p. 80). Jervis (2021) defined
design translation as the “ideas, views or things, translated and interpreted to enable shared
understanding” (p. 204).
Design Translation connects to symbolic interactionism’s second and third premises.
Blumer (1969) and Fine and Tavory (2019) explain that people interact with each other in
social situations and determine meaning for things such as design thinking from these interac-
tions. We then think about things and adjust our thinking as we recognise patterns and behav-
iours that support new interpretations. Fundamentally, Jervis (2021) discovered that design
translation was relative to the vocabulary professionals use in business, management, and
design.
ASSOCIATIONS OF DESIGN, BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

VOCABULARY
The central research question for Jervis (2021) was, how do professionals in design and busi-
ness communicate their meaning of design?
The results demonstrated that business and management struggle to connect with design
because they do not share an understanding of the topics the other side deems essential, or they
do not have a vocabulary to communicate shared meaning.
Jervis found that professionals in design, that is, people who work in design-related pro-
fessions, focused on design procedures and methods, but generally they had limited status in
business and management. Business and management seemed more accepting of design if it
was associated with industrial and product outcomes.
Surprisingly, she also found that design professionals are remiss in their communication in
design fields, business and management; they do not place sufficient value on design disci-
plines, so they do not communicate successfully with business or management. The disconnect
between design, business and management is evident in a study of word combinations from
professional publications. Jervis (2021) compared the top 20 word combinations in three
academic journals (one each for design, business and management). The findings demonstrate
how communication gaps occur. In Table 11.2, Jervis’s list of word combinations (2021,
p. 132) shows only six shared words between business and management: Business enterprise,
Management research, Industrial management, Personnel management, Strategic planning,
and Organizational effectiveness. Design had no in-common words with business or manage-
ment and vice versa.
The numbers in Figure 11.3 show the level of importance for the word in the publications.
For instance, ‘Strategic plan’ ranked number one in business but number 13 in management and
not at all for design. The words ‘Design think’ appear at number 15 under the design-related
word combinations, but not specifically design thinking. Design cognition is listed at number
eight for design but does not appear for business or management.
HOW DO BUSINESSES WRITE ABOUT DESIGN THINKING IN

JOB ADs?
It is clear that words used to communicate design thinking in business affect how it is per-
ceived and its success based on Jervis’s (2021) past findings. The conclusion is extended
when studying how businesses communicate their needs to future employees through job ads.
Table 11.2 A list of design, business and management’s top 20 word-combinations
Design Business Management
1 Design process Strategic planning Organizational behaviour

2 Design Business plan Business enterprise
3 Conceptual design Business enterprise Management research
4 Engineer design Competitive advantage Job performance
5 Design education Business model Organizational structure
6 Product design Economic aspect Social aspect
7 Design activity Industrial management Organizational change
8 Design cognition Corporate culture Industrial management
9 Design research Organizational effectiveness Personnel management
10 Collaborative design Chief executive Management science
11 Design team Marketing strategy Job satisfaction
12 Architectural design Ability management Organizational sociology
13 Design practice Executive ability Strategic plan
14 Design problem Management research Social network
15 Design think Executive ability management Work environment
16 Design theory Long term Organizational effectiveness
17 Design knowledge Personnel management Firm performance
18 Problem solve Supply chain Research organizational
19 Design tool Chief executive officer Employee attitude
20 Design method Executive officer Human capital
Arguably, the vocabulary used in job ads sits at the intersection of communication between
professionals and businesses.
As a study of job ads by Jervis (2021) contributed to the results discussed in the previous
sections, we sought new insights into how businesses use the term design thinking during
recruitment. We focused on the third premise of symbolic interactionism (Fine & Tavory,
2019), which states that repetitions (or patterns) are a recognisable way to support meanings.
Thus, we looked for the frequency and relationships for design thinking in the job ad wording.
The online job portal, seek.com.au, provided the job-seeking situation (sample frame) and
the occurrences of design thinking in the job ads represented a possible patterned structure
(dependent variable). The new study examined explicit use of design thinking. For instance,
if the words design and thinking appeared in the body text of the job ad but did not relate to
design thinking, we excluded that job ad from the results. The 2021 study examined 18 varia-
bles in a systematic random sample of job ads taken from the website.
Design Thinking in 2013 and 2019 Job Ads
In 2013 and 2019, Jervis (2021) analysed how businesses communicated the word design in
their job ads on the seek.com.au online job portal. In 2013 an initial search for design-related
jobs returned more than 15,000 listings, and in 2019 the number was 19,000.
Table 11.3 The frequency of Design Thinking (DT) and Human-centred Design (HCD)
in 2013 and 2019 job ads
Year Job title DT/HCD Geographical location Job classification

2013 Senior Executive Designer DT Canberra Consulting & Strategy
Information &
Associate Director – Customer, Brand &
2019 DT/HCD Canberra Communication
Marketing Advisory
Technology
2019 Manager, Customer Experience Delivery DT Melbourne Education & Training
Information &
2019 Scaled Agile Business Analysts DT Melbourne Communication
Technology
Marketing &
2019 Senior Marketing Manager DT Sydney
Communications
2019 User Experience & Interface Designer DT/HCD Regional Victoria Government & Defence
2019 UX Designer DT Canberra Design & Architecture
Marketing &
2019 Digital Product Manager HCD Melbourne
Communications
In the 2013 study, none of the job titles referred to design thinking. However, the term
was present (explicitly stated) in the body text for a government position seeking a Senior
Executive Designer to apply design thinking and innovation.
In 2019, design thinking was still not appearing in job titles. However, it was present in
the body text in six job ads from a sample of 330. One of the listings under Marketing &
Communications referenced human-centred design, not design thinking. Again, a government
position requested human-centred design and design thinking knowledge.
Overall, the listing classifications for design thinking spread across Design & Architecture,
Education & Training, Government & Defence Information & Communication Technology
and Marketing & Communications. Table 11.3 displays the results by Jervis (2021) with an
overview of the job titles, geographical locations, job classifications, and their request for
either design thinking (DT), human-centred design (HCD) or both (Jervis, 2021).
DESIGN THINKING STUDY REPLICATION: DATA COLLECTION

AND SAMPLE
In early March 2021, the authors replicated Jervis’s 2013 and 2019 job ad studies (Jervis,
2021). The starting point was an initial search for jobs using the keyword ‘design’. The 2021
search returned 28,145 possible listings for design-related jobs and 3,839 for design thinking.
Due to the dynamic nature of the website, these numbers are subject to change minute by
minute, and the seek.com.au portal provides a maximum of 200 pages; in reality, the site offers
access to 4,000 job ads at any one time.
Each page of the seek.com.au website displayed the titles and previews of approximately 20
job ads, but the first 20 pages also included two fixed, feature job ads. These feature job ads
were not part of the website’s dynamics and did not extend for the entire 200 pages, so they
did not become part of the analysis.
The aim was to analyse 10% of the job listings. A systematic random sample (SRS) of every
17th and 20th job listing for each of the 200 pages provided the target sample of n=400 job ads.
The analysis was quantitative and qualitative and utilised a combination of computer-assisted
and human coding.
Analysis
The codebook replicated the one used by Jervis (2021) for the 2013 and 2019 job analysis
studies. For this chapter, the analysis of the job ads involved machine-coding six variables:
Job Title, Date of the job post, Geographical Location (State), Work Type (Full, Part-time,
Casual, Hourly Rate), First Job Classification, and Second Job Category. Explicitly stated
words ensured the answers were as reliable as possible. Human coding was necessary to search
the body text for design thinking and human-centred design instances. Thus, the results were
a mix of quantitative and qualitative findings. In 2021, an apparent increase in human-centred
design led the authors to look more closely at how often that term was associated with design
thinking.
Design Thinking in 2021 Job Ads
The number of 2021 job listings relating to design thinking increased substantially from the
2019 study by Jervis (2021) from six ads in 2019 to 17 in 2021 – a marked increase in two
years. Requests for human-centred design and design thinking knowledge appeared in eight of
those 17 job ads and an additional 11 listings asked for human-centred design without design
thinking. Thus, a total of 28 jobs specifically mentioned design thinking or human-centred
design in the 2021 sample.
Twenty-seven of the 28 job listings appeared under the main classifications of: Information
& Communication Technology, Design & Architecture, Marketing & Communications,
Consulting and Strategy, Education and Training, and Government and Defence. One job ad
for human-centred design, but not design thinking, was listed under Accounting.
Table 11.4 presents an overview of the 17 job listings explicitly stating design thinking (DT)
and human-centred design (HCD) in the authors’ 2021 study. Table 11.5 lists eleven job ads
that asked for human-centred design without mentioning design thinking.
The 2021 study was the first to find a job title explicitly stating design thinking: Agile BA
with Design Thinking experience.
Two other job ads, not included in the study, implied human-centred design through their
wording but did not use the term. Another job ad, under Design and Architecture, asked for
MVP (minimum viable product) and DVP thinking (desirability, viability and feasibility).
Although, this job request did not mention design thinking or human-centred design, both
acronyms connect to the concepts (Orton, 2017).
Unusually, there was one job title with the single word Designer. Classified under
Government & Defence and categorised as a Government-State job, it did not mention design
thinking. However, it referred to a ‘human-centred product development team, who values
your happiness, growth and personal development’. Table 11.5 presents the job ads requesting
human-centred design knowledge but not design thinking.
Table 11.4 Job ads in 2021 that include Design Thinking (DT) and Human-Centred
Design (HCD)
Year Job title DT/HCD Geographical location Job classification

Agile BA with Design Thinking Information & Communication
2021 DT Sydney
experience Technology
Information & Communication
2021 Senior Consultant – UI Design DT/HCD Sydney
Technology
2021 User Experience Designer DT/HCD Brisbane
Technology
2021 User Researcher DT ACT
Technology
UX/UI Designer | Digital Banking | Information & Communication
2021 DT Sydney
Lead Experience Designer Technology
2021 Lead UX Designer DT/HCD Sydney Design & Architecture
Newcastle, Maitland
2021 User Experience Designer DT Design & Architecture
& Hunter
2021 UI/UX Designer DT Sydney Design & Architecture
User Experience Designers, Visual
2021 Designers, UX/UI Hybrid & Service DT/HCD Sydney Design & Architecture
Designers
Customer Experience Design
2021 DT Sydney Marketing & Communications
Specialist
Newcastle, Maitland
2021 Service Designer DT/HCD Marketing & Communications
& Hunter
2021 UI/UX Product Designer DT Brisbane Marketing & Communications
Instructional Designer & Product Mornington Peninsula
2021 DT/HCD Consulting & Strategy
Manager & Bass Coast
2021 Senior Consultant – Customer Design DT/HCD Sydney Consulting & Strategy
2021 IT Designer DT ACT Government & Defence
Senior & Junior Graphic Designers –
2021 DT ACT Government & Defence
Noetic Group
2021 Senior Design Lead DT/HCD Melbourne Education & Training
The following discussion section reviews the 2021 study findings through the lens of symbolic
interactionism. The discussion aligns the premises of symbolic interactionism with evidence
of understanding of design thinking (Blumer, 1969) and any patterns emerging from the find-
ings that connect to the meaning of design thinking (Fine & Tavory, 2019).
DISCUSSION
The 2021 study of job ads from seek.com.au indicates that professional interests in design
thinking and human-centred design are increasing. According to symbolic interactionism, our
meaning of design thinking reflects the understanding we gain from interactions with others
(Blumer, 1969; Fine & Tavory, 2019). Thus, the increasing number of job ads explicitly asking
Table 11.5 Job ads in 2021 that included only Human-Centred Design (HCD)
Year Job title DT/HCD Geographical Job classification

location
2021 Graphic Designer HCD Melbourne Design & Architecture
2021 Service Design Lead | Global firm HCD Melbourne Design & Architecture
2021 Service Design Lead | Global firm HCD Sydney Design & Architecture
2021 Designer HCD NSW Government & Defence
2021 Architectural Graduate HCD Melbourne Design & Architecture
2021 CX / UX Service Designer HCD Sydney Accounting
2021 Senior Interior Designer HCD Melbourne Design & Architecture
2021 UI/UX Product Designer HCD Brisbane Design & Architecture
2021 UX/UI Product Designer HCD Melbourne Information & Communication
Technology
2021 Customer Experience Manager HCD Brisbane Education & Training
2021 Journey Expert – User Experience HCD Melbourne Marketing & Communications
for design thinking indicates that knowledge and understanding of design thinking are spread-
ing through encounters with the process (Blumer, 1969). The number of jobs for design think-
ing has grown from one job listing in 2013, six job listings in 2019 (Jervis, 2021), to 17 job
listings in 2021. The increase in jobs associated with human-centred design indicates growing
public awareness of the term as well. However, the findings show inconsistent connections
between job requests for design thinking and human-centred design in the role. Indeed, the
jump in numbers for the two years between 2019 and 2021 is significant as it may show
increasing public awareness of the concept.
Table 11.5 shows that titles for jobs with design thinking and human-centred design have
associations with digital production and employment related to human interaction on a digital
platform. Positions linked to user experience and user interface design dominate the advertised
titles. Similarly, Web Development & Production or Web & Interaction Design job categories
reinforce the application of design thinking and human experiences in digital transformation.
One difference in the job categories between design thinking and human-centred design
was the additional classification of Accounting. However, the job title was CX/UX Service
Designer, referring to customer experience and digital user experience design. Four titles out
of nine for the human-centred design jobs asked for user experience, customer experience or
user interface skills and roles. This connection between design thinking and digital interac-
tions is a development trend that has emerged over the two years. Unsurprisingly, in light of
the global pandemic, digital interactions are increasingly crucial to the function of our lives.
Jervis (2021) found that most references to design were associated with other descriptive
words, for instance, Interior Designer. So, it was unexpected to see one job title in the 2021
study with the single word Designer associated with human-centred design and classified as
a Government and Defence industry role. The wording did not mention design thinking but
cited a ‘human-centred product development team, who values your happiness, growth and
personal development’.
Symbolic interactionism’s first and second premises show us that our different social circles
and interactions within them give meaning to design thinking. The authors’ 2021 replication
study points to an association between design thinking, human-centred design and digital
interactions. The fragility here is that our understanding of design thinking may solidify as
people associate their meaning of design thinking with this additional vocabulary as predicted
in general terms by Fine and Tavory (2019).
The third premise of symbolic interactionism highlights the repeated patterns that create our
meanings. There was inconsistent use of vocabulary in the job ads. For instance, descriptive
wording includes Human Centred Design Thinking, Design Thinking, HCD Methodologies,
or Human-centred Design. More than one job ad required the applicant to be an ‘advocate’
for design thinking, suggesting there may not be universal acceptance of the process in the
company.
Does this matter? Yes. Human-centred design is an opportunity to approach all human
problems believing that ‘the people who face those problems every day are the ones who hold
the key to their answer’ (IDEO.org, 2015, p. 9). To that end, design thinking is a method all
professionals can use, whether design or non-design professionals, to devise innovative solu-
tions to wicked problems (Brown, 2008).
While the increase in job requests is encouraging, inconsistencies in the job listings point to
the need for each organisation to define design thinking and its relationship to human-centred
design with the mission and values of its organisation. To facilitate that aim, the following
section offers a new model for promoting a shared understanding of design thinking through
the lens of symbolic interactionism in a professional setting.
SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF DESIGN THINKING THROUGH

A SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST LENS
A model for shared understanding from a symbolic interactionist perspective builds on the
research summary of Jervis (2021) and the new information presented in this chapter. We are
labelling it the Model of Acceptance, Vocabulary and Acknowledgement applied to Design
Thinking, or the ‘AVA’ model.
The AVA model is not an attempt to create a global shared understanding of design
thinking. As symbolic interactionism points out, our experience with other people constantly
changes how we understand the world around us; therefore, achieving a single definition of
design thinking is highly unlikely (Blumer, 1969).
Instead, the AVA model shows that we must consider the importance of shared under-
standing to achieve the best outcomes for design thinking and human-centred design within
interactive situations, such as business meetings. AVA applies symbolic interactionism by
envisioning a cyclical process and three main stages.
The first stage of AVA is Acceptance of the different possible meanings that could exist in
an interactive situation involving design thinking. This Acceptance reflects an organisation’s
culture and willingness to change and accept that even if people are engaged and contributing,
they may not understand design thinking (Jervis, 2021). Acceptance that people have different
understandings around design thinking must apply from management downwards.
The second stage is Vocabulary. Jervis (2021) detailed that design, business, and man-
agement professionals do not share the same vocabulary. In a study of common word
combinations in professional publications, design had nothing in common with business or
management. Business and management have some wording in common, but each measures
the importance differently (see Table 11.2). A narrow vocabulary suggests the organisation is
not open or receptive to other ideas and concepts. In this model, it is up to each organisation to
recognise the vocabulary they use to describe design thinking.
The third stage represents Acknowledgement of the previous two areas. This stage is an
opportunity to encourage contributions and determine if all people in the interactive situation,
for example, a business meeting, understand what design thinking means to the business.
As Blumer (1969) and Fine and Tavory (2019) show in their respective three premises, our
actions come from the meanings we give something, which arises from our interactions with
other people and the communities we share. However, we constantly modify and interpret
these meanings as we encounter different situations and recognise patterns and structures
that further explain the implications. Figure 11.3 illustrates the Acceptance, Vocabulary and
Acknowledgement (AVA) model for design thinking.
Figure 11.3 Acceptance, Vocabulary and Acknowledgement model for design thinking
AVA represents an iterative process in which participants establish shared understanding and
produce a shared meaning of design thinking. Codification is the opportunity to formalise
design thinking meaning and process for participants. We believe in the codification moment
– when there is formal recognition of design thinking through acceptance, vocabulary, and
acknowledgement – design thinking will become a core part of the business.
CONCLUSION
This chapter establishes that our conceptions of design thinking and its root concept, design,
are fragile because we fall short of sharing the common meanings these ideas have for us. If
we stopped at this jarring juxtaposition, it would be concerning enough. However, this chapter
applies the lens of symbolic interactionism to present the surprising, if disturbing, conclusion
that design thinking and its root, design, are fragile within professional communities where, by
virtue of professional standards, this should not be the case.
Earlier research demonstrated that the disparity between the vocabulary used by design
professionals and business and management professionals raised concerns (Jervis, 2021).
However, new research reported in this chapter raises further concern that the role of design
thinking in business and society requires the urgent reflection and resurrection argued through-
out this volume generally.
The Acceptance, Vocabulary and Acknowledgement (AVA) model for design thinking
provides an easily understood and readily applied solution to strengthen the place of design
thinking in the professions. Explored and applied, AVA may standardise responses to design
thinking and see it used in the rapidly changing workforce and the post-pandemic reality of
organisations. We believe that future research to apply and validate AVA holds promise for
design, business and management professionals to work with the academic community in
a way that better positions design and design thinking for productive use.
REFERENCES
Barnett, K. (2005). Creating meaning in organizational change: A case in higher education [Doctoral
dissertation, Louisiana University]. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2362. https://digitalcommons.lsu
.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2362
Benzies, K. M., & Allen, M. N. (2001). Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective for multiple
method research. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 33(4), 541–547. https://onlinelibrary
.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01680.x
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. University of California Press.
Boland, R. J. Jr. (2004). Design in the punctuation of management action. In R. J. Boland Jr. & F.
Collopy (Eds), Managing as designing (pp. 267–276). Stanford University Press.
Brown, T. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 85–95. https://hbr.org/2008/
06/design-thinking
Bryant, S., & Wrigley, C. (2014). Driving toward user-centered engineering in automotive design.
Design Management Journal, 9(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12007
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://www.jstor
.org/stable/1511637
Burke, P. J. (2003, February). Commentary on ‘whither symbolic interaction?’ Symbolic Interaction,
26(1), 111–118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/si.2003.26.1.111
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future
of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology Review, 64(6), 931–961. https://doi.org/10.1177
%2F0011392116638396
Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Creating shared understanding of wicked problems. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-470-01768-5
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Scribner
Cossette, P. (1998). The study of language in organizations: A symbolic interactionist stance. Human
Relations, 51(11), 1355–1377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679805101102
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg Publishers.
Daly, S. R. (2008). Design across disciplines [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University]. http://docs.lib
.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI3343992
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think [Digitised 2007]. Internet Archive. https:// archive.org/
details/
howwethink00deweiala
Fine, G. A., & Tavory, I. (2019). Interactionism in the twenty-first century: A letter on
being-in-meaningful-world. Symbolic Interaction, 42(3), 457– 467. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.430
Huber, J. (1973). Symbolic interaction as a pragmatic perspective: The bias of emergent theory.
American Sociological Review, 38(2), 274–284. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2094400
IDEO.org. (2015). The field guide to human-centred design (1st ed.). https://www.designkit.org/
resources/1
Jen, N. (2018, March 19). Natasha Jen: Design thinking is bullsh*t [Video, 6:31 minutes]. The 9th 99U
Conference, 7–9 June, New York City. YouTube. https://youtu.be/_raleGrTdUg
Jervis, J. S. (2021). I see what you mean: A three method symbolic interactionist study of design and
business [Doctoral dissertation, Bond University]. https://research.bond.edu.au/en/studentTheses/i
-see-what-you-mean-a-three-method-symbolic-interactionist-study-
Julier, G. (2008). The culture of design (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 72–79. https://hbr.org/
2018/09/why-design-thinking-works
Margolin, V. & Margolin, S. (2002). A ‘social model’ of design: Issues of practice and research. Design
Issues, 18(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511974
Martin, R. (2007). Design and business: why can’t we be friends? Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4),
6–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660710760890
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of
Chicago Press.
Morris, C. W. (Ed) (2015). George Herbert Mead. Mind, self, and society: The definitive edition. The
University of Chicago Press.
Norman, D. (2018, August 10). Principles of human-centered design (Don Norman) [Video]. NNgroup.
YouTube. https://youtu.be/rmM0kRf8Dbk
Nussbaum, B. (2007). CEOs must be designers, not just hire them. Think Steve Jobs and iPhone.
Bloomberg Business Week, 28 June. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-06-27/ceos
-must-be-designers-not-just-hire-them-dot-think-steve-jobs-and-iphone-dot
Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design thinking is a failed experiment. So what’s next? Fast Company, 5 April.
https://www.fastcompany.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next
Orton, K. (2017). Desirability, feasibility, viability: The sweet spot for innovation. Innovation Sweet
Spot, 29 March. https://medium.com/innovation-sweet-spot/desirability-feasibility-viability-the
-sweet-spot-for-innovation-d7946de2183c
Rae, J. (2013). What is the real value of design? Design Management Review, 24(4), 30–37. https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/drev.10261
Ratinum, M. (2020, August 10). Human-centred design and the public sector [Video]. Department of
Premier and Cabinet Victoria. YouTube. https://youtu.be/8VNkmb__gEA
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4,
155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Smith, G. (2005). Misunderstood and mysterious: How design and designers are perceived by design
professionals, design educators and the public [Doctoral dissertation, Swinburne University of
Technology]. Swinburne Theses Collection http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/26050
12. Dealing with the difficulties of policy
formulation in policy design: the merits and
demerits of the application of design thinking
to the policy realm
Michael Howlett
INTRODUCTION: POLICY FORMULATION AND POLICY DESIGN
Policy design is an activity undertaken in the process of formulating policies. It involves the
conscious effort to learn best practices and apply lessons from past policy successes and fail-
ures to the crafting of policy alternatives (Howlett and Mukherjee, 2017, 2018; Howlett et al.,
2009). This form of “design-oriented thinking” involves thinking about formulation processes
in a “design” way: that is, as a calculated method of problem resolution in which the various
tools at the disposal of government are systematically evaluated in terms of their ability to “get
the job done” (Colebatch, 2017; Howlett, 2019).
This instrument-oriented way of thinking about policy formulation design differs from
other forms, such as recent efforts to promote “design thinking” in the policy sphere, although
the two terms are often incorrectly treated as synonyms and used interchangeably (Clarke
and Craft, 2019). “Design thinking”, including in the policy realm, is usually thought of as
approximating “thinking outside the box” (Considine, 2012). That is, to be a form of crea-
tive, innovative alternative generation and problem re-thinking which allows problems to be
addressed in a new way, whether that problem is a consumer need or a product, a production
process or a policy one (Bason, 2014; Blomkamp, 2018). It is a process of problem-solving
which involves reasoning backwards from the value to be created by an endeavour of any
kind – a new product, an old one, or a new policy or programme – without being locked into
the manner in which problems and solutions have been matched in the past (Brown and Wyatt,
2007; Dorst, 2011). Hence, for many observers, participants and erstwhile practitioners,
design-thinking is synonymous with an open-ended re-thinking of past practices and current
problems which often involves the re-framing of problems and the articulation of new solu-
tions to old or new problems (Dorst, 2011).
This approach has been lauded in product design, for example, in the creation of new apps
and businesses built around them, such as Uber or Google, which re-think and re-structure tra-
ditional forms of activities such as ride-hailing or internet searching. And it has been suggested
that many of the same kinds of benefits might flow to policymaking through the adoption of
similar modes of thinking and acting (Bason, 2014; Blomkamp, 2018). Many recently estab-
220
Dealing with the difficulties of policy formulation in policy design 221
lished policy “labs”, for example, profess to follow design-thinking inspired approaches to
policy problems and issues and stress the advantages of re-conceptualizing and implementing
policy problems and solutions through activities such as workshopping, prototyping or crowd-
sourcing (McGann et al., 2018; Wellstead et al., 2021).
However, as argued below, while this form of (re)problematization and invention is indeed
characteristic of design thinking in many technology-oriented and creative spheres of activity
– from product to graphic design – in the policy realm it typically does not capture the full
range of activities that go into the crafting of feasible policy alternatives, which are both more
wide-ranging and more complex than many product launches, often being highly contested
and uncertain, politicized and conflict-riddled in a way most product or service designs are not
(Clarke and Craft, 2019). As a result, applying design thinking principles and practices in the
policy world may not result in the kinds of path-breaking and highly successful disruptions
that have been achieved in other sectors and areas of application but rather, instead, can gen-
erate unrealistic or infeasible options which fail to attract decision-makers or lead to effective
implementation. The reasons for this and the possible solutions to this dilemma are discussed
in what follows.
THE POLITICAL NATURE OF POLICY FORMULATION AND THE

CHALLENGES IT POSES TO POLICY DESIGN
Policy formulation is a step in the policy process whereby alternatives and options are gener-
ated to possibly resolve issues or problems which have made their way onto the government
agenda (Howlett et al., 2020). It is by no means always or ever a neutral or technical activity
but rather often is a highly contested process in which multiple actors lobby, cajole and
coalesce in order to have their preferred solution adopted by a government (deLeon, 1992;
Thomas, 2001; Kingdon, 1984). This basic point about the political nature of policy formula-
tion is often forgotten in the design-oriented literature (Clarke and Craft, 2019).
Of course, the extent to which this affects the generation and support for particular policy
options or directions varies. Depending on the circumstances, policy formulation processes
can take many forms, from fairly closed expert-driven “technocratic” or legal analyses
which take past practices and precedents seriously, to more wide-open public participation
processes which may feature emotionally, partisan or uninformed debate – rather than the
knowledge-driven policy discourses present in the former case (Hoppe, 2010; Howlett and
Mukherjee, 2017).
Although many of these different kinds of processes may share the same desire and orien-
tation towards the matching of means and ends or tools and goals in a policy programme in
an effective way, and therefore take into consideration the evaluation of alternatives which,
through reason and experience, can reasonably be expected to achieve desired results, many
do not. And even those that do may differ dramatically in what kinds of tools or instruments
emerge as the preferred means to accomplish any given task (Simons and Voss, 2017; Taylor
et al., 2019).
And, of course, many highly politicized formulation processes – such as legislative bar-
gaining or “log-rolling” – are scarcely recognizable as such from a traditional “design” per-
spective. These “non-design” formulation efforts are very common in policymaking, however,
and often feature such familiar political and partisan elements such as the exchange of favour,
corrupt or clientelistic promotion of alternatives, or bureaucratic politics and budget maximi-

zation efforts and considerations (Hartley and Howlett, 2021; Howlett and Mukherjee, 2014;
Mortati, 2019; Newman and Widdi Nurfaiza, 2020).
These activities and processes colour efforts at formulation and lead to outcomes from
choices and choice processes which neither resemble the “classic” kinds of design work high-
lighted by Schon and others (Schon, 1984, 1988; Waks, 2001) nor are addressed at all in most
discussions urging the application of design thinking to their study and practice.
POLICY DESIGN VERSUS DESIGN THINKING IN THE POLICY

SPHERE
“Design” is commonly espoused by many observers, practitioners and scholars as a preferable

method of formulation to these kinds of “non-design” practices – usually because it is argued
more evidence-driven technical approaches are more likely to achieve a successful resolution
of a problem than more overtly political and less knowledge-based ones (Grabosky, 1995;
Gunningham and Sinclair, 1999; May, 1981; Rose, 1993, 2005; Schneider and Ingram, 1997,
2005; Weimer, 1992).
Neither the traditional policy design approach nor the more recent “design thinking” one,
however, is synonymous with formulation, which can be carried out in many different ways
(Howlett and Mukherjee, 2014). “Policy Design” is only one of the several ways in which
policy alternatives can be formulated and placed before decision-makers as options for dealing
with a problem and “Design Thinking” is only one form of policy design.
In themselves, the characteristics of policy formulation highlighted above limit the poten-
tial for “design thinking” to have a major impact on policymaking or its outcomes since this
approach is fundamentally unsuited to the resolution of major issues featuring, for example,
political, partisan, ideological or religious debate or disputes.
Nevertheless, in some cases, the “design space” or circumstances in which formulation
takes place may be constructed as one which would allow some innovations to be promoted
and adopted (Chindarkar et al., 2017). And in such propitious circumstances a design thinking
orientation may prove fruitful if there is a moment in time when a new policy is being devel-
oped or an old one reformed and radical innovations and re-conceptualizations are needed or
appreciated by those involved in policymaking (Turnbull, 2017). However, such design spaces
are not common and when such a propitious moment is absent, efforts in this direction may be
stimulating but ineffective or simply not very useful.
The difficulties the vagaries of the policy formulation process pose to the emergence,
application and effectiveness of any kind of design orientation in policymaking were well
recognized by the pioneers of policy design research in the 1980s and 1990s. These authors
noted that, like design activities in other fields, policy design involves knowledge of the basic
building blocks or materials with which actors must work in constructing a policy and the
elaboration of a set of principles regarding how these materials should be combined in that
construction. But in the policy realm, especially, they noted it also requires a third element
often missing or less significant in other areas of design application, that is, a clear under-
standing of the processes by which a policy alternative becomes translated into reality and of
the many barriers that exist between concept and realization (Barzelay and Thompson, 2010).
In other words, while not all problems and contexts might be amenable to some kind of
design-oriented process, an even smaller number is amenable to more open-ended and creative
design processes. These very different contexts need to be taken into account by anyone who
might like or want to influence policy choices. Of course, this is also true to a certain extent
in many other fields, such as architecture, where an architect or designer must consider not
only the formal elegance of a design but also its costs, likelihood of its acceptance by a client,
zoning and other regulations, view cones and corridors, and the desire of city councils to
promote or restrain certain types of buildings and enterprises in certain places and times. But
these problems are magnified in policymaking, and their neglect by many analyses of policy
design, including those which stem from or promote a design thinking orientation (Clarke and
Craft, 2019), is not helpful.
How the different approaches to policy design deal with these basic elements of policymak-
ing are set out in more detail below.
THREE ASPECTS OF POLICY-MAKING AFFECTING THE

APPLICATION OF A DESIGN LOGIC TO POLICYMAKING
The policy studies literature is replete with case studies and examples of successful and
unsuccessful policy designs, and an approach that neglects these lessons is in danger of merely
repeating these errors. While “design thinking” has its place in the pantheon of policy formu-
lation types of varieties, the emphasis of the “policy design” approach rooted in traditional
policy studies upon the character and content of policy tools and processes (Howlett, 2017)
means it is more likely to allow the articulation of policy solutions likely to effectively match
problems than a more open-ended and less historically-minded approach. This can be seen
in the context of how these different approaches to policy design deal with the fundamental
challenges of policy formulation.
Knowledge of the Basic Building Blocks or Materials with which Actors must Work in
Constructing a Policy
In a policy context the most important aspect of “design” involves understanding the kinds of
implementation tools governments have at their disposal in attempting to alter some aspect of
society and societal behaviour. These “policy instruments” are the techniques used in policy
designs and involve the utilization of state authority or its conscious limitation in the pursuit
of government aims (Howlett, 2019).
The study of policy instruments has a long history in the policy sciences, having been
undertaken by economists, political scientists and others (Dahl and Lindblom, 1953; Edelman,
1964; Kirschen et al., 1964) for over 50 years. “First-generation” economists studying the
tools of government were concerned largely with the study of business–government relations;
with the effects of state regulation and economic policy formation on business efficiency and
with the ability of specific kinds of tools to correct specific kinds of market failures (Bator,
1958; Breyer, 1979; Zeckhauser et al., 1968; Zerbe and McCurdy, 1999).
These currents promoted a somewhat Manichean view of instrument options and often led
to simplistic recommendations for tool selection such as always preferring market-based tools
over government-based ones (Howlett, 2005; Le Grand, 1991; Wolf, 1987, 1988). Not all early
studies shared these characteristics, of course, and some presented more complex and nuanced
models and analyses of tools and instrument selection criteria.
By the early 1980s, attention began to be focused on more precisely categorizing policy
instruments in order to better analyse the reasons for their use (Salamon, 1981). Careful exam-
ination of instruments, and instrument choices, was expected to lead to better insights into
the factors driving the policy process and the characterization of long-term patterns of public
policymaking, and would also allow practitioners to more readily draw lessons from the expe-
riences of others with the use of particular techniques in specific circumstances (Woodside,
1986).
Building on the base of case studies and insights developed in these works, “second gen-
eration” students of instrument choice attempted to improve on early models and introduced
more complexity and subtlety into policy instrument analysis and considerations around tool
choices and designs, especially better understanding their sources of support in society and
government which are either or both attractive and difficult to change (Bressers and O’Toole,
1998; De Bruijn and Hufen, 1998; Van Nispen and Ringeling, 1998).
More recently, students of instrument choices have focused on the use of multiple tools or
“policy instrument mixes” rather than upon single instrument choices (Flanagan et al., 2011;
Gunningham and Sinclair, 1999; Gunningham and Young, 1997; Gunningham et al., 1998;
Rogge and Reichardt, 2016). This new emphasis has raised to the forefront not only older
questions such as why specific tools were adopted, but many more design-oriented ones such
as why specific kinds of mixes exist at present and whether and to what extent such mixes can
be designed to be optimally effective.
Generally speaking, very little of this literature is referenced by studies of “design thinking”
in the policy realm. Such exercises generally rely on the expertise or “wisdom” of crowds or
the public in fashioning instrument alternatives (Blomkamp, 2018) even though the public,
generally, has little knowledge of the wide variety of possible tools which could be deployed
or their strengths and weaknesses.
The Elaboration of a Set of Principles Regarding how these Materials should be

Combined in that Construction
The aim of applying a design orientation to policymaking is not only better description but
better prescription and, in order to accomplish this, it is necessary to elevate the discussion of
policy tools from simply a taxonomical level to the articulation of some basic principles of
policy design that erstwhile designers can and should follow.
In design thinking the principles to be followed generally are to be open-minded and attempt
to re-frame problems in such a way that new alternatives for their solution can emerge and be
“prototyped” (Bason, 2014). Very little, in general, is said about exactly what kinds of alterna-
tives should be deployed and when or why.
In more traditional policy design studies, this is not the case. Rather, several key principles
for effective policy designs based on the “character” or innate characteristics of policy tools
have been clearly articulated. A very early and oft-cited rule in this area, for example, is that
the optimal ratio of the number of tools to goals in a policy is 1:1 (Knudson, 2009), an axiom
first put forward by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Jan Tinbergen in 1952. Assuming that
utilizing more instruments costs more than utilizing fewer, and that redundancy is not a virtue,
this maxim translates easily enough into a basic efficiency principle for the selection of tools
to meet policy ends. This emphasis on parsimony means utilizing in a mix only the number
of tools required to reasonably attain the number of policy goals expected to be achieved (and
achieve compliance with government wishes) and no more or less than that. While it may not
be clear at the start what is that number, beginning with a smaller number and adding tools as
needed to ensure compliance and monitoring the impact and effect of each additional tool can
help identify that “sweet spot”.
This highlights a second principle found in the older literature on policy design, which
was not only to be parsimonious in the number of instruments chosen at a specific point in
time to attain a goal, but also dynamically or sequentially. In the mid-1970s and early 1980s,
for example, Bruce Doern, Richard Phidd and Seymour Wilson argued that different policy
instruments varied primarily in terms of the “degree of government coercion” each instrument
choice entailed (Doern, 1981; Doern and Phidd, 1983; Doern and Wilson, 1974; Tupper and
Doern, 1981). They argued that tool choices should only “move up the spectrum” of coercion
from minimum towards maximum if and when necessary according to the degree to which
earlier tools achieved expected outcomes, or not.
This rationale is again based on a cost–effort calculation given the character of specific
tools but is also linked to considerations of the context of tool deployment, in this case an
appreciation of the preferences of (mainly) liberal-democratic governments for limited state
activity (Howlett, 2017). Preferring “self-regulation” as a basic default, for example, Doern
and his colleagues argued governments should first attempt to influence overall target group
performance through exhortation and then only add instruments as required in order to compel
recalcitrant societal actors to abide by their wishes, eventually culminating, if necessary, in the
fully public provision of specific kinds of goods and services.
A third, more recent, principle has involved the articulation of criteria such as “consistency”
(the ability of multiple policy tools to reinforce rather than undermine each other in the pursuit
of policy goals), “coherence” (or the ability of multiple policy goals to coexist with each other
and with instrument norms in a logical fashion), and “congruence” (or the ability of goals and
instruments to work together in a uni-directional or mutually supportive fashion) as important
measures of optimality in policy mixes (Howlett and Rayner, 2007; Kern and Howlett, 2009;
Lanzalaco, 2011). This recognizes that policies are composed of several elements and some
correspondence across these elements is required if policy goals are to be integrated success-
fully with policy means (Cashore and Howlett, 2007). Much work on policy design and policy
mixes has focused on the need for the various parts of a mix or portfolio to be integrated for
maximum effectiveness (Briassoulis, 2005a, 2005b).
This approach ties closely to a fourth principle, which is to maximize complementary
effects while minimizing counter-productive ones in such mixes. Work on “smart regulation”
in the late 1990s, for example, underlined the importance of this principle (Gunningham et
al., 1998). As Grabosky (1995) and others suggested, some tools counteract each other – for
example, using command and control or state-driven coercive regulation while also attempting
to encourage voluntary compliance – while, as Hou and Brewer (2010) argued, other tools
complement or supplement each other – for example, using command and control regulation
to prevent certain behaviour deemed undesirable, accompanied by financial incentives to
promote more desired activities, such as jail sentences for unsafe driving combined with lower
insurance rates for accident-free or ticket-free drivers.
“Smart” design implies creating packages which take these precepts into account in their
formulation or packaging (Eliadis et al., 2005; Gunningham and Sinclair, 1999; Gunningham
et al., 1998) and is something at which traditional policy design studies excel.
A Clear Understanding of the Processes by which a Policy Alternative becomes

Translated into Reality and the Barriers that Exist between Concept and Realization
Knowledge of the character of individual tools and mixes is important in developing principles
for policy design but, as noted above, understanding of the policy design context and under-
standing the process are equally important (deLeon, 1988).
Again, this aspect of policymaking is lacking in many works inspired by design thinking,
which assumes, whether explicitly or implicitly, that any combination of tools is possible in
any circumstance (Clarke and Craft, 2019). That is, decision-makers have unlimited degrees
of freedom in their design choices. Empirical studies in the traditional policy design orienta-
tion, however, have noted this kind of freedom in combining design elements is only found
in very specific and generally rare circumstances – what Thelen (2003) terms “replacement”
or “exhaustion” – when older tool elements have been swept aside or abandoned and/or when
a new mix can be designed or adopted de novo.
Policy design studies have always noted the difficulties with policymaking processes, which
tend to lock-in policies and inhibit change. Kirschen et al. (1964), for example, noted very
early on that the key determinants of the policy choices they examined were the economic
objective pursued and the structural and conjunctural context of the choice. That is, while the
choice of a specific instrument could be made on essentially technical grounds, according to
criteria such as efficiency, cost or effectiveness, it is also affected by the political preferences
of interest groups and governments, institutional vetoes and barriers, and by a variety of soci-
ological and ideological constraints which would also inform tool choices and preferences.
Lasswell (1954) noted the extent to which governments could affect these aspects of policy-
making through their instruments and argued that a principal task of the policy sciences must
be to understand the nuances of these situations and calibrate their actions and their effects
accordingly (Doern and Phidd, 1983; Doern and Wilson, 1974; Lasswell, 1954, 1971).
That is, traditional policy design work recognizes that design choices emerge from and must
generally be congruent with both long-term contextual factors such as the governance modes
or styles practised in particular jurisdictions and sectors (Howlett, 2009) as well as with the
more medium or short-term preferences of key policy, social and economic actors if they are
to be “workable” or feasible. Works on “policy styles” and administrative traditions (Freeman,
1985; Kagan, 2001; Knill, 1998; Richardson et al., 1982) have identified common patterns and
motifs in the construction of typical policy designs in different jurisdictions reflecting such
concerns (Howlett, 2009; Kiss et al., 2013) and leading to preferences for particular kinds of
tools which make their design and adoption simpler than non-traditional ones. Design thinking
needs to take such contextual constraints into account in articulating programme options.
“Goodness of fit” between tool and context is thus a key concern in contemporary policy
design considerations and can be seen to occur at several different levels (Brandl, 1988).
Policy designs need to consider both the desired governance context and the actual resources
available to a governmental or non-governmental actor in carrying out its appointed role.
Thus, for example, planning and “steering” involve direct coordination of key actors by gov-
ernments, requiring a high level of government policy capacity to identify and utilize a wide
range of policy tools in a successful policy “mix” or “arrangement” (Arts et al., 2000, 2006).
In addition to the requirements of “goodness of fit” with prevailing governance modes with
respect to the logic of policy design there are also constraints imposed on designs by existing
trajectories of policy development. As Christensen et al. (2002) have argued, the issue here
is the leeway or degrees of freedom policy designers have in developing new designs given
existing historical arrangements, path dependencies, policy legacies and lock-in effects.
As Christensen et al. note, “these factors place constraints on and create opportunities for
purposeful choice, deliberate instrumental actions and intentional efforts taken by political
and administrative leaders to launch administrative reforms through administrative design”
(Christensen et al., 2002, 158).
Determining how much room to manoeuvre or degrees of freedom designers have to be cre-
ative (Considine, 2012) or, to put it another way, to what degree they are “context-bound” in
time and space (Howlett, 2009) is key for contemporary design studies, and this third element
of policy formulation, again, is typically ignored in studies advocating “design thinking”.
CONCLUSION: THE CONTRIBUTION OF DESIGN THINKING TO

POLICY DESIGN
Governments grapple daily with complex problems involving situations in which they must
deal with multiple actors, ideas and interests in complex problem environments, which typi-
cally evolve and change over time. This means there is often a high level of uncertainty in pol-
icymaking, and the modern policy studies movement began with the observation that public
policymaking not only commonly results from the interactions of policymakers in the exercise
of power rather than knowledge, and also with the recognition that this does not always guar-
antee effective policies or the attainment of desired results (Arts and Van Tatenhove, 2004;
Lasswell, 1958; Stone, 2008).
Recently, an emphasis on “design” has re-emerged in the policy sciences, in part in the
resurrection of an older tradition of thinking in this orientation from the 1980s and 1990s
(Howlett and Lejano, 2013) and in part from an effort to apply the kinds of design thinking
that have been so successful in other fields to policymaking (Lindgaard and Wesselius, 2017).
As the discussion above has shown, it is clear that traditional policy design studies exhibit
a much wider range of concepts and examples, and have developed a sounder appreciation
for both the tools of policy implementation and formulation processes. Notwithstanding this,
“design thinking” in this field does have its place and, in the right circumstances, can contrib-
ute to policy invention and innovation in a way that more traditional techniques may not.
In any such comparison, however, it must be reiterated that not only, as Clarke and Craft
(2019) have pointed out, are these two approaches to policy design not synonymous, but as
Howlett and Mukherjee (2014, 2018) have stressed, neither do they exhaust the field of the
varieties of policy formulation, many of which do not involve either, or any, kind of design
orientation.
Nevertheless, both these approaches have proven fruitful in helping to open up the
“black-box” of policy formulation; an activity which, although pivotal to policymaking, still
has not received its due share of attention (Howlett and Mukherjee, 2017), and they also help
us understand how this stage of policymaking operates and what is needed for it to work to
produce policies more likely to resolve important social problems and concerns in a concise
and efficient way.
REFERENCES
Arts, B., and Van Tatenhove, J. (2004). Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the “old”
and “new” policy idioms. Policy Sciences, 37, 339–356.
Arts, B., Leroy, P., and van Tatenhove, J. (2006). Political modernisation and policy arrangements:
A framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organization Review, 6, 93–106.
Arts, B., Van Tatenhove, J., and Goverde, H. (2000). Environmental policy arrangements: A new
concept. In Global and European Polity? Organizations, Policies, Contexts, 223–237. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Barzelay, M., and Thompson, F. (2010). Back to the future: Making public administration a design
science. Public Administration Review, 70, Supplement S1, s295–297.
Bason, C. (2014). Design for Policy. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington, VT: Gower.
Bator, F. M. (1958). The anatomy of market failure. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72(3), 351–379.
Blomkamp, E. (2018). The promise of co-design for public policy. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 77, 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12310
Brandl, J. (1988). On politics and policy analysis as the design and assessment of institutions. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 7(3), 419–424.
Bressers, H. T. A., and O’Toole, L. J. (1998). The selection of policy instruments: A network-based
perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 213–239.
Breyer, S. (1979). Analyzing regulatory failure: Mismatches, less restrictive alternatives, and reform.
Harvard Law Review, 92(3), 549–609.
Briassoulis, H. (2005a). Analysis of policy integration: Conceptual and methodological considera-
tions. In Policy Integration for Complex Environmental Problems: The Example of Mediterranean
Desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Briassoulis, H. (2005b). Complex environment problems and the quest of policy integration. In Policy
Integration for Complex Environmental Problems: The Example of Mediterranean Desertification.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Brown, T., and Wyatt, J. (2007). Design thinking for social innovation (SSIR). Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Winter.
Cashore, B., and Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic
policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3),
532–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00266.x
Chindarkar, N., Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. (2017). Conceptualizing effective social policy design:
Design spaces and capacity challenges. Public Administration and Development, 37(1), 3–14.
Christensen, T., Laegreid, P., and Wise, L. R. (2002). Transforming administrative policy. Public
Administration, 80(1), 153–179.
Clarke, A., and Craft, J. (2019). The twin faces of public sector design. Governance: An International
Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 32(1), 5–21.
Colebatch, H. K. (2017). The idea of policy design: Intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity.
Public Policy and Administration, 18 May, 0952076717709525.
Considine, M. (2012). Thinking outside the box? Applying design theory to public policy. Politics &
Policy, 40(4), 704–724.
Dahl, R. A., and Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, Economics and Welfare: Planning and Politico-Economic
Systems Resolved into Basic Social Processes. New York: Harper and Row.
De Bruijn, J. A., and Hufen, H. A. M. (1998). The traditional approach to policy instruments. In B.
G. Peters and F. K. M. V. Nispen (eds), Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public
Administration, 11–32. Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, NH, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
deLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297–309.
deLeon, P. (1992). Policy formulation: Where ignorant armies clash by night. Policy Studies Review,
11(3/4), 389–405.
Doern, G. B. (1981). The Nature of Scientific and Technological Controversy in Federal Policy
Formation. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
Doern, G. B. and Phidd, R. W. (1982). Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structures, and Processes.
Toronto: Methuen.
Doern, G. B., and Wilson, V. S. (1974). Conclusions and observations. In Issues in Canadian Public
Policy, 337–345. Toronto: Macmillan.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.
Edelman, M. (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Eliadis, P., Hill, M., and Howlett, M. (eds). (2005). Designing Government: From Instruments to
Governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., and Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the “policy mix” for innovation.
Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.
Freeman, G. P. (1985). National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of
Public Policy, 5(4), 467–496.
Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23,
347–369.
Gunningham, N., and Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmen-
tal protection. Law and Policy, 21(1), 49–76.
Gunningham, N., and Young, M. D. (1997). Toward optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiver-
sity conservation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, 243–298.
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., and Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental
Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hartley, K., and Howlett, M. (2021). Policy assemblages and policy resilience: Lessons for non-design
from evolutionary governance theory. Politics and Governance, 9(2), 451–459.
Hoppe, R. (2010). The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering and Participation. Policy Press.
Hou, Y., and Brewer, G. (2010). Substitution and supplementation between co-functional policy instru-
ments: Evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6),
914–924.
Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Policy tools, policy mixes and policy implementation
styles. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, and M. Howlett (eds), Designing Government: From Instruments to
Governance, 31–50. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested
model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89.
Howlett, M. (2017). The criteria for effective policy design: Character and context in policy instrument
choice. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 11(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2017
.1412284
Howlett, M. (2019). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York: Routledge.
Howlett, M., and Lejano, R. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and re-birth?) of policy
design studies. Administration & Society, 45(3), 356–380.
Howlett, M., and Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy
formulation types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71.
Howlett, M., and Mukherjee, I. (2017). Handbook of Policy Formulation. Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Howlett, M., and Mukherjee, I. (2018). The contribution of comparative policy analysis to policy design:
Articulating principles of effectiveness and clarifying design spaces. Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis: Research and Practice, 20(1), 72–87.
Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. (1993). Patterns of policy instrument choice: Policy styles, policy learning
and the privatization experience. Policy Studies Review, 12(1), 3–24.
Howlett, M., and Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in “new
governance arrangements”. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.
Howlett, M., Kim, J., and Weaver, P. (2006). Assessing instrument mixes through program- and
agency-level data: Methodological issues in contemporary implementation research. Review of Policy
Research, 23(1), 129–151.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., and Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy
Subsystems. Oxford University Press.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., and Perl, A. (2020). Studying Public Policy: Principles and Processes. 4th ed.
Oxford University Press.
Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Kern, F., and Howlett, M. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study
of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 391–408.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Kirschen, E. S., Benard, J., Besters, H., Blackaby, F., Eckstein, O., Faaland, J., Hartog, F., Morissens, L.,
and Tosco, E. (1964). Economic Policy in Our Time. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kiss, B., González Manchón, C., and Neij, L. (2013). The role of policy instruments in supporting the
development of mineral wool insulation in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Journal of
Cleaner Production, Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 2010, 48,
187–199.
Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public
Policy, 18(1), 1–28.
Knudson, W. A. (2009). The environment, energy, and the Tinbergen rule. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 29(4), 308–312.
Lanzalaco, L. (2011). Bringing the Olympic rationality back in? Coherence, integration and effectiveness
of public policies. World Political Science Review, 7(1), 1098.
Lasswell, H. (1954). Key symbols, signs and icons. In L. Bryson, L. Finkelstein, R. M. MacIver, and R.
McKean (eds), Symbols and Values: An Initial Study, 77–94. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Meridian.
Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
Le Grand, J. (1991). The theory of government failure. British Journal of Political Science, 21(4),
423–442.
Lindgaard, K., and Wesselius, H. (2017). Once more, with feeling: Design thinking and embodied cog-
nition. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(2), 83–92.
May, P. J. (1981). Hints for crafting alternative policies. Policy Analysis, 7(2), 227–244.
McGann, M., Blomkamp, E., and Lewis, J. M. (2018). The rise of public sector innovation labs:
Experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sciences, 1–19.
Mortati, M. (2019). The nexus between design and policy: Strong, weak, and non-design spaces in policy
formulation. The Design Journal, 20 August, 1–18.
Newman, J., and Widdi Nurfaiza, M. (2020). Policy design, non-design, and anti-design: The regulation
of e-cigarettes in Indonesia. Policy Studies, 3 January, 1–18.
Richardson, J., Gustafsson, G., and Jordan, G. (1982). The concept of policy style. In J. J. Richardson
(ed.), Policy Styles in Western Europe, 1–16. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Rogge, K. S., and Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept
and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635.
Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning across Time and Space.
Chatham: Chatham House.
Rose, R. (2005). Learning from Comparative Public Policy. London: Routledge.
Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms
of government action. Public Policy, 29(3), 255–275.
Schneider, A., and Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Schneider, A. L., and Ingram, H. M. (eds). (2005). Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and
Public Policy. SUNY Series in Public Policy. Albany: State University of New York.
Schon, D. A. (1984). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and words. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.
Simons, A., and Voss, J.-P. (2017). The concept of instrument constituencies: Accounting for dynamics
and practices of knowing governance. Policy and Society, 37(1), 14–35. doi:10.1080/14494035.2017
.1375248
Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities and their networks. Policy
Studies Journal, 36(1), 19–37.
Taylor, C. M., Gallagher, E. A., Pollard, S. J. T., Rocks, S. A., Smith, H. M., Leinster, P., and Angus, A.
J. (2019). Environmental regulation in transition: Policy officials’ views of regulatory instruments and
their mapping to environmental risks. Science of the Total Environment, 646, 811–820.
Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney
and D. Rueschemeyer (eds), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, 208–240.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, H. G. (2001). Towards a new higher education law in Lithuania: Reflections on the process of
policy formulation. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 213–223.
Tupper, A., and Doern, G. B. (1981). Public corporations and public policy in Canada. In A. Tupper and
G. B. Doern (eds), Public Corporations and Public Policy in Canada, 1–50. Montreal: Institute for
Research on Public Policy.
Turnbull, N. (2017). Policy design: Its enduring appeal in a complex world and how to think it differ-
ently. Public Policy and Administration, 31 May, 0952076717709522.
Van Nispen, F. K. M., and Ringeling, A. B. (1998). On instruments and instrumentality: A critical assess-
ment. In B. G. Peters and F. K. M. Van Nispen (eds), Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools
of Public Administration, 204–217. Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, NH, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Waks, L. J. (2001). Donald Schon’s philosophy of design and design education. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 37–51.
Weimer, D. L. (1992). The craft of policy design: Can it be more than art? Policy Studies Review,
11(3/4), 370–388.
Wellstead, A. M., Gofen, A., and Carter, A. (2021). Policy innovation lab scholarship: Past, present,
and the future introduction to the special issue on policy innovation labs. Policy Design and Practice,
June, 1–16.
Wolf Jr, C. (1987). Markets and non-market failures: Comparison and assessment. Journal of Public
Policy, 7(1), 43–70.
Wolf, C. J. (1988). Markets or Governments: Choosing Between Imperfect Alternatives. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Canadian Journal of Political
Science, 19(4), 775–793.
Zeckhauser, R., Schaefer, E., Bauer, R. A., and Gergen K. J. (1968). Public policy and normative eco-
nomic theory. In The Study of Policy Formation, 27–102. New York: The Free Press.
Zerbe, R. O., and McCurdy, H. E. (1999). The failure of market failure. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 18(4), 558–578.
13. The weakest link: the importance of problem
framing in design thinking
Martin Meinel, Tobias T. Eismann, Sebastian K. Fixson
and Kai-Ingo Voigt
DESIGN THINKING AND THE ROLE OF PROBLEM FRAMING
While the roots and origins of design thinking reach way back into the 20th century, its rise
over the past two decades has been quite remarkable. The evolutionary path of design thinking
involved two domains – including the tensions within and across these domains – which helps
explain both its remarkable success and its challenges.
The broad rise of design thinking across industries over the past 20 years was fuelled
primarily by the domain of practice. Practitioners, i.e., designers who applied their skills
to an increasing array of tasks, from initially product-oriented tasks such as architecture,
industrial design or graphic design, to process-oriented design tasks such as service design or
user-interaction design, to increasingly abstract tasks such as organization design, drove the
emergence of design thinking as a powerful method of innovation. The common language
underneath this expansion of design became labelled design thinking, to a large degree through
design consultancies who grew their own business through this expansion. One specifically
visible example of this trend was the US firm IDEO, whose then-CEO Tim Brown published
a widely-cited article entitled “Design Thinking” in Harvard Business Review (Brown, 2008)
followed by a widely-sold book “Change by Design” the following year (Brown & Katz,,
2009). But this rapid rise of design thinking as a moniker for design practices applied to
a wide array of problems, often by non-designers, also led to a backlash among some of the
professional designers who saw their craft cheapened and devalued, labelling design thinking
as bullshit (Jen, 2018) or even as a contagious disease (Vinsel, 2017).
Similarly, design thinking received both supportive and critical treatment in the second
domain: academia. Here, design thinking has been described as a learning process (Beckman
& Barry, 2007), a competitive advantage (Martin & Martin, 2009), and how designers think
and work (Cross, 2011). Researchers from various disciplines have viewed design thinking
through different lenses: as a reasoning pattern in design (Dorst, 2011), as a method for an
innovation process (Seidel & Fixson, 2013), as a concept to be enacted (Carlgren et al., 2016),
as an approach interacting with organizational culture (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018), and as
a collection of attributes and tools (Micheli et al., 2019). In addition to these multidisciplinary
viewpoints, some scholars have critiqued design thinking – at least the version they describe
232
The weakest link: the importance of problem framing in design thinking 233
as managerial – as superficial and lacking sufficient anchoring in intellectual tradition

(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013).
Consequently, various definitions and conceptualizations of design thinking can be found
across practice and academia. Tim Brown, the IDEO CEO, defines design thinking as “a dis-
cipline 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”
(Brown, 2008, p. 86). In a more general sense, design thinking is often understood as a creative
problem-solving approach (Beverland et al., 2015; Brown, 2008; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011).
These wide-ranging debates notwithstanding, most authors agree that, when viewed through
the process lens, design thinking includes a set of activities to learn about what it is that is
asked to be designed, activities to generate solution options, and testing and experimenting
with some of these solutions to develop one that addresses the originally identified problem
or opportunity. In the literature different descriptions of this process have emerged, varying in
granularity and labels of the individual steps. Figure 13.1 presents some examples.
Figure 13.1 Examples of process figures
The processes in Figure 13.1 are displayed in a linear fashion for simplicity, but most authors
agree that design thinking should be generally conceptualized as set of iterative activities. In
fact, in the design community, there is a strong view that problems and solutions co-evolve
(Dorst, 2019; Dorst & Cross, 2001). Differences in naming and scope notwithstanding, most
descriptions begin with activities aiming to better understand what needs to be solved. This
phase often recommends the use of data collection techniques borrowed from ethnography
such as interviews and detailed observations. In particular, user focus is strongly emphasized
among researchers (Brown, 2008; Michlewski, 2008; Owen, 2007) when trying to “convert
need into demand” (Brown & Katz, 2009, p. 39). Empathizing with the user and therefore
developing a detailed understanding of the user supports the identification of hidden and latent
needs (Michlewski, 2008) and consequently creating better fitting solutions (Brown & Katz,
2009).
The second phase focuses on generative activities, to create solution options that may
address the identified problem. Numerous methods and tools have been proposed to help with
this process (Kumar, 2012). Finally, the third set of activities aims at selecting, merging, and
refining solution options, sometimes fragments, and testing them to explore their usefulness.
For this phase a variety of techniques is also available.
It is the transition from the first to the second phase (see shaded areas in Figure 13.1) where
in practice the often unexplained occurs. Somehow, out of the sea of un- and semi-structured
data from interviews, observations, secondary research, user contributions and own experi-
ences and personal and organizational values, a point of view emerges that in the best case
provides a well-chosen jump-off point from which subsequent solution generation activities
(ideation, creation, etc.) can tremendously benefit. It is this aspect of the design thinking
process, the framing of problem statements, which is the focus of our chapter. Also often
referred to as “synthesis” (Kolko, 2010), the act of transforming user insights into a problem
statement that is worth solving remains an act of (often intuitive and iterative) abstraction and
deduction until arriving at a satisfying state (Cramer-Peterson et al., 2019; Dorst, 2011; Kolko,
2010). Even expert designers often describe their point of arrival at a satisfying problem state-
ment as “I know it when I see it” (Tanner & Landay, 2019).
Interestingly, the design thinking literature offers only little support for the framing of
problem statements in terms of techniques and practices but integrates intuition as a useful
design practice (Martin, 2010). For example, design thinking suggests looking at the data
gathered and trying to derive journey maps, personas, and so-called “how might we?” ques-
tions (Beckman, 2020; Kolko, 2010; Micheli et al., 2019). That is why the formulation of good
problems is a challenge, especially for design thinking students, because they still have little
experience and intuition to fall back on. Hence, we want to elaborate on some perspectives
from design research that might serve students and teachers as support for answering the ques-
tion of whether they have arrived at a “good” problem or not.
WHAT MAKES A GOOD PROBLEM?
Problems differ in their complexity and solvability. At one end, there are simple, obvious,
or tame problems that typically exhibit a clear cause-and-effect relationship and have a right
answer, i.e., solutions already exist for these types of problems. At the other end of the
problem–difficulty spectrum lies the world of “wicked” or “chaotic” problems. Many big soci-
etal problems fall into this category (e.g., how to deal with a pandemic). They lack constraints,
exhibit no clear cause-and-effect relationships, and often appear in a turbulent and unknown
context (Buchanan, 1992; Snowden & Boone, 2007).
In this chapter, we focus on complex problems, where cause-and-effect relationships are
discoverable but not immediately apparent (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Although the totality of
problems is unknown at any given point in time, the bulk of problems that many organizations
face seems to appear in the middle of the difficulty spectrum as complex problems, espe-
cially well-suited for a design-inspired approach, because they deal with “known unknowns”
(Wrigley & Straker, 2017). To provide design thinkers with stronger support in the transition
phase from inspiration to ideation, i.e., to frame “better” problems, the following section
synthesizes the existing literature and distils four distinct perspectives that might be useful to
consider when solving complex problems.
PROBLEM SPACE
Facing a certain task or problem should entail identifying an adequate abstraction level
before searching for possible solutions (Kalogerakis et al., 2010). A problem definition that
is too narrow or specific reduces the number of possible solution options and runs the risk of
leaving out possible solution options at the very beginning of the problem-solving process
(Kalogerakis et al., 2010). For example, narrowing down an initial “long-distance travelling”
problem framing to “the buttons on the entertainment system on long-distance flights are too
small to handle” might only offer few directions to take when searching for novel solutions. On
the other hand, if the problem statement is too broad and unspecific, one faces a vast solution
space that makes the search very difficult, due to the availability of an almost endless number
of solution paths that could be pursued (Kotovsky & Simon, 1990; Newell & Simon, 1972).
For example, describing the long-distance traveller’s problem as “insufficient entertainment
programmes” might overwhelm especially novice design thinkers leaving them too much
space to tap into, even if the chance of creative outcomes increases (Kalogerakis et al., 2010).
Of course, one can constantly shift back and forth between the problem space and the solu-
tion space during design thinking, but sufficient narrowing of the problem space can signal the
next change into the solution space especially for design thinking novices. On the other hand,
if the team is stuck on the solution side, expanding the problem space again or increasing the
level of abstraction can make sense to get the project unstuck. In this way, a larger problem
space could provide new avenues of thought.
Thus, while we may not know exactly where the adequate level of abstraction lies in each
situation, our experience suggest that most novices start with a problem statement that is too
narrow. Therefore, we recommend starting with a problem statement that is slightly more
abstract than most find comfortable, before becoming more concrete, and, if necessary, raising
the abstraction level again. This iterative procedure can be supported by using methods such
as abstraction laddering, i.e., switching back and forth between a high degree of abstraction
and the most concrete problem statement possible. In this way, the novice can develop a better
understanding of which problem formulations might be too abstract and which ones might be
too narrow.
SOLUTION FOCUS
One important strategy for successfully managing the early stage of problem-solving is
“staving off solutions” (Bardwell, 1991) or avoiding “solution-mindedness” (Maier, 1958). It
responds to the human tendency of trying to create a solution too quickly, before investigating
what the problem really entails (Choo, 2014; Dery & Mock, 1985; Stadler, 2011). In business
practice, often people “converge” too early, resulting in creative developments that are rather
small evolutions, i.e., refinements of what is already existing. This tendency for converging
quickly is both a human trait and an often-observed organizational effect. Most people and
most organizations strive to reduce uncertainty as quickly as possible. The initial investiga-
tion of this phenomenon occurred in the context of group-level problem-solving where the
groups had been given the problem by their superiors. To reach high-quality decisions – and
manage anxiety about not doing so – superiors tend to be highly “solution-minded” and,
therefore, influence their subordinates to adopt the same mindset (Maier & Hoffman, 1960).
The inadequate focus on the problem statement might lead to the formulation of the problem
in terms of a solution that impedes generating alternatives and developing novel ways of
solving it (Bardwell, 1991; Dery & Mock, 1985; Spradlin, 2012). An example based on the
long-distance travel experience with a very high solution focus could be as follows: “People
who need silence during long-haul flights cannot rest when seated next to a family with young
children. By placing guests with the same interests in different areas of the aircraft, conflicts
can be reduced and potentially interested parties can exchange ideas with like-minded people”.
In this way, including a particular solution in the problem statement decreases the effectiveness
of problem-solving (Maier & Hoffman, 1960), and creates an obstacle in the problem-solving
process (Stadler, 2011). In contrast, efforts to counteract the tendency to instantly pursue an
obvious solution improve the quality of group problem-solving efforts (Maier & Solem, 1962).
But where do these solution ideas come from? When confronted with a customer problem to
be solved, developers and engineers often try to be efficient and search for solutions that can
be generated using existing components, often without thinking about the customer perspec-
tive. Hence, there is a risk that a solution focus would be adopted, from which it is no longer
possible, or at least harder, to break with in the solution space. Design thinking helps here,
because it includes interviews with customers to ensure that at least the user perspective is
included. However, it may also be that in these interviews, customers are proposing a particu-
lar solution that might impede creativity, because the customer might not be able to recognize
the entirety of technological possibilities and developments. There are plenty of examples that
illustrate that not always the customer or user knows what is best for innovation. Often cited
stories, such as Henry Ford’s remark that customers would have asked for faster horses instead
of cars, illuminate this phenomenon. That is one reason that can make it a challenging task for
design thinkers not to be overly influenced by proposed solutions during the design thinking
approach.
A phenomenon related to solution focus is “design fixation” (Jansson & Smith 1991), which
Crilly and Cardoso (2017) categorize as a cognitive bias. It connotes a designer’s tendency to
blindly adhere to existing concepts (e.g., previous solutions) and reluctance to use different
approaches to discovering and solving a design problem (Condoor & LaVoie, 2007; Crilly,
2015; Jansson & Smith, 1991). Chrysikou and Weisberg (2005) describe design fixation as a
“negative transfer from examples that may significantly affect problem-solving” (p. 1145).
Consequently, design fixation predetermines outcomes, limits creativity, and can result in
inferior solutions (Condoor & LaVoie, 2007; Jansson & Smith, 1991). The general opinion
within design-fixation research is that it constitutes a real problem in design practice (Crilly,
2015), and multiple studies show how pictorial and verbal sample solutions can impede crea-
tive performance (Chrysikou & Weisberg, 2005; Condoor & LaVoie, 2007; Jansson & Smith,
1991; Purcell & Gero, 1996).
For these reasons, it is important to focus on separating problem exploration from solution
generation, although both processes are mutually dependent. For example, when formulating
user insights or “how might we” questions, you should take care not to include reference
to existing or future solutions. Another way to move away from solution ideas is to use the
“5-why” method. This method works in such a way that you question the initial problem defi-
nition with regard to its relevance at least five times with the question “why?”. In this way you
achieve a deeper problem understanding, which is usually even more strongly oriented to the
user with his or her needs as the cause of the problem.
USER FOCUS
User focus is a key aspect of design (Dorst, 2015a, 2015b; Dreyfuss, 1955; Hekkert & van
Dijk, 2011; van der Bijl-Brouwer & Dorst, 2017), design thinking (Brown & Katz, 2009;
Meinel et al., 2020), and innovation management (Chesbrough, 2003; Gassmann, 2006;
Kelley & Littman, 2001; Meinel & Leifer, 2011; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), in which
gaining deep customer insight and applying strong human-centeredness are fundamental ele-
ments or principles for creating value. When problem-solvers “seek meaning” by identifying
and analysing needs and values, they investigate underlying themes of people the problem
situation affects, to better understand their motivations, behaviours, and needs (Dorst, 2015a).
Therefore, designers are encouraged to attend to the human dimension of the problem (Dorst,
2015a), an essential part of problem discovery and a designer’s problem-solving activities
(Dorst, 2011, 2015a, 2015b).
Dorst (2011, 2015b) also offers examples that show a deeper understanding of involvement
in a problem leading to new and potentially more satisfying solution directions. In one of his
case studies, designers were asked to solve the problem that an entertainment district had with
drunkenness, violence, and other minor criminal activities. In previous attempts, the problem
owner (local government) tried to solve these problems by improving security measures such
as increasing CCTV-surveillance and police presence, which did not improve public safety
and unfortunately led to a less comforting atmosphere through the extra visible security. By
investigating the users in this field (the party goers), designers realized that most of these
people were non-criminals who simply wished to have a good time but got frustrated as the
nights progressed due to long queues at bars and clubs or inadequate transportation options for
leaving this district at night. Looking through the lens of these users, designers reframed the
original problem into “how to improve the music festival experience”, which created multiple
viable solution paths for decreasing criminal and misconducted behaviour in the district. This
example shows that understanding people’s goals, motives, and behaviours constitutes a fruit-
ful source for creating new solutions (Hekkert & van Dijk, 2011). Applying a user-centred
approach to problem-solving, designers use observation, listening, and dialogue, to uncover
hidden needs and motivations (Michlewski, 2008). Designers also use storytelling in problem
statements to increase the problem-solver’s empathy (McGinley & Dong, 2011). Moreover,
a clear user focus also leads to solutions that users are more likely to adopt (Veryzer & Borja
de Mozota, 2005).
Including the user perspective explicitly in the problem statement can ensure that the team
will continue to focus on the customer in the subsequent phases as well. An example from the
long-distance travel perspective with strong user focus could be: “Otto, a retiree, is planning
a trip to America to visit his son living there. He is 72 years old, divorced, has two sons and
does not speak English, which makes travel planning and execution very challenging for him.”
Generally, you can think of lots of different users: Is it an individual or is it a group? Is it a spe-
cific niche group? Have I thought about whether the problem is also relevant for other users
and not just for the one I interviewed? And if so, how can we transfer this individual case to
a user group that is large enough so that tackling the problem is more worthwhile? In any case,
weaving the user closely into the problem statement aims for a more empathic solution finding
process. In contrast, “getting luggage safely and easily from A to B regardless of the means of
transportation”, is an example for a problem statement that does not explicitly include a user.
Without a user perspective being included in the problem statement, there is a high risk of
getting lost in technical solution options and rather being fixated on your own wants and needs.
Thus, both conceptual and moral arguments for a problem-statement focus on the user have
garnered empirical research support. Hence, we suggest focusing on the user throughout the
whole problem-solving process. First, key insights that you gain through user research should
be noted in a way that includes the concrete user or a specific user group, their wants and
needs, and their specific obstacles regarding the problem. Second, we suggest always includ-
ing the user in formulating the problem statement in the form of “how might we” questions.
Because user research often produces needs and insights from several different users, the chal-
lenge is often which of the users to focus on. For example, in an industrial context, the problem
of unexpected errors occurring on the machine may affect the machine builder, the machine
user, the programmer, and the end customer who buys the product produced by the machine.
In such situations of complex system interdependencies, we especially recommend design
thinking novices to focus on the user on whom they themselves have the strongest influence
and the chance of changing the situation seems highest. Starting from an initial solution,
further solutions can usually be added. Third, when generating solution options afterwards,
one should regularly ask yourself whether the generated and preferred ideas actually address
the user’s problem or whether you have already moved too far away from the initial problem
during the process.
ORIGINALITY
At the beginning of most design projects is the briefing process. In the briefing, the client
ideally discloses all relevant information the designers need to realize the planned project
(Hansen & Vanegas, 2003; Paton & Dorst, 2011). The briefing can also go beyond the client’s
initial project formulation and involve several interactions between the parties, to create a col-
lective comprehension of the project’s intention (so-called “framing” activities). When design-
ers are partially or totally uninvolved in the project formulation but face a strictly defined brief
in a way that the problem at hand already indicates the necessary solution, they are almost
unable to propose more actionable, more original frames. Interviewed designers label these
projects as “typical”, quite the opposite of “innovative” projects that actively involve designers
in shaping the problem statement, building a shared understanding of the project, and offering
generative potential (Paton & Dorst, 2011).
In fact, there is a strong relationship between originality, creativity, and problem-solving
(Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels, 1971). Researchers agree that originality embodies an integral
part of creativity itself (Runco & Charles, 1993). Hence, measuring creativity often includes
originality as a dimension. However, used in various contexts, the term originality often
appears as a synonym for novelty, individuality, or uniqueness, and describes a characteristic
of a problem, an idea, a solution, and/or even human beings. Originality (in ideas) requires two
attributes: rarity and imaginativeness (Dean et al., 2006). Thus, a problem’s originality should
be much more than just its novelty; something can be novel but not original at the same time
if it lacks generative potential.
Hence, the more original the problem is, the more likely it is that the discovery of solutions
to this problem can also lead to more original ideas. The more original the problem is, the more
likely it is that no one has looked at this problem before and no one has solved it yet – so it
contains untapped potential in the solution space. An example for an original problem state-
ment from the long-distance travel field might be “ensuring the uninterrupted and accurate
cooling of insulin during a daily travel/hiking of about 6–8 hours”. An unoriginal problem
instead would be one that lots of people easily come up with and problems that lots of people
encounter. Think, for example, of “boredom during the time periods between individual travel
stages”. A problem like this might be worth solving because it probably involves a large
market. But the question is: why hasn’t anyone solved it yet? Are the existing solutions suffi-
cient? Would competition be greater here because many others are also tackling this problem?
Arriving at an unoriginal problem could also be a sign that the problem space has not yet been
sufficiently explored and that you are still scratching the surface.
To increase the chance of arriving at more original problem statements, we suggest includ-
ing observations into your user research and not solely relying on interview feedback. Through
direct observations of the users’ behaviour in the problem situation, the observer can arrive at
insights that the users themselves are not able to articulate – insights that have greater genera-
tive potential. In addition, observations help to avoid misinterpretations that may arise during
interview situations. Similarly, we recommend introducing originality as an evaluation crite-
rion in the convergent decision-making process of settling on a problem with which to enter
idea generation. For this decision step, novices often use the classification of user insights or
problem statements in matrices along two axes or criteria such as the risk of inaction or the
strength of the user gain. The originality of a problem statement is also a suitable criterion in
this context and should be assessed by a team. Table 13.1 provides an overview of all four
perspectives that we propose to look at when framing problems during synthesis in design
thinking.
PROBLEM FRAMING: THE FUTURE PATH FOR DESIGN

(THINKING)?
In the previous section, we looked at problem framing, often referred to as synthesis in design
thinking, from different perspectives. We also discussed the different manifestations of these
perspectives and their significance for the design thinking process. In doing so, we have elab-
orated the perspectives based on the extant literature, especially the design literature. Hence,
we contribute to a better understanding of problem framing and, in particular, provide design
thinkers with suggestions and support in exactly the process step in which design thinking
literature has so far offered the least support.
Beyond that, it is becoming increasingly clear how digitalization is changing the innovation
process, for example by re-arranging tasks or combining and linking them along the value
chain (Marion & Fixson, 2021). Here, we want to focus on one development from the digital
world and its impact on problem definition: Artificial intelligence (AI).
Designers are already using AI technology along the design process. A recent overview
of relevant practical examples and application fields of AI in design thinking is provided by
Verganti et al. (2020). With the increasing possibilities offered by the integration of AI and
data science, various opportunities for integrating AI in the design thinking process exists.
In the inspiration phase, AI can help to sort large data sets and identify patterns, possibly
leading to understanding users through the pattern of their behaviour, perhaps even without
contacting them individually. Consider, for example, Stitch Fix, an online personal styling
Table 13.1 Framework of problem framing perspectives, exemplary literature, and

practical advice
Perspective Description Exemplary references Advice for design thinkers and novices
Problem Space The level of Brown (2008), Goel and Pirolli • Start with a problem statement that is slightly
abstractness. Is (1992), Jaarsveld et al. (2010), Newell more abstract than most find comfortable.
the problem space (1980), Simon and Newell (1971),
• Do abstraction laddering, i.e., switching back
narrow or broad? Is Welter et al. (2017)
and forth between a high degree of abstraction
the problem space
and the most concrete problem statement
domain-dependent?
seem possible.
Solution Focus Does the problem Bardwell (1991), Choo (2014), • Focus on separating problem exploration from
statement contain Chrysikou and Weisberg (2005), solution generation.
or hint at any Condoor and LaVoie (2007), Crilly
• Do not include reference to existing or future
solutions? Do these (2015), Dery and Mock (1985),
solutions.
hints limit the Jansson and Smith (1991), Luchins
creative process? (1942), Maier (1958), Maier and • Question your initial problem statement with
Hoffman (1960), Maier and Solem the 5-why method: ask yourself five times
(1962), Paton and Dorst (2011), “why?” (consecutively).
Purcell and Gero (1996), Spradlin
(2012), Stadler (2011)
User Focus Does the statement Evans (2011), Gralla et al. (2016), • Focus on the user throughout the whole
contain a specific McGinley and Dong (2011), Salunkhe problem-solving process.
user story? Is and Kadam (2018)
• Note your key insights in a way that includes
the statement
the concrete user or a specific user group,
written in an
their wants and needs, and their specific
empathy-enhancing
obstacles regarding the problem.
manner?
• Include the user in the problem statement in
form of how might we questions.
• When there is more than one interesting user

group, focus on the user on whom you have
the strongest influence and the chance of
changing the situation seems highest.
• When generating solution options afterwards,

ask yourself regularly whether the generated
and preferred ideas actually address the user’s
problem.
Originality The rarity and Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1971), • Include observations into your user research.
novelty. Does the Dean et al. (2006), Isaksen et al.
• Introduce originality as an evaluation criterion
problem statement (1993), Mackworth (1965), Runco
in the convergent decision-making processes.
occur frequently? and Charles (1993), Schaffhausen and
Does the statement Kowalewski (2016)
hold generative
potential? Does it
surprise?
service that uses recommendation algorithms and data science to personalize clothing based on
size, budget, and style preferences provided by the customer. Next, in the ideation phase, the
variety of design options and the speed with which different design options can be represented
is increased through AI (Lewrick, 2022). For example, approaches such as generative design
allow the exploration of much larger solution spaces via algorithms than human designers ever
could. Using the popular game “battleships” as an analogy, the former CEO of Autodesk, Carl
Bass, described this effect as follows: When you play battleships, you normally make point
estimates, by stating a letter–number combination, e.g., B4, indicating a specific position on
the agreed-upon battlefield. Stating a specific letter combination is running a local test, which
provides a binary response: either a hit (i.e., at least a part of a ship is there) or a miss (i.e., there
is no ship at this location). But what if, he posited, you could test all possible positions at once?
In practice, these generative design tools are used in complex designs tasks to find solutions
that are optimized for additive manufacturing processes by using the least amount of material.
Finally, in the implementation phase, AI or digital tools might be able to select more creative
or better solution options than humans would do.
Against this view, one could ask whether the introduction of AI into design thinking will
make designers obsolete just as photography has done this with most (realistic) painters.
The ideas and examples shown above indicate that some of the design (thinking) processes
can be replaced or at least supported by AI. These are especially the disembodied, cognitive
processes that are necessary for effective information processing in problem solving. But
complementary to these are the sense-making processes emerging from embodied practices
of designers. These practices are shaped by a designer’s cultural development and education
through studio culture (Kolb & Kolb, 2005) and are therefore hard to imitate. Hence, it is
exactly the transition phases, especially the one between inspiration and ideation, that require
too much of a designer’s sensibility to be replaced by AI. While AI might be able to gather
and structure information on a user, it is (so far) not capable of replicating the experiential
and cultural aspects that underlie the creative practice of designing (Rylander Eklund et al.,
2021). Therefore, we share Verganti et al.’s (2020) view, who predict a change in the role of
the designer in terms of a greater focus of human design activities on problem-finding and
problem-formulation processes instead of the so-far focus on problem-solving processes.
But what does the integration of AI in design thinking mean for students learning how to
do design thinking? First, design students should be provided with more support in the tran-
sition phase of between inspiration and ideation, for example with a checklist regarding the
different perspectives that can be taken as presented in this book chapter. This checklist might
help them to resist converging too early, and instead reveal information on the problem that
was otherwise hidden from them. This novel and unexpected information may help design
students arrive at a problem formulation that they find (more) worth solving and that an
algorithm may find original solutions for. Second, students could be provided with large data
and algorithm sets they could tinker with. For example, you could experiment with different
problem formulations and see how different algorithms arrive at different possible solution
spaces. In other words, such a simulation would allow students to explore the relationship
between their variations in problem statements, and the solution generating capability of an
AI system. Third, students should be provided with support in the use of digital technologies
during design thinking. For example, the use of augmented and virtual reality technologies can
make a unique contribution when design thinkers put themselves in the user’s shoes during
information gathering and synthesis. For example, an immersive and spatialized experience
of a problem situation, especially through virtual reality technology helps to gain a deeper
understanding of particularly complex problems (Earle & Leyva-de la Hiz, 2020). Through
virtual experiences, designers increase their emotional engagement with their work which, in
turn, increases the quality of a design (Rieuf et al., 2017). In this way, designers might arrive
at more original problems that they would not otherwise have imagined.
Although research on the role of AI for problem framing is still in its infancy and practical
examples remain scarce, this technological development promises great potential for design-
ers. If AI and other digital technologies become more like a force multiplier – for better or
worse outcomes – then the starting direction becomes increasingly important. Because of its
leverage function, problem framing, when done well, has the potential to change the world.
Our four perspectives allow us to assess the general quality of the problem frames, and the
outcome of problem framing activities. Future research should investigate which processes
support directionally to arrive at higher value problem statements.
REFERENCES
Bardwell, L. V. (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving.
Environmental Management, 15(5), 603–612.
Beckman, S. L. (2020). To frame or reframe: Where might design thinking research go next? California
Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking.
California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.
Beverland, M. B., Wilner, S. J., & Micheli, P. (2015). Reconciling the tension between consistency
and relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(5), 589–609.
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation. HarperCollins.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The challenges of using design thinking in industry–
experiences from five large firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 344–362.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.
Choo, A. S. (2014). Defining problems fast and slow: The u-shaped effect of problem definition time on
project duration. Production and Operations, 23(8), 1462–1479.
Chrysikou, E. G., & Weisberg, R. W. (2005). Following the wrong footsteps: Fixation effects of pictorial
examples in a design problem-solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 31(5), 1134–1148.
Condoor, S., & LaVoie, D. (2007). Design fixation: A cognitive model. DS 42: Proceedings of ICED
2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France.
Cramer-Petersen, C. L., Christensen, B. T., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2019). Empirically analysing
design reasoning patterns: Abductive–deductive reasoning patterns dominate design idea generation.
Crilly, N. (2015). Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert
designers. Design Studies, 38, 54–91.
Crilly, N., & Cardoso, C. (2017). Where next for research on fixation, inspiration and creativity in
design? Design Studies, 50, 1–38.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behaviour and the originality of
creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(1), 47–52.
Dean, D. L., Hender, J., Rodgers, T., & Santanen, E. (2006). Identifying good ideas: Constructs and
scales for idea evaluation. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 7(10), 646–699.
Dery, D., & Mock, T. J. (1985). Information support systems for problem solving. Decision Support
Systems, 1(2), 103–109.
Dorst, K. (2015a). Frame creation and design in the expanded field. She Ji: The Journal of Design,
Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 22–33.
Dorst, K. (2015b). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.
Dorst, K. (2019). Co-evolution and emergence in design. Design Studies 65, 60–77.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution.
Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
Dreyfuss, H. (1955). Designing for people. Simon and Schuster.
Earle, A. G., & Leyva-de la Hiz, D. I. (2021). The wicked problem of teaching about wicked problems:
Design thinking and emerging technologies in sustainability education. Management Learning, 52(5),
581–603.
Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and frame-
work for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274–2306.
Evans, M. (2011). Empathizing with the future: Creating next-next generation products and services. The
Design Journal, 14(2), 231–252.
Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. R&D Management,
36(3), 223–228.
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.
Gralla, E., Goentzel, J., & Fine, C. (2016). Problem formulation and solution mechanisms: A behavioral
study of humanitarian transportation planning. Production and Operations Management, 25(1),
22–35.
Hansen, K. L., & Vanegas, J. A. (2003). Improving design quality through briefing automation. Building
Research & Information, 31(5), 379–386.
Hekkert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2011). Vision in design: A guidebook for innovators. BIS Publishers.
Isaksen, S. G., Puccio, G. J., & Treffinger, D. J. (1993). An ecological approach to creativity research:
Profiling for creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149–170.
Jaarsveld, S., Lachmann, T., Hamel, R., & Leeuwen, C. V. (2010). Solving and creating raven progres-
sive matrices: Reasoning in well-and ill-defined problem spaces. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3),
304–319.
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.
Jen, N. (2018). Design thinking is B.S., Retrieved from: https://www.fastcompany.com/90166804/design
-thinking-is-b-s
possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146.
Kalogerakis, K., Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies:
Experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
27(3), 418–436.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). Art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading
design firm. Currency.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning
in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(2), 193–212.
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues,
26(1), 15–28.
Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H. A. (1990). What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the
problem space of difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 143–183.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organiza-
tion. John Wiley & Sons.
Lewrick, M. (2022). The hybrid model: Combination of big data analytics and design thinking. In Design
thinking for software engineering (pp. 73–84). Cham: Springer.
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers.
Columbia University Press.
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 54(6).
Luchs, M. G. (2015). A brief introduction to design thinking. In M.G. Luchs, K. S. Swam, & A. Griffin
(Eds), Design thinking. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mackworth, N. H. (1965). Originality. American Psychologist, 20(1), 51–66.
Maier, N. R. F. (1958). The appraisal interview: Objectives, methods, and skills. John Wiley & Sons.
Maier, N. R. F., & Hoffman, L. R. (1960). Quality of first and second solutions in group problem solving.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 44(4), 278–283.
Maier, N. R. F., & Solem, A. R. (1962). Improving solutions by turning choice situations into problems.
Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 151–157.
Marion, T. J., & Fixson, S. K. (2021). The transformation of the innovation process: How digital tools
are changing work, collaboration, and organizations in new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 38(1), 192–215.
Martin, R. (2010). Design thinking: Achieving insights via the “knowledge funnel”. Strategy &
Leadership, 38(2), 37–41.
Martin, R., & Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive
advantage. Harvard Business Press.
Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking research. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds).
Design thinking: Understand – improve – apply (pp. xiii–xxi). Springer.
Meinel, M., Eismann, T. T., Baccarella, C. V., Fixson, S. K., & Voigt, K. I. (2020). Does applying design
thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimen-
tal comparison study. European Management Journal, 38(4), 661–671.
McGinley, C., & Dong, H. (2011). Designing with information and empathy: Delivering human informa-
tion to designers. The Design Journal, 14(2), 187–206.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking:
36(2), 124–148.
Michlewski, K. (2008). Uncovering design attitude: Inside the culture of designers. Organization
Studies, 29(3), 373–392.
Newell, A. (1980). Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: The problem space as a funda-
mental category. Attention and Performance, VIII, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–27.
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6),
573–587.
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4), 363–383.
Rieuf, V., Bouchard, C., Meyrueis, V., & Omhover, J. F. (2017). Emotional activity in early immersive
design: Sketches and moodboards in virtual reality. Design Studies, 48, 43–75.
Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of
creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537–546.
Rylander Eklund, A., Navarro Aguiar, U., & Amacker, A. (2021). Design thinking as sensemaking—
Developing a pragmatist theory of practice to (re)introduce sensibility. Journal of Product Innovation
Management.
Salunkhe, S., & Kadam, S. (2018). Design thinking: An approach for bridging the gap between industry
and academics. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management, 9(9), 1–7.
Schaffhausen, C. R., & Kowalewski, T. M. (2016). Assessing quality of unmet user needs: Effects of
need statement characteristics. Design Studies, 44, 1–27.
Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The
application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30, 19–33.
Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American
Psychologist, 26(2), 145–159.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business
Review, 85(11), 68.
Spradlin, D. (2012). Are you solving the right problem? Most firms aren’t, and that undermines their
innovation efforts. Harvard Business Review, 90(9), 84–93.
Stadler, C. J. (2011). How innovation traits in members of advertising agency teams propel the creative
process: The professional opinion (Published thesis). University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Tanner, K., & Landay, J. (2019). “I Know It When I See It”: How Experts and Novices Recognize Good
Design. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 249–266). Springer, Cham.
Van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., & Dorst, K. (2017). Advancing the strategic impact of human-centred design.
Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., & Iansiti, M. (2020). Innovation and design in the age of artificial intel-
ligence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 212–227.
Veryzer, R. W., & Borja de Mozota, B. (2005). The impact of user-oriented design on new product devel-
opment: An examination of fundamental relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
22(2), 128–143.
Vinsel, L. (2017). Design thinking is kind of like syphilis — it’s contagious and rots your brains.
Retrieved from: https://sts-news.medium.com/design-thinking-is-kind-of-like-syphilis-its-contagious
-and-rots-your-brains-842ed078af29
Welter, M. M., Jaarsveld, S., & Lachmann, T. (2017). Problem space matters: The development of
creativity and intelligence in primary school children. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 125–132.
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374–385.
14. Factor structure, validity, and reliability of an
instrument for assessing design thinking
Elena Novak and Ilker Soyturk
INTRODUCTION
A recent survey of business leaders from around the world lists creativity as one of the top skills
for tomorrow’s workforce and calls for schools to invest more time and education in this skill
development (Dell, 2021). Many educators and policymakers consider creativity and innova-
tion among critical 21st-century thinking skills. Nevertheless, practising these skills in a K-12
classroom remains a challenging task due to insufficient emphasis of these skills in today’s
curricula and lack of appropriate educator training and resources (Adobe, 2018). Several
prominent researchers have argued that teacher preparation programmes should devote more
attention to enhancing their graduates’ creativity and design thinking (DT) skills, because DT
can help teachers think more creatively about diverse, multifaceted, human-centred educa-
tional problems that require non-linear, complex solutions on a day-to-day basis (Henriksen et
al., 2017; Mishra & Mehta, 2017).
DT originated in engineering and design professions as a framework for supporting an
iterative and interactive process where designers “experiment, create and prototype models,
gather feedback, and redesign” (Razzouk & Shute, 2012, p. 330). Research in this area focused
primarily on the cognitive processes that novice designers apply to solve design challenges as
compared with experienced designers (e.g., Nagai & Noguchi, 2003; Owen, 2007; Stempfle
& Badke-Schaube, 2002). Recent research has extended the application of DT to non-design
professions as an approach for developing an individual’s confidence to think and act crea-
tively (Wrigley & Straker, 2017). As a result, DT has been closely associated with innovation
and creativity, as an increasingly practised approach for improving communication, innova-
tiveness, and success (Cross, 2007; Royalty et al., 2014). It is considered a cognitive style
(Kimbell, 2011) or a third way of thinking that is different from the humanities and sciences,
due to “extensive experimentation and exploration resulting from an iterative process”
(Hokanson & Nyboer, 2018, p. 1). More broadly, it is grounded in a philosophy of design
that is different from other formulations of philosophy, such as a philosophy of science, for
example, because a philosophy of design has different aims, e.g., use creativity to create some-
thing innovative, make an intentional change (Nelson & Stolterman, 2013).
A recent literature review on DT highlighted a lack of research that examines the impact
of DT on organizational and individual performance as well as assessments of DT skills
(Micheli et al., 2019). One of the reasons for the scarcity of research in this area is a lack of
validated measures that assess DT skills. Moreover, a large body of research examined DT
246
Factor structure, validity, and reliability of an instrument for assessing design thinking 247
in engineering, design, and business professions (Magistretti et al., 2021; Nakata & Hwang,
2020; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). Considerably less research examined DT in K-12 and teacher
education. To address these research gaps, this study (1) examined DT in prospective teachers
using Royalty et al.’s (2014) scale that measures the outcome of teaching DT, hence referred to
as the Design Thinking Scale (DTS), and (2) explored the DTS’s factor structure, validity, and
reliability. The DTS is an 11 items five-point Likert scale that asks participants how confident
they are that they can exhibit various behaviours related to DT. However, the scale has not
been validated and its underlying factors are yet to be explored.
DESIGN THINKING MINDSET
DT is viewed as both a mindset and a process or a set of tools (Groeger et al., 2019; Wrigley
& Straker, 2017). As a process and a set of tools, DT has been applied to solve “wicked
problems” that require designers to solve ill-defined challenges (Buchanan, 1992). A typical
DT process involves empathizing with end users, defining the problem, brainstorming radical
ideas, prototyping, testing to refine the solution and collect data, and assessing project work
(Stanford d.school, 2010). As a mindset, DT entails the underlying values, cognition, and
behaviours that influence organizational culture and people’s beliefs about innovativeness and
creativity (Groeger et al., 2019). The “design state of mind” (Beverland et al., 2017) is rooted
in the fixed and growth mindset dichotomy (Dweck, 2012) that explains how an individual’s
ability to innovate and think creatively connects to their mindset and not necessarily to the
employed DT processes and tools, because it is the mindset that is critical for achieving desired
innovation objectives (Liedtka, 2011).
A vast majority of DT literature has focused on the design thinking processes, tools, and
methods as a way of making “the practices of designers accessible and meaningful to man-
agers” (Johansson-Skoldberg et al., 2013, p. 128). However, equating DT with a skillset or
toolset without understanding the DT mindsets (nuances of applying and practising DT) has
resulted in DT often being misrepresented, demonstrating very little evidence of success
(Collins, 2013; Howard et al. 2015; Nussbaum, 2011). Literature on DT as a mindset refers
to attitudes, sensibilities, or stances that underpin a professional approach to design thinking.
Although, DT researchers and professional designers agree that design mindset plays a critical
role in DT, the literature on how design mindset is developed and applied is limited (Howard
et al., 2015).
Several attempts have been made to conceptualize attributes of a DT mindset using a variety
of research approaches. For instance, Carlgren et al. (2016) identified three major dimensions
of DT (i.e., principles/mindsets, practices, and techniques) based on 61 interviews with com-
panies that have extensive experience applying DT. Russo (2016) conducted a comprehensive
analysis of 70 articles to investigate DT characteristics. The analysis revealed 17 commonly
cited characteristics of DT that were broadly classified as a mindset, process, method, and
attitude. Schweitzer et al. (2016) identified 11 characteristics of a DT mindset based on inter-
views with innovation managers: (1) empathetic towards people’s needs and context; (2) col-
laboratively geared and embracing diversity; (3) inquisitive and open to new perspectives and
learning; (4) mindful of process and thinking modes; (5) experiential intelligence; (6) taking
action deliberately and overtly; (7) consciously creative; (8) accepting of uncertainty and
open to risk; (9) modelling behaviour; (10) desire and determination to make a difference; and
Table 14.1 Principles of design thinking education
Human-centred Design thinking is a human-centred process. The focus is on making people the source of inspiration and
direction for solving design challenges.
Mindful of process A critical mindset in design thinking is being “mindful of process” or having metacognitive awareness.
Empathy Empathy is the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts
or attitudes of others. Empathy develops through a process “needfinding” in which one focuses on
discovering peoples’ explicit and implicit needs.
Culture of The mindset of creating and maintaining a “culture of prototyping” focuses on being highly experimental,
prototyping building to think, and engaging people with artefacts.
Show don’t tell As a mindset, “show don’t tell” takes traditional visualization one step further, as it includes sketching
and traditional prototyping, digital communication and storytelling.
Bias toward action “Bias toward action” is a focus on action-oriented behaviour rather than
discussion-based work. A “bias toward action” mindset utilizes all modalities of learning.
Radical collaboration This mindset is built upon the idea that radically diverse multidisciplinary teams will lead to greater
innovations than teams that come from the same discipline. Examining and confronting team dynamics is
an essential component.
Source: Rauth et al., 2010.
(11) critically questioning. Stanford University’s Design School Bootcamp Bootleg (Stanford
d.school, 2010) mentions the following seven mindsets: human-centred design, being mindful
of the process, empathy, a culture of prototyping, show don’t tell, bias toward action, and
radical collaboration. These mindsets were adapted from Rauth et al.’s (2010) seven basic
principles of design thinking education (Table 14.1). However, there is no information about
how these principles were developed.
Overall, despite the variety of different research approaches, settings, and target audiences
used to study DT characteristics, the literature provides quite consistent findings regarding the
commonly cited characteristics of a DT mindset. These characteristics reveal DT scholars’
efforts to translate cognitive processes involved in DT into observable behaviours.
MODELS FOR TEACHING DESIGN THINKING
The recent increased interest in DT as an approach for supporting innovation and success in
business and industry has drawn attention to DT from non-design communities. For instance,
the d.school at Stanford University and the d.school at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Germany
are among the leading institutions in the field that work with students from all disciplines
to enhance their creativity and innovation through a design process (Royalty et al., 2014).
They use a design thinking framework to increase students’ creative confidence (Kelley &
Kelley, 2013), which is believed can support students’ ability to act and think creatively.
The concept of creative confidence is rooted in Bandura’s (1994) work on self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy reflects an individual’s belief in their ability to succeed in a particular domain
(Bandura, 1994). In DT education, the domain can be viewed as creative problem-solving.
According to Bandura (1982), self-efficacy is part of a broader construct, agency – a means by
which “people can effect change in themselves and their situations through their own efforts”
(p. 1175). Agency involves beliefs about the world, cognitive, behavioural and social states,
physical settings, context and other factors. Royalty et al. (2014) view creative agency as
“individuals’ capacity to effect change in themselves and their situations to support successful
creative problem-solving” (p. 82).
Several models and frameworks were proposed for teaching DT. For instance, Rauth et al.’s
(2010) model for teaching creative confidence (Figure 14.1) postulates that repeated practice
of DT fosters the development of design mindsets and processes. Students become more con-
fident in their creative problem-solving and ability to act with creative confidence:
Different competencies are developed, such as prototyping skills, emotional skills, capability of
adopting perspectives, empathy and a certain mindset. The development of these creative compe-
tencies culminates in the acquisition of creative confidence, which assures the students of their own
ability of acting and thinking creatively. (Rauth et al., 2010, p. 7)
The model suggests a hierarchy of skills and competencies as a series of steps that lead to the
development of creative confidence, which is the goal of DT education.
Source: Adapted from Rauth et al., 2010.
Figure 14.1 Model of creative confidence
In contrast to Rauth et al.’s (2010) hierarchical approach, Nelson and Stolterman (2013)
used a quadrant with dichotomies to represent skills and competencies that are foundational
to design learning. They view design learning across four domains: (a) design character,
(b) design thinking, (c) design knowing, and (d) design action or praxis (Figure 14.2a).
These four domains correspond to the four design competency sets that are essential in the
process of becoming a designer: (i) mindset, (ii) knowledge set, (iii) skillset, and (iv) toolset
(Figure 14.2b). Figure 14.2 demonstrates the connections between the competency sets and
design domains. Design character and design thinking are manifested through mindsets and
knowledge sets, while design knowing and design action are manifested through skillsets and
toolsets.
Nelson and Stolterman (2013) argued that design knowledge and design knowing cannot
be captured using typical knowledge hierarchies that represent knowledge as an outcome of
training or learning (e.g., Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of learning, Russell Ackoff’s (1989)
knowledge hierarchy), because “wise action and not just evaluated understanding is a demon-
stration of design wisdom” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2013, p. 229). They view the outcome of
design education as being “a process of managing competency sets that are interrelated among
the quadrants formed by the crossing axis of familiar dichotomies such as concrete reality and
abstract thinking, and the individual contrasted to social collectives” (Nelson & Stolterman,
2013, pp. 229–230; Figure 14.3). Nelson and Stolterman’s (2013) hierarchy of design-learning
outcomes presents the following progression: design capacity (facts, skills, understandings),
confidence (do/act – create change), capability (make/produce – excellence), competence (to
learn – to not know, to know), courage (creative and innovative), connection (interrelated and
interrelating), and character (personal wholeness). Thus, for instance, design capacity is valu-
able only if a designer has the confidence to act. The competence to learn in designing matters
only if the designer has the courage to be innovative and creative. This hierarchy suggests that
DT mindset is foundational for learning design skills, facts, and tools.
Source: Adapted from Nelson and Stolterman, 2013.
Figure 14.2 Interconnections of DT domains and sets
Despite these differences, Rauth et al.’s (2010) and Nelson and Stolterman’s (2013) models
share many similarities. For instance, both models identify mindset, DT skills, and methods/
tools among the essential design competency sets. In addition, both models view mindset as
a more complex competency set than the skillset in terms of knowledge acquisition, as mindset
is inherently more abstract than a concrete skillset. At the same time, Nelson and Stolterman
(2013) cautioned that their schemas (Figures 14.2 and 14.3) are not enough for explaining
Source: Adapted from Nelson and Stolterman, 2013.
Figure 14.3 Mediation of DT sets and the process of establishing and maintaining design
competency sets
design expertise because a designer’s knowledge is influenced by numerous external factors

such as predispositions, aptitude, environment, societal norms, laws, clients, and stakeholders.
More recently, Wrigley and Straker (2017) proposed the Educational Design Ladder to guide
the learning process of Design Thinking in Design and Business fields. The Educational
Design Ladder (Figure 14.4) was developed based on a review of 51 courses on Design
Thinking as well as various academic programmes centred on creativity and innovation from
28 universities around the world. The analysis of the content being taught in these courses as
well as how it was taught in terms of assessments and instructional approaches revealed the
following five themes: “(i) theories, methods and philosophies, (ii) product focus, (iii) design
management, (iv) business management, and (v) professional development” (p. 377). These
themes represent a progression in Design Thinking knowledge and therefore can be viewed
as “pedagogical stages in the development of Design Thinking” (p. 379). Wrigley and Straker
(2017) combined the identified themes with Biggs’ SOLO taxonomy (the Structure of the
Observed Learning Outcome; Biggs, 1996) to provide a hierarchical framework for designing
a curriculum that integrates Design Thinking and Business across the five stages of DT. The
Educational Design Ladder model offers an approach for developing a multi-disciplinary cur-
riculum in DT. However, it is unclear to which extent the model can be applied in non-business
fields such as education, for example.
Source: Adapted from Wrigley and Straker, 2017.
Figure 14.4 Educational design ladder pedagogy

MEASURING OUTCOMES OF TEACHING DESIGN THINKING
Despite the growing popularity of integrating DT in non-design fields, little is known about
how the acquisition of DT skills can be assessed (Micheli et al., 2019). Most of the research in
this area is primarily qualitative.
An initial quantitative attempt to measure the outcomes of teaching DT was undertaken by
Royalty et al. (2014) who conducted a series of surveys and interviews to identify key DT
competencies in successful d.school alumni (The Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford
University). These studies led to the development of the Design Thinking Scale (DTS), val-
idation of which is the focus of the present study. The DTS includes 11 DT competencies in
the area of creative problem-solving such as creative idea sourcing, comfort with ambiguity,
openness, building creating environments, anti-perfectionism, prototyping, perseverance
after failure, creativity facilitation in others, mastery and knowledge of creative process, and
successful problem-solving. Our examination of the literature on a DT mindset suggests that
these DT competencies are reminiscent of those identified in the extant literature (Carlgren et
al., 2016; Russo, 2016; Schweitzer et al., 2016), thus suggesting the DTS’s DT competencies
can be found in various settings, audiences, and domains of practice.
RESEARCH GOALS
We collected responses of prospective teachers to a battery of assessments of DT, crea-

tivity, and innovation to examine the factor structure, validity, and reliability of the DTS.
Specifically, two studies were conducted to pursue the following research goals:
1. Examine the DTS’ factor structure using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA; Study I).
2. Examine the DTS’ internal consistency and reliability (Study I&II).
3. Confirm the EFA results using Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA; Study II).
4. Examine aspects of the DTS’ validity:
i. Convergent validity was examined by correlating DT with Creative Achievement
(Carson et al., 2005) and Innovation scores (Chen et al., 2017). Positive associations
of DT with Creative Achievement and Innovation scores were hypothesized (Study
II).
ii. Discriminant validity: One of the common variables that may threaten to confound
self-reporting measures such as DT is social desirability bias, i.e., participants’
socially desirable responses to questions. To examine the extent to which participants
are likely to provide socially desirable responses to the DTS items, Marlowe–Crowne
Social Desirability scores (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) were correlated with DT
scores (Study II).
STUDY I: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS AND INTERNAL

CONSISTENCY OF THE DTS
The goal of the first study was to examine the DTS’s factor structure using EFA. In addition,
it examined the DTS’s internal consistency.
Method
Participants and procedures

Undergraduate students majoring in education (N = 191; 185 females, six males; M age =
21.75, SD = 2.26) from a large mid-western university in the United States participated in
the study. Participants were recruited from undergraduate Science Methods and Educational
Technology courses. They completed a background questionnaire (age, gender, educational
background, etc.) and the DTS online for research credit participation in their course.
Design thinking scale (Royalty et al., 2014)

The original DTS includes 11 five-point Likert-type items that gauge respondents’ beliefs
about their ability to act with creative confidence. The response categories include: “Not at all
confident” (1), “A little confident” (2), “Moderately confident” (3), “Very confident” (4), and
“Completely confident” (5). Before administering the instrument to the study participants, we
conducted several informal interviews with prospective teachers and their course instructors
to get a better understanding of how they interpret the items and the scale relevancy to teacher
education. Based on the interviews, Item 3 wording (“Change the definition of a problem you
are working on”) was changed to “Consider a problem from different perspectives”. DT scores
were calculated by averaging the 11 items of the scale. The minimum possible score was 1 and
the maximum possible score was 5. Table 14.2 presents descriptive statistics of the 11 DTS
items.
Data analysis
The factor structure of the DTS was investigated using EFA, which helps determine how items
are related to constructs if a theory model is not provided (Brown, 2006; Thompson, 2004).
Principal Axis Factoring (PAF; Schumacker & Lomax, 2010) along with Direct Oblimin (DO)
rotation was used in EFA. Internal Consistency of the factors was measured using Coefficient
Alphas for each factor and the total scale.
Results
Factor structure
After screening the data and verifying relevant assumptions, the potential factor structure
of the DTS was examined using EFA with PAF extraction with DO rotation. The Kaiser’s
criterion for the eigenvalue greater-than-one rule and the scree plot (Figure 14.5) suggested
a two-factor solution for the DTS (Table 14.3). The first factor included five items (#4, #8, #9,
#10, #11) that can be viewed as Creative Agency – an “individual’s capacity to effect change
in themselves and their situations to support successful creative problem-solving” (Royalty
et al., 2014, p. 82). The second factor included five items (#2, #3, #5, #6, #7) that describe
Design Dispositions such as being mindful of the design process, a culture of prototyping,
action-oriented behaviours, and collaboration (Rauth et al., 2010). Item #1 was excluded
because it did not fit the meaning of Factor 2. These factor loadings are consistent with the
theoretical perspectives underlying the DT construct (Rauth et al., 2010; Royalty et al., 2019).
Table 14.2 Descriptive statistics for the design thinking scale items (N = 186)
How confident are you that you could… M SD

1. Find sources of creative inspiration not obviously related to a given problem. 2.89 0.935
2. Effectively work on a problem that does not have an obvious solution. 2.89 0.908
3. Consider a problem from different perspectives. 3.68 0.826
4. Shape or change your external environment to help you be more creative. 3.43 0.899
5. Share your work with others before it is finished. 3.66 1.024
6. Try an approach to a problem that may not be the final or best solution. 3.32 0.942
7. Continue to work on a problem after experiencing a significant failure. 3.30 1.052
8. Help others be more creative. 3.86 0.945
9. Identify and implement ways to enhance your own creativity. 3.60 0.966
10. Explicitly define or describe your creative process. 3.23 1.025
11. Solve problems in ways that others would consider creative. 3.33 1.022
Note: SD = Standard deviation.
Table 14.3 Final exploratory factor analysis for the DTS with factor loadings (10 items)
Factors
Items
1 2
9. Identify and implement ways to enhance your own creativity. 0.948
11. Solve problems in ways that others would consider creative. 0.820
8. Help others be more creative. 0.780
10. Explicitly define or describe your creative process. 0.726
4. Shape or change your external environment to help you be more creative. 0.581
6. Try an approach to a problem that may not be the final or best solution. 0.878
5. Share your work with others before it is finished. 0.690
7. Continue to work on a problem after experiencing a significant failure. 0.559
2. Effectively work on a problem that does not have an obvious solution. 0.402
3. Consider a problem from different perspectives. 0.355 0.357
Note. Factor 1 = Creative Agency; Factor 2 = Design Dispositions
Internal consistency
The DTS and its two sub-scales had a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s
αCreativeAgency = 0.884; Cronbach’s αDesignDispositions = 0.807, Cronbach’s αDTS = 0.882).
Discussion
The DTS factor structure suggests that DT skills as assessed by the DTS can be viewed along
two dimensions: Design Dispositions and Creativity Agency. Using an EFA, five DTS items
Figure 14.5 Scree plot for the DTS
are loaded on the Creative Agency factor and the other five DTS items loaded on the Design
Dispositions factor.
The Design Dispositions subscale includes items that describe how people approach
work on design-led innovations. These design dispositions reflect the basic principles of DT
education (Rauth et al., 2010) and are similar to Schweitzer et al.’s (2016) attributes of a DT
mindset. For example, Item 10 (Share your work with others before it is finished) implies
working with others and gathering feedback, which is similar to Schweitzer et al.’s (2016)
DT mindsets of empathy, collaboration, and openness to new perspectives. Item 6 (Try an
approach to a problem that may not be the final or best solution) describes what Schweitzer et
al. (2016) define as an experiential intelligence mindset – a preference for experimenting with
different ideas and transforming “tangible ideas into tangible outcomes” (Schweitzer et al.,
2016, p. 79). Item 7 (Continue to work on a problem after experiencing a significant failure)
and Item 2 (Effectively work on a problem that does not have an obvious solution) reflect
a mindset of accepting uncertainty and being open to risk (Schweitzer et al., 2016) as well
as a mindset of a culture of prototyping and action-oriented behaviour (Rauth et al., 2010).
Designers often need to create solutions for a future that is different from the present. Tasks
like these require an ability to embrace ambiguity and the risk of failure.
The DTS’s Creative Agency dimension focuses on the conscious creative mindset that
highlights an understanding of a creative process and the work one does to produce innovative
ideas and solutions (Schweitzer et al., 2016). In order for people to have a creative agency,
they need to understand what it takes to be creative, as well as conditions and processes that
enable creativity in themselves and others (Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Royalty et al., 2014;
Schweitzer et al., 2016). Sample items in this subscale include “Identify and implement ways
to enhance your own creativity”, “Help others be more creative”, “Explicitly define or describe
your creative process,” and “Shape or change your external environment to help you be more
creative”.
STUDY II: CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS, VALIDITY,

AND TEST–RETEST RELIABILITY OF THE DTS
The goal of Study II was threefold. First, we investigated whether a confirmatory factor anal-
ysis (CFA) supported the two-factor solution identified in Study I. Second, we examined the
DTS’s convergent validity by correlating DT with Creative Achievement (Carson et al., 2005)
and Innovation scores (Chen et al., 2017), and the DTS’s discriminant validity by correlating
DT with Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability scores (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Third, we
explored the DTS’s test–retest reliability.
Method
Participants and procedures

Education majors (N = 179; 154 females, 25 males; M age = 20.94, SD = 3.30) enrolled in
an undergraduate Educational Technology course in the same mid-western university in the
United States participated in Study II that took place in the following semester after Study I.
Participants completed a series of online questionnaires: (1) background questionnaire, (2)
DTS (Royalty et al., 2014), (3) Creative Achievement (Carson et al., 2005), (4) Innovation
Stance (Chen et al., 2017), and (5) Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD;
Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Students received course credit for participating in the study.
Two weeks later, a sub-sample of 27 students (one male; 26 females) completed the DTS
again (post-test) for additional course credit. The pre- and post-test took place before and after
one of the course projects that required students to create a Scratch story – a web-based tool
for teaching coding and computational skills in K-12 education.
Instruments
Design Thinking Scale (Royalty et al., 2014): Ten DTS items that were retained after con-
ducting the EFA in Study I were used to assess participants’ DT. DT scores were calculated
by averaging the 10 items of the scale. The minimum possible score was 1 and the maximum
possible score was 5.
Creative Achievement questionnaire (Carson et al., 2005) is a self-report measure that assesses
creative personality across 10 artistic and scientific domains. The participants were asked to
mark all items describing their accomplishments. The items in each domain are weighted from
0 to 7. A total creative achievement score was calculated by summing all items (minimum
score = 0, maximum score = 47).
Innovation Stance (Chen et al., 2017) includes 12 four-point Likert-style items that ask partic-
ipants to rate their comfort taking risks, appreciation of new ideas, entrepreneurial spirit, and
desire to do something different or unique. Innovation scores were calculated by averaging the
12 items (minimum score = 0, maximum score = 4).
Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). A short
version of the MCSD (Reynolds, 1982) was used in the present study. It included 13 items
that assessed participants’ tendency to tailor their responses to appear socially acceptable. The
items are keyed True (Coded 1) or False (Coded 2) to describe either very socially desirable
but untrue for most people or very socially undesirable but very common behaviours. The
scale includes five reversely coded items (i.e., Items 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13); the range of total
scores is between 13 and 26.
Data analysis
CFA was conducted to examine whether the hypothesized model of factors in EFA was related
to the set of items, and whether the sample confirms the model (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010).
Chi-square, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.06 or less, standardized
root mean residual (SRMR) of 0.08 or less, and comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis
index (TLI) greater than 0.90 and 0.95, respectively, were used for model testing (Bentler,
1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999). A chi-square difference test was used for comparison across
models. Mplus 7.0 was used for CFA.
The associations between the two DTS sub-scales (i.e., Creative Agency and Design
Dispositions), creative achievement, innovation, and Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability
scores were examined using a Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The two-factor structure of the DTS was confirmed using CFA with the Study II data. CFA
was performed using a diagonally weighted least square estimator. The results (see Table 14.4
for more detail) indicated that the two-factor solution had a close fit. All standardized factor
loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.01) ranging from 0.446 to 0.830. Additionally, the
correlation between the factors was 0.71. Standardized factor loadings for the two DTS factors
(i.e., Creative Agency and Design Dispositions) ranged from 0.446 to 0.633 and from 0.587
to 0.83, respectively.
The results suggested adding error covariances between Item 5 and Item 6, which resulted
in the greatest decrease in χ2. A further examination of these two items in wording and context
showed that these items belong to the same latent factor and share some commonality. After
adding error covariances between Item 5 and Item 6, the model significantly improved (Δχ2=
7.93, Δdf = 1, p <0.01). Fit indices were also satisfactory. For more details regarding the factor
loadings in the modified model see Table 14.4.
Convergent validity
The Creative Agency DTS sub-scale had a moderate to large correlation with Innovation (r
= 0.449, p < 0.001) and a low correlation with Creative Achievement (r = 0.189, p = 0.011).
Table 14.4 Confirmatory factor analysis standardized factor loadings for the DTS (N =
178)
Models
# Items
Initial Modified
2 Effectively work on a problem that does not have an obvious solution. 0.633 0.638
3 Consider a problem from different perspectives. 0.605 0.612
5 Share your work with others before it is finished. 0.497 0.438
6 Try an approach to a problem that may not be the final or best solution. 0.559 0.504
7 Continue to work on a problem after experiencing a significant failure. 0.446 0.440
4 Shape or change your external environment to help you be more creative. 0.587 0.586
8 Help others be more creative. 0.756 0.756
9 Identify and implement ways to enhance your own creativity. 0.830 0.827
10 Explicitly define or describe your creative process. 0.568 0.660
11 Solve problems in ways that others would consider creative. 0.594 0.596
χ2(df) 59.033 (34)* 48.758 (33)**
RMSEA 0.064 0.052
CFI 0.929 0.955
TLI 0.906 0.939
SRMR 0.063 0.054
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Similarly, the Design Dispositions DTS sub-scale had a moderate to large correlation with
Innovation (r = 0.512, p < 0.001) and a low correlation with Creative Achievement (r = 0.231, p
= 0.002). These results indicate that the DTS theoretically relates to the Creative Achievement
and Innovation constructs, though the relationship is much stronger for Innovation than for
Creative Achievement (Table 14.5).
Discriminant validity
There was a low but statistically significant correlation between the Social Desirability and
Creative Agency scores and between the Social Desirability and Design Dispositions scores (r
= 0.300, p < 0.001, and r = 0.304, p < 0.001, respectively). These results suggest that the DTS
is related to the Social Desirability construct, but the relationship is weak (Table 14.5).
Test–retest reliability
The test–retest reliability for the Creative Agency and Design Dispositions subscales were
0.790 and 0.696, respectively. These results indicate that the DTS has a good test–retest reli-
ability of the DTS.
Table 14.5 Descriptive statistics and correlations of the DTS subscales with other
constructs
Descriptive
Correlation coefficients
Constructs statistics
Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5
1. Creative agencya (DTS subscale) 3.77 (0.62) –
2. Design dispositionsa (DTS subscale) 3.77 (0.70) 0.511** –
3. Creative achievementb 10.34 (9.59) 0.189* 0.231** –
4. Innovationc 2.95 (0.4) 0.499** 0.512** 0.271** –
5. Social desirabilityd 20.55 (2.59) 0.300** 0.304** 0.073 0.274** –
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

a
Scores were calculated by averaging the total number of items; possible score range: 1–5.
b
Scores were calculated by summing all items; possible score range: 0–47.
c
Scores were calculated by averaging the total number of items; possible score range: 1–4.
d
Items were scored dichotomously; possible score range: 13–25.
Discussion
Study II confirmed the EFA results using CFA and examined the DTS’ convergent and discri-
minant validity, and its test–retest reliability. The CFA confirmed the two-factor structure of
the DTS that was identified in Study I. On average, prospective teachers reported moderately
high levels of Design Dispositions (M = 3.77, SD = 0.70) and Creative Agency (M = 3.77, SD
= 0.62). The internal consistency results revealed good internal consistency for the DTS as
a whole and its two subscales with scores well above the 0.70 threshold for research instru-
ments (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989).
Consistent with the study hypothesis, prospective teachers’ DTS scores were positively cor-
related with their Creative Achievement and Innovation scores, thus suggesting that the DTS
theoretically relates to the constructs of creative achievement and innovation. Interestingly,
the correlation coefficient of DT and Innovation was much higher than the one of DT and
Creative Achievement. These findings indicate that while the DTS theoretically relates to both
Innovation and Creativity, its association with the concept of innovation is more pronounced
than with creativity. The correlation indices of DT, Innovation, and Creative Achievement
ranged between 0.19 and 0.51, suggesting that DT as measured by the DTS can be viewed as
a unique construct. Overall, the results revealed good convergent validity of the DTS.
Regarding the DTS’ discriminant validity, the correlation between the DTS and Marlowe–
Crowne Social Desirability scores was statistically significant, but the association was weak (r
= 0.30, p < 0.01). These results suggest that the phrasing of the DTS items encourages socially
desirable responses to some extent. However, caution is advised when interpreting the corre-
lations between the DTS and MCSDS, because the dimensionality of the MCSDS is not fully
understood (Leite & Beretvas, 2005).
LIMITATIONS
Although Likert scale instruments offer many advantages such as allowing participants to
rate their level of agreement, simplicity of responding to questions, and ease of data captur-
ing, there are several limitations associated with using them. First, Likert scale instruments
employed in the current study are self-reporting, which is subject to bias. Second, they may
cause respondents to select answers from the same range of response categories such as
“strongly agree” or “strongly disagree”. Last, the study used several questionnaires. The length
of the questionnaires and boredom might impact participants’ motivation to answer questions
and result in a random selection of a response category (Glas & Dagohoy, 2007).
CONCLUSION
Developing high-quality instruments in social and behavioural sciences is crucial for advanc-
ing research (Boateng et al., 2018), particularly in fields such as DT that have a limited array of
tools for measuring quantitative variables. This study provided empirical evidence regarding
the DTS factor structure and its internal consistency and validity. Overall, the findings suggest
that the DTS has a promising validity and reliability and can be used for assessing DT skills
in education-majors. Specifically, the DTS can be used for assessing the outcomes of DT
education and investigating the impacts of various interventions that aim to enhance DT skills.
The need to think creatively and collaborate across knowledge boundaries to create innova-
tive solutions has been long acknowledged in the field of education (Henriksen et al., 2017).
Teachers need to be able to collaborate with educators from various subject areas as well as
professionals from other fields such as counselling, psychology, information technology, and
business, to develop a shared understanding of problems and solutions. Collaborative design
practices and participatory approaches such as co-design – which represent the evolution and
diversification of DT – can help address these challenges. DT is already making its way into
teacher preparation programmes integrating DT into teacher preparation curricula (Novak
& Mulvey, 2020; Novak & Wisdom, 2020; Chin et al., 2019; Conlin et al., 2015; Koh et al.,
2015). However, currently there is no framework that guides the integration of DT skills,
practices, and mindsets in teacher preparation programmes. Future research should attempt to
conceptualize a framework/model that will introduce prospective teachers to DT practices and
competencies the way they are being practised in the field of education. Such a framework will
result in a better understanding of how DT should be evaluated and assessed in teacher edu-
cation, thereby leading to the development of context-relevant DT measurement instruments,
i.e., instruments that are designed for a specific context (e.g., teacher education) and audience
(e.g., teachers). Research in this area can help teacher preparation programmes develop the
much-needed learning experiences and curricula to support teachers’ ability to develop and
use DT in their teaching practice.
Although the DTS instrument was developed to assess outcomes of DT education in
Stanford’s d.school’s alumni, the DTS framework can be potentially applied to other settings
and audiences, as our literature review revealed that the DT competencies of the DTS are rem-
iniscent of those identified in the extant literature that explored DT competencies in a variety
of contexts and audiences (Carlgren et al., 2016; Russo, 2016; Schweitzer et al., 2016). This
research hypothesis, however, remains untested as the instrument was validated with prospec-
tive teachers only. As such, future research should examine how well the DTS performs in
different contexts with various audiences. In addition, the current study’s sample size included
primarily females, thus limiting our ability to test the measurement invariance of the DTS for
male and female participants. Future research should examine the suitability of applying the
DTS to different genders of students in different contexts.
In conclusion, the field of DT needs more research tools to assess various aspects of DT.
Future attempts to develop such tools should capitalize on prior research that conceptualized
DT mindset attributes using various research methods, including literature reviews (Russo,
2016) and interviews (Carlgren et al., 2016; Schweitzer et al., 2016). A mixed-methods frame-
work can be particularly useful for developing Likert-type instruments for assessing DT skills
and competencies (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2010). Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches
can increase the sample size, instrument fidelity, as well as researchers’ ability to interpret
data and assess the fidelity of interventions and programs (Collins et al., 2006). For instance,
in addition to administering the quantitative instrument, researchers can collect qualitative
data using interviews and reflections to better understand respondents’ interpretations of the
DT competencies and situations that are likely to result in elevated levels of DT. Qualitative
data can also be useful in providing valuable insight into participants’ perceptions of the
instrument’s cultural relevance, which is critical in the study of DT.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R.L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16(1), 3–9.
Adobe Systems Incorporated (2018). Creative problem solving in schools: Essential skills today’s
students need for jobs in tomorrow’s age of automation. http://cps.adobeeducate.com/GlobalStudy
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2),
238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Beverland, M. B., Gemser, G., & Karpen, I. O. (2017). Design, consumption and marketing: outcomes,
process, philosophy and future directions. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(3–4), 159–172.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1283908
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay,
20, 24.
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best
practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer
[Review]. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(149). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (1st ed.). Guilford.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5–21.
ment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of
the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37–50. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1701_4
Chen, Y.-F., Cannady, M. A., Schunn, C., & Dorph, R. (2017). Measures technical brief: Innovation
stance in STEM. Retrieved from http://activationlab.org/tools/
Chin, D. B., Blair, K. P., Wolf, R. C., Conlin, L. D., Cutumisu, M., Pfaffman, J., & Schwartz, D. L.
(2019). Educating and measuring choice: A test of the transfer of design thinking in problem solving
and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(3), 337–380.
Collins, H., 2013. Can design thinking still add value? Design Management Review, 24(2), 35–39.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale
and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67–100.
Conlin, L. D., Blair, K. P., Cutumisu, M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2015). Guardian angels of our better nature:
Finding evidence of the benefits of design thinking. Proceedings of 122nd ASEE Annual Conference
and Exposition. 1–12.
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Boston: Birkhauser Verlag AG.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathol-
ogy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358.
Dell Corporation (2021). The top five skills for tomorrow’s workforce. https://www.delltechnologies
.com/en-us/perspectives/the-top-5-skills-for-tomorrows-workforce/
Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential. Hachette UK.
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational
problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc
.2017.10.001
Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of cre-
ativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds), Handbook of creativity. New York:
Plenum.
Hokanson, B., & Nyboer, J. (2018). Design thinking: Towards the construction of knowledge. In M. J.
Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international
compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–19). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Howard, Z., Senova, M., & Melles, G. (2015). Exploring the role of mindset in design thinking:
Implications for capability development and practice. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 1(2),
183–202.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi
.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Glas, C. A. W., & Dagohoy, A. V. T. (2007). A person fit test for IRT models for polytomous
items. Psychometrika, 72(2), 159–180.
Groeger, L., Schweitzer, J., Sobel, L., & Malcom, B. (2019). Design thinking mindset: Developing
creative confidence. Conference Proceedings of Academy of Design Innovation.
Johansson-Skoldberg, U., Woodilla, J. & Cetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and pos-
sible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all.
Random House LLC.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design thinking for education. Springer,
Singapore.
Leite, W. L., & Beretvas, S. N. (2005). Validation of scores on the Marlowe–Crowne social desir-
ability scale and the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 65(1), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404267285
Liedtka, J. (2011). Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy &
Magistretti, S., Pham, C. T. A., & Dell’Era, C. (2021). Enlightening the dynamic capabilities of design
thinking in fostering digital transformation. Industrial Marketing Management, 97, 59–70. https://doi
.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.06.014
36(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466
Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of
a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(1), 6–19.
Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2003). An experimental study on the design thinking process started from
difficult keywords: Modeling the thinking process of creative design. Journal of Engineering Design,
14, 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820310001606911.
Nakata, C., & Hwang, J. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: Composition, consequence, and contin-
gency. Journal of Business Research, 118, 117–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres
.2020.06.038
Nelson, H. G. & Stolterman, E. (2013). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world,
2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Novak, E., & Mulvey, B. (2020). Enhancing design thinking in instructional technology students.
Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 37(1), 80–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12470
Novak, E., & Wisdom, S. (2020). Using 3D printing in science for elementary teachers. In J. J. Mintzes
and E. M. Walter (Eds), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice.
Berlin: Springer Nature.
Nussbaum, B., 2011. Design thinking is a failed experiment. So what’s next? [online]. Available
at: https://www.fastcompany.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next
(accessed 4 February 2022).
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bustamante, R. M., & Nelson, J. A. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for devel-
oping quantitative instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 56–78. doi:10.1177/
1558689809355805
Owen, C (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2, 16–27.
Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards
creative confidence. Paper presented at the DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference
on design creativity (ICDC 2010).
Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne social
desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.
Royalty, A., Chen, H., Roth, B., & Sheppard, S. (2019). Measuring design thinking practice in context. In
C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds), Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. Cham: Springer.
Royalty, A., Oishi, L. N., & Roth, B. (2014). Acting with creative confidence: Developing a creative
agency assessment tool. In L. Leifer, H. Plattner, & C. Meinel (Eds), Design thinking research, 79–96.
Springer International Publishing.
Russo, S. (2016). Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments. PhD disser-
tation. Swinburne University of Technology. Melbourne, Australia.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginners guide to structural equation modeling.
Routledge, New York.
Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L., & Sobel, L. (2016). The design thinking mindset: An assessment of what we
know and what we see in practice. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 2, 1–23.
Stanford d.school. (2010) bootcamp bootleg [www.document]. Available at: https://dschool.stanford
.edu/resources/the-bootcamp-bootleg (accessed 29 September 2021).
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaube, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communica-
tion. Design Studies, 23, 473–496.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and appli-
cations. American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10694-000
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015
.1108214
15. Using action research to facilitate and teach
design thinking in graduate management
education
Judy Matthews
TEACHING AND FACILITATING DESIGN THINKING IN

GRADUATE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT
The potential benefits of teaching and facilitating design thinking in higher education have
been discussed (Glen et al., 2014; Linton & Klinton, 2019; Matthews & Wrigley, 2017).
However, to our knowledge, the benefits and challenges of teaching design thinking to pro-
fessionals in graduate higher education have received little attention. This chapter briefly dis-
cusses an initial structured approach to exploring design thinking and its evolution over time,
relative to available resources, the evolution of design thinking, the impact on participants, and
contributes a practice perspective in terms of responses to design thinking from experienced
managers in graduate education. We begin with a brief explanation of the problem framing
and problem solving needs of professionals, managers and executives in the workplace. We
describe the graduate higher education context, the characteristics of participants, the approach
to design thinking using small, focused action research projects, the activities and reported
outcomes. After examining feedback from the experienced professionals confronting prob-
lems and challenges in their work situations, we conclude with reflections and lessons learned
for ongoing development and facilitation of design thinking applications.
PROFESSIONALS AND MANAGERS AS PROBLEM SOLVERS
Problem solving is widely accepted as one of the essential skills of an effective manager
(Brightman, 1980) and an essential element in a manager’s toolkit of abilities (Carlopio &
Andrewartha, 2012). Managers are responsible for solving strategic and operational process
issues in their organizations. There is a wealth of literature regarding problem solving and
models and frameworks to develop problem solving skills (Carlopio & Andrewartha, 2012;
Wood et al., 2009).
The potential benefits of design thinking for managers and management education have
been debated in the last decades (Boland & Collopy, 2004; Brown, 2009 [2018]; Dunne &
Martin, 2006; Glen et al., 2014; Gruber et al., 2015; Martin, 2009; Starkey & Tempest, 2009).
Design thinking has been described as a way of approaching management problems with an
open mind, similar to the way a designer approaches a design problem (Dunne & Martin,
265
2006). Using examples of where design firms such as IDEO apply their expertise in design
to high technology issues, issues in healthcare organizations and everyday challenges, some
authors contend that business people today, particularly managers, need to become designers
(Martin, 2009) or at least more consciously use design methods (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011).
The positive performance of companies using design methods is shown in new product
development and social innovation fields (Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Liedtka et al., 2019) in the
public sector (Junginger, 2017) and non-profit sector (Jayakumar et al., 2019; Nusem et al.,
2017). A growing interest in the inclusion and application of design thinking in management
education (Glen et al., 2014; Starkey & Tempest, 2009) was noted, but little discussion of the
processes or outcomes of the inclusion of design methods has appeared in the literature. With
this growing interest and increasing demand, we set out to explore the question: what are the
benefits and challenges of adding design thinking and design methods to courses in MBA
programs?
WHY INTRODUCE DESIGN THINKING?
Managers and executives are faced with challenges of solving problems in fast-changing
environments. They need to be able to respond with flexible mindsets, adaptive processes and
creative feasible and viable solutions (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011; Martin, 2011). A rational ana-
lytic decision-making approach is often successful in environments where change processes
demonstrate some predictability. When applied in situations with dynamic and fluid bound-
aries, these approaches tend not to be receptive to such processes (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011).
The challenges of framing and formulating problems have more recently received detailed
attention as managers are faced with complex interactive decision situations involving multi-
ple stakeholders and competing interests (Buchanan, 1992, 2004). This research also responds
to suggestions (Boland & Collopy, 2004; Starkey & Tempest, 2009) regarding the importance
of design and its potential contributions to management education and an earlier call for design
literacy in managers in MBA programmes.
Design thinking, described as “an iterative, exploratory process involving visualizing,
experimenting, creating, and prototyping of models, and gathering feedback” is thought to
be “a particularly apt method for addressing innovation and messy, ill-structured situations”
(Glen et al., 2014, p. 653), clearly articulating a contemporary view of design thinking and its
potential for problem solving and expectations for learning practices (Welsh & Dehler, 2013).
Design thinking is a human-centred approach to innovation that draws on the designer’s
toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology and the requirements for
business success (Brown, 2009 [2018]). Broadly speaking, design thinking can be described
as a combination of a designer’s mindset, an attitude that demonstrates creative confidence,
uses empathy in its interactions with stakeholders, embraces ambiguity, takes an optimistic
perspective, values learning from failure, translates ideas into tangible artefacts and is contin-
uously iterating to test out new possibilities.
Design thinking and its focus on users provides the opportunity to focus on explicit and
latent needs. Professionals and managers are responsible for multiple tasks, from managing
people, managing projects, delivering products and services, and planning for the future.
Delivering optimal outcomes for their users’ needs to reflect the actual needs of their users.
Research (Brown & Martin, 2015; Martin, 2009; McLaughlin et al., 2019) has revealed that
Using action research to facilitate and teach design thinking 267
using a human-centred approach delivers better and more appropriate solutions in health,
education and management.
STRUCTURE OF GRADUATE EDUCATION MBA PROGRAM
The regular teaching structure of an MBA unit is three-hour sessions for seven weeks, a total
of 21 hours of class time, extended and enriched by a Learning Management System (LMS, in
this case the LMS was Blackboard) with pre-readings, videos, activities, templates, previously
uploaded to the LMS. Participants attended class sessions at the end of a working day, for six
to seven weeks. Class sizes are usually limited to 40 participants, and the average class size
is 25 to 35.
This MBA unit was labelled “Problem Framing for Creative Action” to indicate that how
situations/problems/challenges/opportunities, etc. are framed, shaped and at times reframed,
determines who is involved, and what, where, when, why and how solutions are pursued and
investigated. Creative problem-solving processes were used, with challenges framed as “How
might we...” definitions of problems/challenges/opportunities, where new ideas were gener-
ated and rapidly prototyped. The focus was on testing and implementing the new solutions
with stakeholders for feedback and responses in relation to problem-solving. As a Foundation
unit and hence compulsory unit, this unit was one of the first four units to be studied in the
MBA programme.
The aim of this unit was to assist managers to become effective problem solvers and use
creative mindsets and methods to problem solve in complex environments. The purpose
of introducing design thinking into an MBA unit based on a “problem framing for creative
action course”, was to develop the potential for a deeper understanding of a current situation.
By exploring the explicit and latent needs of stakeholders, and the potential strengths and
weaknesses in the current situation, notions of individual and collective creativity, individual
and collective agency, collaboration, co-design with stakeholders and inclusiveness were
emphasised, as well as notions of action and implementation.
The learning objectives of this unit included:
• analysing workplace problems using problem framing techniques to identify the real issues
to be resolved;
• applying creative problem-solving techniques, design thinking and analogical thinking
principles to generate solutions to organisational problems;
• evaluating creative problem-solving tools and techniques to determine the most appropri-
ate tools and techniques to be used in a given situation;
• working collaboratively with others to achieve a specific outcome, and recommending
strategies for fostering creative and alternative thinking by individuals and teams to create
and capture opportunities for organisational improvement.
To encourage agency, learning by doing and maximise engagement of participants, each

participant was required to undertake a small, action research project focused on a relevant
challenge/problem/opportunity in a context familiar to them, that they cared about and where
they had some investment and influence. Individuals could select a challenge from their work
or organizational context, and with some guidance in terms of choice of scale or scope of
the project, were more likely to engage, explore and prototype and test potential solutions.
Implementing such solutions for a problem that was meaningful to individuals and their
organisation, and where new solutions would have a maximum reward for all stakeholders,
was the learning context. The processes and outcomes were reported in a summative Learning
Portfolio that participants use to record, analyse and retain for future opportunities.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants in Australian MBA programmes are experienced professionals with a minimum

of five to ten years’ experience, from diverse backgrounds, such as engineering, finance,
accountancy, teaching, medical training, allied health, IT, real estate, and human resources. As
professionals with leadership and management experience, they faced business and manage-
ment challenges such as
• the underperformance of particular mining sites;

• managing human resource challenges of mergers and alliances;
• improving hospital discharge processes for specialist care patients;
• improving service processes that have been longstanding problems; for example, timely
payment of invoices, increasing diversity in recruitment or creating more positive pro-
cesses and environments for parents and children in a special needs school.
Some participants used this unit to begin transitions to create new careers and futures and to
plan, initiate, develop and launch new businesses. Examples include new health and medical
services, new IT services, a dance studio, and establishing a drive-in coffee and bakery prod-
ucts enterprise in a greenfield site (Linton & Klinton, 2019).
To stimulate experiential learning (Kolb, 1988), engaging participants to focus on their
individual work context and framing a challenge/opportunity or problem in their workplaces
or organisations and using that challenge as a mini-project, provided a useful delineated brief.
With backgrounds in projects, a project-based challenge was seen as acceptable by this group,
and within their past, current and future work experience. The action research/action learning
focus with a strong focus on experimentation (Matthews, 2017; Thomke, 2001, 2003a, 2003b,
2020) encouraged moving beyond initial assumptions with information research, using ethno-
graphic research of users and stakeholders, and looking beyond known solutions.
Investigation of teaching and design thinking in business and management higher edu-
cation found varied interpretations (Matthews & Wrigley, 2017). Educational research
clearly emphasised the importance of using an existing framework or structured approach
when introducing new information, reinforced by recent research on “why design thinking
works” (Liedtka, 2018). Popular frameworks for human-centred design based on the Stanford
d.school, the Double Diamond (British Design Council) and IDEO’s process, were considered.
However, Liedtka and Ogilvie’s (2011) “What is, What If, What Wows, What Works” with
its approach to a detailed understanding of the current situation and all stakeholders, ideation,
prototyping and testing and implementation with multiple stakeholders and strategic as well as
operational process, was selected as the most suitable framework for this management context.
In practice, the former frameworks are also discussed and applied in shorter classroom work-
shops. The Designing for Growth Framework is illustrated in Figure 15.1.
As an educator, the challenge was building a community of practice within the class partic-
ipants and hopefully in their workplaces. It was also ensuring and allocating time for explo-
Source: Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011.
Figure 15.1 Designing for growth
ration and experimentation and the opportunity for excitement in their own generation of new
ideas and increasing their creative confidence (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). Encouraging idea gen-
eration processes, particularly non-intuitive notions, individually and collectively, introducing
visual thinking activities (Matthews, 2018; Walter & Gioglio, 2014) and their importance in
capturing and presenting information and insights, also created new skills and perspectives.
Taking on new ways of being and doing was to enable seeing oneself as working in different
ways, where that was within an individual’s capabilities, is essential for identity formation.
Herb Simon’s (1996, p. 111) view that “everyone who devises courses of action aimed at
changing existing situations into preferred ones is a designer”, was useful here, and Lawson
(1997, p. vii) adds “We all can and do design; we can learn to design better”. The implication
here is that even if we have not been aware of it, “we are all designing” even in small ways,
and we have the potential to learn to be better designers (not to be confused with training as
a professional designer).
The explicit goal was to stimulate participants to engage with a positive design thinking
mindset of empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, an experimental mindset and collab-
oration (Brown, 2008) and a design attitude, abilities and capabilities (Michlewski, 2008)
to be better agents of a human-centred approach to change in their work and life contexts.
Facilitators and researchers in innovation studies and teachers of graduate programmes in
technological innovation, creative problem solving and problem solving in complex environ-
ments, express interest in the human face of innovation. The “Ten Tools of Design Thinking”
and the “Design for Growth” by Professor Jeanne Liedtka from the Darden Business School
(Liedtka, 2011, 2015, 2018, 2020) apply to business, government and nonprofit sectors, and
are illustrated in case studies in Designing for the greater good: innovation in the social sector
(Liedtke et al., 2017).
Table 15.1 Criteria and characteristics of action research
Criteria Action researcher characteristics

Purpose To understand and improve the current situation
Basic orientation Researching “with” others
Research Embedded within the context: problem co-definer, lead research co-designer; lead research
co-implementer
Stakeholders Embedded with the research: problem co-definers, research co-designers, research
co-implementers
Time Focus on here and now with reflection on the past issues to influence the future designs in
cycles
Evidence Experiential, partial, emergent, dialogic, intuitive, qualitative and quantitative
Learning process Iterative approach where learning and dissemination are integrated into research process
Strengths Can step into complex contexts where what to do “best” is a subject of discussion and
subjectivity
Weaknesses While positive outcomes may be qualified, the action researcher is challenged to quantify
Benefits The work belongs to those who work with the action researcher, thereby building
problem-solving capabilities in communities and enabling long-lasting impact
Action outcomes Action leads to understanding and ultimately improvements by including communities in
workshops, experiments new practices and new learning
Source: Modified from Price et al., 2021.
The d.school approach was useful for short in-class workshops. The strong focus on empathic
understanding of users and stakeholders and their explicit and latent needs, and the rapid
prototyping of concepts and testing were very engaging and useful for short design sprints
in-class workshops. However, the purpose was to attempt to build experience with design to
embed design thinking frameworks, mindset, methods and practices for innovative practice
(Beckman & Barry, 2007; Ward et al., 2009). Hence the broader approach of Design for
Growth on “What is? What if? What wows? What works?” and its alignment with strategic
challenges as well as operational challenges, was applicable as a systematic introduction to
design thinking in any context.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
An Action Learning/Action Research (Zuber-Skerritt, 2002) approach was undertaken to

develop this unit for MBA and Executive MBA programmes. An action learning approach
is useful for a new area of application as the iterative action learning process builds on the
natural process of planning, acting and critically reflecting on the results of action, bridging
the gap between theory and practice (Dick, 2002). Action Research is a powerful process
for exploring new approaches (Bradbury, 2010, 2015) and introducing design methods and
practices to organisations (Price et al., 2021). Ethical clearance for research with these partici-
pants for research purposes was obtained to support action learning/action research processes.
A summary of the characteristics of an action researcher is outlined in Table 15.1.
Three Action Research Cycles (ARC) were used
ARC 1: This included establishing the unit, developing text and video resources, negotiating
a new schedule for an intensive in-class workshop as a weekend class, and introducing an
industrial design research professional to co-deliver 12 hours of design thinking sessions.
ARC 2: Major modifications with earlier and increased input on design thinking, influenced by
feedback and reflections, earlier scheduling of full-day workshop in-class delivery as a form-
ative process, to explore and practice design thinking methods in longer class sessions, with
external design research professionals for separate workshops. During this cycle, Professor
Jeanne Liedtka came to our university to give seminars to staff and inspired our students on
her approach to design thinking.
ARC 3: This cycle includes further developments of the unit, capturing both increasing
design thinking publications and resources, and their growing sophistication and availability,
informed by feedback and reflections, with workshop presentations and challenges now deliv-
ered from unit alumni, as shown in Table 15.2.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data generated were in the form of direct comments from in-class workshops, formative and
summative assessments, and unsolicited personal emails. Participant reflections as an outcome
of action were captured in the summative assignment where participants evaluated their use
of design thinking frameworks and methods. Anonymous feedback was captured during
a mid-unit process as well as collected through teaching course evaluation surveys at end of
the unit. A reflective journal was kept by the facilitator to capture, monitor and assess the
participants’ growing sense of awareness (Brodsky, 2008).
Data from the teaching and unit evaluations, unsolicited correspondence, and final assess-
ments provided a richer understanding of processes and benefits gained by the participants,
were analysed using thematic analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The results of this initiative
are presented through the participants’ views of the processes and outcomes of the design
thinking methods and tools provided. Feedback from the students was used to modify the
delivery of the unit together with an active reflection and action by facilitators throughout the
delivery of the unit and as a summative process. These reflective processes around what was
successful, what could be improved and what new material, tools and processes could further
enhance the content and delivery of the unit, are ongoing.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Exploration of the benefits of adding design thinking and design methods to an MBA pro-
gramme revealed interesting changes over time. The development and application of teaching
methods and the impact of new approaches are often influenced by participants’ responses to
the presentation of new material, their engagement and opportunities for practical application.
Responses from professionals and managers to incorporating design thinking and methods
into problem-solving were classified using Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework as (i) reac-
tions to the framework and material, (ii) learning, (iii) changes in behaviour and (iv) results
Table 15.2 Inclusion of design thinking in problem framing for creative action
Characteristics Action research cycle 1 Action research cycle 2 Action research cycle 3
Formal establishment of unit Early and ongoing Current state 2019–2022
2013 modifications 2015–2018
Delivery schedule Design thinking initially Design thinking was Design thinking as
introduced for 50% of the introduced for 75% of the unit human-centred design was
unit, following creative introduced from the beginning
problem solving of the unit
Forms of assessment: Formative: Draft Learning Formative: Group Formative: Group
formative & summative Portfolio; Summative: problem-solving workshop problem-solving workshop;
Learning Portfolio plus informal feedback on Summative: Learning
draft Learning Portfolio; Portfolio
Summative: Learning
Portfolio
Delivery of sessions Five weekly evening sessions Five weekly evening sessions Five weekly evening sessions
plus one full-day problem plus one full-day problem plus one full-day mid-unit
solving workshop towards the solving workshop mid-unit problem-solving workshop
end of the unit – non-assessed – non-assessed with group assessment
Resources – delivery of the Inclusion of industrial design Inclusion of visiting design Inclusion of PFCA course
unit research professional to research professionals with alumni to present workplace
facilitate design thinking presentations and challenges challenges for focused
processes and workshops to facilitate design thinking in-class design thinking
processes and workshops workshops
Availability of text-based and Useful text-based and video Good relevant text-based and Rich text-based and video
video resources design thinking material video case studies, including design thinking material
Australian case studies
Feedback processes Direct and indirect informal Direct and indirect informal Direct and indirect informal
feedback; Summative feedback; Summative feedback; Summative
reflections in Learning reflections in Learning reflections in Learning
Portfolio; Portfolio; Portfolio;
Anonymous mid-unit and end Anonymous mid-unit and end Anonymous mid-unit and end
of unit teaching evaluations of unit teaching evaluations of unit teaching evaluations
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Comments regarding the benefits of context as a basis for
learning, the benefits for own personal perspective, for problem framing and solving at a team
level and for the broader organization, through better morale of employees and better engage-
ment with stakeholders a way of changing dynamics on workplace, were included. A summary
of these responses using Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework in presented in Table 15.3.
Reactions to the Design Thinking Framework and Materials
Participants expressed their enjoyment in experiencing and learning the new ways of working
they found in using design thinking principles and practices. They provided positive com-
ments with anonymous evaluations of the Problem Framing for Creative Action unit. Positive
student evaluations also ranked the unit as 4.6 (out of a possible 5). Spontaneous unsolicited
letters were received thanking the instructor for the development and delivery of the course,
Table 15.3 Categories and measures of evaluation
Categories Measures developed from participant feedback

1. Reactions to framework and material Enjoyment of learning new ways of working
Positive student evaluation of the unit
Spontaneous letters thanking the instructor for the development and delivery of the
course.
2. Learning Design thinking tools were useful to communicate information and build solutions.
Design thinking improved communication, problem framing and problem solving
around complex problems.
3. Changes in behaviour Stronger focus on engaging with and understanding our customers
Design thinking has changed my approach to problem solving as a manager.
Design thinking tools have led to new team processes.
4. Results/outcomes Design thinking has direct benefits for managers
Design thinking contributed to better employee participation and morale.
Design thinking has benefits for stakeholders as well as employees.
• New innovation teaching roles for manager
• New roles in leading global operations to prototype and test new ways of knowl-
edge sharing with internal and external customers
• Specific results in operational efficiency
with information about the continued use of design thinking, its application and knowledge
sharing, in their workplaces, stating, “I enjoyed this subject. I am in the process of leading
a number of groups embracing Design Thinking at work. I have seen some fantastic changes
already in the participants’ attitudes. Thanks for introducing me to the concept.”
Others commented on their successful implementation of changes, stating,
You will be pleased to know that my proposals and contributions to helping fix my reporting depart-
ment’s issues have worked (take a peek at my new email signature). Thanks to Problem Framing for
Creative Action, I have a new job internally in [Y company]. What a great chance to practice my new
design techniques.
All participants reported gaining new insights from their customers and expressed an ongoing
commitment to using design thinking tools in future investigations of their customers and in
capturing such insights to apply in their business. Participants specifically nominated tools
such as empathy maps, journey mapping, narratives, co-design, an experimental approach,
and prototyping as contributing to new ways of valuing customers. Reflections by participants
regarding what they had learned and how they planned to continue their exploration of design
thinking in their workplaces provided interesting insights. Broadly speaking, such changes
included (1) changes in the participants themselves and (2) changes in perceptions of the
participant by others.
(1) Changes in participants themselves (includes changes in their self-perception).

Participants gained new understanding of their current world view and the world view
of others, and were more open to possibilities of a third, fourth or fifth option when gen-
erating new possibilities. Further changes included developing confidence in their own
creativity and idea generation, positive change in relationships with others in teams; and
positive change in their perceptions of others, in terms of the value of new perspectives
that other participants bring.
(2) Changes in perceptions of the participant by others. Participants were perceived to
be a more valuable employee, and were invited to contribute to a working group on
a problem to be resolved. They were seen as making valuable suggestions, sharing
their experience with useful processes including visual thinking formats, and perceived
to be someone who takes the initiative and looks for new collaborative ways to solve
problems.
Reactions to the design thinking framework and materials in ARC 1, included increased confi-
dence in greater inclusion of design thinking, with participants identifying clear benefits from
the introduction of design thinking frameworks and processes.
The second half of this course which formally introduced me to the design process, whilst challeng-
ing, brought together a number of processes I had previously undertaken in work situations into
a consistent and coherent framework for problem solving. Many of the ten tools outlined by Liedtka
& Ogilvie (2011) have been used in isolation by me and my team, but the lightbulb moment occurred
for me when the framework above was presented and provided a holistic approach to the process.
Another student commented his business could only differentiate itself from its competitors
through creativity and innovation in value-added products and services, stating,
To ensure creativity in problem solving is achieved, I have concluded that the design thinking frame-
work is better suited to my problem solving style compared with other approaches and it is also most
applicable for my current business needs.
Reactions to the design thinking framework and materials used in the class context are
included across ARC 1 and ARC 2. Students found that focusing on a real-world problem in
their workplaces could extend their knowledge regarding their customers, and their skills in
investigation and idea generation. While this new way of working was challenging, it also
enabled viewing problems through different lenses and perspectives and using design thinking
tools in other contexts and situations.
I really enjoyed that I was able to learn something new about my customers that I really did not
think I would do. The ideating stage in particular really took me out of my natural tendencies to do
what has always been done. Although also useful, I wasn’t as challenged when it came to the stages
where a solution had to be decided upon and implemented – this is where I am generally naturally
quite strong. Going forward, it is these two stages in particular I would really like to try and use more
frequently.
This is why while I have enjoyed this subject the most in my MBA course to date, I have also found
it to be one of the most challenging.
I felt very comfortable using the tools I practised during class, but I discovered that when I got
stuck in my ideation process, I could go back and look for other tools to help me put a different lens
at the issue and change my perspective. It has changed in the way I look at problems or issues during
my daily life and especially at work.
Learning
Learning was particularly noted by participants across all ARC cycles, in generic and specific
ways. Participants enjoyed the ideation and prototyping workshops and scenarios, including
using visual representation of information from their research, and developing storyboards,
tangible artefacts and scenarios.
The hands-on aspect of the design thinking work in this unit was really fantastic for my learning. As
a change manager I have found the design thinking knowledge very inspiring and am excited to use
it in my work. I have arranged with my manager to move to a bigger workspace so I can have room
to put up the customer information, issues, ideas etc. so my team is immersed in the problem we are
solving. I have applied the “empathise” and “define” stages to my current project, and also plan to
use the “ideate”, “prototype”, and “test” stages in stakeholder workshops commencing in January.
Design thinking tools were useful to communicate information and build solutions through
using greater visualisation of information for simplifying, and a more inclusive and collabo-
rative process.
The visualisation for these types of activities worked extremely well. The sample group used to
review the information were able to clearly see the information in this method much more clearly
than with words or an explanation. I also found it a simpler process to follow and take people on the
journey to creative problem solving.
Design thinking improved communication, problem framing and problem solving around
a complex problem using visualisation tools in defining the problem.
The design thinking process has facilitated my ability to explain the situation and solutions across
a wide range of education levels within the organisation, from drivers to senior managers, using the
visualisation tools used. It became clear that the perceived initial problem was not necessarily the
problem we were trying to solve. The key in the process was to define the problem, and once this was
clearly understood, allow ideation to occur. A convergent process was then required to narrow the
options and the three ideas which met the required criteria were then selected. These were part of the
recommendations provided to senior management for further consideration.
Changes in Behaviour
Changes in behaviour reported by participants across all ARC cycles included personal and
professional changes. Participants described their changed behaviour as more focused on
engaging with and understanding their customers in product design such as “more empathising
with the customer, and with other stakeholders, and taking their needs into account during the
design process”.
Now recognising the value of engaging with and understanding our customers, I have already had two
members of my team spend time out into the field with users of our products, and I intend to increase
this interaction and discussions of customer needs and experiences during the design process.
Design thinking changed a manager’s approach to problem solving, encouraging

experimentation.
Design thinking as a concept has removed the perception that solutions need to be perfect and 100%
right all the time. The idea that there is no room for error in business is flawed (Liedtka & Ogilvie,
2011). After completing this course, I agree with this statement. As a leader and a manager in
a real-world business, it would be difficult to sell the idea to customers and shareholders that failure
is acceptable because we can learn from it. But this is the risk or the challenge if design thinking is
only implemented to approach isolated problems. Implementing design thinking throughout everyday
activities in the business is an approach to achieving Kaizen in an innovative and creative manner.
Design thinking tools have led to new team processes. The clarity, simplicity and face validity
of design tools assisted knowledge sharing and encouraged experimentation.
I have focused on “The 10 Tools for Design Thinking” by Liedtka and Ogilvie to follow a process
to creatively approach the issue I face with the X Team’s operation. The process has resulted in the
development of a new business model that will place the X team’s operation in a position to deliver
solid growth. Including the X Team in this process has resulted in a new energy in this team. They are
now approaching things very differently.
With problem framing through creative action I have applied my learnings to the issues we face
in another state. The operation was in a state of continuous mediocrity, there was no direction, and
there was no energy in the team. Through the process outlined in assessment pieces A and B, and
the application of The 10 Tools for Design Thinking we have a business model that will encourage
growth and, perhaps more importantly, creativity.
Results/Outcomes from Participation in Action Learning Projects across ARC Cycles
Locating the facilitation and teaching in action research in mini-projects that participants
were concerned about and had some influence on, not only increased their motivation and
engagement but also created an important opportunity for self-efficacy and demonstrated
performance.
Design thinking led to benefits for professionals including new opportunities and promotions.
Other responses included follow-up phone calls and emails regarding the usefulness of
design thinking in their everyday work and a new recognition from their colleagues and their
potential to contribute to project framing, formulating and problem solving.
Design thinking and using design thinking methods contributed to better employee partici-
pation and morale of the team as well as the participant.
Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of adopting the design thinking process was the improve-
ment in the mindset and morale of the team. The build team has the (design thinking) poster in their
workspace.
Design thinking had benefits for stakeholders as well as employees.
The design thinking process has been a very beneficial exercise. I have incorporated close to 60
stakeholders at varying levels, and the data collection has been quite intensive. I feel as though the
stakeholders have also benefitted from the exercise.
Design thinking created benefits for the company as well as benefits for the individual through
new workplace projects including sharing new knowledge with work colleagues, and success-
ful problem solving.
Applying the design thinking tools has led my company to develop three new projects: (a) Innovation
Teaching Roles for Manager: I have been asked by the R&D Director to teach his engineers to be
innovators. The first workshop based on Design Thinking is planned for 15th July. Ten engineers will
be involved. (b) Leading global group to prototype and test new ways of Knowledge Sharing: I am
leading this global group to prototype and test new ways of knowledge sharing with both internal
and external customers. (c) Reducing Drafting Timelines: I am leading this group and over the past
couple of months we have prototyped and tested a number of “solutions”. These have led to a signif-
icant decrease in overtime (currently zero hours) and drawing time (80% reduction in time now 24
minutes).
CONCLUSION
The benefits and challenges of facilitating and teaching design thinking in graduate higher
education were investigated using an action learning/action research approach to understand
and find new ways to “improve a current situation”. Researching with others, and embedding
the action learning and benefits in the contexts appears to have led to benefits and desired
outcomes for individuals and their organisations.
Encouraging MBA students to engage with design thinking tools such as visualisation,
journey mapping, empathy maps, personas, prototyping and testing was a gradual process
that was largely successful. Some of the reasons for this success are related to the increasing
popularity of the topic of design thinking for business, with more suitable written and video
resources being developed to meet this demand, and with specialised resources and combina-
tions being developed for this topic.
Key benefits are noted in the positive reactions to design thinking frameworks, methods
and activities; increased learning demonstrated through improved communication, problem
framing and problem solving. Changes in behaviour included a stronger user focus approached
to problem solving and new team processes incorporating visual methods. Outcomes include
demonstrating increased self-efficacy, enjoyment of learning and increased openness to
experimentation positive working relationships experiencing the value of inclusiveness and
collaboration, and career progressions with external recognition of performance and success-
ful implementation of mini-projects.
This “problem framing for creative action” unit is a core course in MBA and Executive
MBA programs so the managers cannot elect on whether or not to enrol, and as the unit is
scheduled early in their programmes, they are not necessarily convinced of the usefulness of
such an approach. The challenge for facilitators is to take participants on a learning journey
where they experience thinking with a designer’s mindset, to make the need for exploring,
experimenting, and testing to be compelling, powerful, useful and effective and to encourage
managers to engage, participate and learn. An active experimentation mindset with openness
to trying new methods to frame and solve some ill-defined problems is required. Continued
development, experimentation and development of material relevant to design thinking for
incorporating into multiple levels of management education programmes will be undertaken,
with the evolution of design thinking paradigms and approaches, prototyping and testing of the
material in teaching situations.
Facilitators and teachers who experiment with design thinking in graduate education with
experienced professionals using an action learning/action research perspective will enjoy
an enlightening and productive experience generating positive educational experiences for
participants and positive outcomes for their stakeholders. Participants have been able to move
to deeper levels of understanding of their users, or customers, with openness to new ideas
and possibilities and experimentation, use new methods of investigation including more use
of visual thinking, and move beyond their past default of automatically jumping to solutions
mode.
Many facilitators have actively embedded design thinking to create more innovative work-
place practices (Matthews, 2021; McLaughlin et al., 2019). Furthermore, engaging in an action
research process has also been a rewarding action learning experience for a facilitator/teacher.
Stimulating, shaping and challenging participants to go beyond their past behaviours and see
their movement from increased awareness, to interest, to desire and then action (Nusem et al.,
2019) is very rewarding.
Future implementation may include closer links with an extension of design thinking to
strategy formulation to capture more benefits from design thinking (Leavy, 2010) as rec-
ommended (Glen et al., 2014; Wrigley et al., 2020). In addition, professional development
programmes to raise awareness of more academic staff to the possibilities of inclusion of
design thinking in other units are being planned to increase the capability of staff to participate
and use design thinking skills. Further engagement of managers and management academics
with design thinking may also assist managers to achieve the necessary design sensibilities
(Beckman, 2020; Björklund et al., 2020; Fulton Suri & Hendrix, 2010; Liedtka et al., 2021;
Wrigley et al., 2020) to increase their contributions to their workplaces and companies.
REFERENCES
Beckman, S. L. (2020). To frame or reframe: Where might design thinking research go next? California
Beckman, S. L. & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking.
Björklund, T., Maula, H., Soule, S. A. & Maula, J. (2020). Integrating design into organizations: The
coevolution of design capabilities. California Management Review, 62(2), 1–25.
Boland, R. J. & Collopy, F. (eds). (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business
Books.
Bradbury, H. (2010). What is good action research? Action Research, 8(1), 93–109.
Bradbury, H. (2015). Introduction: How to situate and define action research. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The
SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 1–9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brightman, H. J. (1980). Problem solving: a logical and creative approach. Atlanta, GA: Business
Publishing Division, College of Business Administration, Georgia State University.
Brodsky, A. (2008). Fieldnotes. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopaedia of qualitative research
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Brown, T. (2009 [2018]). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires
innovation. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Brown, T. & Martin, R. (2015). Design for action. Harvard Business Review, 93(9), 56–64.
Brown, T. & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Winter, 30–35.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5–21.
Buchanan, R. (2004). Management and design: Interaction pathways in organizational life. In R. J.
Boland & F. Collopy (Eds), Managing as designing. Stanford Business Books.
Carlopio, J. & Andrewartha, G. (2012). Developing management skills: A comprehensive guide for
leaders. French’s Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia,
Dick, B. (2002). Postgraduate programs using action research. The Learning Organization, 9(4),
159–170.
Dunne, D. & Martin, R. (2006) Design thinking and how it will change management education: An
interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.
Fulton Suri, J. & Hendrix, R. M. (2010) Developing design sensibilities. Harvard Business Review, May.
Glen, R., Suciu, C. & Baughn, C. (2014). The need for design thinking in business schools. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 13(4), 653–667.
Gruber, M., De Leon, N., George, G. & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of
Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7.
Jayakumar, J., Das, K. & Srivastava, N. (2019). Design thinking: A working strategy for the third sector.
Journal of Business Strategy, 40(5), 28–38.
Junginger, S. (2017). Transforming public services by design: Re-orienting policies, organizations and
services around people. New York, NY: Routledge
Kelley, D. & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all.
Crown Books.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels, 3rd ed.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publication.
Kolb, D. A. (1988). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New
Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified. 3rd ed. Oxford: Architectural
Press, Reed Elsevier.
Leavy, B. (2010). Design thinking – a new model of value innovation. Strategy and Leadership, 38(3),
5–14.
Liedtka, J. (2011). Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy &
Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. Strategy & Leadership, 4(2),
40–45.
bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938.
Liedtka, J. (2018). Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review, September–October, 72–79.
Liedtka, J. (2020). Putting technology in its place: Design thinking’s social technology at work.
Liedtka, J. & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. New
York: Columbia Business Press.
Liedtka, J., Hold, K. & Eldridge, J. (2021). Experiencing design: The innovator’s journey. Columbia
University Press, Columbia Business School Publishing. https://doi.org/10.7312/lied19426
Liedtka, J., Ogilvie, T. & Brozenske, R. (2019). The designing for growth field book: A step-by-step
project guide, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Liedtka, J., Salzman, R. & Azer, D. (2017). Design thinking for the greater good: Innovation in the social
sector. Columbia University Press.
Linton, G. & Klinton, M. (2019). University entrepreneurship education: A design thinking approach
to learning. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731
-018-0098-z
Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Martin, R. L. (2011). The innovation catalysts, Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 82–87, https://hbr.org/
2011/06/ the-innovation-catalysts.
Matthews, J. (2017). Experimenting and innovation: Purposes, possibilities, and preferred solutions.
CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 1(1), 17–20.
Matthews, J. (2018). Visual tools for problem framing and problem solving. In S. Griffith, K. Carruthers,
& M. Bliemel (Eds), Visual tools for cross-disciplinary collaboration, innovation and entrepreneur-
ship capacity. Common Ground Research Champaign, Il., USA. Chapter 4, 45–60.
Matthews, J. (2021). Design thinking and workplace innovation interface. In A. J. McMurray, N.

Muenjohn & C. Weerakoon (Eds), The Palgrave handbook of workplace innovation. Palgrave
Macmillan, 507–520.
Matthews, J. & Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and design thinking in business and management higher
education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 41–54.
McLaughlin, J. E., Wolcott, M. D., Hubbard, D., Umstead, K. & Rider, T. R. (2019). A qualitative review
of design thinking framework in health professions education. BMC Medical Education, 19, 98–106.
Michlewski, K. (2008). Uncovering design attitude: Inside the culture of designers. Organization
Studies, 29, 373–392.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Nusem, E., Matthews, J. & Wrigley, C. (2019). Toward design orientation and integration: Driving
design from awareness to action. Design Issues, 35(3), 35–49.
Nusem, E., Wrigley, C. & Matthews, J. (2017). Developing design capability in nonprofit organizations.
Design Issues, 3(1), 61–75.
Price, R., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2021). Action researcher to design innovation catalyst: Building
design capability from within. Action Research, 19(2), 318–337.
Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Starkey, K. & Tempest, S. (2009). The winter of our discontent: The design challenge for business
schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 576–586.
Thomke, S. (2001). Enlightened experimentation: The new innovation imperative. Harvard Business
Review, February, 67–75.
Thomke, S. (2003a). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innova-
tion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Thomke, S. (2003b). R&D comes to services: Bank of America’s pathbreaking experiments. Harvard
Business Review, 81(4), 71–79.
Thomke, S. (2020). Experimentation works: The surprising power of business experiments. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Review Press.
Ward, A., Runcie, E. & Morris, L. (2009). Embedding innovation: Design thinking for small enterprises.
Journal of Business Strategy, 30(2/3), 78–84.
Walter, E. & Gioglio, J. (2014). The power of visual storytelling. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Welsh, M. A. & Dehler, G. E. (2013). Combining critical reflection and design thinking to develop
integrative learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 771–802.
Wood, R., Cogin, J. & Beckmann, J. (2009). Managerial problem solving: Frameworks, tools, tech-
niques. North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd.
Wrigley, C., Nusem, E. & Straker, K. (2020). Implementing design thinking: Understanding organ-
izational conditions. California Management Review, 1–19. Online https://doi.org/10.1177
%2F0008125619897606
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). A model for designing action learning and action research programs. The
Learning Organization, 9(4), 143–149.
16. Method case study – The transmedia
journalism design thinking toolkit
Dilek Gürsoy
INTRODUCTION
New journalism practices have already surfaced to adapt to the 21st-century news climate.
Among them, transmedia journalism, with its focus on participation and interactivity, is
a unique approach to news production and distribution. Transmediality entered the field of
media studies with its applications in the entertainment industry. Media franchises, such as
Pokémon, Marvel Cinematic Universe or Toy Story, are only a fraction of examples that
are famous for constructing transmedia universes (Jenkins, 2007). One could watch a story
segment of Pokémon at the movies, continue reading an expansion of that segment in a comic
book, bring the story into one’s everyday life with a Pokémon toy or be a part of the universe
via an augmented reality (AR) game. What distinguishes these franchises is not simply their
innovative use of media networks, but also their audience interaction tactics. They were quick
to detect the shift in media consumption patterns as well as the capabilities of new technology.
Over time, this unique narrative approach found its way into the works of nonfictional stories.
Studies that scrutinised transmediality in sports and charity events were quick to build upon
its origin of fictionality (Freeman & Gambarato, 2018). Journalism, despite its aversion to all
things fictitious, is not separated from this bunch. Transmedia journalism theory and practice
have evolved throughout time to encompass a broader range of perspectives (Gambarato,
2018; Gambarato & Alzamora, 2018; Gürsoy, 2020b; Moloney, 2019).
Transmedia news narratives, which give importance to the depth and breadth of news
interaction, draw the consumer into the discovery of event details while offering versatile
perspectives with different story fragments. In other words, it provides a news experience that
fulfils audiences’ hunger for participation in the production and distribution of news content.
To construct such an experience, one needs to understand the potential of complex communi-
cation technologies and how they can be utilised in favour of news consumption. This brings
up the concern of whether the new generation of journalists fully comprehend what transme-
diality is and how it works. Journalism is no longer only an individual expression, but rather
a collaborative effort. Today’s media systems demand additional social skills in order to deal
with social networks, collective knowledge, cultural diversity, and complex data (Cheung,
2010). Therefore, educators must train journalists who are multi- and socially talented, as well
as prepared to face the problems of a complex digital media ecology. This case study outlines
the development of the Transmedia Journalism Design Thinking Toolkit to overcome some of
281
these difficulties by (1) simplifying a complex process, (2) building empathy to boost creativ-
ity and innovation, and (3) working as an interdisciplinary team.
OVERVIEW OF TEACHING TRANSMEDIA
Teaching transmedia news story production to students is a hard task. The process entails
many details to be considered by the educator while designing a teaching method. First,
the practice itself is built around a highly technological infrastructure. Dealing with media
channels, forms, and digital touchpoints can quickly evolve into an educational process that
is more technical or instrumental (Giraldo-Luque et al., 2020). To train the critical mind, it is
necessary to develop teaching methods that allow the technological part of this process to be
viewed from the outside, possibly from a human-centred perspective. This approach would
also be beneficial in keeping students grounded in reality at all times.
Transmedia journalism courses are designed to teach students how to perceive and construct
shared messages for multimedia, as well as to provide them with the critical and practical skills
needed to discuss and create transmedia news stories. All knowledge and skills are required
for a journalist to realise and reflect a deeper understanding of an event, especially in this day
and age when one feels increasingly disconnected from reality. In addition to teaching the
underlying principles upon which journalism was founded, universities must adopt an edu-
cational strategy that prioritises the narrative and the audience over the media. These courses
should provide students with the freedom and encouragement to experiment with new forms
of expression. Most importantly, educators must ensure that students regard new media as an
opportunity rather than a limitation. Finally, the educational environment should allow jour-
nalism students to collaborate with peers of various talents and backgrounds.
TRANSMEDIA JOURNALISM DESIGN THINKING TOOLKIT AS

A TEACHING AID
Design thinking can play an effective role in this pursuit. In education, design thinking encour-
ages innovation, problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration (Anderson, 2012; Watson,
2015). It motivates students to explore and solve problems while also being open to new ideas
and allowing them to be innovative and creative (Scheer et al., 2012). Through its applica-
tion to complex interdisciplinary projects, design thinking is also beneficial in encouraging
21st-century learning (Brown & Kuratko, 2015; Noweski et al., 2012). It enables participants
to work successfully in multidisciplinary teams while solving complex real-life problems
creatively (Rauth et al., 2010). Considering all these aspects, design thinking tools can be
useful in constructing an educational environment for transmedia journalism. The Transmedia
Journalism Design Thinking Toolkit (TJT) is also built around this vision.
TJT is custom-designed to act as a guide for students to use during each stage of a trans-
media news story production (Gürsoy, 2020a). Informed by IDEO’s (2012) design thinking
stages, purpose, and tools, the TJT guides a transmedia journalism educational process (Table
16.1).
The transmedia journalism design thinking toolkit 283
Table 16.1 Pairing IDEO’s design thinking process with TJT stages
Transmedia
IDEO design Example
Stages Key purpose journalism design Key purpose Method
thinking methods
thinking
Understanding the
Observations, Building the team,
challenges. Designation of
Personas, refining a work
1 Discovery Preparing for tasks Picking a role The Actor and
Narratives, plan, and gathering
and gathering Fieldwork
Empathy maps stories.
inspiration.
Telling stories, Journey maps, Defining the
Transmedia
searching for Affinity Planning a news audience, news
2 Interpretation News Plot
meanings and diagrams, plot story plot, and
Design Canvas
opportunities. Scenarios connections.
Deciding on
Brainstorming,
media channels, Generating ideas Transmedia
Generating and Worst
3 Ideation forms, and for immersive Journalism
refining ideas. possible idea,
audience storytelling. Card Deck
SCAMPER
interactions
Storyboards, Producing the Code of Ethics
Producing Practising ethics
Role-playing, news content Checklist and
prototypes that in journalism and
4 Experimentation Sketching and and creating Transmedia
users can provide Constructing the
diagrams, Paper a blueprint of the News Story
feedback on. news storyworld
models news storyworld. Flowchart
Gaining a deep
Presenting the
understanding
User tests, news story to Transmedia
of the solution
Think aloud Constructing the the audience to News Story
5 Evolution and the user’s
protocols, KPI news storyworld receive feedback Flowchart and
feedback to move
studies on content and Fieldwork
forward to a better
interactions.
solution.
Note: This table outlines the stages, purpose and key tools and methods of IDEO’s (2012) design thinking process
and the TJT to illustrate the strong bond between both structures.
STAGE 1: PICKING A ROLE
As the initial tool of TJT, the Designation of the Actor provides students with a variety of roles
to choose from. Each student can take turns performing a certain role in the group project.
Characters are divided into four categories: content creators, content editors, storyworld
planners, and project managers. After completing each position, a student can experience the
construction process and form opinions from a variety of perspectives. The content creator
oversees all content produced during the planning phase. While working with the content
editor, the creator conducts research, filters, writes, and gathers material from a variety of
sources. The editor and creator work together to determine which topics to cover. The editor
is also in charge of confirming the accuracy of the content and resolving any ethical concerns
that may arise. The storyworld planner, on the other hand, is in charge of creating the structure
of the story. To decide on a uniform distribution of material across several media types and
channels, the planner must engage with the content developer and editor. Finally, the project
manager oversees the entire project, including planning, oversight, and documentation.
Ultimately, each team member collaborates with the others to plan a transmedia news story by
playing complementary roles.
The cards contained within the Designation of the Actor tool represent four separate actor
roles (Figure 16.1). If each role is assigned to more than one person, the cards can be dupli-
cated as necessary. Each card has a brief description of who the actor is, what responsibilities
the actor must complete, and which phases of the toolkit the actor is most active in.
STAGE 2: PLANNING A NEWS PLOT
The first step in crafting a transmedia news story is to identify the news story theme and char-
acters. This step is critical due to the constraints that a journalist must consider. Transmedia
storytelling demands careful and timely planning, which necessitates broad news themes
– complex and vast topics. The fact that the news is nonfiction demands further study into
the individuals and their ties to the story expansions. For this reason, the second stage of TJT
employs a design thinking canvas tool as a template for plotting a transmedia news narrative.
This is a holistic technique for gathering project inputs that provides an overview of the many
steps in the plot design process (Dubbelman, 2021; Observatory of Public Sector Innovation,
2021). It offers well-organised techniques that try to break down tough challenges into man-
ageable steps. It also encourages students to consider the problem from a variety of angles and
to strive to empathise with the news’ characters. The canvas technique is very useful for the
design team’s internal communication. The Transmedia News Plot Design Canvas is intended
to address specific questions by providing the necessary material for the next stage of creating
the narrative framework (Figure 16.2). The canvas can help determine the main news theme,
character, and plot choices by asking the following questions:
1. What is the overall theme of the news?

2. What exactly is the plot of the news story?
3. Who are the story’s primary characters?
4. Are there any side stories that could emerge?
5. Who are the characters in these side stories?
STAGE 3: DECIDING ON MEDIA CHANNELS, FORMS, AND

AUDIENCE INTERACTIONS
After identifying the main and secondary stories, context, and characters, the canvas directs
the process toward the layout of all the linkages inside the news storyworld. The canvas’s
front side is used to plan the overall news plot, while the backside is used to graphically
sketch out the order and relationships of narratives and characters. After going over the plot
canvas, the students will have enough content to consider the following step, which involves
thinking about how to communicate the entire storyworld in numerous media and engaging the
audience in it. Students will learn how to design various entrance points to a story during this
stage, as well as non-linear and cross-media storytelling skills. A card-based ideation tool can
yield a framework to enable students to explore alternative solutions and boost creativity for
a complicated and multi-segmented challenge (Golembewski & Selby, 2010). One of the key
The transmedia journalism design thinking toolkit
Note: This figure showcases the designs of the four distinct actor role cards offered in the Designation of the Actor stage.
Figure 16.1 Designation of the actor cards

285
Note: This figure shows the front and back designs of the Transmedia News Plot Design Canvas. The canvas
includes questions intended to guide the students in the plot creation process.
Figure 16.2 Transmedia News Plot Design Canvas
benefits of a card-based tool system is that it provides an artefact that may be used as a focal
point for group discussion (Tschudy et al., 1996). This design method attempts to develop
a variety of skills, including participation and teamwork. Another benefit of a card-based tool
system is that, when created with universal iconography and simple phrasing, it can overcome
most language barriers. It’s also very adaptable and portable in different contexts.
The Transmedia Journalism Card Deck is a context-specific/agenda-driven tool (Wölfel
& Merritt, 2013) created exclusively for transmedia news story planning. Forms, channels,
and engagements are the three primary categories of the card deck. The delivery structure
of the transmedia news story is determined by these categories. They rely on one another as
well. When a certain form is chosen, for example, it restricts the types of channels via which
the material may be delivered, as a channel cannot accommodate all types of media forms.
Similarly, once a channel is chosen, it restricts the kind of engagement that the audience may
have since no channel can accommodate all forms of interaction.
Each category has a number of cards (Figure 16.3). The categories are distinguished by
colour: forms are purple, channels are green, and engagements are orange. On the front of each
card, there is a name, a symbol, and a category title. Each card’s back face contains specific
information regarding the relevant form, channel, or engagement. A recommendation section
is also provided to help students. For example, a form card directs students to suggested chan-
nels for the specified form, while a channel card presents recommended engagements for the
selected channel.
It is critical to select the appropriate media form for displaying news content. Aside from
delivering text, audio, artefacts, and video, the card deck offers a variety of choices, such as
news games and virtual reality. For the most efficient distribution of a transmedia story, the
most convenient media channels must also be carefully analysed. As a result, among the many
analogue and digital media outlets represented in the card deck are newspapers, news websites,
and galleries. Finally, one of the most important parts of transmedia storytelling is audience
engagement. The participation of the audience is what makes a news story truly immersive.
For this reason, the card deck offers a variety of alternatives for audience involvement based
Note: This figure includes card designs from the deck, showcasing one example from each section (form, channel,
and engagement).
Figure 16.3 Transmedia Journalism Card Deck
on the forms and channels that are chosen. Some examples of engagement include comment-
ing, bookmarking, sharing, and playing. The diversity of choices is meant to stimulate the
creative mind into finding the best strategy for presenting a story. This allows the students the
flexibility and encouragement to experiment with new forms of expression and to consider
each new medium as an opportunity.
STAGE 4: PRACTISING ETHICAL JOURNALISM
The ethical and truth-oriented perspective of journalism practice distinguishes news stories
from fictional ones. Therefore, when transmedia storytelling intersects with news stories, there
is a need to keep an ethical eye on the fine line between advertising and journalism (Kovach
& Rosenstiel, 2014). In this regard, the third stage of TJT acts as a grounding reminder of the
journalistic bounds of thoughts, decisions, or information. The Code of Ethics Checklist (CEC)
is a collection of four primary topics that cover the ethical standards of journalism:
(1) The topic of “accuracy” poses questions to the student about the source, context, rele-
vance, viewpoint, and stereotype.
(2) The “independence” section questions the creator’s motives, favours, method of access
to content and sponsorship.
(3) The topic of “accountability/transparency” confronts the student with questions of meth-
odological transparency and declaration of proximity.
(4) The “harm limitation” section puts the student to the test on issues such as dealing with
children, defamation, sensitive images, and language use.
Under each topic, the checklist tool presents a series of reminders and questions (Figure
16.4). Although the tool develops a universal perspective on the journalistic code of ethics,
it is important to acknowledge that the practice of journalism and its ethical boundaries may
differ depending on the cultural context. As a result, this checklist is open to customisation to
accommodate culturally diverse journalistic techniques, and other codes may be introduced as
needed.
Note: This figure shows the front and back layout of the Code of Ethics Checklist.
Figure 16.4 Code of Ethics Checklist
STAGE 5: CONSTRUCTING THE NEWS STORYWORLD
As the final step of TJT, the students are offered a prototyping tool to develop a structural
flowchart of the transmedia news narrative. The previous stages’ decisions are laid out in this
phase to depict the flow of many stories spread across multiple media and the user’s journey
of experience. At this point, the storyworld planner plays a crucial role. However, all team
members are expected to contribute their knowledge of prior steps to create an accurate and
comprehensive blueprint of the news storyworld.
The Transmedia News Story Flowchart is divided into two components (Figure 16.5). The
first section, “Flow of the News Story”, reveals specifics about each story (plot and charac-
ters), as well as their formats and routes of distribution. It also depicts the points of entry into
the storyworld as well as the connecting zones between the stories. Furthermore, it displays
Note: This figure shows both sides of the Transmedia News Story Flowchart. On one side, students are provided
with an area to sketch a flowchart of the overall storyworld. On the other side, user journeys within this storyworld
can be prototyped.
Figure 16.5 Transmedia News Story Flowchart
the order of the tales based on their priority. The second section, “The User Journey”, outlines
the user’s immersive experience through established channels of involvement. This flowchart
depicts how a person should interact with news bits.
KEY LEARNINGS FROM NEWS STORY: NOURISHMENT AT

SANTRAL
After all preparations were completed, TJT was reviewed in a one-day workshop on 31
March 2018, at Istanbul Bilgi University in Turkey. Seven students from different faculty
programmes participated, representing a varied range of backgrounds and skills. The news
story they worked on was called Nourishment at Santral. It settled on the broad topic of
dietary choices and food resistance difficulties that Bilgi Campus inhabitants encounter daily.
The transmedia news story spanned an extended period of 10 weeks. The overall storyline
housed meticulously arranged news story fragments that were broadcast in multiple media
forms (video interview, sound, photography, text) across various media channels (print,
podcast, news website, social media). The workshop’s observations and feedback highlighted
the diverse effects of design thinking in transmedia journalism education with regards to (1)
simplifying a complex process, (2) building empathy to boost creativity and innovation, and
(3) working as an interdisciplinary team.
Learning 1: Simplifying a Complex Process
First, a transmedia news narrative is made up of story fragments, their linkages, and the
interactions they provide. Teaching such a complicated structure necessitates a well-organised
system. The design thinking teaching strategy instils trust in creative talents through a process
to grasp when faced with challenges during a project (Scheer et al., 2012). This organised
strategy not only helps in task definition and tracking progress but also assists in the detection
of errors. To illustrate, during the workshop, when a query about the subject of a news story
emerged in the editing phase, the students knew right away that they needed to go back to the
beginning of the research process. Following the workshop, students commented on how TJT
converted the work into enjoyable tasks and delivered it to them in the shape of bite-sized
chunks that could be easily consumed. Furthermore, guided by design thinking, students were
able to complete the education process from start to finish without the project falling apart.
Learning 2: Building Empathy to Boost Creativity and Innovation
Second, a transmedia journalism project captures caring individuals as they travel among
various media platforms, prolonging their interaction and investment in the news story. All the
effort is to build an experience that sparks curiosity and gets a reaction because people react
to what they care about. It is all about creating a driving force that will empower individuals
and inspire them to take any journey to be part of social change. Empathy, as a key ingredient
of emotional engagement and connection, can assist in creating valuable solutions in this
manner. Design thinking, therefore, provides a basis to empathise with these individuals and
identify their interests. It teaches students how to develop human-centred empathy, which is
crucial for ensuring that the produced solutions are applicable and desirable for the audience
(Brown, 2008; Goldman et al., 2014; Özmen, 2020). Not only that, but it can also assist in
discovering creative and innovative high-impact solutions to social problems in the process.
With the mindset of design thinking, students can build creative confidence through empathy,
feeding their ideas with creativity and innovation (Plattner, 2016; Rauth et al., 2010). This
notion is supported by observations from the transmedia journalism workshop. Students eval-
uated the needs of their target audience while establishing the news topic and subheadings,
as well as designing the channels and methods of interaction, from the start of the production
process. They did extensive research on all the actors who needed to take action to improve
the university campus’s nourishment systems. All of this and more was required to determine
what makes their target audience tick. Understanding the context of the audience enabled
the students to create a transmedia narrative that can go further into the mysterious waters of
the issue at hand, offer unique interactions, and inspire its consumers to participate. Whether
it’s a creative arrangement of an emotional news fragment on the café table or a mobile push
notification to a full interview of each food vendor, Nourishment at Santral was planned down
to the smallest detail. Nowadays, simply providing access to the news is insufficient to achieve
societal influence. Design thinking approaches, in conjunction with transmedia journalism,
can create a news experience that is systematically tailored to its intended audience and can
elicit emotional reactions for the resolution of social issues (Pressman, 2018).
Learning 3: Working as an Interdisciplinary Team
Lastly, as new social, political, or technological shifts occur, both the news industry and the
university must welcome interdisciplinary operations. Educators must abandon unidirectional
education in favour of creating an environment in which students from diverse backgrounds
can learn by working together, from one another, and in real life. Design thinking theory and
practices embrace this collaboration in an attempt to empathise not only with the target audi-
ence but also with the team members. Both scenarios involve gaining access to other people’s
perspectives and developing interpersonal knowledge from these insights that will be valuable
in the continued development of a news story (Köppen & Meinel, 2015). Each individual iden-
tifies unique details due to variations in perspective and perception. This knowledge mosaic
is a treasure trove for any creative or inventive endeavour, including design thinking. The
diversity of ideas broadens the area of inquiry and enriches the solutions provided (Plattner
et al., 2011). This is also why the workshop was an ideal setting for observing the collabo-
rative efforts of students with diverse talents and experiences. Whether it was a mini-lecture
delivered by one of the students to his teammates on traditional news article structure or the
sticky idea notes that covered the classroom walls, teamwork and collaborative action were
visible that day. Each student brought his or her unique perspective to the table and learned
from one another. This peer-to-peer learning environment came about naturally with TJT
because design thinking methods embrace collective thought and collaborative action (Serrat,
2017). Such learning environments can help future journalists learn how to collaborate with
people from various professions (Plattner et al., 2011). In addition, the collaborative effort
can encourage journalists to be open to innovative interdisciplinary practices. It is essential to
raise a generation of journalists who can quickly adapt to any technological environment they
may encounter. The way to do this is to raise individuals, who are seasoned with an education
that focuses mostly on the story, people and the creative process rather than mainly on the
outcome (Goldman et al., 2014), and who can look critically at themselves and their practices
when necessary.
THE VALUE OF DESIGN THINKING IN TRANSMEDIA TEACHING
Slow and comprehensive journalism, such as transmedia news stories that spread over time,
allows for a strong connection with the target news audience and the opportunity to listen
to what they have to say. As a result of putting people first, future journalists will be able
to increase the value of news and provide more realistic depictions. Furthermore, empathy
can assist journalists in connecting with their target audience on a more personal level.
Understanding how people consume and interact with news articles is also critical knowledge
that future journalists should always seek.
To achieve this goal, design thinking proposes asking the appropriate questions in each
given circumstance. These inquiries revolve around public behaviour and the public’s relation-
ship with the news. Concentrating on these two areas helps in determining the most convenient
media options for distribution. As a result, journalists are encouraged to investigate current
media that is relevant to their news coverage and target audience. This strategy also allows
journalists to transmit their messages to the public in more confident and organised phases,
rather than being dragged aimlessly between the media. Moreover, despite concerns about
design thinking gaining a reputation as an oversimplified approach, this work celebrates the
value it gives to detail. It distances journalists from the mechanical and generic language of
news narratives. Design thinking does this by emphasising the nuances that manifest them-
selves in different cultural and political contexts.
Transmedia scholars frequently discuss audience engagement and participation (Jenkins,
2007; Scolari, 2018). The importance of these two in transmedia storytelling is constantly
highlighted. It is, however, easier said than done. One of the most difficult challenges is to
create a community that is closely connected to the news and ensures its participation in social
reform. In this case, design thinking can serve as a communication bridge – a connection
between the creators of a transmedia news story and the community. This bridge produces
news narratives that not only contain verifiable facts but also welcome new realities created
by participatory audiences. Future journalists should be aware of how to deal with the planting
and harvesting of these new realities. In that sense, design thinking can be the torchbearer to
ask the right questions, empathise, explore, innovate, and iterate.
REFERENCES
Anderson, N. (2012). Design thinking: Employing an effective multidisciplinary pedagogical framework
to foster creativity and innovation in rural and remote education. Australian and International Journal
of Rural Education, 22(2), 43–52.
Brown, T. J., & Kuratko, D. F. (2015). The impact of design and innovation on the future of education.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 147–151.
Cheung, C.-K. (2010). Web 2.0: Challenges and opportunities for media education and beyond.
E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(4), 328–337.
Dubbelman, T. (2021). Teaching narrative design: On the importance of narrative game mechanics. In
B. Suter, R. Bauer, & M. Kocher (Eds), Narrative mechanics: Strategies and meanings in games and
real life (pp. 79–90). Transcript Verlag.
Freeman, M., & Gambarato, R. R. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge companion to transmedia studies.
Routledge.
Gambarato, R. R. (2018). Transmedia journalism. In The Routledge companion to transmedia studies
(pp. 90–98). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351054904-10
Gambarato, R. R., & Alzamora, G. C. (2018). Exploring transmedia journalism in the digital age. IGI
Global.
Giraldo-Luque, S., Tejedor, S., Portalés-Oliva, M., & Carniel-Bugs, R. (2020). Transmedia literacy com-
petences of journalism students: Production and editing of informative multimedia content. Revista
ICONO 14. Revista científica de Comunicación y Tecnologías emergentes, 18(2), 84–110.
Goldman, S., Kabayadondo, Z., Royalty, A., Carroll, M. P., & Roth, B. (2014). Student teams in search
of design thinking. In L. Leifer, H. Plattner, & C. Meinel (Eds), Design thinking research: Building
innovation eco-systems (pp. 11–34). Springer International Publishing.
Golembewski, M., & Selby, M. (2010). Ideation decks: A card-based design ideation tool. Proceedings
of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 89–92.
Gürsoy, D. (2020a). Tailoring a method: Adaptation of design thinking to transmedia journalism.
Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 11(1), 25–36.
Gürsoy, D. (2020b). Transmediality in independent journalism: The Turkish case. Routledge.
IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators toolkit. http://designthinkingforeducators.com
Jenkins, H. (2007). Transmedia storytelling 101. Confessions of an Aca-Fan. http://henryjenkins.org/
blog/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html
Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2015). Empathy via design thinking: Creation of sense and knowledge. In H.
Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds), Design thinking research: Building innovators (pp. 15–28).
Springer International Publishing.
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the
public should expect. Three Rivers Press.
Moloney, K. (2019). Designing transmedia journalism projects. In Journalism and ethics: Breakthroughs
in research and practice (pp. 872–892). IGI Global.
Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J., & Meinel, C. (2012). Towards a par-
adigm shift in education practice: Developing twenty-first century skills with design thinking. In H.
Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research: Measuring performance in context
(pp. 71–94). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. (2021, January 6). The design thinking canvas. https://oecd
-opsi.org/toolkits/the-design-thinking-canvas
Özmen, M. (2020). “Intuition as method” as an approach for information design. Interactions: Studies in
Communication & Culture, 11(1), 37–50.
Plattner, H. (2016). Preface. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds), Design thinking research:
Making design thinking foundational (pp. v–vi). Springer International Publishing.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking: Understand – improve – apply. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.
Pressman, A. (2018). Design thinking: A guide to creative problem solving for everyone. Routledge.
Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards
creative confidence. DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity
(ICDC 2010). https://www.designsociety.org/publication/30267/
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design
thinking in education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(3). https://ojs
.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/download/1758/1648
Scolari, C. A. (2018). Transmedia literacy: Rethinking media literacy in the new media ecology. In The
Routledge companion to transmedia studies (pp. 323–331). Routledge.
Serrat, O. (2017). Design thinking. In Knowledge solutions (pp. 129–134). Springer Singapore.
Tschudy, M. W., Dykstra-Erickson, E. A., & Holloway, M. S. (1996). PictureCARD: A storytelling tool
for task analysis. PDC, 183–191.
Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18.
Wölfel, C., & Merritt, T. (2013). Method card design dimensions: A survey of card-based design tools.
Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2013, 479–486.
17. Conclusion—Beyond normal design thinking:
reflections on the evolution of a paradigm and
ideas for the new incommensurable
Philip Ely
INTRODUCTION
In 2009, at a catalytical moment in the history of design thinking when Tim Brown’s seminal
article in the Harvard Business Review was published, design scholar Sharon Poggenpohl
wrote “Design is reaching a transitional moment that requires a critical look at its current and
future states … Design’s craft origins cannot support the evolving context of design action
needed now” (Poggenpohl, 2009, p. 3). Poggenpohl argued that design—as a discipline—was
not well organised and required
a discourse that is responsible to history, uses scholarly apparatus (definitions, references, bibli-
ographies, footnotes, etc.), reports research intelligently, supports dialogue between academia and
practice, opens issues critically for examination, and builds knowledge, not only for its own purposes,
but also to share with others with different disciplinary perspectives. (Poggenpohl, 2009, p. 17)
Accepting that design deals with the messiness of human behaviour and creation in contrast
to the sciences where certainty and truth hold sway, Poggenpohl argued that future design
research was critical to its maturity as a discipline, making the ideas and actions in design
more explicit, arguing that such an endeavour was an essential challenge to the traditional
(artefactual) approach to design.
The inter-disciplinary practice and critical discourse that Poggenpohl called for was—in
some design disciplines—already emergent. For example, design historians have argued not
only that “design history” has become a discipline in its own right—with a concomitant infra-
structure of journals, learned societies and a research culture of research degree students—but
has experienced an epistemological reorientation beyond merely visual aesthetics and cultural
history (Lees-Maffei & Houze, 2010, p. 2). Further, Midral argues that the extent of design’s
maturity is evident in its ability to “produce its own discourses and lines of inquiry and to
define the conditions for its own existence” (Midal, 2019, p. 396). Even in the most pragmatic
of disciplines—graphic design—a discursive, critical, and scholarly research community is
evident (Black et al., 2017; Kim, 2017; Teal & Atzmon, 2019) and, as this chapter explores,
the discipline of design thinking has also experienced a veritable explosion in discourse
amongst professional designers and academics alike.
294
Conclusion 295
One aspect of Poggenpohl’s invitation for more research activity that is still open to
development is around the notion of future states. If we are to accept that the broad field of
design (and its constituent disciplines and sub-disciplines) is one primarily concerned with
futuring—of “changing existing situations into preferred ones” as Herbert Simon is quoted
ad nauseam—one inevitable question emerges: what, then, does this mean for the field of
design itself? What does the future hold for design? Specifically, what future lies ahead for
the sub-field or sub-discipline we call “design thinking”? For the inquisitive researcher, how
might we confront such questions? How can we research a future that is yet to be? How might
we embark on an epistemological grand project exploring one of the early 21st century’s most
widely cited design paradigms and make sense of where we might be headed? What and who
comes next?
This chapter takes tentative first steps towards what comes next, by first exploring the emer-
gence of Design Thinking, its popular (and scholarly) acceptance as a “paradigm” (whether
well received or not), and then considering its future through the theoretical lens of science
philosopher, Thomas Kuhn who—if not the first to use the word paradigm—was the first to
consider the historical development of scientific knowledge from this perspective. In his post-
script to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR), Kuhn recognised that his analysis of
scientific revolutions could equally apply to comparative studies in other fields. By answering
important questions about how individuals are “elected” into a particular community (scien-
tific or not), the process and stages of socialisation of said group, and the groups goals and the
deviations (individual or collective), the historian or researcher can begin to understand how
ideas have emerged in a field of study and how they have held sway (Kuhn, 1970 p. 209). In
looking at Design Thinking from such an epistemological viewpoint, this chapter provides the
design thinking researcher with a foundational perspective on how knowledge is created in
design within communities of scholars and practitioners, thus presented as a form of research
into design (Frayling, 1994). As Laursen and Haase (2019) have noted, the cornerstones of con-
temporary Design Thinking are emergent from two distinct communities—”design thinking”
practitioners and the design research field of “designerly thinking” (p. 814)—communities
that nevertheless “rub off on each other” (p. 815). As we will explore in this chapter, whilst
the two communities of managerialist design thinking practitioners and the scholarly design
researchers do not necessarily agree with definitions, processes or methods under the rubric of
“design thinking” that contribute to two distinct discourses (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013),
both nevertheless are interested in the broader efficacy or limitations of design-led approaches
to confronting wicked (Buchanan, 1992) or complex problems.
A process of mapping the terrain of knowledge amongst a community of researchers
and practitioners in a field draws attention to the controversies, interdependencies, rela-
tions (Latour, 2005) and the modalities, formalities, tactics and trajectories (Certeau, 1984,
pp. 29–42) of a broader disciplinary field. The question of how and why certain knowledge
appears to hold sway over other forms of knowledge (whether tacit or knowledge; expert or
novice) is a perennial matter of concern. Being perpetually inquisitive to the faint signals of
dissent or revolution found in disciplinary discourse is a prerequisite of effective research and
criticism. Indeed, in the futuring discipline of design, the search for new ways of knowing and
doing design would appear to be its raison d’être.
Table 17.1 Summary of Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013) and Laursen & Haase (2019)
Authors Discourse
Designerly Thinking
Simon (1996 [1969]) The creation of artefacts (the science of the artificial)
Schön (1983) A reflexive practitioner
Buchanan (1992); Rittel and Webber (1973) A problem-solving activity (wicked problems)
Cross (2006, 2011); Lawson (2005 [1980]) A way of reasoning and sense-making
Krippendorff (2006) The creation of meaning
Design thinking in management discourse (Design Thinking)
Brown (2008, 2009); Kelley (2001, 2006) IDEO’s way of working
Dunne and Martin (2006); Martin (2009) An approach and skill for managers
Boland and Collopy (2004) A management theory
CONTESTED DESIGN THINKING
In setting out to map the territory of people and places that have shaped the design thinking
paradigm, it is worth noting the systematic reviews of Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013) and
Laursen and Haase (2019) respectively. Other similar studies of design thinking have been
conducted for researchers in educational research (Razzouk & Shute, 2012) product innova-
tion management (Micheli et al., 2019) and organisational management (Elsbach & Stigliani,
2018). Each of these reviews has attempted to provide a taxonomy of design thinking, forming
a useful foundation for future studies. For example, Johansson-Sköldberg et al. identified
eight distinct discourses, which Laursen and Haase more usefully describe as falling into two
distinct types of discourse “designerly thinking” and “Design Thinking” (see Table 17.1).
What is revealing is that even the reviews themselves do not share the same language to
describe the ideas being presented; what Johansson-Sköldberg et al. describe as “discourses”,
Laursen and Haase describe as “concepts”. Through the reviews, however, we can see that
the emergence of design thinking in the management or business literature serves a different
audience to those in the “designerly thinking” community. Further, a distinction has been
made between the scholarly and theoretically grounded designerly thinking literature and the
theoretically-light, toolkit-oriented management literature. Laursen and Haase’s theoretical
analysis reveals that the designerly thinking literature has a focus on particular paradigms
(“wicked problems”, “abductive” reasoning and “contextual meaning”) (Laursen & Haase,
2019, p. 821) and methodological approaches to design thinking, whereas the managerial
design thinking “mainly focuses on ‘suggested actions’, tools and techniques … often
described in a ‘cookbook’ format featuring significant phases and tools selected for each
phase” (p. 826). The reason for this, the authors posit, is that the aim of designerly thinking is
to establish itself as a discipline in its own right, whilst the aim of the design thinking literature
“is to ‘export designers’ ways of thinking to non-designers” (p.827).
A more recent citation analysis of “Design Thinking” AND/OR “design thinking” in titles,
abstracts, keywords or body copy on the Scopus database (2022) reveals the paradigmatic
reach of design thinking, with the top 50 cited works (with 96–2005 citations respectively) on
design thinking published from fields as diverse as educational psychology, chronic diseases,
energy and environment, (local) economics and policy sciences alongside those in design,
Conclusion 297
design education, management, engineering and business. Although such a search reveals that
Dym et al.’s (2005) article on “Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning” is the
most cited, Tim Brown’s article published three years later in 2008 has been the most cited text
on design thinking in peer-reviewed articles in the 2020s (Table 17.2).
A similar search on Web of Science identifies the top 50 cited works (with 40–1250
citations respectively) and the same top two cited papers from Dym et al. (2005) and Brown
(2008) (Table 17.3).
Whilst regular systematic reviews of the literature are to be encouraged (using such tools
as citation analysis), what is often left out of such analyses is a qualitative and wider look at
the flow of knowledge between design scholars and design practitioners. Indeed, an apparent
systematic, meta-level analysis of design thinking (Micheli et al., 2019) has argued that
scholarship on design thinking (in its broadest sense) is still lacking theoretical and methodo-
logical rigour—particularly a lack of empirical evidence to determine the precise nature and
benefits of design thinking (Micheli et al., 2019, p. 143). This is disingenuous, for they failed
to identify the quarter-century systematic research outputs of the Design Thinking Research
Symposium series—explored in the Special Issue of the Design Studies journal (Cross, 2018;
Dorst, 2018)—and that community’s substantial analyses of design thinking in practice (Ball
& Christensen, 2018; Goldschmidt, 2016, 2017). Design thinking has different meanings, both
to the members of the two distinct DT and dt communities but also to other disciplines and
publics interested in the paradigm, and it is incumbent on design researchers to stay inquisitive
to how design thinking—or any other design paradigm—is socialised into the both business
and academic communities.
A KUHNIAN PERSPECTIVE
What we see in the contested space of Design Thinking/design thinking is analogous to what
Thomas Kuhn had seen in communities of scientists, who can share a practice but not a body
of theory, rules and definitions; and who can share a paradigm but not share the same under-
standing of it (Kuhn, 1970, pp. 44, 50). What makes this apparently paradoxical situation more
problematic is that what we might term a “paradigm” is itself a contested space. Many authors
have highlighted the ambiguities around the very concept of “paradigm” within Kuhn’s writing
(Kindi, 2012; Masterman, 1970). However, in specific response to the apparent elusiveness of
Kuhn’s paradigms, Kuhn later wrote that “less confusion will result if I instead replace it with
the phrase “disciplinary matrix”—“disciplinary” because it is the common possession of a pro-
fessional discipline and “matrix” because it is composed of ordered elements of various sorts”
(Kuhn, 1974, p. 297). A disciplinary matrix would comprise “all of the objects of group com-
mitment described in the book as paradigms, parts of paradigms, or paradigmatic” (p. 297). He
also acknowledged that paradigms could be seen as “exemplars” which are “concrete problem
solutions, accepted by the group as, in a quite usual sense, paradigmatic” (p. 298). This latter
definition is one often adopted in the fields of architecture and engineering, demonstrating—to
paraphrase Masterman—both the perspicuous and obscure notion of paradigms.
In the field of design, references to particular design paradigms as candidates for
solution-finding metaphors, shapes or models (Wake, 2000)—or (following failure)
solution-avoiding (Petroski, 2012) are contrasted with design paradigms that are represent-
ative of disciplinary matrices, replete with their methodological, political or philosophical
298
Table 17.2 Scopus Citation Tracker, showing top 10 most cited works on “design thinking” and/or “Design Thinking”
Year Document title Authors Journal/book title Citations 2020 citations 2021 citations Total
<2020 citations
2005 Engineering design thinking, Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer Journal of Engineering 1680 170 147 2005
teaching, and learning Education
2008 Design thinking Brown Harvard Business Review 1296 236 247 1798
2007 Sketching User Experiences: Buxton Sketching User 653 43 22 719
Getting the Design Right and the Experiences: Getting the
Right Design Design Right and the Right
Design (Book)
2011 The core of “design thinking” and Dorst Design Studies 425 102 140 672
its application
2013 Design thinking: Past, present and Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Creativity and Innovation 224 94 66 388
possible futures Çetinkaya Management
2006 How bodies matter: Five themes Klemmer, Hartmann, & Takayama Proceedings of the 337 27 23 388
for interaction design Conference on Designing
Interactive Systems:
Processes, Practices,
Methods, and Techniques,
DIS
2006 Design thinking and how it will Dunne & Martin Academy of Management 292 41 40 375
change management education: An Learning and Education
interview and discussion
2002 Thinking in design teams—An Stempfle & Badke-Schaub Design Studies 298 27 29 354
analysis of team communication
2012 What is design thinking and why is Razzouk & Shute Review of Educational 177 77 88 344
it important? Research
2007 Innovation as a learning process: Beckman & Barry California Management 247 43 44 338
Embedding design thinking Review
Source: Scopus, 2022.

Conclusion 299
Table 17.3 Web of Science Top 10 citations for “Design Thinking” AND/OR “design
thinking”
Year Document title Authors Journal/book title Total

citations
2005 Engineering design thinking, Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer Journal of Engineering 1250
teaching, and learning Education
2008 Design thinking Brown Harvard Business Review 1246
2011 The core of “design thinking” and Dorst Design Studies 539
its application
2006 Design thinking and how it will Dunne & Martin Academy of Management 297
change management education: Learning and Education
An interview and discussion
2013 Design thinking: Past, present Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Creativity and Innovation 292
and possible futures Çetinkaya Management
2007 Innovation as a learning process: Beckman & Barry California Management 265
Embedding design thinking Review
2011 Rethinking design thinking: Part I Kimbell Design and Culture 260
2012 What is design thinking and why Razzouk & Shute Review of Educational 256
is it important? Research
2007 Using design thinking to improve Yeager et al. Journal of Educational 250
psychological interventions: The Psychology
case of the growth mindset during
the transition to high school
2012 Design things and design Bjögvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren Design Issues 200
thinking: Contemporary
participatory design challenges
Source: Clarivate, 2022.
orientation and communities of practice—for example “anti-design” (cf. Midal, 2019, for an
overview). Indeed, as we explored earlier, even amongst design thinking scholars, what is
termed a “paradigm” appears to apply not only to design thinking itself (Laursen & Tollestrup,
2017), but concepts within the paradigm—in this case the idea of “wicked problems”, “abduc-
tion”, and “contextual meaning” (Laursen & Haase, 2019, pp. 820–821). In a more recent
critique of “Design Thinking”, Lee (2021), has described the shortcomings of the “making
paradigm” or—referring to the Greek (Meagher, 1988)—the “technē paradigm” dominant in
popular understandings of design thinking which relies on a technical, rational logic imposed
on situations and organisations that does not “actively recognize and discuss the importance
of the social location and place of design activities in organizations” (p. 506). Lee specifically
refers to what he sees as two visible forms of design thinking: “intervention design” which
he attributes to the product focus or “matryohska doll or time-release pill” version of design
thinking advocated by Tim Brown and Roger Martin—and “enterprise design thinking”
exemplified by IBM’s “injection” of 2,500 designers and the training of 250,000 employees
in design thinking (p. 502).
The question of what we mean by “Design Thinking” or “design thinking” is of course an
important one for designers who believe that they belong to one school of thought or another
(revealing perhaps the “mythic” qualities of the paradigm) but for forward-oriented design
researchers there is an observation we can make about both conceptions. Both communities—
the business-oriented DT or the scholarly “dt”—are largely “stable” communities who are
clear about their ontological and epistemological position regarding what they believe design
thinking is. Thus, Design Thinking has now reached its normative state. By this, we mean that
a research infrastructure of institutions, journals, publishers, research programmes, method-
ologies and people has been realised. Arguably, it is this stability that can lead us to conclude
that both forms of design thinking are what Kuhn would describe as “normal science” (Kuhn,
1970, pp. 5–6, 10, 80), an important concept that applies to periods where scientists (for us,
designers and design researchers) are tied to a particular tradition, methods, rules or world-
views, signifying a form of maturity of the nature of a paradigm (Kuhn, 1970, p. 179).
When Kuhn talked about “normal science” as a pre-paradigm period (before a new crisis
or revolution) he was referring to a kind of knowledge creation which was “puzzle-solving”
(Kuhn, 1996, pp. 35–42, 80) within the confines (and accepting the validity) of a current
paradigm. This is not to belittle the work of everyday science (or in our case design) for,
as Kuhn reminds us, people spend their whole working lives working within the confines
of a particular paradigm. Kuhn’s puzzle-solving was a recognition that in the daily practice
of a particular field of inquiry wedded to a paradigm, a great deal of testing and probing
paradigmatic assumptions still took place. Kuhn described periods of normal science being
disrupted by anomalies that can occur in fields of science. These anomalies can lead to periods
of crisis, resulting in a candidate paradigm able to give account of these anomalies and replace
an existing paradigm (Kuhn, 1970, p. 82). The replacement of one paradigm over another or
the emergence of an entirely new paradigm in a “Gestalt switch” (Kuhn, 1970, p. 112 for an
extended explanation) marks the moment of a paradigm shift or an entire change in worldview.
Normal science is thus a “pre-paradigm” period leading up to this shift or scientific revolution.
Building on Davis’s (2016) earlier application of Kuhnian thought to design education,
we apply this notion of normal science in a sociological and macro-level sense to describe
a broad-based orientation in a community of practice (Wenger, 2000). The emergence of a par-
adigm occurs through a process of what Bowker and Star have described as the “naturalization
of categories and objects” (Bowker & Star, 1999, p. 294), a process that members of a par-
ticular community of practice themselves experience when they encounter such objects and
classifications within their given field. During this process of gaining membership in a par-
ticular community, an “illegitimate stranger” (someone new to the community who does not
yet see the objects and categories as anything but ambiguous) actually becomes a “source for
learning”, for membership becomes a collective “process … of managing the tension between
the ambiguous (outsider, naïve, strange) and the naturalized (at home, taken-for-granted)
categories” (Bowker & Star, 1999, p. 295). Like Kuhn, Bowker and Star describe these
tensions between new ideas, classifications and members as “anomalies” (Bowker & Star,
1999, p. 295). By looking at how communities of practice arrange, classify and organise their
ideas we find that categories (definitions, concepts) and their boundaries are important to the
evolution of a particular field.
Kuhn was interested in scientific labs, theory and breakthroughs which made little distinc-
tion between the laboratory scientist or theoretician in academia and the industry-embedded
scientific practitioner. Unlike those in design, individuals who act as “researchers” in the
world of science concern themselves with fundamental principles and rationalities to progress
Conclusion 301
a particular scientific field. In design thinking, there are at least two types of researchers: the
design thinking researcher who has a critical distance and interest in the efficacy and saliency
of particular designerly ways of knowing and doing; or the embedded design researcher who is
employed directly within a design thinking process to inform a particular professional design
project in practice. Both are interested in the “situatedness” of design action (Simonsen et al.,
2014) and few would argue with Nelson and Stolterman who see that the purpose of designing
is to survive, improve, develop, grow, thrive, evolve, serve others, make something of lasting
quality, create something of real consequence and “participate in the never-ending genesis”
(Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p. 13).
INSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF DESIGN THINKING
One of the primary reasons for the recent emergence of Design Thinking as an apparent
panacea for the problems that contemporary businesses and societies face is the rhetorical
influence of Brown’s HBR article (Brown, 2008), the publication of Brown’s book Change by
design on design thinking for innovation and change (Brown, 2009) and the subsequent work
of Brown’s IDEO partner David Kelley at Stanford d.school with the Hasso Plattner Institute.
All of this work is widely seen as crucial to the recent acceptance of design as a tool for driving
business innovation. Brown and Kelley’s astute public advocacy for design approaches to
innovations in health, computing, education and in business more generally—manifest in the
term “Design Thinking”—has certainly served IDEO’s business interests well across North
America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific regions. As many design practitioners and scholars
have recognised, DT has been the Trojan horse that has led design into the corporate board-
room at the request of business executives across the globe (Ely, 2020; Hill, 2012; Wrigley,
2018).
Brown’s articulation of a design thinker’s “personality profile” (Brown, 2008, p. 87)
included the characteristics of empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, experimentalism and
collaboration. Importantly, Brown stated that design thinkers are not “necessarily created
only by design schools … many people outside of professional design have a natural aptitude
for design thinking, which the right development and experiences can unlock” (Brown, 2008,
p. 87). The ubiquity of Brown’s article and the idea of Design Thinking (at least his version)
mark it as a key moment in the evolution of design—at least amongst a particular group of
practitioners and scholars. These include advocates for design for business Roger Martin
(Brown & Martin, 2015; Martin, 2010), Jeanne Liedtka (Liedtka, 2014; Liedtka & Ogilvie,
2013) and, more recently, the engineering-oriented Stanford and Hasso Plattner Institute
scholars, Larry Leifer, Hasso Plattner and Christoph Meinel (Leifer & Meinel, 2016; Plattner
et al., 2011, 2016a, 2016b). Within less than two years since the HBR article, Brown’s variant
of design thinking was recognised as having “paradigmatic qualities” (Badke-Schaub et al.,
2010).
Badke-Schaub, Roozenburg and Cardoso’s paper at the Design Thinking Research
Symposium in 2010 (Badke-Schaub et al., 2010) not only drew attention to what they saw
as a problem in “the main dogma of the new thinking approach, which strongly focuses on
the user whilst leaving the designer behind” (p. 41) but the 25 years of research on design
thinking which Brown not only seemed to ignore but the main principles he apparently tried
to redefine (p. 40). This argument between design scholars (who literally see themselves, in
this case, as part of a scientific community) and practitioners in business and management
continues to cast a shadow over the DT paradigm. However, if we trace the lineage of the
concept of design thinking amongst design academic-practitioners, we can perhaps begin to
understand Badke-Schaub et al.’s frustration with Brown’s articulation of design thinking, for
such a rendering does indeed ignore the creative and systematic analysis of designerly ways
of doing and knowing.
We can trace ancestors to the paradigm in John Christopher Jones’ analysis of design
cognition and process (Jones, 1970, 1979); Bruce Archer’s work at the Royal College of
Art in London (Archer, 1967) and the creation of the Design Studies journal (Archer, 1979,
1991); and Nigel Cross’s corpus of work on design ability and designerly ways of knowing
(Cross, 1990, 1999, 2001, 2006, 2018; Cross et al., 1994, 1996; Dorst & Cross, 2001). To this
body of work, we must also acknowledge the contributions of Richard Buchanan (Buchanan,
1992, 2019), Ken Friedman (Friedman, 1997) and Kees Dorst (Dorst, 2015a, 2015b, 2018;
Dorst & Cross, 2001; Paton & Dorst, 2011) who have expanded our understanding of design
thinking across the design disciplines, bringing with it credibility within the academe. Beyond
this acknowledgement, however, it is important to recognise that there is no simple lineage
from a single point in history to contemporary forms of “Design Thinking” (in all of its
manifestations).
Dilnot has noted in his introduction to the more recent edition of John Christopher Jones’
designing designing (Dilnot in Jones, 2021, p. xxviii), an interest in the methods of design and
the applicability of these methods to varying levels of function and use (from systems to envi-
ronments to operations) emerged not only from Jones himself but also from Herbert Simon
(1996) and Horst Rittel (1972, 1987). Other key figures in the establishment of a broader inter-
est in design methodologies include Richard Buckminster Fuller (Meller, 1972), and Victor
Papanek (Papanek, 1971) who would require retrospectives too lengthy for this chapter (cf.
Cross, 2001, for an analysis of Fuller’s contribution to design science and Clarke, 2016, for an
overview of Papanek’s contribution). To the canon, we must also acknowledge Donald Schön
(1983, 1984), who—much like Tim Brown—has become an oft-cited resource for design
thinking researchers (Beck & Chiapello, 2018).
Whilst Brown and his Californian counterparts might not claim exclusivity over the notion
of “design thinking”, the popular perception of Design Thinking is nevertheless Brownian
and this has precipitated reactions from scholars and practitioners alike. Woudhuysen (2011)
cites the seminal figures in design practice and scholarship who deprecate the myth of Design
Thinking and it’s “nonsensical, erroneous thinking” (Norman 2010), its over-simplistic focus
on process not outcomes (McCullagh, 2010) and its attention to style and user-centredness at
the expense of radical innovation through “making sense of things” (Verganti, 2009, p. 27, cf.
2010). Woudhuysen himself describes Design Thinking as a craze which has detracted from
vigorous research and development and offered only the legitimation of “corporate and offi-
cial bodies and de-legitimation of those stakeholders known as scientists and technologists”
(Woudhuysen, 2011, p. 248).
Other notable critics of Brownian Design Thinking include Bruce Nussbaum, Jon Kolko
and Lee Vinsel who have denounced the reductionist, divisiveness and commercialist
IDEO-Stanford model (Kolko, 2018; Nussbaum, 2011; Vinsel, 2017). Nussbaum’s dismissal
of DT was merely the platform on which to promote an idea of his own called “creative intel-
ligence”—“CQ” (Nussbaum, 2011). Vinsel’s dissection of the “lipstick on the pig” innovation
Conclusion 303
method (Vinsel, 2017) and its permeation into the world of university education concludes
with a satirical analysis of the ultimate in commercialisation—Bill Burnett’s derivation of
Design Thinking, the Stanford Designing Your Life programme (Burnett & Evans, 2018).
What we see above is the contestation of [D]esign [T]hinking as a paradigm, both in its
substance (definitions and models), its origins and its intentions. The emergence of Design
Thinking from Brown et al. has resulted in a rhetorical backlash from both design practitioners
and scholars, which has itself only served to draw further attention to the Californication of
the paradigm (Hernández-Ramírez, 2018). Whilst the initial furore surrounding its coverage in
populist and business media may have subsided, DT continues to spark interest amongst schol-
ars outside of the design academy, including business and management (Elsbach & Stigliani,
2018; Glen et al., 2015; Wrigley et al., 2020), health (Petersen & Hempler, 2017), computer
science (Chou, 2018; O’Callaghan & Connolly, 2020) and education (Burrell et al., 2015;
e.g. Gachago et al., 2017; Mosely et al., 2018; Sándorová et al., 2020). It has also led to the
paradigm being combined with other concepts such as lean and agile thinking (Lewrick et al.,
2018; Roach, 2015) and into the world of military planning (Wrigley et al., 2021) extending
the reach of design thinking into the world of accelerated technological development. Design
Thinking has come to represent (for those at least outside of the design research traditions)
design itself and—to continue our Kuhnian analysis—has achieved a form of hegemonic
status (Preston, 2008, p. 95) as the go-to paradigm for all-things “design”.
It is now over a decade since the Brownian form of design thinking emerged as a paradigm
within the modern manager’s lexicon, it is another 35 years since architect Peter Rowe pub-
lished Design Thinking (Rowe, 1987) in the same period of Donald Schön’s reflective practi-
tioner work at nearby MIT; and over 55 years since Bruce Archer’s articulation of systematic
methods for designing (Archer, 1967). In 2017, Rowe was asked what he felt about other
disciplines “taking over this concept of design thinking”, to which he replied “So I think my
take on Stanford and the B-schools is that a lot of it is a gimmick. They skirt the issue. [Pause.]
The more important work is stuff that goes back to Herbert Simon and John Shaw … and Alan
Newell, who was Simon’s student…” (Rowe, 2017, pp. 78–81).
This conversation draws attention to the social membership of Design Thinking and the par-
ticular characteristics of those members: the early work of industrial designers and architects
in the UK during the 1960s (the so-called Design Methods movement) which has continued
through the work of the Design Thinking Research Symposium; the work of East Coast archi-
tects and urban planners in the mid-to-late 1980s; and the work of engineering and product
designers in California in the late 1990s–early 2000s. Whilst the UK and East Coast schools
of thought have been built on scholarly analyses of design-in-action, the Californian school
was initially business-led. Only recently has the IDEO-Stanford d.school begun to legitimise
its design thinking credentials through the scholarly work of the Hasso-Plattner Institute
Understanding Innovation series published by Springer (Plattner et al., 2011, 2016a, 2016b).
As Kuhn mentioned in his Postscript to SSR, a “paradigm governs, in the first instance,
not a subject matter but rather a group of practitioners. Any study of paradigm-directed or
of paradigm-shattering research must begin by locating the responsible group or groups”
(p. 180). The social dynamics between scholars and practitioners, between researchers and the
researched are shaped by (and shape) the paradigm we all recognise as a “thing” called design
thinking. Within this broad membership, each member places different value on the mani-
festations of their inquiries and their designs; for some, a peer-reviewed published scholarly
analysis; for others an improvement in the development of a process or designed outcome;

for others still, simply a designed outcome; often—though rarely recorded—a design failure.
Researching about or for design thinking requires an acknowledgment of these disparate views
on what forms of knowledge are valued by the community that share this paradigm, which
in turn will inform decisions on particular units of analysis in empirical studies (e.g., project
documentation, designed artefacts, conversations, sketches, citations, documentary footage,
polemical texts, social networks).
BEYOND THE NORMAL
It is a bromide to suggest that we cannot consider the field of design (and the methods we
deploy) as being another version of the natural or social sciences. Indeed, there is strong
argument to suggest that the logic and reasoning in design is distinctly different to that found
in the natural sciences (Dorst, 2011; Findeli, 2010) but we can see the parallels between devel-
opments in science and those in design and design research, for design—more broadly—is
a trans- and inter-disciplinary field (Gentes, 2017) that is in a constant state of indeterminacy
and emergence (Held, 2016, p. 189). It is this very quality of emergence that draws many to
the profession; the “what if” of the abductive method that sets it apart from the sciences and the
changes in society, technology and culture that bring about a concomitant birth of new design
philosophies, researches, methods and practices.
There are, perhaps, faint signals of a challenge to the Design Thinking paradigm
emerging—again—from both design practice and design research. Kuhn argued that not all
scientific revolutions were necessarily major, believing that a “certain sort of reconstruction
of group commitments” may involve “perhaps fewer than twenty-five people” (Kuhn, 1996,
p. 181). Such challenges to the dominant paradigm can also be brought about by other external
factors (Kuhn, 1996, p. 181) not directly related to the immediate community but to the ideas
emergent from proximate communities who are also interested in the same problem spaces as
a particular community (quod est design thinking), and who bring (or who are asked to bring
with them) knowledge which can be applied to a practical design project; this may be expected
given that this inter-disciplinarity is intrinsic to design and design research (Scheurmann in
Joost et al., 2016, p. 139).
Such challenges to the normative practices of design thinking are often driven by prac-
titioners themselves, although this does not mean that the two communities of practitioner
and academia are mutually exclusive. In the most direct example of this cross-community
collaboration is VanPatter et al.’s (2020) Rethinking Design Thinking which is a “reinvention”
of design and design thinking methods in response to the increasing complexity of chal-
lenges faced by his “sensemaking” and changemaking consultancy, Humantific. VanPatter
has enrolled OCAD Associate Professor Peter Jones (co-founder of The Systemic Design
Association) and Elizabeth Pastor (co-founder of Humantific) to develop Design/Design
Thinking 4.0 in response to “super fuzzy situations” related to communities, countries and
the planet. One argument put forward—informed by a recourse to the scholarly literature
(specifically, Buchanan, 2019), a systematic review of design and innovation process models
and an injection of Jones’ systemic design expertise—is that “Conventional Design Thinking”
is largely concerned with the “assumptions of product, service, or experience design” (p. 5)
which does not meet the needs of contemporary, highly complex contexts.
Conclusion 305
Other, more explicit paradigmatic offspring of societal and technological shifts have been
most evident on the back of environmental degradation, racial tension, unprecedented data
expansion and rising nationalist populism. Such shifts have precipitated episodic epistemo-
logical and ontological crises in design (Escobar, 2018; Fry, 2009; Fry & Nocek, 2021) and
a contemporaneous emergence of design paradigms ready to confront such crises. “Transition
design” (Boehnert, 2018; Irwin, Kossoff, et al., 2015; Irwin, Tonkinwise, et al., 2015), “social
design” (Manzini, 2015; Resnick, 2019; Tonkinwise, 2015) and “decolonizing design”
(Schultz et al., 2018; Tlostanova, 2017) are but three design paradigms that are representative
of a disciplinary matrix of design research and practice that provide theoretical, historical,
practical and philosophical reorientation to confront the sheer complexity of human and
planetary problems we face. There are many others, including: “Humanity-centred design”
(Interactive Design Foundation, 2021; Russell & Buck, 2020), “DesignX” (Ma, 2017; Norman
& Stappers, 2015) and “Design for Policy” or Policy Design (Bason, 2016; Junginger, 2017;
Kimbell, 2011, 2016, 2019; Selloni, 2017)
These exemplars of contemporary design paradigms emergent since the Brownian revolu-
tion are not alone in their recognition that design (and designers) require a whole new way of
approaching complexity in social, technical and environmental systems. In 2021, two “new”
forms of design-led frameworks were put forward by the Royal Society of Arts and the Design
Council respectively to deal with increasing social inequality and the climate emergency. The
first, The Living Change Approach (Choukeir, 2021), is a regenerative design framework that
acknowledges that complex, intractable social problems are best confronted beyond one disci-
plinary or organisation outlook, requiring us to think like a system and act like an entrepreneur
(Conway et al., 2017). The approach “draws on a diverse range of other established and emer-
gent disciplines such as critical thinking, social research, systems thinking, entrepreneurship,
and futures and foresight” (Choukeir, 2021, p. 13) and provides an operational, cultural and
organisational design framework for both the RSA and its partners in health, public services
and governance (RSA, 2021).
Another recent addition to the world of design is the Systemic Design Framework which has
been synthesised from several interviews with educators, researchers and change-makers, and
analyses of the tools, methods and frameworks used to drive projects working towards net zero
(Hunter et al., 2021). Working with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation—and in acknowledge-
ment of the Circular Design Guide produced by the Foundation and Tim Brown at IDEO (The
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, & IDEO, 2018)—the Systemic Design Framework is an evo-
lution of the Design Council’s well-known “Double Diamond” framework (Design Council,
2019), the more recent “Framework for Innovation” (Design Council, 2015) and work of
the Systemic Design Association, Transition Design at Carnegie Mellon, the Design Justice
Network, Arturo Escobar and others (see Drew, 2021). The resultant principles and character-
istics of systemic designers aim to guide the design process on complex societal challenges.
Such approaches confront the fissures in dogmatic Design Thinking which can be
articulated as: an inability to provide strategic or heuristic guidance when trying to over-
come legislative, organisational and technological barriers to breakthrough innovation; the
super-complexity of social, technical and environmental systems; or even a recognition of the
social shaping and politics of power in the success or failure of design initiatives. On closer
inspection, however, it seems obvious that each framework or philosophy towards a new and
improved design thinking are irreconcilable in their implementation, for they do not share the
same language (linguistically or conceptually) nor entirely the same worldview—a feature of
pre-paradigmatic communities (Kuhn in Lakatos & Musgrave, 1970, p. 277).
In our instance, the classificatory schema on which design process models rely is by no
means shared across these design communities, making them incommensurable in Kuhnian
terms (Sharrock & Read, 2002, p. 181). This incommensurability is evident in pre- and
post-revolutionary periods when new paradigms emerge (Kuhn, 1996, p. 148). Given that
emergent models for framing design projects are irreconcilable both with each other and with
the Brownian Design Thinking, we could argue that we are living in a period of post-Design
Thinking and a pre- “yet to be determined” new design paradigm. How might we understand
such a paradigm?
RESEARCHING THE NEW INCOMMENSURABLE
One of the criticisms of design and design research is the apparent schism between real-world
practice and academic scholarship. Indeed, as we have explored, in design thinking this has
been manifest in the apparent criticisms aimed at the managerial, IDEO-inspired design
thinking for its lack of scholarly credibility and its ignorance of (for example) the 1960s
design methods movement. These binary oppositions belie the enriching interactions between
design practice and design scholarship and the nuances of, for example, practice-based design
research and professional criticism. Design—and design thinking—is not unusual in its inti-
mate relation to practice, for we see similar interactions in medicine, management and peda-
gogy. What is at stake are fundamental questions of rigour and relevance (Bredies in Joost et
al., 2016, p. 12): to what degree does the practice of design thinking demonstrate acceptability
and qualification to an academic audience? What is the relevance of the subject matter of
design thinking research to both practice and theory?
One path to acceptability is by remaining concerned with the scholarly pragmatics of
design and designerly thinking (Dixon, 2020). The new incommensurable ideas provide
a way to conduct research-informed practice, each offering new ontologies for everyday
design research where the focus is on taking practical action. Even when these ideas—such as
decolonising design—appear at social or cultural odds with the situation a designer or design
researcher finds themselves in, they nevertheless provide philosophical, ethical and practical
guidance to enable (in this instance) more respectful and inclusive design (Abdulla et al., 2019;
Akama, 2017; Akama & Yee, 2019; Hao, 2019; Holmes, 2018).
A path to relevance can be found by a Kuhnian-esqe interest in still under-explored ques-
tions around the evolution of design theory and practice through paradigms. Whilst design his-
torians in particular have not struggled to identify the styles, tastes and movements of design
since the beginning of human civilisation (Heskett, 2005; Heskett et al., 2016; Margolin, 2005,
2016) there remains not only the writing of new decolonised histories of design, but also an
under-explored territory of how particular design paradigms take hold in our respective design
communities. Part of this is sociological but it is also methodological and philosophical. To
borrow Kuhn, what is the process of socialisation within design? How do certain design
groups come to collectively develop their goals? What deviations—both individually and
collectively—are tolerated?
There remain still—despite the best efforts of the likes of Cross (2019), Love (2002) and
Friedman (2003, 2016, 2017)—epistemological, ontological and representational questions
Conclusion 307
left unanswered. For example, in seeing how design paradigms such as Design Thinking have
emerged, we are still dominated by a patriarchal canon, usually white and heteronormative
(Mareis & Paim, 2021, pp. 11–12) and as a result design fails to “acknowledge the complex
interplay of mutually reinforcing social determinants and conditions, the dynamics of power
and privilege that shape its role in everyday life” (Mareis & Paim, 2021, p. 13). The field of
Science and Technology Studies (STS) experienced a welcomed feminist turn at the beginning
of the 21st century (see MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999 for an overview), identifying men’s
“monopoly of technology as an important source of their power” (Wajcman, 2004, p. 12). The
positive consequences of this critical intervention have been evidenced in the ontological shift
amongst technology developers in the field of human–computer interaction studies (Bardzell
& Bardzell, 2011) who now place greater emphasis on understanding the needs of non-male,
non-users (Wyatt, 2003, 2005) and who are now cognisant of the intersectional marginal com-
munities that they must serve (see Rosner et al., 2021). New feminist-inspired (non-binary)
perspectives on design thinking, particularly in business design where heterosexual white
males still dominate, are to be encouraged and welcomed. So too are non-Western voices
and non-design disciplines which are likely to provide the contemporary design thinking
researcher with fresh perspectives (Escobar, 2018; Mareis & Paim, 2021; Marenko, 2021); we
are yet to experience a critical ontological turn in design thinking—an alt-design thinking if
you will—on a par with that found in broader design studies, design history and design theory.
Design thinking has been left standing.
Whilst we remain in a state of great expansion in the field of design it becomes increasingly
harder to make sense of the paradigms that we align ourselves with. The cacophony of plural
voices even within design makes it hard to distinguish one useful paradigm from another. Is
regenerative design, discursive design, inter-species design, design activism or autonomous
design going to become the new Design Thinking? What comes after Design Thinking will be
as a result of the agency of designers, design researchers and the invisible forces of dark matter
(Hill, 2012)—of social, cultural, technological, environmental and extra-terrestrial forces that
even the most intelligent computing devices will not be able to predict. It is, however, the
task of the design researcher to give account of the metaphysical, sociological and conceptual
becoming of nascent paradigms in design, tracing the ideas, people, places and artefacts (tool-
kits, designed outcomes) as a network of agents (Latour, 2005) in the transdisciplinary matrix
of design. By doing so, we uncover the biases, power-relations, inequities and anomalies
present in design communities, distinguishing between the rhetorical and the insightful; the
vacuous and the meaningful; between the philosophic and the pragmatic. Kuhnian analyses
are interested in how design paradigms—and in our case Design Thinking—come into being,
not just what constitutes them. Rather than passively awaiting the new incommensurable with
eager, designerly (functionary) anticipation, design research can listen out to the faint signals
transmitting across the design pluriverse. What lies beyond?
REFERENCES
Abdulla, D., Ansari, A., Canli, E., Keshavarz, M., Kiem, M., Oliveira, P., Prado, L., & Schultz, T. (2019).
A manifesto for decolonising design. Journal of Futures Studies, 23(3), 129–132. https://doi.org/10
.6531/JFS.201903
Akama, Y. (2017). Kokoro of design: Embracing heterogeneity in design research. Design and Culture,
9(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2017.1280266
Akama, Y., & Yee, J. (2019). Special issue: Embracing plurality in designing social innovation practices.
Design and Culture, 1(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2019.1571303
Archer, B. (1967). Design management. Management Decision, 1(4), 47–51. https://doi.org/https://doi
.org/10.1108/eb000820
Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1(1), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142
-694X(79)90023-1
Archer, B. (1991). Design theory ’88. Design Studies, 12(1), 63–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142
-694x(91)90016-p
Badke-Schaub, P., Roozenburg, N., & Cardoso, C. (2010). Design thinking: A paradigm on its way from
dilution to meaninglessness. The 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium, 39–49. http://dab.uts.edu
.au/research/conferences/dtrs8/docs/DTRS8-Badke-Schaub-et-al.pdf
Ball, L. J., & Christensen, B. T. (2018). Designing in the wild. Design Studies, 57(1995), 1–8. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.001
Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2011). Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and
HCI. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Proceedings, 675–684. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1978942.1979041
Bason, C. (2016). Design for Policy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Beck, J., & Chiapello, L. (2018). Schön’s intellectual legacy: A citation analysis of DRS publications
(2010–2016). Design Studies, 56, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.005
Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking.
Black, A., Luna, P., Lund, O., & Walker, S. (Eds). (2017). Information design research and practice.
Routledge.
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary par-
ticipatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23273842
Boehnert, J. (2018). Anthropocene economics and design: Heterodox economics for design transitions.
She Ji, 4(4), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.10.002
Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(June), 85–92.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires inno-
vation (1st ed.). HarperCollins Publishers.
Brown, T., & Martin, R. (2015). Design for action. Harvard Business Review, September, 3–10.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. http://www.jstor
.org/stable/1511637
Buchanan, R. (2019). Surroundings and environments in fourth order design. Design Issues, 35(1), 4–22.
https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00517
Burnett, W., & Evans, D. (2018). Designing your life: Build the perfect career, step by step. Vintage.
Burrell, A. R., Cavanagh, M., Young, S., & Carter, H. (2015). Team-based curriculum design as an agent
of change. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(8), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015
.1085856
Buxton, W. (2007). Sketching user experiences getting the design right and the right design (1st ed.).
Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.
Certeau, M. de. (1984). The practice of everyday life. University of California Press.
Chou, D. C. (2018). Applying design thinking method to social entrepreneurship project. Computer
Standards and Interfaces, 55(May), 1339–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.05.001
Choukeir, J. (2021). The living change approach. The RSA Journal, 1.
Clarivate (2022). Web of Science, s.v. “Design Thinking” and/or “design thinking”, https:// www
.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/e9ea7811-2bd8-4a48-a178-466e7b336976-5e113b73/times
-cited-descending/1 (last accessed 15 November, 2022).
Clarke, A. J. (2016). Design for the real world: Victor Papanek and the emergence of humane design.
In P. Sparke & F. Fisher (Eds), The Routledge companion to design studies (1st ed., pp. 373–382).
Routledge.
Conclusion 309
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From design thinking to systems change (Issue July).
London: Royal Society of the Arts, available from: https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/
rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf (last accessed 15 November, 2022).
Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability. Design Studies, 11(3), 127–140.
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10. https://www
.jstor.org/stable/1511837
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues,
17(3), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. In Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer-Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. London: Bloomsbury.
Cross, N. (2018). A brief history of the Design Thinking Research Symposium series. Design Studies, 57,
160–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.007
Cross, N. (2019). Editing design studies—and how to improve the likelihood of your paper being pub-
lished. Design Studies, 63, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.06.001
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1994). Design expertise amongst student designers. Journal of
Art & Design Education, 13(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.1994.tb00356.x
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1996). Analysing design activity. Wiley.
Davis, M. (2016). “Normal science” and the changing practices of design and design education. Visible
Language, 50(1).
Design Council (2015). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double
Diamond. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design
-councils-evolved-double-diamond
Design Council (2019). Double diamond 2019. Design Council.
Dixon, B. S. (2020). Dewey and design: A pragmatist perspective for design research. Springer
International Publishing AG.
Dorst, K. (2015a). Frame creation and design in the expanded field. She Ji: The Journal of Design,
Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2015.07.003
Dorst, K. (2015b). Frame innovation. In Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520959316-019
Dorst, K. (2018). DTRS: A catalyst for research in design thinking. Design Studies, 57, 156–159. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.005
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution.
Design Studies, 22, 425–437. www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
Drew, C. (2021). Developing our new systemic design framework. Medium. https://medium.com/design
-council/developing-our-new-systemic-design-framework-e0f74fe118f7
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An
interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking,
teaching, and learning. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 34(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10
.1109/emr.2006.1679078
Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and
framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274–2306. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206317744252
Ely, P. (2020). Designing futures for an age of differentialism. Design and Culture, 10(3), 1–24. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2020.1810907
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of
worlds. Duke University Press.
Findeli, A. (2010). Searching for design research questions: Some conceptual clarifications. In R. Chow,
W. Jonas, & G. Joost (Eds), Questions, hypotheses & conjectures: Discussions on projects by early
stage and senior design researchers (p. 316). iUniverse.
Frayling, C. (1994). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 9. http://
researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/
Friedman, K. (1997). Design science and design education. The Challenge of Complexity Based on the
Proceedings from the 3rd International Conference on Design Management at the University of Art
and Design Helsinki UIAH, 54–72.
Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: criteria: Approaches, and methods. Design
Studies, 24(6), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
Friedman, K. (2016). New challenges for design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and
Innovation, 2(4), 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.07.001
Friedman, K. (2017). Conversation, discourse, and knowledge. She Ji, 3(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.sheji.2017.10.001
Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics and new practice (Australian). Berg Publishers
Ltd.
Fry, T., & Nocek, A. (Eds.). (2021). Design in crisis: New worlds, philosophies and practices. Routledge.
Gachago, D., Morkel, J., Hitge, L., van Zyl, I., & Ivala, E. (2017). Developing eLearning champions:
A design thinking approach. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0068-8
Gentes, A. (2017). The in-discipline of design. Springer International Publishing AG.
Glen, R., Suciu, C., Baughn, C. C., & Anson, R. (2015). Teaching design thinking in business schools.
International Journal of Management Education, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.001
Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in
creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016
.1162497
Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Design thinking: A method or a gateway into design cognition? She Ji, 3(2),
107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.10.009
Hao, C. (2019). Cultura: Achieving intercultural empathy through contextual user research in design.
https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:88322666-9cf1-4120-bbd6-4a93438bca74
Held, M. (2016). Transdisciplinary research through design—shifting paradigms as an opportunity. In
Design as research: Positions, arguments, perspectives (pp. 186–192). Birkhauser Verlag AG.
Hernández-Ramírez, R. (2018). On design thinking, bullshit, and innovation. Journal of Science and
Technology of the Arts, 10(3), 2. https://doi.org/10.7559/citarj.v10i3.555
Heskett, J. (2005). Design: A very short introduction. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Heskett, J., Dilnot, C., & Heskett, P. (2016). A John Heskett reader: Design, history, economics (1st ed.).
London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474221290
Hill, D. (2012). Dark matter and Trojan horses. Strelka Press.
Holmes, K. (2018). Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design. The MIT Press.
Hunter, N., Drew, C., Johnson, J., Chadha, S., Carlise, C., & Burnett, A. (2021). Beyond net zero: A sys-
temic design approach. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/guide/beyond-net-zero-systemic
-design-approach
Interactive Design Foundation. (2021). Humanity-centred design. https://www.interaction-design.org/
literature/topics/humanity-centered-design
Irwin, T., Kossoff, G., & Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Transition design provocation. Design Philosophy
Papers, 13(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14487136.2015.1085688
Irwin, T., Tonkinwise, C., & Kossoff, G. (2015). Transition design: An educational framework for
advancing the study and design of sustainable transitions. International Sustainability Transitions
(IST) Conference, University of Sussex, 1–36.
possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/
caim.12023
Jones, J. C. (1970). Design methods: Seeds of human futures (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Jones, J. C. (1979). Designing designing. Design Studies, 1(1), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142
-694X(79)90026-7
Jones, J. C. (2021). designing designing (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
Conclusion 311
Joost, G., Bredies, K., Christensen, M., Conradi, F., & Unteidig, A. (2016). Design as research:
Positions, arguments, perspectives. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID
=4533877.
Junginger, S. (2017). Design research and practice for the public good: A reflection. She Ji, 3(4),
Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation. New York: Doubleday.
Kelley, T. (2006). The ten faces of innovation: Strategies for heightening creativity. London: Profile
Books.
Kim, H. H. (2017). Structural process of design | consilience and concrescence art is the imposing of
a pattern on experience, and our aesthetic enjoyment is recognition of the pattern. In Graphic design
discourse: Evolving theories, ideologies, and processes of visual communication (pp. 322–324).
Princeton University Press.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of
Design, 5(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00009-6
Kimbell, L. (2016). Design in the time of policy problems. DRS2016: Future-Focused Thinking, 9, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.498
Kimbell, L. (2019). Designing policy objects: Anti-heroic design. In T. Fisher & L. Gamman (Eds),
Tricky design: The ethics of things (pp. 145–158). Bloomsbury Visual Arts. https://doi.org/10.5040/
9781474277211.ch-010
Kindi, V. (2012). Kuhn’s paradigms. In V. Kindi & T. Arabatzis (Eds), Kuhn’s the structure of scientific
revolutions revisited (pp. 91–111). Taylor & Francis.
Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., & Takayama, L. (2006). How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction
design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices,
Methods, and Techniques, DIS. New York: ACM Digital Library.
Kolko, J. (2018). The divisiveness of design thinking. Interactions, XXV(3), 29–34.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. CRC Press LLC.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1974). Second thoughts on paradigms. In The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific
tradition and change (pp. 293–319). University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the
International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, volume 4. Cambridge
University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University
Press.
Laursen, L. N., & Haase, L. M. (2019). The shortcomings of design thinking when compared to design-
erly thinking. Design Journal, 22(6), 813–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1652531
Laursen, L. N., & Tollestrup, C. (2017). Design thinking—a paradigm. ICED 2017 Conference
Proceedings, 2(August), 229–238.
Lawson, B. (2005 [1980]). How designers think: Demystifying the design process. Oxford & Burlington:
Architectural Press.
Lee, K. (2021). Critique of design thinking in organizations: Strongholds and shortcomings of the
making paradigm. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(4), 497–515. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2021.10.003
Lees-Maffei, G., & Houze, R. (Eds). (2010). The design history reader (English edn, Vol. 25, Issue 4).
Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
Leifer, L., & Meinel, C. (2016). Design thinking for the twenty-first century organization. In Design
thinking research: Making design thinking foundational (pp. 1–12). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3
-319-40382-3
Lewrick, M., Link, P., & Leifer, L. (2018). The design thinking playbook: Mindful digital transformation
of teams, products, services, businesses and ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. Strategy and Leadership,
42(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2013). Designing for growth: A tool kit for managers. Rotman on Design: The
Best on Design Thinking from Rotman Magazine, 257–261.
Love, T. (2002). Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and
designs: Some philosophical issues. Design Studies, 23(3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142
-694X(01)00043-6
Ma, J. (2017). What is a system? A lesson learned from the emerging practice of DesignX. Cross-Cultural
Design, LNCS(10281), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57931-3_6
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its
hum (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation.
The MIT Press.
Mareis, C., & Paim, N. (Eds). (2021). Design struggles: Intersecting histories, pedagogies, and perspec-
tives. Valiz.
Marenko, B. (2021). Stacking complexities: Reframing uncertainty through hybrid literacies. Design and
Culture, 13(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2021.1916856
Margolin, V. (2005). A world history of design and the history of the world. Journal of Design History,
18(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epi043
Margolin, V. (2016). A world history of design. In The Routledge companion to design studies
(pp. 435–444). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315562087-49
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business—why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Martin, R. (2010). Design thinking: Achieving insights via the “knowledge funnel”. Strategy &
Leadership, 38(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571011029046
Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 59–88).
Cambridge University Press.
McCullagh, K. (2010). Stepping up: Design thinking has uncovered real opportunities. Design
Management Review, 21(3), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2010.00076.x
Meagher, R. (1988). Technê. Perspecta, 24, 158–164. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1567132
Meller, J. (Ed.). (1972). The Buckminster Fuller reader. Pelican Books.
Midal, A. (2019). Design by accident: For a new history of design. Sternberg Press.
expertise. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27(August 2017), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc
.2018.02.004
Nelson, H. G, & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world
(2nd ed.). MIT Press. https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Norman, D. (2010). Design thinking: A useful myth. Core77. http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.asp
Norman, D. A., & Stappers, P. J. (2015). DesignX: Complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji, 1(2),
Nussbaum, B. (2011). A failed experiment. So what’s next? CoDesign; Fast Company & Inc. https://
www.fastcompany.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next
O’Callaghan, G., & Connolly, C. (2020). Developing creativity in computer science initial teacher edu-
cation through design thinking. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 45–50. https://doi
.org/10.1145/3416465.3416469
Papanek, V. J. (1971). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. Thames & Hudson.
Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6),
573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.002
Petersen, M., & Hempler, N. F. (2017). Development and testing of a mobile application to support
diabetes self-management for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: A design thinking case
study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911
-017-0493-6
Conclusion 313
Petroski, H. (2012). Galileo and the marble column. In Design paradigms (pp. 47–63). https://doi.org/10
.1017/cbo9780511805073.005
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds). (2011). Design thinking: Understand—improve—apply.
Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2016a). Design thinking research: Making design thinking founda-
tional. Springer International Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2016b). Design thinking research: Taking breakthrough innova-
tion home. Springer International Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40382-3
Poggenpohl, S. H. (2009). Time for change: Building a design discipline. In S. Poggenpohl & K. Sato
(Eds), Design intergrations: Research and collaboration (pp. 3–22). Intellect Books.
Preston, J. (2008). Kuhn’s the structure of scientific revolutions: A reader’s guide. Readers’ Guides/
Bloomsbury.
Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Resnick, E. (Ed.). (2019). The social design reader. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
Rittel, H. (1972). Structure and usefulness of planning information systems. Bedrifts Økonomen, 8,
53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7651-1_5
Rittel, H. (1987). The reasoning of designers. International Congress on Planning and Design Theory,
August 1987, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203851586
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,
4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Roach, T. (2015). How to combine design thinking and agile in practice. Startup Frontier on Medium.
Com.
Rosner, D., Taylor, A., Wiberg, M., & Windle, A. (2021). Special issue on disability and intersectional-
ity: May. Interactions, 28(3), 5–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3460778
Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design Thinking. MIT Press.
Rowe, P. G. (2017). Design thinking in the digital age. Harvard University Graduate School of Design
& Sternberg Press.
RSA (2021). Future change framework. RSA. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/living-change/rsa
-future-change-toolkit.pdf
Russell, P., & Buck, L. (2020). Humanity-centred design-defining the emerging paradigm in design edu-
cation and practice. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering and Product
Design Education, E and PDE 2020, September. https://doi.org/10.35199/epde.2020.32
Sándorová, Z., Repáňová, T., Palenčíková, Z., & Beták, N. (2020). Design thinking—A revolutionary
new approach in tourism education? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 26,
100238. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100238
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4
Schultz, T., Abdulla, D., Ansari, A., Canlı, E., Keshavarz, M., Kiem, M., Martins, L. P. de O., & J.S.
Vieira de Oliveira, P. (2018). What is at stake with decolonizing design? A roundtable. Design and
Culture, 10(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2018.1434368
Scopus. (2022). Scopus citation tracker, s.v. “design thinking” and “Design Thinking”. Amsterdam,
Elsevier B.V, available at: https://www.scopus.com/results/results.uri?sort=plf-f&src=s&st1
=%22design+thinking%22&st2=%22Design+Thinking%22&sid=5a7c3809d0de2adf11cc81
72be473632&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=71&s=%28TITLE-ABS-KEY%28%22design+thinking%22%29+
AND+TITLE-ABS-KEY%28%22Design+Thinking%22%29%29&origin=savedSearchNewOnly&
txGid=7e3129933ae1fb508ec3f12b44b6d038 (last accessed 15 November 2022).
Selloni, D. (2017). CoDesign for public-interest services. Cham: Springer.
Sharrock, W., & Read, R. (2002). Kuhn: Philosopher of scientific revolution. Polity Press.
Simon, H. A. (1996 [1969]). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). The MIT Press.
Simonsen, J., Svabo, C., Strandvad, S. M., Samson, K., Hertzum, M., & Ole Erik Hansen. (2014).
Situated methods in design. In J. Simonsen, C. Svabo, S. M. Strandvad, K. Samson, M. Hertzum, &
Ole Erik Hansen (Eds), Situated design methods. MIT Press.
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—an analysis of team communica-
tion. Design Studies, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2
Teal, T., & Atzmon, L. (Eds). (2019). The graphic design reader. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, & IDEO (2018). Circular design guide. https://www.circulardesign
guide.com/
Tlostanova, M. (2017). On decolonizing design. Design Philosophy Papers, 15(1), 51–61. https://doi
.org/10.1080/14487136.2017.1301017
Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Is social design a thing? In E. Resnick (Ed.), The social design reader (pp. 9–16).
Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
VanPatter, G., Pastor, E., & Jones, P. (2020). Rethinking design thinking: Making sense of the future that
has already arrived. Humantific Publishing.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovat-
ing what things mean. Harvard Business School Publication Corp.
Verganti, R. (2010). One size does not fit all in innovation (and never will). Harvard Business Review
Blog. https://hbr.org/2010/04/one-size-does-not-fit-all-in-i
Vinsel, L. (2017). Design thinking is kind of like syphilis — it’s contagious and rots your brains. https://
medium.com/@sts_news/design-thinking-is-kind-of-like-syphilis-its-contagious-and-rots-your
-brains-842ed078af29
Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Polity Press.
Wake, W. K. (2000). Design paradigms: A sourcebook for creative visualization. Wiley.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.
https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002
Woudhuysen, J. (2011). The craze for design thinking: Roots, a critique, and toward an alternative.
Design Principles & Practice: An International Journal, 5(6).
Wrigley, C. (2018). Editorial: Deception by design. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 4(1), 3–5.
Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Mosely, M. (2021). Defining military design thinking: An extensive, critical
literature review. In She Ji, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.12.002
Wrigley, C., Nusem, E., & Straker, K. (2020). Implementing design thinking: Understanding organ-
izational conditions. California Management Review, 62(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0008125619897606
Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the internet. In
N. Oudshoorn & T. J. Pinch (Eds), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology
(pp. 67–79), MIT Press.
Wyatt, S. (2005). The digital divide, health information and everyday life. New Media & Society, 7(2),
199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444805050747
Yeager, D. S., Hulleman, C. S., Hinojosa, C., Lee, H. Y., O’Brien, J., Romero, C., Paunesku, D.,
Schneider, B., Flint, K., Roberts, A., Trott, J., Greene, D., Walton, G. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2016).
Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during
the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 374–391. https://doi.org/10
.1037/edu0000098
Index
academia–industry collaboration design thinking 84–5
academia–industry gap lean manufacturing 88
methods for bridging 102 lean start-up 85–7
RIS for bridging 122 agile manifesto 89
calls for closer 102 agile methods
challenges and responses to 102 entirety of 88–9
and research innovation sprints interconnections 91–3
bridging gap 122 literature on integration into design thinking
lessons learned 112, 117–22 as scarce 81
method 103–11 questions pertaining to 80
as novel approach to 103 agile principles
overview 112, 113–16 in agile design thinking process model 94–6,
suitability of 122–3 97–8
team members 111–12 comparison with design thinking and lean
Acceptance, Vocabulary and Acknowledgement startup 92, 93, 94, 96
(AVA) model 216–17, 218 conceptual map 90–91, 97
action design research 102 nature of 88–9
action research research questions 80, 97
aims of project 267–8 agile software movement 102
benefit of using 278 AI (artificial intelligence) 48, 155–6, 239, 241–2
for bridging academia–industry gap 102 anxiety 143, 145, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156
context 265 applied research 102, 103, 139
criteria and characteristics of 270 see also research innovation sprints (RIS)
cycles 271, 272, 274, 275, 276–7 ARC (action research cycles)
focus on experimentation 268 and changes in behaviour 275
outcomes from participation in action inclusion of design thinking in problem
learning projects 276–7 framing 272
research design and methods 270–271 and learning 275
agile landscape reactions to design thinking framework in
agile design thinking 274
conceptual map 90–91 results from participation in action learning
process model 94–6, 97–8 project across 276–7
comparison of design thinking, lean startup, use and functions 271
and agile principles 92 architects 10–13
context 80–82 Australian bus industry see industry
implications, summary and study limitations AVA model see Acceptance, Vocabulary and
96–8 Acknowledgement (AVA) model
industry case comparison 91–3
methodological approach 82–3 behaviour change
theoretical framework in action research context 275–6
agile principles 88–9 design interventions for 167–8, 172
business model generation 88 factors of 174
chronological overview 83 persuasion strategy 180, 183
customer development 87–8 recommendations for 185–6
design sprint 90
315
resistance to 164–5 and design facilitation 25

social contagion to scale up 168, 173 and facilitators 41
socially-driven interventions to stimulate 179 factors impacting outcome of workshops
brain 30–31
activation during brainstorming 14–15, 16, HCD’s principle at foundation of 59
17 in healthcare settings 71–8, 129, 130
brain imaging 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19–20 as human-centred design approach 128
commonly used tools to measure activity in limited research on success of facilitation
9, 16 activities in settings of 30
designers’ brain behaviour 7, 8, 16–19 materiality of tools 70
differences between mechanical engineers nature of practices 34
and architects during ideation 10–13, participants bringing variety of lived
16 experiences to 76–7
and effects on neurocognitive feedback and problem-solving 25, 54, 111
16–14 prototypes and tactility within 74–5, 77–8
hemispheric lateralization 16 as representing diversification of design
measuring relation between designing and thinking 261
problem-solving 9–10 skills required for 54
networks 9, 19 in sprint phase of RIS 105
prefrontal cortex 14, 15, 16–17 with stakeholders 267, 270
brainstorming and system change 166
brain activation during tactile method 71, 72
in PFC 14, 17 tactile tools used in settings of 73
temporal dynamics of 15 as type of design thinking 185
characteristics of 14 user-centred, combining with agile
as concept generation technique 13–14 methodology 81
and design thinking with wildlife 60
of IDEO 283 cognition see design cognition
as typical method of 92, 247 commercialization stage of innovation processes
as widely used in 13 81, 87, 90, 93, 94, 97
in DTJM 134 complex problems
during ideation sessions 172 ‘anthropocentric’ view at root of 129
as mental technique 53 co-design and participatory design for
and neurocognitive feedback 16–17 solutions to 25
transition paths of highest activated channels defining 72–3
across time for 15 design facilitation for developing solutions
bus industry see industry to 27
business design thinking offering solutions to 25, 127,
design thinking 184–5, 273, 295
context 201 governments grappling with 227
describing in job ads 210–216 nature of 234
and symbolic interactionism in 203–5 PPL’s emergence to address 130
and lexical ambiguity 205–6 and virtual reality technology 242
and symbolic interactionism premises concept generation techniques 13–15
associated with design themes 206–10 contract research 103
use of AVA model 216–17, 218 craft 64
business model generation 88, 90 creative action see Problem Framing for Creative
Action MBA unit
care-based design 60–65, 72–3 creative agency definition 248–9
change see behaviour change; energy transition in Creative Agency dimension of DTS 254–6, 257,
Netherlands; systemic change 258–60
Co-Creation with Animals 60 creative confidence 248–9, 254, 266, 269, 290
co-design creative convergence 103
creative divergence 103 creative divergence 103
Index 317
creativity design cognition

appearance of term in design articles 209 as aspect of designers’ behaviour while
assessment of, in DTS 253, 255, 256–7, 259, ideating 7
260 association with design, business and
building empathy to boost 290 management vocabulary 210, 211
card-based ideation tool for boosting 285–6 concept generation techniques affecting
as critical 21st-century thinking skill 246 evolution of 13
design fixation limiting 236 integration with neurophysiology 17
and design thinking 8, 50, 166, 185, 246, overshadowing design thinking in
247, 282 professional design articles 209
educational institutions working with paradigm 19
students to enhance 248, 251 of problem-solving and designing 9–10
‘myth of’ 48 research on 19
relationship with originality and design confusion 206, 207, 208
problem-solving 238 Design Dispositions dimension of DTS 254–6,
use of neurofeedback to boost 16–17, 18 258–60
customer development 81, 87–8, 90 design doing 70, 71, 78
design facilitation
deliberation contexts, facilitation in 32, 34, 35, co-facilitation approach 30, 31
40, 41 definition 27
depression 143, 145, 149, 150, 153, 154, 156 and design thinking 25, 26–7, 29, 30, 41
design discursive and contested nature of 54
associations with business and management emergence of 26–7
vocabulary 210 future research areas 40–41
conceptualisation of 1 having strong resemblance with facilitation
discursive 46, 55–60, 64–5 practices in other domains 34
facilitation of 41 at intersection of facilitation practice and
interventions for behaviour change 167–8 design practice 38
lexical ambiguity of 205–6 limited research on 31
practice of facilitation and 37–8 method approach 30, 31
premises of symbolic interactionism taxonomy of two approaches 31
associated with themes of 206–10 tools, dimensions of 30
principles of 180, 182 typology 29
problem framing and AI 239, 241–2 design facilitation practice
thinking about 53–5 conceptual framework 38–40
see also policy design; professional design; conceptualising 34–40
‘real’ design and design facilitator 39
design approach environment of 39–40
to complex systems 164 implications for theory, practice and future
double diamond 165, 171, 172 research 40–41
generalized, to scale up behaviour change key constructs of 29
173 design facilitators 27, 29–30, 38, 39, 54
human-centred 60, 128–9 design fixation 236
to innovations, public advocacy for 301 Design for Social Contagion Framework and
policy 222–3 Toolkit 165, 173, 179–83, 184
positioned as social process 7 design frustration 206, 207, 208–9
privileging logic, rationalism and method 52 design ingenuity 206, 207–8, 209
‘research through design’ 165, 171 design-led innovation
short-term outcomes-focused 54 Design Dispositions subscale with items
‘social’ 171 describing how people approach work
thinking to 55 on 256
traditional, artefactual 294 as new avenue for academia–industry
user-centred 80, 84, 128 collaboration 102
design as thinking 57, 64
research innovation sprints ‘belonging’ to focus on factors influencing ideation

realm of 122 patterns based on discipline-specific
design manifestation 206, 207, 208, 209 knowledge 10–11
design neurocognition as the go-to paradigm for all-things ‘design’
background and context 7–8 303
design researchers, implications for 18–19 importance of making ideas and actions in
design thinking, implications for 13–15 design more explicit 294
designers, implications for 17–18 most commonly used brain scanning devices
differences between mechanical engineers in 9
and architects 11–13 and neurocognition 8
of ideation, exploring with concept policy 222
generation techniques 13–15 recommendation for 307
of ideation processes in design thinking 8–9 signals of challenge to design thinking
of problem-solving and designing 9–10 paradigm emerging from 304
summary 19–20 design researchers
use of neurofeedback to boost creativity in action research cycles 271, 272
16–17, 18 collaborative research in Australia 190–196
design practice and design thinking researcher 301
appearance of term in design, business and implications of neurocognition for 18–19
management word combinations 211 interest in design-led approaches to
as both relational and situated 25 confronting wicked problems 295
communities of 297, 299, 300 and science of design thinking 300
conceptualisation of 37–8 task of 307
design fixation as problem for 236 design science
design paradigms representative of bridging with neuroscience 18–19
disciplinary matrix of 305 design neurocognition as field of research
distinguishing design thinking and designerly within 19
thinking 27 design science research
and embedded design researchers 301 for bridging academia–industry gap 102
emergence of problem-solving model for 47 on ideation 7
entrenching and reifying hegemonic design sprints 90, 92, 94, 96, 98
assumptions about 55 design theory
under-explored questions around evolution beyond the normal 304–6
through paradigms 306 contested discourses 296–7
facilitation as emerging aspect of 29, 37–8 inside boundaries of 301–4
inter-discliplinarity of 294 introduction 294–5
intuition as useful 234 Kuhnian perspective 297, 299–301
schism with academic scholarship 306 unanswered questions 306–7
seminal figures in, deprecating myth of design thinking
design thinking 302 in agile landscape
signals of challenge to paradigm of design agile design thinking process model
thinking emerging from 304 94–6, 97–8
design research comparison with industry case 91–3
action 102 conceptual map 90–91
appearance of term in design, business and context 80–82
management word combinations 211 design sprint 90
criticism of 306 implications, summary and study
design paradigms representative of limitations 96–8
disciplinary matrix of 305 lean startup 85, 87
and designerly thinking 27, 295 research questions 80, 97
facilitation as underlooked area within 25 theory 84–5
as facing neo-social-functionalism problem assessment instrument see Design Thinking
53 Scale (DTS)
bootcamps
Index 319
Design4Health and DTJM 131–9 origin 246

learning approach to 130 and policy design 222–3, 227–8
in business and practice theory 36
AVA model for 216–17, 218 and problem-solving 25, 27, 54, 61, 63,
shared understanding of 216–17 145–6, 154, 157, 166, 203, 204, 220,
study replication: data collection and 282
sample 212–14 process model
study results discussion 214–16 agile 94–6, 97–8
summary 217–18 comparison with lean learning cycle 87
and symbolic interactionism 203–5, pictorial representation 86
216–17 questioning profession of
use of design thinking vocabulary in job context 45–6
ads 210–216 from empathy to care 60–65
catalytical moment in history of 294 history of professional design 51–3
challenges of implementing 17–18 from problem-solving to discursive
challenges to normative practices of 304–6 design 55–60
circular relationship between ways of ‘real’ design versus 46–51
thinking and designing in 55 thinking about 53–5
as combination of divergent and convergent questions over future of 295
thinking 129 researching 306–7
as common approach used to develop role of AI 239, 241–2
innovative products 7 and student mental health
conceptualisation 84–5, 129–30 context 142–3
contested discourses on 296–7 lessons from using process 154–8
definitions 233, 266 process overview 145–50
and design facilitation 25, 26–7, 29, 30, 41 results 150–154
distinction with designerly thinking 27, 45–7, as well suited to tackling mental health
65, 295–6 144
as driver of innovation and change for top ten citations for 299
organizations 80 use in context of energy transition
education, principles of 248 introduction 164–5
fragility of 202, 204, 205, 208, 217 overview 183–6
framing at core of 190 systems transitions 166–7
as human-centred approach to innovation as user-driven innovation strategy 84
127, 266 value in teaching transmedia 291–2
importance of problem framing in 232–42 see also research innovation sprints (RIS);
inside boundaries of 301–4 teaching design thinking
interconnections of domains and sets 250 design thinking approaches
iteration as key tenet of 1, 75, 92 abductive 1
Kuhnian perspective 297, 299–301 co-design and participatory design drawing
learning styles 118–19 on 25
lexical ambiguity of 205–6 creating tailored news experience 290
looking at with epistemological viewpoint to energy transition in Netherlands 169–86
295 focused on “situated and embodied routines
making tactile 70–78 of designers” 70
for management and management education in healthcare industry
265–6 limitations 72
mediation of sets and process of establishing multidisciplinary 127–30
and maintaining sets 251 holistic 17, 19
mindset 247–8, 269 learning 130
most cited works on 298 parameters guiding working shops and
myth of 302 interventions 30
neurocognition and ideation 8–9, 15, 17, ‘research through design’ 165
19–20 thinking to design 54, 55
using small, focused action research projects literature 295–6, 302

265, 270–278 on path to acceptability 306
Design Thinking Journey Map (DTJM) in undergraduate student mental health
benefits of 137–8 project 145
board and cards used in 136 designers
development of 133–6 brain behaviour 7, 8, 16–19
evaluation of 135–6, 137 implications of neurocognition for 17–18
purpose 127, 137 professional 25, 38, 208, 232, 247, 294
recommendations for 138 ‘real’ 45, 46–7, 48, 49, 50–51, 60, 62, 65
Design Thinking Scale (DTS) role as facilitator 27, 29–30
confirmatory factor analysis, validity and designing
test–retest reliability of circular relationship between ways of
method 257–8 thinking and 55
results 258–60 cognition and neurocognition of 9–10
study discussion 260 designing to think 52, 54
design thinking competencies in 253 discursive-cognitive characteristics 36, 39–40,
exploratory factor analysis and internal 41, 54
consistency of discursive design
method 254 move from problem-solving 46, 55–60
results 254–5 nature of 57
study discussion 255–7 role of care 64–5
limitations 261 double diamond 45, 129, 131–2, 165, 171, 172,
need for assessment tool 246–7 268, 305
origin 253 DTJM see Design Thinking Journey Map
recommendations and future research areas (DTJM)
261–2 DTS see Design Thinking Scale (DTS)
research goals 253
design thinking toolkits education
for framing market conditions 190–198 design thinking
transmedia journalism 281–92 effects in transmedia journalism
design translation 206, 207, 208, 209–10 education 289–91
Design4Health Bootcamp empathy as principle of 248, 249
aim to introduce students to concept of health encouraging innovation,
innovation 131 problem-solving, creativity, and
concepts collaboration in 282
immersion 131 environment for transmedia journalism 282
impact 131, 132 facilitation in context of 33–4, 35, 40, 41
multidisciplinarity 131, 137 HCD delivering solutions in 267
Design Thinking Journey Map (DTJM) 127, recommendation to abandon unidirectional
133–8 290
design thinking process see also graduate education MBA program;
engaging students with 131 higher education; teacher education
pictorial representation 132 educational design ladder pedagogy 252
first (2019) 132–3, 138–9 empathy
learning techniques used to enhance assisting journalists 291
collaborative co-design 130 building to boost creativity and innovation
recommendations for 139 290
second (2021) 133, 138, 139 versus care 62–3
designerly thinking criticisms in relation to design thinking 61–2
aim of 296 definitional issues 61
components of, in collaborative contexts 78 in design thinking mindset 247, 256, 266,
and design thinking researcher 301 269, 301
distinction with design thinking 27, 45–7, 65 as doctrine of design thinking 54, 60–61
and DTRS 84 and HCD 58, 128
Index 321
mental health student project 145, 147, 149, in deliberation contexts 32, 34, 35, 40, 41
150, 157 in design contexts 29–31, 34, 35, 40, 41
move away from 46, 63 of design thinking in graduate management
as principle governing facilitation 28 education 265, 277–8
as principle of design thinking education in educational contexts 33–4, 35, 40, 41
248, 249 implications for theory, practice and future
as relational quality 29 research 40–41
as relative newcomer to design discourse 61 in management contexts 31–2, 34, 35, 40, 41
storytelling to increase 237 meanings of 28–9
and tactile artefacts 72–3, 77 practice of 37–8
empathy maps 62, 147, 149, 273, 277, 283 synthesising different perspectives on 34, 35
energy transition in Netherlands framing see market conditions framing; problem
background and context 164–5 framing
behaviour change fuzzy front end (FFE) 72, 81, 90, 93, 94, 97
design interventions for 167–8, 172
factors of 174 gas see energy transition in Netherlands
persuasion strategy 180, 183 generative prototyping 71, 73–5, 76
recommendations for 185–6 graduate education MBA program
resistance to 165–6 benefits for facilitators/teachers and students
social contagion to scale up 168, 173 277–8
socially-driven interventions to data collection and analysis 271
stimulate 179 future implementation recommendations 278
case study participants and their use of 268–70
contextual inquiry 171 research design and methods 270–271
design for social contagion framework structure of 267–8
179–80, 181 study findings and discussion 271–7
design intervention 173–4 green energy see energy transition in Netherlands
historical context 169
limitations 174, 176 HCD see human-centred design (HCD)
methodology 171–6 healthcare
overview of methods 172 challenges
policy directives 169–70 defining complex 72–3
residents’ motivations and as facing many 127
apprehensions 178–9 Design4Health Bootcamps and DTJM for
results 176, 178–80 131–9
Reyeroord, Rotterdam site 170–171 multidisciplinary design thinking approaches
social networks and contagion process in 127–8
179 design thinking 129–30
system map of causal relationships 177 human-centred design 128–9
thematic analysis 173, 175 learning approach 130
using social influence to activate tactile case study
residents 179–80 complex problems 72–3
design for social contagion toolkit 180, context 70–71
182–3, 184 findings and insights 75–7
design thinking for systems transitions 166–7 generative prototyping 73–5, 76
study discussion and conclusions 182–3 lessons learned 77–8
engaged scholarship 102 higher education
ethical journalism 287–8 competitive marketplace 157
experiential learning (EL) 130, 268 student mental health 142, 143–5
explorative learning 45, 53, 64 teaching and facilitating design thinking in
extreme programming 80, 89, 90 graduate context 265, 268, 277
see also Design4Health Bootcamp
facilitation human-centred design (HCD)
as cross-disciplinary practice 28–34 applied to healthcare 128–9
in Australian MBA programmes 268, 269, Method Cards 129, 134

272 pairing design thinking process with TJT
criticisms of 59 stages 283
delivering solutions in health, education and on poverty as ‘wicked problem’ 204
management 267 and Stanford model
and design thinking 25, 58, 63, 127, 203, criticisms of 302, 306
248, 266 legitimising design thinking credentials
and DTJM 134, 135 303
foundational principle 59 industry
frequency of occurrence in job ads 212, bus, in Australia
213–16 context 190–191
new approaches in area of 60 implementing design thinking toolkit
origins of 58–9 194–6
popular frameworks for 268 public transport findings 196–8
shift away from 46, 63 technological transitions 191–2, 198
and sustainability 59–60, 129 case comparison with agile and design
thinking 91–3
ideation see also academia–industry collaboration
card-based tool 284–5 innovation
in comparison of design thinking, lean building empathy to boost 290
startup, and agile principles 92 creative thinking and collaboration for 261
in design for social contagion toolkit 180 in design learning outcomes 250
design researchers, implications for 19 and design thinking 127, 128, 142, 246,
in Design Thinking Journey Map 134 247–8, 266, 270, 278, 282, 292
designers, implications for 18 in DTS 253, 256–60
differences between mechanical engineers health 127, 128, 129, 131
and architects during 10–13 human-centred design approach 128
effects of neurocognitive feedback 16–17 ‘lipstick on the pig’ method 303
in energy transition in Netherlands 172, 173, for mental health 142, 145, 150, 154, 157,
174 158
exploring neurocognition of, with concept ‘post-human’ approach 129
generation techniques 13–15 radical 222, 302
as fourth step in design thinking process social 129, 183, 266, 270
model 85, 97 technological 164, 269
future research areas 19 see also research innovation sprints (RIS)
for generating solutions 145, 149–50, 234 innovation process
growth of design science research on 7 case study chosen to highlight 83
lean startup potentially benefiting from 96 customer development method addressing
neurocognition of processes in design commercialization stage of 87
thinking 8–9 design thinking
pairing IDEO design thinking process with addressing fuzzy front end stage of 90
TJT stages 283 as method for 232
previous research on 7–8 movement 84
and problem framing 241, 274, 275 digitalization changing 239
and RIS 106, 108 as employed in sailing boat challenge 93
in sailing boat challenge 92, 93, 94 literature on integration of agile methods and
student involvement 154, 157 concepts into 81
IDEO need for integrated approach 93
coining term ‘design thinking’ 84, 232 potential for improvement using agile design
as design and innovation consultancy firm 26 thinking process model 94–6, 97
empathy as first stage of design thinking questions to address to achieve successful
model 60 97–8
empathy map 147 research question 80, 97
on HCD 58–9, 203, 216 three stages of 81
Index 323
iteration use of AVA model 216–17, 218

design sprints to develop 94 use of design thinking vocabulary in job ads
in Design Thinking Journey Map 134, 135 210–216
in design thinking, lean startup, and agile market conditions framing
principles 92 design thinking toolkit to support
in Design4Health Bootcamps 131, 132, 133, developing 192–4
136 implementing 194–6
in designerly mindset 145 novel approach to 198
in healthcare projects 71 potential 190
of intuitive and analytical process 8 material-embodied characteristics 39–40, 41, 54
as key tenet of design thinking 1, 75, 92 mechanical engineers 10–13
in Netherlands case study 172, 173 mental health see student mental health
replacing traditional waterfall model 90–91 morphological analysis 13–14, 15
RIS 106, 107, 117 multidisciplinarity 131, 137
iteration loops 84–5, 94, 97 multidisciplinary design thinking approaches
127–30
job ads
design thinking Netherlands see energy transition in Netherlands
in 2013 and 2019 211–13 neurocognition see design neurocognition
in 2021 213–15 neurofeedback, use in boosting creativity 16–17,
in business’s descriptions of 210–216 18
HCD in 212, 214, 215 new product development (NPD) 81, 93, 94, 97,
inconsistent use of vocabulary in 216 266
journalism see transmedia; transmedia journalism Nourishment at Santral 289–91
design thinking toolkit
outcomes
Kuhn, Thomas 5, 295, 297, 300–301, 303, 304, action 270
306 from bootcamps 131, 138
design, as enacted in practice 37
lean management 87, 102 design fixation predetermining 236
lean manufacturing 85, 88, 90 hierarchy of design-learning 250
lean startup from participation in action learning projects
as agile concept 80 across ARC 276–7, 278
in agile design thinking process model 94–6, research workshop 196–8
97–8 RIS 112, 117, 119, 122
and customer development 88, 91 of teaching design thinking 4, 253, 261
and design thinking and agile principles
comparison 92, 93, 96 Papanek’s Triangle 50–51
conceptual map 90–91 paradigms
study limitations 98 concepts within 299
focussing on commercialization stage 81 as contested space 297
research questions 80, 97 design cognition 19
theory 85, 87 design thinking 5, 295, 300, 302, 303–4
learning as difficult to distinguish one from another
action 130, 268, 270, 276–7, 278 307
in action research context 275 emergence through process of ‘naturalization
approach to bootcamps 130 of categories and objects’ 300
design thinking styles of 118–19 Kuhnian perspective 297, 300, 303
period of new design 306
management science as ‘pre-paradigm’ period 300
facilitation in context of 31–2, 34, 35, 40, 41 technē 299
managers as problem solvers 265–6 participatory design 25, 27, 29, 34, 40
reasons for introducing design thinking into see also co-design
266–7 PBL see problem-based learning (PBL)
PFC see prefrontal cortex (PFC) research on role of AI for 242

policy design solution focus 235–6, 240
challenges posed by policy formulation user focus 237–8, 240
221–2 Problem Framing for Creative Action MBA unit
contribution of design thinking to 227–8 aim of 267
definition 220 benefits for facilitators/teachers 278
versus design thinking 222–3 challenges for facilitators 277
elaborating principles for combination of as compulsory unit 277
policy tools 224–6 data collection and analysis 271
importance of understanding both context encouragement of agency 267–8
and process 226–7 future implementation recommendations 278
policy instruments as techniques used in 223 learning objectives 267
policy formulation participants and their use of 268–70
and design and design thinking 222, 227 research design and methods 270–271
instrument-oriented way of thinking about study findings and discussion 271–7
220–221 categories and measures of evaluation
political nature of, and challenges posed to 273
policy design 221–2 changes in behaviour 275–6
policy-making inclusion of design thinking in 272
aspects affecting application of design logic learning 275
to outcomes from participation in action
clear understanding of processes and learning projects across ARC
barriers 226–7 cycles 276–7
elaborating principles on combination of reactions to design thinking framework
materials 224–6 and materials 272–4
knowledge of building blocks or Problem-oriented Project Learning (PPL) 130
material for policy construction problem-solving
223–4 and action research 270
and design thinking 220–221, 222 cognition and neurocognition of 9–10
difficulties with formulation process 222 mechanical engineers versus architects
‘non-design’ formulation efforts common in 11–12
221–2 neurological patterns of 8
policy processes creative 248–9, 253, 254, 267
formulation 221–2 and design thinking 25, 27, 54, 61, 63,
by which policy alternatives are translated 145–6, 154, 157, 166, 203, 204, 220,
into reality, and barriers existing 271–2, 282
between concept and realization facilitation in management contexts for
226–7 group 27, 32, 34, 35
policy tools move to discursive design 55–8
knowledge of, for policy construction 223–4 paradigm 46, 52, 54, 63
plastic wave 116 and PBL 33
in policy ‘mixes’ or ‘arrangements’ 226–7 prediction of change of focus 241
principles for 224–6 by professionals and managers 265–6
PPL (Problem-oriented Project Learning) 130 and RIS 103, 121
practice architectures 36–7, 40, 41 and solution focus 235–6
practice theory 36–7 strong relationship with originality and
prefrontal cortex (PFC) 14, 15, 16–17 creativity 238
problem-based learning (PBL) 33–4, 127, 130 in student mental health setting 149–50, 151,
problem framing 155–6
and design thinking 232–4, 235, 236, 237, user-centred approach to 237–8, 240
238, 239–40, 241 problem statement
originality 238–9, 240 degree of abstraction in 235, 240
perspectives framework 240 in DTJM 134, 135
problem space 235, 240 framing of 234
Index 325
future research area 242 supercharge collaborative researcher

including user perspective in 237–8, 240 practice 120–122
originality of 239, 240 support solution owner to become
and solution focus 236, 240 design champion 117–18
student mental health 147, 149, 150, 152, visualise and communicate intangible
153, 155–6 and complex concepts 120
and use of AI 241 method 103–11
problems mixed methods approach 112
management, design thinking as way of overview of thirty 112, 113–16
approaching 265–6 procedural stages 103, 106–11
meaning of “good” 234 provocation and presentation workshops
social 228, 290, 305 104–5
and solutions, co-evolving 233 sprint retrospectives 112, 117
‘wicked’ 25, 46, 56, 62, 84, 154, 204, 234, suitability of 122–3
247, 296, 299 team members and their roles
see also complex problems design innovation catalysts 105, 111
professional design digital designers 107
and design confusion theme 208 executive leadership 106–7
design thinking as not limited to 301 problem/solution owners 106
HCD as de facto approach to 59 researchers 106
history of 51–3 as type of commercial or contract research
‘problem’ of 47–50 103
professional designers 25, 38, 208, 232, 247, 294 types of 103, 104, 120
prospective teachers 247, 253–62 typical timeline 105
public transport ‘research through design’ approach 165, 171
industry findings 196–8 RIS see research innovation sprints (RIS)
study context 190–191
technological transitions in Australia’s bus scale validation 253, 257–62
industry 191–2, 198 scaling behaviour change 168, 173, 184
scaling down, as design principle 180
‘real’ design scrum 80, 82, 83, 88–9, 90, 91–3, 94, 95
and care 62, 63 shared meaning Chap 11
and craft 64 social contagion
versus design thinking 45, 46–51, 54, 55 in case study methodology 170
imagination and creativity as qualities of 56 contextual inquiry 171
mindset driving 60 design for framework
questions about nature of 53 pictorial representation 181
relational-affective characteristics 39–40, 41, 54 using social influence to activate
research innovation sprints (RIS) residents 179–80
as applied research 103 design for toolkit 180, 182–3, 184
chronological phases 103, 105, 111 design interventions 173
design thinking informing 103, 105, 122 future research areas 176
Innovation Lab 104–5 as inherently systemic approach 183
lessons learned process of, and social networks 176, 186
appoint design innovation catalyst as research focus and questions 165, 183
RIS leader and project manager for scaling behaviour change 168
117–22 study limitation 174
bridge the academia–industry gap 122 theory of 185
deliberately question systems thinking societal problems and lock-ins 122, 164, 165,
boundaries 118 166, 185, 234, 305
instil design thinking learning styles in societal transitions 184–5, 305
executive leadership 118–19 student mental health
pre-empt and design-in mindsets to learn design thinking process
from failure 119 lessons learned from 154–8
overview 145–50 creative 194–5

pictorial representation 146 and design thinking 75–6, 92, 96, 166
growing number experiencing problems 142 of different perspectives on facilitation 34–6
mental health access as method used in double diamond design
design thinking results 152–3 framework 172
insights, example problem statements perspectives used when problem framing 240
and solutions 156 and use of AI 241–2
mental health literacy systemic change 167, 184–5, 186
design thinking results 150–151 systemic design 164, 167, 183–4, 185, 305
insights, example problem statements
and solutions 155 tactile artefacts
mental health marketing active engagement with 76–8
design thinking results 153–4 embedded in design thinking engagements
insights, example problem statements 71
and solutions 156 exploring potential of 71
mental health policy in healthcare context 70–78
design thinking results 153 tactile thinking
insights, example problem statements active engagement with artefacts 76–7
and solutions 156 example highlighting power of 72–3
mental health socialization integrating into complex healthcare design
design thinking results 152 projects 71
insights, example problem statements defining complex problems 72–3
and solutions 155 generative prototyping 73–5, 76
need for more innovative approaches 142 tactile tools 72, 73, 76, 77
negative consequences of poor 142 teacher education
problem understanding phase 147–9 DTS for 254, 261
solution generation phase 149–50, 151 examining design thinking in 247
student demographics 146 teaching design thinking
students as active collaborators 142–3 in graduate higher education context 265,
undergraduate 143–5 271, 277–8
sustainability measuring outcomes of 253
craft returning us to 64 models for 248–52
criticality of gas to green transitions for 165 see also Design Thinking Scale (DTS)
and human-centred design 59–60, 129 teaching transmedia
Rotterdam residents’ perspective on 170, 180 overview 282
social aspects of 129 transmedia journalism design thinking toolkit
symbolic interactionism as aid to 282–91
as bottom up approach 202 value of design thinking in 291–2
conclusion of design thinking as fragile 217 technological transitions 190, 191–2, 198
and design thinking in business 203–5 theories of change 183
nature of 202 thinking about design 53–5
premises thinking as design 52–3, 57, 64
associated with design themes 206–10 thinking to design approach 54, 55
giving meaning to design thinking TJT see transmedia journalism design thinking
215–16 toolkit (TJT)
in job ads 211, 214–15, 216 toolkits see Design for Social Contagion
and theory 202–3 Framework and Toolkit; design thinking
shared understanding of design thinking toolkits
through lens of 216–17 transmedia
synthesis overview of teaching 282
as act of transforming user insights into transmediality 281
problem statements 234 value of design thinking in teaching 291–2
and architects 13 transmedia journalism design thinking toolkit
and collaborative frame creation 198 (TJT)
Index 327
developed to overcome journalistic stage 1: picking role 283–4, 285

difficulties 281–2 stage 2: planning news plot 284, 286–7
learnings from news story stage 3: deciding on media channels,
building empathy to boost creativity and forms, and audience interactions
innovation 290 284, 286
simplifying complex process 289–90 stage 4: practising ethical journalism
working as interdisciplinary team 287–8
290–291 stage 5: constructing news storyworld
as teaching aid 282–91 288–9
card deck 287 TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving)
pairing IDEO’s design thinking process 13–15
with stages of 283

Dokumen - Pub Research Handbook On Design Thinking 1802203125 9781802203127

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

Dokumen - Pub Research Handbook On Design Thinking 1802203125 9781802203127

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Handbook on Design Thinking

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

Cover image: Kimmi Ko

Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

A catalogue record for this book

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930299

This book is available electronically in the

ISBN 978 1 80220 312 7 (cased)

Introduction to the Research Handbook on Design Thinking1

PART I PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGNERS

1 A design thinker’s mind: insights on the neurocognitive processes of ideation 7

2 Design facilitation practice: an integrated framework 25

3 Who gets to wear the black turtleneck? Questioning the profession of

4 Method case study – Making design thinking tactile: unlocking meaning

PART II PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN THINKING AS A PROCESS

5 The agile landscape of design thinking 80

6 Bridging the academia–industry gap through design thinking: research

7 Design4Health: developing design thinking bootcamps in the Middle East 127

8 Design thinking to improve student mental well-being 142

PART III PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN THINKING AS A PRACTICE

11 The fragility of design thinking: applying symbolic interactionism to

12 Dealing with the difficulties of policy formulation in policy design: the

14 Factor structure, validity, and reliability of an instrument for assessing

15 Using action research to facilitate and teach design thinking in graduate

17 Conclusion—Beyond normal design thinking: reflections on the

Thomas Boillat (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in health technologies at the Mohammed

Ivano Bongiovanni (PhD) is a Lecturer in Information Security, Governance, and Leadership

ments. Peter’s specialty is in managing and facilitating high-functioning teams of researchers

HOW THIS RESEARCH HANDBOOK IS STRUCTURED

better addressed through a less anthropocentric, less ‘problem-solving’ oriented approach to

Design thinking stands as a common approach adopted by companies to develop innovative

NEUROCOGNITION OF IDEATION PROCESSES IN DESIGN

In this section, we tackle common questions explored by researchers to better understand

COGNITION AND NEUROCOGNITION OF PROBLEM-SOLVING

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MECHANICAL ENGINEERS AND

EXPLORING THE NEUROCOGNITION OF IDEATION WITH

Table 1.1 Characteristics of concept generation techniques

Techniques Brainstorming Morphological analysis TRIZ

Source: Base of brain image © Society for Neuroscience (2017).

USING NEUROFEEDBACK TO BOOST DESIGN CREATIVITY

IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN THINKING

IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNERS

IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN RESEARCHERS

DESIGN THINKING AND THE EMERGENCE OF DESIGN

FACILITATION AS A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE

Table 2.1 Typology of design facilitation

Level Typology Description

Source: Aguirre et al., 2017, p. 208.

Facilitation in Design Contexts

Table 2.2 Six dimensions of design facilitation tools

Category Dimension Description

Source: Aguirre et al., 2017, p. 203.

Source: Starostka et al., 2021.

Figure 2.1 Taxonomy of two design facilitation approaches

Facilitation in Management Contexts

Facilitation in Deliberation Contexts

Deliberation studies explore the discursive dimension of participation in decision-making

Facilitation in Educational Contexts

• guides the development of higher-order thinking skills,

Synthesising Different Perspectives on Facilitation

CONCEPTUALISING DESIGN FACILITATION PRACTICE

Table 2.3 Comparison of different perspectives on facilitation

facilitation is a multifaceted practice that encompasses a number of different aspects (Mosely

Introduction to the Research Handbook on Design Thinking1

1 A design thinker’s mind: insights on the neurocognitive processes of ideation 7

2 Design facilitation practice: an integrated framework 25

5 The agile landscape of design thinking 80

7 Design4Health: developing design thinking bootcamps in the Middle East 127

8 Design thinking to improve student mental well-being 142

Online Etymology Dictionary (2022). Facilitation (n.). Retrieved from, https://www.etymonline.com/