Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Understandingthebehaviourofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments
AthesissubmittedforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
StefanieDiRusso
2016
AbstractDesignthinkingisatermwidelyusedoutsideofthedesignindustrytodescribethe
innovativeandhuman-centeredapproachusedbydesignersintheirpractice.Withinthe
designindustry,thetermisbothembracedandrejected.Designthinkinghaserupted
outsideofdesignpracticeasanewapproachforinnovationandtransformation,piquing
theinterestofleadersfrombusiness,education,government,throughtonot-for-profit
organisations.Designthinkingisrapidlyspreadingthroughindustries,increasingthe
spectrumofwhatistraditionallyconsideredasdesignpractice.Itsmostrecentinfluence
findsdesignthinkingtrendingtowardshighlycomplexenvironmentssituatedonamuch
broaderandsystemicscale.Yet,thewaveofdesignthinkingcarriesaseaofdoubtoverits
success,applicabilityoutsideoftraditionaldesignpractices,andaboveall,itsdefinition.In
ordertosustainitscredibility,researchisrequiredtoinvestigatethebehaviorand
effectivenessofdesignthinkingappliedinthisemergingareaofcomplexpractice.
Theprimaryresearchquestionthatwilldirectthisresearchinvestigationis,Whatisthe
behaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments?Thenatureofthisthesisis
exploratory.Theobjectiveoftheresearchistocontributeempiricalevidenceonthe
behaviorandeffectivenessofdesignthinkingfortacklingproblemsincomplex
environments.Thisthesisaimstomakethreecontributions:first,itseekstoidentifyand
explorethehistoryandevolutionofdesignthinkingtodate,synthesizingcommon
definitions.Second,itseekstocontributeempiricalevidenceonthebehaviorofdesign
thinkinginhighlycomplexenvironments.Third,theinvestigationaimstoexplainthe
underlyingmechanismsthatenableemergentbehaviorstooccurinthedesignprocess,
contributingknowledgeandunderstandingonhowtoapplydesignthinkingincomplex
environments.Researchintothepracticalimplicationsonthewayadesignerlyapproach
addresses,managesandshapesproblemsincomplexenvironmentsiscrucialtoadvancing
bothdesignthinkingandsociety.Thisresearchwillexplorethebehaviorofdesign
thinkingasittacklescomplexproblemsandexaminehowdesignthinkingshapes,andis
beingshaped,bycomplexenvironments.
Acknowledgements
Whatanexhaustingthreeyears.ThisPhDhashadanimpactonmylifebeyondthatofjust
research.Ittaughtmevaluablelifelessonsthathaveshapedmeintoastrongerperson
throughthrowingmetotheedgeofemotion,fearanddoubt.
Ofcourse,nopersoncanjourneythroughunknownterrainwithoutstoppingfordirections
alongtheway.First,Iwouldliketothankmyprimarysupervisor,DanHuppatz,for
allowingmetotravelinanydirectionIdreamedtogo.Icouldnotimagineanyother
supervisorallowingmethefreedomthathegrantedformyselfandmythesis.Becauseof
this,Iwasabletoexplorewhattrulymademehappy,andintheprocess,produceathesis
thatsatisfiedmyinterestacademicallyandcontributedtomycareer.Hiseasy-going
guidancewaswhatIneededtobecomemoreindependentandconfidentandIthankhim
forneverdoubtingmyabilitiesinmymomentsofinsecurity.
Second,Iwouldliketothankmyassociatesupervisor,KenFriedman,forhissupport
throughbothacademicandpersonalupsanddowns.Fromdayoneheeaseddoubtwith
hisferventbeliefinmyselfwhilstofferingboostsofconfidenceandhumblinganecdoteson
lifeandaPhD.Inaddition,IwouldliketothankDierdreBarronforpumpingmefullof
“girlpower”.IadmiredDierdre’sstrengthandhopeonedaytobecomeasstrongofa
womanassheis.
ThePhDwouldbeunbearablyisolatingwithoutthefriendsandcolleaguesIhavespent
daysandnightslaughing,eatingandstudyingwith.Similarly,my“virtual”friendsand
colleaguesscatteredacrosstheworldonTwitter:SharonS.,ChrisB.,ChrisR.,MarkB.,and
FrederikM,tonameafew.Nomatterwhattimeofdayornight,Ialwayshadafriendto
provideimmediatesupport,encouragementandhelpwhenIneededit.
Lastly,tomyMum,Dadandbrother,Adam.Theirimmovableandinfinitesupport,belief
andencouragementthroughoutmylifeandPhDhasgivenmethestrengthtobewhereI
amtoday.Thisthesisisdedicatedtomyfamily.
DeclarationbystudentThisthesiscontainsnomaterialthathasbeenacceptedforawardofanyotherdegreeor
diploma.Tothebestofmyknowledge,thisthesiscontainsnomaterialpreviously
publishedorwrittenbyanotherpersonexceptwhereduereferenceismadeinthetext.
WheretheworkisbasedonjointresearchorpublicationsIhavedisclosedtherelative
contributionsoftherespectiveauthors.
Signed____________________________________________________________________________Date:______/______/_______
Contents1.Introduction 1.
2.LiteratureReview 10.
3.ResearchFramework 59.
4.CaseStudyI:ServiceDesignAgency 99.5.CaseStudyII:TheAustralianTaxationOffice 136.6.CaseStudyIII:OpenIDEO 169.7.Cross-comparisonAnalysis 210.8.Discussion 254.9.Conclusion 276.References 282.Appendix 311.
ListofFigures Figure1.Thefunctioncomplex 17.
Figure2.Triadoflimitations 18
Figure3.User-centereddesignversusdesigningforservice 32.
Figure4.Servicejourneymap 34.
Figure5.Typologyofdesignthinking 42.
Figure6.FlachModelofcomplexityinproblemspaces 49.
Figure7.Junginger’spositionofdesignthinkingpracticerelativetoanorganization54.
Figure8.Stratificationofreality 69.
Figure9.Frameworkforanalysis 87.
Figure10.Researchdesignquintain 97.
Figure11.Exampleoflow-fimaterials 121
Figure12.CaseStudy1sketch 125.
Figure13.TheATOdesignwheel 142.
Figure14.OpenIDEOstructure 203.
Figure15.Frameworkforcross-comparisonanalysis 211.
Figure16.Positionofcasestudiestoprojectecosystem 212.
Figure17.Holisticperspective 224.
Figure18.Visionframing 232.
Figure19.De-centralisationofthedesigner 239.
Figure20.Disruptingperceptions 245.
Figure21.Designthinkinginaconstantstateofflux 252.
Figure22.Kimbelltableofdesignthinking 257.
Figure23.Hassi&Laaksotableofdesignthinking 257.
Figure24.Carlgren,Elmquist&Rauthtableofdesignthinking 258.
Figure25.Commondesignthinkingprocesses 269.
Figure26.Effectofpositioninginimplementationforeachcasestudy 271.
ListofTables Table1.Commonlycitedcharacteristicsofdesignthinking 34.
Table2.Pro-activearchetypesonOpenIDEO 190.
Table3.PassivearchetypesonOpenIDEO 191.
Table4.Evidenceofambiguityineachcase 214.
Table5.Evidenceoflargecommunitynetworksineachcase 215.
Table6.Evidenceofafocusonintangiblesolutions 216.
Table7.Themesincase1and2thatledtoemergentbehaviours 218.
Table8.Holisticperspective 220.
Table9.Underlyingmechanismforaholisticperspective 223.
Table10.VisionFraming 227.
Table11.Underlyingmechanismforvisionframing 230.
Table12.De-centralisationofthedesigner 235.
Table13.Underlyingmechanismfordecentralizationofthedesigner 238.
Table14.Disruptingperceptionsthroughdesignthinking 241.
Table15.Underlyingmechanismfordisruptingperceptions 244.
Table16.Designthinkinginaconstantstateofflux 247.
Table17.Underlyingmechanismfordesignthinkinginaconstantstateofflux 251.
Table18.Summaryofemergentbehaviours 266.
1
1.
Introduction
AninterestindesignthinkinghasgrownsincetheestablishmentoftheDesignThinking
ResearchSymposiumin1991(Cross,Dorst,&Roozenburg,1992).Sincethen,design
thinkinghasremainedattheforefrontofdiscussionsindesignresearchandpractice.
Today,designthinkinghasbecomeamarketableprocessforincreasingefficiencyand
innovationinindustriesoutsideoftraditionaldesignpractice.Thepopularityand
adoptionofdesignthinkinghasexpandedtraditionalnotionsofdesignpractice.However,
theevolutionofdesignpracticeisfuellingdebateoverhowtoidentifydesignthinking.
Argumentsoverwhetherdesignthinkingisasetofmindsets,methods,orcompositionof
thetwo,persistinbothindustryandacademia.Debatesoverthedefinitionofdesign
thinkingisstirringconfusionandskepticismoveritsusefulnessandeffectivenessin
dealingwithcomplexandwickedproblems(Nussbaum,2011;Norman,2010).This
debatewillpersistuntilmoreempiricalknowledgeiscontributedonthenatureand
applicationofdesignthinking.Thegoaloftheresearchquestion,Whatisthebehaviorof
designthinkingincomplexenvironments?istoinvestigateandcontributemuchneeded
empiricalresearchondesignthinkingincomplexpractice.Thisintroductionservesto
signpostcriticaltopicsexploredinthisdissertation,alertingthereadertofundamental
developmentsandideas.Thisintroductoryoverviewpresentsasummaryoftheresearch
question,background,objective,methodologyandcontribution.
2
1.1ResearchBackground
Understandingthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments
Drivingdesignthinkingisthecapabilitytoinnovate.Thisfeaturehasseendesignthinking
spreadfromconventionalpracticesingraphicandproductengineeringtoservice,
systemicandpolicyinnovation(DesignforGrowthandProsperity2012;APSInnovation
ActionPlan2011;DESISNetwork2012;SocialDesignFutures,2014).Innovationhas
becomeintegraltotheforceandidentitydrivingdesignthinkingacrossindustriesand
towardshigherandmorecomplexprojectenvironments.Therapidriseintheadoptionof
designthinkinginhighlycomplexenvironmentshassurpassedcurrentknowledgeonhow
toapplyadesignapproachinthesecontexts.Inordertosubstantiatetheproposedvalue
ofdesignthinking,researchunderstandingthebehavior,impactandapplicationofdesign
thinkingincomplexpracticeisneededandisthefocusofthisthesis.
Themainresearchquestion,Whatisthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplex
environments?seekstocontributemuchneededempiricalresearchandanalysisondesign
thinkingappliedincomplexpractice.Thisresearchquestionwillbesupplementedwith
twosub-questions:
1. Whateffectdoesthepositionofdesignthinkingtotheprojectcontexthaveon
designinginandforcomplexenvironments?
2. Whataretheunderlyingmechanismsthatenableordisabledesignerlybehaviours
toemergeincomplexenvironments?
Thefirstsub-questionseekstounderstandifthepositionofdesignthinkingrelativetothe
projectecosystemaffectsthebehaviorofdesigninginandforcomplexenvironments.This
analysiswillfocusonprojectssituatedwithincomplexenvironmentsthathavedifferent
degreesofinteractionandrelationshiptotheprojectecosystem.Thisquestionisinspired
by,andbuildsupon,hypothesespresentedbySabineJungingeronthepositionofdesign
practicerelativetoanorganization(Junginger,2011).
Thesecondsub-questionwillinvestigatetheunderlyingmechanismsthatenableor
disabledesignattributestoemergewhendesignisappliedinacomplexenvironment.This
questionaimstodelvebeneath“thickdescriptions”ofdesignactivitytoprovidecausal
explanationsforwhyparticularbehaviorsemergeandwhatmayhindertheiremergence.
3
Theanalysisofthesecondsub-questionisdirectedbyacriticalrealisttheoretical
perspectiveinconjunctionwithasystemstheoryapproach.Examiningunderlying
mechanismswillprovideadeeperanalyticalexplanationonthebehaviorsoutlined
throughdiscussionofthemainresearchquestion.
1.2Identificationofkeyterms
1.2.1Whatisdesignthinking?
Designthinkingisheraldedbysomeindividualsasanewandinnovativeprocessfor
tacklingcomplexproblems(Brown&Wyatt,2010;Äijälä&Karjalainen,2012;Graham,
2013).Designthinkingiscommonlydescribedasamindset(Laakso&Hassi,2011,p.4;
Leinonen&Durall,2014,p.108),method(Beckman&Barry,2007;Lockwood,2010),process(Benson&Dresdow,2013,p.7;VonThienenet.al.,2014,p.101)andattitude
(Brown,2008;Jones,2010,p.226;Gloppen,2009),thatisuniquetodesignersanddesignpractice.
Designthinkingisatitlethathasbeenusedwidelyoutsideofthedesignindustryto
describethewaydesignerswork,withemphasisonthecognitiveaspectsthatdirecta
designapproach.Yet,theprocessanddefinitionofdesigning,anddesignthinking,is
elusive.Inanattempttodefinedesignthinking,practitioners,includingscholars,have
attributedtheoriginanddevelopmentofdesignthinkingwithPeterRowe’sbooktitled,
DesignThinking(Rowe,1987;Dorst,2010;Kimbell,2011)anditsmethodologyfrom
designconsultancyIDEO(Brown,2010;Badke-Schaub,2010;Blizzard,2013;Terrey,
2012)ortheStanfordD.School(“InstituteofDesignatStanford”,2015).Incontrast,other
professionalshaveassertedthatdesignthinkingisanamalgamationofmethodsborrowed
frompracticessuchasbusiness,marketingandthecreativearts(Martin,2009).Thishas
spurredconfusionoverthedefinitionandoriginofdesignthinking,includingspeculation
overwhetherthephenomenonisinfactintimatelylinkedtodesignpractice(Dorst,2011,
p.531).Thedefinition,originanddevelopmentofdesignthinkingwillbeaddressedinthe
literaturereview.Theliteraturereviewchapterwillestablishabrieftheoretical
foundationbehinddesignthinkingandconcludewhetherthis‘new’andinnovative
processisinfactembeddedwithindesignhistoryandpractice.Furthermore,theliterature
reviewprovidesaconsolidatedviewofcontemporarydescriptionsofdesignthinking.
4
Throughananalysisandsynthesisofthehistory,developmentandcontemporary
descriptions,itisproposedthatdesignthinkingmaybeconsideredsynonymouswiththe
termdesigning.
1.2.2Whatisacomplexenvironment?
Complexityhasbeenatopicofdiscussionthroughoutthehistoryofdesigntheory.Seminal
designscholarssuchasRittel&Webber,RichardBuchananandBruceArcherreferto
complexityaspartofdesignpractice(Archer,1965,pp.58-62;Buchanan,1992,p.9;Rittel
&Webber,1973,p.162).However,thereislittleconsensusinthedesignfieldoverwhat
definescomplexity,orconstitutescomplexdesignpractice;complexityindesignliterature
isonlyvaguelysketchedout.
SinceRittel&Webber(1973)coinedthetermwickedproblems,complexityhasbecome
partofthecharacteristicrepertoireofdesignthinking.RittelandWebberestablished
whathasbecomethemostnotableandwidelyadoptedreferencetoadefinitionof
complexityindesign,withtheirwritingonwickedproblems.Broadly,awickedproblem
isinherentlycomplex,andonethatis“unique”and“ill-defined”(Rittel&Webber,1973,
p.163).Awickedproblemhasnodefinitiveformulaforresolution,butrather,canonlybe
satisfiedundercurrentconditions,because“therearenoendstothecausalchainsthat
linkinteractingopensystems”(Rittel&Webber,1973,p.162).Acomplexenvironment
contains‘wicked’problems.However,thetermenvironmenthasbeenchoseninthisthesis
insteadofproblemsasacomplexenvironmentmaycontaintameproblemsmade
complicatedbywickedsystems.
Systemsareoftenreferredtoinconjunctionwithcomplexity“theprocessmustbeholistic
andconsidertheartifactinawidersystem”(Archer,1965,p.58).Itisthisconnection
betweencomplexityandsystemswhichprovidesfertilesoiltobuildaconcretedefinition
ofcomplexityfordesigntheoryandpractice.Referencestocomplexityindesignarenot
inspiredby,orborrowedfrom,definitionsofcomplexityestablishedinotherdisciplines
suchascybernetics,micro-economicsormathematics.Yet,complexdesignpracticeis
oftenreferredtoasworkingwithinopensystems.Thus,systemstheorymaylendaclearer
definitionofcomplexitythatcanbeadoptedfordescriptionsofcomplexdesignpractice
andenvironments.
5
Thisthesishaschosentodefinecomplexity,andthuscomplexenvironments,usingPeter
Jones’descriptionofsystemicdesign(2014):
Acomplexsystemreferstodomainswhereitisnearlyinconceivablethatany
singleexpertormanagercanunderstandtheentiresystemoroperation.Typical
systemicdesignproblemsarecomplexservicesystems,sociallyorganized,large-
scale,multi-organizational,withsignificantemergentproperties,renderingit
impossibletomakedesignormanagementdecisionsbasedonsufficientindividual
knowledge.Theseincludeservicesandsystemssuchashealthcaresystemsand
diseasemanagement,mega-cityurbanplanningandmanagement,natural
resourcegovernanceandallocation,andlargeenterprisestrategyandoperations.
Noneoftheseareisolated“domains,”aseachoftheseareaffectedbyunknowable
dynamicsinpopulationandregionaldemographics,climateandnaturalecology
effects,politicalandregulatoryinfluences,andtechnologyimpacts.
Hence,complexenvironmentshavebeendefinedforthisthesisaslargescale,openand
adaptivesystemsthatrequiremultidisciplinarycollaborationfordesigndevelopment.
Thisisbecausesystemscanbeperceivedascomplexfrombothastructural
(organisational)orcognitive(social)perspectivewhereahighdegreeofuncertain
variablesarepresent.Itisimportanttohighlightthatthisthesisdoesnotfocussolelyon
organizationalinstitutions,ascommonlydiscussedindesignmanagementliterature.The
termcomplexenvironmenthasbeenchosentoallowforabroadercontextofstudyinto
newemergingareasofpracticewhichfallwithin3rdand4thorderdomainsofpractice
(explainedinchapter2.LiteratureReview)butmaynotbedistinctivelysituatedwithinthe
contextofanorganizationalinstitution.Instead,thewordorganizationisusedinthis
thesistodenotethearrangementofelementstoawhole.Hence,thisthesisisnotfocusing
ondesigncapabilityordesignthinkingadoptioninorganizationalinstitutions,butrather,
exploringanddocumentingtheadoptionandapplicationofdesignthinkingincomplex
environments.
Complexenvironmentsenablechangesindesignthinkingpracticeasthedesignapproach
adaptstothisnewcontext.Designthinkingisinaconstantfluxofadaptive
transformation;inre-designingthenatureofthesystemwhereitisapplied,design
thinkingshiftstoadapttothesystemithaschanged.Designersareincreasinglyfacedwith
complexissuesbeyondconventionalpractice.Designforcomplexenvironmentsisstilla
6
practiceinitsinfancyandsolutionsmaynotadequatelysatisfytheneedsofcomplex
systemswithoutsufficientresearchsupportingthevalueofadoptingadesignerly
approachfortheresolutionofcomplexproblems(Jones,2014).Thisdissertationaimsto
contributeexploratoryresearchondesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentstoaidthe
needsofbothdesignersandprofessionalsseekingassistancefromthedesignerlyway.
1.3Analternativetheoreticalperspectivefordesign
research
Thisthesisutilizesandproposesanunconventionaltheoreticalframeworktoguide
researchondesignpractice.Perspectivescommonlyprescribedfordesignresearchers
stemfromsubjectivistandpositivisttheory.Itisproposedthattheseepistemologicaland
ontologicalpositionsareinadequatefortheinvestigationofwickedproblemsincomplex
environments.Thisthesisarguesfor,andutilizes,theadoptionofcriticalrealismfor
researchingdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.
Criticalrealismpresentsatheoreticalpositionthatontologicallyacknowledgesbothsocial
andnaturalrealities(Dickens,2003).Thisallowsresearchtoengagewithsubjectmatter
thatisinherentlyconstructivistaswellaspositivist.Theepistemologicalpositionof
criticalrealismacceptsaviewofrealitythatisstratified,generatingknowledgethrough
causalanalysis(Wuisman,2005).Knowledgeisproducedviathevehicleofretroduction:a
logicalframeworkthattranslatestheontologicalpositionofcriticalrealismintoan
epistemologicaltheory(Oliver,2011).Knowledgeisgeneratedbystratifyinglevelsof
reality,to‘dig’throughobservableandunobservableeventsinordertouncover
underlyingcausalmechanismsthatinfluenceandaffecttheobjectofphenomena(Elder
Vass,2012).Theaimofcriticalrealismisnottoprovide“thickdescriptions”of
phenomena,butuncovercausalmechanismsthatallowforexplanatoryanalysis.
Causalanalysistakesplaceusingagroundedtheorymethodology.Astheresearch
questionisexplorative,groundedtheoryaffordsthediscoveryofcategoriesthatdescribe
andreflectthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Inorderto
7
comprehensivelydesignforcomplexity,anunderstandingoftheinterconnectedcausal
mechanismsaffectingthedesignprocess,problemandoutcomeisimperative.Assuch,
criticalrealistgroundedtheoryhasbeenusedforuncoveringcausalmechanismsinorder
tounderstandhowwecanimprovedesignthinkingpracticeforcomplexenvironments.
1.4Thesisstructure
Thisthesisisdividedintoninechapters.Thefirstchapter,Introduction,outlinesthe
researchobjectiveandstructureofthethesis.Thesecondchapterestablishesaliterature
reviewtracingthehistoryandevolutionofdesignthinking,includingcurrent
developmentsanddefinitions.Thischapterguidesthereaderthroughfundamental
movementsindesigntheory,relatingcurrentresearchondesignthinkingtodesign
historyandmethodologicaldevelopment.Historicalreferenceshavebeendeliberately
drawnfromthedesignfieldinordertoinvestigateifdesignthinkingisderivedfrom
designtheoryandpractice.Thisevolutionisdiscussedinlightofrecentliteratureoutlined
within2.3CurrentPractice.Thechapterwillthenconcludewith2.4ResearchDirection,
highlightingtheneedforempiricalresearchondesignthinkingappliedincomplex
environmentsbeforepresentingtheresearchquestionthatwillguidethefocusofthis
thesis.
Thethirdchapterisdevotedtooutliningtheresearchframework.Thischapteroutlines
thetheoreticalposition,methodology,methods,researchdesignandframeworkfordata
analysisthatwillguidetheinvestigationofthisdissertation.Inthischapteranalternative
theoreticalperspective,criticalrealism,isproposedforacademicresearchinvestigating
complexdesignpractices.Thefourthchapterpresentsthefirstcasestudycollectedfor
thisthesis.Thiscasestudyfocusesondesignthinkingpracticeinaserviceandstrategic
designagencywheredesignthinkingactivityisconductedexternaltotheproject
organizationsystem.Thefifthchapterfollowswithacasestudyondesignthinking
situatedinternaltoanorganizationalsystem,TheAustralianTaxationOffice.Thesixth
chapterpresentsanewperspectiveondesignthinkingpracticeincomplexenvironments,
withdesignthinkingappliedinanopen-source,decentralizedonlineenvironmentthatis
OpenIDEO.
8
Theseventhchapterisdedicatedtoacross-comparativeanalysisofeachcasestudy.This
chapterwillpresentemergentthemescommontoeachcaseandcross-comparethe
emergenceofthesethemesinlightoftheeffectthatthepositionandrelationshipdesign
thinkingpracticehastotheprojectsystem.Inaddition,thischapterwillpropose
underlyingmechanismsthatenableordisablethemestoemerge.Theeighthchapter,
Discussion,willanalyzethebroaderimpactandperspectivefromtheknowledgeobtained
inthisdissertation.Finally,asummaryofcontributionsandlimitationsinthisthesiswill
bepresentedinthefinalchapter,Conclusion.
1.5ResearchContribution
Theresearchaimstoinvestigatethebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,
understandinghowdesignthinkingisusedandwhetheritisanappropriateframework
forcomplex‘wicked’problems.Toanswertheresearchaim,athreecasestudieshave
beencollectedfromprojectsthathaveutilizeddesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.
Thesecasestudieshavebeenselectedfortheirrepresentationofcomplexenvironments
fromthreedomains:public,privateandopensourceprojects.Furthermore,eachcase
presentsdesignthinkingactivityunderthreedifferentconditions:designthinking
operatingontheperipherytotheprojectandorganizedsystem,designthinkingapplied
internallytotheprojectandorganisedsystemanddesignthinkingappliedinade-
centralizedsystem.
Thisdissertationmakesfourfundamentalcontributions.First,ithascontributed
knowledgeandclarificationonthehistory,developmentanddefinitionofdesignthinking.
Second,empiricalknowledgehasbeengeneratedonthebehaviorofdesignthinking
specifictocomplexitiesofthirdandfourthorderdesignpractice.Third,ithascontributed
newknowledgeontheeffectsthatpositioningplaysondesignthinkingpracticein
complexenvironments.Finally,thisthesisarticulatesunderlyingmechanismsthatmaybe
enablingordisablingeffectivedesigninandforcomplexenvironments.
Thisthesisimprovesourunderstandingofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.The
knowledgegeneratedinthisthesiswillhelpestablishdesignthinkingasfundamentalto
9
designpracticethroughidentifyingtheevolutionandhistoryofdesignthinkingtodate.In
addition,thisdissertationimprovesuponourunderstandingofthebehaviorofdesign
thinkingincomplexpractice;tofurthereducateandsupportdesignresearchersand
practitionerswhendesigninginandforcomplexenvironments.Furthermore,thisthesis
providesauniqueandoriginalcontributiontoourunderstandingondesignthinking
practiceincomplexenvironmentswithidentificationofpotentialunderlyingmechanisms
thatenableanddisabledesignerlybehaviourstoemergeinthesecontexts.
10
2.
TheEvolutionofDesignThinking
Designthinkingisnotanewconcept.Theaimofthisliteraturereviewistouncoverand
tracethehistoricallineageofdesignthinkingwithindesigntheoryandpractice.Indoing
so,thisreviewwillbestructuredinthreeparts:first,abriefhistoryofdesignthinking;
itsevolutionthroughoutdesigntheory,highlightingkeytheoristsandtrends.Second,the
developmentofdesignmethodsandnewformsofpractice,andthird;adiscussionofthe
commondefinitionsandmethodsassociatedwithacontemporaryunderstandingof
designthinking,includingacriticalanalysisofitstransformationandapproachin
currentpractice.Identificationofthehistory,evolutionandcurrentdefinitionsofdesign
thinkingisrequiredinordertosolidifyandevolveitstheoryandpractice.
Designthinkinghasgainedsuddenpopularityinarelativelyshortperiodoftime.
Investigatingthehistoricalrootsofthisphenomenonisnecessaryinorderto
contextualizethesuccessanddefinitionofcontemporarydesignthinkingpractice.The
firstsectionoftheliteraturereview,whichcoversthebeginningsofdesignthinking,has
beensplitintotwosections:acritiqueon“firstgeneration”designtheory,intheperiod
ofthe1960s-1980s,followedby“secondgeneration”theoriesfromthe1980stothemid
1990s.Thisbriefoutlineonthefundamentalmovementsindesigntheoryisnecessaryin
ordertoestablishanddevelopamoreinformedunderstandingofwhereandhowdesign
thinkingaroseandwhereitmayleadinthefuture.
11
Thesecondsectionofthisliteraturereviewwillfocusontheevolutionandemergenceof
newdesignpractices;howandwhythesesub-disciplineswereconstructed.Thepurpose
ofthissecondsectionistodevelopadeeperunderstandingoftheinfluencefirstand
secondgenerationtheorieshadonthedevelopmentofnewdesigndisciplines,
distinguishinghowthemethodsofthesesub-disciplinesdifferwhilstanalyzinghowthis
developmenthascontributedtocontemporarydesignthinkingpractice.Thethird
sectionbringstogethercurrentcharacteristicsanddefinitionsofdesignthinkinginlight
ofhistoricaldevelopment.Thischapterwillconcludewithanargumentforfurther
researchondesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentsandpresenttheresearchquestion
thatwillguidethefocusforthisthesis.
12
2.1ABriefHistoryofDesignThinking
1960s-1980s: EstablishingDesignPractice
Thedesignmethodsmovementofthe1960smarkedthebeginningofanongoing
debateovertheprocess,theoryandmethodologyofdesignpractice.Scholarssuchas
BruceArcher,JohnChrisJones,PeterSlannandHorstRittelinitiatedaconferencetitled,
TheConferenceonSystematicandIntuitiveMethodsinEngineering,IndustrialDesign,
ArchitectureandCommunications,inLondonin1962,whichlaterinspiredthe
developmentoftheDesignResearchSociety(Jones,2002).Thisconferencesparkedthe
beginningofamovementthataimedtodefinedesignonitsownterms,theorizing
proposalstoprofessionalizeandsystematicallydistinguishdesignpracticefromartand
craft.Duringthisperiod,HerbertSimonpioneeredresearchonadesignscience,whilst
HorstRittelandMelvinWebberarguedagainsttherigidscientificlensthroughwhichto
viewdesignproblems.RittelandWebberclaimeddesignproblemsarenotfixedand
introducedthefamoustermwickedproblems.
Takingadifferentperspective,VictorPapanekintroducedanargumentforsocially
consciousdesign,advocatingtheneedforinnovativesustainablesolutionsthatanswer
tofundamentalhumanneeds,whilstBruceArcherchampionedfordesigntobeseenasa
thirdformofknowledgedistinctfromscienceandhumanities.Thefocusofthissection
hasbeenrestrictedtohighlightingthefundamentaltheoriesofthesewriters,whoeach
representdifferentideologiesondesignduringthefirstgenerationofdesigntheory.
Thesewritershavebeenchosenfortheimpacttheirresearchhashadoncontemporary
designtheorytoday.
Thehistoryofdesignthinkingcanbetracedthroughmanydifferentdisciplinesandsub-
disciplinesofdesign.Inparticular,design’sclosestcousin,engineering,maypresentits
ownlineageofthehistoryofdesignanddesignthinking.Forexample,developments
fromfiguressuchasRobertMcKimandRolfFastewhomadecontributionswithinthe
engineeringdisciplineandresidedatStanfordUniversity.Similarly,fieldsexternalto
designtheory,suchasbusinessmanagement,havegainedtractiontowardsproviding
knowledgeonthehistoryanddevelopmentofdesignpracticeinmanagerialand
organizationalcontexts.Thisliteraturereviewhasexplicitlychosentotracethehistory
ofdesignthinkingthroughfundamentalpapersandprofilesfromwithindesign
literature.Indoingso,thisreviewacknowledgesthepresenceandpotentialinfluenceof
13
engineeringandbusinessmanagementliteratureonthehistoryanddevelopmentof
designthinking,butintheinterestofscope,ithasexcludeddeeperinvestigationsinto
engineeringandmanagementtheory.Thefocusondesigntheoryprovidesamanageable
boundaryfortheliteraturereviewandpresentsalineageofevidencethatsuggests
designthinkingisinfactintimatelylinkedtodesignpractice.
2.1.1Designisartificial
Inhisbook,TheSciencesoftheArtificial,HerbertSimondescribesdesignasasystematic
processaimingtoimproveartificialenvironmentsinto‘preferred’outcomes(Simon,
1996,p.111).Inhisdescriptionoftheartificial,Simon(1996)drawsontechnical
disciplinessuchasengineering,policyscienceandmedicine;allofwhichhebelieves
exhibitprocessesconcernedwithimprovingtheartificialworld:
Theintellectualactivitythatproducesmaterialartifactsisnodifferent
fundamentallyfromonethatprescribesremediesforasickpatient
[...]schoolsofengineering,aswellasarchitecture,business,
educationlawandmedicine,areallcentrallyconcernedwiththe
processofdesign(p.111).
Ourworld,asSimonseesit,isnotnaturalbutconstructedfromman-madeartifice
(Simon,1996,p.2).Simon’s(1996)definitionoftheartificialrepresentsobjectscreated
byman.ThisgaveSimonreasontobelievetheprofessionsthataimtoproduceor
reconstructtheartificialreflecttheactofdesigning“Theproperstudyofthosewhoare
concernedwiththeartificialisthewayinwhichthatadaptationofmeansto
environmentsisbroughtabout-andcentraltothatistheprocessofdesignitself”(1996,
p.113).Simon’sscientificperspectiveonthenatureofdesignledhimtoevaluatethe
humanbrain,anobjectheviewsastheultimate‘artifice’.
Simondrawscomparisonsbetweentheprocessesofacomputerandcognition(Simon,
1996,p.74).Heextendshistheoryintoin-depthdescriptionsonthe‘limitations’ofboth
mechanisms(Simon,1996,p.59).Thecomputerisaproductofhumancognition,andas
such,itslimitationsreflectthelimitationsofthehumanbrain.Simonarguesthathuman
thoughtisartificial(Simon,1996,p.76),usingpsychologyandmathematical
14
experimentstoillustratethelimitationsofcomputing(thought)processesofthebrain
(Simon,1996,p.66;Huppatz,2015).ThistrainofthoughtledSimontobelievethatin
designingsolutions,cognitivelimitationswillconstructboundariesthathinderour
understandingofthecomplexityofourexternalenvironmentrequiringresolution.Asa
result,Simonproposesatheoryofoptimizationthroughwhichonecanonly‘satisfy’than
resolveproblems(Simon,1996,p.27-119).Simonapproacheswhathedescribesas
poorlyunderstoodsystems(areflectionofRittel&Webber’s‘wickedproblems’)with
scientificmethodsofprototyping(Simon,1996,p.18).Simon(1996)believes“To
understandthem,thesystemshadtobeconstructed,andtheirbehaviorobserved”(p.
20).Hedescribessimulationasanoptimalmethodforcreatingsolutionsthatsatisfy,
signalingprototypingasasourceforgeneratingnewknowledge.
Inadifferentargument,Simonapproachessocietaldesignwithauniqueperspective.
Workingwithprojectproblemsofalargescale,suchassocialplanning,Simonstresses
theimportanceofrepresentationandconceptualizationofacommonproblemthatis
understoodbyallstakeholders.Thismethod,heargues“Wouldfacilitateactionrather
thanparalyzeit”(Simon,1996,p.143).Inthisinstance,acorrectrepresentationwasnot
themostappropriateapproach.Understandingamongstallindividualsiskeytothe
cooperationandultimatesuccessoflarge-scalesocietalsolutions.Simon(1996)
addressesfeasibilitywhendefininglimitations(boundaries)oftheproblem“Design
problemsofteninvolvesettingoneormoreparametersatvaluesthatwillbeneithertoo
highnortoolow”(p.144).Simon’s(1996)approachispragmatic,arguingthe
importanceof“Configuringorganisations[and]oursocialinteractionswithothersinour
society”,whilstdesigningforthefutureandmakingloosepredictionsonalternative
scenariosto“Motivateactivitywhichinturnwillgeneratenewgoals”(p.154).For
Simon,large-scaleproblems,whethersocietalorenvironmental,requireanevolving
designprocess,onethatiswithoutfinalgoals(Simon,1996,p.165).Asaresult,Simon
concludedthatthecomplexartificialenvironmentwehavecreatedrequiresadesign
sciencethatutilizessimulationtechniquesandatheorygroundedinlogic.
2.1.2Designiscomplex
Inoneofthemostinfluentialpapersindesigntheory,DilemmasinaGeneralTheoryof
Planning,RittelandWebber(1973)identify‘wicked’problemsthroughanexamination
ofpolicyplanningpractice.Whenworkingwithambiguousandwickedproblems,the
15
designercanonlyresolveratherthansolvetheproblemathand.Solutionsareinstead
determinedaseithergoodorbad“Assessmentsofproposedsolutionsareexpressedas
“good”or“bad”or,morelikely,as“betterorworse”or“satisfying”or“goodenough””
(Rittel&Webber,1973,p.163).Awickedproblemisunique,ambiguousandhasno
definitesolution(Rittel&Webber,1973,p.161).Wickedproblemsarebroadandcannot
achievefinitetrue/falseoutcomes.Rittel&Webberjustifytheirposition,arguingthat
resolvinganopen-ended‘wicked’problemwillintroduceanew,complexproblemand
thusneverfindingacompleteresolution.
Rittel&Webberarguethatsciencecannotresolveproblemsthathaveopenandevolving
variables.Therigidityofsciencefailswhenattackingandresolving‘wicked’,ambiguous
problems(Rittel&Webber,1973,p.160).Theirjustificationisthatscienceisonly
equippedtodealwith‘tame’problems“Theproblemsthatscientistsandengineershave
usuallyfocuseduponaremostly“tame”or“benign”ones...Wickedproblems,incontrast,
haveneitheroftheseclarifyingtraits”(Rittel&Webber,1973,p.160).A‘tame’problem
isanissuethatcanberesolvedwithadefinitesolution,underfinite,localized
circumstancesandcouldcometoberesolvedthroughtrialanderror.
ThisideaissimilartoHerbertSimon’stheoryofsatisficingthroughoptimization.All
threewritersconfess‘wickedproblems’cannotcometoanykindoftrue/false
agreement,butdesignerscanonly‘satisfice’orresolvetothebestofthesolutions
available.TheambiguitysurroundingwickedenvironmentsledRittel,Webberand
Simontohighlighttheimportanceofunderstandingthedesignprocess.Thesethree
theoristsunderstoodthattheprocessofdesignaimstoresolveproblems“Betweenthe
stateofaffairsasitisandthestateasitoughttobe”(Rittel&Webber,1973,p.165).
Furthermore,alltheoristsacknowledgethecomplexnatureofdesigningforopen,
‘wicked’(evolving)problemsthatareoftenfoundwithinlarge-scalecomplex
environments.Thereisnoroomfortrialanderrorwhenimplementingasolutionfora
wickedproblem.ItisforthisreasonthatRittel&Webber(1973)argueeachwicked
problemisunique,andtherefore,sotooistheprocess“Partoftheartofdealingwith
wickedproblemsistheartofnotknowingtooearlywhichtypeofsolutiontoapply”(p.
164).LikeSimon,Rittel&Webber(1973)discussthesignificanceofanalyzingprocess
methodsforsolutionoptimization“Theinformationneededtounderstandtheproblem
dependsuponone’sideaforsolvingit…sinceeveryspecificationoftheproblemisa
specificationofthedirectioninwhichatreatmentisconsidered”(p.161).Thistopicof
designprocessandco-developmentofproblemandsolutionisstillattheforefrontof
16
debatetothisday.
Throughdescriptionsofpolicyplanningproblems,Rittel&Webberarticulatedthe
messy,ambiguousproblemsfacedbydesignersincomplexdesignprojects.Theirtheory
onwickedproblemswasembracedwithinthedesigncommunityasitarticulatedthe
ambiguousnatureofdesignpractice(Buchanan,1992;Coyne,2005;Jonas2009;Kimbell,
2009).Rittel&Webber’swritingprovidedamethodofreasoningandperspectiveon
problemsolvingthatsupportsthejustificationofdesignprocessesfortackling‘wicked’
problems,settingthetheoreticalgroundworkforcontemporarydesignscholars.
2.1.3Designishuman
Concurrentwithamovementthatwasconcernedwiththeestablishmentofadesign
science,VictorPapanekreleasedabookthatintroducedamoralperspectiveonthe
responsibilitiesofthedesigner.Focusedonindustrialdesign,Papanekfirstreleased
DesignfortheRealWorld:HumanEcologyandSocialChangein1972,withmixed
reactionsfromhispeers(Papanek,1985,p.xvi-39).Papanekmakesastatement
throughouthisbookthatthesocialandmoralresponsibilitiesofdesignstretchbeyond
productandprofitreports.MuchofPapanek’sstandpointisinresponsetoevidencethat
“Recentdesignhassatisfiedonlyevanescentwantsanddesires,whilethegenuineneeds
ofmanhaveoftenbeenneglected”(Papanek,1985,p.15).Papanek’sprimaryconcernis
drawingattentiontofundamentalsocietalneedsandheadvocatesthatdesignersneed
takeintoaccountwidermoralresponsibilities.
ReflectingSimon’sideathateveryonedesigns,Papanekwrote“Anyattempttoseparate
design,tomakeitathingbyitself,workscountertothefactthatdesignistheprimary
underlyingmatrixoflife”(Papanek,1985,p.12).However,unlikeRittel,Webberand
Simon,Papanekdoesnotconcernhimselfwithextrapolatingthedetailsinprocess
theories,methods,ordefinitionsofdesign.Instead,Papanekfrequentlyrefersto
innovation,asolutionhebelievestobetheresultofsimplifyingcomplexity“Whenwe
speakofanelegantsolution,werefertosomethingthatreducedthecomplextothe
simple”(Papanek,1985,p.26).WhereSimonaimsto‘satisfy’and‘optimize’solutions
derivedfromacomplexsimulationofexternalenvironments,Papaneksources
17
experience,knowledgeandintuitionfortheresolutionofproblemsinassimpleawayas
possible(Papanek,1985,p.151-186).IncontrasttoSimonandRittel,Papanekhighlights
theintuitivenatureofdesign“Designistheconsciousandintuitiveefforttoimpose
meaningfulorder”(Papanek,1985,p.4),butunderstandstheimpracticalityoftryingto
tangiblydescribeintuitionforthepurposeofinnovation.Instead,Papanekrefersto
traditionalandpracticalprocessmodels,suchasthefunctioncomplex(Fig.1)asa
methodtomeasurethebalanceoftangibledesignproducts,whilstofferingalistof
innovative-idea-triggeringtechniques.Thesemethodsincludebrainstormingand
prototypingmethods,withemphasisonanalogicalthinking.
Fig.1TheFunctionComplex(Papanek,1985,p.7)
18
Fig.2TriadofLimitations(Papanek,1985,p.73)
Revisingmethodsinlightofhumanneeds,Papanekproposestheuseofamore
theoreticalmodel,thetriadoflimitations(Fig.2)(Papanek,1984,p.73).Tomeasure
innovativedesignsolutionsagainstcomplexhumanstructures,Papanekstates“Wecan
nowusethetriadoflimitationsandseeitasaprimaryfiltertoestablishthesocialvalue
ofthedesignact”(Papanek,1985,p.74).Incontrasttoconstrictiveperspectivesfrom
Simon,Rittel&Webber,Papanekarguesdesignmustelevatebeyondprocess
methodologiesandstandardmodelsofbestpractice,toconcernitselfwithmoral
responsibilitiesandinnovativesimplicity.
19
2.1.4Designisathirdway
BruceArcher,aco-creatoroftheDesignMethodsMovement,championedfora
revolutioninartanddesigneducation.Archerbelievedthatthereexistedathirdareain
educationandofknowledge,onethatwasdistinctfromthesciencesandhumanities
(Archer,1979).ForArcherthisthirdareawasdesign,andhesubsequentlyspent25
yearsdevotedtodevelopingdesignintoanacademicdisciplineattheRoyalCollegeof
ArtsinLondon.
Archer’scontributiontodesignwasholistic.Hedidnotfocusonanyoneparticular
characteristicindesignpracticebutinsteademphasizedthenatureofdesign
methodology.Archer’sideasanddiscussionsondesignareinnovativefortheyreflectthe
natureofcontemporarydesignpracticeasitstandstoday.
Inoneofhisearliestarticlesondesign,SystematicMethodforDesigners,originally
publishedin1965,Archerprovidesoneoftheearliestaccountsofthetermdesign
thinking.Archer,commentingonthechanginglandscapeofindustrialdesign,states:
Inthefaceofthissituationtherehasbeenaworld-wideshiftinemphasisfrom
thesculpturaltothetechnological.Wayshadtobefoundtoincorporatethe
knowledgeofergonomics,cybernetics,marketingandmanagementscienceinto
designthinking(p.57).
Inthisarticle,Archerattemptstopresentthedesignprocessthroughthescientificlens
thatinfluencedthefirstgenerationofdesigntheory.EchoingPapanek,Archer(1967)
articulatesthatdesignis“agoal-directedactivityandthedesigneristryingtoproceedin
adirectioncalledgood”(p.50).Inelaboration,Archer(1965)provideshisowndefinition
ofdesign:
Beforewecanlookatthesystematicmethodsofdesigners,wemustknowwhat
wemeanby‘design’.Anarchitectpreparingplansforahouseisclearlydesigning.
Soisatypographerpreparingalayoutforapageofprint.Butasculptorshaping
afigureisnot.Whatisthedifference?Akeyelementintheactofdesigningisthe
formulationofaprescriptionormodelforafinishedworkinadvanceofits
embodiment.Whenasculptorproducesacartoonforhisproposedwork,only
thencanhebesaidtobedesigningit(p.58).
20
Throughouthisarticle,SystematicMethodforDesigners,Archerbuildsupon
characteristicsthatdistinguishdesignfromotherrelatedpractices,concludingthat
designshouldbedefinedby10coreelements:
1.Adesignmustbebasedontheformulationofamodel
2.Themodelmustbeembodiedin/asanartifact
3.Theremustbeacreativestepinthedesignprocess
4.Theprocessmustbebasedonapurposeandfavorintentoverexploration
5.Theprocessmustbeintuitivebutnotspontaneous
6.Theprocessmustbeginwithaneed
7.Theprocessmustreconcileconflictingvariables
8.Theprocessmustbeholisticandconsidertheartifactinawidersystem
9.Designproblemsarecomplex
10.Designmustoptimizebetweensolutions(Archer,1965,pp.58-62)
Archersuggeststhatdesignishuman-centered,arguingfortheaccountof“human
values”(Archer,1965,p.75;Archer,1967,p.48)yetapproachesproblemsthrougha
theoryofoptimizationfouryearspriortoHerbertSimon’sinfamousdesignapproach
(Archer,1965,p.62;Archer,1967,p.50).Inthislist,Archeralsoacknowledgedthat
designproblemsarecomplex;highlightingtheconceptofcomplexityindesignpractice
eightyearspriortoRittelandWebber’sinfamousarticleonwickedproblems.
Furthermore,Archermakesstatementsthathaveonlyrecentlycometolightindesign
theoryandpractice.Archer(1967)predictsthat“timeisrapidlyapproachingwhen
designdecisionmakingandmanagementdecisionmakingtechniqueswillhavesomuch
incommonthattheonewillbecomenomorethantheextensionoftheother”(p.51).
Designmanagementhasrecentlycometotheforefrontofdesignthinkingand,asArcher
predicted,designthinkinghasbecomeintertwinedwithmanagementdiscourseinthe
designfororganizationaltransformationtoday(Martin2009;Liedtka2000;Beckman,
2007),
Inlateryears,Archer(1976)revisedhisperspectiveondesign,candidlystating“In
retrospect,IcanseethatIwastedanawfullotoftimetryingtobendthemethodsof
operationalresearchandmanagementtechniquestodesignpurposes”(p.17)reframing
hisperspectiveanddefinitionofdesignfromthatofasystematicprocesstoone
21
embeddedinartisticbehavior(1976,p.19).InthearticletitledTheThreeR’s,Archer
(1976)makesexplicitthatweneedathirdareaofeducation,onethatfocusesonthe makinganddoingbehindhumanpractice.This,hearguesshouldbecalledDesign:
ThusDesign,initsmostgeneraleducationalsense,whereitisequatedwith
ScienceandtheHumanities,isdefinedastheareaofhumanexperience,skilland
understandingthatreflectsman'sconcernwiththeappreciationandadaptionof
hissurroundingsinthelightofhismaterialandspiritualneeds.Inparticular,
thoughnotexclusively,itrelateswithconfiguration,composition,meaning,value
andpurposeman-madephenomena(p.19).
InstarkcontrasttoSimon’sjustificationforadesignscience,butechoingtheideologyof
satisficing,Archer(1967)arguesthatadesignmethodologyisgroundedin
approximationand“plausiblereasoning”thanupon“exactreasoningproducingan
answerwhichislogicallyseentobetheonlyorthebestanswer”(p.50).BruceArcher
discussestheproblem-solutionspaceindesignpractice,arguingthatparametersmust
bedefinedwhilst,atthesametime,adescriptionofthedesignsolutionmustbe
calculatedbasedoncompetingrequirements(Archer,1967,p.49).Archer(1979)
suggeststhatduringformativephasesofdesignactivity,designthinkingisinastateof
flux:
Thedesigner'sattentionoscillatingbetweentheemergingrequirementideas
andthedevelopingprovisionideas,asheilluminatesobscurityonbothsides
andreducesmisfitbetweenthem(p.17).
Inapoignantpremonitionofthecurrentdisruptionindesignthinking,Archer(1965)
statesthatdesignisyettoreachthe“useofanagreedterminology”(p.64).Furthermore,
headdsthatdesignisscatteredwiththeoristswho“eachhavetheirownfavoritemodels,
techniquesandjargon”ashasbeenpresentedinthefirstgenerationofdesigntheory,
andwhichpersistsindesigntheorytodate(Archer,1965,p.64).However,Archer(1965)
alsoanticipatesthata“certainamountofcommongroundisemerging”(p.64),common
groundthatthisreviewaimstosynthesizeandpresent.
22
2.1.5Conclusion
ItisclearthroughinvestigationofthefundamentaltheorieslaidbySimon,Rittel&
Webber,PapanekandArcher,thatallfive,albeitfromdistinctivelydifferent
perspectives,understoodtheambiguouscomplexityandinherent‘wickedness’indesign
practice.Thecombinedknowledgeofthesetheoristsconcludethatinlightofour
complex,‘wicked’anduncertainworld,problemscouldatbestonly‘satisfy’ratherthan
bedefinitivelyandlogicallyresolved.Theambiguityanduncertaintyunderlyingthe
questionofwhattosolve,ledtoinvestigationofhowwesolveinordertoattainsuccess
indesignpractice.Afterthebreakthroughoffirstgenerationdesigntheoriesintroduced
inthe1960sand1970s,thefocusindesigntheorybegantoshifttowardsreflectionon
cognitivedesignpractices,asopposedtoprofessionalisingdesignasasubsetofthe
sciences.
1980s-1990s:Understandingdesigncognition Aftertheinceptionofthedesignmethodsmovement,designresearchunderwenta
revivalinthemid1980sto1990s.Theoristsinthisperiodfocusedonre-evaluatingthe
scientific-centricgroundworklaidduringthefirstgenerationofdesigntheory(Cross,
2007,p.2).Thissecondgenerationofdesigntheorybroughtforthanappreciationof
designcognition,includingthefirstformalaccountofthephrasedesignthinkingthrough
PeterRowe’s1987booktitled,DesignThinking.Attheforefrontofdiscussionsinthis
periodwasNigelCross,DonaldSchönandRichardBuchanan.Thesekeyfigures
advocatedforinterpretationsofdesignmethodologythatshiftawayfromtheformulaic
logicbehindascienceofdesignestablishedduringthefirstgenerationofdesigntheory.
Instead,thesetheoristsexploredthecognitiveaspectsofthedesignprocess:the
ambiguous,intuitiveandhumancharacteristics.Thesediscussionsleadtoananalysisof
thetacitintuitionuniquetoadesigner,orasNigelCrossdescribesit,adesignerlywayof
knowing(Cross2001,p.49).
23
2.1.6Designisintuitive
NigelCross,withNorbertRoozenburgandKeesDorst,initiatedthefirstformal
symposiumdedicatedtoresearchondesignthinkingin1991.Thiseventsolidifiedthe
significanceofdesignthinkingindesignresearchandpractice(TheDesignGroup,2012).
Sinceitsestablishmentin1991,thedesignthinkingresearchsymposiacontinuesasthe
leadingconferenceonresearchintodesignthinking.
TheDesignThinkingResearchSymposiumaimedtounifybothexperimentaland
scientificresearchonthecognitiveaspectsthatunderliedesignpractice.Thus,theterm
‘designthinking’wasusedtodenotetacitreasoningasdesignersproceedthrougha
designprocess(Cross,Dorst&Roozenburg,1992,p.1).Followingthisinitialsymposium
atDelftUniversity,proceedingswerecollatedintoabooktitled,ResearchinDesign
Thinking.Inthisbook,Crossdiscussestherelationshipbetweendesignanddesign
thinking,implyingthatdesignthinkingisdesign:
Thereforeitseemsnaturalthatamajorpartofdesignresearchshouldbe
concernedwithtryingtounderstandjusthowitisthatpeopledodesign.This
kindofresearchiswhatwearecalling"researchindesignthinking"(Cross,Dorst
&Roozenburg,1992,p.3).
NigelCrossstatesthattheprocessofdesignisintuitive.ForCross,thisintuitionwas
uniquetodesignpracticeandneednotbuildonhistoricaltheoriesfromtheartsor
sciences(Cross,2001,p.55).Crosshighlightsthat“Expertdesignerstendtoemphasise
theroleof"intuition"inthegenerationofsolutions,and"creativity"isregardedasan
essentialelementindesignthinking”(Cross,Dorst&Roozenburg,1992,p.6).Itwasin
thisrealizationthatCross(1999)wasabletoestablishanewtheoryofdesign.
SupportingargumentslaidbyArcher,Cross(1992)claimedthatdesignhistoryand
processescouldstandindependentlyfromartandscience:
Wehavecometorealizethatwedonothavetoturndesignintoan
imitationofscience,nordowehavetotreatdesignasamysterious,
ineffableart.Werecognizethatdesignhasitsowndistinctintellectual
culture;itsowndesignerly‘thingstoknow,waysofknowingthem,and
waysoffindingoutaboutthem’(p.7).
24
Crossplacedthedesigneratthecenterofhistheory,leadinghimtofocusonthe
cognitiveaspectsofdesignpractice.Cross’(1999)discourseofdesignfocuseson
understandingtheintuitioninherentinthedesigner“Oneimmediatesubjectofdesign
research,therefore,istheinvestigationofthishumanability-ofhowpeopledesign”(p.
6).Cross’interestinintuitioninspiredhimtoinvestigatethemysterybehindthe
‘creativeleap’.
Conventionalimpressionsofdesignpracticeassumedthatspontaneousburstsof
creativity,otherwiseknownasthe‘creativeleap’,dominatedtheproblem-solving
processindesignpractice.Cross’investigationintointuitionleadtoarealizationthatthe
mysterious‘creativeleap’isnotsoelusiveafterall.Cross(1997)conductedempirical
researchintotheprocessofdesignanddiscovered“Increativedesign,itisnotnecessary
thatsucharadicalshiftofperspectivehastooccurinordertoidentifya‘creativeleap’”
(p.427).Cross(1997)elaboratesthatpartofthedesignprocessisaboutbuilding
“creativebridges”connectingideastoformsolutions“Thesuddenilluminationthat
occursincreativedesignisthereforemorelikebuildinga‘creativebridge’thantakinga
‘creativeleap’”(p.428).Crossstatesthatthisprocessreliesheavilyonanalogicalthinking
andabductiveleaps;thoughtprocessesthatconnectideasfromunrelateddomains.
Crosscommentsonthecomplexityofdesignthinking,referringtodiscussionsondesign
presentedduringthefirstgenerationofdesigntheory:
Atthemoment,weseemtohaveafairlyrichpictureofdesignthinking,butwe
lackasuccessful,simplifyingparadigmofdesignthinking.Thosesimplifying
paradigmswhichhavebeenattemptedinthepast-suchasviewingdesign
simplyasproblem-solving,orinformation-processing,ordecision-making,or
pattern-recognition-havefailedtocapturethefullcomplexityofdesignthinking
(Cross,Dorst&Roozenburg,1992,p.9).
Crossemphasisesthehuman-centerednessunderpinningtheactofdesign,stating
“Designingissomethingthatpeopledo.Animalsdonotdoit,andmachines(sofar)do
notdoit.Theabilitytodesignisapartofhumanintelligence,andthatabilityisnatural
andwidespreadamongstthehumanpopulation(Cross,Dorst&Roozenburg,1992,p.3).
InResearchinDesignthinkingCross(1992)acknowledgesthecontributionsofdesign
theoriststowardsdevelopingdesigntheoryduringthesecondgeneration(p.8).Donald
Schön,BryanLawson,PeterRoweandBruceArcherareallcitedashavinginfluenceon
25
designthinkingresearch,withSchöncontributingtoboththeresearchsymposiumand
thebook’sproceedings.
2.1.6Designisintrospective
Inhis1982book,TheReflectivePractitioner,DonaldSchönaggressivelychallenges
Simon’sjustificationofadesignscience.Schön(1982)defendsRittel&Webber’stheory
of‘tame’problems,addinginhiswords,thatSimon“Proposestofillthegapbetween
naturalscienceanddesignpracticewithascienceofdesign.Hissciencecanbeapplied
onlytowell-formedproblemsalreadyextractedfromsituationsofpractice”(p.47).
SchöncontextualizesSimon’sargumentexplainingthat,duringthisperiod,professions
seekingahigherstatussuchasdesignfelttheneedtogroundtheirpracticeinscience
(Schön,1982,pp.21-51).Schön(1982)drillshisargumentfurther,adding“Itwasn’t
untilearly60sthatsocietybegantorealizethepitfallsofascientificdrivensocietyand
thatitdidn’tliveuptoexpectations”(pp.6-14).
Schönarguestheimportanceofunderstandingtheproblemsolvingprocessofdesign.
However,Schön’sfocusonproblemsolvingisdirectedtowardssettingandframingthe
problemratherthananalyzingtheprocess.Schöndescribesproblemsettingasnotjust
partoftheprocess,butawaytoframeandcontextualizeproblemstoinformtheway
designersapproachtheirprocess.Schön(1982)justifieshispositionbystating“When
endsarefixedandclear,thenthedecisiontoactcanpresentitselfasaninstrumental
problem.Butwhenendsareconfusedandconflicting,thereisyetno‘problem’tosolve”
(p.41)echoingRittel&Webber’stheoryofwickedproblems.
SchönextendsonRittel&Webber’stheory,describingwickedproblemsasswampy
lowlands.Hedefinesinhisowntermsthatthedesignerswhoinvolvethemselvesinthese
lowlands“Deliberatelyinvolvethemselvesinmessybutcruciallyimportantproblems
and,whenaskedtodescribetheirmethodsofinquiry,theyspeakofexperience,trialand
error,intuition,andmuddlingthrough”(Schön,1982,p.43).ItisclearthatSchön’s
theoryofproblem‘setting’isemphasizedduetotheintuitiveandtacitnatureofdesign.
Schönelaboratesbyproposingtheuseofdivergentthinkingtotackletheswampy
lowlandsindesignpractice(Schön,1982,p.62).
26
ItisevidentthatSchön(1982)ispreservingtheintuitivenatureofdesignbyfocusingon
framingproblemsasopposedtoclinicallydissectingthedesignprocess:
Letussearch,instead,foranepistemologyofpracticeimplicitin
theartistic,intuitiveprocesseswhichsomepractitionersdobringto
situationsofuncertainty,instability,uniquenessandvalueconflict(p.49)
ThedesignprocessforSchönisapersonalandinternalconversationbetweentheobject
designedandthedesigner.Thisexaminationdirectedhimtodiscussthe‘reflective’
natureofdesigning.Schön(1982)arguesthatthepersonalanduncertainprocessof
reflectionindesignisacrucialconversationtomasterandonethatcanbeelevatedtoa
statusequaltothatofrigorousscientificresearch“Ifwecandevelopanepistemologyof
practicewhich[…]showshowreflection-in-actionmayberigorousinitsownright,and
linkstheartofpracticeinuncertaintyanduniquenesstothescientistsartofresearch”
(p.69).ForSchön,theprocessofreflection-in-actionisthe‘art’oftacklingproblem-
situationsofcomplexuncertainty.
2.1.7Designisinnovative
RichardBuchanandiscussestheconceptofdesignthinkinginhiswidelyinfluential
1992paper,WickedProblemsinDesignThinking.Buchanandescribesdesignthinkingas
aliberalartwithauniquelyflexiblepractice(Buchanan,1992,p.5).Headdressesthe
interdisciplinarynatureofdesignthinkingandtheimportanceofintegratingdisciplines
forthepurposeof“enrichinghumanlife”(Buchanan1992,p.6).Buchananbuildsupon
Rittel&Webber’sdescriptionof‘wicked’problems,butrejectsproposalsfromfirst
generationtheoristssuchasSimonwhoaddressdesignasascience.Instead,Buchanan
predictsthatdesignistransformingintoaprofessionthatis“Exploringconcrete
integrationsofknowledgethatwillcombinetheorywithpracticefornewproductive
purposes”(Buchanan,1992,p.6).Buchananbelievescontemporarycultureisturningto
designthinkingforinsighttoresolve(Rittel&Webber’s)‘wicked’problems.
27
LikeSimon,PapanekandArcher,Buchananacknowledgesthatdesignisaprocess
exhibitedindailylife.Ratherthanstatingeveryoneisadesigner–ordesignthinker–
Buchanan(1992)arguesdesignanddesignthinkingisaskillthatisonly“Masteredbya
fewpeoplewhopractisethedisciplinewithdistinctiveinsightandsometimesadvanceit
tonewareasofinnovativeapplication”(p.8).Buchananconnectsdesignthinkingto
innovation,explainingthatthecreationofinnovationiswhen“Theinitialselectionis
repositionedatanotherpointintheframework,raisingnewquestionsandideas”
(Buchanan,1992,p.11).Thispropositionofre-contextualizingreflectsCross’analogical
‘creativeleap’andSchön’sdescriptionofframingasmethodstogenerateinnovative
solutions.
Buchanan’sbiggestimpactwashistheoryontheexpansionofdesignpractice.He
suggestsfourprimary‘orders’wheredesignthinkinginhabits,regardlessofwhether
designisatthecoreofitsdiscipline.Theseordersare:
1.Symbolicandvisualcommunication
2.Thedesignofmaterialobjects
3.Activitiesandorganizedservices
4.Thedesignofcomplexsystemsorenvironmentsforliving,working,playing
andlearning(Buchanan,1992,p.9).
Thislistrepresentsoneofthefirstaccountsofexplicitlyidentifyingdesignthinking
asatypologyofpractice.Buchanan’stheoryofthefourordersofdesignpractice
providedarevolutionaryframeworkthathasguidedtheexpansionofdesignthinking
anddesignpractice.
28
2.1.8Conclusion
Thefirstandsecondgenerationofdesigntheoryoutlinedthusfarhighlightfundamental
ideasthathaveprovidedthefoundationfordesignthinkingandpractice.Despite
divergentperspectivespresentedbyscholarsthroughoutthishistory,threecommon
themeshaveemerged.Thefirstthemeistheunderstandingthatdesignishuman-
centered;itiscreatedbyhumansanditspurposeistoimproveuponhumanneeds.
Furthermore,designisfundamentaltohumanactivityandisaprocessthatisexhibited
ineverydaylife.Second,theargumentfordesignasadisciplinedistinctfromartsand
scienceswasestablishedduringthefirstandsecondgenerationofdesigntheory.Ithas
beenmadeclearthatdesignisauniquewayofworkingandprovenjustifiablefor
owningandcreatingitsowndistincthistoryandpractice.Finally,designpracticedeals
withproblemsandissuesthatarecomplexandambiguous.Ithasbeenmadeevident
thateachtheoristacknowledgedtheinherentcomplexitythatunderliesdesign
problems,andthatthepurposeofdesignpracticeistosatisfyevolvingconstraintsas
opposedtodeterminingfinitesolutions.
29
2.2TheEvolutionofDesignMethodologies
Followingthefirstandsecondgenerationofdesigntheorywasafocusonthe
developmentofnewdesignmethodologies.Groundedinpractice,newdesigndisciplines
begantoemergeanddesignpracticeandthinkingevolvedintonewsub-disciplines.
Concurrenttodebatesfocusingondesigncognitionthatdominatedacademiccircles
duringthesecondgenerationofdesigntheorywasthedevelopmentandevolutionof
designpracticesthatwouldcementBuchanan’sfourordersofdesignasestablished
designdisciplines.Beforecontinuingwiththissection,itmustbenotedthatmultiple
accountsandcontextsofdesignmethodsandpracticeshavebeenrecordedthroughout
history,andacrossmanydiversedisciplines(Sless,1997).Toaccountforalldiverse
interpretationsisbeyondthescopeofthisreview.Outlinedherearefundamentaldesign
methodologiesarticulatedacrossmultiplesources:participatorydesign,user-centered,
serviceandhuman-centereddesign.Thesefundamentalmethodologieshavebeen
chosenfortheirevolutiontowardscontemporarydesignthinkingpractice.
2.1.1ParticipatoryDesign
Communityparticipationinthedevelopmentofpoliticalpolicies,urbansocietiesand
grassrootsdemocracyisanestablishedideologyforthecreationofaciviland
harmonioussocietythattracesbacktoPlato’sRepublic(Sanoff,2006,p.131).
Developmentsinuserparticipationhavelongbeenusedasamethodtoresolveconflicts
thataffectcommunities,suchasurbanplanning(Steinø,2003,p.190).Theoriginof
participatorydesigniswidelyacknowledgedastheresultofScandinavianresearchinto
designmethodsduringthemethodsmovementofthe1960s(Sanoff,2006,p.140;
Holmlid,2009,p.3).Alsoknownasthe‘ScandinavianApproach’(Asaro,2000,p.257),
participatorydesignmethodsaimedatintegratingend-usersintodevelopmentphasesof
projects(Asaro,2000,p.257)rangingfromcomputersystemsintheworkplacetoadult
educationandruraldevelopment(Sanoff,2006,p.132;140).Inaddition,participatory
practicewasfurtherfuelledbysocialmovements(Sanoff,2006,p.131)andwasalso
referredtoasbelongingtobroaderco-operativedesignpractice(Holmlid,2009,p.4).
30
Systemdesignandtechnicaladvancementsincomputingduringthelate1960’sformeda
majorplatformforparticipatorydesignthinking(Asaro,2000,p.260).Priorto
participation,systemdesignwasthemainmethodologyfortechnologicaldevelopment.
PeterAsaro(2000)arguesthatparticipatorymethods“Soughttoreformorreplace”
(p.260)basicmethodsofsystemdesignduringthisera.Duringthedevelopmentofnew
technologies,participatorydesignfocusedonincludingtheuserinthecreationand
developmentofspecifiedproducts.Participantswereinvitedtoofferinsightsintothe
particularsandfunctionalityofartifacts(Holmlid,2009,p.7).
Participatorydesignhaddevelopedasamainstreammethodologyusedinergonomics
andsocio-technicalsystemsatthepeakofdigitaldevelopmentinthe1980s(Love,
2011).Methodsincluded:prototyping,mock-ups,roleplaysandmostimportantly,
usabilitytestingmethodsborrowedfromsciencemethodologies(Johnson,Salvo&
Zoetewey2007,pp.330-321).Thesemethodsaimedtouncovertheproblemsfacedbya
‘user’(Asaro,2000,p.260)toenhanceefficiencyandusabilityofaproductorproduct
system.
Manypitfallsoftraditionalparticipatoryuser-testingmethodswereencountered.
Neglectinguserexperienceandstakeholderinput,(Steinø,2003,p.187;Krippendorff,
2006,p.228)emotionalresponsestoasystemorproduct(Holmlid,2009,p.5),battles
betweenauthorities,selectionofparticipantsandstakeholderdisapprovalofuser
decisions(Steinø,2003,p.188)allcontributedtofailedoutcomesoreventhe
abandonmentofuserinput.Furthermore,atitscore,participatorydesign’saimwastobe
usedasanemancipatoryframework.Thesocio-technicalfieldsthatwidelyadopted
participatorydesignresultedinatrendwhere“thecooperativeandparticipativenature
havebeenreducedandinstitutionalizedunderalogicoftechnologydevelopment”
(Holmlid,2009,p.5).
Inresponse,discussionsaboutuser-collaboration,or‘co-design’(Holmlid,2009,p.9)
begantoemerge(Sless,1997).Co-designhadbeendevelopedwithamoreemphatic
approachinmind,“Theearlyresearchinterestsininteractiondesignandusabilitywere
widenedwithstudiesthatconsidereddesignforexperiencesandtriedtocaptureamore
holisticpictureofthe‘user’”(Mattelmäki&Visser,2011)andaimedtochangepassive
usersintoco-operativedesigners(Sanders&Stappers,2008,p.6).However,themost
significantshiftinuserdevelopmentwasputforthbydesigntheorist,DonaldNorman.
31
2.1.2User-CenteredDesign
DonaldNormanre-contextualizedusertestingintoamethodologyaimedat
understandingtheneedsandinterestsoftheuser(Norman,1988,p.188).Drawingfrom
hisresearchincognitivescience,Normanaddressesdesignissuesthroughtheuser’s
perspectiveandcoinedtheterm‘user-centereddesign’.Hearguesinhisbook,The
DesignofEverydayThings,(originallypublishedin1988underthetitleThePsychologyof
EverydayThings),thatalldesignshouldbebasedonasimpleconceptualmodelthatis
“Appropriatefortheuser”(Norman,2002,p.189).Centraltohisargumentisthebelief
that“Muchofoureverydayknowledgeresidesintheworld,notinthehead”(Norman,
2002,p.189).Normanhumanizedthemoresocio-technicallyfocusedparticipatory
designmethodstofavoruserneedsandcontrol.Additionally,heaimedtodeliberately
“Makethingsvisible”(Norman,2002,p.206)toenableuserstodiscovererrorsandtake
actiontowardsresolvingthem(Norman,2002,p.216).Placingtheuseratthecenterof
thedevelopmentprocess(Buur&Ylirisku,2007,p.6)wascoretotheuser-centered
designprocess.Norman’sideologyofuser-centereddesignopenedupanewperspective
thatdiscoveredthebenefitofuserexperienceoverusertesting.Focusingonuser
experienceratherthanjustefficiencyandfunctionalityofanartifact(Holmlid,2009,p.2;
9)user-centereddesignwasrefinedthroughmethodsborrowedfrombehavioralscience
disciplines(Sless,1997).
User-centereddesignevolvedonitshumanisticapproachtousertestingtoinclude
usersthroughoutthedevelopmentofaproductorsystem.Inotherdisciplines,user-
centereddesignmovedfromdesigningartifactssympathetictousersneeds(Johnson,
Salvo&Zoetewey,2007,p.324)toresolvingwidersocietalneeds(Buur&Ylirisku,
2007,p.7).Thisdevelopedideaswhereinnovationthatcouldbediscoveredbyelevating
usersfrom‘helpers’to‘co-developers’inbroadersocialcontexts(Buur&Ylirisku,2007,
p.7).
32
2.1.3ServiceDesign
Theattentiononuserexperiencehelpedshapeanemergingdesignmethodologyand
disciplinetitledservicedesign.LucyKimbellexplainsthatservicedesign“Drawson
severaltraditionsincludingproduct,environment,experienceandinteractiondesign”
(Kimbell,2009,p.250).Thisshiftoccurredwhenbusinessesbegantoconsidertheir
productsandservices‘inuse’asopposedtotraditionallyclosingthevaluechainonce
transactionshadbeenestablished(Kimbell,2010,p.3).Thisprocessfocusesonwhatthe
userdoeswithagoodorservice,includingtheirjourneyandexperience.Kimbelladds
thatthedistinctionbetweenaserviceandproductbecomesirrelevant,foreverythingisa
typeofservicethatplaysarolein‘valuecreation’(Kimbell,2010,p.3).Thisperspective
evolvesfromuser-centereddesign,whichemphasisedusersneedsandwants.The
meaningofaservice,thatencompassesbothproductandsystem,opensupanewand
holisticapproachtodesignpracticethatfocusesonresolvingserviceproblems(Kimbell,
2009;Kimbell,2010).Kimbelloutlinesthefundamentaldifferencesbetweenuser-
centeredandservicedesigninthetablebelow:
Fig.3(Kimbell,2010,p.7)
FabianSegelström’s(2010)researchthesisonservicedesigntracesthepracticetothe
1970s.AsdiscussedbyKimbell,Segelströmarguesthedivorceofgoodsfromservices
markedthebeginningofanewbusinessattitude(Segelström,2010,p.6).Priortothis
movement,serviceswerethoughttobeinferiortogoods(Segelström,2010,p.6).The
developmentofservicedesigngainedmomentuminthe1990s,owingmuchofits
recognitiontoservicemarketingandmetadesigndevelopedbyEzioManzini(Kimbell
2010,p.2;Segelström,2010,p.15).
33
Similartoservicedesignphilosophy,Manzini’smeta-designfocusesonresolvingservice
issuesforsustainability.Manzinitakesaholisticperspectiveonsociety,utilizing“people
power”tocreatesociallyinnovativesolutions.Hismethodsfocusondesigningfor
complexnetworks,usingpeer-to-peerandopen-sourceplatformstoallowlocalized
communitiestakecontrolinthecreationofsustainablesolutions(Manzini,2006,p.1).As
such,systemsarecreatedthataremultidisciplinaryandenableallactorstobecome
designers.Traditionally,meta-designwasdefinedas“Thedesignofasetoftools,
methodologiesandwaysofdoingcapabletosupportdesignersinavarietyofdesign
processes”(Manzini,2006,p.2).Today,Manzinihasextendedthisdefinitiontoinclude
allusersandstakeholdersas‘designers’ofaserviceinordertoenableparticipantsto
evolvewithoutcomes,echoingthepracticeandideologyofco-design.
Itisunanimousthroughoutallaccountsonservicedesignthatmethodstakeaholistic
approach.Theservicedesignprocessincludesdesigners,usersandstakeholderswhoall
eithermanage,influenceorareaffectedbyaserviceoutcome.Visualtools(Fig.4)also
playacentralroleinservicedesignpractice,suchasjourneymaps,scenarios,
storyboarding,postersandcognitivewalkthroughs(Diana,Pacent&Tassi,2009).These
visualmethodsareemployedtogatherinsightsontheinteractivelifecycleofaservice
fromtheuser’sperspectiveandtocommunicateuserinsights(ServiceDesignTools,
2010;Segelström,2009).Thispracticedepartsfromparticipatorymethodsthatfocuson
aspecificinteractionbetweenanartifactortechnicalsystem.The‘user’inservicedesign
practicecanrangefromafinancialstakeholder,employeeorcustomer.Alarge
proportionofservicedesignmethodshavebeendevelopedorborrowedfrom
anthropology(Kimbell,2010,p.9;Friess,2009,p.41).Theservicedesignprocessshifted
fromtacit‘designerlywaysofknowing’toutilizingethnographicmethodsofinquiryin
ordertobetterunderstandhumansandtheirexperiences.Assuch,methodologiesaimto
generateabetterunderstandingofallvariablesandpersonasinvolvedwithaservice.
[IMAGEREMOVED]
Fig.4ServiceJourneyMap(ServiceDesignTools,2010)
Itisaholisticandvisualperspectivethatiskeytoservicedesign.Thenarrowviewof
participatoryanduser-centereddesignmethodologyblinkeredinsightsforinnovation.
Theservicedesignapproachincludesstakeholdersaspartoftheprocessandallother
usersinteractingwiththeservicethroughout,ratherthanjusttheenduser.Thestrength
34
ofadoptingabroaderperspectivetowardsproductsandservicesincreases
understandingontheconnectionsbetweenstakeholdersandusersandallowsforthe
collaborationandexchangeofknowledgefromallkeyparticipantstomakebetter
informedandinnovativedesignoutcomes(Holmlid,2009,p.7).Thesedevelopmentslead
towardsamorehumanizedattitudetowardsdesignpractice,whichinturn,influenced
theemergenceofhuman-centereddesign.
2.1.4Human-CenteredDesign
Fromtheearly1990s,user-centeredandhuman-centeredwereofteninterchangeable
termsusedformethodsthatintegratedendusersintothedesignprocess.Initsearly
stages,muchlikewithpreviousmethodologiesdescribed,human-centereddesignbegan
itsroundswithintechnologicalandproductsystemscircles(Friess,2009,p.40-43).
Duringthisperiod,human-centereddesignwasacknowledgedashuman-centered
interaction(Gasson,2003).Themethodologystartedtoevolveinthelate1990s(Sanders
&Stappers,2008,p.10),changingcontextfromatechno-drivenprocesstoonewitha
human(itarian)focus.
Inanearlybookonthesubject,DesignforSuccess:AHuman-CenteredApproachto
DesigningSuccessfulProductsandSystems,WilliamB.Rouse(1991)defineshuman-
centereddesignbeyondtheideaofhumansas‘cogs’andprescribesanalternative
philosophy.Rouse(1991)argueshuman-centereddesignasamindsetthatincorporates
the“Rolesofhumansincomplexsystems,enhancinghumanabilities,aidtoovercome
humanlimitationsandfosteruseracceptance”(pp.6-123).Similartoexisting
participatoryanduser-centeredphilosophies,Rousedescribesthehuman-centered
designprocesstoincludeuserssuchasstakeholderswhoareinvolvedoraffected.Rouse
situateshisbookwithinthediscourseofsystemsandproductengineering,however,it
highlightsanimportantsteptowardsbroadeningthenarrowperspectiveofusers
previouslydiscussedinuser-centereddesignmethodologieswhilstalsobuildingon
empathicdesignpracticedevelopedthroughearlyco-designapproaches.Yet,the
relianceonhuman-centereddatafordecisionmakingandprocessinnovationcanerode
authorityindesignpractice.Designthinkingrunstheriskofnotbeingguidedbyuser
35
data,butinsteadbasingdecisionsonquantifieduserinformation(Friess,2009,p.40).
Friess(2009)arguesthattheconsequencesofhuman-centereddesignisitsempirical
reliability,strippingdesignersoftheir‘rhetoric’andreducingdesignerstolittlemore
thanapassivebystander(p.45).Ironically,theemphasisonempiricaldatamaystrip
human-centereddesignofitshumanisticethos,where“Bracketingemotionand
characterforthesakeofuserdatadoesnotmakeadesignprocess‘more’human-
centered”(Friess,2009,p.48).Takentoitsextreme,theempatheticcharacteristicofa
human-centeredmethodologymaybelostbeneathadetachedprocessofcollecting
quantitativeandqualitativedatafromparticipantswithnoresponsibilitygivento
designerintuition.Friess(2009)claimsthathuman-centereddesign(andindirectly
designthinking)lacksdistinctionfromothermethodologies:
AlthoughitappearsonthesurfacethatnotwodefinitionsofHCDare
exactlythesame,sometimesdifferentiationbetweentwosupposedly
distinctivedefinitionsofHCDishighlydifficult.(p.42).
Itmaybedifficulttodifferentiatehuman-centereddesignfromotheruser-centeredand
collaborativedesignpractices.However,human-centereddesignchangeddirection
whendesignersrealizedthewiderimpactdesignpracticecouldhaveonsocietal
problems.Servicedesignallowedforhuman-centereddesigntoredefineitsmeaningand
developintowhatisnowunderstoodasthefoundationofdesignthinking.
2.1.5Conclusion
Thefirstandsecondgenerationofdesigntheoryenabledevaluationsandimprovements
inthewaydesignersthinkandwork.Thisledtothedevelopmentofnewdesign
methodologies,introducingemergingdesigndisciplinesthathavenowbeenacceptedas
partoftherepertoireofdesignpractice.Thetheoriesandmethodologiesidentifiedin
thisbriefhistoryhavecontributedtotheevolvingpracticeofdesignandwhatisnow
knownasdesignthinking.Thisbriefhistoryofdesignthinkinghastracedfundamental
developmentswithinthedesignfieldtoillustratethatourcontemporarydesignthinking
practiceisgroundedinthedesignfieldandhasahistoricalgenealogyinbothdesign
academiaandpractice.Understandingthepasthasprovidedafoundationfor
synthesizingandclarifyingdefinitionsondesignthinkingthatarepresentedtodate.
36
3.CurrentPractice
Today,designthinkingisfraughtwithconfusionoveritspositionanddefinitionwithin
design.Itsincreasingpopularityoverthepasttenyearshasappearedasthoughsudden
andwithoutsubstance.Theterm‘designthinking’asopposedto‘design’appearedtobe
newandinnovative,andasaresult,sparkedconfusionoverwhetherdesignthinkingwas
anewlyevolveddesigndisciplinedistinctfromotherdesignpractices.Thus,
contemporarydefinitionsofdesignthinkingvariedandsometimesappeareddetached
fromthehistorythathasbeenidentifiedinthisreview.Hence,theaimofthissectionis
toinvestigateandcriticallydeconstructdominantcharacteristicsthatconstitute
contemporarytheoriesondesignthinking.Thissectionisrequiredinordertoidentifyif
contemporarydescriptionsofdesignthinkingreflectordifferfromtheoretical
foundationsoutlinedinthisreview.Thisclarificationisconstructedinlightofcurrent
andhistoricalperspectivesanddevelopmentsondesigntheoryandmethodology.This
sectionwillfirstidentifywhatisthecontemporaryunderstandingofdesignthinking
beforepresentingpossiblefuturedirectionsfordesignthinkingpractice.Thissection
willconcludewiththeresearchquestion,andindoingso,sewtogetherkeyideologies
discussedthroughouttheliteraturereview,proposingpotentialresearchgapsandfuture
opportunitiesfordesignthinkingresearchincomplexenvironments.
3.1WhatisDesignThinking?
Contemporarydesignthinkingisdescribedasbothamindsetandamethod.Design
thinkingowesmuchofitsrecentpopularitytoconsultancyagencyIDEOandthe
StanfordDesignSchool.Theseinstitutionshaveinspiredlargebusinessestoadopt
designthinkingasanewmethodtotacklecomplex‘wicked’problemsinthehope
ofcreatinginnovativesolutions(Carlgren,2013;Brown,2009).Currentcontroversyon
designthinkinghasincreasedconfusionoveritsdefinition,fuellingskepticismoverwho
isdeemedadesignthinker,ifmethodologiesareuniqueand,mostofall,iftheprocessis
creatinginnovativeoutcomes.
Designthinkingmethodsaretangiblerepresentationsofthedesignmindset.Holistic,
human-centeredmethodsofinquiryarefundamentaltotheprocessofdesignthinking.
Themostcommonlyknownresourcefordesignthinkingmethodscomesfrom
consultancyagencyIDEO.FoundedbyTimBrownin1991,IDEOhavedevelopedtoolkits
tailoredtowardsbusinessinnovation(MethodsCards,2010),education(Toolkitfor
37
Educators,2011)andsocialinnovation(Human-CenteredDesignToolkit,2010).Allkits
usemethodsthatinvitestakeholdersanduserstoparticipateinthedesign-development
process.Designthinkingmethodsareoftenusedastangiblerepresentationsof,andto
enable,themindset.Asamethodology,currentdesignthinkingdrawsheavilyfrom
internalpracticesaswellasexternal,suchasresearchmethodsfromanthropologyand
behaviouralscience(Shluzas,Steinert&Katila,2014,p.136;Lockwood,2010,p.xi).
Fundamentaltothistrendistheadoptionofahuman-centered,multidisciplinary
practicethatre-contextualisesproblemsinamoreempatheticwayinordertodiscover
innovativepossibilities.
The“mindset”campofdesignthinkingadvocatesbelieveacreative,non-linearand
human-centeredperspectiveisthedrivingforcebehinddesignthinking.Designthinkers
possessintuitiveanddivergentthinkingskills,usingbothcreativeandpragmatic
thinkingtocreateinnovativeyetpracticalsolutions.Onthesurface,ahuman-centered
philosophyiswhatsetsadesignthinkingprocessapartfromitsmethodological
predecessors(Mootee2011;Brown2008;Leavy2010;Davis2010;Jahnke2009).A
human-centeredapproachisreviewedasoneofthemostimportantaspectsofdesign
thinking(DesignThinkingandtheBigSociety2011,p.07),withStanfordUniversity’s
DesignSchoolfocusingheavilyonthehuman-centereddesignprocessfordesign
thinkinginnovation.NormanandVergantiarguethathuman-centereddesignisnota
precisesetofmethodsbutaphilosophy(Norman&Verganti,2012).Itismoreabout
storytellingandre-interpretingmeaningthroughcollaboration,empathyand
understandingoftheuserandsociety,thanusingdataonsociety(DesignThinkingand
theBigSociety,2011,p.08).TimBrownbelievestheinnovativeideasthatresultfrom
designthinkingprovethemovementtobeanewandinnovativeprocess,justifying“The
emphasisonfundamentalhumanneeds-asdistinctfromfleetingorartificially
manipulateddesires-iswhatdrivesdesignthinkingtodepartfromthestatusquo”(Tim
Brownurgesdesignerstothinkbig,2009).Designthinking“Favorstheperspectiveof
theuserandcontext”(Jahnke,2009,p.10).Thisfocusisconsistentacrossalltypesof
projectsthatdesignthinkingisappliedto,frombusinesstosocialinnovation.
Thesecharacteristicsdonotrepresenttheprocessbuttheattitudetowardsprocessing
‘wicked’problems.DesignerssuchasMauroPorcini(2009)arguethatthedesign
thinkingmindsetistrainedunconsciouslyasmuchasitisconsciouslyduringdesign
school.Hebelievesdesignthinkersarethosethatpossessanattitudewhich“Surfs
comfortablyonthefineedgebetweenthefeasibleandunfeasible-becausethat’stheonly
38
geographywhereinnovationlikestoliedownandrest”(Porcini,2009,p.13).However,
describingthedesignmindsethasopenedupgroundfordebate,withsomepractitioners
disputingthatdesignthinkingisnotatalentuniquetoadesigner,butaperspective
exemplifiedbyallvisionarieswhodaretobreakoutoftheboundaries(Norman,2010).
Descriptionsofdesignthinkingcanbeattributedtonon-designers,creatingconfusion
overwhoshouldbeprivilegedwiththetitleof‘designthinker’.PorciniandNormanboth
discusstheideathatadesignthinkerisnotnecessarilyadesigner,andthatnotall
designersaredesignthinkers(Porcini,2009;Norman,2010).Addingtotheideologythat
designthinkingisrepresentativeofmoreamindsetandphilosophyasitisa
methodologicalprocess,Lawson(2006)pointsoutinhisbook,HowDesignersThink,that
thisuniquewayofthinkingisalearnedskill“Wearelessreadytorecognizethat
thinkingmightneedsimilarattention.Thebookasawholeisdevotedtodevelopingthe
ideathatdesignthinkingisaskill”(p.15).Lawsonarguesthatintoday’ssociety,theact
ofdesigningrepresentsmoreofamentalitythanacraft,provingadivisionbetween
thosewhodesignandthosewhomake(Lawson,2006,p.21).
Atafundamentallevel,designisaboutprocess.Manycontemporarytheoristshave
madeattemptsatre-evaluatingthedesignthinkingprocess.Reinterpretationsofdesign
thinkingemphasizeabductivethinking,pragmatictheoryandtheinterplaybetween
problem-solutionspacesalsoknownasthe“fuzzyfrontend”(Dorst,2010,p.133;
Gumiennyet.al.,2010,p.245;Lundberg&Pitsis,2010,p.281).Discussionssurrounding
divergentandconvergentthinkingremainpopular,albeitnotanentirelynewconcept
“Designthinkingaspiresdivergenceinsteadofrepresentativenessinordertodevelopa
broadinspirationalunderstandingaboutasituation”(Gumiennyet.al.,2010,p.244).
RichardCoyne(2005)arguesthatdesignthinkingisanunderstandingbetweentheory
andpractice,wherethe“Designerexploresconcreteintegrationsofknowledgethatwill
combinetheorywithpracticefornewproductivepurpose”(p.7).WolfgangJonas(2007)
illustratesthatthedesignprocessisembeddedinthe“Socio-culturalphenomenon”and
follows“Evolutionarypatternswithnofinalgoals”(p.1365).TimBrown(2009)argues
thatthedesignthinkingprocessisnonlinearandfundamentallyexploratory.
CharlesOwen(2006)outlinessixprimarycharacteristicsofdesignthinking“Human-
centeredfocus,environmentcenteredconcern,biasforadaptivity,predispositiontoward
multifunctionality,systemicvisionandabilitytoworksystematicallywithqualitative
information”(pp.23-25).MauroPorcini(2009)sumsupallindividualassumptions
stating“Differentdefinitions,butmosthavesimilarprocessesdefiningwhattheinputs
39
andoutputswillbeforeachphase”(p.10).Eachdesignerwillhavehisorherown
processofdesignthinkingbutcommongroundcanbefoundinthemindsetandmethod
ofadesignthinker.Contemporaryscholarsagreethatthereexistsnocurrentformal
consensusoverwhatdefinesdesignthinking.Yet,reviewingtheliterature,majorthemes
emergeandremainconsistentacrosscontemporarydefinitions[SeeTable.1].
Empathy (Brown, 2008), (Clark&Smith,2008),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Holloway,2009),
(Junginger,2007),(Lockwood,2009),(Lockwood,2010),(Porcini,2009),(VonThienen
et.al.,2014,p.101)
Abductive (Brown, 2009), (Lockwood,2009),(Fraser,2009),(Martin,2009,p.65),(Dew,2007),
(Jones2008,p.219),(Dorst,2010,p.136)
Prototyping (Rittel1987,p.1),(Benson&Dresdow2013,p.7),(Lockwood,2010,p.xi),(Rylander 2009, p.5), (Drews,2009),(Fraser,2007,2009),(Holloway2009),(Bevanetal.,2007,p.140),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(Seidel&Fixson,2013,P.1),(Liedtka,2013),(Von
Thienenet.al.,2014,p.102),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(Brown&
Wyatt,2010,p.32),(Shluzas,Steinert&Katila,2014,p.136)
Problem–solutionframing
(Farrell&Hooker,2013,p.689),(Bevanetal.,2007,p.143),(Friedland&Yamauchi,
2011,p.70),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(English,2006,p.5),(Dorst,
2010,p.136)
Optimistic (Rittel1987,p.8),(Owen2005,p.13),(Gloppen,2009),(Owen,2006,p.24),(Leinonen&
Durall,2014,p.108),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)
Fuzzyfrontend (Porcini,2009),(Löwgre&Stolterman1999,p.17),(Ranjan2012,p.31),(Drews2009,
p.41),(LeMassonetal.,2011,p.219),(Young2010,p.15),(Blyth&Kimbell2011,p.12),
(Jahnke2013)in(Carlgen2013,p.22),(Smulders&Subrahmanian,2013,p.362)
Wickedproblems (Benson&Dresdow2013,p.6),(Gharajedagi2010,p.108),(Bharathi2013.p.83),
(Farrell&Hooker,2013,p.686),(Westcottet.al,2013,p.4),(Dorst2011,p.522)
Inventiveandinnovative
(Owen2005,p.5),(Brown, 2009), (Gharajedagi2010,p.108),(Bevanetal.,2007,p.140),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(Benson&Dresdow2013,p.7),(Lockwood,2010,p.xi),
(Westcottet.al,2013,p.3),(Plattner,Meinel&Leifer,2011,xiii)in(Laakso&Hassi
2011,p.2),(Owen,2006,p.24)
Human-centered (Owen2005,p.12),(Lockwood, 2010, p. xi),(Brown,2008),(Porcini,2009),(Wardet
al.,2009),(Sato2009),(Buchanan,2001,p.9),(Owen,2006,p.24),(Kimbell,2011,
p.287),(Liedtka,2013),(Leinonen&Durall,2014,p.108),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,
p.101),(English,2006,p.5),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)
Visualisation (Owen2005,p.13),(Lockwood,2010,p.xi),(Brown,2009),(Carretal.,2010),(Drews,
2009),(Lockwood,2010),(Jones2008,p.219),(Owen,2006,p.24),(Kimbell,2011,
p.287),(Liedtka,2013),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,p.102)
collaborative (Owen2005,p.14),(Gloppen,2009),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Boland&Collopy,2004),
(Jones2008,p.226),(Herrmann&Goldschmidt,2014,p.33),(Owen,2006,p.24),
(Liedtka,2013)
multidisciplinary (Owen2005,p.14),(Brown, 2009), (Benson&Dresdow2013,p.11),(Westcottet.al,
2013,p.2),(Clark&Smith,2008),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Holloway,2009),
(Lockwood,2010),(Satoetal.,2010),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,
p.102),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.35)
Iterative (Benson&Dresdow2013,p.11),(Rylander2009,p.7),(Herrmann&Goldschmidt,2014,
p.33),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,p.102),(Friedland&Yamauchi,
2011,p.68),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(Shluzas,Steinert&Katila,2014,
p.136)
Intuitive (Rylander 2009, p.5), (Porcini,2009),(Jones2008,p.219),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)
Ethnographic (Beckman&Barry,2007),(Brown,2008),(Carretal.,2010),(Dunne&Martin,2006),
40
(Lockwood,2010),(Owen2005,p.14) Systemicthinking (Owen2005,p.14),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Jones2008,p.219),(Owen,2006,p.24),
(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)
Rapid (Lockwood,2010,p.xi),(Carretal.,2010),(Holloway,2009),(Lockwood,2010),(Brown,
2009),(Herrmann&Goldschmidt,2014,p.33),(Liedtka,2013),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,
p.32)
Table1.Commonlycitedcharacteristicsofdesignthinking
Designthinkingistheaccumulatedhistoryofdesigntheory,processmethods,mindsets
andtools.Contemporarydefinitionsofdesignthinking,whetherconsciousornot,have
articulatedcharacteristicsthathavebeenidentifiedinthebriefhistoryoutlinedinthis
review.Thus,inlightofthebriefhistoryoutlinedinthisreview,designthinkingisnota
newtypeofpractice,butrather,anewperspectiveforfieldsoutsideofthedesign
industrywantingtocapitalizeonitsinnovativepotential(Dorst,2010,p.131).Itmaybe
proposedthatdesignthinkingissimplyabroadtermusedbyprofessionalsoutsideof
thedesignindustrytodescribetheactivityinvolvedindesignpractice.Inthissense,
designthinkingmaybesynonymouswiththeterm“design”butplacesemphasisonthe
mindsetbehinddesignpractice.
Thisbriefhistoryoutlinedinthisliteraturereviewfocusedonthetheoryand
methodologiesfromwithinthedesignindustry,inordertoestablishthatthe
contemporaryconfusionoverdesignthinkingisrootedinahistorythathasevolvedfrom
designpractice.Recentdiscussionsoverthetrendandapplicationsofdesignthinking
haveprovidedliteratureontheimpressionsofdesignpracticeanddesignthinkingfrom
authorsandprofessionalsexternaltothedesignfield.Analysingliteraturefromauthors
externaltodesignisbeyondthescopeofthisreview,butmajorauthorsoutsideofdesign
havebeenrecognizedfortheiraid,adoption,developmentandexpansionofdesign
thinking(SeeLiedtka2000,2011;Martin,2009;Lundberg&Pitsis,2010).
3.2ALikelyFutureforDesignThinking
Tothoseexternaltodesign,designthinkingisatermforcommunicatinghowdesigners
work.Thishasinturnreinvigorateddiscussionswithinthedesignindustrythat
challengetheverynatureofwhatitistodesignandbeadesigner.Ofinteresttothis
researcharethenewsub-disciplinesofdesignpracticethathaveevolvedthroughthe
investigationofdesignpracticeanddesignthinking.Contemporaryscholarsand
41
practitionershaverecognisedthetransformationtakingplaceindesignpracticethrough
re-interpretationsandapplicationsofdesignthinking.Thistransformationisseeing
designevolvefromtraditionalcrafttoanewtypeofpractice(Lundberg&Pitsis2010,
p.278).Thedesignofintangibleartifactssignifiesthisturningpoint“Thekeyshiftisfrom
thedesignoftangiblestothe‘design’ofintangibles”(Jones2010,p.219).Thedesign
fieldcanbeseentohavegrownandevolvedthroughtheinherentmultidisciplinary
practicethatisfoundinuser-centereddesignaswellastherecentadoptionofdesign
thinkingfromindustriesoutsideofthedesignfield.Astratificationofdesignvisualises
thisevolution[SeeFig.5].
Economicandenvironmentalpressuresalsoplayedaforceintheevolutionofdesign
practice,pushingindustriestoreconsidertraditionalproduct-centricbusinessmodelsto
peopleandservice-centricmodels.Theriseofpeople-poweredsocialmediameant
industriesrequirednewapproachesthatfocusedonmeaning,peopleandloyalty
(KimbellinEngine,2012).Contemporarydesignthinkingevolvedfrom“traditional”
artifact-basedpractice,indicatedthroughthebriefhistoryofdesignthinkingoutlinedin
thisliteraturereview.Theevolutionofthedesignindustrycombinedwiththe
appreciationofdesignthinkingfromnon-designprofessionalshelpedexpandwhatis
consideredtobedesignpractice.Thisdevelopmenthasseendesignevolvetomore
complexenvironments.
42Fig.5TypologyofDesignThinking
43
Currentdescriptionsandapplicationsofdesignthinkingreflectapeakinthematuration
ofthedesignindustry.Buchanan(1992)wasthefirsttomakeanattempttowards
definingthedifferentareas,knownas‘orders’,ofdesignthinkingpractice.Using
Buchanan’sdissectionofdesignasaframework,contemporarydesignthinkingcanbe
analysedaccordingtolevelsofcomplexityandtangibility.Thecurrentconsensusof
designthinking,favoringhuman-centered,intangibleandcomplexproblems,reflectsthe
‘fourthorder’ofdesigndescribedbyBuchanan(Buchanan1992,p.9)[seeFig.5].
Similarly,Rittel&Webber’sarticulationofwickedproblemsreflectsthecomplexitythat
isunderstoodtobeinherentincontemporarydefinitionsofdesignthinkingpractice.Yet,
thirdandfourthordersofdesignpracticewerenotwidelyrecognizedasconventionalto
designuntiltheemergenceandtrendofdesignthinking.Atypologyofdesignthinking
highlightscurrentsub-disciplinesofdesignpracticeoperatingondifferentlevelsof
complexity[seeFig5.].
Yet,designthinkingdoesnothavedefinitivetraitsorrelatetospecificsub-disciplinesof
designexpertise.Instead,descriptionsofdesignthinking,bothcontemporaryand
historicaloutlinedinthisreview,depictfoundationalcharacteristics;methods,processes
andmindsetsthathavebeenacknowledgedasfundamentaltoadesignapproach.This
hasbeendocumentedinTable.1,wherethemostcommoncontemporarycharacteristics
ofdesignthinkinghavebeenidentifiedindesignacademiaandpractice.Inaddition,the
historicaldevelopmentsofdesignoutlinedinthisliteraturereviewhaveprovided
evidencethatdesignthinkingisnotabrandnewfieldorsub-disciplineofdesign,but
instead,isseenasanewapproachforfieldsoutsideofdesignpractice.Inaddition,the
historypresentedhasshownthatdesignisanadaptivefieldandonethatiscontinually
expandingandevolving:
Designthinkingprocess[...]struggletwofold:firstly,theymust
depictcontext-sensitivityandsituationaladaptabilityofworkflows
withoutlosingconceptualclarity;andsecondly,whentheypropose
instructionsforreal-lifeprojects,theyhavetomakeclearthatthey
offer‘only’guidanceandnodefinitemeansfordesignproblem
solving.Insum,designthinkingprocessmodelshavetodealwiththe
factthatdesignthinkingisoriginallynoprocess,butthatitshapes
processes.(Gumiennyetal.2010,p.246)
44
Assuch,designthinkinghascrossedmanyboundariesandindustries,spreadingthe
fundamentalsofadesignerlyapproachtoareasunfamiliartotraditionaldesignpractice
(Gumiennyetal2010,p.243).Asaresult,designthinkingisnotfoundationaltoanyone
field,butrather,underpinstheartofdesign,shapingandguidingmultidisciplinaryfields
ofpractice.
3.3Conclusion
Inreview,manycontemporarydescriptionsanddefinitionsofdesignthinkinghavebeen
proposed.Amidstthesediscussionspersistcomplaintsoveralackofconsensusasto
whatexactlydefinesdesignthinking.Theadaptivenatureofdesignthinkingandits
applicabilityinnewdisciplinesandcontextscontributestowardsconfusionoverwhere
andhowtoclassifydesignthinking“Nostableconsensusaboutthetermhasemerged
yet.Thisambiguityis(inpart)theconsequenceofusing‘designthinking’foran
emergingdisciplineandfortraditionaldesign”(Jones,2010,p.219).Lawsonhighlights
thisproblemthathasplagueddesigntheoryfordecades“Ifknowledgeisaboutthe
knownanddesignerscan’texplaintheknown,thenwhatdotheyknow?”(Lawson,2006,
p.43).Confusionstillsurroundswhethertodefinedesignthinkingasamindsetandan
attitude,aprocessmethodologyandmethodoranewfieldofdesignpractice.Itappears
thatthepopularglobalspokesmanfordesignthinking,TimBrown,cannotdecide
whetherdesignthinkingisamindsetoramethod.Inhis2010book,ChangebyDesign,
Brownusesbroadandambiguouskeywordssuchas‘foggyspaces’and‘attitudesof
experimentation’beforecontinuinghisdefinitiontodescribetangiblemethodsofdesign
thinkingthatlieinthepowerofbrainstormingandprototyping(Brown,2010,p.68).
Ironically,whenattemptingtodescribethedesignerlyapproach,thedefinitionofdesign
thinkingbecomesawickedprobleminitself,whereanswersseekingtodescribethe
process,mindsetandpracticecanonly‘satisfy’ratherthandefinitivelyresolve:
Inparticularthosenormativeinterpretationsofdesignthinkinghave
ledtoavastvarietyofconceptionsandintentionsofuse,whichmakeit
sometimescomplicatedtoseethecommontraits(Gumiennyetal2010,p.243).
45
Yet,ithasbeenpresentedinthisreviewthataconsensusovercommoncharacteristics
thatunderpindesignthinkingcanbefoundfromdescriptionsproposedbypractitioners
andacademics[SeeTable.17].Theissueofdefinitionhaspersistedsincethefirst
generationofdesigntheory,whereattemptingtodefinitivelyestablishadesignthinking
definitionmaybecounter-intuitivetotheverynatureofdesignthinking.Instead,
buildingknowledgeonthebehavior,applicationandadoptionofdesignthinkinginnew
andemergingcontextswillresultinagreaterunderstandingofthephenomenonof
designthinking.
3.4Complexity
Wicked,complexproblemshavebecomeapartoftheidentityofdesignthinking.
Complexityhasremainedafundamentalaspectofdesignpracticeasexemplified
throughoutthebriefhistoryinthisreview.Inparticular,theimpactRittelandWebber’s
paperhadonthedesignresearchcommunityhasshapedcontemporarydefinitionsof
designthinking,withcurrentdefinitionsdrawingexamplesfromhigherordersofdesign
practice.Itishigherordersofdesignthatthethinkingandpracticeismostconceptual,
intangible,strategicandcomplex,andwherethedesignthinkingtermhasmostvalue
(Jones,2010,p.219;Gumiennyetal,2010,p.245).Ithasbeensuggestedinthisreview
thatcomplexityand‘wickedness’isinherentindesignpractice,butcomplexityvaries
dependingonthedesigndisciplineandorder.Complexenvironmentshavebeendefined
inthisthesisas3rdand4thorderdomainswhereprojectsinvolveandaffectasystemic
networkofindividualsandwhereformativephasesofdesigndevelopmentfocuson
intangibleideasratherthanphysicalartefacts.
DuetotheassociationwithcomplexityinfluencedbyRittelandWebber,designthinking
asawaytoresolvehighlycomplexproblemshasfilteredintoareassuchasbusiness
management,organizationalandpolicydesignpractice.Scholarsandpractitionersare
turningtodesignthinkingforinnovationadvantageforresolving‘wicked’problemsin
complexenvironmentssuchasserviceandpolicydesign(Gero,2010).Additionally,
sustainable(environmental)issuesarepressuringprofessionalsinallfieldstocreate
innovative,financiallyviableyetenvironmentallysustainablesolutionsusingadesign
approach(KimbellinEngine,2012,p.21).
46
In2012,theEuropeanCommissioncommissionedareporttitled,DesignforGrowthand
Prosperity:ReportandRecommendationsoftheEuropeanDesignLeadershipBoard,that
comprisedof26keyproposalsforintroducing,enablingandsustainingadesignerly
approachacrosstheEuropeanUnion.Thisreporthighlightsasignificantadvancementin
designthinkingandpractice,provingitsworthandvalueintacklinglargescalesocietal
problems:
Andforcomplexsocietalproblems,designofferspeople-centered
approachesthatcanachievebettersolutions.AnumberofEuropean
studiesandreportswrittenduringthepastthreeyearshaveexplored
andcommunicateddesign’spowertomakeadifference
(DesignforGrowthandProsperity,2012,p.19)
Inasimilarfashion,theAustralianGovernmentcommissionedareporttitled,APS
InnovationActionPlan,in2010.HavingapplieddesignthinkingintheAustralian
TaxationDepartment(aswellasestablishingadesignlabfortaxationpolicy),the
AustralianGovernmenthasextendeditsinterestindesignthinkingthroughthe
developmentofanewinnovationinitiative(theInnovationActionPlan)thatincludesa
newlydevelopeddesigncenter.LiketheEuropeanUnion,theAustralianGovernmentis
realisingthevalueandpotentialofdesignthinkingintacklingcomplexproblems:
Itcouldhelppractitionerstoadoptnewperspectivesinthinkingabouta
problem.Suchanapproachwouldfacilitatecross-agencyinteraction
involvingpublicservants,academics,citizensandbusinessestocreate
solutionsforsocietalproblems(APSInnovationActionPlan,2010,p.22)
Designthinkingandcomplexityhavealsomadewavesforsustainabilityandsocial
innovation.Attheforefrontofdesigndrivensustainableinnovation,EzioManzinihas
championedthedesignerlyapproachforcomplexsocialandsustainableinnovation.
Operatingunderthepracticeofmeta-design,Manzinihasforoveradecadeextendedhis
researchonthedesignerlyapproachfortheresolutionofsocialandsustainable
problems.ManziniboastsanarrayofsocialinitiativessuchasChangingtheChange,
SustainableEverydayProjectandSustainableConsumptionResearchExchanges(SCORE),
(Manzini,2009).Manzinihasproventheworthofapplyingadesignmethodologyforthe
creationofinnovativeprojectsthataddresscomplexsocialandsustainableneeds:
47
Ameta-designapproachtotheworld’ssituationthatcallsdramaticallyfor
sustainabilityishavingpeoplewithbothqualities,the‘either/or’andthe
‘and/and’inawellbalancedcollaborativemix.
(Smulders&Subrahmanian,2010,p.365).
TheinitiativesexemplifiedbytheEuropeanUnion,AustralianGovernmentandEzio
Manziniemphasisethevalueofthedesignerlyapproachforinnovationincomplex
environmentsrangingfromservicetopolicyandsustainabilityissues.Theseinitiatives
signifytheevolutionofdesignpractice.Withrootsintraditionalcraftbasedpractice,
designthinkinghasmovedforwardfromtheaesthetic‘styling’practicewithwhichitwas
traditionallyassociated,toapplyingitsmethodologyasastrategyforlargerandmore
systemiccomplexproblems.
Withtheconceptofcomplexproblemsandcomplexityonlysketchedoutindesign
theoryandpractice,furtherclarificationisneededoverwhatconstitutescomplexityin
design;bothasanobjectofresearchandcontextofpractice.Highlightedabove,complex
problemshavebeenreferredtoasissuessituatedwithinlargescale,openandadaptive
systemsthatrequiremultidisciplinarycollaborationfortheirresolution.Assuch,
complexenvironmentshavebeendefinedinthisthesisasthelargescale,systemicand
ambiguouscontextsforwhichdesignproblemslie.Asdesigntacklesbroaderandmore
systemicproblems,designtheoryrequiresamorestructureddefinitionofcomplexityin
ordertoidentifycomplexenvironmentsforresearchandpractice.
Thisdissertationhasaddressedthetopicofcomplexitybysupportingtheorieson
complexdesignproblemswhichhavebeensketchedthroughoutdesignhistory,with
systemstheory.Systemscanbeperceivedascomplexfrombothastructural
(organisational)orcognitive(social)perspectivewhereahighdegreeofvariablesare
present,“Systemscanbedescribedasemergentordesignednetworksofinterconnected
functionsthatachieveanintendedoutcome”(Jones,2014).Yet,indiscussingsystems,it
mustbenotedthatthisthesisaimstoremainfocusedondesigntheoryand
acknowledges,butdoesnotinclude,adeepexaminationofthedivergentpositionsand
theoriesoutsideofdesignfielddiscussingdesign,suchasorganizational(institutional),
complexityanddesignmanagementtheory.
Thesubjectofcomplexityhasbeenhistoricallytackledthroughthreemainperspectives:
chaostheory,adaptivesystemsandsocialbehavior(Warfield,1996,p.48).However,
48
designpracticeshouldnotneedtorelyonorreinterpretitselfasascienceinorderto
effectivelyaddresscomplexity.Adefinitionofcomplexityindesignrequiresabalance
betweenpreservingthetacitambiguityofdesignthinkingwithformalizedapproachesto
complexity.Rather,anappreciationisrequiredfromdesigntoacknowledgetheformal
contributionsmadetowardsclarifyingcomplexityinfieldsexternaltodesigntheory.
Warfield&Staley(1996)discusscomplexity,statingthat“Illustrativeexamplesfromthe
practiceofinteractivemanagement(asystemofmanagementthatsupportsthe
developmentandinterpretationofstructuralmodelsofcomplexsituations,anddesignof
improvedsystems)showthesignificanceofstructuralthinkingastheprimary
intellectualmoderequiredtomanageorcopewithcomplexity”(p.47).ForWarfieldand
Staley,complexityresidesinsemioticswhichisprocessed,andlimitedby,social
understandingandinterpretationsonwhatmaybeclassifiedascomplex.Echoingthis
sentimenttowardssystems,PeterJones(2014)states:
Todaywemustconceiveofallsystemsassocialsystems,oratleastsocially
implicatedsystemsofsystems.Researchershaveacceptedaconsensus
(StockholmMemorandum,2011)thathumaninterventionhasintervenedinall
aspectsoftheplanetaryecology,renderingevennaturalandecologicalsystems
sociallyinfluenced(p.3)
Inanotherperspective,organisedsystemsandcomplexitycanbeviewedfromamore
objectiveapproach.JohnFlach(2011)discussesthefuzzyconceptthatiscomplexityin
hispaper,Complexity:learningtomuddlethrough.Flach(2011)acknowledgesthat“the
term“complexity”is“notoriouslydifficulttodefine””andthatthereisan“explicit
connectionbetweencomplexityanduncertainty”(p.188)furthersupportingthe
propositionsmadebydesigntheoristswhostatethat“wicked”problemsareasignof
complexdesignpractice.
Inproposingastructuredmodelforidentifyingcomplexity[Fig.6],Flachdescribesthe
dimensionalityoftheproblemspace.Dimensionalityisareflectionofthe“number
variables,parameters,degreesoffreedom,orstatesthatcontributetoshapingthefield
ofpossibilities”(Flach,2011,p.189).Indesigntheory,thisiswhatwouldbedescribedas
problemframingorthe“fuzzyfrontend”butthisprocessundergoesamoretacitand
intuitiveeffortatimposingorderandconstraint.
49
Fig.6Flach(2011)modelofcomplexityinproblemspaces.
(Designdomainsaddedinred)
Flachexplainsthatasinterdependencebetweendimensionincrease,sotoodoes
uncertaintyandthuscomplexity,“Whentheinterdependenceishigh,progressthrough
thestatespacewilldependoninteractionsamongthedimensions,suchthatthe
behaviorofanyspecificvariablemightchangeasafunctionofthebehaviororstateof
othervariables(Flach,2011,p.189).WecanuseFlach’smodelasabasisforwhichto
determinecomplexenvironmentsindesignpractice.CombiningFlach’smodelwith
Buchanan’sfourordersofdesignpractice(adaptedinFig.6)wecanseehowcomplexity
increasesinhigherordersofdesignpractice,andmakethisassessmentusingFlach’s
theoryofdimensionalityandinterdependence.
Inlinewithacriticalrealistperspectiveusedinthisthesis,adefinitionofcomplexityin
designmustacknowledgesociallyconstructedcomplexityaswellasstructureandscale
ofcomplexity.Complexenvironmentshavebeendefinedattheintersectionofsystems
anddesigntheory,toaccommodatebothcognitiveandstructuralvariablesthat
*Artefacts(1)
*Artefactsand
Experience(2)
*Systemsand
Behaviour(3)
*Large-scale
systems(4)
50
constituteacomplexenvironment:
Werequireabroadcrossoverofprinciplesbetweensystemsanddesigntheory
forthepurposesofexpandingdesignpracticetohigherlevelsofcomplexity
(Design3.0and4.0).(Jones,2014)
Thisdefinitionrespectsthesocialconstructionbehindtheconceptofcomplexity
outlinedbyWarfield,withtheattempttoobjectivelyidentifycomplexproblemspaces
throughusingFlach’smodelofdimensionalityversusinterdependence.Thesetwo
authorssupportthegroundworkproposedbydesigntheoristsoncomplex,wicked
designpractice.
Designthinkinganditscorecharacteristics;multidisciplinary,iterative,rapid
prototyping,human-centered,collaborative,visualanddivergentthinking,arenowseen
assuitableforworkingwithproblemswherethefutureistangledanduncertain.
Similarly,servicesarebeginningtounderstandthelong-termimpactthateconomic
uncertaintycanhaveonbusiness(KimbellinEngine2012);significantly,theimpact
fromenvironmentalchange.Designpractitionershavetakenstepstowardsapplying
theirmethodologytotheissueofsustainability,utilisingahuman-centeredand
collaborativeapproachmostevidentlythroughmeta-designpractice.Thisholistic
perspectiveintroducedanunderstandingoftheinterdisciplinaryconnectednessof
complexsystemsandartifacts.Asprofessionalsdealwithlargerandmorecomplex
problems,theconcernforbreakingdownboundariesandincreasing“Theinteractionof
manyparticipantsfromdifferentdisciplines”(Du,Jing&Liu2011,p.111)callsformore
researchintodesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.
51
3.4Innovationthroughdesign
Adriverfortheadoptionofdesignthinkinginnewandcomplexcontextsisthepromise
anddemandforinnovation.Innovationanddesignthinkinghavebecomeinseparable
concepts.Innovationhasbeenattributedtothesuccessofdesignthinking,withStanford
acknowledgingtheprocessasasourceofinnovationintheireducationalprograms“We
focusonthedesignprocessbecauseweseektoequipourstudentswithamethodology
forproducingreliablyinnovativeresultsinanyfield”(StanfordDesignSchool,2010).In
areportpublishedbytheEuropeanCommission(2012)titledDesignforGrowthand
Prosperity,designisdescribedaslinkingcreativityandinnovationandadriverofuser-
centeredinnovation.Indiscussingthedefiningcharacteristicsofdesignthinking
innovation,BrookeDavis(2010)states“Adefiningattributeofdesignthinkersistheir
abilitytoconstantlymakenewconnections.Theyareabletodothisbecausetheyare
wellversedinaprocessthatpromotesthiskindofactivity”(p.6535).Howdesign
inspiresinnovativethinkinghasbeenpostulatedbymanyprofessionalsandacademics.
Themostcommonspeculationspointtowardsasocialfocus,collaboration,problemre-
framingandre-interpretingmeaning.
Whatmakesdesignthinkinginnovationdifferenttootherpracticesandprocessesfor
innovation?Dorstattemptstoanswerthisquestionbystatingthatdesigngoesbeyond
adoptingconventionalframeworksinorderto‘breakaway’fromcurrentworkethic
(Dorst,2010,p.138).Dorstdescribesthisphenomenonasre-framingandbelievesthis
habit,integraltodesignthinkinganddesignprocess,iswhatdistinguishesdesign
thinkinginnovationfromotherstrategies.Ironically,Dorst’sjustificationisa‘re-framing’
ofSchön’stheoryofproblemsetting.Theprocessofreframingallowsthedesignerand
creativeteamtore-interpretmeaning;anotherfactorthatleadstoinnovation.Brian
LawsonandKeesDorst(2009)havedescribeddesignthinkinginnovationas“Actively
imagine[ing]andcreate[ing]solutionstocomplexproblemsinanimprovisedandalso
co-createdway”.Lundberg&Pitsis(2010)claimthatdesignthinkingisaformof
‘enhancing’innovationthroughmethodsofco-creation(Lundberg&Pitsis,2010,p.284).
Buchanan,Gupta&Simon(2011)echoothersbyconcludingthatdesignfirmsengaging
withhigherordersofdesignthinkingoperatedifferently,forhigherconceptuallevelsof
designthinkingrelyonmodelsof:
52
Radicalcollaborationbyteams,knowledgesharing,widereachingcross
pollinationandthehabitofgainingearlyinsightsthroughtangibleexpressions
ofideasinordertofostercontinualandrapidinnovation(p.301).
DonaldNormanandRobertoVerganti(2012)publishedapaperoninnovationtitled,
IncrementalandRadicalInnovation:DesignResearchVersusTechnologyandMeaning
Change.NormanandVergantidiscussthedifferencesbetweenincrementalandradical
innovation,arguingthatradicalinnovationisaprocessthatreliesontechnologicaland
meaningdrivenchange.Alternatively,incrementalinnovationisaslow‘hillclimbing’
processinvolvinghuman-centeredmethods:
Underthisview,human-centereddesignmethodsareaformofhillclimbing,
extremelywellsuitedforcontinuousincrementalimprovementsbutincapable
ofradicalinnovation.Radicalinnovationrequiresfindingadifferenthill,
andthiscomesaboutonlythroughmeaningortechnologychange.
(Norman&Verganti,2012,p.2).
NormanandVergantiobservethatthedesigncommunityisgenerallymoreinterestedin
radicalinnovationoverincremental,andassuch,designthinkinghasbeencharacterised
asaformofradicalinnovation(Norman&Verganti,2012,p.6).However,Normanpoints
outthatnoradicalinnovationshavebeencreatedthroughhuman-centeredprocesses
andthusdesignthinkingisnotaprocessforradicalinnovation(Norman&Verganti,
2012,p.6).Normanexplainsthatthisislargelyduetothefactthathuman-centered
designisaformof‘hillclimbing’.Thisisnotnecessarilyanegativecontentionas
“Successfulradicalinnovationoccursinfrequentlywithinanyparticulararea,perhaps
onceevery5–10years”(Norman&Verganti,2012,p.6).Thisimpliesthatdesign
thinkingisausefulprocessforconstant,incrementalinnovationinindustry(TheOpen
BookofSocialInnovation,2010,p.108).Normanaddsthatthevalueofincremental
innovationis“Necessarytotransformtheradicalideaintoaformthatisacceptableto
thosebeyondearlyadopters”(Norman&Verganti,2012,p.6).Incrementalinnovationis
especiallyimportantforadaptivity,continualimprovementandpractical
implementationofaproductorservice.
Designthinkinginvitesstakeholderstoparticipateinthecreationofinnovative
solutions.Collaborativecreativityisonefactorthatconnectsdesignthinkingto
innovation.Lundberg&Pitsis(2010)describethatitisthe“Collaborativecreating
53
togetherwhichshouldbeseenascrucialbothtoinnovativeprocessesandtoprocess
innovation.”Co-creationasinnovationisnowunderstoodacrossbusiness,academiaand
government,withtheEuropeanCommissionadding“Collaborateinopennetworksthat
driveinnovationintoEurope’swholeindustrialecosystem”(DesignforGrowthand
Prosperity,2012,p.8).Hence,itmakessensethatinordertoincreaseinnovationin
complexpractice,aprocessisrequiredthatissocial,collaborativeandmultidisciplinary.
Designthinkinganditsemphasisonhuman,empatheticandcollaborativecreativity
providesafertileprocessforinnovationincomplexenvironments.
SabineJunginger(2006)hasinvestigatedthetopicofhuman-centereddesigninnovation
inlargeorganisationsinherPhDdissertation,ChangeintheMaking.Followingher
doctoralresearchwasafocusonthepositionofdesignthinkingdevelopmentinrelation
totheprojectorganization.Jungingerhaspresentedanewperspectiveoninnovation
anddesignthinkingbyintroducingtheconceptofhowthepositionofdesignthinking
impactsanorganization.
JungingerreferstotheDanishDesignCouncil’sDesignLadderasawayofassessingthe
positionandimpactofdesignwithinanorganization,includingthewaydesignisusedas
amanagementtool.InhercritiqueoftheDesignLadder,Junginger(2009)notesthatthe
modeldoesnot“accommodategeneralorganizationalproblemsthatmightbeaddressed
bydesignthinkinganddesignmethods.Theseorganizationalproblemsoftenfallintothe
categoryof“wickedproblems””anddiscusseshowdesignisbeingexploredinawider
organizationalcontext,or“third”and“fourth”orderproblems.TheDanishDesign
Council’sDesignLadder,althoughamodeltoassessdesigncapabilitywithin
organisations,mirrorsthedifferentordersofdesignpracticethathasbeenmodeledin
Fig.5.
54
Buildinguponthisresearch,Junginger(2009)exploredthelocationsthatdesignthinking
may“takeplace”inrelationtoanorganisation[Fig.7].
Fig.7.Junginger’spositionofdesignthinkingpracticerelativetoanorganisation
Junginger(2009)describesdesignasanexternalresourcethatisan“addon:aresource
thatcanbecalleduponordismissed”.Oftenthedesignexpertisecalleduponrelateto
artefacts,graphicandproductdesign,andwherethedesignworkconductedistreated
“likeacontract”(Junginger,2009).Designaspartoftheorganizationdescribes
departmentswithinanorganizationthatmayhousedesignersoradesignerlyprocess.In
thiscontext,designisusuallylimitedtomarketing,productandservicedepartments.
Designatthecoreofanorganizationhastheabilitytoaffectchangeinitsoperations,
whereasdesignintegraltoanorganizationisformedandshapedbyadesignapproach,
whereorganizingandmanagingispartofthedesignprocessandnotdistinctfromit
(Junginer.2009).Junginger(2009)arguesforfurtherresearchinvestigationintoaseries
ofkeyquestions:
Onemayaskifanexternaldesignlocationisalwayslessinfluentialandlesslikely
toinstill,generateandimplementchangewithintheorganization?Itmightwell
bethattherearecasesinwhichdesign“onthefringe”enjoysmorefreedomto
explore,envisionandinventthatwithinastubbornorganizationalconstruct.
(p.10)
55
Jungingerreferstoaninstitutionalorganization,butthisthesishaschosentousethe
term‘organisation’todenoteanorganizedsystem,whichmayormaynotberepresented
asaninstitution.Nevertheless,thequestionsproposedbyJungingerhaveprovided
frameworkandinspirationwhichguidesbothresearchandanalysisinthisdissertation
intotheexplorationofthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,which
isoutlinedinmoredetailinChapter3.ResearchFramework.
4.Researchdirection
Oneofthefundamentalweaknessesinthepublicitythatsurroundsdesignthinkingtoday
isthelackofevidencesupportingclaimsofitseffectiveness.NigelCrossflagged
awarenessoftheneedofempiricalresearchintodesignmethodologysincethemid90s
“Wesuggestthattheseobservationsarerelevanttotheanalysisofdesignactivity,and
importanttothedesignmethodologyofteamwork”(CrossN&CrossA,1995,p.170).
Norman(2010)addstothedesignthinkingcritiquesuggesting“This[designthinking]
mythisnonsense,butlikeallmyths,ithasacertainringofplausibilityalthoughlacking
anyevidence.”Designthinkingisonlyagoodasitsimplementation,andcanonlybe
measuredbyitsoutcomesandapplications.Lundberg&Pitsis(2010)echothe
transparencyofdesignthinking,stating“Inspiteoftheattentionbeingpaidtothe
conceptthereseemstobelittleifanyresearchonhowDesignThinkingisappliedin
practiceasaformofprocessinnovation”(p.278).Researchislackingintheanalysisand
critiqueofcurrentdesignthinkingapplicationsandoutcomes,withcontemporary
professionalsdemandingprooffromtheprocess“Thepracticalimplicationsofan
instrumentalmeetingormergingofepistemologieshaverarelybeenstudied
empirically”(Jahnke,2009,p.6).Thisisasignificantobstacleintheevolutionand
adoptionofdesignthinking.Ifprocessmethodsandsubsequentoutcomesarenot
documentedandcriticallyanalysed,skepticismwillfuelnegative,ill-informedcritiques
thatwillultimatelydamagethedesigndiscourse.Ithasbecomeclearthatdesign
thinkingisstillinneedofempiricalevidencetojustifyself-proclaimedinnovation,
particularlyfromdesignpracticeincomplexenvironments.
56
Concurrentwithsupportforthedesignerlyapproach,manyresearchersand
practitionersargueformoreefficientanswerstocomplexchallenges.Thejustification
fordesignthinkingispartlyinresponsetotheneedforadaptableandinnovative
solutionstonewandemergingcomplexenvironments.Asdiscussedinthisreview,
designthinkingisnowrecognisedbysocietyasaforcefor“breakingdownsilos”inorder
to“workacrossdisciplinesandchangeourperspectives”(Blizzard&Klotz,2012,p.457).
Manyprofessionalsareturningtodesignthinkingdespiteitsfuzzyandill-definednature.
Kimbell(2012)suggestsanalternativesolutionforfillingthisproblem-gap.Byfocusing
onthe“Materialanddiscursivepracticesinwhichdesignersofparticularkindsdo,know,
andsay”(Kimbell,2012,p.130)wemaybegintoestablishelementsthatcombineto
definedesignthinking.Inasimilarstance,Dorst(2010)arguesthatsomeactivitiesin
designareuniversalbuthavebeencombinedtocreateauniquedisciplinethatisworthy
ofstudy(Dorst,2010,p.133).MuchtoDorst’sdismay,researchisreinterpretingdesign
thinking;focusingondesignthinkingasaformofcollectiveactivityinsteadof
phenomenaassociatedwiththedesigner(Kimbell,2012,p.141).Attemptingtoprovide
adefinitivedefinitionofdesignthinkingmaybecounterintuitive,butaddingknowledge
totherichrepertoireofdesignthinkingwilldeepenourunderstandingonwhatdesign
thinkingis.Thus,theaimofthisthesisisnottoestablishafinitedescriptionofdesign
thinking,buttoobserveandunderstanditsbehaviorasitmovesthroughdifferent
disciplinesandcontexts.
Adescriptionofthefundamentalcharacteristicsbehinddesignthinkinghasbeen
establishedinthisreview.Thisisusedasapointofreferenceandconsistencywhen
observingtheapplicationofdesignthinkinginemergingpractices,specificallyin
complexenvironments.Ithasbeenestablishedinthisreviewthatdesignthinkingis
gainingmomentumincomplexthirdandfourthorderenvironments.Providingmuch
neededknowledgeonthebehaviorofdesignthinkinginthisemergingcontextwillhelp
professionalsbetterunderstand,manageandapplydesignthinkinginsimilarcontexts.
Inaddition,itwilladddepthtoourunderstandingandtheoryofwhatdesignthinkingis,
howitworksandwhatkindofimpactithasinpractice.
57
4.1Theresearchquestion
Whatisthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments?
Astheadoptionofadesignerlyapproachincreasesincomplexenvironments,sotoodoes
theresponsibilityofdesignthinking.Disturbingly,eventhoughdesignthinkingis
definedastackling‘wicked’problems,notenoughresearchhasbeenperformedon
exactlyhowdesignthinkersareabletodesignforhighlycomplexproblems.Current
designpracticeisstilldevelopingcompetencyinhandlingthecomplexityoflarge,
multidisciplinaryandintegratedenvironments,asKimbellpointsout“Therehasn’tbeen
muchworkonhowyoudesigncomplexservicesystems”(KimbellinEngine,2012,p.24).
Junginger(2009)alsoadds,“Whilemoreandmoreorganizationsarepickinguponthe
possibilitiesofdesign’sbroaderrolewithinanorganization,therearestillfewtoolsfor
managersanddesignerstodevelop,assessandappropriatedesignthinkinganddesign
methodstoorganizationalproblems”(Junginger,2009).Thisthesisseekstoanswerthis
needwithcriticalobservationsonhowdesignthinkingisadoptedforthedesignof
complexenvironments.Indoingso,evidencewillbeprovidedthatwillenable
practitionersandresearcherstodeepentheirunderstandingofdesignthinkingand
designthinkingincomplexenvironments.
4.1.1Doeslocationaffectthedesignprocessincomplexenvironments?
Inordertobetterunderstandthebehaviorandeffectofdesignthinkingincomplex
environments,thepositionofdesignthinkingwillbeafocusforconsiderationand
analysis.Positioningrelatestotherelationshipbetweendesignactivityandtheproblem
ororganizationalsystemcontext.Thisquestionseekstobuildupontheconceptof
positioningdesignpracticeintroducedbySabineJunginger(2009).Acknowledgingthe
positionofdesignthinkingactivityprovidesaricherunderstandingofthebehaviourofa
designerlyapproachincomplexenvironments.Thisunderstandingwillbefurther
enrichedthroughacausalanalysisoftheunderlyingmechanismsthatenabledesignerly
behaviourstoemergeincomplexenvironments.
58
4.1.2Whataretheunderlyingmechanismsthatenableordisabledesignerlybehaviorstoemergeincomplexenvironments?
Thissubquestionaimstodeepenanalysisonthebehaviorofdesignthinkingby
understandinghowandwhycertainbehavioursemergewhendesignisappliedin
complexenvironments.Analysisonemergentbehaviourswillbeguidedbyacritical
realistperspective.Thepurposeofthisquestionistoidentifyandpostulatecausal
mechanismsthatwillprovidenotonlydescriptionsofdesignthinking,butexplanations
drivingthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Theseexplanations
servetoactasseedstowardsthedevelopmentofatheoreticalfoundationonthe
behaviourofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.
4.2Conclusion
Contemporaryresearchandpracticehavefocusedheavilyonthedesignthinking
process;identifyingmethodsandattitudesthatdriveinnovation.However,limited
attentionhasbeenpaidtounderstandingthebehaviorofdesignthinkingspecificto
complexenvironments.Additionally,withanincreasingdemandfordesignthinkingin
complexenvironments,designersandresearcherswillbenefitfromknowledge
generatedonhowbesttomanagetheapplicationofdesignthinkinginthisnewcontext.
Byprovidingknowledgeinresponsetotheresearchquestionoutlinedinthisreview,
descriptionsandexplanationswillbepresentedthataimtoadvancebothdesignthinking
theoryandpractice.Theknowledgepresentedinthisthesisaimstoofferaricher
understandingofdesignthinkingsothatpractitionersandresearchersmayimprove
upontheirpracticespecifictothirdandfourthorder(complex)environments.The
longevityofdesignthinkingdependsonthecriticalanalysisofempiricalresearch.Thisis
requirednotonlytoincreasecredibilitybuttoimproveandevolvedesignthinkinginto
newandemergingcontexts.
59
3.
ResearchFramework
Thethesishasbeendesignedtoinvestigatethequestion,whatisthebehaviorofdesign
thinkingincomplexenvironments?First,afoundationofknowledgehasbeenestablished
throughaliteraturereviewoncurrentandhistoricalresearchondesignthinking.From
thisreview,aresearchgapemerged;thereislimitedempiricalresearchoninnovation
throughdesignthinkingparticulartoemergingpracticeincomplexenvironments.The
primaryfocusofthisdissertationistocollectempiricalcasestudyevidenceondesign
thinkingappliedincomplexenvironmentsandtoinvestigatecausalphenomenathat
supportorinhibitemergentdesignbehavioursandoutcomes.Knowledgegeneratedin
thisthesiswillbedirectedthroughacriticalrealistontologicalandepistemological
perspective,usinggroundedtheoryasaprimaryvehicleformethodologicalinquiry.
Criticalrealismbridgesthemethodologicalgapbetweenqualitativeandquantitative
research.Thisapproachattemptstobreakdownlimitationsfromtraditionalresearch
paradigmsthatexplorephenomenainisolation,falselycreatingclosedsystems(Dickens,
2003,p.100).Researchintocomplexdesignenvironmentscanbeexploredinamore
holisticandcriticalmannerusingagroundedtheorymethodologypositionedwithina
criticalrealistframework(Bergene,2007,p.8).Groundedtheoryprovidesa
methodologicalfoundationforanalysingcomplex,multidisciplinaryenvironments.As
theresearchdirectionisexploratory,groundedtheoryprovidesmethodologicalfreedom
toadaptresearchmethodsascategoriesunfold.Additionally,criticalrealistgrounded
60
theoryaimstounifybothinternalandexternalvalidity.Thisaimaidsintheanalysisof
interactionsbetweenbothinternaldesignprocesses(social)andexternal(systemic)
outcomes.Theontologicalpositionofacriticalrealistframeworkallowsforarangeof
qualitativeandquantitativedatacollectionmethodsandperspectives.
Thischapterwillproceedasfollows:first,abriefintroductiontocurrentdesignresearch
practiceisreviewedbeforeproposingtheadoptionofcriticalrealismasatheoretical
frameworkforresearchintocomplexdesignpractices.Second,thecriticalrealist
ontologyandepistemologyispresentedanddiscussedinlightoftheresearchfocus.
Third,adiscussionofthemethodologythatwillguidetheresearchdesignispresented
beforeconcludingwithanoutlineoftheresearchdesignandanalyticalframework.
3.1Researchintodesignpractice
Knowledgegeneratedinthisthesishasbeenconstructedusingacriticalrealist
perspective.Academicresearchintodesignpracticehasreliedheavilyonsubjective
epistemologicalandontologicaltheoriesborrowedfromthesocialsciences,most
commonofwhichareconstructivismandpragmatism(Scheer,Noweski&Meinel,2011;
Lande,2012,p.22;Jones,2010,p.71;Oxman,1999,p.111;Dalsgaard,2014;Bousbaci,
2008,p.44;Feast&Melles,2010).However,thesetheoriesmaynotbemostappropriate
toaccommodatethescopeofcomplexitythatisinherentinthirdandfourthorderdesign
practice.Theresearchobjectiveofthisthesistacklestheissueofcomplexityindesign
practiceandassuch,proposesanalternativetheoreticalframework.Thisthesisargues
thatdesignresearchisinneedofanewepistemologicalandontologicalpositionthatis
moresuitableforinvestigatingnewandexpandingvarietiesofcomplex,interdisciplinary
environmentsfacedbydesignpractitionerstoday.
Epistemologiesemployedindesignresearchgenerallysitatoneendoftwoextremes:
subjectiveinterpretationandobjective(positivist)analysis.Thetheoreticalgapbetween
subjective(postmodern)andpositivisttheoryisnotonlyevidentinsocialsciencebut
reflectsafundamentalpowerstrugglebetweenqualitativeandquantitativeresearch.
Thisdichotomydoesnotaccommodateresearchthatrequirestheconstructionof
61
knowledgeusingacollectionofdatafrombothendsoftheepistemologicalspectrum.
Designresearchthatinvestigatescomplex,multidisciplinaryproblemsmaynot
adequatelyprovideholisticexaminationswithinthecurrentdivide.Furthermore,
fundamentalflawsarisewhenjustifyingtheuseofsubjectiveorobjectivetheories;
especiallyinresearchondesignthinkingforcomplexenvironmentssuchasthefocusof
thisthesis.Abriefanalysishighlightswhyconventionalepistemologicalapproaches
appliedindesignresearchareunsuitableforresearchintocomplexdesignpractice.
Adesignerlyapproachisnolongerlimitedtotraditionalcraft-basedpractice.Today,
designthinkinginteractswithandshapessocial,technologicalandenvironmental
systems.Friedman(2003)considerstheshiftindesignpractice,stating“Designnow
playsaroleinthegeneralevolutionoftheenvironment,andthedesignprocesstakeson
newmeaning”(p.509).Apositivistapproachtodesignresearchmayrejecttacit
knowledgethatisinherentinpractice;thatisthedesignerlywayofknowing(Cross,
1999)understoodtobedesignthinking.Alternatively,apositivistapproachappliedin
human-centeredcontextsmaymissfundamentalethnographicinsightsthatcouldaidin
thedevelopmentofstrategicoutcomes.Furthermore,apurelyobjectiveframework
alienatesinter-subjectiveculturalandsocialcues“Reducingsocietytonothingmore
thanagrouporlooseaggregateofindividuals”(Sayer,2010,p.16).Researchindesign
cannotquantifyjudgment,emotionandintent;theheartofthedesignprocess(Archer,
2007,p.3).Furthermore,apositivistapproachstripsresearchintodesignofits
creativity,resultinginformulasthatarevoidofintuition,purposeandultimately,design.
However,analysingdesignproblemswithasubjectivistapproachexcludesawealthof
knowledgethatexistsexternallytotheresearcher’sinterpretiveposition.Apurely
subjectivistperspectiveindesignresearchisaprecariousmethodologyparticularlyin
thefaceofeconomicandclimateinstability.Subjectivistresearchgeneratestheory
throughsocialjudgment,constructionandinterpretation.Theepistemologicalposition
ofthesubjectivistapproachisoftenontologicallyconflictingwithresearchonnaturally
occuring(objective)phenomena.Thismayexcludearichworldofresearchsuchas
environmentalscienceandbehaviouraleconomics“Interpretivistsdenythepossibilityof
knowingwhatisrealandrejectthepossibilityofdiscerningcausality.Theycanonly
providetheirowninterpretation.Whatisnotclearintheinterpretivistapproachisby
whatstandardsoneinterpretationisjudgedtobebetterthananother”(Easton,2010,
p.118).Subjectivistresearchplacestightboundariesonknowledgecreation,inhibiting
objectiveinvestigationsintowidercomplexsystems.Proposedtheoriesofhowto
62
developandimproveuponcomplexsocialsystemscannotbecreatedsolelyusinga
subjectivistapproach.Furthermore,measurementandreplicationofsubjectivist
theoriesisnearimpossibleastherearenovariablesbywhichotherinvestigatorscan
testorverify(Crouch&Pearce,2012,p.59).Allknowledgecanbesaidtobesocialasits
realisationdependsonthemind,however,whatislackinginmind-dependent
epistemologiesisspaceforcausalanalysisonandbetweensocialandnaturallyoccurring
phenomena.Discerningcausalityiskeytoimprovingresearchoncomplexdesign
practice.
Designpracticeisgoalorientated.HerbertSimon(1996)eloquentlydescribeddesignas
“concernedwithhowthingsoughttobe”,withBruceArcher(2007)describingdesignas
“Thethirdgreatdefiningcharacteristicofhumankind”(p.2).Thisthirdknowledge
combinespracticesfrombothartandscienceintoadisciplinethat“Meetsparticular
needs,producingapracticableresultandembodyingasetoftechnological,economic,
marketing,aesthetic,ecological,culturalandethicalvaluesdeterminedbyitsfunctional,
commercialandsocialcontext”(Archer,2007,p.3).Assuch,designresearchrequiresa
methodologyandepistemologythatunifiesthisknowledgetocreatea‘third’theoryof
knowledgegeneration.Astheresearchaimstoinvestigatethecomplexdesignthinking
practice,itrequiresanewapproachtodesignresearchthatarguesawayfromtraditional
researchmodelsandtowardsadoptinganewapproachthatexplorestrans-disciplinary
researchthroughacriticalrealistperspective.
63
3.1.1Analternativetheoreticalperspective
Designersareendlesslyconfrontedwithdesignproblemsthatemerge
fromideassituatedonthiscontinuumfromtheobjectivetothesubjective
(Crouch&Pearce,2012,p.34)
Inresponsetotheepistemologicaldichotomies,developmentsinthesocialscienceshave
beguntofavoracriticalrealistapproach.Criticalrealismisappropriateforacademic
researchindesign,asitarguesfor“Aunitary,butnon-positivistconceptionofscientific
knowledge”(Baehr,1990,p.766).Ashighlightedintheintroductiontothischapter,
designresearchthataimstoconstructpro-activemodelsforsocialchangerequirean
epistemologythatrespectsculturalcontextwhilstallowingfortheinclusionofobjective,
quantifiabledataandcausalanalysis.Designisaninter-subjective,collaborativeand
trans-disciplinaryfield,whichreliesasmuchonsocialandculturalconstructionasit
doesonnaturallyoccurring,factualphenomenaincludingcausalitiesfrommechanical
(technological)systems.
Furthermore,designisevaluatedonitsusefulnessofresults(Archer,2007,p.4).As
describedthroughtheliteraturereview,overthehistoryofresearchinvestigationsinto
designpractice,littleempiricalresearchhasbeenconductedonmanyfacetsofdesign
thinking,particularlytheimpactthatcomplexenvironmentsexhibitontheshape,
evolutionandinnovationofdesignthinking.BruceArcher(2007)distinguishesdesign
fromthesciencesandhumanities,proposing:
DesignisdescribedasproductivetodistinguishitbothfromScience,which,as
wehaveseen,isexplanatory,andfromHumanities,whicharereflective,andto
placeDesignintheworldofaction.(p.3)
Acausalframeworkisneededtoaccountforthescopeandcomplexityofinformation
whenanalysingdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Criticalrealismhasbeen
proposedasasolutiontothisdilemma.
64
3.2Criticalrealism
Contrarytotraditionalrealism,criticalrealismisbasedonanontology
thatisdeep,differentiatedandstratified.Andcontrarytoempiricism,critical
realismisbasedonanassumptionofnaturalnecessity.
(Bergene,2007,p.12)
Criticalrealismpresentsanontologythatrespectsbothsociallyconstructedand
naturallyoccurringrealities.Criticalrealismhasbeenproposedasawayof
“coordinatingthedisciplines”(Dickens,2003,p.95)ofartandscience.Criticalrealism
describesaworldthatexistsexternaltoourconsciousness,butatthesametime,ina
dimensionthatreliesonasociallyconstructedknowledgeofreality(Danermark&
Ekström,2001,p.5,Mingers,Mutch&Willcocks,2013).Phenomenaobserved,whether
naturalorsocial,factuallyexistpriortoourconceptionandprescriptionofmeaningand
reality;itisthisuniqueontologicalpositionbehindcriticalrealismthatallowsforan
objectiverealitytoexistandbeintegratedwithinsocialdesignresearch(Sayer,2010,p.
33).Socialobjectsarebothsociallydefinedbutalsoapartofanobjectivereality,as
DanermarkandEkström(2001)describe:
Naturalscience‘facts’,justlikesocialscience‘facts’arethustheoreticallyand
ideologicallyconditioned.Theimportantdifferenceisthatwhereastheobjectsof
naturalscienceareindeedsociallydefinedbutstillnaturallyproduced,the
objectsofsocialsciencearebothsociallydefinedandsociallyproducedbutthey
areneverthelessjustasreal(p.22)
Thisperspectiveunderstandsthatabstractionsfromsocialdataarejustasrealasdata
fromnaturalsciences,forbothabstractionsareanextractfromreality(Danermark&
Ekström,2001,p.48).RoyBhaskar(1979),thecreatorofcriticalrealistontology,
previouslydescribedthistheoryastranscendentalrealism.Bhaskarpennedthetheory
inthe1970’sinresponsetoextremepositivistandpost-modernontologies.Bhaskar
writesthatsociallyconstructedrealityis‘transitive’;thatis,sociallyproducedmethods
andtheoriesusedtodescriberealstructures.Material(realand/ornatural)processes
are‘intransitive’(Baehr,1990,p.767).
Akeycontemporarycriticalrealist,AndrewSayer(2010),describescriticalrealismas
utilisingpragmatic,constructivistandpositivistepistemologiesbutexplanationsare
65
fundamentallyconstructivist.HeattemptstoexplainBhasker’stheorythrough
hermeneuticdeconstruction.Sayerexplainsthatthestudyofrealsubjects,ornatural
objects,onlyinvolvesa‘single’hermeneutic;thatis,therecanonlybeprescribedone
directionofmeaningasnaturallyoccurringphenomenadonotinteractorconstructa
relationshipofmeaningwiththeobserver(Sayer,2010,p.21).Subjectsthatare
culturallydependent,suchasideologiesandconceptsconceivedviasocialconstruction,
requirea‘double’hermeneuticasengagementwithmeaningistwo-wayanddependson
therelationshipofknowledgeconstructionbetweenpeople(Sayer,2010,p.24).Most
importantlyincriticalrealismistheunderstandingthatthesinglehermeneutic(natural
phenomena)doesnotembodyconceptsorculturalmeanings;theyexistwhetherornot
weprescribeideasorlabelstothemandarethusnotsociallyproduced(Sayer,2010,
p.18).Foracriticalrealistresearcher,itisthusimperativethatheorsheiscritically
rigorousinhisorheracknowledgementofconceptsthatareprescribedtothesocialbut
particularlytothenaturalworld(Sayer,2010,p.26).
Inhisseminalbook,SocietyandNature,PeterDickenscriticizescontemporaryresearch.
Hearguesthatboththeartsandsciencesareguiltyofepistemological‘imperialism’and
departfromcommonsense(Dickens,2004,p.19).Hiscriticismsreflecttheproblems
facedbydesignresearchersandadvocatesforanalternativeapproachtounderstanding
society-naturerelations(Dickens,2004,p.19).PeterDickens(2004)outlinesthekey
elementsofcriticalrealism:
1.Knowledgeisaproductofsociety,butknowledgeisnotonlyaproductof
society.Itcanrefertorealprocessesandmechanismsintheworld.
2.Scienceisaboutestablishingthecausesunderlyingphenomenaofinterest.
Real,relativelyenduringstructuresandcausalmechanismsinthephysical,
biologicalandsocialworldsunderliewhatweobserveandexperience.
Theydosoincombinationwithoneanotherandoftenincombinationwith
contingentcircumstance.‘Closedsystems’arecreatedartificiallytodevelop
understandingsofcausalmechanisms,butthesearerareinsocietyandnature.
3.Theworldisenvisagedashierarchicallystratified.Atthemostgeneral
levelarephysicalmechanisms(e.g.Gravity).At‘higher’levelarechemical
structuresandmechanisms.Higherstillarebiologicalmechanisms(e.g
thosegeneratinganorganismsgrowth).Finally,therearepsychologicaland
socialmechanisms.Mechanismsateachlevelofrealityarerootedin-butnot
reducibleto-thoseoperatingatlowerlevels.
66
4.Thenatureofthesestructuresandmechanismsissubjecttoconstant
critiqueandscientificdevelopment.Thiscritiqueanddevelopmentcanalso
stemfrompractical,everydayexperience(p.20)
TheelementsoutlinedbyDickensargueforanewhybridofknowledgethatallowsfor
strategictheoriesthatareopenandbuiltfrombothsocialexperiencesandscientific
knowledge.Dickens(2003)justifiesthisapproachbyreturningtobasicevolutionary
ideas;wearepartofnatureand“Subjecttomanyofthesamemechanismsofgrowth,
development,illnessanddeathasotherspecies”(p.95).ForDickens,thecurrentclimate
crisisisforcingare-connectionwithournaturalenvironment.Thisisinturnabolishing
prevailingphilosophiesofnatureandthenaturalsciencesastheother,whichwehave
becomeideologicallyestrangedfromfortoolong(Dickens,2003,p.98).ItisDickens’
opinionthatcriticalrealismoffersabalancedrecognitionofbothsocialandexternal
(natural)realities(Dickens,2004,p.20)thatisneededfordesigntodeepenits
understandontheincreasingcomplexitybetweenenvironment,societyanddesign.
3.2.1Criticalrealismandcomplexenvironments
Criticalrealismoffersanepistemologicalframeworkforresearchandevaluationinto
complexdesignprocesses.Forthepurposeofthisthesis,criticalrealismprovidesa
soundepistemologicalfoundationappropriatefortheresearchquestion:whatisthe
behaviourofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments?Asinvestigationsandanalysiswill
surroundcomplex‘wicked’problems,criticalrealismprovidesaguidingontologyand
epistemologytowardssense-makingthroughitstheoryoncausalrelationshipswithin
andbetweencomplex(wicked)environments:
Epistemologically,theaimofCriticalRealismistoexplainthe
relationshipbetweenexperiences,eventsandmechanisms.The
perspectiveemphasisesquestionsof‘howandwhy’aparticular
phenomenoncameintobeing,gotitsspecificcharacterandsoon.
Theemphasisisontheexplanationoftheconstitutionofempirical
phenomenonandnottogivepredictions(Jeppsen,2005,p.5)
67
Asdescribedinthepreviouschapter,complexenvironmentsaredefinedasopen
systemsthatarecomplexfrombothacognitiveandstructuralperspective.Anopen
systemmayincludeanorganisationofindividualswhethertheyberepresentedthrough
businessinstitutionsorasaself-organisedaggregateofindividuals.Thisdefinitionof
complexityindesignallowsforanalysisoncontextsbeyondbusinessmanagementand
organizational(institutional)design,tointegratingaholisticecosystemofcontextsor
emergingpatternsoforganizedbehavior,suchasopensourceinnovation.Critical
realismsupportsanalysisoncomplexenvironmentsbecauseitaimsnotfor‘thick
descriptions’ofdatabutconceptualtheoriesthatdigdeeperintocausalrelationsand
explanationsbehindcomplexsystems.Thisisachievedthroughanalysisofcausal
mechanismsintransitiveandintransitivedomainsusingthevehicleofretroduction.
Retroductionistheprocesswhichtransformscriticalrealismfromanontologyintoan
epistemology.Retroductivereasoningisthefirststepinthecriticalrealistprocessof
logicandknowledgeproduction.Retroductionisdescribedas“Amodeofinferencein
whicheventsareexplainedbypostulating(andidentifying)mechanismswhichare
capableofproducingthem”(Oliver,2011,P.380).Retroductionisaprocessoflogicthat
operatesinreverse,usingbothabductivereasoningandinductivelogictopostulate
causalmechanisms.Itidentifiescausesthatarethensubstantiatedthroughevidence
(Bhaskar,1986).Therelevanceandusefulnessoftheretroductiontechniqueisexplained
inmoredetailinsection3.5.
3.2.1Openandclosedsystems
Pivotaltothecriticalrealistconstructionofknowledgeandanalysisisthedistinction
betweenclosedandopensystems.Complexsystemsinboththenaturalandsocial
worldssharesimilaritiesandaredistinguishedashavingintrinsicorextrinsic
conditions,existinginintransitiveandtransitivedomains(Baehr,1990,p.767).All
complexsystemsexistinanintransitiverealm.Theintransitiverealmistheobjective
realitythatdoesnotdependonsocialconstructions(Barrettet.al.,2010,p.6).Itisnot
untilweattempttocomprehendcomplexityandprescribetheoriestocomplexsystems
andstructuresthattheyexistinthetransitiverealm;therealmofsociallyconstructed
knowledge(Baehr,1990,p.768).Reality,forbothtransitiveandintransitiverealms,
operatesthroughcausality:
68
Forcriticalrealiststhescientificprojectistounderstandandexplainphenomena.
Realityisseenasaresultofcausalpowers.Somepowersaretransitive(for
examplelanguageandideas)andothersintransitive(likegravity)
(Kempster&Parry,2011,p.107)
Bhaskardescribesopensystemsashavingextrinsicproperties,withclosedsystems
holdingintrinsicconditions.Thedistinctionbetweenintrinsic(closed)andextrinsic
(open)systemsecho’sSimon’sdescriptionof‘tame’andRittelandWebber’swritingson
wickedproblems.Sayer(2010)elaboratesonsocialsystems,statingthatthey“Canonly
bequasi-closed,producingregularitiesthatareonlyapproximateandspatiallyand
temporallyrestricted”(p.84).Thismeansthatpredictionscannotbemadeonsocial
systemsascanbedonefornaturalsystemsastheyhaveextrinsic(open)properties,but
conceptualtheoriesbasedonemergenceandcausalityofsocialstructurescanbe
producedtoenablechange.
Socialsystems,likenaturalones,canbeanalysedthroughtheircausalityandemergent
properties.However,socialmechanismshavethepowerandagencytochangetheir
structure(Easton,2004,p.121).Akeytenetbehindcriticalrealisttheoryisdiscovering
theemergingcausalitiesembeddedwithinsystemsinordertoenablenewandimproved
theoriesandoutcomes.Thisemancipationisnotachievedwithoutdiggingthrough
layersofreality,aprocessalsoknownasstratification.
Stratificationoutlinesthelayersofrealityfromtheempirical(observable)tothe
unobservable.Stratificationprovidesfoundationforcriticalrealistanalysisinto
structure,agencyandemergence,andistheframeworkforretroductiveanalysis.
Bhaskarexplainsthatsocialornaturalrealitiescanbestratifiedintothreelevels:
Empirical:observablebyhumanbeings
Events:existingintimeandspace
RealorDeep:powersthatareoftenunobservedyetcausallyefficacious
(Bhaskar,1979inKempster&Parry2011,p.110)
69
Fig.8StratificationofReality(Wuisman,2005,p.368)
Causalpowersexistinboththesocialandnaturalworld.Criticalrealismprovidesaview
ofrealitythatisstratified,withcausalmechanismsaffectingalllevelsofreality,fromthe
physical,biologicaltosociallevelsthatcombinetocreatetheworldthatweexperience
(Dickens,2003,p.95).Thistheoryofcausalitycanbeappliedtoinvestigatethecausal
mechanismsofsocialsystemsaloneorcombinedwiththenaturalworldinorderto
understandourrelationshipandeffectonournaturalenvironment.Thisunderstanding
isachievedthroughinvestigationsintostructure,agentsandcausalmechanisms
operatingincomplexsystems.
Theaimoffocusingoncausalmechanismsistounderstandhowtheywork,allthewhile
withthequestioninmind“Whatmakesthispossible?”(Oliver,2011,p.380).This
analysistakesintoaccountbothinternalandexternalwebofinteractingforces(Oliver,
2011,p.374)thatmayhaveinfluencedchangeinasystem.Thisprocessbreaksdown
phenomenaobservedintomorebasicstratifiedlayers(Oliver,2011,p.374).
Furthermore,thetenetofcausalinvestigationistounderstandanduncoverthe
existenceofunobservablemechanismsthatmaycasuallyinteractwithandinfluence
observableevents(Barrettet.al.,2010,p.6).
Theresearchdesignofthisthesisdevotesmuchattentiontothestructureandagencyof
designthinkinginsociallyconstructedenvironments.Aprimaryvehicleforinterpreting
70
causalityinsocialsystemsisthroughanalysingagentsofchange.Anagentofchangeisa
conceptualdifferentiatorfromnaturalsystems.Socialsystemscompriseofpeople
(agents)whointeractinandareinfluencedbythesystemyethavetheabilityto
influenceandchangethestructureofthatsystem.Duetotheindividualisticand
complicatednatureofagents,socialstructuresareinherentlyopen.However,thereare
somesystemsthatcanbedescribedas‘quasi-closed’(Barrettet.al.,2010,p.9).Aquasi-
closedsystemcanbeidentifiedthroughthenatureofhabit.Habitrestrictsasystemfrom
evolving;itdisablesagents(people)withinandthusinhibitschangingthenatureofthe
system.
Kempster&Parry(2011)explaintheimportanceofstructuresandagents.Structuresare
“Anexusofembeddedmeanings,practicesandrelationshipsthatpre-existagents,”while
agentsareindividualswho“Sustainandelaboratemeanings,practicesandrelationships”
withinthestructureofasystem(p.111).Thisknowledgeaidsinthecomplex
understandingbetweenagents(people)andstructuredsystems;thatisstructuresand
agentsinteract,affect,andinturncanchangetheiragencyorstructure.Furthermore,
whenasystemisidentifiedas‘quasi-closed’thissignalsaneedforactionablechangeto
improveandevolveitssocialstructureforthebenefitofboththeagentswithinand
acrossthesystemasawhole.Thus,thisperspectiveprovidesananalyticalframework
forunderstandingtherelationshipbetweendesignagentstodiscerntheunobservable
causalmechanismsthatinfluenceorinhibitdesignprocesses,innovationsandoutcomes.
Acausalanalysisofdesignagencymayalsoprovideabroaderunderstandingofthe
positionofdesignersinthewidernetworkofinterconnectedcomplexsystems.
Causalityisnotaninterpretiveexercise.Itseekstounderstandwhyeventshappen
ratherthansubjectivelydescribewhathashappened.Itisapragmaticpracticeinto
theoryconception,byusingcausallanguageandretroductivelogictodescribeand
explaincomplexsystems.Easton(2004)notes:
Howeverthereisnowaythatsuchanassumptioncaneverbe
provedordisproved,associalconstructivists,pragmatistsand
evenpositivistsarereadytoargue.Butthisassumptionissurely
performative.Inotherwordswebehaveasifitwastrue,asifthe
worldwasreal.Ingeneralthissuppositionworks,especiallyfor
thephysicalworld.(p.119)
71
Criticalrealistontologyisapragmaticapproximationofrealworldeventsthataimsto
provideapracticalresearchmethodologyforemancipatingsocialstructuresgoverned
bycausalmechanisms,inordertoenablechangeandalsonewtheorydevelopment.This
providesaworkingmethodologyforresearchinthisthesisforitguidescriticalanalysis
intothenatureofcomplexstructuresandmechanismsoperatingintheorganicand
socialworlds,whilstquestioningtherelationshipsandprocessgoverningthem(Dickens,
2003,p.99).Thistheoreticalmodelprovidedbycriticalrealismisappropriatefor
supportingresearchandanalysisintoacomplexdesignpracticesuchasdesignthinking.
Acriticalrealistframeworkpresupposesthecomplexityofopenandadaptivesocial
systems.Itsontologicalpositionallowsforamoreinformedandholisticevaluationinto
complexprocess,structureandenvironments.Theprimarypurposeofinvestigating
causalcategoriesbehindcomplexsystemsistoemancipatesocietyandenablechange
(Barrettet.al.,2010,p.6;Oliver,2011,p.375).Itiscrucialforcriticalrealistresearchers
toconstantlyquestionwhyeventsoccurandwhatcausalmechanismscreateand
influenceparticularoutcomes.Easton,alongwithmanyothercontemporarycritical
realists,arguethatcausalinvestigationsmustbecarriedoutinrealtimegenerating
groundedtheoriesthatevolvewithdata(Easton,2004,p.127).Itisforthisreasonthat
contemporarycriticalrealismhasembracedgroundedtheorymethodology.
72
3.3Methodology
3.3.1Groundedtheory
Groundedtheoryisacommonmethodologyadoptedinsocialscienceresearch.Itisa
frameworkthataimstodeveloptheorysimultaneouslywithdatacollection,thus
groundingtheoryinthedatadescribed(Strauss&Corbin,1994,p.273).Grounded
theoryisarigorousandcriticalexerciseindatacollectionandanalysis,asitrequires
researcherstoconsistentlyreflectandcomparehypothesesthatdevelopagainstthe
opinionsofindividuals,inordertovalidatetherealityofthetheoryindevelopment
(Strauss&Corbin,1994,p.280).
Groundedtheorywascreatedbytwosociologists,BarneyGlaserandAnselmStrauss.
GlaserandStraussdevelopedgroundedtheoryinreactiontocriticismagainstsocial
scienceresearchmethods.Previoustothistechnique,socialsciencemethodologieswere
oftenregardedas‘journalistic’andlackingthe“Rigorofgoodscientificresearch”
(Silverman,2001,p.26).Intheirseminalbooktitled,TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory:
StrategiesforQualitativeResearch,Glaser&Straussassertthatcurrentmethodologiesin
socialsciencehavebeenpreoccupiedwithverifyingtheoryratherthancreatingit
(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.1).
Traditionally,qualitativeresearchwasseenasinferiortoquantitativedataandserved
merelyto‘setup’theoriesforformalquantitativeresearch.Glaser&Straussre-
conceptualisedthisapproach,assertingthatthereisnohierarchybetweenqualitative
andquantitativemethodsofdatacollectionforbothoffervalidapproachesforgrounding
theory(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.18).Thefundamentalcharacteristicofgroundedtheory
isthemethodofcomparativeanalysis.Comparativeanalysisfunctionstodevelopand
validatehypothesesastheyevolvethroughdataanalysis.Glaser&Straussfirmlybelieve
thatadequacyofatheory“Cannotbedivorcedfromtheprocessbywhichitisgenerated”
(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.5).Comparativeanalysismaybeconductedacrossdifferent
datacollectionmethodsandtheorystrengthenedwhenqualitativeandquantitative
methodsareapplied.
Akintotestinghypothesesinscience,comparativeanalysisperformsasreplicationfor
validatingfacts(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.23).Validationdoesnotequalaccuracy,as
73
groundedtheoriesaimtocreategeneralconceptsthatdepictgeneralphenomena.
Verificationisassumedthroughthecomparativeprocess,asevidencefromthedatais
usedtoillustratethetheorydeveloped(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.28).
Afocalpointduringcomparativeanalysisisdiscerningemergence.Emergenceisthe
conceptthat“Structuresorbehaviorscanbefoundinasystemthatwerenot
intentionallyputthere,i.e.,theyemerged”(Gero,2010,p.178).Diversitybetween
categoriesofemergenceisfundamentalindevelopingawellgroundedtheory.The
processof‘diggingdeeper’intounderlyingemergentcategoriesreflectsthecritical
realistapproachofcausalconceptualisationthroughstratification.
Groundedtheorymethodologyisopenanditerative.Itrequiresresearcherstore-
evaluateassumptionsandconductanalysisasdataprogresses;evolvingtheoryin
conjunctionwiththechangingstructureofsocialphenomenaobserved.Itsprocess
methodologyallowsanalysisandsynthesisofdatafromawiderangeofqualitative
andquantitativemethodsrequiredfortheinvestigationoftheresearchquestion.This
methodologyreflectstheinherentfocusbehindcriticalrealism;toconceptualise
observedandunobservablecausalmechanisms.Thismakesthegroundedtheory
approachanappropriateframeworktoguidemethodologyunderacriticalrealist
perspectivewhensolittleisavailableonhowtoapplycriticalrealisminresearch
(Carlsson,2003,p.6).
3.3.2Acriticalrealistgroundedtheory
Groundedtheoryfunctionsharmoniouslywithinacriticalrealistframework.The
usefulnessofagroundedtheorymethodologyincriticalrealismhasbeenpromoted
heavilyamongstcontemporaryresearchers(Rennie,2000;Parry,1998;Bergene,2007;
Porter,1997;Downward&Finch,2002;Kempster&Parry,2011;Easton,2010),but
noneofwhomhaveconductedcriticalrealistgroundedtheoryresearchinthedesign
discipline.Twowriterswhohavehadthemostsignificantimpactonthedevelopmentof
contemporarycriticalrealistmethodologyareCarolynOliverandKenParry.
74
Oliver(2011)hasadoptedacriticalrealistgroundedtheoryapproachinhersocialwork
researchandhaspublishedapaperonthetopictitled,CriticalRealistGroundedTheory:A
newApproachforsocialworkresearch.Inthispaper,Oliver(2011)acknowledgesthe
popularityofgroundedtheorymethodologyinthesocialsciencesbuthighlightsthe
inclusionofcriticalrealisttheoryto“Marrythepositivistssearchforevidenceofareality
externaltohumanconsciousnesswiththeinsistencethatallmeaningtobemadeofthat
realityissociallyconstructed”(p.371).Oliverdescribesthecompatibilityofgrounded
theoryandcriticalrealismthroughhermeneuticalinquiry,pursuingemancipatory
conceptualisationthroughemergenceandgenerativemechanisms;ambitionsthatare
inherentinbothcriticalrealistandgroundedtheoryprocess.EchoingGlaser&Strauss’
originalmethodology,Oliver’sapproachtocriticalrealistgroundedtheoryfocuseson
mixedmethods.Oliveradvocatesutilisingbothqualitativeandquantitativedatain
triangulation,aprocesssheunderstandswasoncecontradictorywithintraditional
paradigmsbutunderacriticalrealistperspectivehasbecomecoherent(Oliver,2011,
p.379).
ForOliver,groundedtheoryunderacriticalrealistontologyandepistemologyties
researchmorefirmlytopractice(Oliver,2011,p.373).Thispositionstrengthens
relationshipsbetweendesignthinkingresearchwithpractice,producingtheoriesthat
arepragmaticandrelevanttoprofessionals.Criticalrealistgroundedtheoryemancipates
notjustsocialphenomenaunderstudy,buttheresearchconductedinacademia.A
criticalrealistgroundedtheorymethodologyproducesknowledgethatisrelevantand
practicaltopractitionersby“Groundingfindingsintheexperiencesofthoseitseeksto
inform”(Oliver,2011,p.384).Assuch,researchandtheoryontherelationshipbetween
designthinkingandcomplexenvironmentswillemphasisepracticality,andasaresult,
strengthenacademicresearchwithprofessionalpractice.MostimportantlyforOliver,
andforthisthesis,criticalrealistgroundedmethodologyoffersanopportunitytoengage
andbuildrelationshipswithpractitioners.Thisaimistostrengthentheconnection
betweenacademicresearchanddesignpractice(Oliver,2011,p.384).Thismethodology
fulfillsacentralgoalofthisthesis:toexpandonandcontributeoriginalknowledgeon
designthinkingincomplexenvironmentsthatisusefulandapplicableinpractice.
Inhis1998paper,GroundedTheoryandSocialProcess:ANewDirectionforLeadership
Research,KenParryarguesforagroundedtheorymethodologyinresponseto
quantitativemethodologiesthathavedominatedresearchonleadershippractice.In
contrasttosentimentsdescribedbyGlaser&Strauss,Parryexplainsthatusing
75
qualitativemethodologyistoosubjectiveasitaimstomerelydescribephenomena
ratherthaninterpretandgeneratetheory(Parry,1988,p.88).ForParry,criticalrealist
groundedtheoryfillsanempiricalgapbetweenqualitativeandquantitativeresearchfor
theorygeneration.
Inhismostrecentpaperonthesubject,Parryextendshisargumentongroundedtheory
tocriticalrealism.Inapaperco-authoredwithStephenKempster,GroundedTheoryand
LeadershipResearch:ACriticalRealistPerspective,ParryandKempsterjustifyacritical
realistapproachtogroundedtheory,stating“Groundedtheoryadoptsacontextual
examinationofsocialprocessesinorganizationsandsuchafocuswillbearguedtobein
closeaccordwiththeunderlyingphilosophyofcriticalrealism”(Kempster&Parry,
2011,p.109).CentraltoParry’sadvocationofcriticalrealistgroundedtheoryisthe
abilitytoresearchnon-observablephenomena(Kempster&Parry,2011,p.107).
Understandingnon-observablephenomenaiscentraltocomprehendingthecomplexity
ofbothdesignprocessandmultidisciplinaryprojectpractices.ForParry,thequalities
andcharacteristicsofleadershiparemanifestedinintangibleconditions,resultingin
researchthatrequiresinvestigationintoabstractionandanalysisofunderlyingcausal
mechanisms.Designthinkingservestoproducetangiblesolutionstocomplexproblems,
whilstalsooperatinginanintangibleandcognitiverealm.Akintodescriptionsof
leadershippractice,researchintodesignthinkingalsoneedsabstractionandanalysisof
underlyingcausalmechanisms.ForParry,andthisthesis,groundedtheoryprovidesa
methodologicalwayforward(Kempster&Parry,2011,p.109)forresearchintonew
practicesindesign.
3.3.3Methodologicallimitations
Theobjectiveoftheresearchquestionistoinvestigatedesignthinkingincomplex
environments.Thisinvestigationrequiresmultiplecasestudiestocomparefindings
acrossdiverseandcomplexdesignthinkingprojectcontexts.Groundedtheory
methodologysituatedwithinacriticalrealistperspectivehasbeenchosenasthe
frameworkforconductingcomparativeanalysisacrosscasestudies.Thisresearch
strategyrequirescollectingqualitativeresearchfromcomplexdesignprojects,whilst
remainingopentotheuseofquantitativemethodsanddatatosupportgrounded
76
theoriesofthephenomenaunderstudy(Danermark&Ekstrom,2001,p.153).Resultsof
thisresearchwillthenbeusedtocreategeneralcausalconclusionsonthebehaviourof
designthinkingincomplexenvironments.
Adoptinganewtheoreticalperspectivefortheresearchdesignintroducesboth
opportunitiesandlimitations.Aprimarylimitationofusingacriticalrealisttheoretical
frameworkisthatevidenceofitsusefulnessandapplicationinresearchpracticeis
limited(Wuisman,2005,p.367).Researchconductedusingcriticalrealistgrounded
theoryissparse,andassuch,fewexamplescanbedrawnfromexistingresearchtoguide
theresearchdesign(Carlsson,2003,p.6),withscholarsarguingthatthecriticalrealist
perspectiveneedsrefinement(Jeppsen,2004,p.7).Criticalrealistgroundedtheoryis
underpublishedinthecontextofdesignresearch.Thislessthanestablishedapproach
leavesrogueresearchersopentocriticismasresearchdesignsvaryaccordingto
interpretationsandapplicationsofthetheory.Thisprovesdifficultforthenoviceand
experiencedresearcheraliketoapplyacriticalrealistframeworkforresearch
methodology,particularlyfordesignresearch.Thisthesismaintainstransparency
towardsthelimitationsofthisposition.
Criticalrealism’sambiguousprocessofderivingcausalityisopenfordebate.Downward
etal.(2002)describetheinsecuritiesthatarisewhenadoptingacriticalrealistapproach
“HowwillIknowwhetherthecharacteristicsIhaveidentifiedare‘essential’?HowwillI
beabletotellwhenIhavesuccessfullyidentifiedacause?HowcanIbesurethatthe
processdescriptionis‘thickenough’topermitcausalexplanation?”(p.491).These
writersasserttheimportanceofansweringsuchlimitationssothatresearchersgain
confidenceinthereliabilityoftheirresults.Perhapsthegreatestdifficultyofbeinga
criticalrealistresearcherisbalancingcontextwithgeneralizability(Bergene,2007,p.6).
Argumentshaveeruptedagainstadoptingacriticalrealistgroundedtheorymethodology
toextractcausalityandinfergeneralisationsfromasinglecase.Rebuttalsclaimthat
criticalrealismcannotseektodescribegeneralisationsbeyondthecaseathandbecause
notwocontextsarethesame(Kempster&Parry,2011,p.117).Followingthis
perspective,itcanbearguedthatcasestudiesareapoormethodofgeneralisationdueto
theuniquehistorythataffectseachcase.Thisdrivesresearcherstoadoptamulti-case
study,toincreasepotentialforderivinggeneralpropositions.Stake(2005,p.12)argues
thatamulti-casestudyisforillustratingdiversecontextsratherthancommonalities,
concludingthatafewcasesarenotsufficientforgeneralisations.Bergene(2007)also
77
recognisesthislimitation,proposinganextremesolution,that“Everyrelevantcasebe
studied,”(p.10)inordertoarriveatcausalexplanations.Thisproblemofdiscerning
generalcausalvalidityisprevalentinsocialsystems,whereagents(people)havethe
abilitytoconstantlyadaptandre-structuretheirenvironment.However,thisproblemis
notuniquetocriticalrealismbutallsocialsciencesthatattempttoimplygeneral(and
causal)theoriesonasocialphenomenon.
Inresponsetothislimitation,acausalanalysisonsocialstructurescanbecomeless
problematicwhenhabitsareidentified.Habitualpracticecreatesquasi-closedsystems
thatsharecommoncharacteristicsacrossdifferingcontexts.Selectingcasesthatare
contextuallydiverseyethabituallysimilarmayalleviatethedilemmaofcontextual
causalityandprovidecontextualsimilaritiessharedacrossallcases.Thecontextual
limitationsofusingcasestudyresearchcanbeaddressedusingaclear‘quintain’(Stake,
2005),thatisusedascriterionforselectingrelevantyetdiversecases.
However,whatisconsideredastrengthincasestudyresearch(deepcontextual
analysis)isbrandedasalimitationingroundedtheoryresearch.Groundedtheoryis
oftencriticisedforbeingfixatedonmicrophenomena(Carlsson,2003,p.2).Critics
suggestthatresearchersusingthegroundedtheorymethodwilloverlookunobservable
influences(Kempster&Parry,2011,p.117),focusingoninterpersonalrelationshipsand
individualactions,whilemissingbroader,structuralandsystemicpowers(Carlsson,
2003,p.2).Yet,positionedwithinacriticalrealistperspective,groundedtheorycritical
realistsretortthattheaiminacriticalrealistframeworkisnottoseekgrandtheoretical
generalisations,buttoexamineregularitiesacrosscasestogaindeeperknowledgeand
analysisofcausalinfluences(Bergene,2007,p.14;Stake,1995,p.8).
Inresponsetothecollectiveconsensusthatcriticalrealismhasnotbeenadequately
definedforresearchpractice,thisthesishasmodeledbothanalysisanddesignfromthe
recentscholarswhomhaveadoptedagroundedtheorycriticalrealistapproachintheir
research.Manyscholarshaveacknowledgedtheneedtomoveforwardfromcritical
realistontologyandproveitsepistemologicalusefulnessinresearchpractice
(Downwardetal,2002,p.491;Carlsson,2003,p.6;Wuisman,2005,p.376).The
limitationsofcriticalrealistgroundedtheoryofferanopportunity;researchershave
creativefreedomtodesigntheirresearchplanandbuilduponexistingliteratureonthe
subject.ThisopportunitycontinuesthetraditionofGlaser&Strauss,whoseprincipal
aimwasto“Stimulateothertheoriststocodifyandpublishtheirownmethodsfor
generatingtheory”(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.8).
78
Acriticalrealistgroundedtheorymethodologyhasbeenchosenfortheresearch
question,Whatisthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments?asitprovides
aframeworkforexplorationintoanunderresearchedfieldofdesignpractice.
Furthermore,thismethodologyallowstheresearchertocontributedepthtoexisting
literatureonthetopicofcomplexdesignpractices,byaddingananalysisofunderlying
causalmechanismsdrivingdesignbehavioursincomplexenvironments.
3.4Methods
Groundedtheory’siterativemethodologyallowsfortheorytounfoldasresearchis
collected,followinganexplorativemanner.Assuch,casestudieshavebeendesigned
withanexplorativepurposewhilstbeingopentoevolvingexplanatoryanalysis.Inany
newresearchfieldsuchasdesignthinking,anexplorativeresearchapproachisfavored
(Jeppsen,2005,p.2).
Acriticalrealistmethodologyfortheorygenerationrequiresbothaninternaland
externalunderstandingofthephenomenaunderstudy.Investigationsinanewfieldof
studyadoptanintrinsicapproach,onethataimsfora‘deep’analysisover‘thick’
descriptionsofacaseorphenomena.Acriticalrealistepistemologyseekstounderstand
causalrelationshipsatplaywithinobservedphenomena,thusallowingforintrinsicand
extrinsicknowledgegeneration(Wuisman,2005,p.393).Thisimpliesthatqualitative
andquantitativedataandmethodsareoftenusedtogetherinordertoconductcausal
study.
Acriticalrealistresearcheroftentakesfulladvantageofbothqualitativeandquantitative
methodsanddata.Theepistemologicalpositionofcriticalrealismadvocatestheuseof
mixedmethodsinordertovalidateandstrengthencasualanalysis(Danermark&
Ekstrom,2001,p.153).Contemporarycriticalrealistshaveralliedfortheadoptionof
mixedmethodsresearchinordertobreakdowntraditionalparadigms(Teddlie&
Tashakkori,2012,p.779).Underacriticalrealistontology,qualitativeandquantitative
informationareusedtogethertosupportthegenerationofnewtheory.
79
Alsodubbedamulti-strategicapproach,mixedmethodsoffersstrengthinvalidation,
triangulationandthefreedomtoexploreawidervarietyofmethodsfortheresearch
questionanddirection.Thisissupportedincriticalrealistresearchpractice,as
epistemologicalandontologicaldualismsarebrokendowntoallowdifferentmethods
appropriatefordifferentsituations(Bergene,2007,p.6).Traditionally,qualitative
methodswereappliedpurelyto‘setup’dataforproperanalysisusingquantitative
methods.Todayithasbeenacknowledgedthatbothmethodshavemerits,thatwhen
usedinconjunction,offerstrengthenedvalidityandtheorydevelopment(Danermark&
Ekstrom,2001,p.153).
Criticalrealistgroundedtheorymethodologyallowstheuseofqualitativeand
quantitativemethodsanddatafortheorygeneration;particularlytovalidatehypotheses
inferredfromdata.Astheresearchdesigninvolvespredominantlyqualitativemethods,
itreservestheoptionofincludingquantitativeresearchanddatathrougharchival
documentationtosupportfindingsandtheorydevelopment.Thefollowingsection
coversmethodsthatarefundamentaltotheresearchdesign.
3.4.1Casestudy
Casestudyresearchisafundamentalmethodadoptedfordatacollectioninqualitative
research.Yin(2009)advisesthatthe“Distinctiveneedforcasestudiesarisesoutofthe
desiretounderstandcomplexsocialphenomena”(p.4).Yinalsoadvocatesthecasestudy
methodforitsusefulnessin‘how’and‘why’researchobjectives;thatisexplanatoryand
exploratoryresearch(Yin,2009,p.2).Exploringcomplexityindesignthinkingpracticeis
thefocusofthisthesis,thus,casestudyhasbeenchosenasanappropriatedata
collectionmethod.
Eisenhart(1989)extendsonthebenefitofcasestudyresearch,arguingthatitisauseful
methodfortheorygeneration.Similartothegroundedtheoryapproach,Eisenhart
(1989)explainsthatbuildingtheoriesfromcasestudiesis“Highlyiterativeandtightly
linkedtodata”(p.535).EchoingYin,Eisenhartaddsthatitisparticularlyappropriatefor
newareasofresearch(Eisenhart,1989,p.532).Eisenhart’spaper,BuildingTheories
FromCaseStudyResearch,supportsthemethodologicalapproachofgroundedtheory.It
80
isforthisreasonthatthisresearchdesignhasusedthecasestudymethodwitha
groundedtheorymethodology.
Stake(2005)exploresthetopicofmultiplecasestudyresearchinhisbook,Multiple
CaseStudyAnalysis.OffundamentalimportanceforStakeisdefiningthequintain.
Stakedescribesthequintainastheumbrellaforcasestudyresearch(Stake,2005,p.6)
belongingtoaparticulargroupofcases(Stake,2005,p.4).Thequintainisthewider
boundaryinwhichthestudyissituatedandselected.Stakeplacesmoreemphasisonthe
importanceofunderstandingcontextincasestudyresearch,butallowsfor
generalisationstobemadethroughcauseandeffect-reflectingthepositionofcritical
realisttheory(Stake,2005,p.12).IncontrasttoYin’sopinionthatmultiplecasesshould
beofsimilarcontextandoutcome,Stake(2005)argues:
Animportantreasonfordoingmulti-casestudyistoexaminehowtheprogram
orphenomenonperformsindifferentenvironments.Thisoftenmeansthatcases
inbothtypicalandatypicalsettingsshouldbeselected(p.23).
Theresearchdesignofthisthesiscondonestheselectionofvariablecasesunified
beneaththeboundaryofanallocatedquintain,andassuch,haschosenthreediverse
casestudiesforanalysis.Thequintainisdefinedinthefollowingsection,3.6.Research
Design.
ThisapproachisalsosupportedbyCecilBergene(2007)“Thechiefmeritofcomparative
casestudiesisoftensaidtobethatitallowsforanexaminationofpatternsofsimilarities
anddifferencesacrossamoderatenumberofcases,thuscombiningdepthwithamore
extensiveapproach”(p.8).Inordertoadequatelycomprehendtheunder-theorised
practiceofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,anexplorative,multiplecasestudy
designthatexhibitsavarietyofcontextsandoutcomesisessential.
GeoffEastonadvocatestheappropriatenessofcasestudyresearchforcriticalrealist
theory.However,forrigorouscriticalrealistinvestigations,Easton(2004)advisesthat
onestudyismorebeneficialthanmany.Explanationsarethusmorethorough,credible
and“Incorporateanumberofdifferentemergentlevels(individual,groupand
organisation)andanumberofdifferententities”(p.127).Eastonconcludesthat
thoughtfulcriticalrealistanalysisismoredeepthanbroad.Astheresearchdesign
incorporatesmultiplecasestudies,applicationofacoherentandrigorouscriticaland
81
causalanalysisisnotimplementeduntilaftergroundedtheoryanalysissurfacescore
categories.Criticalrealistgroundedtheoryhasbeenutilisedasaframeworkfortheory
generationfillingamethodologicalgapingroundedtheory;thetransformationof
categoriesintotheory.
3.4.2Participantobservation
Participantobservationisamethodoffieldresearchthataimstoimmersetheresearcher
indirectobservationofthephenomenaunderstudy.Therearevaryingdegreesof
observationthatmaybeconducted,fromnon-participanttocompleteparticipation
(Emersonet.al.,2001,p.101).Thisresearchdesignadoptsapassiveparticipant
perspective,allowingphenomenatoremainunobstructedbytheresearchertopreserve
objectivity.Stake(2005)praisestheuseofdirectobservationstating“Themost
meaningfuldatagatheringmethodsareoftenobservational—bothdirectobservation
andlearningfromtheobservationsofothers”(p.4).Limitationsofthisapproachoften
surroundtheinabilitytointerruptparticipantsasinformationunfolds(clarifying
concepts,askingquestions)andtherestrictedresearchexperienceduetoinabilityto
interactwithinthecasecontext.However,theselimitationsalsoservetocounteract
moreinclusiveparticipantobservationalmethodsandtheirlimitations,suchasissuesof
researcherbiasandinfluenceoverthephenomenawhentheresearcherisparticipating
inthecase.Thisresearchdesignhaschosentoadoptapassiveandnon-participant
approachtodatacollection,toensurecompleteobjectivityandreducetheriskof
personalbiasthatwouldclouddataanalysis.Non-participantobservationallowsthe
researchertodetectbothspokenandunspokenactionthroughbodylanguage,
intonationandtacitinferencesbetweenworkers.
3.4.3Semistructuredinterviews
Interviewsareoneofthemostcommonandinsightfulmethodsusedinqualitative
research.Seidman(2006)articulatesthatthegoalofinterviewsisto“Encourage
participantstohavethetimeandopportunitytoreconstructtheirownexperiencesand
realityintheirownwords”(pp.15-19).Interviewsareparticularlyusefulwhenrelying
82
onarchivaldataincasestudyresearch.Stake(1995)adds“Thepurposeforthemost
partisnottogetsimpleyesandnoanswersbutdescriptionofanepisode,alinkage,an
explanation”(p.65).Interviewscommonlyfollowethnographicaims;tounderstand
socialmeaningandculture(Warren,2001,p.85).Forthisthesis,thesemi-structured
interviewmethodofferstheresearcherfreedomtofocusontheprimaryresearchsubject
(designthinkingpracticeincomplexenvironments)whilstremainingopento
investigatingcausalfactorsthatmaybeculturalandsymbolic.Theresearchdesignhas
favoredasemi-structuredinterviewapproachtoaimformorefluidandflexibledata
collectionunderanexplorativecontext.Anadditionalbenefitofusingthismethodisthe
abilitytoperforminterviewswithindividualsthatarenotgeographicallyaccessibleto
theresearcher.Thisallowsresearcherstocollectcasestudiesthatareotherwise
unavailableduetogeographicalconstraints.Theadvancementintele-conferencing
technologysuchasGoogleHangoutandSkypeallowforprimaryinterviewsusingboth
videoandaudiobeconducted;strengtheningdataanalysisandmostimportantly,
allowingtheresearchertoconductinterviewswithparticipantsacrossdiverse
geographicallocations.
Interviewsareoftenconductedafterprojectcompletion.Thissituationpresentsanissue
surroundingselectivememoryandhindsightbias.Respondentsmaynotconsciouslybe
abletoreiterateaspectsoftheproject,especiallyfinerdetailsofconversationalmeetings
amongstmembersorspecificactionsundertakenduringthedesignprocess.Re-collected
accountsareusuallybroadandoftengeneralised.Thislimitationcanbereducedthrough
intensiveanalysisofarchivaldocuments,toremindintervieweesofspecific
circumstancesintheprojectorprocess.Furthermore,cross-checkingproject
perspectivesindividuallywithotherparticipantsaccordingtothecomparativemethod,
servestovalidateaccountsfromagroupofparticipants.
3.4.4Fieldnotesandrecordings
Inbothobservationandinterviews,theprocessofdatarecordingneedstobeaddressed.
Fieldnotescantakemanyforms,fromhandwrittennotestovideorecordings.This
researchdesignhaschosentotakeadvantageofnewtechnology,theEchosmartpen.
Thisinstrumenthasbeentheprimarymediumfortakingfieldnotesasitprovidesthe
abilitytoaudiorecordsimultaneouslyasinformationisscribed.Forethicalreasons
83
videorecordingshavenotbeenutilised,butmobiletechnologyhasbeenusedtorecord
imagesofresearchphenomenatosupportdatacollected.Forfieldnotes,recordingsand
photosobtainedduringobservation,participantssignedconsentandwereinformed
priortoperforminganyrecordedaction.Reflexivethoughtsandopinionswerenotedas
dataisdocumentedduringobservation,withoutreferringtotheoreticalanalysis.This
processhasbeenchosentokeepaclean“theoreticalslate”(Strauss&Corbin,1998)as
instructedbygroundedtheorists.Thelimitationsofrecordingfieldnotesisresearcher
dependent.Notbeingabletowritefastenoughorcollectthecorrectinformationare
limitationsofthismethod.Stake(1995,p.66)suggeststhatafieldresearchershould
listenandtakeonlyafewnotesratherthanwritedetailedaccounts.Dependingonthe
objectiveoftheresearch,understandingthemeaningbehindthedataismoreimportant
thancollectingdescriptionsofphenomenaobserved.Theselimitationsrequirepractice
andexperiencefromtheresearchertoovercome.Furthermoredatacollectedusing
physicaldocumentssuchasjournals,instrumentsandcamerashavepotentialtogo
missing.Rigorousbackupsusingharddrivesandphysicalfilingcabinetsensurethat
immediatelyaftereachobservationandinterview,dataisstoredsecurely.
3.4.5Archivalevidence
Inconjunctionwithobservationandinterviews,archivalevidenceplaysanimportant
roleintheresearchandcollectionofcasesinthisdissertation.Archivaldatahasbeen
chosenforconductingextensivecomparativestudiesacrossdiversegeographical
locations.Participantobservationmethodsaretimeintensiveanddifficulttoachievefor
manyfactors,primarilylocation.Forthepurposeofthisstudy,archivalevidencehasalso
beenadoptedforitreducestimerequiredfordatacollection,allowingmoretimetobe
devotedtoanalysisandconductingfollowupinterviews.
Archivalevidencehasthebenefitofreducingresearcherreflexivityandbias(Yin,2010,
p.149).However,limitationsaroundorganisationalmotivesandbiasmustbechallenged
throughoutarchivalanalysis(Yin,2010,p.149).Archivalevidenceisoftensenttothe
researcherintheformofimages,video,audiorecordingsanddigitaldocumentsviathe
internet.
84
3.4.7Conclusion
Aninitialandintensiveobservationalstudywasconductedforthepurposeof
strengtheningliteratureoutlinedonthetopicofdesignthinking,whilstinstrumentally
providingafoundationanddirectionforthefollowingcasestudies.Justifiedinmore
detailunder3.6.ResearchDesign,casesafterthefirstinstrumentalcasestudyhadbeen
collectedusingarchivalevidenceonpre-existingprojects,deliveredtotheresearcher
fromvariousdesignandinstitutionalagencies.
Theuseofquantitativemethodsintheresearchdesignofthisthesisistentative.Asthe
explorationandevaluationofthedesignerlyapproachforinnovationincomplex
environmentsishighlytacit,empatheticanditerative,qualitativeresearchwilldominate
themethodsemployedindatagathering.However,acriticalrealistapproachhasbeen
adoptednotjustforitsontologicalstanceoncausationandobjectivereality,butforthe
inclusionofquantitativeaswellasqualitativemethodsfortheresearchdesign.This
freedomallowstheresearchplantoexplorethemostappropriatemethodsofdata
gatheringasthemesandinsightsevolveusingthegroundedtheoryapproach.
Quantitativedatawillbecollectedwhenrequiredforanalysisandtheorygeneration.
Anincreasingnumberofcontemporaryresearchersareadvocatingforaneclecticmixof
methodsinresearch(Teddlie&Tashakkori2012,p.778).Thissignifiestherejectionof
epistemologicaldualism,asmoreresearchersinvestigateframeworksformixedmethod
investigation.Thisapproachhasbeenchosenforitsrigorandthoroughnessthatis
requiredwheninvestigatingcomplexphenomena.
85
3.5Analysis
Thedatacollectionandanalysisoftheresearchquestionisanexploratoryadventure.
Sincethemethodsmovementofthe1960s,designresearchpublishedacrossacademia
andinpracticehasfocusedintenselyontheuniqueprocessandmethodsofdesignand
designthinking.Itbecameapparentthroughcollatingmaterialfortheliteraturereview
thatminimalempiricalresearchhasbeenconductedtowardscollectingevidenceonhow
designanddesignthinkersinnovateandhowdesignerlybehavioursemergeincomplex
environments.Furthermore,howthisdesignprocessshiftsandinfluenceshighly
complexandmultidisciplinarydesignenvironmentsisinneedofmoreempirical
analysis.
Acriticalrealistgroundedmethodologyhasbeenchosenastheframeworkfordata
collectionandanalysis(seefig.7).Afundamentalobjectiveofcriticalrealistanalysisisto
‘dig’throughsuperficialdetailstouncoverunderlyingprocesses(Downwardetal.,2002,
p.491).Theanalysisofunderlyingprocessesisconductedinanopenandreflective
framework,usingtheflexibilityofgroundedtheorytoevolveinsightswiththeoretical
frameworks,andtoguideanalysisonunderlyingcausalmechanisms.Criticalrealists
understandthatempiricaldataisjust‘thetipoftheiceberg’andexploringunderlying
causalrelationsiskeytoemancipatingcomplexsocialstructuresboundbyhabit
(Bergene,2007,p.12).Astheanalysisofthisresearchisexploratory,findingswillfocus
ongeneratingthefoundationsforatheorythatseekstoanalyseandexplainthe
underlyingcausalitiesthatmaybeinfluencingthephenomenastudied.
Theresearcher’spositioninthisthesistakesonmanyroles.Theprimaryobjectiveisto
beinvestigativeandexploratory,developingnewknowledgethrougharesearchdesign
thatutilisesqualitativemethodsandquantitativedataifrequired.Theprimarypurpose
oftheresearcherunderthecriticalrealistperspectiveistomaintaintransparency.
Throughoutinvestigationandanalysis,theresearcherspositionandperspectivesonthe
contextofthecaseisreflectedon.Asaresult,theresearchjourneyandexplorationof
dataisdocumented,highlightinginsightsthatdirectnewavenuesforinterpretation
(Crouch&Pearce,2012,p.65).Acriticalrealistresearcherisoftenreferredtoasa
‘disruptiveinvestigator’asanalysisaimstodeconstructexistingideologies(Crouch&
Pearce,2012,p.142)whilstre-interpretinghowindividualsrelatetolarger,changing,
socialcontexts.Inthisinstance,howdesignersandmultidisciplinaryteamsrelateto
86
complexsocialcontextsthroughdesignthinking.Thecriticalrealistlensprovidesa
theoreticalframeworkthatforcesresearcherstoacknowledgetheirpositionand
influencethroughoutinvestigationandanalysis,thusreducingbiasthroughtheir
transparency.
Theanalysisofdatacollectedinthisthesisfollowsasemi-structuredframework.The
frameworkforanalysisfollowsthreebroadphases:developingcodesandmemos,
constantcomparisonmethodandtheorygeneration[Fig.9].
87Fig.9FrameworkforAnalysis
88
3.5.11st phase:developingcodesandmemos
Thefirstphaseofanalysisisdedicatedtodevelopingcodesandmemosascasedatais
collectedandtranscribed.Asfieldnotesandinterviewaudioarecollected,datafromthe
caseistransferredtosoftwareExcel;audiotranscriptions,fieldnotesandimagestaken
areallrecordedinthesamedocument.Referencestoarchivaldocumentsrelevantto
sectionsofaudioarealsoincluded.Thisensuresaclear,chronologicalspreadsheet
outliningtheprocessbehindthecasestudy.Thechronologicaldocumentationofdata(as
opposedtothemes)hasbeenchosentoprovidemaximumclarityforcausalanalysis[See
Appendix.1].
Thisphasebeginsbymemoinginitialinsightsandimpressionsfromthedatawhilst
transcribingandcollatingaudio,documentsandnotes.Aseconditerationofanalysisis
thenconductedinqualitativeanalysissoftware,Nvivo,thistimeproducingcategories
andcodes(alsoreferredtoas‘tags’)frommemosandinsightsrecordedinExcelduring
initialroundofanalysis[SeeAppendix.A].ThisprocessfollowstheGlaserianapproach
togroundedtheoryanalysis.TheGlaserianapproachfavorssubstantivecoding(basic
observations)ofdatathatarethengroupedunder‘codingfamilies’(tagthemes)(Kelle,
2007,p.192).Thisgroupingisconductedinqualitativesynthesissoftware,Mural.ly;
codesconductedinNvivoareexported(includingdirectdatafromwhichthecode
relates)[SeeAppendix.B]andthenclusteredinaMural.ly“board”.Eachcasestudyhas
itsownboardtoclusterthecodesthatwereestablishedinNvivo,usinganaffinity
diagrammingtechnique[SeeAppendix.C].Fromthesebasiccodingfamiliesdo
theoreticalcodesdevelop,markingthebeginningofdevelopingtheory.Itisat
substantivecodingwhereanalysismayinfluencetheoreticalsamplinganddirectthe
focusoffollowupinterviewsanddataanalysisfortheorydevelopment.Thisprocessis
replicatedforallothercasescollected.
89
3.5.22ndphase:constantcomparisonmethod
Onceinitialmemosandcodesareestablished,thesecondphaseofanalysisbegins.
Thisphaseintroducestheconstantcomparisonmethod.Initialcodesandcategory
familiesfromthefirstphasearecomparedacrosscases.Patternsandcodingsimilarities
areanalysedandestablisheduntilacorecategoryemerges.Establishingacorecategory
(throughcross-casecomparisonofcategoriescreatedinallcases)strengthensthe
reliabilityofthecorecategorybecomingavalidbasisfortheorydevelopment.Thisalso
impliesthatthecategoryisnearingsaturation;wherenomorecross(andindividual)
caseanalysisyieldsfundamentallynewinsights(Dey,2007,p.167).
Theprocessofcrosscomparativeanalysisduringthisphaseinvolvestwostages:internal
andexternalvalidationofthecorecategory.Titledthecomparativemethodingrounded
theory,thisprocessaimstostrengthenandvalidateconceptsbypattern-matching(Yin,
2009,p.139).Thecomparativemethodisusedtoconfirminsightspresentacrossa
numberofcases(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.23).This‘replication’offactsandconceptsis
oneofthestrongestmethodsfordevelopingreliabletheoryinqualitativeresearch[See
Chapter8.Cross-comparativeanalysis].Empiricalevidencefromthecaseisusedto
illustratetheoreticalconcepts;thatisusedtostrengthentheoreticalgeneralisations
(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.24).
Internalvalidityisachievedthroughindepth(contextual)analysisofthephenomenain
eachcase,usinggroundedtheorytoguidetheoreticalcategoriesbeforetriangulating
findingsacrosscases.Thisprocessiscarriedoutthroughallcases,exploringconcepts
uniquetoeachprojectwhilstkeepinganeyeopenforcausalpatternssignifying‘quasi
closed’systemsandrelationships(Downwardet.al.,2002,p.485).Bergene(2007)
articulatestheobjectiveofthisphasestating“Researchersneedtoconductaninternal
analysisofeachcase.Insteadofstandardisingfor,orfactoringout,factorscommontoall
cases,internalanalysismightrevealhowthecommonfactorsmanifestthemselves
differentlyindifferentcontexts”(p.19).Understandinghowcausalcategoriesmanifestin
differentcasesaddsinsightandknowledgetothedevelopingtheory.
Triangulationofcategoricalinsightsisacriticalcomponentinthisphaseascategories
developedwithineachindividualcasearecomparedwithparticipantsforverification
andvalidity(Yin,2009,p.42).Triangulationisarobustandrepetitiousadditionto
internalandcrosscasestudyanalysis.Itservestoconfirmwhetherobservationsare
90
manifestedindifferentcontexts(Stake,1995,p.113).Itisfundamentallyexercisedto
compareviewsamongstdifferentsourcesofdataandagentstoachieveconsistencyand
reliabilityoftheorydevelopedfromdata(Stake,2005,p.77).
Externalvalidityiscriticallyanalysedaftercategoriesandpatternsbecomeevident
throughcross-case,comparativeanalysis.Bergene(2007)emphasisestheimportanceof
conductingbothinternalandexternalanalysisofcasesfortheorygenerationundera
groundedtheorycriticalrealistframework,arguingthatbothinternalandexternal
analysisneedstobeconductedoneachcase(p.21).Thisprocessensuresthatthecore
categorydescribediscontextualyetapplicabletoabroaderunderstandingofthe
researchquestion.Thismethodalsoensuresthatthecategoryuncoveredhasenough
internalandexternalvaliditytoproceedtothenextandfinalphaseofanalysis.
Asstatedearlier,theorygenerationingroundedtheorydoesnotaimtoprovideaperfect
orpredictableaccountofphenomena;accuracyisnotimperative,either.Foranalysisand
theorydevelopmentinthisthesis,importanceisplacedonexplanatorypower.Theaim
ofgroundedtheoryandofthisresearchdesignistoexploreandexplaincausal
relationshipsbetweenthedesignthinkingprocessincomplexandmultidisciplinary
environments,inordertodeducegeneralisableinsightsthatcanbeusedasthe
foundationsforapragmatictheoryforcomplexdesignpractice.
3.5.33rdphase:theorygeneration
Thethirdandfinalphaseofanalysisistheconstructionoftheory.Criticalrealismis
emphasisedinthisphaseforitsroleintransforminggroundedcategoriesinto
foundationsfortheformulationoftheory.Thepurposeofapplyingcriticalrealist
analysisduringthisphaseistobridgeagapingroundedtheorymethodology(Hood,
2007,p.162).Mentionedin3.4.5Methodologicallimitations,groundedtheoryisheavily
criticisedforitsmethodologicalambiguityduringtheorycreation(Scott,2004,p.113).
Theprocessofconductingmemosandcreatingcorecategorieshasbeenrefinedbyboth
GlaserandStrauss,however,bothauthorssharelittleinsightonhowtodeveloptheory
fromcategories.
91
Inresponsetothislimitation,acausalanalyticframeworkhasbeenadoptedduringthe
finalphaseofdataanalysis,bridgingcodingcategoriestotheorygenerationusingcritical
realism.Inthisframework,analysisandtheorygenerationisguidedbyconceptual
principlesfromcriticalrealisttheory[SeeChapter8.Cross-comparativeanalysis].The
mostimportantprincipleisexhibitedthroughthequestion“Whatcausedthoseeventsto
happen?”(Easton,2004,p.121).Inexplorativeanalysis,theaimistoexplainwhyevents
occurredandwhatcausedtheeventstooccur,ormorepragmatically,whycertain
decisionsleadtocertainoutcomes(Easton,2004,p.127).
Thesecondconceptualframeworkforcriticalrealistanalysisisthenotionofopen
systems.Theideathatsocialsystemsareopenandcontainagentsofchangerequiresthe
researchertopaymindfulattentiontotheideathatsocietiesandsocialgroupstransform
theirstructuresandassuchcanneverapproachclosure(Dickens,2003,p.97).The
implicationsonanalysisandtheorygenerationisthatgrandgeneralisationsor
predictionscannotbemadeonsocialsystems.Theaimofthisthesisisnottosubmit
grandgeneralisations,buttoexploreconceptualtheoreticalfoundationsthatmay
presentthemselvesundersimilar‘quasi-closed’conditions(Baehr,1990,p.768).Quasi-
closedconditionsarepresentwithinboundedsystemswhereagentsperformrepeated,
habitualtasksindailypractice,forexample,throughtheadoptionofadesignprocess
framework.Constructingaresearchboundary(otherwisereferredtoasthequintain)is
necessaryforresearchdesignandanalysisinexplorativecontextsasitprovides
manageabilityfortheresearchertoinvestigatelargeandcomplex‘quasi-closed’social
practices.
Collectingcasesstudiesthatfulfillcorecriteriarequiredtoanswertheresearchquestion
allowstheresearchertoinvestigatehabitsorpatternsacrosscasesthatarediverseand
thusexploreconditionsofquasi-closurethatmayaffectdesignprocess,innovationand
outcomesindifferingcontexts.Friedman(2003)statesthatatheory“Describesdynamic
flowswithcontoursthattracerelativelyclosedloopsaswellasrelativelyopenlinks”
(p.515).Ascausalexplorationsarealsointerpretive,theydonotattempttodepictactual
processesclosely(Sayer,2010,p.90).Rather,throughagroundedtheoryapproach,
processescanbeconceptuallygeneralascausesareevidentacrosscasesfortheyall
sharethesamecorecategoryandcategoricalpatterns.Conceptualcuesfromcritical
realismguidetheresearchertoreflectholisticallyduringcausalanalysis,triggering
greaterinsightsintothecorecategory;broadly,thebehaviorofdesignthinkingin
complexenvironments.
92
Onceacategoryhasbeencomparedacrosscasesandisestablishedasacorecategory,
criticalrealistanalysisdeconstructsthecategoryandinvestigatescausalmechanisms
thataffectthatcategoryofinvestigation.Thisprocessisguidedbythemethodof
retroduction.Thismethodguidesdeep,stratifiedanalysisofcausalmechanismsthat
underliethecorecategoryandthatoperateonalllevelsofreality:theempirical,events
andunobservablemechanisms.
Retroductionisaformofabductivereasoning.Retroductionisalogicalprocesstowards
discoveringanswerstoinsightsobtainedfromdataduringanalysis.Itallowslogical
movementbeyondthesurfacephenomenonusingabductiveinferencetoidentify
underlyingstructuresfromempiricaldata(Bergene,2007,p.15).Thedepthand
complexityofanalysisintounderlyingmechanismsofthephenomenaunderstudyis
subjecttotheoreticalinsightsthatemergeduringdatacollectionandanalysis.Ona
superficiallevel,criticalrealismoffersconceptualframeworkstotriggerdataanalysisin
newtheoreticaldirectionsthatmaynotbedirectlyobservedempirically.
Thecriticalrealistframeworkallowstheresearchertoadoptamorethoroughand
holisticanalysisofcasestudyphenomena,particularlyfortheanalysisofcomplex
environmentsandsystems.Thecriticalrealistmethodofanalysisusedinthisphaseis
notdetachedfromgroundedtheorymethodology,asitechoestheStrausserianapproach
forknowledgegeneration.TheStrausseriangroundedtheoryapproachdictatesthata
corecategorybeanalysedforcausation(Dey,2007,p.178).Thisprocessisarigorous
causalanalysisofthecorecategoryinrelationtoboththecontextofthecaseandacross
cases.Theresultaimsforaholistic,yetgroundedtheory,thataddressesthecomplexity
ofdesignthinkinginnewandcomplexenvironments.Thisprocessofanalysisworks
withinthemethodologyofgroundedtheoryandisoneofthereasonswhygrounded
theoryisthefavoredmethodologyforcriticalrealistresearch.Groundedtheory
methodologyisprescribedwhentheformulationofnewempiricalknowledgeis
requiredinunder-theorisedtopicssuchasdesignthinking.Thus,itprovidesan
appropriatemethodologynotjustwithinacriticalrealistontologyandepistemologybut
forexplorativestudiessuchastheresearchobjectiveofthisthesis.
93
3.5.4Criteria
Researchdesignedtoinvestigatethequestion,Whatisthebehaviourofdesign
thinkingincomplexenvironments?followsaniterativeandexploratoryprocess.Using
criticalrealistgroundedtheoryasamethodologyallowstheresearchertoexplorecausal
themesandevolveresearchdirectionsasdataunfolds.Analysingmultidisciplinary
designpracticeincomplexenvironmentscallsforacriticalandintensivecasestudy
analysis,forcriticalrealismfavoursintensiveresearchdesigns(Bergene,2007,p.16).
Intensivecasestudyresearchisdesignedunderanexplanatoryumbrella.Foremerging
fieldssuchasdesignthinking,explanatoryresearchisanappropriateframeworkfor
multiplecasestudyanalysis:
Anexplanatoryresearchprojectcanbeconductedinanewfield,ifthestudyis
welldefined,andfocusedonselectedaspectsofaphenomenonetc.Such
project(s)canbecomplementedbyotherprojectsthatfurtherexpand
knowledgeonthesubject;deepenthecomplexityofourunderstandingandthe
dynamicsinvolved,andaddtoknowledgecreation(Jeppsen,2005,p.2).
Assuch,astrictplanwasnotdevelopedforcasecollectionandanalysis,butinstead,a
frameworkhasbeencreatedtoguidecaseexplorationanddataanalysis.Thisframework
includesstructuresforanalysisandthedevelopmentofcriteriatoguidecasestudy
selectionfortheresearchdesign.
Casesselectedfortheresearchdesignfulfillbroadcategoriesofcriteriatoensure
appropriatedatahasbeencollectedtoinvestigatetheresearchquestion.Criteriahas
beenconstructedfordefiningandestablishingboundaries(thequintain)ontheresearch
designwhilstremaininggeneraltoensurediversityofcontexts.Thisprovidesthe
researchdesignwithfocusyetfreedomtoexplorediversecontextsofapplieddesign
thinkingincomplexenvironments.Thecriteriaforcasestudyselectionhasbeendevised
asfollows:
94
ProcessandApproach:DesignThinking
Context:complexenvironments(classifiedas‘Third’and‘fourthorder’design
practice)andsituatedinthesecondandfourthquadrantintheFlach(2011)
[Fig.6]modelofcomplexityinproblemspaces.
Outcomeanddirection:afocusonsystemsandintangibledesigns
(theprocessisnotproduct-centric)
ProcessandApproach
Themethodologyoftheprojectprocessmustreflectadesignerlyapproach.The
characteristicsthatdefinedesignthinkinghavebeencriticallyatomizedthroughoutthe
literaturereview.Ineachcasestudyselected,theprojectmustbeholisticallydirectedby
andthroughadesignprocessand/ormethodology.
Context
Casescollectedforresearchhavebeenchosenfromthecontextofcomplex
environments.Acomplexenvironmenthasbeenclassifiedasprojectsthatinvolve
multiplestakeholdersthroughouttheprocess,whoseoutcomeaffectsalargenumberof
individuals(bothinternalandexternaltotheproject/client)andwhereresultsnever
resolvebutcanonlysatisfycurrentconditions(Simon,1996,p.27).Acomplex(wicked)
environmentisconstantlyevolving;itisanopensystemthatcanchangefromindividual
agentsoperatingwithinthesystemandwhosesystemcanchangetheoperationof
agentswithinit(Baehr,1990,p.768).Assuch,resultsandsolutionsareneverfinaland
reflectanongoingprocessbetweenagencyandstructure.Designedsolutionscanonly
‘satisfy’currentconditions,whilstremainingopenandflexibletofutureiterationand
evolution.
Returningtothetypologyofthedesignthinking,complexitydiffersateachlevelof
designpractice(Fig5.)Asportrayedintheliteraturereview,thediagramshowsmany
variablesthatoperatewithindifferentstratifiedlayersofdesignthinkingpractice.
Designthinkingforcomplexenvironmentsisreflectedintheupperlevelsofdesign
thinking(3rdand4thorders)andarefoundinthecontextofmediumtolargeenterprises,
local,stateorfederalgovernment,ordealwithuncontrollableexternalitiessuchas
95
environmentalandsocialinnovationandsystems.Furthermore,acomplexenvironment
hasalsobeendefinedusingFlach’s(2011)[Fig.6]modelofcomplexity;projectsthat
havehighinterdependenceand/orhighdimensionalityareconsideredcomplex.In
definingdesignthinkinginthisway,theresearchdesignisabletosetclearcriteriafor
casestudyselection.
Outcome
Casescollectedforanalysisfocusonprojectproblemsthatexistona‘highlevel’ofdesign
complexity,wheretangible(productorientated)solutionsarenotthesolefocusof
formativedesigndevelopments.Thismeansthatwhilstaproductcanbeapartofa
largersolution(suchasaservice)itisnottheemphasisbehindtheinitialprojectdesign.
Casesaresociallyorientatedandconceptualsolutionssuchasservices,strategies,
policies,plansandinitiatives,eventsorcollaborativeideasmaybedesignedforan
actionableoutcome.Intangibleideasmaybemanifestedthroughmaterialmethodsbut
theprocessrevolvesaroundanongoingpurposeorintentthanafiniteproduct.These
resultsoftenreflectwickedenvironmentsthatrequireadaptableandevolvingsolutions
andsignifyahigherandmoreconceptuallevelofdesignthinking.
3.6Researchdesign
Investigationintotheresearchquestion,Whatisthebehaviourofdesignthinking
incomplexenvironments?requiresamultiplecasestudyresearchdesign.Theaimisto
conductexploratoryinvestigationsoncomplexdesigninnovation;toprovideempirical
evidenceforif,howandwhydesignthinkingisausefulandvaluableplatformfor
complexenvironmentsanditsproblems.
Threeprojectcasestudieshavebeenselectedthatfulfillcriteriafortheresearchdesign.
Criteriaconsistsofthreecategories:theapplicationofadesignerlyprocessand
approach,incomplexenvironmentsinvolvingmultipleinterdependenceand
dimensionality(Flach,2011)(3rdand4thorderdesignpractice)anddrivenbyintangible
conceptsandnotproduct-centeredoutcomes.Casestudiesthatadheretothiscriteria
96
willproviderichdataonwhetherthedesignerlyapproachisavaluableplatformfor
designinnovationdealingwithwickedproblemsincomplexenvironments.
Theresearchplandesignedforthisthesisutilisesmultiplecasestudies.Stake(2005)
offersadviceonselectingcasesthatareadequatefortheresearchdesign:
Asageneralrule,therearethreemaincriteriafor
selectingcases:
1.Isthecaserelevanttothequintain?
2.Dothecasesprovidediversityacrosscontexts?
3.Dothecasesprovidegoodopportunitiestolearnaboutcomplexityand
contexts?(p.23)
ThequestionsoutlinedbyStakeareappropriatefortheresearchdirectionandquestion
inthisdissertation,ascomplexenvironmentsisaprimaryfocusofinvestigation.
AnsweringthequestionsproposedbyStakeaidthedesignofresearch.
3.6.1Isthecaserelevanttothequintain?
Thequintain(conceptualresearchboundary)isdirectedbytheresearchquestionbut
alsorefinedthroughtheconstructionofcriteriaforcasestudyselection.Casestudiesin
theresearchdesignhavebeenchosenforfulfillingacriterionforanalysis,explainedin
3.5.4Criteria.
97
Fig.10ResearchDesignquintain
3.6.2Dothecasesprovidediversityacrosscontexts?
Thecasestudiesinthisthesiseachsatisfytheselectioncriteriaoutlinedabove.However,
anadditionallayerofconsiderationhasbeentakenintoaccountwhendecidingbetween
possiblecases;toensurethateachcaseportraysvaryingpositionsofdesignactivity
relativetotheorganizationalsystem,inspiredbySabineJunginer’s(2009)analysis.
Theresearchdesignhasdeliberatelyconsideredthreeprofessionalcontextsthatfulfill
thecasestudycriteriawhilstofferingprojectdiversity.Onecasestudyfromservice,
publicpolicyandsocialinnovation,allprovidefundamentallydiverseproject
98
environmentsyetdepictcomplex,thirdandfourthorderdesignthinking.Furthermore,
eachcasestudyoffersdiversepositionsofdesignthinkingactivityrelativetotheproject
contextfollowingJunginger’s(2009)theoryonthepositionofdesignthinkingrelativeto
anorganizationalsystem.Thesepositionsinclude:designthinkingsituatedonthe
peripherytoaninstitutionalorganizationalsystem,designsituatedinternaltoan
organizationalsystemanddesignsituatedinanexternal,openandunstructuredsystem.
3.6.3Dothecasesprovidegoodopportunitiestolearnaboutcomplexcontexts?
Eachcaserepresentsmajordesignpracticescurrentlytacklingproblemsincomplex
environments.Service,policyandsocialinnovationarethreefieldsthathavemajor
impactinthewayweshapeandtransformcomplexsystems.Inaddition,eachcasestudy
hasbeenselectedbasedoncomplexityinrelationtosize;projectsthatincludeoraffecta
largenumberofindividuals.Theinherentcomplexityinpractice,coupledwithdifferent
disciplinarycontextsdrivenbydesignthinking,arewhatmakestheresearchdesigna
satisfactoryframeworkforinvestigatingtheresearchquestion.
3.6.4Conclusion
Inordertoinvestigatethequestion,Whatisthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplex
environments?criticalrealistgroundedtheoryhasbeenchosenasthemosteffective
researchframeworkandperspective.Criticalrealismaffordstheopportunitytoanalyse
causalmechanismstoprovideadeeperanalysisoftheresearchquestionbeyond
descriptionsofdataconventionallytackledtodate.Furthermore,criticalrealist
groundedtheoryenablesdataanalysistoframenewtheorygenerationonthesubject.
99
4.
CaseStudy1
Aservicedesignagencywasselectedasthefirstcasestudyforthisdissertation.Basedin
Australia,theagencyaddressesclientbriefswithadesignthinkingmindset,
collaborativelyresolvingproblemswiththeaimofco-creatingsolutions.Establishedin
2000,theagency’spriorityhasremainedunchanged;toconductmeaningfulworkthat
hasapositiveeffectonsociety.Assuch,theagencyhasapro-bonoprogramtogiveback
tothecommunity,applyingserviceanddesignthinkingforsocialandsustainable
solutions.
Thecaseavailablefromthisagencypresenteditselfasanopportunitytoconductin
depthobservationonacomplexprojectwithalargemediacommunicationsclient.Using
Junginger’s(2009)guideonthepositionofdesignthinking,thiscasewasselectedasit
representsdesignasaresourceexternaltoaninstitutionalizedorganizationalsystem.
Thestudyallowedforintensiveandthoroughdatacollectionwiththeopportunityto
documentaprojectholisticallyfrombriefthroughtoimplementation.Theflexibilityof
thedesignagencyallowedforregularandconsistentvisitsfordatacollection.Research
onthiscaseconsistedof14daysofnon-participantobservationsoverathree-month
period.Observationalvisitstotheagencywererecordedusingaudioequipment,
resultinginatotalofapproximately32hoursofrecordeddataobservation.
Observationalresearchconductedatthisagencyprovidedtheresearchdesignwitha
thoroughfoundationforinitiatingdataanalysisthatwouldlaterbesupportedthrough
followupinterviews.
100
4.1Datacollection
ObservationalresearchcommencedinSeptember2011andceasedinearlyDecemberof
thesameyear.Thefocusofthiscasestudywastoobserveandcollectempiricalevidence
ontheprocessandbehaviourofdesignthinkingappliedasaperipheralresourceto
resolveaproblemsituatedinanorganisedcomplexsystem.Direct,non-participant
observationwaschosenastheprimarymethodfordatacollectionforthiscase.This
allowstheresearchertoreflectwithobjectivityontheprocess;onthepositionofeach
designerandtherelationshipsbetweenteammembers.Non-participantobservation
ensuresthattheresearcher’sreflectivebiasisminimisedastheresearcherhasno
personalinvolvementormotiveintheproject(Bernard,2006,p.342).Datawas
documentedusingrecordingsandfieldnotescapturedonaLivescribeEchopenand
booklet.Imagesofdesignmethodswerecapturedusingamobile(iPhone)camera.No
additionaldatawascollectedotherthanthroughthemediumsdescribed.Audiowas
recordedsimultaneouslywithwrittenfieldnotes.
Thiscasestudyactedasaninstrumentalinvestigationondesignthinkingincomplex
projectenvironments.Inconjunctionwithdirectobservationaldatacollection,semi-
structuredinterviewswereperformedduringinitialroundsofanalysis,includinga
followupinterviewwithaprojectleadtotriangulateinsightsandstrengthenthevalidity
ofanalysisandaccountsofevidencecollected.Thecomparativemethodwasusedto
constructrobustvalidationsonhypothesesproposedfrominitialinterpretationsfrom
evidence(Eisenhardt,1989,p.545)asoutlinedindetailinthepreviouschapter,3.
ResearchFramework.
101
4.1.1Analysis
Preliminarydataanalysisbeganwithcreatingmemosofideasandimpressionson
conversationsasdatawastranscribed.This‘firstround’analysiscapturedinitial
impressionsfromthedatainlinewiththegroundedtheorymethod,outlinedin3.5,
ResearchDesign.Codeswerelaterassignedtothememosdocumentedandtheaudio
transcribed[SeeAppendixA].Roundsofiterativecodingcontinueduntilalevelof
saturationwasachieved.Codeswerethengroupedunderthemesinpreparationfor
cross-casecomparativeanalysis[SeeAppendixC].Saturationwasestablishedwhen
iterativeanalysisofthedatadidnotyieldnewcodinginsights.384codeswerecreated
ontheprojectcase.Thecodesandtheirreferenceswereexportedinpreparationfor
contextualmappingusingtheaffinitydiagrammingtechnique.Usinganonlinemapping
software,Mural.ly,thecodesweremappedaccordingtorelationshipandcontext
betweeneachcode’sreferenceandmeaning[AppendixC].Thiscontextualmapping
phase,coupledwithmemosnotedduringroundsofcodinganalysis,providedthe
foundationforemergingtheoreticalthemesandrelationshipsdescribedinthischapter.
Consistentwiththeboundaryoftheliteraturepresentedintheliteraturereview,
referencespresentedwithinthesefindingsareselectedfromdesignliteratureandhave
beenchosenfortheirimpact,discussionorrelationshiptodesignthinkingtheory.The
purposeofthereferencespresentedwithinthefindingsistocontextualizethefindings
discussedondesignthinkinginthiscasestudy.Thereferencesareusedasapointof
contrastandtriangulation.
102
4.1.2ProjectBackground
InAugust2011,thedesignagencywascommissionedbyalargetelecommunications
clienttodesignasolutionforanewservicetoberolledoutinthefollowingyear.The
projecthadtwocomponents:theclientrequiredbothaservicedeliveryfocusingon
customerexperienceandaninternalorganisationalre-designtosupporttheservice
solution.Thus,theprojectwassplitintwo;withonedesignteamworkingoncustomer
researchspecifictotheproduct-service,andanotherteamworkingondevelopingthe
internalorganisationalcapabilitytoensurethenewservicewouldbeasuccess.The
projectandteamsarehenceforthreferredtoasphases,withphase1depictingresearch
anddesignfortheservicedeliveryandphase2followingworkestablishedbytheteam
inphase1indevelopingorganizationalcapability.
4.1.2Phase1
Theprojectbeganwithinvestigatingthenatureoftheservicetobedesigned.Thedesign
agencyassignedfourprimaryinvestigatorsforthistask,includingadesigninternto
assist.Centraltothecasewastheissueofdesigningaroundtheunknown.Theproject
assignedbytheclientinvolveddevelopingaproduct-serviceAustralia-widethatdidnot
currentlyexist.Inessence,theproductonoffertothepublicbytheclientwasbrandnew
-inthatnootherproductorserviceofthiskindhadbeenestablishedinAustralia.This
addedanadditionallevelofuncertaintyforboththeclientanddesigners;thedesigners
foundlittlerelatableinformationandtheclientcouldnotclearlydescribeinfulldetail
thenatureofthebriefortheproduct-serviceoffering:
Centraltothiscasewasdesignfortheunknown,whichyoudescribethenasa
brandnewserviceofferingwhichitisandwas.It’sverytrue,thatparticularthing
[theservice],butthathappensineverysinglethingwedo.Thefuzzyfrontend,
thefuzzynesspieceisalwaysaroundnotknowingwhattheproblemis.That’s
whytheemergingpieceinthebeginning,theexplorationpiece,isvital.Butyes
becausethiswasabrandnewserviceofferingtherewasnothingtostartoff,
therewasnobaseline.(Interview,Phase2Designer,2014).
103
Thedesignteamexploredsecondaryresearchonexistingservicesandproductsfrom
competitorsthatseemedsimilar,whilstreviewinguser-researchreportspreviously
conductedbytheclient.Duringthispreliminaryphase,thedesignerscollected
documentsandreportsaboutthenewproduct-servicefromtheclienttohelpclarify
whattheyneededtodesign.Thedesignteamspentroughly2weeksonsecondary
research.Followingthisinitialresearchphase,thedesignteamchosetoconducttheir
ownfoundationaluserresearchtohelpclarifywhatservicescenariostheywillneedto
designfor.Thedesignerscontractedafutureforecastingagencytodevelopworkshops
withusersonfuturestatesrelatedtoproductandtechnologyfromtheclient.Thedesign
teamcollaboratedwithateamfromthefutureforecastingagencyandvolunteered
‘users’toco-createidealfuturestatesaroundtheproduct-service.Theseworkshopsran
overathree-weekperiod.
Thepurposeofconductingfutureforecastingworkshopswithuserswasforthe
designerstoproposehypotheticalscenariosasaresultofthisnewproduct-service
introducedbytheclient.Usinghypotheticalscenarios,thedesignteamcollected
informationonpreferredstatesfromusers.Theseworkshopshelpedthedesignteam
contextualisewhatfuturestatestheymaybedealingwith,andwhatscenariosare
preferredbythegeneralpublic.Oncetheworkshopshadconcluded,thedesignteam
wrotetheirinsightsonpostitnotesandbeganroundsofanalysis,sensemakingand
synthesis.Thisknowledgeprovidedafoundationforthedesignteamtoformulatea
preferredstate(servicescenario)fromwhichtoconductuserjourneyresearch.
Thenextstepinvolvedthedesignteamdevelopingtentativehypotheticalservice
journeysaroundtheproduct-servicetoprototypeonusers.Usertestingran“over2-3
dayswith25sessionsintotal”(Interview,Phase2Designer,2014).Thetestingtook
placeattheclient’suserresearchfacility,andwasbasedonarole-playingmethod.The
designteamconsciouslydecidedtohave‘breatherdays’inbetweenthedaysofuser
testing,inordertoreflectonthefindingsgatheredthusfaranditerateideas.Iteration
focusedonrefiningdetails,fixingcommonmisunderstandingsandaddingorsubtracting
stepsintheuserjourneyscenario.
104
Attheendofusertesting,thedesignteaminitiatedaphaseofsynthesis.Theinsights
gainedfromusertestingwerelooselystructuredbeneatharoughuserjourneyoutline
thatwasdevelopedandrefinedasuserscenarioswererefined.Fromthispointon,the
groupfocusedonsensemaking,interpretinginsightsandrefiningtheidealcustomer
journeyforthisnewproduct-service.
Theoutcomeofthisprocessresultedinanidealcustomerjourneyandservicedelivery
fortheclient’sproduct-service.Theknowledgeandfindingsgeneratedbythedesign
teamwasdetailedinareportformat.Twodocumentsweresubmittedtotheclient;one
thatcontainedsignificantinsightsfromtheiruserresearchandanotherthatdescribedin
depththeservicejourneyandstepsrequiredtomakethejourneyasuccess.The
recommendationsinthisdocumentandthefindingsfromthisresearchphasewerethen
passedontoanotherdesignteamwhothenfocusedondevelopingtheorganisational
capabilityforthisidealservicedelivery.
4.1.3Phase2
Nearingthecompletionofphase1,thedesignagencyassignedasecondgroupof
designerstoworkontheorganisationalcapabilityforthisproduct-service.Thisteam
consistedoffourdesigners;threenewdesignersandonedesignerfromtheprevious
teaminphase1.Thethreenewdesignersbecametheprimaryinvestigatorsandwere
briefedontheworkconductedbythepreviousdesignteam.Thefourthteammember,
involvedinbothphase1and2,wasthedesignintern.Hisrolewastoagainassistwith
propsandtasks.Phase2commencedinSeptember2011andranthroughtoNovember
2011whentheentireprojectwascompleted:
Theirs[phase1team]wasveryspecificbecausetheydidallthisresearchabout
findingoutwhatitcouldbebeforehand.Theyhadscriptsandtheyhad[…]
prototypesofpagesandmobileapppagesandstufflikethatalmosttothepoint
theywouldcallitUXdesign.Thatwastheintention-offindingouthowthe
experiencewouldplayoutfromaphysicalstandpoint,andyoudescribeitas
customerjourneybutit’sacustomerjourneyinaction.Whereasthepurposeof
theenactmentswe[phase2team]ranwastoillustratetothestakeholders“is
105
thisistheidealexperiencethatcustomerswanttohave?Howareyousetupto
deliverthis?Howareyougoingtoworktogethertomakesurethisisgoingto
happen”(Interview,Phase2Designer,2014).
Focusingonorganisationalcapability,phase2oftheprojectwasmuchmorecomplex
andholistic.Centraltothisphasewasbrainstorming,whichtookupmuchofthedesign
process.Thedesignteambeganbylookingattheidealcustomerjourneyfromphase1
andfiguringoutwhatorganisationaldepartmentswerecriticaltothesuccessofthe
journey.Thisphasewasmuchmoreclientinclusive,asthedesignteamreliedheavilyon
informationaboutwhatclientdepartmentsdid,whatdepartmentswouldbeaffectedby
thejourneyandhowdepartmentscurrentlycommunicatewitheachother.
Timeconstraintwasacentralissueinthisphaseandtotheprojectasawhole.The
designteaminphase2werelimitedindepth,scopeandcomplexityastheydidnothave
enoughtimetoholisticallyinvestigatetheorganisationalecosystemindetail“thetiming
itwasreallytight,andoneofthetightestprojectsweeverhadtodateatthatpoint”(Interview,Phase2Designer,2014).Duetothistimeconstraint,theclientchoseonly
twomainservicefeaturesoutofthereportsubmittedinphase1tobeimplemented.The
designteaminthisphasehadjustfourweekstodesignanorganizationalstrategythat
focusedontheselectedtwoareasoftheservicedelivery.
Incontrasttophase1,primaryuserresearchwasnotconductedbutinstead,user
personaswerecreatedfromtheresearchcollectedinphase1.Thesepersonasguidedthe
designteamthroughthecreationofanidealservicejourneythatwouldlaterbecomethe
basisofanenactmentworkshop.Thepersonaswereusedasavehicletoportraythe
idealuserjourneyservicescenarioresearchedinphase1.Anenactmentwaschosenas
theprimarymethodofdeliveringtheidealservicejourney.Theemphasisonthe
enactmentworkshopwastoempowertheclienttowardsco-creatingorganizational
capability:
Itwasnevermeanttobeaverydetailedpieceofwork.Itwassupposedto
remainathighlevelandkindofjustgivepeopleaninsightintowhatacustomer
experienceisandwhatitcouldbe,andsonowthatyouknowwhatthatisyou
havetheexpertisetotalkamongstyourselvestoworkitout
(Interview,Phase2Designer,2014).
106
Thedesignteaminthisphasechosetocreateaworkshopinordertotriggerand
transformtheclient’smodeofthinkingtoembedadesignperspectiveinthe
organisation’sculture.Fourmaindepartmentswerechosentoparticipateinthe
enactmentworkshop,whichranoveronefulldayinNovember,2011.
Thisoverviewofthedesignprocessistoprovidecontextualdetailsonthiscasestudy.
Thisdescriptionisintendedtoemphasizetransparencyoffindingsandanalysis.A
detailedaccountofthecasestudyprocessesandeventsallowsforamoretransparent
andobjectivereadingofthefindingspresented.
4.2Findings
Analysisofempiricalobservationspresentedinthisinstrumentalcasestudyhas
revealedinsightsaboutthenatureofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.The
analysisfocusesontheemergentpatterns,impactandbehaviorofadesignerlyapproach
operatingasapheripheralresourcetotheprojectorganizationandecosystem
(Junginger,2009).
4.2.1Navigatinguncertaintyandtheunknown
Uncertaintyandambiguityweredominantdriversbehindprocessdevelopmentinthis
case.Feelingsofuncertaintyrecurredinbothprojectphasesandthroughouttheproject
process.Thenatureofthedesignproblemdescribedin4.1.2Phase1,portraysahighly
ambiguousbrief.Assuch,thecomplexityanduncertaintyembeddedintheprojectwas
significant.Commentsbythedesignersencapsulatethisissue:
It’sreallyhardforustonailitbecausethey[theclient]haven’tdecidedit[the
problem]themselvessoitsyouknowwecandesignsomethingbutwhenthey
changethewholething…
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
107
Alotofstuffwecameto[theclient]withthequestionstheydidn’tknowthe
answersyetbecausetheyarestillfiguringitoutthemselves
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Bothdesignteamshadtonavigatetheirwaythroughcomplexandambiguousterrain,
workingtowardsanoutcomeforabriefthatissubjecttochange.Akeyindicatorofthe
senseofuncertaintyexperiencedthroughouttheprojectwasobservedinthelanguage
usedbetweendesignersduringsensemaking,synthesisandbrainstormingsessions.The
languageexpressedamongstthedesignteamwasoftenundevelopedandrarely
definitive.Repetitivecommentssuchas“mightbethis”and“Idon’tknow”reflectedthe
uncertaintybothdesignteamsfeltthroughouttheprocessoftheproject:
Yeahandallthosethatmightnotbethat,Idon’tknow…
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Idon’tknow,Ithinkthatthisishowitisworking?
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Thedevelopmentofadesignoutcomeinresponsetoanunknownandill-determined
futurestateamplifiedmodesofthinkingsuchas:envisioning,anticipation,abductionand
holisticreasoning.Theuncertaintyandcomplexambiguityoftheprojectproblemled
bothteamstoenvisageidealfuturescenarios.Attemptstoframeaproblemsolution
earlyintheprocesscouldnotadequatelyaccountforallofthenecessarynumberof
variablesthatwouldimpacttheproject.Envisioningfuturestateswasobservedasa
fundamentaldriverinthedevelopmentofinsightsandideasinthiscasestudy.
Envisioningfuturestatesinthiscasestudyhadtwoprimaryfunctions;topredictthe
idealservicedeliveryfromuserresearchandprovideawayofnavigatingandtamingthe
complexambiguitypresentedinthebrief.Todevelopthisvision,co-creationwithusers,
userworkshops,backgroundresearchandintuitionbecameinvaluabledrivers.
Thus,anintuitiveandqualitativeapproachdominatedresearchfordevelopmentof
preferredfuturestates:
108
Werefertoitasanexperiencevision.Itwasn’ttothedetailofphysical
customerjourneysteps,it’slikethehigh-levelstrategicvisionforhow
peoplewouldengagewiththeservice.
(Interview,Phase2Designer,2014)
Enablingavisionforafuturestaterequiredthedesignteamtoreleasecontroland
constraintoverthecomplexenvironmentthattheyweredealingwith.Theuncertaintyin
thebriefenabledthedesignteamstorelinquishcontrolwhilstenvisagingidealstates
andholisticframeworks;keepingtheprojectopenandadaptable.Thisholistic
perspectiveservedtorestrictbothdesignteamsfromconvergingonideasearlyoninthe
process,allowingthedesignerstoworkorganicallyandevolvewithemerginginsights.
Surrenderingtotheunknownamidstuncertaintywasanattitudebothdesignteams
expressed.Designersworkinginthefirstphaseoftheprojectreflectedontheopenand
adaptiveprocessthattheytook:
9outof10peopleallsaidsomething.Sotowardstheend[oftheuser
enactments]wehademailsthatwereobviouswerenotneeded,socuttingitout.
Soit’skindoflike…aniterativeandevolvingkindofthing
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Theuncertaintyofthedesignbriefcreatedanattitudetowardsmanagingtheprocess
thatfocusedonforfeitingcontrol.Resigningcontrolalsoaffecteddiscussionsaroundthe
outcomeoftheproject.Attitudesovertheoutcomeareexpressedinanopen,adaptive
andalsoindefiniteway:
Ifthey[emerginginsights]kindofaligntheywillbealigned.Wedon’tknowyet
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
I’lldesignitmaybethiswayorthiswaydepending…
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Thecomplexambiguityofthebriefcreatedanadaptiveattitudetowardsthedesign
problemthatincreaseddetachmenttoearlyideasinthedesignprocess.Restraintplayed
asignificantfactorinthedesigners’managementofthecomplex,rapidlyevolvingand
uncertainprojectbrief.Inreactiontothisuncertainty,bothteamsenvisionedfuture
scenariosthatfacilitatedtheestablishmentofavisionframework.
109
4.2.2VisionFraming
Thedevelopmentofanoverarchingintentwasobservedinthiscase.Intentcenteredon
anidealstatepreferredbythecustomer.Thus,theoverarchingvisionandgoalforthe
projectdidnotemergeuntilpreliminaryuserresearchwasconducted.Tomaintaina
holisticapproach,theteamfocusedoncore‘higherlevel’insightsfromuserresearchto
createanoverarchingvisionwhichlaterbecameaframeworkthatguidedproject
development.Thevisionframewasnotasolutionanddidnotaimtoaddressan
identifiedproblem,butinstead,identifyanidealgoal.Itisfocusedonachievingan
experienceoveratangibleoutcome.Drivenbyempathy,avisionisnotnecessarilyan
definitiveobjective,buttheintenttowardscreatinganidealemotiveexperience:
Sotheidealcustomerjourneyislikethebackboneofwhatwearecreating
andthenweareprovidingkindofinformationaroundthat.
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Thisvisionframingprocessappearstobeasymptomaticreactiontowardsgrasping
uncertainty.Problemframingtooearlyinthedesignprocessmaynarrowperspectives.It
wasobservedthatavisionframeenabledthedesignerstoworktowardsagoal,whilst
alleviatingthemselvesfrominfinitevariableshiddeninthecomplexityofidentifying
problemsinordertoreachanendsolution.
Observedinthiscase,complexscenarioschangethewaydesignteamsprocessand
frameinformation.Anoverarchingvisionframeworkfacilitatedanopenandadaptive
responsetodealingwiththeuncertainandcomplexscenariosinthiscase,whichinturn,
enabledamoreorganicdesignprocess.However,visionframinginthiscasepresenteda
limitation;aholistic“vision”frameworkestablishedintheformativestagesofthedesign
processansweredtothegoalsandintentbehindtheproject,butprovidedlittledirection
towardspracticalsolutions.Asaresultofthis,itwasobservedinbothphasesthatthe
designteamsexploredsolutionsmuchlaterintheprocess.
Bothdesignteamsexpressedthattheambiguousbriefwasproblematic.Thisdidnot
implythatthiswasaproblemthattheteamsneededtoresolveandreframeinorderto
completethebrief.Intheformativestagesoftheproject,thedesignteamdidnotreferto
anestablishedissuetoberealizedasaproblemforre-framing,butrather,stepped
beyondproblematicdetailstoconceptualiseandfocusdesigndevelopmentonanideal,
110
overarchingfuturestate.Thevisionwasnotcreatedindirectresponsetoaproblem
identifiedincontextofthesolution,butrather,theproblemofdesigninginabroadand
ambiguousenvironment.
Soeventhoughthey[theclient]cametouswiththelandscapestrategyandwork
outthebestwaytoprovideserviceswithinthischanginglandscape,westillwant
toconnectwithwhyarewegoingtobeworkingtogetherinthefirstplaceandto
achievewhathigheroutcome?
(Interview,DesignManager,2014)
Theobservationofframinginthiscaseconflictswithpracticecommonlyobserved
bydesignresearchers.Commentingonresearchconductedinhis1997thesis,Kees
Dorst(2007)explains“empiricalstudieshaveshownthatdesignersspendquitesome
timeatthebeginningofadesignassignmenttoconsiderwhatkindofproblemtheyhad
todealwith”(p.6).TheempiricalstudiesconductedbyDorstfocusedonobservational
researchonindustrialdesignengineeringpractice.Thenatureoftheresearchtask
presentedinDorst’sthesisconcerneddesignerscreatinganartifactinresponsetoa
prescribeddesignbrief(thedevelopmentofanewlittersystem).Theproblemtobere-
framedwasidentifiableandtangible(anartifact).Comparedwiththeapplicationof
designthinkinginthiscasestudy(acomplexservicedelivery)itcanbearguedthatthe
natureofbothproblemandframingdepartsfromconventionalpractice.Thus,itis
observedinthiscasestudythatdesignframinginhigherordersofintangibly-focused
complexpracticemayfavoravisionframeworkpriortoproblemandsolution
identification.
111
4.2.3Thefuzzyend-to-end
Conventionally,uncertaintyinthedesignprocessisassociatedwithformativestagesof
projectdevelopment.Dubbed,the“fuzzyfrontend”,thisphaseisoftendepictedas
ambiguous,uncertainandaninteractionbetweenthestrategicproblemandsolution
space(Blyth&Kimbell,2011,p.12;Drews,2009,p.41;LeMassonetal.,2011,p.219;
Löwgre&Stolterman,1999,p.17;Porcini,2009;Ranjan,2012,p.31;Smulders&
Subrahmanian,2013,p.362;Young,2010,p.15).Comparedwithliteratureavailableon
thedesignprocessanddesignthinking,fewauthorsmakereferencetothefuzzyfront
end.Thedancebetweenframingproblemsandformulatingsolutionsasaresultof
uncertainfuturestatesandprojectobjectiveswasobservedtoexistthroughoutthe
designprocess,andinthiscase,wasnotisolatedtothefrontend.Bothdesignteams
experienceduncertaintyovertheoutcomeoftheproject.Thisuncertaintyoccurredin
bothphasesandpersistedthroughtothefinalstagesofprojectdevelopment.The
uncertaintyobservedoverboththedesignproblemandsolutionthroughoutproject
developmentinthiscaseindicatedthatthefuzzyfrontendwasnotisolatedtothe‘front’
endofthedesignprocess.Thisobservationportraysthefuzzyfrontendasaconsistent
feedbackloop;wherethedesignprocessunfoldsthroughmanyfuzzyiterations.Ina
complexprojectwhichrequiresahighdegreeofassumptionsoverfuturestates,suchas
thiscase,thefuzzyfrontendisobservedasafuzzyend-to-endprocess:
Thatiskindofthehardestpartofourproject.Wedon’tknow
whattheendresultwillbe
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
It’sactuallyonethingIwasthinkingabout,especiallyinthebeginning.
Therewerealotofquestions-wedidn’tknowandhowitwasgoingtowork
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Idon’tknow…Ithinkthatthisishowitisworking.Andthentheotherservice
elementswillexpandontheseotherones…Idon’tknow?
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Theuncertaintyobservedovertheoutcomeandtheproblem-solutionspacethroughout
theprojectcaseprovidedevidenceforafuzzyend-to-endprocess.Thenatureofsuchan
ambiguousandcomplexbriefforcedthedesignteamtofocusonandremainina
112
divergentandholisticmindset.Thepracticalityofremaininginadivergentspace
allowedtheteamtoadaptandevolvesolutionsrapidlyasdetaileduserinsightsemerged.
Achangeinfocusandperspectiveonthedesignsolution(oftenduetoproblem-framing
informedbyuserinsights)wouldthenrestartthe‘fuzzy’phaseasthedesignersre-
iteratedontheoutcome.
Asawayofmanagingcomplexanduncertainfuturestates,anticipationovercomplexity
wasalsoobserved.Anticipationbecameanothercopingmechanismforbothdesign
teamswhenfacedwithcomplexandambiguousinformation.Assumingandanticipating
futurestatesisdefinedinthisanalysisasperformingdifferentcognitiveprocessing
functionstovisionframing.Incontrasttovisionframing,whichfocusesonpositiveand
idealfuturescenarios,anticipatingfuturestateswasobservedasathought-methodto
mentallypreparetheteamforpracticalandfeasiblesolutions.Thesescenariosmaybe
positiveornegative:
Theknowledgeislikethisatthemomentandwearetryingtostructureitabit
morebecauseweknowwehavethreedeliverablesandtheyarekindoflikethis,
buttheycouldbemorelikethis,andwedon’tknowthecomplexityyetaswell
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Theydon’thaveit[thesolution]yet,butit’satoolthatthey[theclient]would
maketohelpthem[thecustomer]determineandrecommendtheideals
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Incontrasttothefuzzyfrontend,withitsfocusonproblemandsolutionframing,
anticipatingfuturestatesdidnotseektoidentifyasingleproblemtoresolve,butrather,
avarietyofpotentialstatesthatmayaffectthevisionframework.Thisthought-method
wasusedasanaidindesigningaroundunknownsinthecomplexandambiguousbrief.
Thus,thisabductiveformofreasoningwasalsousedtosubstituteforgapsinknowledge
andconcreteinformation;ahurdleinbothphasesofprojectdevelopment.This
phenomenonmayindicatethatmethodsusedtofacilitatedesignthinkingmaynot
alwaysbetangible.Ratherthantangiblemethods,thoughtexperimentsmaybejustas
practicalformanaginganddesigningaroundcomplexproblems.
113
4.2.4Designfeelingnotthinking
Emergingfromcomplexuncertaintywasanincreaseinintuition.Bothdesignteams‘felt’
theirwaythroughunknownandconflictingterrain.Knowledgegapsandunknown
futurestatesprovedtoincreasethelevelofintuitivelanguageinbothdesignteams,
influencingthedesignerstoabductively“guesstimate”futurescenariosandidealuser
outcomes.Envisioningpreferredfuturestatesmanifestedthroughtheprocessof
abductivereasoning,andrequireshypotheticalthinkingandimaginationtocreate
scenariosthatarebothidealandrealistic.Anincreaseinabductivereasoningisobserved
inthiscontext,asdesignersguesstimate,hypothesizeandanticipatethefuturestateof
theprojectbrief:
Itiskindofconflicting-howitwasgoingtoreallywork.
That’swhyweeventuallyhadtogowithwhatisourideaoftheideal
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Abductivereasoningiscentraltodesignpractice(Brown,2009;Fraser,2009;Lockwood,
2009;Martin,2009,p.65).Abductivereasoningisdefinedasalogicalprocessthat
utilizesahypothesisinplaceofobservabledata.AsJohnKolko(2010)writes,abduction
is“thehypothesisthatmakesthemostsensegivenobservedphenomenonordataand
basedonpriorexperience.Abductionisalogicalwayofconsideringinferenceor‘best
guess’leaps”(p.20).Abductivereasoningprovedtobeamajorforcebehindthe
navigationaroundcomplexandambiguousprojectbriefssuchasthiscase.
Rationalizationthroughanecdotalexperienceswasobservedassecondarytothe
relianceonintuitionandabductivereasoning.Wheretherewasacrossroadbetween
relyingonuserfeedbackorintuitiontofillinforgapsinknowledge,thedesignteams
oftenchosetotrusttheirownideasandinstincts.Designers‘filledin’formissing
informationusingintuitionandgutinstinct:
[Itwasfrom]ourpersonalinsight,butalsofromtalkingto[theclient].
Youknowtherewerepeoplethere[attheclient]thathadmappedoutthings
aswell.Sosomeofitwasfromtalkingtothem,someofitwasfromourinstinct
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Ithinkthatmighthappenasaresult,becauseyouprobablysay,youknow,goto
thislinkor…(Observation,Phase2,2011)
114
Theuncertaintyandcomplexityoftheprojectbriefamplifieddesignintuition.
Anotherkeyindicatorofintuitionobservedinbothdesignteamswastheuseofsensory
language.Phrasessuchas“Ifeel”dominateddiscussions,showingthatinstinctive
reactionstouncertaintydominatedthedesignprocess:
Ifeellikeitneedstobelikethat
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Ifeellikethethemethatispoppingouthereisthis
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Thecomplex,ambiguousprojectbriefsignificantlyinfluencedtheattitude,mindsetand
approachthatbothdesignteamstooktowardsthedesignprocess.Intuitiveand
abductivereasoningwasobservedasafundamentaldriverforbothdesignteamswhen
facedwithcomplexandambiguousenvironments.
4.2.5Balancingopposingstates
Balancingopposingstatesemergedasadominantpatterninbothphasesoftheproject
andthroughoutthedesignprocess.Itwasobservedthatdesignersinthiscasestudy
operatedonacognitivecontinuumthatfluctuatedbetweenoftenconflictingcognitive
extremes.
Thistensionwasobservedpredominantlyasaninternalstatethatmanifestedthrough
fivemainareas:balancingholisticanddetailedperspectives,balancinginitialinsights
andemerginginformation,balancingbetweenbroadknowledgeandsharpfocus,
balancingintuitionandneedsandbalancingbetweenclarityandcomplexity.Balancing
opposingstatesalsoincludesdivergentorconvergentthinking.
Convergentanddivergentthinkingwasmostevidentduringphasesofsynthesis.
Concurrentwiththedesignthinkingliterature,thispolarityassistedinthedevelopment
ofrefiningtheproblemsolutionspace(Brown,2008,p.68;Pauwelsetal.,2013,p.45)as
115
insightsemerged.Mostimportantly,convergentanddivergentthinkingassistedinthe
developmentofhigh-levelinsightsthatoverarchedandenableddirectiontowardsthe
overallprojectfocus:
Weshouldlookatthebigideasfirstbeforegettingsuckedintothedetails
becausewemightmisssomething,ifyougointothedetailstooquickly
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Thetensionbetweendivingintodetailedanalysisandpreservingaholisticperspective
portrayedafinetightropethatbothdesignteamshadtobalance.Theambiguityand
complexityoftheprojectbriefamplifiedthistension;pushingforaneedtorapidly
convergeanddivergethoughtthroughoutalldevelopmentalphasesinordertograpple
withtheuncertaintyandvariableinformationthatpersistedinthiscontext:
Iguessthatwestartedoffquitehighlevelandthenkindofwentindeep
butnotconsistently.Ithinkit’sjust,thelevelofdeepnessismorelikethis,
…sometimessomethingneedstobewelldeveloped
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Thetensionbetweendetailedandholisticthinkingaffectedtheunfoldingdesignprocess.
Thefluctuationbetweenopenandadaptiveiteration(holisticthinking)andfocusfor
implementation(problemframing)addedevidencetothepersistenceof‘fuzzy’end-to-
endphases.
Anotherdetailobservedwasthebalancebetweentheamountofknowledgerequiredon
thecomplextaskathandandtheabilitytomoveforwardandfocusonanemerging
theme.Thisdirectlyaffectedthedecisionmakingprocessduringdesigndevelopment.
Decidinghowmuchinformationisneededinordertomoveforwardwithaninsight
forcedtheteamtocriticallyanalysehowmuchholisticanddetaileduserdatathey
requiredinordertomoveforward:
Andyesterdaywewentourseparatewaysandthought“Ok.Whatisthelevelof
detailwecangointoandhowmuchknowledgedowehave”
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
116
Sometimeswemighthaveoneortwolittle“ohthat’sagoodidea”butit’skindof,
waituntilitcomestoatheme.Don’tjustfocusononeperson.Wehad5different
[user]profilessoyouwanttoreallymakesurewhatyou’rechangingiswhat
mostpeoplearesayingandnotjustone[person]
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Balancebetweenconflictingstateswasalsoobservedtoexistinprojectmanagement.
Decidingwhethertostructureaplanforuserresearchanddevelopment,orrelease
controlandallowforamoreorganicandadaptableprocess,provedtobeasourceof
conflictionforbothdesignteams.However,ultimately,bothteamspreferredorganicand
adaptableprocesses:
Seeyoucantryandbringitdownanduseitaccordingtosystems,butinthe
enditjustcameout-wehadtojustplayitasthecustomerdidaswell
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Duringsynthesis,balancingalsooccurredbetweenclarityandcomplexity.Bothdesign
teamsgrappledwithpresentingandclarifyingtheinherentcomplexityintheproblem
whilstnotoversimplifyingorcomplicatingtheproject:
ThisispartofwhatI’masking.ifyouarelookingatthat[thediagram]without
knowing,wouldyouunderstandthat?Orisitmakingitmorecomplicated?
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Similarly,thedesignteamwereconstantlyfightingtobalancecustomerand
organisationalneeds.Duringcustomerresearch,thedesignteamfacedthetaskof
balancinginsightsbetweenwhatthecustomersaysversuswhatthecustomerdoes:
Beforetheenactment,afterthefirstworkshops,theideaofthecustomerjourney
thatwasbuilt,wewerelike“ofcoursethisidea!Whydon’twetestit?”andthenit
changed.It’sthesamethinginthecustomerworkshops,theysaysomethingthey
thinkthey’ddobuttheydon’tactuallydointheworkshops
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
117
Concurrentwiththisissuewasthetaskofbalancingclientdesiresversuswhatthe
designteamintuitivelyfeltshouldbedone.Tossingbetweentheidealandpreferred
stateflungdesignersacrossrealmsofidealismandfeasibility:
Wewantedtogetintotheideal,wherewearelike“what’stheideal?”butnotof
fallingintothetrapof“butwecan’tdothis.Thisisn’tgood”-therealitiesand
stuff(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Theuncertaintyaroundthebriefoverhowtheclient’sproductservicewillunfoldadded
totheamplificationofdesignintuition.Whenatacrossroadbetweenidealandreal
states,thedesignersmostoftenchosetobedirectedbytheirgutfeeling.Designintuition
appearedtobeamplifiedincomplexenvironmentssuchasthisprojectcase.Intuition
provedtobeafundamentaldriverandtool,notjustfordirectionincomplexambiguity,
butasafacilitatorformanagingconflictinginformation.
Thispredispositionforbalancingtwoextremesallowedthedesignerstomaintaintheir
open,adaptiveanditerativeprocesswhilstkeepingasenseofdetailanddirectionwhen
required.Theprocessandhabitofoperatingonapendulumbetweenopposingstates
kepttheprojectandprocessadaptive.Thisfluxrestrictstheprocessandthinkingfrom
getting‘caught’ononeextreme,andthusalinearperspective.
4.2.6Sensemakingandsynthesis
Sensemakingandsynthesisconsumedasignificantportionofthedesignprocessinthis
case.SensemakingandsynthesisisdefinedaccordingtoJohnKolko’sdescription
“Essentially,sensemakingisaninternal,personalprocess,whilesynthesiscanbea
collaborative,externalprocess”(Kolko,2010,p.18).
Assensemakingisaninternalprocess,itisobservedasamanifestationthroughtheuse
ofbothvisualandverballanguage.EchoingKolko’sdescriptions,synthesisinthisthesis
depictsthecollaborationofsensemadeinsights;thearrangementofindividualfindings
118
thatareassembledtogetherasagrouptocreatenewknowledgeandmeaning(Kolko
2010,p.13).
Sensemakingdominatedprojectdevelopmentinphase1.Sensemakinginphase1
focusedongrapplingwiththefuturestateoftheproductservicetobeimplemented,
includingthefutureusersofthisservice.Datacollectioninthisphasefocusedon
developinginsightsfromuserfeedbackonafuturescenario.Sensemakingwaslessabout
tryingtoresolveadefinedproblemortestingaproblem-solutionspace,asitwasabout
creatingarealisticunderstandingofidealfuturescenariosoftheproductservicesystem.
Sensemakingeffortscenteredonathematicgroupingofinsights.Thismethodreflects
thetechniqueknowninacademiaastheKJtechnique(Scupin,1997),otherwisealso
knownasaffinitydiagramming.Lowfitools,suchaspostitnotesandbutcherspaper,
wasallthatwasneededtoenablerapidthematicsensemakingofinformationusingthe
affinitydiagrammingmethod.
Theaffinitydiagrammingmethodresultedingroupsthatthedesignersfeltrepresented
‘higherlevel’themes.Thismethodonceagaindepictsandenablesaholisticfocus,which
inturn,dictatesanopenandadaptivedesignprocess.Thethematicgroupingofinsights
duringthesensemakingandsynthesisphaseallowedbothdesignteamstoseebroader
relationships;alleviatingthemselvesfromtheweightinthedetailsofwhatuserssaid.
Theobjectivewiththeaffinitydiagrammingmethodwastofind‘higher’relationships
fromuserinsightsthatcouldapplytoboththeservicejourneyandtheredesignofthe
organizationalsystem.Thissensemakingmethodfacilitatedaholisticandsystemic
perspective;onethatisnecessaryformanagingidealstatesofthewholeproductservice
system.
Hierarchyassistedinthethematicsensemakingofuserdata.Designersinbothphases
madereferenceto‘highlevel’themesandinsightsthatemergedfromuserdataand
whichcouldnotfitdirectlywithindetaileddevelopmentoftheservicesystem.Specificto
phase1,residualinsightsleftoverfromaffinitydiagrammingwereinterpretedbythe
designteamashigherconceptualthemeswhichmayapplytotheoverallprojectintent:
Solikewekindoffoundthatthereweresomehigh-level
themesofhowalotofourfindingsarebreakingdown
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
119
WhenIwaswritingtheinsightsthatIhad,andobservations,someofthemwere
highlevel-theywerelessspecific.Thereweremorehigh-levelinsights
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Synthesisinvolvedatriangulationofdatasources;userworkshops,enactments,client
reportsandsecondarycasestudyresearch.Synthesisandsensemakingstagesinthe
designprocessisoftendepictedasaphaseorstepthatisequaltootherphasesinthe
process.Whilsttheorderofphasesinthisstudyremainedintunewithcommon
conventionofthedesignprocess,itwouldportrayafairerpicturetodistinguishthetime
devotedtodifferentphasesindifferentorders,orcases,ofdesignpractice.Fordesign
thinkingincomplexenvironmentssuchasthiscasestudy,sensemakingandsynthesis
contributedtowelloverhalfofthedesignprocesstimeline.
4.2.7Visualisation
Visualisationisanintegralpartofthedesignprocessatanyscaleandorderofdesign
practice.Visualisationisdefinedinthisthesisasanymethodortechniquethattransfers
internalcognitiveinformationintothetangiblerealmthroughformatsthatrelyon
organicspatialorientation.Transferringknowledgeintowordsinalinearspreadsheet
wouldnotbeclassifiedasavisualisationtechnique,butpositioningwordsinfluidspatial
contexttodepictrelationships(forexample,mindmapping)wouldclassifyasan
exampleofvisualisation.Thus,fluidityofspatialpositioningisregardedaskeyfor
identifyingexamplesofvisualisationinthisdissertation.Inaddition,visualisationisalso
acknowledgedasaninternalaction.Whenintheabsenceofobservableandtangible
visualmethods,itiscodedthroughdescriptivelanguagecues.
Arangeofvisualisationtechniqueshavebeenexemplifiedinthiscase.Eachmethodand
manifestationofvisualisationhasauniquefacilitatoryrolethataffectsthedesign
processanddesignthinking.Itisobservedinthiscasethatvisualisationoperatesasa
corefacilitatorandenablerofemergentphenomenaindesignpractice,andonethathas
consequentialeffectsthroughoutprojectdevelopment.
120
4.2.7.1Visualisationasfacilitatorforco-operationand
collaboration
Visualmethodsusedintheprojectcaseincludedsketching,prototypingandmapping.
Prototypingwasemployedearlyoninprojectdevelopment,asamethodforobtaining
insightsforiteration.Prototypingtooktheformofuserjourneysandscenarioscarried
througharoleplayingapproach.Thepurposeofservicejourneyprototypeswastogain
knowledgeandinsightsonuserreactionstopotentialservicescenarios.Thismethodof
knowledgeinspirationandstimulationhasbeenacknowledgedinliterature(Seidel&
Fixson,2013;Keil,2014).
Prototypinginthisprojecttookontwomeanings:forthedesignteaminthefirstphaseit
wasamethodnotfortestingfinaldesigns,butavehicleforgainingknowledgeand
inspirationfromusersonwhatthefinaldesignshouldlooklike.Forthedesignteamin
thesecondphase,serviceprototypingwasemployedasamethodofenabling
organizationalcollaborationandfocusedonhowbesttotransferknowledgeobtainedin
phase1throughuserscenariostoclientteams.
Usingrole-playingasamediumforprototypingservicescenariosinvitedusersand
clientstostepintothedesigners’‘imaginationspace’.Storytellingwasusedtofacilitate
imaginativeuserscenariosandjourneystoenhancevisualisationofthescenario
describedvianarration.Bothdesignteamshadaninclusiveattitudetowardscreative
visualisationandutilisedvisualmethodstosupportthesynchronizationofperspectives
betweenthemselvesandthestakeholders.Roleplaying,sketchesanduserjourneyswere
employedtohelpsyncviewpointsbetweenclient,useranddesignerforthepurposeof
sharingthevisionofintent.
Anobservedcharacteristicofthedesignprocesswastheimpactthatplayful,‘primitive’
techniqueshadonfacilitatingimaginationandcollaborativebrainstorming.Bothdesign
teamsharnessedraw,low-fidelitytechniquesusingbasicmaterialssuchasbutchers
paper,post-itnotesandcardboardmockups[Fig.11].Theserawmaterialsencouraged
unrefinedexpressionsofthoughtthatinspiredfluidanduninhibitedcollaborationand
ideation.Messy,rawmaterialsallowedcollaborativeteamsto‘play’andtouchonaraw
learningexperience;interactiveexperiencesthatarebasicandsecondtonature:
121
Ihadalittledeskandpropssetup.Sosometimeswe’dhavethecustomerdecide
“okI’mgoingtogotothestore”,youactuallyneedtogetupandcomevisitthe
store,anditslike“No,no,youneedtogetupandbethecustomerlikeyou’vejust
walkedintothestore”andwhenyoudothattheyreallygetitandarelike“oohok
yeah,yeah”andtheyseeyoutakeitveryseriouslywhichhelps
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Fig.11Exampleoflow-fimaterials
Externalizingideasthroughprototypesandsketcheshasimpactbeyondjustflushingout
ideasforrapidideation(Brown,2009,p.87;Geroetal,2001,p.274;Liedtka,2011,p.17).
Incollaborativevisualactivity,aswithsketching,low-fiprototypesenableplayful
emotivereactionswithintheteam,sparkingexcitement,interactionandplayful
imagination.PlayfulnessthroughdesignhasbeeninvestigatedbyVaajakallioand
Mattelmäki,viaadiscussionondesigngames.Theseauthorsarguethata“play
framework”existsthroughdesigngamessuchasroleplayingandaimtoelicit
empatheticunderstanding,collaborationandideageneration(Vaajakallio&Mattelmäki,
2014).
122
Onthesubjectofrole-playing,TimBrown(2009)providesabriefjustification,stating
“Researchsuggeststhatthisformofplayisnotonlyfunbutalsohelpsestablishinternal
scriptsbywhichwenavigateasadults”(p.96).ThisargumentissupportedbyTvesky
(2010,p.500)whosuggeststhatvisualcommunicationextendstoprehistory;preceding
writtenlanguageandoneoftheearliestsignsofculture:
Thereisastageandwe’recreatingthesetsforit[theserviceenactment].The
setsareactuallyjustgoingtokindofbeallsetupsoyouknow,there’sthe
outside,thegarden.Sothere’sactuallymovementandthereistherealphysical
journeyonthestageandtheycanactuallyseethat
(Observation,Phase2,2011).
Therawcharacteristicofthevisualtoolsusedincollaborativeactivitybreakdown
internalbarriersforideation.Aprimitiveapproachtovisualisation—usingrough
sketches,lowfimaterialsandunrefinedtools—breaksdownexpectationandpressure
toprovide‘good’ideasorrefinedsolutions.Asaresultofutilisingraw,amateurmethods,
collaborativevisualactivityinthiscasebecamemoreplayful,openandnon-judgmental.
Additionally,forthedesignteaminphase1,lowfiprototypesprovidedaplayful
environmentforuserrole-playing.Theplayfulnessofroleplaying,coupledwiththeraw,
lowfimaterialprototypesused,combinedtocreateanenvironmentthatfostered
unintimidatinginteractionenablingcommunicationandimaginationbetweenthedesign
teamandtheuser.Similarly,inphase2,userscenarioswererawandrough;usinghand
drawnimagesonbutcherspaperas‘backdrops’forscenesintheservicescenario[See
Fig.11].Inaddition,clientteamsinphase2wereprovidedwithpost-itnotes,butchers
paperandthicktextastoexpresstheirideasonthejourneyperformedbeforethem
4.2.7.2Designthinkingcalibration
Sketchingandmappingwasfoundtobefundamentalinthedevelopmentofprocessing,
communicating,andtransferringcomplexinformation;bothforcollaborativeand
individualsensemaking.Sketchingwasobservedtobevitalnotjustforcommunicating
informationandinsights,butasamediatorforlanguageandefficiencyfordecision
making(Lindbergetal.2008,p.249).Supportingexistingresearchonthetopic(Carlgren
123
etal.,2013,p.6;Drews,2009;Tvesky,2010,p.500),sketchingwasalsoobservedto
resolveconfusionbetweenparticipantsandexternaliseinternalvisionsandideasintoa
tangibleandcommunalspace.KeesDorstexplainsthatvisualrepresentationsof
problemsandsolutions“allowsthedesignertodeveloptheirideasinconversationwith
theserepresentations”(Dorst,2011).Similardescriptionshavebeenmadeonvisual
artefacts,exemplifiedasaformofthinkingwithyourhands,aswellasawayofengaging
inconversationswiththedrawing(SchöninRylander,2009,p.5).
ExtendingonDorstandothers,itwasobservedthatengagingwithvisualartefacts
developsideasinacollaborativeandcommunalconversationamongstteammembers,
andnotjustasaprivateconsultationwiththeartifactanditsmaker(Schön,1983).Inco-
creatingaholisticuserjourney(phase1)andorganisationalcapability(phase2),the
designteamcalibratedtheirunderstandingusingvariousvisualcuessuchassketching
andmapping.Thesimultaneousactofcognitivesensemakingthroughvisualisationina
collaborativegroupsettingprovidedthefabricforcollectivethought.Thisactionenables
cognitivecalibration;anemergentcollectiveconsciousnessofthedesignteamengaging
withandbuildinguponthesensemakersreflectiveprocessthroughvisuallanguage.A
brainstormingsessionbetweendesignmemberstypifiedthisaction;withonemember
thinkingthroughsketching,andinvitingothermembersintohiscognitiveprocess:
YouknowwhatI’mactuallygoingtodo,atthesametime,
I’mgoingtodraweverythingout
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
I’mjustsketchingawayhere,…eachoftheseliveonthatscale,
butnotnecessarilybepartsofit…
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Sketchingwasobservedasatooltoinviteteammembersto‘sync’withanindividual’s
perspective.Asynchronisedconversationemergedfrominteractionswithinthevisual
realm.Thevisualartifactprovidesacentralandcommonfocusforfacilitatingthe
‘buildingupon’groupmembersthoughtsandideas(Vaajakallio&Mattelmäki,2014).
Thismethodfacilitatesacollectivedesignmind:
124
Noworries!Draweverywhere!Soitlookslikeyou’vegotthesetwothingslike
thatandthenyou’vegotthesethingslikethis,which,dothat…maybe?
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Oh,OK.That’sinteresting![laughs]…thislookslikeplanetstome!
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Thesynchronizationofunderstandingmediatedandenabledthroughvisualcuessuchas
sketchingandmappingincreasedspeedofcognitiveprocessingamongsttheteam.Visual
methodsenablefreedomtojoininand‘surf’anothermembers’wave,buildingonideas
presentedinarapidanditerativeway.This‘building’uponideaswasanemergent
phenomenonobservedwhendesignerscollaboratearoundacentralvisualcue.The
basic,rawmaterialsusedforvisualisationtogetherarecrucialforfacilitatingopenand
unashamedcollaboration.Whenwordsandtheirdefinitionscanconfuseandalienate
participants,visualisationservedasalanguageallparticipantscanunderstandwithout
riskofalienation.
4.2.7.3Visualisationforcomplexpractice
Designingforacomplexandambiguousprojectbriefaspresentedinthiscase,required
specificvisualmethodsforsensemakingandsynthesis.Sensemakingcomplexitywas
observedtoexistasaco-creativeprocessbetweenunfoldingvisualisationsandthe
designteam.Sketchingandmappingwereprimarymethodsusedto‘co-visualise’andco-
createsensemakingandsynthesisfortheclarificationofcomplexideas.Visualising
complexinformationaimstotransferdenseinformationataglance.Duringbothphases
ofdesigndevelopment,mappingwasacentralvisualartifactthatenhancednotjustthe
creationofnewideas,butclarifyingandevolvingcomplextrainsofthought:
Letmeprintoutacoupleandputitupsoeveryonecanusethis,
inareallyvisualkindofgraphicalmap
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
125
Wehadaweekortwoweeksofplanningtheenactmentwhichwasputting
postersonthewall,piecesofpaper,seeing…
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Ithinkanothernextstepistighteninguptheblueprints,fromthevaluein[the
service]becausetherearegapsinthatfirstlayeroftheorganisational
journey...butIthink...havingallofthismakesthateasier
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Bothdesignteamsvisualisedasystemtokeepthefocusholisticandclear.Blueprinting
andsketchingweremethodsusedformanaginganddirectingthedesignprocess.Inboth
teams,blueprinting(mapping)offeredaholisticperspectivewithoutbecomingbogged
downindetail,astructurefordirectionwithoutfocusingonlinearproblems,anda
frameworkbroadenoughtomaneuverandmaintainanopenandadaptiveprocess.
Mappingwasaformidablevisualtoolthatencouragedholisticthinkingforcognitive
processingofcomplexinformation.
Fig.12.DesignteaminPhase2sketchingtheorganisationalecosystem
126
Oftenreferredtoasamethodutilizedintheformativephasesofthedesignprocess
(Blomkvist&Holmlid,2010,p.3;Kimbell,2009,p.251;Ranjan,2012,p.52)sketchingwas
observedinthefinalstagesofprojectdevelopment.Needingtosynthesizethe
organizationalecosystem,thedesignteaminphase2usedrapidsketchingtovisualize
theirunderstandingofhowtheorganizationalecosystemwasgoingtowork:
Justtovisualize,youknow,it’snotoneareayoucanfix,youhavetokeepit
consistentthroughoutthewholejourney(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Mappingandsketchingusedasatoolformanagingcomplexityalsoinfluencedholistic
andsystemicthinking.Throughutilisingmappingforclarificationofcomplexity,the
methodenhancedoverarchingperspectivesofthedesignersaswellasmaintaininga
systemicandholisticdesignprocess.Mappingasamethodexistsinharmonywiththe
overarchingvisionframework,strengtheninghighercognitiveperspectivesonthe
project.Furthermore,mappinguserpathwaysthroughtosketchingblueprintsofthe
organisationalsystemwasconductedtoprovideaframeworkformanagingand
accountingforfuturecomplexproblems.
4.2.7.4Visualisationforimaginationandanalogicalreasoning
Imaginationisdescribedasthe“genesisofideation”(Wylant,2008,p.7).Thusitcanbe
proposedthatimaginationisanunderlyingdriverforthevisualisationoftacit
knowledgeinthiscasestudy.Imaginationiswhatenablesdesignteamstotransfer
complexideasintovisualform.Theambiguousnatureofthedesignproblemincreased
relianceonvisualimageryandthus,imagination,asbothdesignteamswereforcedto
imaginefuturestatesandtovisualizecomplexinformation:
Yeahthinkaboutitlike…alinktovideo…
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
BiggerthebetterbecausethevisualthatI’vegotinmyheadis…
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
127
Duringcomplexsensemakingactivity,ahighdegreeofanalogicalreasoningwas
performed.Theeffectofthisformofreasoninginthiscasewastwofold:usedasa
vehiclefortranslatingideastogroupmembersandasasourceforcollectiveideation.In
responsetoFig.9,onedesignerexclaimed,“that’sinteresting!Thislookslikeplanetsto
me!?”(Observation,Phase2,2011),thenelaborated:
[FocusingonFig.9]WhatI’mwonderingwiththosethings,aretheypartofthe
loopordotheyexistofftheorbitofoneofthosethings…soit’slikethis,andthen
maybe…thiswholelittlethinglikethat…soyou’vegotthisthingorbitingandthen
thislittlebithangingoffthere…isthathowitsworks?
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Theuseofconceptualmetaphorsappearedtooccurwhenthedesignerswereina
positiontosynthesisecomplexinsightsforsolutionideation.Analogicalreasoningwas
observedinthesecondphaseoftheprojectcasewheremuchofthecognitive
sensemakingwasfocusedonsynthesizinginsights.
4.2.8Co-creation,collaborationandfacilitation
Accountsobservedinthisprojectcaseaimtoexplorehowdesignersfacilitate;what
methodsandtoolstheychoosetoenablecollaboration,thedifferentfacilitatorroles
thatexist,andfinally,theimpactthatbothrolesandmethodshaveonthedesignprocess.
4.2.8.1Facilitatingperspectives
Thefacilitativeprocessinthiscasefocusedonchangingperspectivesandshifting
existingmindsets.Facilitationinthesecondphaseoftheprojectwasfocusedon‘framing’
theclient’sperspective;toprepandempowertheclientwiththeabilitytoidentify
insightsandissuesforthemselves.Thedesignteamaimedtofacilitateadifferentwayof
thinking;tomotivatetheclienttowardsadesignerlyframeofmind.Designliterature
emphasisesproblemframingasanactivitycentraltodesignpractice,yetperspective
framingemergedasanequallyimportantissuefordesigndevelopmentincomplex
environments:
128
Butitwasacompletelydifferentoutcometothis.Weknewwasgoingtohappen.
Buttheclientisnowsothrilled,thattherehasbeensomuchprogressioninthe
waypeoplearethinkinganditactuallytookplaceontheday.Inthebeginning,
theorgkeptthinkingaboutwhattheyneedtogivethecustomerandwhatwe
wereaskingfromthemwastothinkaboutitfromtheirperspective...not
tosay,“ohthecustomerneedsthis!”andweweresaying“no!we’retellingyou,
thatthisiswhatthecustomerwants,canyoudoit?”Soduringtheday[service
enactment],therewasagradualshifttowardstheendofthedaywherethe
organisationwasactuallythinkingfromwithinandnotprojectingwhatthey
thinkthecustomerneeds.Sothat’samassive,massive,massiveshift
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Thefacilitationaroundshiftingperspectivesfundamentallyaimedtoemancipatethe
clientfromengrainedattitudesofoperation.Theefforttowards‘freeing’theclientfrom
cognitiveconstraintswassupportedbydesignmethodsgearedtowardsbreakingup
internalorganizationalstructures.Thus,thedesignobjectiveinthisphasewasequally
thatofredesigningmindsetsasitwasredesigningorganizationalandserviceoperations.
Theteamaimedtoachievethisthroughtheco-creationofservicedeliverables;using
methodsthataimedtomixupinternalorganizationalchannels:
Ithinkit’saboutconsolidationandnotquestioningout.We’vegotenough
informationonit.AndTuesday[theserviceenactment]isaboutconsolidating,
It’saboutgettingthemtounderstandasacollective,asateam,howandwhatit
istheyneedtodotogethertoactuallytellthat
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Facilitatingadifferentmodeofthinkingiscenteredaroundinspiringtheclientto
generatepositivethoughtstowardsorganisationalpossibilities.Thisfacilitationthus
centeredoneradicatinglinearmindsetsandnarrow,negativethinking.Thedesignteam
hopedtosparkopencollaborationbetweeninternaldepartmentsintheorganisation.
Thedesignteamwantedtoempowertheclienttoseeandidentifyproblemsfor
themselvesinordertoindependentlyframesolutions.Theambitionofthedesignteam
wasnottopreachservicesolutionsbutfacilitateempowermentandmotivationforthe
clientorganizationtomoveforwardwithadesignerlymindset:
129
Withthesemulti-streamteamsthereisforceforcollaborationbetweenthem.
What[thedesignagency]willdoiswewill,thereisthreeofus,andwewillhelp
facilitatethesetalksamongstthesepeople.Thenwewillbrainstormsessionsby
askingthemthingslike“what’stheoverlap?Howcanweworktogether?What
gapsarethere?
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Thisstageofthedesignprocessembodiesaphaseofknowledgetransfer;the
communicationofinsightsobtainedbythedesignteaminphase1.Theorganizational
capabilitydefinedbythedesignteaminphase2isaboutcapability,learningand
teaching.Themethodfortransferringknowledgefromphase1ismorethancultivatinga
designculture.Teachingbecomesasignificantvehicleforfacilitatingandempowering
organizationalcapability.
4.2.8.2Co-creatingempowerment
Choosinganappropriatemethodforclientcollaborationandco-creationcarries
significantpressurefortheeffectthatthemethodhasonboththeclientandonthe
designprocess.Inphase2,role-playing(serviceenactment)wasaneducationalvehicle
tocommunicatekeyfindingsfromuserresearchtotheclient.Ratherthanpreachtothe
clientwhatneededtobedone,thedesignteamaimedtofacilitateteaching;prompting
participantstoindependentlyanalyseandunderstandthecapabilitiesrequiredtomake
theidealenactedservicejourneyareality.
Thepurposeofthisserviceenactmentwastobreakdowninternalhierarchiesbyinviting
departmentswithintheorganisationwhohaveresponsibilityinenablingtheideal
journeytohappen.Thedesignteamchoseto‘tearapart’thedepartmentteams
participatingintheworkshop.Individualsbelongingtodifferentdepartmentswereput
inmixedgroups;forminginterdisciplinaryprojectteams.Thedesignteamwantedto
disruptexisting‘silos’andforceteammemberstointeractbetweendepartmentsthat
wouldnotnormallycommunicate,aswellasunderstandtheresponsibilitieseach
departmentholdsovertheprocess:
130
Thistimeactingisn’tadescription.It’savehicleforprovokingthoughtwithyou
guys[theclient]topullyourselfoutofyouroperationalstreamsandinteractand
worktogetherinwhatwe’retryingtodemonstratehere.We’renotspeakingto
detailwerespeakingtotheintentiontodemonstratethings.Becausethat
hazynessletsthemfigureoutbetweenthemselves“wouldyoudothat?Would
youdothis?Ithinkweframeitnotasacompromisebutasadesignanduseful
wayofdoingthings
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Theaimoftheserviceenactmentwastoallowtheclienttoco-createideasandsolutions
themselves,whilstaimingtorealisethedependenciesandcommunicationthatisneeded
tomaketheidealjourneyhappen.Thismethodof(forced)collaborationaimedtoenable
andempowertheorganisationtoseeproblemsforthemselves,inamoreholisticand
customercenteredmanner.Thiswouldalsoempowertheclienttotakeresponsibilityfor
theirpositionandfortheserviceoutcome.
Thedesignteamemphasizedtheirintenttobreakdownhierarchiesinordertoempower
allemployeestoparticipateinservicedevelopment.Thiswasrealizedthroughcreating
cross-departmentalgroupsforcollaborationduringtheserviceenactmentworkshop.
Additionally,thisapproachaimedtodestroypowerhierarchies;relievingemployees
fromthepressureofneedingto‘perform’infrontoftheirdepartmentmanager,andfear
fromfeelingunabletoshareideas.
4.2.8.3Mediationinco-creation
Inadditiontofacilitatingperspectivesandempoweringindividualstakeholders,
mediationplayedanimportantroleinthedesignprocess.Mediationwasobserved
predominantlyinphase1,wherethedesignteamactedasrepresentativesofthe
customerstheygainedinsightsfrom.Methodscarriedoutinphase2weredrivenby
empathyobtainedfromuserresearchcollectedinphase1.Theenactmentmethodwas
usedtotransferuserknowledgetotheclient.Assuch,thedesignerssawthemselvesas
the‘voice’oftheuser:
131
Sothereisalotofdirectioninvolvedheretosayyouknow,ifyouwerePhil
whatwouldbeyourthing?Soyou’resittingonthecouch,whatisthenatural
thing?Thenpeoplestartgettingintotheirownroles,sointhisenactmentwe
needtoachievethis
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
That’sthethingbecausewearealwaystalkingonbehalfofthecustomer.
Peopleseethatasthecustomerthinking,thecustomer’svoice.
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Co-creationfocusedontheuserandtheco-creationofidealfuturescenarios.Client
collaborationfocusedoninvitinginternaldepartmentsfromtheorganizationto
participateinaserviceenactmentthatoperatedasavehicleforknowledgetransfer
ratherthanco-creationoftheorganizationalstrategy.
4.2.9Relationshipwiththeclient
Observationonclientcollaborationrevealedinsightsintothedifferentperspectivesthat
thedesignteamandtheclienthold.Anemergent,yetfundamental,partoftheproject
wasforthedesignteamsto‘teach’theclienthowtomanageproblemsfromadesign
perspectivewhilstshiftingtheirmodesofthinking.Aninterestingobservationshowing
subtledifferencesbetweentheclientanddesignteamisthroughlanguageofexpression.
Languageusedbythedesignteamwasconsciouslyinclusive:
Wearetailoringourmessageforourparticularaudience.Thisbithereiswhat
wegottogether...sothisisthe[referstoreport]sothey[theclient]knowwhat
theyarereadingissomethingtheyhavecontributedtocreating.
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
132
Usinganinclusivedialoguedidnoteradicateclientexpectations.Whensynthesizing
insightsfromtheenactmentworkshopinphase2,theclientteamexpectedthedesign
teamtotakecontroloverthefinaldesignsolution.Thedesigner’sperspectivewasnotin
linewiththisexpectation,astheaimfortheteamwastohighlighttheneedforinternal
collaboration,andmostimportantly,shiftingperspectives,modesofthinkingandideas
aroundserviceandorganizationaldelivery.Intheend,thedesignteamwaspressuredto
createasolutionfromtheinsightsobtainedduringtheenactment,ratherthanco
creatingasolutionwiththeclientteamaswasplanned:
Client:Oksoweneedtodivvyupnow.Doweneedtotalkmoreintermsofa
grouporneedtobuild?
Designer:Weneedtobuild
Client:Youneedtobuild,yeah..
Client:Soistheresomethingwe[referstopartner]canbedoing?
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Theresponsibilitiesoverimplementationwereunclearinthisproject.Whatwasclear
wastheperspectiveandexpectationsthattheclienthadonimplementation.Theclient
emphasizedtheneedforpracticalsolutionsthatcouldbesuccessfullyimplemented:
Weneedtodoitasawaythatworks,notjustaservicethatarrivesandfalls
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Thepracticalmindsetoftheclientteamconflictedwiththeemotiveandidealizedvisions
ofthedesignteam.Thisdifferenceinperspectivewasalsoevidentinthewaytheclient
anddesignteamexpressedthemselveswhencollaborating.Identifiedin1.4,thedesign
teamoftenexpressedthemselvesinanemotivemannersignifiedbystatements
emphasisinghowtheyfeltabouttheproblemathand.Incontrast,emotivelanguagewas
notexpressedfromtheclientandlogicappearedtodominate:
Designer:Ifeellikethethemethatispoppingouthereis…
Client:Ithinkit’sjustchangingittoinformationmanagement…
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Innorecordedobservationdidtheclientexpresstheirthoughtsinanemotiveway.The
subtleemphasisonexpressionissignificantforidentifyingthedifferencesbetweena
133
predominantlylinearandpracticalmindsetheldbytheclientversustheemotiveand
inclusiveexpressionfromthedesigners.
Thedifferentmodesofthinkinginrelationtodealingwithproblemswasasourceof
tensionbetweentheclientanddesignteam.Thisdifferenceincommunicationfurther
emphasizestheconflictingframesthattheclientanddesignerhold.Collaborativeand
inclusivelanguage;throughdialogueandvisualartefacts,alleviatedsomeofthistension,
butstillstruggledtofullysynthesiseandharmoniseperspectives.
4.2.10Systemsthinking
Aholistic,strategicandsystemicperspectiveweremindsetsthatpersistedthroughout
theproject.Additionally,thesemindsetsbecameacopingmechanismfordealingwith
complexityandambiguity.Inbothphases,thedesignoutcomewasnotclear.Thesecond
phaseofprojectdevelopmentmostevidentlydepictedaholisticandsystemicapproach.
Yet,systemicandstrategicsolutionsdidnotevolveuntilfinalstagesofdevelopment.
Designincomplexpracticegravitatestowardsintangiblesolutions,butwithoutstrategy
forimplementationthesolutionscanlosepracticalfocus.Thisreasoncouldbeattributed
towardswhythedesignteaminphase2felttheneedtovisualizethedesignofthe
servicesystemfortheclient:
IfeelasthoughImyselfneedtostartbuildingawireframeforthismodelandum,
justseehowthisallfeedsintoeachother
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Fromourfindingstoday,howthey[themes]allworktogetherasanecosystem
(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Knowledgeplayedacrucialroleindeterminingwhetherthedesignteamcouldshiftinto
asystemiclevelofthinking.Inparticular,theabilitytotransformholisticinsightsinto
strategicoutcomes.Knowledgewaspivotaltomovingforward:
134
Sothestrategyiskindofthesmallerpartoftheidealjourney.Wecan’tsay
wearebuildingthestrategybecausewehaven’tdonethedetailedresearch
(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Thequestionoverhowmuchknowledgetoobtaininordertomoveforwardintoa
strategicmindsetprovedtobeanobstacleindesignthinkingpracticeinthiscase.This
invitesthequestionofwhetheradesignerlyapproachisenoughtoadequatelyaddress
issuesonthislevelofcomplexity.
Thedesignteaminphase2becameapprehensiveoverconvergingtheirfocus
prematurely.Thedesignteammadeconsciouseffortstowards‘refraining’fromdiving
intoearlyinsightsandideas.Asaresultofthemethodsandmindsetsdescribed,the
designersprolongedthedivergentphaseuntillateinprojectdevelopment.Thus,shifting
intoaphaseoftransitionwhereinsightsaretranslatedintopracticalsolutions(that
requiresconvergentthought)wasalsodelayed.
135
4.2.11Conclusion
Observingthedesignerlyapproachforcomplexproblemsinthiscaserevealed
limitationsinitsapproach.Afundamentalproblemforthedesignteaminthiscasewas
translatinginsightsfromcustomerresearchintotangibleopportunitiesfor
organizationalchange.Centraltothislimitationisthelackofstrategicinsightduring
ideation.Furthermore,timeconstraintrestrictedthedepthforwhichthedesignteam
couldtranslateinsightsintoarticulatesolutions.
Thefindingsinthiscasesuggestthatthenatureofthedesignbriefpresentedacomplex
problemthatwasambiguousandilldefined.Thecomplexuncertaintyembeddedinthe
briefinfluencedthedesignteamtocreateavisionframework;anoverarchingideal
basedonuserresearch.Thisframeworkservedtodirecttheteamtowardsan(ill
defined)outcome.
Theoutcomedeliveredbythedesignteamswasbasedontwobroadaspects:user
researchandorganizationaldelivery.Thedesignteaminthefirstphasedelivereda
documentdetailingknowledgeobtainedfromuserresearchonanidealservicescenario.
Thisinformationformedthebasisofthedeliverableinthesecondphase;anenactment
workshopfocusingonorganizationalcapabilitytoimplementtheservicesolution.The
secondphaseisthestageinthedesignprocesswhereinsightsrequiredatransitionfrom
holisticideationtotangibleandpracticalimplementation.Thestepfromtransitioninto
implementationrequiresstrategictranslation.Systemicthinkingsurfacedthroughout
thiscasethroughhigh-levelinsightsandholisticperspectivesonthedesignproblemand
outcome,yetlittlediscussionwasobservedonhowtostrategicallyapplytheknowledge
createdduringdesigndevelopment.Itcanbearguedthatstrategywasamissing
componentinthedesignprocessthatcouldhaveenabledthetransitionfrominsightinto
implementation.
136
5.
CaseStudy2
ThesecondcasestudyselectedforthisdissertationfocusesontheAustralianTaxation
Office.TheAustralianTaxationOfficehasbecomeagloballeaderindesignthinkingfor
publicservicesandprovidesanexampleofhowadesignerlyapproachisappliedinlarge
andcomplexgovernmentalorganisations.TheAustralianTaxationOfficehas
championeddesignthinkingfornearly20years(York,Wicks-Green&Golsby-Smith,
2010).Itisthelongstandingcommitmenttowardscultivatingadesignculturethat
makestheAustralianTaxationOffice(henceforthATO)anappropriatecasetoexamine.
Thiscasestudyfulfillsallthreecriteriadescribedinchapter,3.ResearchFramework.
Thiscaseshowcasesadesignthinkingapproach,operatesinacomplexenvironment
(pertainingto“third”and“fourth”orderdesign)andemphasizesintangibleoutcomes
ratherthanproduct-centeredsolutions.Inaddition,guidedbyJunginer’s(2009;2012)
descriptionsonthepositionofdesignactivity,designthinkingactivityoperates
internallytotheATOandthusorganisationalsystem.
TheATOisanexemplarofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentsduetotheinherent
wickednessinvolvedinbothdesigningtaxationsolutionsforanationanddesigning
withinandforasystemthathousesover20thousandemployees(AustralianTaxation
Office,2013,p.5).Additionally,designingwithabroadnetworkofinter-disciplinary
stakeholdersfromvariousbackgroundsanddepartmentsprovidesachallengingand
complexenvironmentfordesignthinkingpractice.
137
HerbertSimon(1996)ismostfamouslyquotedforstating“everyonedesignswho
devisescoursesofactionaimedatchangingexistingsituationsintopreferredones”
(p.111).Thisphraseismostcommonlyreferredtoasplaceholderforauniversal
definitionofdesignanddesignthinking.Simoncontinuesfromthisiconicstatement,
providinganaccuratedescriptionofwheredesignthinkinganddesignpracticehas
evolvedtotoday“Theintellectualactivitythatproducesmaterialartifactsisnodifferent
fundamentallyfromtheonethatprescribesremediesforasickpatientortheonethat
devisesanewsalesplanforacompanyorasocialwelfarepolicyforastate.”(Simon,
1996,p.111).Thedesignindustryhasextendeditspracticetoincludethedesignofand
forhealthcare,largecorporationsandgovernmentpolicies.TheATOhasbecomeaglobal
leaderinapplyingdesignthinkingingovernmentpracticeandisanexampleofhow
capabilitiescanbecreatedtoenableadesignerlyapproachincomplexenvironments.
5.1ThedevelopmentofdesignthinkingintheATO
DesignthinkingwasintroducedtotheATOinthemid1990swhenmanagementrealised
theneedtostreamlineservicesandincreasetaxcomplianceamongstAustralians.Chief
CommissionerTrevorBoucherinitiatedaturningpointfortheATOinthelate1980sand
establishedavisionthathassinceflourishedintoaglobalexamplefordesignthinkingin
complex,governmentalorganisations(Yorket.al,2010).Armedwiththeaidfroma
seniordesignresearcher,aleadingAustralianuniversityandaconsultancypractice,the
ATObeganimplementingadesignthinkingculturewithinitsorganisationbytheturnof
the90s(Yorket.al,2010).
ThreekeythemesdefinedthechangeintheATO:facilitationofstrategicconversations,
designoftheAustralianincometaxactanddesignthinkingembeddedwithintheentire
taxationsystem(Yorket.al,2010).Anothermajorturningpointfortheimplementation
ofdesignwithintheATOarrivedin1999withtheAustralianReviewofBusiness
Taxation(Junginger,2006,p.258;ReviewofBusinessTaxation,1999).Thisreview(also
knownastheRalphReview)wastheresultoflengthyinvestigationsintooperations
withintheATO,initiatingdevelopmentsthatwouldseedesignpracticeanddesign
thinkingemployedholisticallythroughouttheorganisation(Terrey,2012,p.4).The
AustralianReviewofBusinessTaxationinspiredthecreationoftheIntegratedTax
138
Designprojectthataimedtoformallyacknowledgeandimplementdesignpractices
withintheATO.TheIntegratedTaxDesignprojectoutlinedcapabilitiesfortaxpolicy,
legislationandadministrativeprocesses,leadbyJohnBodyanddirectedbyahighprofile
teamincludingTonyGoldsby-Smith,RichardBuchananandJimFaris(Macdonald,2005,
p.8).TheIntegratedTaxDesignprojectdrewheavilyon“insightsprovidedbyproduct
designliteratureandwasmentoredbyinternationaldesignexperts”(D’Ascenzo,2004,
p.2).Theemphasiswasonhuman-centereddesignandhowthisperspectivecould
improveoperationsintheATO(Junginger,2006,p.259).
TheATOturnedtodesignthinkingtoremedynegativeassociationsthatAustraliansheld
towardsthetaxationsystem.TheATOrealisedthattheAustralianpublicviewedthe
taxationsystemas“bureaucraticanddefensive”(Godfrey1994inYorket.al,2010).In
responsetothisrealisation,theATOturnedtodesignthinkingtoimproveefficiencyand
compliance.Thehuman-centeredmindsetunderpinningdesignthinkingintroduceda
freshinsightintodesigningforandempoweringbothusersandemployeesoftheATO
(Junginger,2006,p.261).TheintroductionofdesignthinkingintheATOrequiredthe
organisationtoundertakea“paradigmshift”(Terrey,2012,p.5).Thisparadigmshiftwas
leadbydesignexpert,RichardBuchanan.Buchananwasonememberofateamofdesign
mentorswhocontributedtothedevelopmentofcreatingdesigncapabilityintheATO.
BuchananandtheATOteamexploredthreebroadcategoriesfundamentaltothe
functionoftheAustraliantaxofficesystem:systems,processesandpeople(Junginger,
2006,p.262).Thesecategoriesareaconstantconsiderationbehinddesigneffortsinthe
ATOtoday:
Byinvolvingusersintheplanning,developmentandimplementationof
solutions,successfuldesignensuresthatnewinitiativesdeliverontheirintent,
areuserfriendlyandreducecompliancecosts(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,
2008,p.1)
Buchananhadjustreleasedhistheoryonthe“fourorders”ofdesignintheearly1990s
whenTrevorBoucherwassparkinginterestinutilisingdesignthinkingintheATO.The
fourordersofdesignwouldprovideaconceptualframeworkunderpinningBuchanan’s
contributionintheATO,butinparticular,towardsshiftingrigidmindsets.TheATOstaff
quicklyrealizedthattheywerenowcreatinginteractionsforusers,ratherthan
determininglawsandregulations(Terrey,2012,p.5).
139
5.2ResearchontheATO
TheATO’slong-termorganisationalimplementationofdesignthinkingprovidesan
abundanceofinformationonthenature,cultureandimplementationofdesignthinking
inlargescale,fourthorderdesignpractice.Becauseofthis,theATOhavebeenthe
subjectofinterestfordesignresearchers.Tworesearchersinparticularhavemadean
impactwiththeirstudyontheATO:SabineJungingerandNinaTerrey.Junginger(2006)
conductedcasestudyresearchontheATOaspartofherdoctoralthesis,Changeinthe
Making.Terrey,aformerATOemployee,completedherthesisontheATOin2012titled,
ManagingByDesign.Bothresearchersprovidecommentsongapswithindesign
research,particulartofourthorderdesign“Thefourthorderisarelativelyunexplored
area,asBuchananexpressedinaconferencepresentation,this‘couldbepartofanew
practiceofdesign’”(Terrey,2012,p.31).SabineJungineranalysedtheimpactand
applicationofthehuman-centereddesignapproachtoenableinternaldesigncapability
withintheATO“thedesignapproachcontinuouslymovestheprojectforwardand
constantlyproducedtangibleoutcomesthatcouldnothavebeendeterminedupfront”
(Junginger,2006,p.259).Similarly,Terreyfocusedherthesisontheimplementationof
designasamethodofmanagementpracticeintheATO.
ThiscasestudybuildsontheworkofJungingerandTerrey,butinstead,focusesonthe
currentmanifestation,applicationandcharacteristicsofdesignthinkingincomplexthird
andfourthorderpractice.TheanalysisontheATOwillemphasisethenatureoffourth
orderdesignthinkingandevaluatethecurrentapproachtocomplexproblemsfacedby
governmentalinstitutions.
Theresultsfromanalysisonthiscasestudywillbepresentedasfollows:first,abrief
overviewontheprocessmethodologycurrentlyemployedintheATOisintroduced.This
overviewwilloutlinekeyterms,designphasesandpersonnelthatwillbereferred
throughoutthiscase.Second,theresultswillthenbepresentedunderananalysisof
themesdiscussedinlightoftheholisticprocessandmethodologyofdesignpracticein
theATO.
Archivalcasedataandsemi-structuredinterviewswerethemainmethodsofdata
collectionforthiscase.Archivaldocumentsweregatheredontwoprojectsrelatedto
improvingaccessandinformationtosuperannuationaccountsforindividualtaxpayers:
140
concessionalcontributionscapandtheSupermatchsuperannuationportal.Alongwith
documentsprovidedonthesetwoprojects,informationdocumentsaboutthedesign
processattheATOwereprovidedforanalysis.Semi-structuredinterviewswithkey
designersandprojectteammembersworkingontheprojectssupportedanalysison
archivaldocumentation.Fivecoredesignteammemberswereinterviewed:adesign
lead,designfacilitator,abusinesslead,projectleadandaco-designlead.Analysisof
informationfollowedthesamepatternasdescribedinCaseStudy1andoutlinedin
Chapter3.ResearchFramework[SeeexampleofanalysisfromAppendixA,BandC].
Theinformationprovidedonbothofthesuperannuationprojectswasnotwithout
limitations;confidentialityrestrictedcoherentend–to-endinformationtobecollectedon
eachproject.Thisdidnotimpedeonanalysis,asthefocusofthiscasestudywasto
obtainanunderstandingofholisticdesignoperationsintheATO.Thus,detailed
informationonboththeconcessionalandSupermatchprojectswasnotnecessary;a
combinationofdocumentsprovidedonbothdesignprojectsallowedacoherentviewof
thegeneralnatureofdesignprocessesadoptedintheATO.Itisforthisreasonthatthe
detailsbehindtheseprojectswillnotbediscussedandtheconversationwillremainon
thenatureofdesignthinkingappliedintheATO.
5.3DesignthinkingpracticeintheATOtoday
Thiscasestudyfocusesonanalysingthecurrentuseandapplicationofdesignthinkingin
fourthorderdesignpractice;understandingthetransformation,effectandevolutionof
designthinkinginacomplexgovernmentalinstitution,theATO.In2009,theAustralian
GovernmentpublishedtheHenryReview.Thisreviewprovidedrecommendationson
achievingavisionforAustralia’sfuturetaxsystem(Artefact2,CCBlueprint,2011;
Australia’sFutureTaxSystem,2010).In2011,areviewofthesuperannuationprocess
sparkedasuperannuationreformprogramaimedatmakinga“strongerandmore
efficienttaxsystem”(Artefact2,CCblueprint,2011;Australia’sfuturetaxsystem:final
report,2010).Thissuperreformprogramhostedanumberofminorprogramsaimedat
holisticallyimprovingthesuperannuationsystem,frombusinessthroughtoindividual
taxpayers:
141
Theadministrationsystemwouldallowpeopletoengagewiththetaxand
transfersystemthroughasingle,individualisedportalthatdrawsonnatural
businesssystemstoautomatebusinessinteractionswithgovernment.
Governancearrangementswouldsupportamoreresponsivesystemand
ensurethebenefitsofreformarepreservedandenhancedovertime.
(Australia’sFutureTaxSystem:finalreport,chapter3).
Minorprogramsincludedtheredesignofsystemsandprocessesfor:dataande-
commerce,taxfilenumberandaccountconsolidation,individualtaxpayersandself
managedsuperfundmeasures(Artefact2,CCBlueprint,2011).Thiscaseinvestigates
theend-to-enddesignapproachusedtocreatesolutionsinresponsetotheindividual
taxpayerscomponentofthesuperreformprojectunderthesuperannuationreview.
5.3.1Thedesignprocess
DesignintheATOrestsondesignprinciplesandadesignprocessframework.Working
withinestablisheddesignprinciplesandprocessismandatory.Aninternaldocument,
TheDesignGuide,helpsATOstaffnavigatethroughthispredetermineddesignprocess.In
thisguide,itstates:
Anyproposedchangethatwillhaveanimpactonthecommunity,
theGovernment,taxpayers,and/ortheTaxOfficestaff,mustfollow
thedesignprinciples.Itappliestopolicy-basedchangesaswellasthosethat
focusonimprovingaspectsofTaxOfficeadministration.
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,P.4)
Thedesignprinciplesareoverarchingphilosophiesandobjectivesarticulatingwhat
designmeansintheATO(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.12).Thedesign
principlesareoutlinedasfollows:
1.Buildasharedunderstandingofintent
2.Takeausercenteredapproach
142
3.Maketheemergingdesignvisibleearly
4.Workcollaborativelyininterdisciplinaryteams
5.Followadisciplinedyetflexibleprocess
6.Createacoherentblueprintforchange
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.13).
Adesignprocessframeworkisthetangibleandapracticalmethodologythatactsasa
vehicleformanifestingthesedesignprinciples.Thisframeworkisvisualisedasadesign
wheel,outliningthephasesandmovementthroughthedesignprocess.
[IMAGEREMOVED]
Fig.13.TheDesignWheel
TheATOdescribethedesignmethodologyastheirownuniquetakeonthedesign
process(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014;Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p1).
DesigningintheATOinvolves5distinctphases:intent,blueprinting,co-design,build
productsandimplementation.Thefirstphaseisdefiningtheintent.Thepurposeofthis
initialphaseistounderstandandclarifythestrategicvisionpassedonfrom
policymakersinthegovernment.Theintentisdevelopedbetweenacoredesignteam
andkeystakeholders.Thecoredesignteamisateamofkeyinterdisciplinaryindividuals
whoactasrepresentativesoftheirrespectivedepartments.Theseindividualsarechosen
byaprojectleaderwhoidentifieskeypersonnelfromdepartmentsthatwillbeeither
mostaffectedbythenewpolicymeasureorfundamentaltoitsdevelopment(Project
Lead,Interview,2014).
143
User-centereddesignisfundamentaltothedesignprocessattheATO,however,users
areconsideredbutarenotthefocusofworkintheintentphase(DesignFacilitator,
Interview,2014).Instead,emphatic,user-centereddesignisutilisedmostduringthe
secondandthirdphasesofthedesignprocess.Thesecondphasefocusesonblueprinting
anduser-centereddesign.Thisphasebeginswithidentifyingusers,theuserexperience
andexpectations,beforedevelopingaproposeddesignoutcome.Blueprintingincludes
thecoredesignteamandtwodesigners;afacilitatorandaninformationdesigner.
Blueprintingisaboutdevelopingahighleveldesignwhilstbrainstormingdifferent
solutionsfortheuser.Thus,theaimattheendofblueprintingsessionsistohave
identifiedadesignoutcomeandanaccompanyinguserpathwayandorganizational
blueprintthatwillimpactandbeimpactedbythedesiredoutcome.
Thethirdphaseisaboutco-design.Itisthisphasewheredesignconceptsarerefined.
Theseconceptsareshapedbyfeedbackfromusers;utilisingvarioususer-testing
methodsthatincludesendingdesignsolutionstotheATO’sSimulationCentrein
Queensland(Co-Designer,Interview,2014).Followingusertestingconductedinthe
thirdphase,thefourthphasefocusesondesigndevelopmentandbuildingproducts.In
addition,thewiderinternalsystemisengagedduringthisphaseinpreparationfor
implementation.Broaderstakeholdersareinformedsomeasuresthatneedtobeinplace
forimplementationareattendedto(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).Finally,thefifth
phasefocusesonimplementingthefinaldesign.
TheevolutionofdesigncapabilityintheATOresultedinestablishingacleardesign
process,mandatoryforanyproposedchange.HighlightedintheATODesignGuide,
designingforcomplexpracticerequiresadesignprocessthatisfluidandnotfixed.
Fundamentally,thedesignapproachintheATOis“notaboutfollowingsteps,butrather
applyingprinciples,tailoredasappropriatetothesizeand/orcomplexityoftheproject”
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.13).Heretheemphasisisonadaptabilityand
flexibility;amindsetthatisenabledbydesignthinking,andinturn,shapesdesign
thinkingpracticeintheATO.
144
5.3.2High-leveldesignthinking
DesigninginandforacomplexsystemsuchastheATObeginsinahigh-levelspace
focusingonintangibleprojectvisions.High-leveldesignpracticeintheATOinvolves
systemicthinkingandaholisticperspective,thatavoidsdetailsandinsteadfocuseson
conceptualideasthatwilloverarchthelifecycleofthedesignproject(DesignFacilitator,
Interview,2014):
Understandingwhattheintentofthemeasureis,butalsoin
thebackofourmindsiswhatisthestrategicendpointthatthis
platformcouldprovideus,sowearerunningtwoprocessesin
ourmindswhenwearegoingthroughthis.
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Intentisusuallythefirstpointofcontactwiththedesignprocess.Intentis“whatthe
governmentortaxofficewantstoachieveasaresultofchange”(Artefact1,ATODesign
Guide,2008,p.13).Theintentbehindagivenprojectistheframeworkthatguidesthe
coredesignteamtowardsadesiredoutcome.Thus,itprovidesagroundingpointwith
whichthedevelopingdesignisevaluated:
That’swhyweneedtounderstandintentbecauseitleadsusdownwhatweare
actuallyaimingforintheDesign.Sothat’sourfirststepinthedesignprocess.
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
Intentisdevelopedinresponsetoadesiredchangehandeddownbythegovernment.A
strategicvisioniscreatedbypolicymakersandcommissionersanddevelopedintoa
statementthatispassedtothedesignteam(DesignLead,Interview,2014).Thischange
statementmaybeasshortasonesentenceorprovidegeneralinformation,muchlikea
brief.Thisstrategicvisionisthentransformedintoasuccinctintentstatement,co-
createdbythecommissionerandselectindividualsfromthecoredesignteam.Oncethis
visionishandedtothecoredesignteamitisthenanalyzedandinterpretedincontextof
ATOpractice(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.27).Theanalysisandinterpretation
ofthechangemeasure,orproblemframing,iswhatestablishestheintent.Occasionally,
intentmayfollowapreliminaryphaseofscoping;wherecoreteammemberswilldecide
onthescaleandcomplexityofthedesiredchangepassedfromthegovernment
145
Isupposedthat’soneofthechallengeswehavewithourdesign.Weusually
justgetaonelinerwithnocontextbehindit…andthat’showweneedto
determinewhat’stheATOapproachgoingtobewiththatoneliner
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Formorecomplexprojectsorpolicyannouncements,theATOdesignteamconductsa
“rapidsolutiondesign”(RSD)protocol.Underthisinstance,RSDisthefirstpointof
departureforthedesignprocessthathappenspriortointent.TheRSDworkshop
operatesatthehighestconceptuallevelandinvolvesspecialisedthinking.Senior
officials,adesignfacilitatorandinformationdesignerareusuallypresent.RapidSolution
Designprotocolsareoftenemployedwhenproblemsareverycomplexandrequirean
additionalstepofclarificationbeforemovingintoscopingandintent(ProjectLead,
Interview,2014).Scopingisusedtoidentifythescaleandsizeoftheprojectbefore
workingontheintent.Theguidanceandinputfromthedesignfacilitatorand
informationdesignerisinvaluabletotheprojectandteamduringtheseearlystagesof
development:
TheRSDtechniqueweuseforsomeofthesecomplexpoliciesthatare
unannouncedorannouncedshortly.Thenweneedtocomeupahighlevel
sketch.Againweuseafacilitatorandperhapstheinformationdesignerjustto
quicklyextracttheinformationandagainusuallyyoudotheuserpathwayjustat
ahigherlevelwithoutgoingintoanydetails.Weusethattohelpthescoping.In
termsofsomethingthatiscomplex,RSDhelpstherequirementsofscope.
(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).
InestablishingtheintentforanyprojectintheATO,understandingtheunderlying
mechanismsbehindtheintentisimperative.Thismeansgettingtothe‘core’ofthepolicy
measurethatispassedtotheATOdesignteam.Astheintentcanbeestablishedthrough
manydifferentperspectives,understandingthecoreofitspurposehelpsalleviate
ambiguityarounddiverseviewpoints.Gettingtothecoreoftheintentisachieved
throughunderstandingthepurposewithrespecttotheuser(DesignFacilitator,
Interview,2014).Auser-centeredapproachisattributedtoguidingthecoredesignteam
intherightdirection:
146
Soeventhoughthereisanonlinesystem,wewouldn’tbelookingatengagement
astheprimarysourceofit.We’dbelookingatwhat’stheeasiestwayforpeople
totransactthroughtheinternet-notdisplayinformation.Thatiswhyweneedto
understandintentbecauseitleadsusdownwhatweareactuallyaimingforin
thedesign.Sothat’sourfirststepinthedesignprocess
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
Howtheuserwouldchoosethatserviceisparamountforusdeveloping
whatwethinkitwouldlooklikeandhowtheuserwilltrytouseit...
becauseit’sallabouttheminteractingwithus
(ProjectLead,Interview,2014)
Theintentisaconstantinthedesignprocessandisfrequentlyreviewedasdesign
solutionsdevelop.Designsaremalleablebutchangestotheintent“mustbeescalated
backtotheprojectsponsorwhoisaccountablefordeliveringtheintent”(Artefact1,ATO
DesignGuide,2008,p.14).Theformativephasesoftheproject,intentandblueprinting,
focusondefiningandrefiningtheproblemsolutionspace.Thisinvolvesproblemframing
throughauser-centeredperspective(DesignLead,Interview,2014).Thus,theintent
reflectscomplex,high-levelproblemframing.Theintentmayoperateondifferentlevels
andisoftenbalancedwithastrategicmindset.Itisduringthisphasethatambiguityisat
itshighest(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).Intentisseenasoneofthemost
importantaspectsinthelifecycleofdesignintheATO,foronceitisestablished,itisthe
perspectiveframeworkthatisusedtodirectteamstowardsdesignoutcomes(Co-design
lead,Interview,2014).Becauseofthis,thewaytheintentisshapedbythecoredesign
teamhasaneffectonthedesignoutcomeandimplementation.
147
5.3.3Blueprinting
TheblueprintingphaseisthenextcrucialcomponentintheATOdesignprocess.This
phaseisuniqueasitshowcaseshowdesignthinkingcanbedeeplyintertwinedwithina
designmethod.TheATODesignGuide(2008)articulatesthisphaseasbothaverbanda
noun,stating“Ablueprintisadocumentthatoutlinestheoverallhigh-leveldesignfora
proposedchange”followedwith“Itiscreatedbyacoredesignteamthroughaniterative,
collaborativeprocessknownasblueprinting”(p.31).Thispointstothenotionthat
blueprintingmaybeanembodimentandexampleofhowdesignthinkingandmethods
canbedeeplydependentandofteninseparable:
It’safoundation.Soprovidingafoundationofwhatwearegoingtodo.Andallof
oursubsequentprocessesthroughtoimplementationisbasedoffthatblueprint
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Ablueprintisalwayscreatedpriortodevelopingandbuildingdesignproducts.
Blueprintingaccountsforhigh-levelimpactsfromboththeperspectiveoftheuserand
onthetaxoffice“theprojectblueprintisverymuchthehigher-leveldesign”(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).User-centereddesignisoftentermed“outsidein”thinking,and
holisticandsystemicperspectivesarelabeled“end-to-end”(Artefact1,ATOTheDesign
Guide,2008,p.19).Blueprintingisreflectiveofcommonservicedesignpractice;utilising
touch-pointsanduserpathwaysasmethodsformappingtheentiredesignsystem
(Kimbell,2009;DesignLead,Interview,2014).Theoutcomefromablueprintingsession
shouldseethattheimpactofthedesignhasbeenconsideredacrossthetaxsystem,and
thusfocuson“gettinggooddesignoutcomes,ratherthanjustproducingablueprint”
(Artefact1,ATOTheDesignGuide,2008,p.31).Indoingso,theblueprintreliesonthe
intentanddesign(thinking)visionbehindtheprojectinordertoachievesuccess“it
needstobedonewithdesignvisioninmind.Youcantaketheblueprintingprocessand
stillcomeupwithabadoutcome”(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).Thus,the
blueprintisconsideredanembodimentofbestpractice,anartefactthat“capturesthe
outcomeofgooddesignthinking”(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.31).
Blueprintingisalsoanexerciseinholistic,end-to-endandsystemicdesignthinking.This
phasefocusesondivergentthinking.Blueprintingisrapid,lastingonlyafewdays
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.36).Thepurposeoftheblueprintisstrictlyhigh
level;discussionsondetailsaredeliberatelyomittedfromthisphase(Artefact1,ATO
148
DesignGuide,2008,p.39).Theblueprintisanembodimentofhigh-level,holistic,end-to-
enddesignthinking,“Thesecondstepwecallhereatthemomentisblueprinting.We
workoutahigh-leveldesign.Sothisisafullprocesswhichwetake”(DesignFacilitator,
Interview,2014).TodesigneffectivelyintheATOrequiresnotjustholisticthinkingbuta
systemicapproach.Systemicconsiderationsarelocalisedtotheintentandblueprinting
phasesofthedesignprocess,andbothphasesacknowledgeandreflectdesignand
systemsthinking:
Aclearunderstandingoftheintentdependsonasolidunderstandingofthe
system-in-useandtheproblemthatistobeaddressed.Forverycomplex
problems,somespecialisedtechniquessuchassystemsorcriticalthinkingmay
provideaframeworktohelpunderstandtheproblem.
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.28)
Employingasystemicapproachismainlyusedtoaidintheseamlessintegrationof
designthinkinganddesignoutcomes.Thus,asystemicperspectivemayplayacrucial
roleinsuccessfullyimplementingdesignsolutionsintheATO.Thissystemic
considerationisimportantforenablingsuccessfuloutcomesas“agoodblueprinting
processwillcomeupwithwhatyourmeasuresforsuccessareaswell”(Design
Facilitator,Interview,2014).Withoutasystemicunderstandingonthefunctionalityof
theATO,designedsolutionsmayfailuponimplementationanditistheimplementation
ofdesignsolutionsthatprovidesevidenceofthesuccessofdesignthinking.
149
5.3.4Designfacilitators
TheATOhavetwodistinctdesignrolesthatarecrucialduringearlystagesofhigh-level
design.Thefirstroleisadesignfacilitatorandthesecondaninformationdesigner.Both
individualsareemployedtoworkincollaborativebrainstormingsessionsduringthe
formativephasesofthedesignprocess(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).Intentand
blueprintingarephaseswhereinputfromthedesignfacilitatorandinformationdesigner
aremostcrucial“blueprintingisthemajorityofourworkofwhatwedo-todesign
facilitate.Forthisprojectitwaswhatwegotmostlyinvolvedwith”(DesignFacilitator,
Interview,2014).Thedesignfacilitatorengageswithhigherlevelsofauthorityin
preliminarystagesofthedesignprocess,specificallyaroundformingthehighlevelintent
thatwillguidetherestoftheproject.Theprimaryfunctionofthesedesignersisto
facilitatecollaborativeconversations.Thedesignfacilitatorsroleistohelpassemblethe
coredesignteammemberswhowillbeworkingthroughhigh-leveldesignphases,andto
ensurethatallmembersparticipate.Designfacilitatorsprovidestimulusthroughdesign
methodsinordertokeepconversationsfocusedandflowing.Theresponsibilityofthe
designfacilitatoristoenableconversationsandideastoemergeinfocuswiththegiven
intent/brief(Artefact1,TheDesignGuide,2008,p.61):
Iguessmymainroleisabout-intheworkshop-howdowecollaborateand
brainstorm.It’smore,Iguess,designfacilitationisallaboutquestioning,so
it’smakingsureeveryonehasasay,makingsureeveryonegetsheard,and
beingabletomanagegroupssothattheycanallgetthemessageacross.
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
Sothefacilitatormakessureeveryonehastheirsayandobviously
makessureeveryoneisontrackanddon’tdivergeoffintoconversation
thatismaybeofftrack
(Projectlead,Interview,2014)
Designfacilitatorshelpdefinetheproblemandsolution(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).
Additionally,thedesignfacilitatorisformallyrecognisedas‘the’designer,but,rather
thantakingonanauthoritativerole,itisonethatispassiveandinformal.Thefacilitator
enablesdesignthinkingtoemergethroughteammembersusingparticipatoryand
collaborativemethodsanditisthefunctionofthegroup(coredesignteam)thatactively
engagesindesignthinkingonthetopicathand:
150
Thefacilitator’sjobistogetinformationoutofthegroup.It’snotto
dictateanything.Sothat’swhatthepeopleintheroomare...theyneed
tobeawareofwhattheyaretherefor,butthedesignfacilitatorsare
theretogettheinformationoutinadesignsense.
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
Theinformationdesigner’sroleistovisualiseideascreatedbythecoredesignteam.
Onceagain,theinformationdesignerisrecognisedasaformalfigureheadfordesign,but
playsasrolethatismorereflectiveofapassivebystander.Theinformationdesigner’s
roleistolistenandobserveconversationsfromthecoredesignteamandtovisualise
emergingideas.Theinformationdesignerrefineshis/hersketchesbeforepresentingthe
visualsbacktothecoredesignteam:
Wealsohaveinformationdesignersatthemeetingandtheywillstartsketching
outthedesign,feelwhenideasbecomeevolvedalongtheway…andthenthey
actuallycomebackandshowusthedesignthenextday.Ofatwodayworkshop
attheendofthefirstdaytheygoawaywithabit[ofavisual]andcomeupwitha
sketchandthenwelookatthesketch...sooneofthosekeydesignsessionsisvery
muchinteractingwiththosepeople[informationdesigners]onthespot
(Projectlead,Interview,2014)
Theinformationdesignerisresponsiblefortranslatingcomplexconversationsinto
simplevisualisationsthatreflectthesolutionsandideasthathaveemergedduring
collaboration(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.61).Thefacilitatorandinformation
designerdonotengagewithlatterpartsofthedesignprocess,withmostoftheirinput
requiredonlyduringintentandblueprinting(high-level)designstages.
151
5.3.5Collaboration
CollaborationintheATOisdrivenbythreeprinciplesknownasthe“3C’s”:collaboration,
consultationandco-design.Collaborationisdefinedas“theactofworkingwithothers”
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.5).Consultationisdescribedas“understanding
theviewpointsofstakeholders”andco-designis“aprocessofinvolvingtheuserinthe
designofsolutions”(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.5).CollaborationintheATOis
inclusiveandmultidisciplinary.Thecoredesignteamconsistsofdesignleadsand
individualschosenfortheirrelevancetotheprojectcontext.Individualsonthecore
designteamoperateasrepresentativestotheirownrespectivedepartments(Business
Lead,Interview,2014).Theseteammembershaveauthoritytoapproveandenable
designprocessestoproceedwithintheirrepresenteddepartment.
Co-designanduser-centereddesignaretermsthatareofteninterchangeableattheATO.
User-centereddesignisthefundamentalphilosophythatunderpinsthedesignprocess.
TheATOinformallyadherestotheInternationalOrganisationforStandardisationfor
Human-CenteredDesign(ISO13407)(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.44)which
guidestheiruser-centered,co-designpractice.Designdevelopmentisiterativeand
alwaysbasedonevolvinguserinsightsthroughusertesting“soIguessbroadlywe
wouldnormallychunkco-designactivityeithertouserresearchactivity,collaborative
designactivityordetailedusertestingactivitydependingonthestageoftheproject”
(Co-DesignLead,Interview,2014).Thefocusduringiterativedesigndevelopmentison
theuserexperienceofdesignoutcomes:
Havinganopportunitytoactuallyimplementthedesigndirectionwhereyou
cankindofusetheuserfeedbacktomakemoreofthefundamentalshiftnot
thesmallrefinementstoit.Ithinkthat’sareallycriticalthing
(Co-DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Productsandservicesthataredesignedwithauserfocuswill
improvecompliancebecauseitwillbeeasierorcheaperfortaxpayers
tomeettheirobligationsorreceivetheirentitlements.Barriersandcosts
thatarecreatedbypoorproductsandservicescanobstructtaxpayers
whoareotherwisewillingtocomply
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.15)
152
Thedesignleademphasisestheimportanceofauser-centeredmindset.Thedefining
purposeofthedesignapproachisitspeople-centeredfocus“thereisalwaysfocusontheoutcomeandtheuserexperience.Evenwhenyoudesignanewtaxyoustillconsiderthe
userexperienceonhowtomakethemcomply,inordertomakeitlessobtrusive”
(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).Similarly,theco-designleadalsodescribesa
multidisciplinaryuser-centeredapproachasacriticalcharacteristicofdesignanddesign
thinking“justhavingagroupofpeoplethatarewillingtoembraceit,thatarewillingto
listentotheuserfeedbackthatyou’vegotandactonitandchangethedesignbasedon
that.SoIthinkthat’sreallycritical”(Co-DesignLead,Interview,2014).Thefocusonthe
userandusabilityisunderstoodamongstcoredesignteammembersasbeing
paramounttothesuccessofdesignthinkingintheATO“moreorlesseverythingwe
delivershouldthinkaboutuser”(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).
Co-designintheATOisnotjustaboutcollaboratingwithinternalandexternal
stakeholders.Itislargelyaboutco-responsibility.Thereareclearlydefinedroles
andresponsibilitiesforeachcoredesignteammember.Becauseeachindividualis
responsibleformanagingandrepresentingtheirowndepartment,discussionsaround
expectationandresponsibilityisprevalent:
Differentareasoftheofficehaveaccountabilityandresponsibilityfor
theinformation[…]sothecoredesignteamisresponsiblewiththe
designandthebusinesspeopletodevelopahighleveldesign
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Asdesignfacilitatorpartofmyrolewiththeprojectmanageristocome
upwiththiscoredesignteamandtheyaremadeupofsomekindofset
criteria,around8-10people,thattraditionallygetblownoutbyafewmore
thanthat.Andthesearekeystakeholdersthatareinvolvedintheprocess.
Theyneedtotakeresponsibilityofthedesign.Theyneedtosignoffthe
designandtheyarealsogatekeeperstotherestoftheirarea
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
Coredesignteammembersarenotonlyresponsibleasrepresentativesfortheir
respectiveareas,buttheyalsoshareco-designwork.Thisco-responsibilityoverdesign
developmentsmakesthecomplexprocesswithintheATOmoremanageable.Theshared
understandingtowardsco-responsibilityisoftenasubjectmissingfromcommon
153
practicesindesignthinking.Thissharedresponsibilityensuresthatallindividualsfeel
accountablefortheimplementationandsuccessorfailureofdesignoutcomes.
Despitetheegalitarianandcollaborativeapproach,aprojectmanagerispresent,leading
thecoredesignteam.Adesignleadisthemanagerofthecoredesignteamandoversees
thedesignprocessastheprojectunfolds.Unlikethedesignfacilitatorandinformation
designer,designleadsareholisticandconsistentthroughoutthedesignproject“theydo
haveanoverarchingroleinlookingathowasolution,Isuppose,wouldbeintegrated
fromanenterpriseperspective.Sothosedesignleadsaregenerallyacrosstheoverall
project”(BusinessLead,Interview,2014).Individualteammembersdonotneedtobe
consistentthroughouttheproject,aslongasthereisadesignleadpresentineveryphase
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).
Inadditiontothecoredesignteam,eachphasebringsinspecialisedindividualsto
completethetaskathand,“wehavethedoersworkingthroughdetails”(ProjectLead,
Interview,2014).Theseindividualsalsohavetheresponsibilitytoreportonandpass
feedbacktoprojectmembersworkinginthefollowingphaseofdesigndevelopment.
Face-to-facecommunicationwithbothcoredesignteammembersandexternal
stakeholdersisconsideredimperativetothesuccessofcollaborativedesignpracticein
complexenvironmentsliketheATO:
Wetrytomeetwithpeopleface-to-facewhenitsmorecomplexbecausewe
needtobeabletoengagepeopleproperlyratherthansittinginameeting
roombythemselvesontheothersideofAustralia,infrontoftheircomputer
whiletheyareansweringemailsatthesametime
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
Whencollaborating,thedesignprocessfacilitatespositiveinteractionsbetweenpeople.
However,aninterdisciplinarydesignteamisadouble-edgedsword.Thebenefitof
utilisingamultidisciplinaryteamisthatitprovidesavarietyofperspectivesand
mindsetsfordiscussions,whichenableprogressiveproblemframing.Thepitfallisthat
thesediscussionscanendindisagreements,particularlyfromhard-wiredthinking:
Attheendofthedaytheservicesaretheirownresponsibilitiesthatthey
needtosignoffonandsomeseeitasahurdletotheirprocess.Soit’s
tryingtogetthatbuyin…thevalue.Thattheyseethatthere’svaluetothe
154
processthatcanhelpgetabetteroutcomethanwhattheywereinitially,
orthattheycouldthinkwe’regoingtoget
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Thevalueofthedesignfacilitatorandinformationdesignerisevidentwhentensions
betweencoredesignteammemberssurfaceduringhigh-levelcollaborative
brainstormingsessions.Inthesemoments,thedesignfacilitatorsynthesizesdiffering
perspectivesandunifiesconflict.Theinformationdesigner,ontheotherhand,isthe
visualtranslatorforthecoredesignteam.Ausualhigh-levelcollaborativesession
involvesthedesignfacilitatordirectingconversationsbetweencoredesignteam
members,withtheinformationdesignervisualisingtheemergingideas(ProjectLead,
Interview,2014)
Thepurposeofadesignfacilitatoristoaidratherthanauthoritativelydirectdesign
developmentordesignthinking.Designingisacollaborativeeffortofallstakeholders,
andallstakeholdershaveasayoverthefinaldesignoutcome.Designmanagersand
facilitatorsareresponsibleforenablingteammemberstocollaborativelyideate,design
andcompletethework,anddonotauthoritativelytakingchargeoverthedesign.
Stakeholdersexternaltothecoredesignteamareheavilyengagedduringdetaildesign
phases,suchasprototypingandbuildingproducts.Inparticular,abusiness
representativeisincludedwithinthecoredesignteamwhoisthe‘frontline’toclients,
bothinternalandexternal.Thebusinessrepresentativeisresponsiblefor
communicatingdevelopmentsinthedesignprojecttoexternalstakeholderswhomaybe
affectedbythedesignedoutcome:
Throughouttheentirelifeofanyoneparticularprojectwehavequite
extensivestakeholdersthatweworkverycloselywith.Sowekeepthem
updatedduringtheprocessandalertthemtothefactthatyouknowachange
iscomingandtheimpactthatmayhaveontheirarea,whetheritisareduction
ofworkoranincreaseinworkoranewtypeofwork,oreliminatinganother
pieceofworkwhateverthatmightbe.Sothroughourconsultationtokeepstaff,
internalstaff,updatedandtheyformpartofourreviewprocess
(BusinessLead,Interview,2014)
155
Theseexternalstakeholdersaredescribedasa“lowerlevelofstakeholder”(Business
lead,Interview,2014)implyingaclearsenseofhierarchybetweenthosedirectly
involvedinthedesignprocessandthosewhoarenot.Thebusinessleadisvery
consciousofstakeholderinputandresponse,includingtheeffectdecisionsmadebythe
coredesignteammighthaveonvariouslevelsofstaff.Thisrepresentativeconsidersthe
ripplingeffectadesignsolutionmighthaveontheinternalsystem.Thefocusofthe
businessleadisholisticandsystemicandconsidersthepractical,interconnectingparts
intheATO(BusinessLead,Interview,2014).Thebusinessrepresentativeisconcerned
withoutcomesandimplementation.Thus,thebusinessrepresentativedescribesthe
businesslineasthe‘enabling’area.Thebusinessleadonthecoredesignteamliaises
withclientsinordertofacilitateandenablefrontlinesolutionsandservices:
Icomefromabusinessperspective,whereweareafrontlinearea
toclients,individualclientsandexternalclients…dealingwiththem
onadaytodaybasis.Sowearewhatiscalled,iswhattheycall,an
enablingarea.SoeventhoughIdon’thavedirectcontactwithindividual
clientsIenablethefrontline-Iworkcloselywiththosefrontlineservices
andthenenableourproceduresandourprocessestomanagetheissues
thatclientsmayhaveandcometousforadviceabout
(BusinessLead,Interview,2014)
Broaderstakeholdersareconsideredapartofthedesignprocessbutafactorthat
impedesondevelopment.Feedbackfromstakeholdersispartofthedesignprocess,
howeverthebusinessleadaddsthatstakeholders“delaytheproject”(BusinessLead,
Interview,2014)makingtheoverallprocessrunslower.
5.3.6Designartefacts
DesignartefactsplayasignificantroleindesignpracticewithintheATO.Designartefacts
areanyformofphysicalandvisualexpressionofthinkingdevelopedduringthedesign
process.Visualisationsarecrucialduringformativestagesofdesigndevelopmentwhen
designconceptsarestillatanambiguousandintangiblelevel.Designartefactsspur
discussion,communicateknowledgeandideasandenabledesignthinking:
156
Makingtheemergingdesignvisibleearlythroughdocumentationand
Prototypesthatfocusdialogue,sustainenergyandfacilitateco-design.
Thisprovidesapracticalandtangiblefocusfordesignworkandenables
thedesignprocesstoproceedquickly.Italsoprovidescommunicationproducts
explainingthedesignwhichcanbeusedforconsultationwithstakeholders
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.16)
Visualartefactscreatedduringdesigndevelopmentempowerandbreedcollaborative
designthinking.Theseartefactsmediateconversationandspurthedevelopmentof
designthinkingamongstcoredesignteamsandstakeholders“wejustkindofpresent
thatandtalkthroughthemandthat[theartefact]kindofdrivestheconversation”(Co
DesignLead,Interview,2014).Inthiscontext,thereisnosingle‘designthinker’butacollaborativeactivitythatcollectivelyrepresentsdesignthinking.Thiscollaborative
representationisenabledthroughartefactsthatallowthoughtsandideastobeshared
andevolvedasateam:
Collaborativedesignandco-designwithusersareverydifficult
withoutashared,visibleformoftheemergingdesign
(ATODesignGuide,2008,p.16).
Intangibilityexistspredominantlyduringhigh-levelphasesinthedesignprocess.Design
facilitatorsandinformationdesignersareusedonlyduringthesehighlevelphases.
Whereconceptsareintangible,informationdesignerswilltranslateintangibleideasinto
visualartefactsthatactasrepresentationofcollaborativedesignthinking.Information
designersaidinthetranslationofcomplex,fuzzydesignideasfromthecoredesignteam
intounderstandablevisualrepresentations.Thus,informationdesignersaretranslators
ofcomplexity;theyaremastersofmanifestingintangibleideasintoconcreterealities
thatcanbesharedbythedesignteam:
Ourinformationdesignerisaboutmakingthedesignpresentable
[...]sothefacttheycanputtheideastogethersoquicklymeanswe
canreviewitstraightawayandfirmupandvisualisetheideasontheday
(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).
157
However,thephysicaldesignofartefactsisoutofthehandsofthecoredesignteam.No
membersonthecoredesignteamengagewithvisualisingideasexceptforthe
informationdesigner.Inthisway,theinformationdesigneristhevisualarmforteam
members.Thus,duringformative‘highlevel’phasesofthedesignprocess,the
informationdesignerbecomesagatekeeperfordesignvisualisationsandcollaborative
synchronisation.Togetherwiththedesignfacilitator,theinformationdesignerisalsoa
facilitatorforcollaborativedesignthinking:
Mostofusdon’thavedesignbackgrounds.Sowegotideasandwecantalk,but
wearenotgoodatmakingthingsvisualised.SoIthinkthisiswherethedesign
areasdofocusalloftheinformation.Designisaboutyougotgoodideas,that’s
good...butalsohavethesufficientinformationbehindittomakeitpresentableto
ahearinggroupsotheycanmakeadecisionaboutacertaindesignoption
(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).
Itcanbearguedthatifcoredesignteammembersdonotsketchorvisualisetheirown
ideas,thismaydetachthemfromengaginginadesignerlywayofthinking.Thiscontext
surfacesthequestion:doesoneneedtoengagewiththephysical(creative)aspectsof
designpracticeinordertoengageindesignthinking?Furthermore,ifthedesign
facilitatorandinformationdesignerareconsideredrepresentativesofdesignthinking,
thenthisraisesquestionsaroundwhetherthecoredesignteammembersconsider
themselvesasdesignthinkersaswell.Inresponsetothisscenario,theideaof
collaborativedesignthinkingmaybeincorrect,ordependentonthedesignfacilitatorsto
bepresent.Ifdesignthinkingreliesonthefacilitatorspresence,thenco-designsessions
mayonlybecollaborativebrainstormingsessions—wherehavingadesignfacilitator
presenttransformsgeneralbrainstormingintoadesignthinkingactivity,particularlyif
thecoredesignteam“don’tneedtoknowtheyaredoingit”(DesignFacilitator,
Interview,2014).Thisbringsforthanewideaincollaborativedesignthinkingthat
participantsdonotneedtoactivelyengageinsketching,prototypingand/orother
visualisationtechniquesinordertoactivateandengageindesignthinking.Beingpresent
amongstunfoldingvisualisationsand/orcontributingtodesignrepresentationsmaybe
sufficientinordertoengagewithdesignthinkingpractice.
Thecreationofdesignartefactsisnotjustforenablingcollaborativedesignthinking.
Designvisualisationsarealsoknowledgeartefacts,withthepurposeoftransferring
informationtostakeholdersandteammembersoutsideofthecoredesignteam.
158
Knowledgeisacrucialelementineffectivelyprogressingfromonedesignphaseto
another.Specifically,thedesignblueprintisconsideredthemainknowledgeartefactthat
ispassedthroughoutthedesignprocess.
Designartefactsaresymbolsoftransparency.Theknowledgethatistransferredthrough
designartefactsallowforatransparentandfairdesignprocesstounfold.Transparency
isfundamentalwhencollaboratingbetweeninternalandexternalstakeholdersin
complexenvironments,notonlytofeedupdatesandinformationbuttomaintain
inclusiveco-operation:
Iguesswhenyouaregettingmembersofthecommunityorevenstaffas
welltohavetheseconversations,youkindofneedtoputsomethingin
frontofthemthathelpsthemtogettheirheadaroundwhatyou’retryingto
design.Soyeah,Ithinkthat’swherethekindofhighlevelprocessorpathwayis
reallyquitegoodbecauseitjusthelpstomakeitalittlemorerealanditis
somethingthatpeoplekindofcritiqueandwotnot
(Co-Designlead,Interview,2014)
DesignartefactsintheATOprovetohaveanimpactonthemediation,conversationand
facilitationofdesignthinkingpractice.Thisaddsfurtherevidencetotheimportanceof
visualisationindesignthinkingpractice,particularlyincomplexdesignpractice.
5.3.7Designcommunityandexpertise
ThedesigncommunityintheATOareadvocatesfordesignthinking.Despitehavingfew
professionallytraineddesigners,theinternaldesigncommunitywithintheATOis
strong,withdesignrepresentativesandfacilitatorsmeetingregularlytoshareideas,
learningsandfears.ThebroaderATOcommunityisengagedinordertohelpspreadthe
cultureofdesignthinkingandtoteachstaffawayofthinkingratherthanawayofdoing
(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).Itisthedesigncommunityofexpertsthatisattheheart
ofdesignculturewithintheATOandwhoarealsoresponsibleforadvocatingand
convertingotherstoadoptadesignmindset:
159
Soinabroaderwayit’sbasicallyabouthowweasanorganisationwantdesign
tobedone.Thentheindividualreallyfollowstheprocessandguidanceofthe
experts,thepeopleanddesignersandwhattheymakeandtheoutcome
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
DesignexpertiseintheATOisvaried.Internaldesigntrainingisavailablefordesignand
non-designgraduates.Keyexternalstakeholders(outsideofdesignarmattheATO)may
beinvitedtojoininonthetraining.Thisisoftenemployedtotransformindividualswho
maybeconsideredas‘blockers’inthedesignprocesstobecome‘enablers’(Business
Lead,Interview,2014).MuchofthedesigntrainingintheATOisabouttransforming
‘blocking’individualstooneswhoenabledesignthinkingtounfold.Incomplexpractice,
thisappearstobeimportantwheretherearemanymorepeopleinvolvedinprojects
whocouldpotentiallydisablethedesignprocessandoutcome:
Somepeoplewill,orsomestakeholderswill,haveagreaterpreference
togetrightdownintothedetail,whereassomeoftheotherswillobviously
say‘don’ttellmewhat’sabouttohappen’.Buthopefullytheideaisthat
theinvolvementissignificantenoughtoidentifyanyblockagesorissues
beforeweactuallygettodeployment.[…]Sotheyformewouldbethe
blockersthatIwouldbemostconcernedabout.Ifwe’rebuildingsomething...
withouthavingtherightpeopletherewe’vemissedsomethingandwe
haven’tclearlyunderstoodthatthere’sadownstreamimpactandit’s
actuallycausingsomethingnottoworkforsomeoneelse
(BusinessLead,Interview,2014)
Thetutors,whoareresponsibleforinternallytrainingstaffindesign,havedesign
qualificationsandexperience(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).However,withinthe
ATO,allthatisrequiredisoneortwodesignerswhoactas‘seeds’.Theseindividualsare
responsibleforembeddingadesignmindsetwithintheinternalcultureoftheATO
ratherthanemployingdesignersasauthoritativemembersinaprojectteam.Thisadds
weighttothehypothesisthatdesignthinkingisnotaskillpossessedbyasinglehead
designer,orformaldesigners,butisaby-productofcollaborativeeffortsofallteam
membersworkingwithinadesignprocessmethodologyandphilosophy.
TrainingintheATOisnotjustforenablingandteachingnon-designers.Designersand
designteamsintheATOalsoparticipateintrainingworkshopsthatfocusonbusiness
160
linesoftheATOsystem“BusinessSolutionsisdevelopingtrainingtohelpdesigners
betterunderstandtheenterprisebusinessprocessesandsystems”(Artefact1,ATO
DesignGuide,2008,p.8).Tobestimplementsustainabledesignthinkingcapability,itis
importantthatbothnon-designerslearnaboutthedesignprocessanddesignerslearn
aboutbusinessprocesses.
Yet,thedesignfacilitatorexplainsthatexternalstakeholdersdonotneedtrainingor
experienceindesign.Interestingly,thedesignfacilitatorhasnotertiaryqualificationsin
designpracticewithknowledgeearnedonthejobattheATO“mybackground,my
experienceindesignstartedattheATO.SoIdon’thavethetertiaryqualificationsor
anythinglikethat,minewasallonthejobtrainingandexperiencethatwasgatheredthat
way”(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).However,sheexplainsthatthoseexternalto
thedesignteamoftenarenotevenawarethattheyareengagingwithdesignthinking
practice(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).Fromthefacilitator’sperspective,not
everyoneinvolvedintheprojectteamisadesignthinkerorneedstobe.Theprimary
objectivewithnon-designersistoensurethattheyendup‘buyingin’tothedesign
process.Thedesignleadintheco-designteamechoesthissentiment,explainingthatthe
designlead’smajorresponsibilityistoconvinceotherstobuyintoadesignthinking
philosophy“sooneofthequestionslateronisabout‘iseveryoneadesignthinkerinthe
process?’Welltheanswerisno,buttheroleofthedesignleadistoensurethatthereis
buyinintothedesignprocess—thatthesepeopleareadvocatesforthechange”(Co-
designLead,Interview,2014).
5.3.8Evidenceandimplementation
DesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentssuchastheATOcontainallordersofdesign
thinkingandpractice.Asthedesignprocessconverges,clarifiesandbecomesmore
defined,designinginfourthorderpracticemovesthroughlowerordersofpractice.The
projectprocessintheATObeginswithhighlevel,systemicdesignthinking(intent)
beforeidentifyingaservicesolution(blueprinting),designproducts(co-design)
supportingtheservice,andfinallycommunicativecollateral(buildproductsand
implementation).Onceanintangibledesigngoalhasbeendefined,tangibleartefacts
begintoemergethatarenecessarytosupportthedesignofthehighlevelsolution.
161
Asaresult,designprocessandthinkingintheATOoperatesaccordingtodifferent
hierarchies.ThelayersbehinddesignpracticeattheATOindicatetheexistenceof
hierarchicaldesignprocesses.Higherordersofdesignaremorecomplexbutless
detailed,withdesignoutcomesmovingthroughlowerandmoredetailedandspecific
designpracticesasdesignsareimplemented.
ThesuccessofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentssuchastheATOistwofold:
successfulimplementationofdesignsinternalandexternaltotheATOsystem.For
internalimplementation,designproducts,servicesandsystemsneedtobe“integrated
withintheexistingtaxsystem”(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.4).Effective
implementationwithintheATOsystemreliesonintegration.Designatthislevelisnot
aboutapplyingadesignerlyapproachtowardstacklingbriefs,butaboutincorporating
bothinternaldesigncapabilitywithdesignsolutions.Integrationisalsoabout
negotiationandcompromise,as“Itinvolvesachievingatrade-offbetweenpotentially
competingrequirementsoftheuserexperience,maintainingconsistencywiththe
currentrevenuesystem,andcost”(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.4).
Theintentstatementhasadirectimpactonimplementation.Designsareevaluatedprior
toimplementationandexaminedonthebasisofmeetingtheoriginalintent:
Asharedunderstandingofintentiscriticaltothesuccessofanyproject.
Ifwedon’tknowwherewe’regoing,howcanweexpecttogetthereand
howcanweassesswhetherornotwehavearrivedsuccessfully?
(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.13)
Wehavethestrategicintentatthebeginningoftheprocess.Itisalwaysat
thebackofourmindthatwhatwearedoingalongthewaydoesn’timpede
thecapabilityofthatinthefuture,anddoprocessbyprocesstogetthere
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Oncethefinaldesignhasbeenusertestedandapproveditisthenpassedtothebusiness
linetobeimplemented.Itisatthispointthattheprojectispassedfromthehandsofthe
designersandthecoredesignteamtothebusinessteam.Despitethetransfer,thedesign
doesnottransformduringtheimplementationprocess.Intentprovidesthetheoretical
frameworkthatguidesanddirectsdesigndevelopmentandoutcomes.Theoverarching
frameworkprovidedbytheintentstatementisdirectlyreflectedintheimplemented
162
designsolution.Thefoundationprovidedbytheintentframeworkensuresthatthe
designsolutiondoesnottransformonceintheprocessofimplementation.Thedesign
outcomeisseenasarepresentationofthecollaborativeinputfrominternalcoredesign
teammembers,externalstakeholdersandusers.Becauseofthis,theintegrityofthe
designoutcomeispreserved;noindividualhasauthoritytofundamentallytamperor
alterthefinaldesignedartefact.Thereisanunderlyingimportanceembeddedinthe
designartefactbeyondjustthesuccessofthesolution.Thedesignedartefactisthe
manifestationandembodimentofteamworkandcollaboration“thedesignisa
culminationofallofthosepointsofviews”(BusinessLead,Interview,2014):
Wewouldbeexpectingto,oncethedesignisestablishedandwe’re
goingtoimplement,wewouldbeimplementingasperthedesign
(BusinessLead,Interview,2014)
Thedesignremainstruetothecollaborativeeffortsofallcoredesignteammembersand
stakeholders.Itispreservedthroughconstantreflectionovertheintent.Thus,intent
becomesabasemeasureforevaluatingfinalimplementeddesignsolutionsandbecomes
ameasureofinvestment:
Intheprocesswegobackandreviewtheintentstatement;whatwe’vedone
whatwe’vedesigned…doesthatrelatetotheintent?Becausewhatweusuallydo
iswehaveanintentstatementfromthebeginningoftheprocessandthenyougo
throughyourdesign,formulatethehighleveldesignandthenyougettotheend
ofitandgo“oklet’shavealookattheintentstatement”
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Apost-implementationreviewisoftenundertakenafterthedesignhasbeen
implementedbythebusinessline.Thispost-implementationreviewisconductedbythe
businesslineanddoesnotinvolvethedesignteamwhocreatedthedesignedsolution.As
aresultofthis,evaluationmeasuresarequantitativeandfocusondatapointsthan
qualitativeusersatisfaction.Websitehitsandefficiencyofthedesignoutcomeare
commonevaluationmeasures:
Intermsofthetestingthatwedo,immediatelyafterimplementation,ismore
arounddoesitworkordoesn’titwork.Ifitdoesn’tworkwearenotprepared
tosignoffonitoracceptitfromabusinessperspective.Wewouldbelooking
163
totryandresolvesomeofthoseissuesorareaswithwhateverthebugsare
inthesystem[…]generallyspeakingitwouldbepickedupbeforeitsactually
implementedbutsometimesyouknowthoseissueswillnotbeidentified
untilweactuallygoliveandhavesomereallifedatatotest
(BusinessLead,Interview,2014)
Noqualitativeuserevaluationisconductedafterimplementation.Thishasbeen
acknowledgedbytheprojectleadasanareaforimprovementinthedesignprocessat
theATO,“Whatwedidn’tdoiswedidn’tgobackandcheckwiththerealuser”(Project
Lead,Interview,2014).Thiscontradictsmuchofthephilosophybehindthedesign
process–whereemployeesemphasizeusersatisfaction.Becauseofthis,itappearsthat
thedesignprocessintheATOismoreaboutprovidingawayofeffectivelycollaborating
andefficientlyiteratingthroughproblemsthanitisaboutevaluatingdesignsolutions.
Thedesignfacilitatoracknowledgesthatadesignprocesscreatessuccessfuloutcomes,
yetdesignersdonothaveinvolvementinpost-implementationevaluationsandarenot
briefedonthequantitativemeasuresthatareconductedbythebusinessteam(Design
Facilitator,Interview,2014).
5.3.9Hurdlesofdesignthinking
Ofinteresttothiscasestudywaswhatconstitutedcomplexity.Complexityinthiscase
studywasattributedtoclientrelationshipsandstakeholdersinthedesignprocess
wherealargenetworkofindividualsisrequiredaspartofthedesignprocess.Theco-
designleaddescribesprojectsattheATOas“notcomplex,butcomplicated”(Co-Design
lead,Interview,2014).Hestatesthatitis“thecombinationofcomplicatedproblemswith
complexprocessesthattogethermakesdesignpracticeintheATOcomplex”(Co-Design
Lead,Interview,2014).However,theco-designleadaddsthatthedesignprocessitself
makestheinherentcomplexityoftheATOmoremanageable.Inhisexperienceasa
designer,hearguesthatthedifferencebetweendesigningonsmallerscaleprojectsand
largecomplexonesfoundintheATOisthatlargescaledesignprojectsaremoreiterative
andhaveahigherdegreeofengagementwithstakeholders(Co-DesignLead,Interview,
2014).Thisengagementrequiresallpartiestoparticipateinthedesignprocessandbe
informed:
164
Theactivityitselfisn’tmorecomplicated,it’sjusttheinfrastructureand
processaroundit.Tryingtomakesureyougetfromatob,whereyou’re
kindofkeepingeveryonehappywiththeirviewsandit’sreallykindof
gettingabalancebetweenviews…thisgoalandthebusinessgoal…
andgettingtheconstraintsrightintheprocess
(Co-DesignLead,Interview,2014)
ThecomplexityreallymoreorlesstellsmethatIneedtoengage
theenduseralotmoreandreallysay“doeswhatwebuildmeet
theirexpectationsthatisusualtothem?”
(ProjectLead,Interview,2014)
BecausethenatureofdesignintheATOismorecomplex,yetinclusive,theco-design
leadbelievesthattheauthoritythatmembersofthecoredesignteamholdonbehalfof
theirrespectivedepartmentalleviatesmuchofthecomplexityinthedesignprocess(Co-
Designlead,Interview,2014).Thisiscrucialtowardsmovingforward;whenthedesign
processneedstobalancesomanypeopleanddecisionsinitsdevelopment.
Atthecoreofcomplexityliesoneofthemostcommoncomplaintsaroundimplementing
adesignapproach:thedifficultyinexplainingthevalueofdesignthinkingto
stakeholders.Thismisunderstandingofvalueimpactsonthedegreeof‘buyin’that
stakeholdersholdtowardsadoptingadesignapproach:
Themostcommonproblemthatwehave,thatIhaveanyway,isthevalue.
Sopeopledon’tunderstandthevalueofdesign,thatit’sgoingtowork.
Peoplejustwanttomapoutstep-by-stepwhatthesolutionisgoingtobe
withoutthinkingtherightprocessthatneedstotakeplace.Thebiggesthurdle
formeisacombinationofvalueandwhatIkindofsay“Iknowtheanswer”.
Ifyougotsomeonethatthinks“I’vegottheanswertothis,I’mjustgoingto
designitmyself”,youknow,thatcommonlyisnotgoingtobeagoodoutcome
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
165
Anotherprimaryobstaclewasclient’scomingtocollaborativemeetingswithpredefined
problems,oftenaccompaniedwithprescribedsolutions.Holdingontoananswertoa
designproblemwasdescribedasthe“antithesis”totheempatheticmindsetbehind
designthinking(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).Atitsworst,adesignproblemwill
behandeddownfrompolicythatincludesadefinedsolution.Inthisinstancethedesign
teamcannotchangetheserecommendationsandinsteadneedtoworkwithinthe
problem-solutionspacegiven(DesignLead,Interview,2014).
Transforminghardwiredmindsetsofstakeholderswasanoverarchingobstaclethat
persistedthroughoutthedesignprocess.ThedesignfacilitatorattheATOarguesthatit
isthethinkingindesignthatneedstobeimproved,notthedoing.Indoingso,she
believesinternalcultureandcapabilitywillbeimproved(DesignFacilitator,Interview,
2014).However,theDesignfacilitatoraddsthatthekeytoachievingthisisforclients
andstakeholderstobeengagedintheprocess,throughactually‘doing’design.Seeing
firsthandtheinnovativenessbehindadesignapproach,willincreaseadvocatesfor
designthinkingthusenhancingandbuildingontheinternaldesignculture:
Youarehavingtogothroughsomethingtobreakpeoplesmindsdown,typically
inaworkshopandyou’vegotatleast2or3peopletheregoing‘Idon’tknow
whatI’mdoingherebecauseIcantellyouwhattheanswerisgoingtobeatthe
endoftheworkshop’.Butwegettotheendoftheworkshopandit’snotthesame
aswhattheythought
(DesignFacilitation,Interview,2014)
Thosethatarenewtoitareabithesitantandabitreluctanttogothere[…]some
seeitasahurdletotheirprocess.Soit’stryingtogetthatbuyin,thevalue.They
seethatthere’svaluetotheprocessthatcanhelpgetabetteroutcomethanwhat
theywereinitially,orthattheycouldthinkwe’regoingtoget
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Thedifferingmindsetsbetweenbusinessclientsandthedesignteamarepronounced.A
representativefromthebusinesslineinthecoredesignteamexplainsthat“businesswill
typicallysaywhatsolutionstheywantdelivered,asopposedtowhattheywantthe
solutiontodo”(Businesslead,Interview,2014).Thishighlightsthedichotomyof
thoughtbetweenclientanddesigner;thedesignteamseesproblemsasopportunitiesto
createsolutionsthatenableendusers(taxpayers).Incontrast,clientswillfocusonwhat
166
thesolutionshoulddoandthushaveaverystatic‘end’thinkingapproach.External
businessstakeholdersseesolutionsintermsofartefactsandnumberswheredesign
teamsseesolutionsintermsofpeopleandvalues(BusinessLead,Interview,2014).In
contrasttothesecomplaints,theprojectleadassertedthattherearenohurdlesinthe
designprocess,butthatitissimplyhardwork“Ithinkit’snotsomuchhurdles.It’shardwork.Butit’snecessary”(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).Overall,persistingwiththe
designprocess,particularlyonexternalstakeholders,isstartingtopayoff,“Ithinkthat’s
probablythebigadvantage…toreallyforcegoingtothisdesign,businessareasare
becomingmoreacceptingofclearlyarticulatingwhatitisthatisrequiredasopposedto
howitshouldbeachieved”(BusinessLead,Interview,2014).
5.3.10Conclusionsonadesignthinkingapproach
DesignintheATOhasastrongtheoreticalfoundationbehinditspractice.Thedesign
processintheATOhasclearanddefinitephases,butisalsoveryadaptiveandfluid.The
designmethodologyisrigid,aseachphaseneedstomeetcertainrequirements,butitis
thethinkingthatisfluidandadaptable(ProjectLead,Interview,2014).Withoutastrict
designapproach,theprojectscanbecomemorecomplexand‘boggeddown’indetails.
“Inthisregard,itisimportanttorememberthedesignprincipleaboutbeingdisciplined
butflexible;followadisciplinedyetflexibleprocessthatstaystruetoourdesign
principlesandachieveshigherqualityinlesstime”(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,
P.7).Designthinkingkeepsconceptsatahighlevelandholisticallypullsideastogether.
Despitetherelianceonrigidphasesanddesignmethods,itappearsthatthevalueofa
designerlyapproachemployedintheATOismoreaboutenablingadaptivemindsets
thanengagingwithdesignmethods.
Membersofthecoredesignteameachholdvaryingviewpointsonthedesignprocess
andondesignthinking.ThedesignfacilitatorarguesthatdesignthinkingintheATOis
moreaboutthemindsetthantheprocess.Shebelievesonecanengageindesignthinking
withoutengagingwiththeprocess,butaddsthattheprocessenhancesthemindset
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).However,thiscontradictsanearlierstatement
167
aroundimprovingdesignengagement;thatis,stakeholdersneedtoengageinthe
processinordertoachieveadesignerlymindset.Still,adesignerlyperspectiveisvery
muchanaturalattributeofdesigners,withlessexperiencedcollaboratorsstrugglingto
graspitsinherentholisticthinkingduetoover-emphasisingondetails:
It’saboutbeingabletoreducethecomplexityofitatthehighleveldesign...
youknowtalking,peopleoftentrytogetintothatdetailandthat’sastruggle
forfacilitatorstobringpeopleuptothehighleveldiscussion.Weneedtomake
surewhatdoweneedthesystemtodonothowdoesthesystemdoit
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
Thedesignleaddescribesdesignthinkingasaprocessthatconsidersuserexperiences
andexpectations.Designthinkingguidesteamstoaskspecific,user-centeredquestions
whichinturnguidesamindsettowardsmoreempatheticsolutions.Thedesign
facilitatorarguesthatthevaluebehindadesignapproachliesintheempathetic
considerationforuserexperiences:
Ithinkthevalueaddis,indesignthinking,theuserexperienceaspartof
theprocessandit’salwaysthroughoutourentiredesign.Wealwaysthink
aboutwhataretheuserexperiencesgoingtobe,whatisitgoingtobein
thisinteraction,andmakingsureitiswellconsidered
(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Inaddition,thedesignfacilitatorbelievesthatthedesignprocessisinnovativeandable
tounlocksuccessfuloutcomes.Shefeelsherroleistoinspirecollaborativeteamsintoa
designmindset.This,shebelieves,isajourneybutalsoaddsthatdesignthinkingisnot
justareflectionofaprocessbutisalsoembeddedintheoutcome,“makingsuredesign
thinkingisintheprocess,butitisintheoutcome,it’salsomakingsurethateveryone
elseistakenonthejourneytogettotherightoutcome”(DesignFacilitator,Interview,
2014).Thus,designthinkingistransitoryandcanadaptandchangeshapewithdifferent
peopleandproblems:
168
That’swhatImeanaboutdesignthinking.Tomeitcantransition,itcanmove
around.It’snotjustanATOthing.OurprocessisanATOthing.Sothat’stheway
wedochangemanagementandincorporatedesignersinchangemanagement.
Designthinkingcanbedoneinprivate,publicandalldifferententerprisesaswell
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014).
Despitespeakingpositivelyaboutdesignthinkinganditsimportance,thedesign
facilitatorcouldnotdifferentiatebetweenadesignerlyapproachfromotherprocesses.
Furthermore,nodefinitioncouldbeclearlyarticulatedonwhatexactlymakesdesign
thinkinguniquetodesignpractice.Whenaskedaboutthebenefitofdesignthinkingand
adesignapproach,therewaslittlecommentaryonitseffectivenessincreating
innovativedesignsandimplementationofsolutions.Instead,thedesignprocessis
spokenoffromamorepersonalspace,andlesssofromasolutions-orientatedfocus.
Manyteammembersemphasisedthebenefitsofadoptinganempatheticanduser-
centeredmindset,andthebenefitofadesignprocessforcollaboratingwith
multidisciplinarygroups:
Ithinkthatshiftingtothatiterativekindofmodelandhavingthe
stakeholdersengagedrightthroughoutandhavingpeoplehavingthe
decisionhaskindofhelpedusabitmore
(Co-DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Ithinkdesignthinkingisaboutthewaywhichweneedtocomeupwithour
solutions.Theprocessgetsusthroughit.SolikeIsaid,ourprocessistrialand
testedanddoneoverandoveragainandweknowthatitworks.
(DesignFacilitator,Interview,2014)
ItappearsthatdesignthinkingintheATOhashadgreaterimpactoncultureand
collaborationthanonthedevelopmentofinnovativesolutions.Furthermore,thedesign
processhasproventhattheredoesnotneedtobeaprofessionaldesignerleading
practiceinordertogeneratedesignthinking.Designerlyprocessmethodssuchas
visualisationtechniquescarryanagencytofacilitatecollaborationanddesignthinking
amongstateamofuntraineddesignprofessionals.Thisraisesquestionsovertheroleof
thedesignprofessionalandtheirimpactonthedesignprocessbeyondthatofa
facilitator.
169
6.
CaseStudy3
Thefinalcasestudyforthisdissertationwillfocusontheapplicationofdesignthinking
inanonline,collaborativeenvironment.Thiscasestudyhasbeenselectedforitextends
onJunginger’s(2009;2012)positionsofdesignpractice,toprovideanexampleofdesign
activitythatisnotsituatedwithin,orontheperipheryof,aninstitutionalised
organization.ThiscasemaybeconsideredasafifthelementtoJunginger’sframework,
thatis,anexampleofexternaldesignpracticeoperatingwithoutdirectrelationshiptoan
existing,institutionalizedorganizationalsystem,butinstead,asadecentralizedopen
sourceplatform.OpenIDEOwaschosenasthesubjectforthefinalcasestudyondesign
thinkingincomplexenvironments.Thisplatformappliesthedesignprocessinanonline
environmentthataimstooperateasadecentralizeddesigncommunity,freefrom
traditionalhierarchicalstructuresimposedbyanorganisationormanagementteam.
Thiscasepresentsacomplex,de-centralisedsystemthatisanopen-sourcenetwork.
Furthermore,thesubjectandfocusofthewebsiteinherentlytackleslarge-scalecomplex
societalandenvironmentalproblems.Thischapterwillanalyseandhighlightthe
behaviorofdesignthinkingonthisplatform.OpenIDEOhasbeenchosenasitisthefirst
projectthathasformallytransferredthedesignprocess,anddesignthinking,ontoan
opensource,de-centralisedonlinenetworkwiththeaimoftacklingcomplexsocial
issues.Thischapterwillanalyseandhighlightthebehaviorofdesignthinkinginan
online,opensourceplatformthathasnodirectengagementwiththedesignproblemthat
traditionallysitswithinanorganizationalecosystem.
170
6.1AbouttheOpenIDEOplatform
OpenIDEOisanonlineplatformthatencouragesmemberstocollaborativelytacklesocial
problemsthroughadesignprocess.EstablishedasasideprojectbyIDEOemployeesin
2010,todaytheOpenIDEOplatformboastsover28,000members(Durst,2012).Theaim
oftheplatformisto“designbetter,togetherforsocialgood”(OpenIDEO,“AboutUs”,
2014,para.1)anditseekstoachievedesign-focusedsocialinnovationthrough
collaborativeintelligence.
Solvingcomplexsocialproblemsrequiresdepthandbreadthofknowledge(Paulini,
2012.p.1).TimBrown,presidentoftheparentcompanyIDEO,oncedescribedhis
employeesas“T-shapedpeople”(Brown,2009).T-shapedpeoplehaveabroad
knowledgebasecombinedwithadeepexpertiseinoneparticularprofession.Withthe
OpenIDEOplatform,IDEOisabletocreateaT-shapedcommunity;where,onan
individuallevel,participantsbringspecificpersonalexpertisebutasacommunitycreate
abreadthofsharedknowledge.
Onlinecollaborativeactivityisreferredtoas“collectiveintelligence”.Accordingto
Paulini,Murty&Maher(2010)collectiveintelligenceisatermgiventocollaborationthat
existsinanonlineopensourceenvironment.Collectiveintelligenceissimilarto
collaborationbutwiththeexceptionthatanyindividualmayparticipateinthe
collaborationprocess.Paulini,Murty&Maher(2010)distinguishbetweencollective
intelligenceandcollaboration,statingcollectiveintelligenceis“contributionsfromany
motivatedindividualsratherthanonlyfromapre-selectedteamofindividuals”(p.2).
Paulini,Murty&Maher(2013)furtherexplainsthatcollectiveintelligenceindesign“isa
typeofgroupintelligence,characterisedbyhighlevelsofcollaboration,asopposedto
collecteddesign,whichaggregatesdesignsolutions”(p.91).OpenIDEOisaplatform
harnessingcollectiveintelligencethroughdesignpracticetogenerateinnovative
solutionstosocialproblems.
Collectiveintelligenceisacommonstrategyemployedbybusinessleadersseekingto
capitalizeonopeninnovation.Openinnovationisatermthatoriginatedinbusiness
strategyandinnovationliteratureandisdefinedasfirmswhocrowdsourcefreshideas
outsideofthefirm,orwhopublishideasforevaluationfromthecommunity(Seltzer,&
Mahmoudi,2012,p.3).Inprivatesectorinnovation,crowdsourcingattractsusersto
171
contributedesigniterationsforsolutionsthatmaybeusedbyitscontributors.
Crowdsourcing,a“processgenerallyassociatedwithprivatesectorinnovation”(Seltzer
&Mahmoudi,2012,p.9)wasoriginallycoinedbyWiredmagazineeditor,JeffreyHowe
(Seltzer&Mahmoudi,2012,p.7).Yet,accordingtoSeltzer&Mahmoudi(2012),
crowdsourcingdiffersfromuserinnovationinthat“crowdsourcingattemptstodraw
fromeveryone,userandnonuseralike,whereasuserinnovationisreallyaneffortby
userstobettermeettheirownneeds”(p.8).OpenIDEOhaveintroducedanewapproach
tocrowdsourcingandcollectiveintelligence.Bycombiningprivatesectorcompanies
withopensource,socialinnovationinitiatives,OpenIDEOprovideaplatformtosupport
thesponsorshipofdesignforglobalsocialissues,tackledbythepublicusingadesign
processanddesignthinking.
6.1.2Datacollectionandanalysis
TheOpenIDEOplatformpresentssocialissuesas“challenges”(OpenIDEO,n.d,
“Challenges”).Thechallengesareproblemsrelatedtoorhavebeenchosenoutofinterest
byasponsoringorganisation.Thesechallengesareaccompaniedbyabriefthathasbeen
problem-framedbyOpenIDEOemployersandthechallengesponsor(Lakhaniet.al,
2013).Sponsorsfundtheimplementationoffuturedesignsolutionsinresponsetothe
socialchallengepresented.ChallengesarepostedtotheOpenIDEOwebsiteandfollowa
designprocess.
TheOpenIDEOplatformisadynamicwebsiteandinaconstantstateofdevelopment.As
such,contentobtainedforanalysiswillfocusprimarilyontheplatformatthepointin
timeofaselectedprojectchallenge.Widerinsightsandcomparisonswillrefertothe
platformasitstandstoday,however,emphasisisplacedupontheanalysisandnatureof
theOpenIDEOplatformatthepointintimeoftheprojectchallenge.Analysisforthiscase
studyonOpenIDEOwillfocusontheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfood
productionandconsumption?ThisprojectchallengewaspostedinMarch2011
(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption”)and
concludedinJuly,2011.TheprojectsponsorsforthischallengewereArtsQueensland
andtheIDEASfestival,Queensland.
172
Informationabouttheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodconsumption
andproduction,initiatedanalysisondesignthinkingonOpenIDEO.Informationwas
gatheredabouttheplatformandprojectchallengeatthepointintimewhenthe
challengewaspublished.Analysisonthiscasestudyfocusesonthepresentation,
functionalityandsocialinteractionwiththedesignprocessanddesignthinkinginthis
online,de-centralisedsystem.Includedinthisanalysisistheexaminationofdesign
developmentsinresponsetothirdandfourthorderproblemspresentedonOpenIDEO.
Eachphaseinthedesignchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodconsumptionand
production,washolisticallyanalysedtomaintainanalyticalconsistencywithresearch
analysisofthedesignprocessconductedontheprevioustwocasestudies.However,the
largevolumeofinformationavailableontheOpenIDEOplatformandprojectchallengeis
beyondthescopeofanalysisforthiscase.Tomanagedataoverload,limitationsonthe
scopeofanalysisforthiscasestudywasestablished.
Analysisontheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionand
consumption,focusedonarchivaldocumentationonthedesignanddevelopmentoffour
designconcepts.Commentthreadsattachedtoeachdesignconceptpageexistasa
timelineofcollaborativedesignactivity.Thefirstthirtycommentsforeachdesign
conceptwerecollectedforanalysis.Thirtycommentsisestablishedasthesamplesizeas
itbestreflectedformativestagesofcollaborativedesigndevelopmentwhichrequiresa
highdegreeofonlineinteractionandthinking.Conversationsinthelatterstagesofthe
commentthreadsforeachconceptfocusedonfeedbackevaluationsratherthanactive
andcollaborativethinking.
Inadditiontoinformationcollectedoncollaborativeactivityforeachdesignconcept,
generalinformationontheOpenIDEOplatformandcontextualinformationaboutthe
projectchallengewerealsocollectedforanalysis.Informationbehindtheproject
challengebrief,including“missionbriefs”,wasobtained.Missionbriefsaremini-tasks
assignedtothecommunityduringtheresearchphaseandarepartoftheOpenIDEO
designprocess.Fortheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproduction
andconsumption,fourmissionswerepresentedtoinspirethecommunitytoconduct,
collectandpostresearchknowledge.Datacollectedonmissionbriefswasselectedby
filteringcontentaccordingtothehighestnumberofcomments.Onecommunitypostwas
selectedforeachmissionintheprojectchallenge,resultinginatotaloffourmission
postsforanalysis.Fromthecompletedataset–thatincludescommentscollectedon
173
conceptsandmissionbriefs-atotalof281commentswasobtainedforanalysis.
InconjunctionwitharchivaldatacollectedontheOpenIDEOplatformandproject
challenge,usersandstakeholderswereinterviewed.Fiveparticipantswererecruitedfor
thiscasestudy.Fourparticipantswererecruitedfromtheprojectchallenge,Howmight
webetterconnectfoodconsumptionandproduction:Sarah,David,RachelandRichard
whoworkedasaclienttothesponsorArtsQueensland.Thefinalparticipant,Jake,
contributedconceptstoadifferentprojectchallengethatwasoperatingconcurrently
withthisproject.Theseinterviewparticipantswereselectedbasedontheirinteractions
withtheprojectchallengeand/orexperienceswiththeOpenIDEOplatformandprocess.
Conversationswithparticipantsresultedinover8hoursofrecordedinterviews.
Theresearchandanalysisconductedforthiscasestudyhasbeendesignedtomaintain
analyticalconsistency.Thedatacollectedforanalysiswasestablishedthrough
comparisononthescopeandsizeofdataobtainedintheprevioustwocasestudies.
Codingandanalysisfollowedthesameguidelineandprocedureappliedtotheprevious
twocasestudiespresentedinthisthesisandoutlinedwithin3.ResearchFramework
Framework[SeeexamplefromAppendixA,BandC].Assuch,codeswereassignedto
contentfollowingacriticalrealistgroundedtheorymethodology.Aswithpreviouscase
studies,emergentthemeswillbepresentedfollowingachronologicaloutlineofthe
designprocessonOpenIDEO.
174
6.2Theprojectchallenge
6.2.1TheBrief
ChallengespresentedontheOpenIDEOplatformarebroad.Theproblemchallenge,
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,isframedincontextof
strengtheningrelationshipsbetweenfoodproducersinQueensland,Australiaandlocal
Queenslandconsumers.Thischallenge,however,ispresentedinlightofalarger
sustainableobjective;framingaproblemthatimpliesabroaderfocusthanthelocal
Queenslandcommunityinwhichitissituated(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetter
connectfoodproductionandconsumption?”).Ambiguityisthusinherentinproblem
challengeswithabroadscopeandfocussuchasthischallenge.
ThesponsorforthisprojectchallengewasArtsQueensland.Richard,aclientofthe
projectsponsor,wascontractedtohelpdeveloptheprojectchallengewithOpenIDEO.In
addition,Richardwascontractedtoorganiseworkshopsfortheco-sponsorofthe
challenge,IDEASfestival;afestivalaimedtoprovideQueenslander’stheopportunityto
“connectlocally,nationallyandgloballywithinnovativeanddiverseideasandthinkers”
(NolaninQueenslandGovernment,2011)furtherenhancingtheglobalperspectiveofthe
challengebeyondjusttheQueenslandcommunity.Theseworkshopsincludedkey
OpenIDEOemployees,facilitatorsandfestivalparticipants.Thepurposeofthese
workshopswastoinvitekeyOpenIDEOemployeestopresentdesignthinkingtoaselect
groupofinvitedindividuals.Indoingso,conceptsdevelopedduringandrelatedtothe
projectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,were
usedasideationactivitiespresentedbyOpenIDEOforworkshopparticipants.The
OpenIDEOprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionand
consumption,ranonlineoverthreemonths:fromMarchuntilJune2011.
175
6.2.2Problemframingandthefuzzyfrontend
Fortheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,
thesponsor,clientandOpenIDEOco-createdtheprojectchallengestatementand
supportingbrief.Thecommunitywasnotinvolvedinthisproblem-framingprocess,nor
weretheymadeawareofthisprocess(Interview,Richard,2014).Thus,theOpenIDEO
communitymustacceptthebriefdevelopedanddefinedbythesponsorandOpenIDEO.
Forthisprojectchallengeandothers,identifyingthechallenge(problem)isnotmade
availabletotheOpenIDEOcommunity.Hereexistsa“doubleframing”;whereOpenIDEO
helpproblemframethebriefforthesponsorandthenfortheonlinecommunity.
Asaconsequence,OpenIDEOcommunitymembersoftenarenotsolvingthesame
problem.Withoutparticipationinthebriefingandproblemdefinitionphase,a
disconnectionoccursbetweentheprojectaimandconceptdesigns.Aidingthis
disconnectionarebroadandambiguousprojectchallengesdefinedbyOpenIDEOandthe
participatingsponsors(Interview,Jake,2014).Thebrieffortheprojectchallenge,How
mightweconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,askstheOpenIDEOcommunityto:
Considerissuessuchasenergyuse,transportation,biodiversity,food
security,nutrition,obesity,thehealthofruraleconomiesandthestrength
ofinter-generationalandinterculturalknowledgesharing
(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionand
consumption:thebrief”,para.3).
Thebroadscopeoftheprojectchallengeforcescommunitymemberstointerpretand
definetheproblemwithinthepre-definedprojectchallenge.Asaresult,membersendup
problem-framingdifferentneedsanddefinedifferentproblemstosolve.Thebroadand
ambiguousprojectchallengesonOpenIDEOamplifythe‘fuzzyfrontend’,leavingthe
OpenIDEOcommunitytoidentifyandspecifytheirownproblemdespiteframingefforts
byOpenIDEOandtheclient/stakeholderteam.Becauseofthis,OpenIDEOcommunity
membersareoftennotansweringthesamechallengequestion:“theyareverydisparate,
theyaren’tsolvingthesameproblem”(Interview,Jake,2014).
TheOpenIDEOcommunitydonotengageinhigh-levelstrategicdesignthinkingand/or
problemframingandthushavenoagencytowardseditingorchangingtheproject
challenge.Becauseofthis,theOpenIDEOcommunityexperiencesimilarfrustrationsthat
176
designersoftenexperiencewithclients.Theonlinecommunitymayfeelthecommon
frustrationof,inthiscontext,theclient(OpenIDEOandthechallengesponsor)bringinga
predefinedproblemwithinthebrief(theprojectchallenge).Jakeexpressedafeelingof
disconnectionbetweenthebriefingphaseconductedbyOpenIDEOandthechallenge
posted,addingthathewouldhave“preferredtohavemoreinputintheproblemframing
andbriefingstagefortheprojectchallenge”(Interview,Jake,2014).Jakealsoaddedthat
theambiguitybehindthechallengebriefprovidedbyOpenIDEOdoesn’t“gettothepoint
wheretheirinformationisclarifyingtheproblemtheyaresolving”(Interview,Jake,
2014).Inorderfortheonlinecommunitytoeffectivelyengagewiththedesignproblem,
anddesignthinking,theproblemmustbeclearlyarticulated(Seltzer&Mahmoudi,2012,
p.7).Whenthecommunityhasnochoiceovertheshapeoftheproblemorbrief,framing
theproblemcorrectlybecomesasignificantchallengeforbothOpenIDEOanditsonline
community.
6.2.3ResearchandInspiration
ResearchisthefirstphaseofthedesignprocessonOpenIDEO.Theresearchphase
encouragescommunitymemberstoconductbothprimaryandsecondaryuserresearch
(OpenIDEO,n.d“Howitworks”).Fortheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnect
localfoodproductionandconsumption,researchisconductedunderthetitleof
‘inspiration’(OpenIDEO,n.d,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionand
consumption?:Inspiration”).Inspirationisastagewherethecommunityconducts
researchandsharesknowledgeinordertoincreaseunderstandingonthechallenge
topic.
WithintheinspirationphaseOpenIDEOfacilitate“missions”inordertoguidethe
communitytowardskeyconsiderationsandperspectivesontheprojectchallenge.
Missionsencouragethecommunitytoengagewithformativestagesofthedesign
processandhelpthecommunityconductandcollectresearchforthechallengeathand.
Missionstatementsaretailoredtotheproblemchallenge,butbroadlyspeaking,
encourageuserstoconductprimaryandsecondaryresearch.Missionsdirectthe
communitytowardsconductingresearchinpreparationforthefollowingphase,
concepting.Missionshelpthecommunitytogaincontextualunderstandingoftheproject
177
challengewhilstgatheringappropriateinsightsinordertogeneratedesignideas.With
suchgeneralprojectchallenges,missionsarerequiredforfocusbutfailedtoinspire
memberstoconductorpostprimaryresearchandobtaindirectexperiencewithdesign
researchmethods.
“[…]Ifyouliveinanurbancommunitytryvisitingortalkingtopeopleyouknow
inruralareas-whatarethedifferencesinthewayfoodisconsumed(andvice
versa)?Ifyou’vemovedfromthecitytoaruralareaorruraltourban-whatdo
youmissinyourfoodexperiences?Trytalkingtoparents,grandparentsorother
elderlypeopleyouknow.Whatinspiresyouaboutthewayweusedtoviewfood
productionandconsumption?Arethereanyotherconnectionsbetweenlocal
communitiesthatarenotfoodrelatedbutcouldprovideusefulinsights?Take
photos,sketchoutmapsordiagramsofinspiringconnections,tellusstoriesof
howcommunitiescometogetheraroundfood.[…]”
(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Missionstatement1,Inspiration:Howmightwebetterconnect
foodproductionandconsumption?”)
Despiteencouragementtoconductprimaryresearch,themajorityoftheOpenIDEO
communitypostedinformationthatwassourcedfromtheinternet.Fortheresearch
challenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,ananalysisof
thefirst50missionconceptsposted(filteredbythehighestnumberofcomments)
containedonlythreeaccountsofprimaryresearch(Artefact1,Keys,2011;Artefact2,Del
Ser,2011;Artefact3,Munshi,2011).Incontrasttothisobservation,interviewswith
communityparticipantsindicatedthatforsome,primaryresearchintheformofuser
testingandinterviewswereconducted(Interview,Rachel,2014;Interview,Jake,2014).
Thissuggeststhatmoreusersmayhaveconductedprimaryresearchbuthadnotshared
thisresearchonlineduetotimeandtechnologicalconstraints.
Thenextphase,concepting,focusesonideationandapplyingknowledgegainedfromthe
inspiration(research)phase.OpenIDEO’sstrengthliesinitsconceptingandrefinement
phases.ThesephasesaffordtheOpenIDEOcommunitywiththehighestdegreeof
autonomyandactivitytowardstheprojectchallenge.Textbaseddialogueintheformof
achronologicalcommentsthreadisthemainmethodofcommunicationonOpenIDEO.
Thus,analysisofthebrainstormingandideatingbehaviorsbetweencommunity
membersrequiresindepthanalysisofconversationsbetweenusersthroughcomments
postedwithintheconceptingphaseandphasesthatfollow.
178
6.2.4Communicationandconversation
Fortheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodconsumptionandproduction,
281commentsrecordedfromfourdesignconceptsandfourprojectmissionswere
analysed.Analysisofconversationsduringconceptingandrefinementphasesrevealed
thatcommentscouldbeplacedintwomaincategories:passiveandpro-active
participation.Passiveparticipantsprovidecommentsthatoftenstand-alone;theaimand
purposeisnottotriggerorrespondtoactiveconversationthreads.Instead,passive
commentsprovidesupport,offersubjectiveandpersonalopinions,oraddgeneralun-
constructivebanter.Pro-activeparticipantsprovidecommentsthatrequiretwo-way
communication;theaimistotriggerdialogueandactivelybuilduponexistingideas:
Ireallyliketheinter-generationalqualityofthisconcept!Also,thephotois
awesome.(Comment,passiveparticipant,2011)
IreallylikethisideatooandMichaelPollanwroteagreatarticlelastyear
aboutcommunitiesinItalythathavecommunalhearthsthatstaylitalldayand
night;peoplebringtheirunbakedbread,theirpizzadoughandwhateverelse
theymightfireinthehearthandenduptalking,eatingandsharingstoriestoo.
Reallyinspiring-http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/magazine/10dinner-
t.html.Iwonderhowthiswillbringtheproductionaspectcloserthough-people
areobviouslybringingtheingredientstothecommunalkitchenbutwhereare
theingredientscomingfrom?Howmuchcanbegrown,preparedandcookedin
thesameplace?(Comment,pro-activeparticipant,2011)
Pro-activecommentswereidentifiedascommentsthatcritique,questionoractively
engagewithiteratingideas.Pro-activecommentsarelesscommonthanpassive
comments.Ofthe281commentstranscribed,114weredeemedpro-activeand167
passive(whichincludes12commentsfromfacilitators).Includedwithinthecomments
transcribedwereconversationthreads.Commentsthatcontainedthreeormore
respondentswasconsideredtobeacollaborativeteamthread.Commentsbetweenonly
tworespondentsmaybeconsideredpro-activebutarenotconsideredacollaborative
thread.Similarly,notallconversationthreadsarepro-activeorconstructivetothe
designconceptathand:
179
P1:Ihaveanidealinkedtoyourconcept:canwealsoaddfishtotheeatclopedia,
andhavea‘virtualchapter’called‘fishcopledia’orsomethinglikethat?The
reason:overfishingisamajorissuearoundtheglobe,includingAustralia.Weall
knowhowhealthyitistoeatfish,butweoftendon’tknowwherethefishweeat
comesfrom,whatittakestohaveitservedonourdinnerplate,isitfrom
somewherecloseby,etc?Irefertotheseinspirations:http://bit.ly/glqOlzand
http://bit.ly/ffZ26Q.Letmeknowwhatyouthink.Mytwocents:forthesakeof
simplicity,Ibelievewecansetupanewconcept,butIalsowanttohearyour
thoughts…
P2:Yes,goodidea.Makeittransparentthedifferencebetweencaughtwildfish
andfarmedfish(andshowwhatthesefarmedfisheat)becausesomeareashave
overfishingonlybecauseofthehuntforcheapfoodforfarmedluxuryfishes
P3:Sorrybeensoooabsent.Myotherfull-timejob(theonethatpays)gotcrazy.
[ToP1]Ilikethisalot!Youcouldtotallyhaveadd-onsorexpansionpacks.
However,Ithinkthisideacanbeanappinandofitselfaswell.Iwasthinking
aboutitsomemore,andafterreadingyourposting,Icouldactuallyseehowit
functioned.
(Exampleofpro-activecommentthread,2011)
Thecharacteristicsofconversationthreadsmirrorscharacteristicsfoundinface-to-face
designideationsessions.Face-to-facecollaborationis“bestdoneinsmallgroupsoffive
toeightparticipants”(Junginger,2007,p.62)assmalldesignteamscreatemorefocused
andefficientconversations.Ofthe281commentsrecordedfromtheprojectchallenge,
thehighestnumberofcommentswithinathreadwas7.Thisthreadcontainedfour
activeparticipants.Conversationthreadscontainingfewerindividualsappearmorefluid.
Itappearsthatface-to-facedesignissues,suchashavingtoomanyparticipantsina
designteam,arealsoproblemswhenco-designingonline.Individualsappearmore
engagedwhenconversingdirectlybetweenfewmembersinathread.Furthermore,a
smallergroupofactivecommentersappearmoreengagedwiththeprojectathandand
thuscreateamorepersonal,collaborativeconversation.However,whenonline,smaller
conversationthreadsmaycreate‘exclusive’conversations;onceathreadevolves
betweenfewindividualsitbecomeshardforothermemberstokeepupor‘jumpin’on
theconversation:
180
P1:I’vebeenthinkingaboutthisalittlebit—notjustaboutthisappbutanyof
theservicesthatrequiresomebuy-in/interest.Attheendoftheday,yougotto
createsomethingthatpeoplewanttouse(inadditiontoitbeingeasilyusable)
[…]Sotobuildonyourawesomequestion:whatotherconceptsherecouldbea
“gateway/portal”thatmightdothejobofandfitinwellwith?*Icoulduseyour
helphere
P1:HereisSarah’sidea:
http://openideo.com/open/localfood/concepting/any-ideas-campaign/
HereisKara’sidea:
http://openideo.com/open/localfood/concepting/make-it-a-maze-ing/
I’msuretherearetonsmore(ifanyoneseesthemletmeknow)
P2:herearetwoofmine,thatcouldworkincombination:
Enablingoff-linesocialgamingandotherfunthings,IRL:
http://openideo.com/open/localfood/concepting/funny-trendy-ironic-
improvised-influences-and-inspiration/
Givingmonetaryincentive,bysimplychoiceofrecipesandmethodofcooking:
http://openideo.com/open/localfood/concepting/-power-diet-2013-economy-
focused-home-cooking-manual-wiki-or-app/
P3:Ilikethethreewaysyou’redescribingofgettingfolksengaged.Formethe
mostpowerfulisthethirdone-howtogetpeople’sinterest;whatshallbethe
trigger?I’mthinkingofatriggerlike…yougettaggedinaphotoonFacebookwith
veryhighprobabilitymostpeoplewouldcheckthepictureandseewhichphoto,
whotaggedthem,etc.Twoideasalongtheselines:1)whynothave
fruits/vegetablesthatareassociatedwithcertainmonths?[…]2)youdescribein
feature6,thattheconsumercanpinafarmer;whataboutgivingaratingtothe
farmersproduce.Everyfarmerwillbeinterestedtoknowwhatcustomerssay
abouthis/herproduce.Whatareyourthoughts?
P1:Yourwallofcreativelogicissolid!Willhavetogobacktothebatcaveand
buildtheseoutabitintooptionalbuilds-especiallyratingthefarmer![top2]ill
takealookatthesethanks
181
P4:Amazingconcept!Ilove[P2’s]ideaofarating/reviewoftheproduct,which
wouldbeanincentivetousetheapp,andalsostimulatedemandfortheproducts
deemedbythecrowdtobethebest”
(Exampleofalongcommentthread,2011)
Incontrast,progressishinderedbylongconversationthreads.Itappearsthatonlineco-
designandbrainstormingdiscussionsaremoresensitivetointerruptions.Unlikeface-to-
faceconversations,abreakinonlinediscussionsthroughtheintroductionofafocused
conversationthreadappearstoaffecttheflowofcollaborationandemergent,collective
thinking.Inaddition,progressishinderedbytherepetitionofideas.Alargenetworkof
membersincreasesthetendencyforpoststhatrepeatwhathasalreadybeensaid.
Membersareaware,andsometimesadmitthattheydidnotreadearliercomments,“I
mustadmitthatIhaven’treadallthecommentsbelow,butIjustwantedtoadd
somethingthatmighthelp,onthetechnicalsideofthings.”(Comment,2011).Submitting
commentswithoutknowledgeofprioriterationsslowstheideationandrefinement
process.Thisagainreducestheeffectivenessofperceivedcollaborationthatisadvocated
onOpenIDEO,asmembersrarelyinteractasagroupandinsteadcomment
independently.
Activeconversationthreadsarefewandfarbetween.Themajorityofthecomments
observedaredirectedeitheratanindividual(usuallytheownerofaconcept)orposted
asageneralcommentontheprojectidea.Thereisawidevarietyofindividual
commentersinteractingineachprojectchallenge,yet,veryfewaskquestionsinorderto
promptconversationsuchasposingquestionstothecommunity.Commentsthatdopose
questionstopromptconversationoftenarelostamongstthegeneralthread.Toeradicate
thisissue,commentershopingtosparkconversationwilldosodirectingtheirquestions
toanothermember.Thismayinitiateanactivethread,butitdoessoatthepossible
exclusionofothermembers.Contrarytoresearchconductedonopensource
collaboration(Lutheretal2010;Paulini,Murty&Maher2011,p.11),theredidnotexist
ahighdegreeofbanterbetweencommenters.However,observationsoncollective
activityonOpenIDEOprovedthatthereexistsacoregroupofpro-activeindividualswho
commentregularlyacrossandwithindifferentconceptthreads,corroboratingresearch
conductedbyFugeet.al.(2014).Theseareconsideredhighlyactiveparticipants.
182
6.2.5Language
ThelanguageonOpenIDEOispersonalandintrospective,butnotreflective-in-action.
Commentsobserveddescribepreferenceonbehalfofoneselfratherthanofausergroup
orcommunity.Expressionssuchas“Ithink”,“Ilike”or“Ilove”dominatediscussions.
Thereislittleconsiderationgiventoateam,overarchingcommunity,orthecommunity
wherethesolutionwillbedelivered.Commentarybasedonpersonalpreferencewas
oftengivenasmeansofsupport.Thisobservationconfirmsresearchconductedonopen
sourcecollaborationbyPaulini,Murty&Maher(2010)whoalsoobservedthat“voicing
agreementtoother’sideaswashigh,indicatinganemphasisonsocialsupport”(p.10):
P.1:Ilikethisideaalot.IalsolikeJanet’scommentabouttaste,andIthinkthata
goodapproachistoemphasizethegoodqualitiesandnotcallit‘imperfect’
implyingthatthereisa‘perfect’thatisbetter.Maybeeventrycharginga
premiumfor‘high-flavortomatoes’or‘exoticenormousstrawberries’.
(Exampleofsupportivecomment,2011)
P.2:NiceIreallylikethisidea.Iimagineitcouldtellyouwhatproduceisin
seasonaswell.IalsoappreciatethemobiledevicestatsthoughIimaginethese
numberstobegrowing,whichisevenbetternews
(Exampleofsupportivecomment,2011)
InclusivelanguageisarareoccurrenceamongstdiscussionsonOpenIDEO.Veryfew
memberscommentedusinginclusivelanguage,suchas“we”.Personalandintrospective
commentsonanonlineplatformsuchasOpenIDEOcreatesadominatingcharacteristic
withinconversationthreadsthatappearstocorrodecollaborativedesignthinking
activity.Withthemajorityofindividualsofferingpersonalopinions,conversationson
OpenIDEOdonotencourage,reflectorinspirefeelingsofcollectivecollaboration.This
contradictsresearchreferredtointheintroductiontothischapter;thatonline
collaborativeactivityexudescollectiveintelligence(Paulini,Murty&Maher2010;2013).
Rather,theplatformpredominantlyoperatesasamechanismforone-wayfeedback
directedtoanindividual’sdesignidea.Furthermore,thepositiveculturecreatesahigh
degreeofsupportbutlowdegreeofcriticalthinking.Thiscreatesapositiveconsensusor
collectivebias;acharacteristicthatiscounterproductivetogeneratinginnovativeideas
(Seltzer&Mahmoudi,2012,p.8;Fugeet.al.,2014).
183
6.2.6Divergenceandconvergence
ConvergentthinkingdominatesdiscussionsduringcollaborativeactivityonOpenIDEO.
Conversationsduringtheconceptingandrefinementphasesofthedesignprocess
centeredondesigndetails.Communitymembers,particularlypassivecommenters,offer
ideasandimprovementsthatfocusonfinerdetailsoftheconceptathand.Veryfew
membersoffercommentsthataimtoestablishthedesignideawithintheoverarching
brief,oremphasiseholisticanddivergentideas.Asaresult,conversationsoftenare
“caughtup”inthedetailsofideas.Thishabitmaydisableafundamentalcharacteristic
thatisrequiredwhendesignthinkingforcomplexenvironments:theinclusionof
systemicand/orstrategicthinking.Thelackofproblemdefinitionandframingmaybe
disablingthecommunity’sabilitytoreferconceptsbacktothelargerproblemchallenge
“itdoesn’treallyhavethedivergentconvergentthingthatyouwouldnormallyhaveina
designprocess.Itdivergesandconvergesonce.There’sonediamondintheentire
processandinnormalonesthere’stwoorthree”(Interview,Jake,2014).Jakearguedfor
greateremphasisandinteractionwiththeproblemdefinitionphase,withpurposefor
betterenablingthecommunitytodesignconceptsagainsttheproblemtoresolve:
Ifeltthereshouldbeanotherstagewhereyougobackandgo“okallthis
informationpeoplearecollecting,whatwearetryingtosolveisthis?The
problemwearetryingtosolve...herearethethingstosolveit,hereareyour
constraints”andIdefinitelywantedtobeinvolvedinthatstage
(Interview,Jake,2014)
Onceagain,thebroadandambiguousproblemchallengemayalsohindertheabilityfor
OpenIDEOmemberstothinkstrategicallyasthereisnoengagementwithformative
high-leveldesignthinkingthatexistsduringproblemframingandproblem
identification:
Well,Ithinkespeciallyitemsthatcombineseveralingredientsinthemcouldbe
goodtargets.Howmanymileshavetheingredientstravelledcombinedtothesite
ofproduction,andthenfromthesiteofproductiontothestore.Thatwouldmean
thattheappwouldalsohaveaGPSreadinginit,sothatitcancalculatethelast
miles.ItwouldbeaverygoodaddtotheGoodGuideappthatalreadyexistsas
well.Greatthinking!(Exampleofconvergentthinking,comment,2011)
184
However,divergencewasnotcompletelylost.Whileafewindividualsexhibited
divergentthinking,thedivergentthinkingthatwasobservedwasnotstrategic.
Divergentcommentsfocusedonmeta-narrativesoftheconceptathand:
Thismightalsobeagreatwaytobeginconversationsonawholerangeofother
issuessurroundingunconventional.Sincewecansotangiblytouchandfeelfruit
andveg,itisagreatanalogytogetyoungpeoplethinkingaboutnormsand
conventions.Greatidea!
(Exampleofadivergentcomment,2011)
Thesecommentsdescribephilosophicalreflectionsandidentifiedthebroader
importanceoftheidea.
6.2.7Qualityofinteraction
AgreatmeritofOpenIDEOisthequalityofcommunicationandinteractionbetween
communitymembers.Membersareextremelypositiveandencouragingtowardseach
other.Almostallcommentsobservedforanalysisincludedastatementofsupport.
Davidstatesthathewouldhavebeen“demotivatedbydeterioratingconversations”that
isoftenprevalentwithonlinesocialmediaplatforms(Interview,David,2014).The
natureoftheOpenIDEOcommunityemphasisesandinspiresrespectfulandpositive
interactions.However,qualitycommunicationdoesnotequalqualitycollaboration.As
mentioned,collaborationismorerepresentativeoffeedbackwithfewactivethreads
containingconversationsthatactivelyandcollaborativelybuilduponideas.
CollaborationonOpenIDEOismorerepresentativeofamassofindividualsoffering
adviceandopinionsthanactiveco-creationthroughonlineconversation.Thismaybe
largelyattributedtoalackofcriticalthinking.Commentscontainingreferencelinksto
inspirationsandsimilarideasarecommon,however,ofthe281commentsobserved,
nonepostedreferencestoavettedsource.Davidcommentedonthelackofevidence
behindideasandtheassumptionspostedontheOpenIDEOplatform,addingthatthis
significantlydeclinesthe“qualityandmeritofcollaborationonOpenIDEO”(Interview,
185
David,2014).Asaresultoflowco-creation,userfeedbackisnotconstructive.Amidst
passiveopinions,Rachelobservedthatshedidnotfinduserfeedbackusefulwhen
buildingorrefiningheridea(Rachel,Interview,2014).Jakeconcurred,alsodescribing
conversationsas“un-useful”,“lackingmerit”andvettedinformation(Interview,Jake,
2014).Withpassive,personalopinionsdominatingdiscussionstherearefew
constructiveconversationsfromwhichtopragmaticallyco-createideas.
6.2.8Visualisation
Visualisationisavitalelementindesignthinkinganddesignpractice.OnOpenIDEO,
visualisationisutilisedwhenuserspresentaconceptthatrequiresvisualimageryto
support,transferandcommunicatetheirideatothecommunity.Visualisationsare
createdbyownersofconcepts,orarecontributionssourcedfromtheinternet.Yet,
visualizationisnothighlyutilisedamidstcollaborativediscussionthreadsduring
ideation.Duringthesediscussionsmembersoftenshareweblinkstoexistingexamples,
however,ofallcommentscollectedforanalysis,nonepostedvisualartefactsonewould
normallyfindinface-to-facecollaborativedesignenvironmentsduringphasesof
conceptingandideation;suchasiterativesketches,diagramsandmaps.Inaddition,
commentaryontheaestheticsofideaswasnotacommonoccurrence.
OpenIDEOhighlightstheimpermanentandephemeralcharacteristicsofvisualisation
activityinthedesignprocess.Interestingly,interviewswithparticipantsrevealedthat
visualisationmethodswereutilisedinordertoclarifyandevolveideas,butwere
conductedoffline.Racheladmitstosketching,addingthatadownsidetoparticipatingin
anonlinedesignplatformlikeOpenIDEOis“needingtotransferphotosofofflinework”
(Rachel,Interview,2014).Echoingsentimentsaroundtheresearchphase,Sarahalso
admittedtotakingthedesignprocessoffline,throughsketchingvisualisations,butnoted
thattheseofflinevisualswere“spurofthemoment”andconductedonlywhenrequired
forcommunicatingideastotheOpenIDEOcommunity(Sarah,Interview,2014).These
reflectionsmaysignifythattheactofvisualisationduringdesignactivityisbestenabled
186
whenindividualscanimmediatelyconnectandreflectoverthevisualartifactemerging
beforethem.Thus,visualisationinthedesignprocessmaydependonimmediacyin
orderfortheactofsketchingandvisualco-creationtooccur.Theimpulsivenatureof
visualisationactivityinthedesignprocessemphasisestheneedforimmediateand
organicinteractionsthatenableunrefinedideastoevolvewithinateam.
6.2.9Knowledgesharingandexperience
Multidisciplinaryexperienceisakeycharacteristicofonlinecollaborativeactivityon
OpenIDEO.Designthinkingisoftendescribedasutilisingmultidisciplinaryteamsthat
combineamixofprofessionalexpertise(Dunne&Martin,2006;Owen2005,p.14;Sato
etal.,2010).However,onOpenIDEO,multidisciplinarycollaborationisnotanexampleof
professionalexpertisebutofpersonalexperience.Thus,experiencelevelsamongstthe
communityonOpenIDEOvary;frommembersnewtodesignpracticethroughtodesign
professionals.Thesediverseexperiencesbringarangeofperspectivesoncomplex
problemsanddesignthinking.
ContributingideasontheOpenIDEOplatformdoesnotdependonone’slevelofdesign
experience,butknowledgeonthecontentoftheprojectchallenge(Interview,David,
2014).OneofthemostcommonformsofknowledgesharingconductedonOpenIDEOis
sharingexperiencesfromone’sownlifestyle.Knowledgesharedthatisbasedon
experienceoftenreferstoanecdotalorculturalreferencesrelatedtothechallengeor
conceptidea:
IfIdidn’treallyhaveabackgroundinit[theprojectchallenge],
itwasreallydifficultformetothenjumpinandcontribute.That’s
whereIreallyonlylookedattheonesthatIfeltIcouldaddvalueto
(Interview,David,2014).
187
IreallykindofjustparticipatedinchallengesthatIknewthe
contentaboutorthingslikethatsoIdidn’tparticipateinthose
thatIdidn’tknowanythingabout
(Interview,Sarah,2014).
Asmanymembersdonotpossessindepthknowledgeonthechallengeathand,
subjectiveopinionsbasedonpreferenceandculturalexperienceisallmanymembers
cancommentwithauthority(Interview,Sarah,2014).Contributionsofthisnatureare
heavilyinfluencedbytheirsurroundings(Interview,David,2014).Thismayalso
influenceorexplainthemanycommentsexpressedusingpersonallanguagesuchas“I
think”or“Ilike”.
Inaddition,alargeproportionofknowledgesharedisfromrecollection.Itwasobserved
thatmanycommentersprovidedinformationfrommemoryandprovidednoformal
sourceorreference.Comparedwithmoreprofessionallydrivendesignprojects
requiringclientbuy-in,theactivityonOpenIDEOlacksrigor,expertiseandresourcesto
validatedesignideas:
AsachildIusedtobeterrifiedofsiamesetwinbananas,tomatoeswithextra
bumpsonthem[…]butI’vealwaysadvocatedlovingpeopleinallshapesand
sizes.ThisisthefirsttimeIamempathizingwith‘loveallvegetables’atleastin
theory.Idon’tknowifmykneejerkfrightwillgo.ButIwouldn’tmindifsomeone
cutuporjuiceditforme.Lol.”
(Exampleofanecdotalcomment,2011)
Withoutusersexplicitlystatingso,itisdifficultforparticipantstogaugethelevelof
expertiseandexperienceoffellowusers.Thisblursthelinebetweeninexperienced
commentersandexperiencedprofessionals.Withoutasenseofintellectualhierarchy,
contributionsmadetotheplatformareseenasequal.Contrarytoresearchononline
collaborativeforumsconductedbyPaulini,Murty&Maher(2010,p.10),theOpenIDEO
communityrarelysignpostpersonalandprofessionalexpertise.Conversationscentered
aroundpreferenceratherthanprovingauthorityorexpressingprofessionalexperience.
ThesupportiveandinclusiveattitudeofOpenIDEOmaydeterindividualsfromposting
authoritativecommentsofthiskind.However,thosethatdidstateanauthoritative
positionbecamecentraltodiscussions.Ofthe281commentsobservedforthiscase
188
study,onlytwoindividualsexplicitlystatedprofessionalexpertiseandknowledgeonthe
challengetopicathand.
Authoritative“expert”commentersarecentraltodevelopmentanddiscussionson
projectconcepts.Theseindividualsareactiveanddisplayahigherdegreeofcritical
thinking;highlightinggapsandproblemsinthecurrentdesignconcept.Furthermore,
theseindividualsaremoreconfidentwithpushingideasoutsideofthe“comfortzone”;
discussingsensitiveissuesandpointingouterrorsinideaspresented.Theseindividuals
aimtoactivelychallengetheconceptratherthanpassivelysupportideas.Authoritative
andexpertmembersaremorepracticalandrealisticintheirsupportandadvice:
Iamcurrentlyinthemiddleofbuildingawebsitewhichisprettymuchdoing
exactlywhatyousoexcellentlypropose,onlyconsumercreated.[…]So,afew
quicknotesfromsomeonewithseveralmonthsofresearch…
(Exampleofanexpertmembercomment,2011)
Thankforsharingyourexpertiseandknowledgeofthisarea.Doyouthink
verticallyintegratedretailerswhoruntheirownfarms(suchastheCo-opinthe
UK),havethedetailedproductinformationthisconceptwouldrequireavailable
internally?
(Exampleofaresponsetoexpertmembercomment,2011)
Interestingly,memberswhomakethemselvesknownasexpertswithauthorityonthe
topicathandarenotquestionedovertheirexperience.Professionalsarereadily
acceptedandtheiradviceabsorbedbythecommunitywithoutevidence.
Conversationsthreadsalsoappearmoreefficientduringideation;withcommunity
membersseekinghelpfromperceivedexperts.Thismaysignalaneedforcombining
expertmentorstoaidwithonlineopensourcecollaboration.
189
6.2.10RolesandArchetypes
CommonarchetypesemergedamidstinteractionsonOpenIDEO.Withoutclear
hierarchiesorpre-determinedpositions,self-formingrolesamongstmemberson
OpenIDEOhavebeenobservedthroughtheidentificationofarchetypes.These
archetypeshavebeensplitintotwogroupspro-activeandpassiveasidentifiedabove.
Pro-activearchetypescomprise:thepragmatist,theinquirer,theconceptor,thecross-
pollinatorandtheexpert(Table2).Thepragmatistispracticalandcritical,focusingon
critiquingideasforfeasibilityandimplementation.Theinquirerstimulatesconversation
byposingquestionsfordiscussion.Theconceptorisanactivememberbydefault,asthis
personisthecreatorofadesignconceptandhasavestedinteresttoactivelyparticipate
infeedbackfromthecommunity.Thecrosspollinatormakesconnectionsbetween
differentchallengesandideaspresentedonOpenIDEO.Crosspollinatorsareoftenactive
withinafewdifferentprojectchallenges.Theexpertisanauthoritativefigure,asserting
theirpositionandexpertisetothecommunity.Theseindividualstypicallysituatethe
ideawithinawidernarrativeanddiscussitsbroaderimportance.
Archetype Example
Thepragmatist Transparencywillbekeyinamarketwheremanytimesthe
farmerdoesn’tknowwhatthefinalpriceorfinalproductofwhat
heproducedis.[…]IagreewithStevethatitwouldworkwell
withproductthatisalreadycertifiedsincetheyalreadyhave
someinfrastructuretocapturethatstory(Comment,2011)
Theinquirer Ilovethisidea,Laura!Itnotonlyinformstheendconsumer,but
alsoobligatesthecompaniestothinkabouttheirfootprintand
makethatinformationaccountableandaccessibletotheend
user.Iwonderwhocouldobjectivelydeveloptheappforthe
companies,tryingobeastransparentaspossible?
(Comment,2011)
Theconceptor Sorryforthelaterely,Mark!Thanksforthelinks,Ihaven’tseen
thisbefore-it’sgreat!Buildingonanexistinginfrastructureis
prettymuchessentialforthistolaunchsuccessfully
(Comment,2011)
190
Thecross-pollinator Greatidea,Laura!IjustpostedasimilarideabeforeIsawthisof
createlabelingtotellthesamestories
(http://openideo.com/open/localfood/concepting/print-the-
process-on-the-packaging/?status_message-
Sucessfully+Updated)(Comment,2011)
Theexpert Reverseengineeringtheoriginlabelingispossiblewithasimple
routingenginebasedonestimations.See“oninformation
availability’para.Thisrouting-classificationdatamethodisused
onhttp://www.sourcemap.org/intheshorttermit’sprobably
themostrealistic(Comment,2011)
Table2:Pro-activearchetypesonOpenIDEO
Passivearchetypesconsistof:thesupporter,thefiller,theadd-on,thepromoter,and
finally,thefacilitatorsoftheplatformincludingtheclient(Table2).Thesupporterisa
personwhooffersnothingbutencouragementandaffirmationontheideapresented.
Thefillerprovidesun-constructiveinformationandsometimesengagesinbanter.The
add-onisanindividualwhobrieflybuildsuponanideaorprovidesareferencetoa
similarconcept.Thepromoterisanindividualwhosesolepurposeistospreadpublicity
anddirectconversationstotheirownconceptpage.Onthemoreadministrativeside,
facilitatorsworkonbehalfofOpenIDEOincludingtheclient.Facilitatorshaveapassive
roleandfunctionprimarilytoprovideencouragement.
Archetype Example
Thesupporter HeyValerie,Ireallyliketheinter-generationalqualityofthis
concept.Alsothephotoisawesome(comment,2011)
Thefiller Strawberriesaremy#1favoritefruit.Thathugeonelooksdelicious
J(comment,2011)
Theadd-on NiceIreallylikethisidea.Iimagineitcouldtellyouwhatproduceis
inseasonaswell.IalsoappreciatethemobiledevicestatsthoughI
imaginethesenumberstobegrowing,whichisevenbetternews
(comment,2011)
Thepromoter Greatidea,louise!(comment,2011)
Thefacilitators lostforwords.Butthere’s14kofyouonOpenIDEOthesedayswho
191
shouldallhavesomethingtoaddtothisexceptionalconversation
starter(comment,2011)
Table3:PassivearchetypesonOpenIDEO
Ofallthearchetypesdescribed,theconceptorholdsthemostimportantposition.
Beingaconceptordemandsactiveparticipationandassuch,affordsthehighestlevelof
interactionwiththedesignprocessanddesignthinkingonOpenIDEO.Theconceptoris
themostengagedindividualontheplatformandmustaddressideasandsupportwithin
theirconceptthread.Ultimately,conceptorsgainthemostoutofparticipatingwith
OpenIDEO.
DespitetheexclusionofproblemframingfromtheOpenIDEOcommunity,conceptors
stilltrytoengagewithframingthechallengeinordertosituatetheirideas.The
communityalsoenabletheconceptortoshifttheirperspectiveontheirowndesigns.The
OpenIDEOcommunityofferfeedbackthatnotonlyprovidessupportbutdiverse
viewpoints.Throughthis,theconceptorengageswithaformofproblemframingandre-
framing,orattheveryleast,toshifttheirownperspective.Thus,theperspectiveofthe
conceptorbroadensasfeedbackfromthecommunityisprovided,particularlyon
differingculturalworld-views.However,thisactofperspectivere-framingseemstoexist
asbenefitonlyfortheconceptorwhohasthegreatestvestedinterestinsynthesising
feedback:
Thankyouforthisobservation,Aaron!Ididn’tnoticeit,butit’strue.Ithinkitis
easierforpeopletorelatetoitthatwayandIamofteninspiredbythosepersonal
storiesthatmostlytakeplacewithinyourmostinnersocialcircle(Exampleofa
conceptorcomment,2011)
Followingconceptingistherefinementphase.Thisphaseiswheretheconceptormust
engagewithinformationpresentedbythecommunityandsynthesisefeedbackintoa
refinedsolution.Thus,conceptorsactassynthesisersofinformation.Throughout
ideationandrefinement,aconceptormustpayattentiontofeedbackthreads;iterating
andupdatingtheirideaasthreadsevolve.Conceptorsaremorelikelytopull
conversationsoutofconvergentdetailsanddirectfocusbacktotheoverarchingpurpose
behindtheiridea.Thus,theyaremorelikelytoseewhenideasarebecomingtoodetailed
andcomplexandaimtokeepconversationsholistic.Fortheconceptor,iterationisoften
aboutbuildingadifferentviewpoint.
192
6.2.11Facilitation
FacilitationonOpenIDEOfocusesonmotivation,ensuringallcommunitymembershave
asayandareactivelycontributingtotheprojectchallenge.FacilitationonOpenIDEOis
conductedthroughOpenIDEOemployeesandselectedhighprofileuserstitled
“communitymanagers”(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Kadri”).Theseindividualsareresponsiblefor
facilitatingcommunityinvolvementthroughoutthedesignprocess.
FacilitationonOpenIDEOispassive.Thereislittledirectionfromprofessionaldesigners,
withOpenIDEOemployersengagingwiththecommunityinanunstructuredandun-
authoritarianmanner.Facilitatorsmotivatethecommunityandprovidecommunication
whenrequired.Thiscontexthasshifteddesigncollaborationfromwhatwasonceledby
adesignexpert(thinker),towardsde-centralizingthedesignexpertmaybeperceivedas
theembodimentofdesignthinking.Fundamentaltothisdecentralisationisfor
OpenIDEOmanagersto“learnhowtobecomeeffectivefacilitatorsofinnovationforco-
creationinitiatives”where“understandingwhatmotivatesinnovation”iskeyto
“masteringthefacilitatorrole”(Gibson,2012,p.62).Thisprovidesmoreautonomy
prescribedtothecommunity,enablingmemberstobetterengagewithdesignthinking
asindependentdesigners.
6.2.12Refinementandevaluation
Refinementandevaluationfollowtheconceptingphase.Onceconceptinghasfinished,
OpenIDEOandthechallengesponsorstepintoselectthetop20ideastheybelievehave
potentialtomovetotherefinementphase(Gordon,2014,p.39).Thisselectionis
conductedprivatelybetweenOpenIDEOemployeesandthechallengesponsor.
Communitymembershavenoswayinselectingthebestconceptsforrefinement.
Conceptscanbeselfselectedbythecommunitythroughthenumberof‘applauses’that
aregiventoanidea(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionand
consumption?:Refinement”).Thiscrowdsourcedselectionistakenintoaccountwhen
OpenIDEOandtheclientdecideonfinalconceptsforrefinement(Richard,Interview,
2014).
193
Refinementisaphasethatemphasisespolishingideasandprototypingconcepts.
Membersmakerefinementsontheirconceptsbasedoncommunityfeedback,yetthese
iterationsareoftentextbased.Offlinesketchesandrefinementsconductedbymembers
arerarelypublishedbackonlineandthereisnoobviousfeedbackphasesoractions
(eitherindividuallyorcollaboratively)ontheOpenIDEOplatformbesidesevaluation
surveys.Jakecriticisedtheplatform,statingthathefeltthere“shouldbemoreiteration”
oncemembersbegantofocusonrefinement,tosee“iftheyaddressedtheproblemthat
theyidentified”(Jake,Interview,2014).DavidalsocritiquedOpenIDEOoniteration,
addingthattherewas“nooversightontheplatformandthusnoreviewoverideas”
(David,Interview,2014).Thisprovidesfurtherevidencesupportingtheclaimthat
OpenIDEOmembersmaynotbeholisticallyinteractingwithkeyactivitiesandphasesin
thedesignprocess.Asaresult,strategicthinking,reflectiveiterationandproblem
evaluationisnotevidentamongstconversationsontheOpenIDEOplatform:
Anotherupdate:IncludedA-Zlisting,andsomemock-upswithattributionand
explanationoffunctionality.NEWSTUFFincludes:1)LauraandAaron’sidea
aboutenvironmentalimpactoffood,andRichard’ssuggestiontoinclude
variations(Exampleofconceptoriteration,comment,2011)
Evaluationfollowstherefinementphaseandrequiresthecommunitytocontributea
morefocusedefforttowardsselectingtopconcepts.Thisphaseincludesevaluative
criteriaprovidedbyOpenIDEOandtheprojectsponsortoguidethecommunityintheir
analysisandevaluationofrefinedconcepts(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetter
connectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Evaluation”).Itcanbespeculatedthat
OpenIDEOintroduceevaluationsurveystodirectpeopletowardsaconsensus,asitisnot
possibleforsuchalargecommunitytoconstructivelyselectawinningconceptother
thanthroughsuperficialapplause(Salminen,2012,p.21).Furthermore,theintroduction
ofinteractiveevaluativecriteriaallowsthecommunitytofeelthattheyhavemadea
contributiontowardsassessingideasthatwillbechosenforimplementation.
Onceevaluationisfinalized,winningconceptsareselectedbyOpenIDEOandthe
challengesponsor.Thereisnosetnumberofwinningconcepts;asmanyas10orasfew
asfourcanbeannouncedinaproject.Tenwinningconceptswereselectedforthe
projectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,
(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:
Winningconcepts”).Soonafterwinningconceptswereannounced,arealisationphase
194
wasintroducedinthedesignprocess,showcasingconceptsthatareintheprocessof
implementation(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionand
consumption?:Realisation”).
Yet,thereisnoguaranteethatwinningconceptswillbeimplemented.Interestingly,
realisationisnotexclusivetowinningconceptssubmittedbycommunitymemberswho
havededicatedthemselvestothischallenge;anyidearelatedtothechallengethatisin
theprocessofimplementationcanbeincludedaspartoftherealizationphase.This
raisesthequestionoverthepurposeofthewinningconceptsphaseifnoneofthe
selectedideasareexpectedtofollowthroughtoimplementation.Thepurposeofthe
winningconceptsphasemaysimplybeanincentiveforOpenIDEOmembersto
contributeideasandinteractwiththeplatform.Surprisingly,therealisationphasefor
theprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,
containsnousergeneratedconcepts.Sixprojectconceptsinthisphasehavebeen
createdandsubmittedbyeithertheOpenIDEOteamortheprojectsponsor(OpenIDEO,
n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Realisation”).
6.2.13Implementation,ethicsandresponsibility
Priortotheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionand
consumption,thedesignprocessceasedwhenwinningconceptswereannounced.The
OpenIDEOcommunitywerequicktorecognisethelackofpracticalimplementationthat
hadinspiredmanymemberstojoin.MembersonOpenIDEOhadnoinformationor
assurancethattheirideasweretobeusedandthatcontributionswerenotinvain.Due
topublicdemand,arealisationphasewasincludedshortlyaftertheprojectchallenge,
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,toupdatethepublicon
theimplementationofwinningconcepts:
Inordertoaddressthecommunity’sfeedbackontherealisation
phase,OpenIDEOreviseditsdefinitionofwhatimplementationmeant
andencourageduserstoparticipateactivelyinthisphase
(Lakhanietal.,2013)
195
Thedemandforanimplementationphasecanbeattributedtoalackoftransparencyon
behalfofOpenIDEO,ascrowdsourcingrequires“alotoftransparencyonthepart
ofthesponsor”forparticipantstoengagepositively(Seltzer&Mahmoudi,2012,p.8)
Basicallyyoucomeupwiththisideaandthensometimesitjustdoesn’tgo
anywhere…youcameupwiththeideaorit’sagoodideaandthat’swhereitends
(Rachel,Interview,2014)
Furthermore,Lakhani(2013)documentedthatitwasnotjustcommunitymembers
demandingtransparencyandengagementwiththerealisationphase,butsponsors
werealsoaskingforawaytoreportonprogress.Sincetheprojectchallenge,How
mightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption,OpenIDEOhaverenamedtheir
realisationphase(dedicatedtoimplementedsolutions)to“Impact”(OpenIDEO,n.d,
“Howitworks”).OpenIDEOhavealsodedicatedasectiononitswebsitetoshowcasing
implementedsolutionsfrompastchallenges(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Impact”).Notallsolutions
arefeaturedinthissection,withmanychallengesomitted.Thisraisesquestionsoverthe
practicalityandsuccessrateofOpenIDEOandfordesignthinkinginonline,opensource
collaborativeenvironments.
ImplementationonOpenIDEOalsoraisesquestionsoverresponsibilityand
accountability(Faste,2012,p.1).Isitthesponsor,IDEO,ortheOpenIDEOcommunity
whotakesresponsibilityforimplementationandhasaccountabilitywhenconceptsfail?
ConversationsandcommentsfromOpenIDEOmembersrarelyfocusonimplementation.
Fewindividualsontheplatformdiscussthepracticalitiesofimplementation,including
criticalevaluations.ThissignifiesthattheOpenIDEOcommunitymaynotseethemselves
asresponsibleforconceptstheysubmit.Instead,themajorityofdiscussionsfocuson
positivebrainstormingandelaborationofdesignideas.
InterviewswithparticipantsprovideanindicationoftheattitudesthattheOpenIDEO
communityholdtowardsimplementation,particularlywithregardstoresponsibility.
JakearguedthatthemotivationforhimtojoinOpenIDEOwaspartiallyduetothefact
thathewasundertheimpressiondesignconceptswouldbeimplemented:
196
Iseethepointofdesignthinkingisnottothinkaboutit,itistoeventuallydo
something.Theplatformisactuallygoingtodosomethingintheend.Ifnot,I
wouldhaveneverparticipatedifIthoughttherewasnochanceofsomething
actuallybeingdone(Interview,Jake,2014)
Jakecontributedawinningconcepttoanotherprojectchallenge(operatingconcurrently
totheHowmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumptionchallenge)andtook
implementationintohisownhands.Heacknowledgedthedifficultyinimplementation
butwantedto“seethingshappen”(Jake,Interview,2014).Thisparticipantembarkedon
ajourneythatlandedhiminthehostcountryofthesponsorbackingtheproject
challengeheparticipatedin.Whathediscoveredwasthatnoindividualworkingforthe
sponsorwasresponsibleforimplementingwinningideasfortheprojectchallenge,let
alonehavinganyideaoftheirinvolvementwithOpenIDEO:
Iwaslike“haveyouheardofthis?Hasanyone?”andhe[thesponsor]said“I
don’tknow”andhefollowedupwithotherpeopleandgotbacktomeandhesaid
“I’mnotsurewhosaidtorunthis”[projectchallenge]
(Jake,Interview,2014).
JakeconcludedthatsponsorinvolvementonOpenIDEOwasmotivatedbyadesireto
increasecorporatesocialprofileand/orutilising“leftoverbudget”fromthemarketing
department.Asaresult,Jakestatedhefelt“deceived”and“disheartened”bythe
platform,adding:
Itoldthem[OpenIDEO]iftheyaregoingtogetpeopletosponsorthisthing
theyshouldprobablygetthesponsortodosomethingwithit.Becausethat’s
theassumptionparticipantswouldhave
(Jake,Interview,2014).
ConfirmingJake’sassumptions,othermembersoftheplatformfeltabandonedand
helplessoverimplementation.Rachelstatedthattherewasnosupportformemberswho
wantedtobepro-activeinimplementation.Rachelbelievedbiggerimpactcouldbemade
elsewhere,andthattheplatformwasapersonal“deadend”:
197
Sothat’smyproblemwithit[OpenIDEO].There’snosupportsystem
inplaceandnorealbenefittowinningotherthanpassivelybeingnoticed
bythepeopleatIDEOifyouwantajob
(Rachel,Interview,2014).
Sarahdescribesasimilarstoryfrombothonlineandofflineperspectives.Sarahwas
involvedinworkshopshostedbythesponsor,ArtsQueensland,inrelationtotheproject
challenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption.Sheexplained
thattheseworkshopswerefacilitatedbyOpenIDEOstaffandaimedtopresentwinning
conceptsfromtheprojectchallengeasdesignactivitiesfortheworkshopparticipants.
Sarah’simpressionoftheworkshopswasnotthatthesponsororOpenIDEOwere
responsibleforimplementation,butIDEOhadhopedtoseeparticipantsofferingto
implementtheconceptspresented:
ItwasbasicallynotforIDEOtoimplement,itwasfor,tobeabletoseethe
beginningsofanideathatIguesstheyhopedsomeonearoundthetablewould
fundortakeforwardandtriedtogetstakeholdersintheroomasthedecision
makers-sothepeopletherewho’dbeabletotaketheconceptforward
(Sarah,Interview,2014).
Incontrast,Sarahadmittedthatshehadnodesiretoimplementherowndesignsolution
(Sarah,Interview,2014).Sarahbelieveditwasthe“sponsor’sresponsibilityto
implement”heridea,notIDEO’s(Sarah,Interview,2014).Similarly,Rachelfeltthatit
shouldbethe“co-responsibilityofIDEOandthesponsor”toimplementwinning
concepts(Rachel,Interview,2014).Furtheringthispoint,Jakefeltthatthesponsor
shouldtakefullresponsibility,butIDEO“shouldprovideaid”duringthisphase(Jake,
Interview,2014).Richardalsobelievedthatitistheresponsibilityofthesponsortofund
andimplementideas(Richard,Interview,2014).Richardstatedthat,astheclient
assistingthesponsor,hefeltthatresponsibilityoverimplementationwaspartiallyhis
butultimatelythesponsorshouldassumefullresponsibilityforimplementingsolutions:
Ifeltsomewhatresponsibleinmakingsuresomethinghadhappened.
SothatwasoneofthenegativefeedbacksoftheOpenIDEOplatform;
thatthere’slotsofideasbutnorealresponsibilityonthepartofthe
challengesponsortoactuallydoanythingwiththem
(Richard,Interview,2014)
198
ClarificationwasrequiredfromOpenIDEOoverwhoisresponsibleforimplementing
designsolutions.Sincethecompletionoftheprojectchallenge,Howmightwebetter
connectfoodproductionandconsumption,theOpenIDEOplatformhasmadesome
changes.Today,implementationisdescribedasajointeffortbetweenanyactive
membersonOpenIDEO(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howitworks”;OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmight
wemakelow-incomeurbanareassaferandmoreempoweringforwomenandgirls?”:
Impact”).Thisdecisiontoalterinformationonimplementationmayhavebeena
consciousmovetowithdrawassumedresponsibilityfrombothOpenIDEOandthe
sponsor.
Ethicsbecomesanissueifcommunitymembersareconsideredasco-creatorsandare
expectedtoshareresponsibilityoverimplementation.Itmaybebeneficialformembers
toactivelyengagewiththeimplementationofconcepts,however,OpenIDEOmembers
donotabidebylegalpracticingstandardsthatexistforprofessionaldesignersand
stakeholders.Davidnotesthat“it’sacasualplatformbutwhentakingitofflineit
becomesprofessionalpractice”(David,Interview,2014).Thisstatementhighlights
problemswithethicalstandardswhendesigningthroughopensourcecollaborative
environments,particularlyoneslikeOpenIDEOthatdealwithserioussocialissues.A
lackofprofessionalexpertisemayeradicatemeritbehindtheOpenIDEOplatformand
raisequestionsoverprofessionalandethicalstandardsindesignpracticeanddesign
thinking.
Measuresneedtobeestablishedthatbetterenableandmanagetheimplementationof
designoutcomesshouldthedesignprocessanddesignthinkingbeenabledthroughan
onlineopensourceplatform.Doingsomayenablemorepragmaticandfeasibledesign
conceptsthatwillfacilitatehighqualitydesignthinking.Furthermore,transparencyover
theimplicationsandresponsibilitiesofimplementedconceptsrequiresfurther
clarificationsoasnottodamageOpenIDEO’sreputationandindirectly,designthinking.
199
6.2.14Transparencyofplatform
TheremoteoperationsofOpenIDEObroughtforththeimportanceoftransparencyin
designthinkingpractice,especiallywhenappliedinonlineopensourceenvironments.
TheopenstructureoftheplatformallowstheOpenIDEOcommunitytoseeeachstageof
conceptdevelopment.Thisencouragesthecommunitytobetransparentwitheachother
throughoutideation.Membersprovideasmuchinformationandcreditastheychooseto
publishduringthedevelopmentoftheirideas.Transparencybetweenmembersonthe
OpenIDEOcommunityisconstructiveandenablesmemberstolearnaboutdesign
thinking,particularlyfromeachother.
However,threefactorsoftheOpenIDEOplatformareconsideredopaque:
implementation,iterationandintent.Coincidentally,thesethreefactorsarealso
fundamentaltothestructureandsuccessofdesignthinkingpractice.Jakewasquickto
recogniseareasofambiguityinherentintheOpenIDEOplatform,“Soitalmostseemed
liketherewassomeonetryingtousethisinformationaspartofabiggerprojectthatI
wasn’tawareof”(Jake,Interview,2014).Alackoftransparencydoesn’tjustaffect
OpenIDEO,butthesponsoringorganizationaswell.OntheOpenIDEOplatformthereis
littleinformationabouttheprocessbehindselectingfinalsolutions,includingwhereand
howthesesolutionswillbeusedandimplemented.Initsearlystagesofdevelopment,
theOpenIDEOplatformceasedcommunicationonceconceptwinnerswereannounced.
Communitymembersbegantoquestionwhereandhowtheirsolutionswerebeing
implemented,asalackoftransparentinformationsurroundingimplementationwas
generatingnegativecritiques“ifitwasbasicallythesameandnothinghadbeen
implementedIwouldtalkheavilybadlyabouttheplatformandalsoOpenIDEOand
maybeevenIDEOitself.”(Jake,Interview,2014).Asaresult,thisbacklashresultedin
OpenIDEOintroducinga“realisation”phase.
Ambiguitysurroundingtheimplementationofsolutionsintroducesquestionsover
intent.OpinionsovertheintentandpurposeoftheOpenIDEOplatformarediverse.
RachelfeltthatpartoftheunderlyingintentionoftheplatformwasforIDEOto
crowdsource“workforfree”(Rachel,Interview,2014).Echoingthissentiment,Sarah
stated:
200
Kindofmaskingitundertheumbrellaofsocialgoodbutreallyit’sacheap
wayforIDEOtoserviceclientsandalotofpeopledoworkforthemforfree
...andyeah,ifitwasn’tundertheumbrellaofsocialgooditwouldn’thavehow
manythousandofusersthattheyhave
(Sarah,Interview,2014).
Asaresult,speculationemergedoverOpenIDEOactingasaplatformforjobrecruitment
(Richard,line62).Highprofileuserswhoareactiveontheplatformhavebeenselected
toworkeitherforOpenIDEOorprofessionallywithIDEO(Rachel,Interview,2014).This
wasnotmadeexplicitontheOpenIDEOplatform,butuserscouldseethepromotionof
activecommunitymemberstoOpenIDEOfacilitatorroles.Rachelarguedthatifthiswas
theintentionofOpenIDEO,then“theplatformwasasuccess”(Rachel,Interview,2014).
However,sheaddedthatiftheintentionofOpenIDEOisforsocialgoodanddesign
implementation,thentheplatformhadfailed(Rachel,Interview,2014).
LargecorporationsmayutiliseOpenIDEOtoincreasetheircorporatesocial
responsibilityinanattempttoharnessapositiveimage.Richardexpressedhis
impressionsonthemotivationsbehindbothusersandsponsorsinteractingwith
OpenIDEO.RichardfeltthattheperceivedmotivationandfunctionofOpenIDEO,social
good,wasnotthecase(Richard,Interview,2014).Richardaddedthathefeltthe
motivationbehindOpenIDEOwasabout“buildingbrandprofiles”andrelationshipswith
sponsorstohelp“increasethesponsorssocialcorporateresponsibilityindex”(Richard,
Interview,2014).Perhapsforthisreason,majorcorporationssuchasCokehavebecome
involvedwiththeOpenIDEOplatform(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightweestablishbetter
recyclinghabitsathome?”).ThequestionremainswhetherOpenIDEO,andspecifically
largecorporationssuchasCoke,areparticipatingfor‘socialgood’ortoincreasetheir
publicprofileasOpenIDEOreliesonlargecompaniestofunddesignprojectchallenges.
Greatertransparencyaroundintentofthesponsor,projectchallengeandtheOpenIDEO
platformisrequiredtoalleviatenegativecritiquethatmayalsoimpactperceptionson
designthinkingpractice.
201
6.2.15Impact
PersonalimpactwasamotivatingfactorforjoiningOpenIDEO.Corroboratingresearch
conductedbySeltzer&Mahmoudi(2012),Takeyamaet.al,(2012),Gibson(2012)and
Faste(2012),motivationsforjoiningtheOpenIDEOplatformweredescribedasintrinsic
(Jake,Interview,2014;Sarah,Interview,2014;David,Interview,2014).Frominterviews
conductedwithOpenIDEOparticipants,OpenIDEOwasseenasaplacetolearnabout
designthinkingandtodiscoverwhattheprocessandpracticeisabout.Twoparticipants
explicitlystatedtheyweremotivatedtojoininordertodiscoveranewcareerpath(Jake,
Interview,2014;Sarah,Interview,2014).Socialgoodwasasecondarymotiveandone
thatallowedparticipantstoexploredesignthinkingwhilst“feelinggood”abouttheir
contribution(Rachel,Interview,2014).
SocialmediacontributedtotheperceivedimpactofwinningchallengesonOpenIDEO.
WhenprobedabouttheimpactparticipantsfelttheyhadonOpenIDEO,socialmediawas
quotedasbothanenablerandhindrance.Rachelarguedthattherewas“alotofcontrol”
affordedtomembersoverpromotingtheirideathroughsocialmedia(Rachel,interview,
2014).Sheadmitsherideawouldnothavebeenconsideredasawinningconcept“hadit
notbeenrecognisedbyanOpenIDEOemployeeovertwitter”whore-tweetedher
concepttohisownaudience(Rachel,Interview,2014).ItisforthisreasonthatRachel
felttherewaslittleimpactasacollective,comparedtotheindividual(Rachel,Interview,
2014).Davidalsoarguedthatindividualshavemorecontrolifusingtheplatformin
conjunctionwithothersocialmediaoutletsandthusseesOpenIDEOasaformofsocial
media(David,Interview,2014).
202
6.2.16Feedbackvs.collaboration
DespiteperceivedcollaborationadvertisedontheOpenIDEOplatform,community
membersarelargelyindependentfromoneanother.Analysisoncollaborativeactivity
revealedinteractionsonOpenIDEOareindividualistic.Ofthecommentsobserved,the
natureofinteractionswasmoreakinto‘noise’andreflectedacollectionofindependent
commentsthanactivecollaboration,conversationandco-creation.Jakeattributedthe
lackofco-creationtothemedium“themediumrestrains,youdon’tseepeoplehavinga
chitchatoryellingateachother.Sotocreatecollaborationonlineisparticularlydifficult
andtheytriedtodoitinafairlytraditionalmanner”(Jake,Interview,2014).Thenumber
ofindividualsinteractinginanonlinecollaborativeenvironmentcreatesdynamicsthat
differfromdesigncollaborationinface-to-facecontexts.Online,textbasedconversations
thatdon’toperateinrealtimeoftendisabletheorganicevolutionofideas.Theresultisa
platformcontainingfewactivethreadsthatreflectcollaborationamongstkey
individuals;threadswhicharesometimeslostamongstthenoiseofindependent
commenters.Furthermore,asmentionedearlierin6.2.3Communicationand
conversation,thesecommentsaremorereflectiveofone-wayfeedbackthantwo-way
collaborationsthatinspireco-creation.JakeaddedthatOpenIDEOwasnotreflectiveof
designthinkingasitdidnotenablethesamecharacteristicsthatemergeinface-to-face
collaborativebrainstormingsessions,“itdoesn’tfeellikehowyou’dcollaborateinreal
life”(Jake,Interview,2014).
Howtrulyinnovativearedesign-drivencollaborativenetworkslikeOpenIDEO?
Bonabeau(2009,p.51)arguesthatideationandevaluationinonlinecommunitiesis
weak,anddecision-makingrequiresspecialisedexpertise.Fromtheanalysisconducted,
OpenIDEOisaplatformthatenables‘designerly’brainstorming,ratherthandesign
thinkinginnovation.Withfundamentalphasesofthedesignprocessmissing,
interactionsontheplatformreflectdiverseopinionsratherthanstrategicideas,and
participantsarebecomingawareofthis“it’snotafulldesignprocess,butonlyonepart”
(Sarah,Interview,2014).ThedesignactivityaffordedtotheOpenIDEOcommunity
centersonideationandevaluation.Thiscreatesacommunityofbrainstorming;activity
thatoffersdiverseideasthataredetachedfromtheheartoftheprojectproblem.Asa
result,practicalandimplementablesolutionsarenotchallengedasparticipantspreferto
engagewiththe‘funpart’ofthedesignprocessthandealwiththedetailsnecessaryfor
generatingfeasibledesignsolutions.
203
6.2.17Innovation,authenticityandthetraditionalstudiomodel
OpenIDEOisadvertisedasade-centralised,opensource,socialinnovationplatformled
bydesignthinking.Superficially,theOpenIDEOplatformappearsinnovative;harnessing
crowdsourcingtoresolvecomplexproblemsusingadesignprocessanddesignthinking
paradigm.Yet,closeranalysisontheOpenIDEOhasrevealedthattheplatformreflectsa
traditionaldesignstudiostructure[Fig.14].
Fig.14DesignstudioandOpenIDEOstructure
OpenIDEOoperateslikeadesignfirmwhereateamofemployees(OpenIDEOmembers)
workonclientbriefs.FacilitatorsworkingforOpenIDEObehaveascreativedirectors,
andsponsorsrepresentclientswhocometoOpenIDEOwithproblemstheywouldlike
resolved.OpenIDEOemployeesproblem-frameandco-createabriefwiththesponsor,as
acreativedirectorwouldwithaclient.Therefinedbriefisthenpassedfromthecreative
director(theOpenIDEOemployees)tothedesignteam(OpenIDEOmembers)tohelp
ideateandbrainstormdesignsolutions.Thecreativedirector(OpenIDEOemployeesand
facilitators)willprovideinputduringideationandevaluation,beforeselectingthemost
effectivesolutionstopresenttotheclient(OpenIDEOsponsor).Thecreativedirector
(OpenIDEOemployees)andtheclient(sponsor)thendiscusstheviabilityoftheideas
createdbythedesignteam(OpenIDEOmembers)beforeselectingafinalsolutiontobe
implemented.Onceselected,thecreativedirectorpassesthefinaldesignsolutiontothe
clientandconcludesbusiness.
Opensourceenvironmentsaresometimespresentedasanonlineutopia.OpenIDEO
appearstooffercollaborativefreedombutitisnotcompletelyopen,egalitarianorfree.
Thelackoftransparencyandabilityaroundchoosingsocialissues,problemframingand
204
implementation,erodesthefreedomthatshouldbeaccessiblewithinopensource
platforms.TheOpenIDEOenvironmentisopenandstructuredinawaysothatany
individualisfreetocontributeandtakeownershipoverprojectchallenges.Yet,this
freedomexistsonlywithintheguidelinesofthephasesthatOpenIDEOmakeavailableto
thecommunity.TheOpenIDEOemployeesandthesponsorareultimatelyincontrolof
theproject’sproblem,conceptionandimplementation.Asaresult,thedesignprocessis
notmadeavailableinitsentirety;thedesignprocessisrestrictedtoresearch,concepting
andevaluation.Fromanalysisconductedonthiscasestudy,OpenIDEOappearstobe
moreakintoanideaengine,aimedatbrainstormingandcrowdsourcingideasthanan
innovativeexampleandimplementationofdesignpracticeanddesignthinkingona
digitalopensourcescale.
OpenIDEOidentifiesitselfas“alwaysinbeta”tomaintainiterationandimprovementon
theplatform(OpenIDEO,2014).Assuch,OpenIDEOisdynamic.However,sincethe
projectchallenge,Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumptioninitiated
in2011,minorimprovementshavebeenmadeontheOpenIDEOplatform.Afewofthe
participantsinterviewedfeltthatOpenIDEOshould“practicewhattheypreach”(Jake,
Interview,2014)anditerateontheirownplatform(Sarah,Interview,2014;David,
Interview,2014).Manyconversationswithinterviewparticipantscenteredaround
improvingimplementation(Jake,Interview,2014;Rachel,Interview,2014;Sarah,
Interview,2014;Richard,Interview,2014)indicatingthatafundamentalincentivefor
thecommunitytoparticipateistheexpectationthatconceptswillberealised.David
arguesthat“OpenIDEOshouldconductuserresearchontheiruserstoseewhat
challengesareimportanttothem”andattributesalackofiterationonbehalfof
OpenIDEOas“inauthentic”(David,Interview,2014).
205
6.2.18Balancebetweenofflineandonlineinteraction
ApositiveeffectfrominteractingwithOpenIDEOisthatitenablesofflineconnections.
Contrarytoitsprimaryfunction,OpenIDEOenabledsomememberstousethemedium
asaplatformforcreatingofflineinteractions.SaraharticulatedhowOpenIDEOhad
createdofflinenetworksthroughenablingconversationswithsupportersofheridea:
IremembergoingtoNewYorkforaservicedesigndrinksandjustby
chanceonepersoncameuptomeandaskedmeifIhadputsomething
onOpenIDEO.HewasoneofthestudentsfromNYUPolytechnicwho
hadimplementedsomebigthingthere,likeanOpenIDEOcluborsomething.
Sothere’skindofoffline,randomconnections
(Sarah,Interview,2014).
Additionally,DavidalsoconnectedwithmembersofOpenIDEOwhowishedto
collaborateofflineonhisidea(David,Interview,2014).Offlineinteractionsseemedto
holdthemostvaluewhenengagingwithOpenIDEO.Inconjunctionwithlearningabout
thedesignthinkingprocess,OpenIDEOworkedasamediumforconnectingindividuals
withpassionsfordifferentsocialchallenges.
Offlineinteractionshadasignificantinfluenceonthelevelofengagementmembershad
withtheOpenIDEOplatform.DavidstatesthatwhatkepthimmotivatedonOpenIDEO
wasthecultureofthecommunityhewasresidinginatthetimeoftheprojectchallenge,
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption.Davidcommented“offline
Iwasinvolvedinalotofdifferentanddiversecommunitiesandbecauseofthatithelped
metocontinuethatonline.Thebiggestchangewasin2012Ileftandtheoffline
experiencewasjustnotthesamesoIwasn’tinvolvedinanythingbesidesmywork”
(David,Interview,2014).Similarly,Sarahwhoparticipatedinanofflineworkshop
relatedtotheprojectchallengearguedthattheworkshophadthemostimpactthanher
interactionswiththeplatform(Sarah,Interview,2014line23).
206
6.2.19Conclusion
Professionaldesignpracticeanddesignthinkingmaybeleveragedenmassebasedon
thetheorythatcrowdsoperatemoreintelligentlythanindividuals(Seltzer&Mahmoudi,
2012,p.8),ThequestionmotivatingthisanalysisishowtheOpenIDEOplatform
leveragesorhindersdesignthinking.
OpenIDEOdescribetheirdesignprocessmethodologyusingafive-stepdesignprocess
of:research,ideas,applause,evaluationandimpact(OpenIDEO,n.d,“HowitWorks”).In
itsformativestages,theOpenIDEOplatformdefineditsdesignprocessassimply
inspiration,conceptingandevaluation(Makower,2012).However,themethodology
advertisedonOpenIDEOdoesnotdisplaythefulldesignprocess.Framingtheproject
challengeandbriefispartofdesigndevelopmentthatisconductedofflinebetween
OpenIDEOstaffandthechallengesponsor.Furthermore,engagementinimplementation
withtheprojectsponsorisnotaphasethatisaccessibletotheOpenIDEOcommunity.
Impact(previouslytermed“realisation”)isaphasethattheOpenIDEOcommunityhave
littleaccessto,andwasnotmadeavailableduringearlychallengespostedonthe
platformincluding,Howmightwebetterenablefoodproductionandconsumption?Today,
theimpactphaseencouragesbothsponsorandcommunitytouploadimplemented
solutions(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howitworks”).
Utilisingadesignprocessmethodologyinanonlinecommunityallowsfora‘transfer’of
formaldesignknowledgetothelaypersonenmasse.Whenanopensourcecommunityis
establishedasanonlinedesignenvironment,communicationiscrucialfordirecting
amateurstowardscorrectlyengagingwiththedesignprocess(Paulini,Murty&Maher,
2013,p.110).Byprovidingcleargoalsbeneathwelldefineddesignphases,amateur
collaborativeonlinecommunitiesarebetteradeptatadoptingdesignthinkingandthus
“behavinglikedesigners”(Paulini,Murty&Maher,2013,p.110).Implementingadesign
processinanopensourceplatformsuchasOpenIDEOprovidestheopportunityfor
laypeopletoengagewithdesignthinking.
However,designthinkingdoesnotappeartobeleveragedonOpenIDEO.Threeofthe
mostcrucialphasesandactivitiesinthedesignprocessanddesignthinking,problem
framing,iterationandimplementation,arenotdirectlyaccessibleorvisibletothe
OpenIDEOcommunity.Thecommunitycannotcontributetowardsframingthechallenge,
207
strugglewithimplementingsolutions,anddonotshowcaseevidenceofdesigniterations.
Becauseofthis,thequestionofwhetherthecommunityareholisticallyengagingwiththe
designprocessandthus‘designthinking’isconsidered.
OpinionsonthesuccessofdesignthinkingonOpenIDEOaremixed.Rachelfeelsthatthe
transferofthedesignprocesstoanonlineenvironmentwassuccessful,andaddsthatthe
designprocesscanworkinanonlineenvironment(Rachel,Interview,2014).
Contradictingthissentiment,Jakefeltthatitisnotimpossibletotransferthedesign
processtoanonlineenvironment,butthatOpenIDEOhadnotdonesosuccessfully(Jake,
Interview,2014).Davidprovidesaneutralstandpoint,statingheis“notsureifthe
designprocesscanworkonlineornot”(David,Interview,2014).However,David,Rachel
andSarahallagreethatregardlessofitssuccessorfailure,thedesignprocesshadbeen
‘dumbeddown’tomakeitaccessibletothemasses(Rachel,Interview,2014;Sarah,
Interview,2014;David,Interview,2014).
Thesimplificationofthedesignprocessmaymisleadthosenewtodesignthinking.Jake
arguedthatanon-designerwouldbe“mislead”ondesignthinkingiftheyweretolearn
aboutdesignthinkingfromOpenIDEO(Jake,Interview,2014).Furthermore,anon-
designermaybemisledifnotactivelyparticipatinginarangeofhuman-centereddesign
methods.Furthermore,Jakestatedthattheplatform“breedsGoddelusion”andthat
manymembersweredesigningbasedonassumptionandpersonalopinion(Jake,
Interview,2014).Thisiscountertoafundamentalaspectofdesignthinking;user
(human)centeredresearch.Userandhuman-centereddesignrequiresimmersing
yourselfinthecontextoractivityoftheuser,thansimplyconsideringtheuserfromyour
ownperspective(Brown,2008;Lockwood,2010,p.Xi;Porcini,2009;Sato2009).Yet,as
evidencedinthiscase,manymembersdidnotpostanyinformationonprimaryuser
research.
Theperceivedbenefitsbehindcrowdsourcingoftenreliesonthetheorythat“innovative
solutionstoproblemscouldbefoundwithindiverse,decentralizedandindependent
crowds,whichincludeacknowledgedexpertsaswellasthosewithnoformalexpertise”
(Seltzer&Mahmoudi,2012,p.8)wherethegroupcanoftenbemoreintelligentthanany
oneindividual.Thisimpliesacollectivestrength,orgroupthink,thatoftenemerges
amidstcollaborativedesignteams.Contrarytothisphenomenon,analysisrevealedthat
collaborationandco-creationappearedtobesuperficial,andconversationsonthe
platformdemonstrateddisjointedconnectionsfocusingonone-wayfeedback.
208
Cain(2012)arguesthatgroupthink“excludesratherthanelicitsgoodideas”.Thisraises
questionsoverwhetherapplyingadesignprocessinamassonlinecollaborative
environmentcouldpotentiallydevaluethepowerofdesignthinking.Thesequestionsare
furthervalidatedbyresearchconductedbySalminen(2012)whostates“analysisof
wisdomofcrowdsrevealedthatthecrowdisnotaccurateenoughtoidentifythebest
ideas,butcouldstillbeusedtofilterouttheveryworst”(p.21).Thisalsodirectsour
questionstoacompetingideologyoncollectiveintelligence;thatcrowdsarenot
experiencedenoughtoidentifythebestideas,thusrequiringtheknowledgeand
experienceofaprofessionaldesigner.
CollectivebrainstormingonOpenIDEOwasnotcohesiveorefficient.Manycomments
wereimpracticalandsufferedfrom“blueskythinking”(Jake,Interview,2014).Without
interactionintheproblem-framingphase,ideasmaylosefocus.Furthermore,without
activeengagementiniterativeprototypingandimplementation(twophasesthatrequire
offlineinteraction)theabilitytorefinenotjustconceptideasbutpracticalitiesthatlead
towardsfeasibleimplementationmaybefurtherdisabled.Inaddition,considering
limitationsandconstraintsmaydepletethefunandeaseofinteractingwithOpenIDEO.
Jakeobservedthisproblem,arguingthatthecommunitywere,asaresult,not
consideringlimitationsorconstraintsbehindtheproblemchallenge“peopleweren’t
fromarealmofthinkingaboutimplementation”(Jake,interview,2014).Providing
feedbackanddesignconceptsisthecreativeandpleasurablepartofthedesignprocess.
Membersworkthroughthedesignprocessbutfewprovideproofofkeydesign
considerationsthroughmethodssuchassketchingandusertesting.Furthermore,few
provideevidenceofengagingwithkeycognitiveaspectsthatunderpindesignthinking,
suchas:empathetic,criticalandreflectivethought.Itmaybethatindividualsareinfact
developingorexhibitingdesignthinkingofflinebutaretoobusytorelaytheirprocess
backonline.However,observingactivityontheplatformasverbatim,thereislittle
evidencetosuggestcommunitymembersareengagingwithadesignmindsetor
approachinitsentirety.Outofallphasesaffordedtothecommunity,theplatformonly
allowsideation,refinementandevaluationtobeconductedonline,withimplementation,
usertestingandprototypingtoexistoffline.Inaddition,thereisacleardisconnect
betweentheOpenIDEOcommunityandthecontextandplaceoftheproblemchallenge
(Seltzer&Mahmoudi,2012,p.12).Theremotenatureoftheplatformseparatesthe
communityfromtheproblemchallengeandcanyieldsolutionsthatareculturallyand
sociallymisunderstood,and/orsuperficiallyresolved(Faste,2012,p.4):
209
ByunderstandingthecapabilitiesandmethodsofOpenIDEO,onecan
understandhowHuman-CentredDesigncanbetterinfluencethe
innovationprocess.Oneofthemostacutecriticismsoftheplatformisthat
itisaprimeexampleofremotedesigning.
(Gordon,2014,p.33).
TheevidencepresentedthroughconversationsshowthatindividualsonOpenIDEOare
notdevelopingadesignerlywayofthinking,asfeedbackfocusesondesigndetails.Two
ofthemostfundamentalphasesofthedesignprocess,problemframingand
implementation,areunavailabletotheOpenIDEOcommunity.Thiscasestudyhighlights
theimportanceofinteractingwiththewholedesignprocessthatisfundamentalfor
holisticallyengagingwith,anddeveloping,designthinking.
210
7.
Cross-comparisonanalysisThischapterpresentsacritical,cross-comparisonanalysisonthenatureofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentsbycomparingthemesthathaveemergedacrosseachcasestudy.Thecasestudiespresentedinthisdissertationwillbecross-examinedtoformulateanalysesguidedbyacriticalrealistframework.Tothoroughlyunderstandthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,aninvestigationoftherelationshipbetweenthreekeyareaswillestablishfocusforcross-comparativeanalysis:thecomplexenvironment,designprocessanddesignposition.DrawingfromBuchanan’sordersofdesignpractice,thisthesisinvestigatestheapplicationofadesignerlyapproachinthirdandfourthorderenvironments(Buchanan,1992)[SeeFig.5].Thesetwoordershavebeenidentifiedascomplexenvironmentsastheyreflectandencompasslarge-scalesocial,systemicandserviceissuesthataresituatedinthesecondquadrantofFlach’s(2011)modelofcomplexityinproblemspaces[SeeFig.6].Thewordenvironmenthasbeenusedtoarticulatethecontextandcharacteristicsofcomplexproblemspaceswherethecasestudiesinthisthesistakeplace.Thischapterexposestheinterconnectedandinterdependentrelationshipsbetweenthenatureofacomplexenvironment,designprocessandpositionthatinfluence,affectandtransformthebehaviorofdesignthinking.Indoingso,thischapterwilluncoverthe
211
emergentbehaviors,barriersandenablerstoadesignapproachincomplexenvironments.Figure.15visualisesthisrelationshipthatwillbeusedasaframeworkforcross-comparisonanalysis:
Fig.15Frameworkforcross-comparisonanalysisMuchoftheanalysisanddiscussionondesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,suchaspolicyandorganizationaldesign,havefocusedonbuildingdesigncapabilityandculture(Carlgren,2013;Terrey,2012;Junginger,2014)andincreasinginnovation(Carlgren,2013;D’Ippolito,2014;Wylant,2008;Olsen,2014).Someliteraturealsoprovidesevidenceontheperceptionsofcomplexdesignpracticebyprofessionalsinandoutsideofdesignpractice(Liedtka,2013;Goldschmidt&Rogers,2013).Yet,thereislimiteddiscussiononthebehaviorofdesignthinkingandtherelationshipbetweendesignpracticeandthecontextoftheenvironmentitisappliedwithin.
212
Thepurposeofdiscussingtherelationshipbetweenenvironment,designprocessanddesignpositionistoholisticallyunderstandhowdesignthinkingisaffectedbythecontextandnatureoftheenvironmentitisappliedwithin.Understandingtheimpactofthecontextoftheenvironment,andidentifyingcausalrelationshipsthatmayaffectdesignoutcomes,iscrucialforeffectivelyanalysinghowtoimprovedesigncapability,cultureandsolutions.Currentknowledgeondesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentshasprovideda“significantbodyofevidencemarkingtheemergenceofanewkindofdesigner”yetthereremains“littleevidenceofanysystemicunderstandingofthemethodsofthisemergentart”(Graham,2013,pp.iv-7).Thisanalyticaldiscussioncontributesasystematicunderstandingoftherelationshipandimpactthatcontext(environment),designprocessanddesignpositionhaveonshapingdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments[Fig.16].
Fig.16PositionofcasestudiestoprojectecosystemEachcaseusedincross-comparativeanalysisforthischapterhasbeenselectedfollowingasetofcriteriadetailedin3.5.4Criteria.Tosummarise,eachcasewaschosentofulfillthreebroadcriteria:applicationofadesignprocessframework,projectssituatedinthirdorfourthorderenvironmentsorinthesecondandthirdquadrantofFlach’s(2011)modelofcomplexityinproblemspaces,andanemphasisonintangible(non-productcentric)
213
outcomesduringformativephasesofdesignactivity.Beforediscussingtheemergentbehaviorsofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,itisnecessarytohighlightanddefinethecharacteristicsofcomplexenvironmentsfoundtobeconsistentwithinandacrosseachcasestudy.Threekeycharacteristicsofcomplexenvironmentswasconsistenttoeachcase:ahighdegreeofambiguityanduncertaintyintheproblemandenvironmentecosystem,large-scaledesignoutputsthataffectalargecommunityofusersand/orstakeholdersandanemphasisonintangibleservicesandsystems.Thesecharacteristicsunderpinthecomplexenvironmentsthatrequiredesignthinkingtoadaptitsapproach.
7.1Characteristicsofcomplexenvironments7.1.1AmbiguityanduncertaintyDesignersarerecognisedasindividualswhoareadeptatdealingwithambiguousandcomplex(‘wicked’)problems.Designersembraceambiguityanddisplaycomfortindealingwithunknownfuturestates(Laakso&Hassi,2011,p.9;Rylander,2009,p.7;Brown,2008;Cross,2006).Manyauthorsacknowledgeambiguityasacharacteristicofdesignthinking,asdesignthinkingisincreasinglyusedasaprocessto‘tame’ambiguous,wickedanduncertainproblem-contexts(Scheer,Noweski&Meinel,2011;Liedtka,2000,p.16;Meinel&Leifer,2011,p.Xix;Klemmer&Carroll,2014,p.416).Thismaycomeasnosurpriseasdesignpracticehasbeenassociatedwithtaming‘wickedproblems’sincedesignersaffiliatedtheirworktotheseminalpaper,DilemmasinaGeneralTheoryofPlanning(Rittel&Webber,1973).Thisassociationisattributedtotheideathat“designfirms[..]proceedfromadifferentepistemologicaltradition,inwhichambiguityisacceptedasanaturalpartoftheprocess”(Rylander2009,p.7).However,fewauthorshaveexploredindepthhowdesignthinkingtamesambiguityandhowambiguityaffectsthedesignthinkingprocessincomplex
214
environments.Thesearebestexplainedthroughaholisticanalysisoftherelationshipsbetweendesignposition,designprocessandenvironment.Eachcasestudypresentedinthisthesisportrayedahighdegreeofuncertaintyandambiguityinandaroundtheprojectbrief.Thecoredesignteamincase1expressedthatambiguitywasinherentintheill-definedbriefprovidedbytheclient.Thisdesignteamwasfacedwithuncertaintyfromboththeclientandtheprojectenvironmentwithwhichtheoutcomewastobesituated.Thebriefinthiscaserequiredadesignsolutiontoafuturestatethatdidnotyetexist.Incase2,theprojectbriefprovidedtothedesignteamwasshortandvague,forcingtheteamtointerpretandidentifyproblems,gaps,stakeholdersandusers.Incase3,projectchallengesappearedandbriefsprovedtobevague,broadandoftenencompassingawidenetworkofvariablesandproblems[Seetable4].
Table4.Evidenceofambiguityineachcase
Case1 Thisisveryunusualintermsofthewaytheprojectworks.Wedon’tknow
whattheoutcomeis,whatthetangibleoutputwillbe…
(Designer,Interview,2014)Case2 Isupposedthat’soneofthechallengeswehavewithourdesign,weusuallyjustget
aone-linerwithnocontextbehindit.That’swhenweneedtodeterminewhatisthe
ATOapproachgoingtobewiththatoneliner.SotheCooperReviewwasnodifferent,
someparagraphs,butbasicallythatwasit.(DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Case3
TheChallengeasksustoconsiderwaystoimproveandenhancetherelationships
andinteractionsbetweenproducersandconsumers,ruralandurbancommunities,
growersandretailers,retailersandconsumers.We'dlikethecommunitytoconsider
issuessuchasenergyuse,transportation,biodiversity,foodsecurity,nutrition,
obesity,thehealthofruraleconomiesandthestrengthofinter-generational
andinterculturalknowledgesharing.
(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption:thebrief”)
215
7.1.2Largestakeholderandcommunitynetworks
Allthreecasesconsistedofdesignprojectswheretheprocessandoutcomeincludedandaffectedalargecommunityofdesigners,stakeholdersandusers.Consistentwithliteratureonthesubject,serviceandsystemicdesignpracticepertainingtothirdandfourthorderdesigninvolveandimpactlargenetworksofusersandstakeholders(New&Kimbell,2013,p.5;Patel,Moore&Blaney,2014;Armstronget.al,2014).Theprojectincase1requiredaserviceandorganisationaldesignthatwouldimpactalargeexternalcommunityofusersaswellasinternaldepartments,stakeholdersandstaff.Thus,thedesignprocessneededtoaccountforthecomplexityofinternalandexternalrelationships.Thedesignteamincasestudy2operatedinternaltotheorganizationalenvironment,theATO.TeammemberswererequiredtodesignforandaroundthecomplexityoftheATOsystemwhilstaccountingfordesignimpactonacommunityofusersonanationalscale.Case3presentedcomplexdesignchallengesfocusedonlarge-scale,sociallyorientatedissuessuchaspoverty,educationandsustainability.Inallcases,designdevelopmentneededtoaccountforlargenetworksofstakeholdersandusercommunities[SeeTable5]Case1 Theworkitselfisprobablynotindifferentpartsoftheorganization.Sowethrew
serendipitousconversationsthatwehaveinotherpartsoftheorganisation.It’san
organisationoffortythousandpeoplesoitslikeanation
(DesignManager,Interview,2014)Case2 Thisiswhatwe’redoingwiththecommunityandtheircompliancetomakeitabiteasier
toaccessandmanagetheirsuper.(Co-DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Case3
Attheheartofthischallengelieissuesofglobalsustainabilityandlocalhappinessto
improvelifeforruralandurbancommunities.
(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption:TheBrief”,para.3)
Table5.Evidenceoflargecommunitynetworksineachcase
216
7.1.3Afocusonintangiblesolutions
Ineachcasestudydesignthinkingfocusedonhigh-levelintangibleconceptsduringtheformativephasesofthedesignprocess.Designartefactswerenotcentraltothedesignprocess.Thedesignofintangibleandconceptualframeworksischaracteristicofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments(Dubberly,2008;Young,2008;Jones,2010).The“artefact”tobedesignedincase1washighlyconceptualandcenteredonanorganisationalservice.Case2alsoemphasisedservicesolutionsandfocusedonthecreationofhigh-levelstrategicandsystemicframeworks.Furthermore,case3presentedabroadprojectchallengethatrequiredmembersoftheonlinecommunitytofocusoncorehumanvaluesandsocialecosystems.Ineachcase,theprojectbriefdidnotexplicitlydictateoridentifyanartefacttobedesigned.Tangibleartefactsmaybelaterdesignedtosupportoraccompanyoverarching,intangibleframeworks,butphysicalartefactswerenotthefocusduringformativephasesofdesigndevelopmentineachcase[SeeTable6.]
Case1 Weareastrategicservicedesignagency.Sometimeswedodeepdivesbutmostofour
projectsarestrategicandhigh-levelandthat’sbecausewearedealingwithadifferent
fractaloftheissuefromaplacethatcanactuallybechanged,whererealchangecan
actuallyhappen.(Designer,Interview,2014)
Case2 Iguesswiththathigh-levelfocusinmind,alotofthecurrentdesignactivitiesdoneinthe
taxofficemapintothosestagesaswell(Co-DesignLead,Interview,2014)
Case3
Wehopetocastawidenetforinspirationsandconceptsthatwilladdressthechallengein
aholisticway.Thinkaboutnewservices,campaigns,policies,products,systemsthatcould
addresstheseissues.
(OpenIDEO,n.d,“Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption:thebrief”)
Table6.Evidenceofafocusonintangiblesolutions
217
7.2ThebehaviourofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentsThefocusofthischapteristoanswerthemainresearchquestion,Whatisthebehaviourofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments?Thepurposeistoprovideacross-comparativeanalysisofemergentthemessupportedbycausalpropositionsthatmayinfluencetheemergentbehaviours,barriersandenablersofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Twosub-questionswillalsobeaddressed:1)whateffectdoesthepositionofdesignthinkingtotheprojectecosystemhaveondesigninginandforcomplexenvironments?and2)whataretheunderlyingmechanismsthatenabledesignbehaviourstoemergeincomplexenvironments?Theemergentbehaviourspresentedinthischapteraretheresultofacross-comparativeanalysisdirectedbyacriticalrealistgroundedtheorymethodology[SeeFig.12].Thesebehavioursarerepresentativeofthemesthatwereobservedwithineachcaseandhavebeeninterpretedasemergentbehavioursofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Evidenceofeachemergentbehaviourwillbetriangulatedusingcasestudydataanddesignliterature.Eachcasestudywillbereferredtoascase1,2and3forreadability.However,themesfromcase3provedinconsistentundercross-comparativeanalysiswiththemesfromcases1and2,andassuch,case3willbeusedasabenchmarkforcross-comparativeexaminationontheenablersandbarriersofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Indoingso,theabnormalityofcase3helpstoanswerthesecondsub-question,whataretheunderlyingmechanismsthatenablebehaviourstoemerge?Theanalysisforthissub-questionwillbeguidedbyacriticalrealistframework,utilisingtheprocessofretroductiontoexcavateunderlyingcausalmechanisms.Analysisofcase3providesapointofdifferentiationthathelpstoexplaintheemergentbehavioursofdesignthinkingfoundincases1and2.Thetable[Table.7]belowoutlinesthethemesincase1and2thathavebeengroupedtoreflectsixemergentbehavioursofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments:
218
EmergentBehaviours Case1Themes Case2Themes
HolisticPerspective Systemsthinking,divergence,ambiguity,uncertaintyadaptivity
Systemsthinking,divergence,adaptivemethodology,scoping
VisionFraming
Envisioningfuturestates,userresearch,holisticreasoning,abduction,userjourney
Intentstatement,envisioningidealstates,empathy/userfocus,abduction,blueprinting
Decentralisationofthe
Designer
Prototyping,sketching,Roleplaying,userjourneys
Multidisciplinarycollaboration,sketching,prototyping,visualartefacts
Disruptingperceptions
Collaboration,teaching,serviceenactment,facilitation
Teaching/training,visualisation,facilitation
Designersinflux BalancingopposingstatesTensionbetweendesignanduser,system,stakeholder
Table7.Themesincase1and2thatledtoemergentbehaviours
Eachbehaviorwasidentifiedtohaveemergedthroughacombinationofdesignthemesobservedineachcase.Throughthecriticalrealistframeworkofstratification,thesethemeshavebeenidentifiedasbeingsituatedontheempiricallayer,astheywere“observable”moments[SeeFig.8].Emergentbehaviourslieonthe“events”layer,fortheyexistintimeandspaceandareanemergentresultoftheinteractionsbetweenkey,observablethemesoutlinedintheabovetable.Underlyingmechanismsareidentifiedasexistingonthe“real”layer.Thesemechanismsarepostulationsformedbyusingtheprocessofretroductiontoidentifykeyunobservableinfluencesthatmayenablebehaviourstomanifestandemergeasobservablethemes.Thus,asoutlinedinchapter3.ResearchFramework,retroductiveanalysisoperatesbackwards;startingwithwhatisobservable,interpretingobservationsthattogetherformulateanintangible“event”tothenproceedtowardsidentifyingtheunderlyinginfluencethatenableseachcausallayertoemerge.
219
7.2.1Holisticperspective
Onemustunderstandthatthemainpointsofdesignthinkingaretoenhancecreativity,understandthecommunity,andtothinkholistically.(Gordon,2014,p.23)
Aholisticperspectiveguidesdesignersthroughbroad,ambiguousandcomplexenvironments.Aholisticperspectivewasobservedasakeybehaviourduringformativestagesofthedesignprocessincase1and2.Thisbehaviourisdependentonacombinationofinteractionsbetweenthecomplexityoftheprojectenvironmentandkeydesignmindsets.Holisticperspectiveisanemergentbehaviourthatiscomprisedofandenabledby:systemicthinking,divergentthinkingandanadaptiveattitude.Aholisticperspectiveaidsinthedevelopmentofoverarchingconceptualframeworksincomplexandambiguousenvironments,directingteamstowardsanidealdesignoutcome.Thisemergentbehaviourcorroborateswithliteratureondesignthinkingactivityinthirdandfourthorderpractice.Holisticthinkingisreferredtointhedescriptivesense,andwithoutclearexplanationonhowdesignthinkersare,orbecome,holisticallyminded:
Issuesofre-framingaprojectscopeandfocus,anditsassociatedfiscalandtime-pressuresarerarelydiscussedinservicedesign,eventhoughit'sacommoncomplaintconversedaroundthedesignerwatercooler.Placinganemphasisonhuman-centred,experiential,holisticapproachestodesigning‘services’andsystemsareidealmodelstostrivetowards(Akama,2009,p.5)
Aholisticapproachhasbeenacknowledgedaspartofthedesignthinkingrepertoireandisdescribedasastrength(Brown,2008,p.3;Blizzard,2013;Bucolo&King,2014;Martin,2009,p.88;Gordon&Burns,2014,p.23).Yet,fewarticlesexplainwhyaholisticapproachisabehaviouralqualityofdesignthinkingbyarticulatingthereasoningthatleadstoaholisticperspectiveandhowthisreasoningimpactsonthedesignprocess.Itwasobservedincase1and2thatsystemic,divergentandadaptivethinkingarecharacteristicsthatenabledaholisticperspectivetoemerge[SeeTable8].
220
Holistic
Perspective
DivergentThinking Adaptivity SystemsThinking
Case1
Someoftheideascouldbequitebroad(Observation,Phase1,2011)Itgoesintomoredetailnow.Firstitwasmoreholisticintermsoftheorganisation(Observation,Phase1,2011)
It’skindoflikeaniterativeandevolvingkindofthing(Observation,Phase1,2011)Wedidrevisesomethingsaswedidtheenactments(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Therewerebitswherewewereinterviewingstakeholdersjustgettingaheadaroundwho’swhoin[theclientorganisation]andalsofiguringoutwhotoworkshopandwhataretheworkshopactivities(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Case2
Scopedocumentiscreatedatthebeginningoftheprojectandreallyisaboutlimitingwhatyouwanttodonow.(Projectlead,Interview,2014)
Weemployarangeofdesignprocesseswecanutiliseanditalsodependson[…]whattheappropriatedesignprocessfordifferentthings.What’sthebestthingforthedesignofthefinalproductyouarelookingfor(ProjectLead,Interview,2014)
Flexibledesignmethodology,approachesandtoolsshouldbeapplied,takingintoaccounttherealitiesofdeliveringchangeintheTaxOffice,howeverthroughthedesignwork
Forverycomplexproblems,somespecialisedtechniquessuchassystemsorcriticalthinkingmayprovideaframeworktohelpunderstandtheproblem.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.28)ThelevelofinformationthatI’musuallyinvolvediniswhatwecallhighleveldesign[…]wedon’tgetinvolvedinthedetailsofwhatneedstobeexactwiththedetailsinthesystem.Ithinkwearesayingthesystem
221
theprinciplesarticulatedheremustbemet.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008)
needstobeabletodothis.(Interview,DesignFacilitator,2014)
Table8.holisticperspective
SystemicthinkingSystemicthinkingisamindsetobservedinbothcase1and2.Systemicthinkingobservestheecosystemaroundtheproblemand/ororganization,takingintoaccountpartsthatmakeupandaffectthewhole.Thismindsetisinfluencedbycomplexenvironmentsandbegetsaholisticperspective.Asystemicapproachwasaninitialstartingpointforprojectsinbothcases1and2.Bothdesignteamsincases1and2tackledcomplexitybyconductinganinitialreviewoftheorganisationalsystemtheyweredesigningwithinandfor.However,despitesimilaritybetweenthesetwocases,thedesignteamincase2devotedmoretimefocusingontheorganisationalsystemthanthedesignteamincase1.Case1initiatedanunderstandingoftheorganisationsystemthroughpreliminaryresearchgainedthroughinterviewswithemployeesandweb-basedresearch.Yet,userresearchhadagreateremphasisinmanagingthecomplexityandambiguityoftheprojectincase1.Userresearchwascentraltoshapinghigh-levelinsightsthatdirectedthedesignteamtowardsaholisticperspective.Incontrast,casestudy2initiateddesignthinkingthroughscopingworkshops.Ascopingworkshopaimstoidentifythescaleandcomplexitybehindtheprojectbrief.Assuch,thedesignteamincase2spentagreatertimefocusingontheorganisationalsystemandusedthisunderstandingtomanagecomplexityandscaleofthebriefbeforedivingintouserresearch.
222
DivergentthinkingDivergentthinkingisacognitiveattributethatseekstogenerateabroadvarietyofconcepts.Convergentanddivergentthinkingareoftenmentionedamongstdepictionsofmindsetsthatconstitutedesignthinking(Kimbell,2009;Owen,2007;Connell2013,p.41;Seidel&Fixson,2013,p.2;Wang,2013,p.13;Hatchuel,LeMasson&Weil,2011,p.78;Brown,2008;Blizzard,2013,p.31;Martelaro,et.al,2015,p.47;Benson&Dresdow,2013,p.7-11).Thedoublediamondisthemostconcisedesignmodelthatdepictsconvergenceanddivergenceinthedesignprocess,particularlyduringformativedesignphases(DesignCouncil,2005).Observationsofdivergentthinkingincases1and2corroboratewiththisliterature,however,adivergentmindsetpersistedthroughoutthedesignprocessandplayedgreaterimportancetodesigndevelopmentthantheliteraturesuggests.Thecomplexityandambiguityinherentintheprojectenvironmentinfluenceddesignteamsinbothcase1and2againstconvergingondetailsprematurely.Thisapprehensionagainstconvergenceemphasiseddivergentthinkingthatcontributedtowardsenablingaholisticperspective.Incase2,divergentthinkingwasobservedalongsidesystemicperspectivesduringscopingworkshops.Similarly,case1relieduponuserresearchtotackleambiguity,forcingthedesignteamtofocusonbroadervaluesandinsightsfromusers.Designteamsinbothcase1and2emphasisedoverarchingideas.Thecomplexityoftheprojectdomaininfluencedaneedfordivergentthinkingthatcontributestowardsaholisticperspective.AdaptivityAdaptivityisanattitudethatrequiresamalleableapproachandisobservedasanothermechanismformanagingdesignprojectsincomplexenvironments.Whereaninfinitenumberofvariablesandproblem-solutionsmaysolvetheprojectathand,designersremainopenandadaptivetoemerginginsightsandideas.Similarly,withdivergentthinking,anadaptiveattitudeprolongsthe“fuzzyfrontend”andrestrictsprematureconvergence.Incase1,adaptivitywasobservedthroughiterativeroundsofuserresearch.Inthiscase,thedesignteamchangedtheproject’sframeandfocus,adaptingtheirprocessframeworkasuserinformationwasobtained.Thisallowedthedesignteamtoremainadaptivetowardsemerginginsights,furtheraddingtoaholisticperspective.Similarly,forcase2,adaptivitywasexpressedthroughthemalleablenatureofthedesignmethodologyandprinciplesthatmakeupthefoundationfordesignpracticeattheATO.
223
UnderlyingMechanism Underlyingmechanismdrivingaholisticperspective:directinvolvementwiththeprojectecosystemencouragesaholisticperspective
Layer Mechanisms1.Empirical Systemsthinking,Divergentthinking,
Adaptivity2.Events Holisticperspective
3.RealDirectinteractionwithproject
organizationandecosystemTable9.Underlyingmechanism:holisticperspectiveTheholisticperspectivethatemergedinbothcases,enabledbysystemicthinking,adaptivityanddivergentthinking,ensuredthatbothteamswouldnotsettleintoafixedorlinearprocess.Systemsthinking,divergentthinkingandadaptivitykeptdesignteamsonthe‘biggerpicture’andrestrictedprematureconvergenceonfalsedesignsolutions.Bypreservinganopenandadaptiveprocess,bothdesignteamswereabletomaneuverthroughandmanagecomplexvariables,whilstreducingtheriskofconvergingonafaultyidea.Forbothcases1and2,systemic,divergentandadaptivethinkingenabledaholisticperspectivethatappearedinvaluableformanagingtheformative,fuzzyphasesofcomplexdesignprojectsincomplexenvironments.Aholisticperspectiveseemedtoemergefromdirectinteractionwiththeprojectecosystemforwhichthedesignsolutionisrequired.Thissuppositionhasbeenformulatedthroughananalysisofthethemesthatmakeupaholisticperspective,inconjunctionwiththepositionofdesignthinkingtotheprojectecosystem.Theunderlyingmechanismforaholisticperspectiveisbasedonanalysisofcases1and2.Designactivityincase1ispositionedontheperipheryoftheprojectecosystem,withcase2positionedinsideoftheprojectenvironment[SeeFig.16].Incontrast,observationsofdesignactivityincasestudy3didnotrevealaspectsofholisticperspectivesintheformativephasesofdesignactivity.Designteamsincase3,operatingas
224
ade-centralisednetwork,arenotpositionedtohavedirectengagementwitheitherorganisationsorcommunitiesforwhichdesignsolutionswillbeimplemented.Apredetermineddesignchallengemeansparticipantshavenodirectrelationshiptotheprojectcontextand/orecosystem,andmaydirectfocusawayfromwidersystemicandcontextualbehavioursthatwereobservedbydesignteamsincases1and2.Withoutdirectengagementwiththecontextoftheprojectecosystem,communityororganisationinwhichtheprojectchallengelies,adesignteammayhavelessreasontoinduceasystemicanddivergentmindsetandthusdisableaholisticperspectiveduringformativephasesofthedesignprocess.Inaddition,thepresentationofalineardesignmethodologyincase3mayalsomisleadmembersintoastaticandformulaicdesignprocessthatmaydisableadaptivity.
Fig.17HolisticPerspectiveAsaresult,formativedevelopmentsincase3focusedonconvergentdesigndetails.Observationsofdesignactivityincase3didnotshowanadaptiveattitudeasmanymembersportrayedafixationondetailsandlackeddivergentattributesassociatedwithformativephasesofthedesignprocess,observedincases1and2.Comparativeobservationsbetweencase3andcases1and2haveledtotheconclusionthatdirectinvolvementwiththeprojectecosystemencouragesdivergent,adaptiveandsystemicthinkingthatcombineandcreateaholisticperspective.
225
7.2.2Visionframing Visionframingisthecreationofanidealfuturestatethatisusedasaframeworktoguidedesignteamsthroughcomplexandambiguousprojectenvironments.Avisionframeworkisconstructedwiththeuser’s‘preferredstate’inmindandfocusesonenvisioninganidealend-stateorscenario.Avisionframeworkoperatesasaformatforfocusandreasoningthroughoutthedesignprocess.Itenablesbothadaptivityanddirectionthroughambiguitywheretheproblem-solutionspacemaynotbeclearlyidentified.Visionframingoperatesnotonlyasaframework,butprovidesagroundingpointforcommunicatingpurpose,directionandintent.Visionframingreliesonthreedesigncharacteristics:mapping,abductionanduser-centeredempathy.Visionframingisnotthesameasproblem-framingorproblemidentification.Designthinkingiscommonlydepictedasaprocessthatfocusesonproblem-framing.FramingwasfirstproposedasamethoduniquetodesignpracticebyDonaldSchön.Schön(1984)describesframingas“asettingofsomeproblemstobesolved”(p.132).Elaboratingonthisconcept,KeesDorstechoesthat“experienceddesignerscanbeseentoengagewithanovelproblemsituationbysearchingforthecentralparadox,askingthemselveswhatitisthatmakestheproblemsohardtosolve”(Dorst,2011,p.527).Multiplescholarsrefertoproblem-framingasapurposefulre-conceptualizationofawickedproblemviewedthroughvariousperspectivestoinspireinnovativesolutions(Hassi&Laakso,p.8;Kolko,2010,p.23;Lindbergetal,2010,p.247).Mostoftheseaccountsassumethataproblemorproblem-situationhasbeenexplicitlyidentifiedinorderforthere-framingtooccur.Furthermore,theseaccountsdescribeproblemframingasuniquetotheformativephasesofdesigndevelopment.However,problemswerenottheemphasisduringformativephasesofdesignthinkingincase1and2.Rather,thecreationofahigher,overarchingframeworkthatembodiedanidealstatewasobservedascentraltotheearlystagesofdesigndevelopmentincomplexenvironments.Avisionframeworkactedasaguidethroughemergingproblem-solutionspaces.Hence,thedesignprocessobservedincase1and2didnotinitiallyfocusonproblem-framingasthebriefcontainedtoomanyunknownandill-definedvariables.Theambiguityanddiversityofvariablesinherentintheprojectbriefcouldnotholisticallybeaccountedfor,specificallyasprojectbriefsinbothcases1and2hadlittleconcreteinformationon
226
whichthedesignteamscouldgroundproblems.Thus,problem-framingwasnotamethodthatcoulddominatedesigndecisionsduringthefuzzyfrontend,andwasnotobservedasintegraltoearlystagesofdesignthinking.Instead,visionframingwasobservedasadominantcharacteristicformanagingcomplexenvironmentsduringtheearlyandmostambiguousstagesofprojectdevelopment.Theconstructionofavisionframeallowsforambiguousandadaptivedesignactivitytoremainfocusedandgroundedtowardsanoptimisticidealratherthandirectedbyanidentifiedproblem.ThephenomenonthatisvisionframingisrelatedtowhatDorstterms“Abduction2”.Inhispapertitled,TheCoreofDesignThinking,Dorst(2011)definesAbduction1asrepresentingconventionalproblemsolvinginwhich“weknowthevaluewewanttocreateandhow”(p.524).Abduction2isanotherformofreasoning,itis“morecomplexbecauseatthestartoftheproblemsolvingprocessweonlyknowtheendvaluewewanttoachieve.This‘open’formofreasoningismorecloselyassociatedwith(conceptual)design”(Dorst,2011,p.522).Visionframingreflectsthe‘endvalue’DorstdescribesofAbduction2reasoningandisacknowledgedasanappropriateperspectivefor“theopen,complexproblemsforwhichorganisationsareseekingnewapproaches”(Dorst,2011,p.524).Onceagain,ratherthan“identifyingthekeyissuesinaproblemarena,andtheframingoftheseinanewandoriginalmanner”(Dorst,2010,p.133),designteamsincase1and2focusedonformulatinganoverarchinggoalofintentpriortoidentifyingtheproblemtobesolved.Incases1and2,holisticperspectiveprovidedanend-to-endpre-evaluationonthedesignprojectanditsecosystem.Fromhere,designteamsfocusedonenvisioningtheidealstatefortheuser.Avisionframeworkemergedthroughmapping,abductivethinkingandempathyfortheuserduringearlyphasesofdesigndevelopment.Thisframeworkwasthenusedasaguidetodirectdesignerstowardspreferreddesignoutcomes.
227
Vision
FramingMapping Abduction Empathy
Case1 Wemappedthecurrentjourney;sowhatwasthejourneyyouhadexperiencedinthepastandwemappedthatouttogether,includingpainandlightpoints.Whatarethethingsthatannoyyouorarefrustratingorthatareworkingreallywellthatyouenjoy,andthenwedidthefuturewall(Observation,Phase1,2011)Weareactuallyphysicallymappingideas(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Fromourpersonalinsight(Observation,Phase1,2011)Noneofthepeoplewetalkedtohavethe[product],that’swherewehavetocomeinandkindofmakethatup(Observation,Phase1,2011)Enactmentswerecreatedbyjustputtingideastogetherthatwehadthatwecouldtry(Observation,Phase1,2011)It’skindofconflicting,howitwasgoingtoreallywork.That’swhyweeventuallyhadtogowithwhat’sourideaoftheideal(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Pointofthejourneyistogainempathytounderstandhowtheprocessworks(Observation,Phase2,2011)Itcouldbethatweneedtoconstantlybethinkingaboutthenuancesofexperience.It’sfundamentallyimportantforustounderstandthecustomersperspective(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Case2
Thenwetookourdesignprinciplesasacoherentforblueprintchange.It’sprovidingafoundationofwhatwearegoingtodoandallofoursubsequentprocessesthroughtoimplementationisbasedoffthatblueprint(Interview,Co-designLead,2014)
Werecognisethereisalotofassumptionsmadeandthereisalotofgapsinthereaswell.(Interview,Facilitator,2014)Akeytaskduringblueprintingwillbetoidentifyadditionaluserresearchandtocommissionorundertakeit.Ifateamstartsmakingassumptionsaboutwhatthey
Ittakestwoimportantperspectives–outside-inandend-to-end–andconsiderstheimplicationsofthedesignacrosstheTaxOfficeandthecommunity.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,p.6)“Itwasallaboutdevelopingaservicewe
228
Table10.VisionFramingMapping
Mappingwasobservedtoplayacentralroleindesignthinkingforcomplexenvironments.Mappingseekstovisualisetheend-to-endsystemorservice.Incases1and2,mappingwasusedasamethodthatcomplimentsandaidsinthedevelopmentofasystemicandholisticperspectiveandintherefinementofavisionframework:
Theuserresearchsessionswillproducepagesofverbaltranscript,hundredsofpictures,anddozensofartifactexamples.Becauseofthecomplexityofcomprehendingsomuchdataatonce,thedesignerwillfrequentlyturntoalargesheetofpaperandablankwallinorderto“mapitallout.”(Kolko,2010,p.16)
Case1beganwithafocusonuserresearchthatledtohigh-leveluserinsights.Theseinsightswerethenmappedoutasauserjourney.Similarly,case2initiateddesigndevelopmentthroughscopingworkshopstoclarifytheformativestagesofintent,focusingheavilyonidentifyingthesystemandcapabilityinordertoachievethedesiredintent.Asaresult,thesystemincase2wasmappedoutasa“blueprint”.Thisblueprintoutlinedtheanticipateduserjourney,focusingonhowtheuser’sjourneyinteractswithandimpactsontheorganizationalsystem.Incontrasttoamoreuser-centeredemphasisincase1,case2placedanemphasisonmapping(blueprinting)thesysteminordertomoveforwardinthedesignprocess.Inbothcases,theseholistic,end-to-endmapsandblueprintsarecarriedthroughoutthedesignprocess,operatingasatangibleframeworkofreferencetosolidifyandsupportdesigndevelopmentandtoachievetheintangibleprojectvision(intent).Themappingprocessincase1and2wasobservedasamethodforsolidifyingandsimplifyingambiguityaroundthevisionframework.
thinkusersmightdo,morediscoveryoruserresearchisneededtochecktheseassumptions.”(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,p.12)
wantthemtouseandwewantthemtoseeitasavaluableandeasyprocess”(Interview,Co-designLead,2014)
229
AbductionInadditiontomapping,abductivethinkingguideddesignteamsinthecreationofavisionframeworkduringformativestagesofthedesignprocessincases1and2.Abductivethinking:
Canbethoughtofastheargumenttothebestexplanation.Itisthehypothesisthatmakesthemostsensegivenobservedphenomenonordataandbasedonpriorexperience.Abductionisalogicalwayofconsideringinferenceor“bestguess”leaps.(Kolko,2010,p.20).
Incasestudy1,abductivethinkingwasidentifiedthroughexpressionssuchas“Ifeel”and“Iguess”.Case2portrayedabductivethinkingthroughinterviews,articulatingassumptionsaroundanticipatingfuturestatesduringformulationsofintent.Inthesecases,abductivethinkingwasidentifiedasamethodforsubstitutingformissinginformationduetoambiguityanduncertaintyinthecomplexenvironment.Inharnessingabductivethinking,“abductivelogicallowsforthecreationofnewknowledgeandinsight”(Kolko,2010,p.20).Thus,abductionandintuitionactedasmechanismsforenablingforesightandthegenerationofanidealfuturestate.EmpathyEmpathyisafundamentalcharacteristicofdesignthinkingandanobjectivefordesignteamsinthecreationofdesignoutcomes(New&Kimbell,2013;VonThienen,Meinel&Nicolai,2014;Kim&Ryu,2014;Mattelmaki,Vaajakallio&Koskinen,2014;Faste,2011;Wetter-Edman,2009).Thus,empathywasobservedasakeymindsetinthecreationofanidealfuture-stateandvisionframework,“Theempathicunderstandingofeverydaylifeistriggeredbyimaginativeproposalsofalternativefutures.”(Mattelmaki,Vaajakallio&Koskinen,2014,p.73).Incase1,theformulationofavisionframeworkbeganwithuserresearchthatguidedthedesignteamtowardstheformulationofapreferreduserexperience.Similarly,thedesignteamincase2focusedonformulatingavisionframeworkthroughthegenerationofanintentstatement.Intentincasestudy2requiredthedesignteamtothinkholisticallyaboutboththesystemandtheuser,focusingonenvisioningthe
230
desiredfuturestatefortheuser.Likecasestudy1,theintentstatementemphasisedintangible,highlevelexperiencesthataregroundedinempathyfortheuser.UnderlyingmechanismUnderlyingmechanismdrivingvisionframing:directinvolvementwiththeprojectecosystemencouragesvisionframing
Layer Mechanisms1.Empirical Mapping,abduction,empathy2.Events Visionframing3.Real Directinteractionwithprojectsystem
Table11.UnderlyingmechanismforvisionframingVisionframingisperformedduringtheformativestagesofthedesignprocessincase1and2.Visionframingisinfluencedbyaholisticperspectiveandprovidesdirectionthroughtheambiguityinherentincomplexdesignpractice.Visionframingincase1and2isenabledbythreekeyfactors:empathy,mappingandabductivethinking.However,visionframingwasnotobservedincase3.Instead,itwasobservedthatthedesigncommunityincase3devotedformativestagesofthedesignprocesstoconceptingideas;producingsolutionsmuchsoonerthanintheprevioustwocasestudies.Individualsincase3alsoreliedona“gutfeeling”inordertocompletetheprojectchallengeandfocusedonassumptionsbasedonpersonalpreferences.Guessingwaswitnessedthroughstatementssuchas“Ifeel”,“Ilike”and“Ithink”.Thefundamentaldifferencebetweenassumptionsandguessworkincases1and2withthoseincase3isthatabductiveactivityincases1and2areeducatedguessesbasedonpreliminaryuserresearch.Bothdesignteamsincases1and2conductedpreliminaryuserand/orclientresearchwhereasdesignersincase3werenotobservedtohaveconductedin-depthuserresearch.Thus,assumptivestatementsmaynotbeaninformedoreducatedguessandmaynotbeclassifiedasabductive,asstatementsdrawfromsubjectivepersonalpreference.Furthermore,the“guesstimating”activityincase3didnotappeartobeinlightofanoverarchingvisionframework.
231
Designactivityincase3operatedexternallytotheprojectenvironment,andassuch,hadnodirectinteractionorrelationshipwiththeprojectecosystem.Thisweakrelationshipbetweendesignactivityandthecontextoftheprojectmayreduceengagementwiththecomplexityinherentinthirdandfourthorderenvironments.Complexityplaysalargeroleinenablingaholisticperspectiveandforvisionframingtoemerge.Withoutdirectinteractionwiththecomplexityoftheprojectecosystem,thenaturalemergentqualitiesofdivergentandsystemicthinkingmaybedisabled.Asaresult,designersincase3didnotengagewithaholisticperspectiveandthusdidnotarticulateavisionframeworkoridealenduserstate.Instead,designersconvergedondesignsolutionsprematurely.Inaddition,alackofdirectinteractionwithendusersmaydecreasethedesireforformulatingavisionframeworkinlightofuserpreferencesand,inturn,increasedesignsbasedonpersonalpreference.Positioningwasobservedtohaveaneffectonhoweachdesignprojectisinitiated.Designthinkingontheperipheryoftheorganizationand/orprojectecosystem,asobservedincase1,mayinfluencedesignteamstoinitiatedesignthinkingthroughuserresearchbeforefocusingonsystemicconsiderations.Designingontheperipheryisalsoobservedtoholdaweakerrelationshiptotheday-to-daynuancesofsystemicoperationsinanorganization,asopposedtodesignthatissituatedinternaltoanorganisation.Incontrast,thedesignteamincase2initiatedvisionframinganddesignthinkingthroughasystemicperspective.Thisispossiblyduetodesignoperatinginternallytotheorganisationalsystem,thusholdingastrongerrelationshiptotheprojectanditsecosystem.
232
Figure18.VisionFramingTeammembersincase3hadnorelationshipwiththeecosystemorprojectorganisationandthusfocusedmostofthedesigndevelopmentonguessworkand/orindividualpreference.Basedonemergentpatternsevidentincases1and2,itisproposedthatwithoutdirectinteractionwiththecomplexitiesinherentintheprojectecosystem,convergentthinkingwillincreaseandthepotentialforvisionframingduringformativephasesofdesigndevelopmentwillbereduced.Itisproposedthatastrongrelationshipwiththeprojectand/ortheorganisationalecosystemenhancestheabilityforsystemicandstrategicmindsetstoemerge,thusenablingaholisticperspectiveandavisionframingtooccur.7.2.3CollaborationandFacilitation
Characteristicsemergedincase1and2thatprovidedindicatorsfordescribingthecollaborativebehaviourofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Duringformativephasesofdesigndevelopment,collaborationincase1appearedlessinclusiveofexternalstakeholderinvolvementbuthighlyinclusiveofuserinput.Furthermore,asdesigndevelopmentincase1occurredprimarilywithinthedesignagency,collaborativeeffortsweremainlyisolatedtothedesignteam.Incomparison,case2involvedaninterdisciplinaryteamofprofessionalswithlittletonoformaltrainingindesign.Inthisdesignteam,theonly
233
traineddesignersinvolvedwerededicateddesignfacilitators.Collaborationincase2involvedworkingcloselywithstakeholders,whomformedpartofthecoredesignteam.Collaborationincase2wasmoreinclusiveandinterdisciplinaryandemphasisedequalco-responsibilityoverthedesignsolutionbetweenmembers(stakeholders)ofthecoredesignteam(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,p.37).
Facilitationisacharacteristicwidelydiscussedindesignliteratureandatopicwellestablishedoutsideofdesigntheory.Facilitationindesigniscommonlyattributedtoadesignleadwhoseroleistofacilitatetrans-disciplinaryconversation(ChristianWahl&Baxter,2008,p.72;Kajalainen,2012,p.34;Razzouk&Shute,2012,p.334)usingvisualmethodsandtoolstoenableandenhancethisfacilitation(Donar,2011,p.89).Incontrasttotheliterature,aleaddesignerdidnotdictatethedesignprocessineithercase1or2.Instead,facilitationwasmanagedcollectivelybythedesignteamincase1andencouragedbyadedicateddesignfacilitatorincase2and3.Ineachcasetherewasnoleaddesigner,andprofessionallytraineddesignersinvolvedindevelopmentdidnotdictateorownthedesignprocess.Threemainbehavioursemergedfromcross-comparativeanalysisoncollaborationincomplexenvironments.Thesebehavioursare:de-centralisationoftheDesigner,perspectiveshiftingandembodimentsofdesignthinking.7.2.3.1De-centralisationoftheDesigner
Thede-centralisationofthedesignerwasobservedasanemergentphenomenonwhendesigninginandforcomplexenvironments.Theambiguousactivityofdesigniscommonlydepictedunderthedirectionofasingle,leaddesignerwhoembodiesanddirectsdesignthinking(Carlgrenet.al.,2013,p.12;Geroet.al.,2001,p.271;Martin2005,p.2;Owen2007,p.24;Porcini,2009,p.7).Asdesignthinkingisappliedinhigherandmorecomplexareasofprofessionalpractice,lessemphasisisfocusedonasingle,leadingdesigner.Instead,designthinkingincontextofcomplexenvironmentsmanifeststhroughcollaborativethinking.Thisisaneffortthatisnotidentifiedwithinanyonedesignerbutanemergentandcollectiveconsensusinresponsetotheprojectathand.Visualisation,passivefacilitationandmultidisciplinarycollaborationwasobservedincase1and2ascharacteristicsthatenabledade-centralizationincomplexdesignpractice.These
234
observationsprovidethebasisthatsupporttheemergentbehaviourthatisthede-centralisationofthedesigner[SeeTable.12]
De-centralisation
ofthedesigner
Visualisation Passivefacilitation Multidisciplinary
collaboration
Case1 Draweverywhere!Soitlookslikeyou’vegotthesetwothingslikethatandthenyou’vegotthesethingslikethis,which,dothat…maybe?(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Withthesemultistreamteamsthere’sforceforcollaborationbetweenthem.Whatwewilldois:there’sthreeofusandwewillhelpfacilitatetalksamongstthesepeople(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Tuesdayisaboutconsolidating,it’saboutgettingthemtounderstandasacollective,asateam,howandwhatitistheyneedtodotogethertoactuallytellthat(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Case2
Sketchoutreallyroughhowitmightwork,andthenweusethatasastartingpointforthediscussionsthatgoround(Interview,Co-DesignLead,2014)Thisprinciplehasbeenreferredtoas‘gettingphysicalfast’.Itmeansdrafting,sketching,prototypingandcreatingmock-upsorothervisible
Mymainroleisintheworkshop;howdowecollaborate,brainstorm.It’smoredesignfacilitationofteamneedssoit’sallaboutquestioning.It’smakingsureeveryonehasasaymakingsureeveryonegetsheard(Interview,DesignFacilitator,2014)Thefacilitatorsjobistogetinformationoutofthegroup.It’s
Theblueprintshouldalsobeusedasthebasisforconversationswithotherstakeholderstoexplainthedesigntothem.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.13)
Theformationofthathighleveldesignwithourinternalbusinesspartners,ourcoredesignteammembers,each
235
representationsofthedesignearlysothattheycanbesharedwithusersandotherstakeholders.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.15)
nottodictateanything.That’swhatthepeopleintheroomneedtobeawareof-whattheyaretherefor.Butthedesignfacilitatorsaretheretogettheinformationoutinadesignsense.(Interview,DesignFacilitator,2014)
bringingintheirexperienceandknowledgeofthoseinteractionsoit’saconsidereddesign.(Interview,DesignLead,2014)
Table12.De-centralisationofthedesignerVisualisationVisualisationhaslongbeencharacterisedastheheartofdesignthinking.Ithasbeendiscussedprimarilyasaprocessofreasoning(Geroetal.,2001,p.272;Schön,1983),anaidforunderstandingandsensemaking(Rylander,2009,p.6;Wardet.al.,2009,p.80),astimulusforrapidideation(Boland&Collopy,2004;Boyer,et.al2010,p.327;Brown,2009,p.89;Laakso&Hassi,2011,p.7)atooltomakeideastangible(Blomkvist&Holmlid,2010,p.3;Kimbell,2009,p.251;New&Kimbell,2013,p.2)andamediumforenablingconversation(Jones,2008,p.226).Thus,visualisationprovidesacommongroundforcommunication,ideation,inspirationandmediationwithinmultidisciplinarydesignteams.However,forthemostpart,discussionsaroundvisualisationindesignlargelyrevolvearounddescriptionsofitseffectivenessinisolationandrarelyinvestigatethedeeper,holisticimpactandinteractionvisualisationmethodshaveonthedesignprocessasawhole.Asintangibleideasarecentraltohigherordersofdesignpractice,visualisationsplayamoreprominentroleinthedesignprocess.Visualmethodshaveatremendousinfluenceoverenablingcooperationforcollaborativethinking.Thefacilitationofconversationsindesignpractice;betweendesigners,designer-clientordesigner-user,reliesheavilyonvisualtools(Manzini,2008,p.8),allowingparticipantstoshareideasusingvisualisationasacommon
236
groundforcommunication,ideation,inspirationandmediation(Tvesky,2010,p.500;Wardetal.,2009,p.80).Corroboratingwithliteratureonthetopic(Boyeret.al,2010,p.48;Murrayet.al,2010,p.24;Wardetal.2009,p.80)bothdesignteamsincases1and2chosethevisualmethodofmappingandsketchingasasupportforsynchronisingunderstandingandclarifyingcomplexityduringcollaboration.Furthermore,prototyping,sketchingandmappingwasobservedtobecentraltodesignthinkingactivityinsteadofthedesignersthemselves.Inthisinstance,membersofthedesignteambecome“tools”thatenabledesignthinkingtocollectivelyemerge.Visualisationwasobservedtobeanadaptiveandimmediateexternalisationof“active”thoughtthatallowsotherteammemberstosynchronisetheirthinkingasideasunfold.Visualtoolsenhancethecollective“brain”ofthedesignteam,throwingthefocusawayfromanysingledesigner.Thiscreatesanewperspectiveoncollaborativedesignthinkingactivity-thatthesumofthemembersinadesignteamisgreaterthanitsindividualparts.
PassivefacilitationCollaborativeactivityincase1existedmainlyamongstmembersofthedesignteam.Withinthisteam,nodesigneremergedasthe‘expert’.Instead,collaborationandideationevolvedorganicallyandwasidentifiedasarepresentationofunifiedandcollectivedesignconsciousness.Casestudy2utilisedvisualisationstoenablecollaborativesynchronisationofdesigncognitioninconjunctionwithdedicateddesignfacilitators.Asmembersofthecoredesignteamincase2donotcomefromdesignbackgrounds,traineddesignfacilitatorswereusedtocreatevisualartefactsinresponsetoemergingconversationssoastoenablecollaborativedesignthinking.Mostimportantly,thedesignfacilitatorsdidnottakealeadingroleindesignactivityordesignthinking.Thesefacilitatorsactedasstimulusandvisualarmandtheirrolewasdeliberatelypassive.Adesignfacilitator’sroleistoinspireandenabledesignthinkingtoemergewithinthecoredesignteam.Itwasobservedthattheroleofdesignincase2isde-centralised.Instead,theemergentcollaborativethinkingenabledbyvisualartefactsthatdominatedcasestudy1,andexistedthroughtheaidoffacilitatorsincasestudy2,signifiesthedestructionoftheloneorleaddesignerasanembodimentordirectorofdesignthinking.Instead,designthinkingincomplexenvironmentsisobservedasanemergentprocessenabledthroughmultidisciplinarycollaboration.
237
MultidisciplinarycollaborationIncomplexenvironments,thedesignprocessbecomesthefocalpointandnotthedesignersthemselves.Large,complexnetworksthatincludeawidecommunityofusersandstakeholderscreatesanecosystemwithproblemsthatarebeyondtheexpertiseofanindividualdesigner.Thus,multidisciplinarydesignteamsarenecessarytomanagecomplexdesignissuesthatimpactalargenetworkofstakeholders.Throughmultidisciplinarycollaboration,designthinkingisanemergentpropertyenabledbyacollectionofindividualsapplyingandinteractingwiththedesignerlyapproach.Afocusonusersandasynchronisationofperspectivesfrommultidisciplinaryteamworkcreatesanenvironmentthatprohibitsdesignthinkingtoemergeandbeownedbyoneindividual.Insuchcomplexnetworkstheconceptofaleaddesignerhasbecomeobsolete.Thisbringsthedesignprocess,insteadofthedesigner,totheforeandcreatesaphenomenonthatislessaboutdesignthinkingattributedtoadesignerandmoreabouttheemergenceofadesignthinkingprocess,teamandculture.Asdesignactivitycontinuestobeutilizedinandforlarge-scalecomplexenvironments,itissensiblethatthenotionofthedesignershiftsfromatraditionalauthoritativepositiontoapassivefacilitator.Therefore,designthinkingshouldbeperceivedasamanifestationofcollaborationunderadesignapproachinthiscontext.Underlyingmechanism:Underlyingmechanismdrivingthedecentralizationofthedesigner:immediacyfromfacetofacecollaborationencouragesade-centralizationofthedesigner
Table.13Underlyingmechanismfordecentralizationofthedesigner
Layer Mechanisms1.Empirical Multidisciplinarycollaboration,Passive
facilitation,Visualisation2.Events De-centralisationofdesigner3.Real Immediacy(facetofaceinteraction)
238
Collaborationincase1and2operatedinade-centralizedmanner,withoutaleadingdesignerdirectingdesignactivity.Case2andcase3employeddedicateddesignfacilitatorstomanagecollaborativediscussions.Inbothcases,thesefacilitatorsplayedaverypassiveandunobtrusiverole.Casestudy3showedasignificantlackofvisualisationintheformativephasesofthedesignprocessduringonlinecollaboration.Incontrasttofacilitationincase2,visualisationmethodswerenotusedbyonlinefacilitatorsincase3toinspireorstimulateideasandconversations.Visualsthatwere(rarely)providedduringdesigndiscussionsincase3wereusuallyinformoflinksandwerenotgeneratedthroughimmediateinteractivediscussionsorbuiltuponexistingvisualisationscreatedbycontributingmembers.Case1and2utilisedvisualartefactstofacilitatecommunicationbetweenteammembers,enablingasynchronisationofperspectivesanddecentralizationofdesigncollaboration.Incomparisontocases1and2,alackofvisualisationduringdesigndiscussionsmaybearesultofdesignactivitypositionedoutsideoftheprojectenvironmentandoperatingremotelyfromstakeholders,usersandteammembers.Thispositionmayfurtherdisableade-centralisationofdesignactivityasthereexistsnotangibleartefactforteammemberstofocuson,incomparisontovisualisationsthatwerecentralinface-to-facecollaborationsconductedincases1and2.Facilitatorsoftheplatformcouldhavealleviatedthisproblembyvisualisingdesignconceptsdevelopedbyindividualmemberstohelpenablecollaborationandsynchronisationbetweenactiveindividuals.
239
Fig.19De-centralisationofthedesignerOnthesurface,itappearsthatthereexistsade-centralisationofthedesignerincase3asanetworkofindividualscollaborateondesignchallengesinanonlineopen-sourceenvironment.Additionally,thecommunitycollaboratedonchallengesthatarenotdirectedbyadesignmanager,butrather,facilitatedthroughplatformoperators.Yet,case3didnotexhibitthesamedegreeofcollaborativedesignthinkingactivityevidentincases1and2.Thecontributionsmadebycommunitymembersincase3wereoftenstaticandisolatedfromengagedconversation.Itwasobservedthatcommunitymembersprovideddirectfeedbackratherthanengaginginsustainedcollaborativediscussion.Thisbehaviourispossiblyduetotheremoteanddelayedmodeofinteraction,ascommunitymembersinteractedsolelythroughanonlinenetworkattheirowntimeandpace.Furthermore,asmembersareworkingremotelyfromoneanother,eachindividualdesignsinisolation,particularlywhenitcomestoutilisingvisualisationmethodsforideation.Withoutimmediateinteractionbetweenotherindividualsasconductedinface-to-facecollaboration,theremotedesignerstrugglestoremovehisorherselffromtheirownworldview.Thisresultsintheindividualfocusingontheirownideasasideationexistsintheirowntimeandspaceandwithoutdirectandimmediateinputfromoutsidesources.Thisisolationmayexplaintheemergentcharacteristicfoundincase1and2;thatimmediacythroughface-to-facecollaborationenhancesthede-centralisationofthedesigner.
240
Thebehaviourofparticipantsincase3comparedtothecollaborativebehaviorobservedincase1and2signalsthatimmediacyisanecessaryelementtoenabledesignthinkingandtode-centralisethedesigner.Allowingvisualisationstomanifestinrealtimeduringdesigndiscussionsstrengthensthesynchronisationofgroupinteractionsallowingforamoreorganiciterationandevolutionofdesignconcepts.Theonline,remotepositionofdesignthinkingincase3reducesimmediacybetweenteammembersandfacilitatorswhichmaybepreventingtheemergenceofthede-centralisationofthedesignerasdesignthinker.7.2.4Disruptingperceptionsthroughdesignthinking
Disruptingperceptionshasbeenacceptedaspartofdesignthinkingpracticeincomplexenvironments(Bucolo&King,2014,p.25;Liedtka,2014,p.45).Theartofdisruptingperceptionsthroughdesignthinkingisconductedwiththeaimofchangingfixedmindsets(Vetterliet.al,2013,p.93;Carlgren,Elmquist&Rauth,2013,p.6).Incases1and2,perspectivesshiftedduringcollaborativedesignactivity.Casestudy1and2involvedmultidisciplinarystakeholdersfromfieldsoutsideofdesignandwhoareforeigntoadesignthinkingapproach.Inbothcasestudies,thefocusofdesignthinkingisthrownawayfromthedesignerasaleaderdictatingadesignthinkingapproach,toonethatfacilitatesthedesignprocessasmechanismforshiftingperspectiveswithinandbeyondthedesignteam.Disruptingperceptionsisobservedasaprecursortothedevelopmentofadesignthinkingculturewithinanorganisation.Designthinkingactivitywasnotjustutilisedtoresolvecomplexproblems,buttoinfluenceorganisationalculture.Disruptingperceptionsbecameasfundamentaltodesignthinkingpracticeasvisionframing,asthedesignteamcollaboratedwithadiversegroupofstakeholders.
241
Disrupting
perceptions
Directengagementwith
stakeholders
Demonstratingdesign
process
Diversityofperspectives
Case1 Wesaid“okwecanonlydotwosochoosetheonesyouwant”andthey[theclient]chosethesetwoandwethoughttheyweregoodchoicesaswell.(Observation,Phase2,2011)Wearecapturingtherawdataandthey[theclient]areconsolidatingtheirsandthenwewillgetthemtogiveatutorialandputitalltogether(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Gettingtheserviceactedoutgetsthem[theclient]tostartseeingitfromacustomersperspective.Butthecruxforthisstuffwillhappenasthestreamleadsoutandactuallynarratesandspeaksover-whatishappeningtothemintheorganisationduringthispartofthescenario(Observation,Phase2,2011)Therewasagradualshifttowardstheendofthedaywheretheorganizationwasactuallythinkingfromwithinandnotprojectingwhattheythinkthecustomerneeds.Sothat’samassive,massive,shiftinthinking(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Wearenottalkinginsiloswearetalkingrisks,opportunities,asagroup.Eachdependencyasagroup(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Ithinkitsaboutconsolidationandnotquestioningout.[…]Tuesdaysaboutconsolidating,it’saboutgettingthem[theclient]tounderstandasacollectiveasateam,how,whatitistheyneedtodotogethertoactuallytellthat(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Case2
Theroleofthedesignleadistoensurethatthereisbuyinintothedesignprocessthatthesepeopleareadvocatesforthechange(Interview,DesignLead,2014)
It’sgoodforthoseto
Justbyexperienceandassociationwiththedesignprocesstheydevelopthisdesignthinkingmethodology.Itjustbecomespartoftheirnaturalwayofdoingthings,sothat’showwetryanddevelopthisconceptofdesignthinking
Thecomplexityofmostcurrentorganisationalissuesmeansthatitwillalmostneverbethecasethatonepersonoroneperspectivewillbeabletodesignaneffectivechange.Aninterdisciplinary
242
participateandthosethatareinterestedingettingindesignorwereindesigninothercompanies,bothGovandprivateentities,theyneedtoknowhowwedodesignintheATO(Interview,DesignFacilitator,2014)
Oncewe’vegottheprototypedevelopedforourco-designsessions,theyprobablyhaveareasonableamountofinputatthatstageaswell.Thosetestingscenariosaresharedwithawiderangeofstakeholders(Interview,BusinessLead,2014)
withintheATO.(Interview,DesignLead,2014)Weuseadvocates.It’saboutdoingandshowingratherthantalkingaboutit.Sohopefullyaprojectthatgetsdesignfacilitatorsandinformationdesignersanduser-centereddesignersinvolvedtheyareseeingthevalueoutofit.(Interview,DesignFacilitator,2014)
approachreducestheriskofpoorintegrationbetweendifferentbutrelatedproductssuchastransactionsystemsandinformationproducts.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.5)Productivedesigndependsuponinputfromarangeofperspectives.Inthedesignworld,theseperspectivesareoftenreferredtoasthe‘voicesofdesign’.Eachvoicemayberepresentedbymorethanoneperson;andinsomecasesonepersonmayrepresentmorethanonevoice.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p..6)
Table14.DisruptingperceptionsthroughdesignthinkingDirectengagementwithstakeholdersThedesignteamincase2usedthedesignprocessasthevoicefordemonstratingdesignthinkingtoexternalstakeholders.Directengagementwithstakeholdersisdefinedasinteractionsconductedeitherverballyorinaco-physicallocationwithclientstakeholdersduringdesigndevelopment.Directinteractionrequiresthedesignteamtotalkdirectlytoindividualsfromtheclientandnottobecollectinginformationthroughanotherindividualonbehalfoftheclient.Incase1thedesignteamconductedworkshopstoobtainfirsthandcollaborationwiththeclient.Similarly,thedesignteamincase2invitedprojectleadsandstakeholdersfromareasoutsideofthedesignteaminordertogatherinformationthatwill
243
ensuresuccessfulimplementationofthedesignsolution.Inbothcases,thedesignteamhadadirectconversationandimpactontheclientstakeholder.Demonstratingthedesignprocess
Demonstratingthedesignprocessdidnotrelysolelyontheexpertiseofadesignerordesignteamperse,butoncollaborativelyperformingthedesignprocesstopersuadestakeholdersthroughdesigndemonstration.Theemphasisisontheprocessitselfasanenablerofandfocusofdesignthinking.Demonstratingthedesignprocesswasanemergentcharacteristicevidentinbothcase1and2.Thedesignteamincase1invitedtheclientandtheirstakeholderstoparticipateindesignthinkingactivities.Thiswasconductednotonlytodemonstratethedesignprocessbuttodemonstrateideasthroughadesignperspective.Case2alsoutilizedthedesignprocessforthispurpose,usingitasamechanismforsolvingcomplexproblemsandalsoasawaytodemonstratesolutionsthroughtheusabilityofdesignthinking.Theintentionbehindthiseffortistoobtainmaximum‘buyin’fromtheclientintothedesignprocess.DiversityofperspectivesDiversityofperspectivesisrepresentedthroughmultidisciplinarycollaborativepractice.Thedesignteamincase1utiliseddiversityfortheircollaborativedesignworkshopsbyinvitingstakeholdersfrombroaderpartsoftheclientorganization.Thedesignteamincase2alsoadoptedthisapproach,throughtheunderstandingthatdesignproblemsincomplexenvironmentscannotberesolvedbyjustthecoredesignteam.Forbothcase1and2,diversityofperspectiveswasamethodformanagingdesignproblemsincomplexenvironmentsbybringingindiverseexperiencesandexpertise.Thiswasconductednotonlytoinspireinnovation,buttoadddiverseknowledgeinordertostrengthencomplexdesigndecisions.
244
Underlyingmechanism
Underlyingmechanismdrivingdisruptingperceptions:designinexperienceorfearoftheunknown
Layer Mechanisms1.Empirical Diversityofperspectives,direct
engagementwithstakeholder,demonstratingdesignprocess
2.Events Disruptingperceptions
3.RealDesigninexperienceorfearof
unknownTable.15UnderlyingmechanismfordisruptingperceptionsDisruptingperceptionswasobservedtooperateforthreepurposes:toinspireculturalchange,driveclient‘buyin’todesignthinking,andtoenhanceholisticthinking.Case1and2showedevidencefordisruptingperceptionsthroughthedesignprocessinordertoinfluenceinnovativeworkpractices.Thedesignteaminthesetwocasesengageddirectlywiththestakeholderandclient.Incontrast,designersincase3hadnodirectinteractionwiththeprojectsystem,clientorstakeholders.Operatingontheperipherytotheprojectecosystem(case1)orinternally(case2)demandsinteractionswiththeclientandstakeholdersexternaltothecoredesignteam.Incase3,communitymembershadnodirectengagementwithclients,usersand/orstakeholdersassociatedwiththeprojectchallenge.Inthiscase,disruptingperceptionsoperatedbetweenmembers.Designfacilitatorswerenotobservedtoinfluencethemindsetsoftheonlinecommunity.Instead,communitymembersdrewfromindividualexperiencesandknowledge,offeringdiversepersonalviewpointsduringfeedbackondesignconcepts.Thepurposeinthissituationisnottoinfluenceacultureshiftwithinanorganisationorinaclient-stakeholdernetwork,asdemonstratedincase1and2.Thepurposeofdisruptingperceptionsincase3wastohelpfellowcommunitymembersseetheprojectbeyondtheirindividualperspectivesotheymayproducemorerefinedandholisticallysensibleconclusions.Yet,despitecommunitymembersprovidingdiverseviewpoints,themindshiftisprimarilyofbenefitonlytothereceiverofsuchfeedback.
245
Disruptingperceptionsobservedincase3appearedtohavelessimpactthanobservationsofthisemergentcharacteristicfoundincase1and2.Incontrast,disruptingperceptionsincase1and2hadawiderimpact,affectingthecultureoftheprojectecosystem.Disruptingperceptionsisrequiredwhencollaboratingwithinternalorexternalstakeholders,outsideofthedesignprocessandcoredesignteam.Case1conductedcollaborativeactivityprimarilybetweenprofessionaldesignersintheirdesignagency.Multidisciplinarycollaborationbetweenstakeholderswasnotasembeddedinthedesignprocessaswasincase2.Incontrast,collaborationincase2comprisedofacoredesignteamwithmorediverse,multidisciplinaryexpertiseandfewprofessionaldesigners.Bothcases1and2conductedcollaborationsessionsinperson,whereascollaborationincase3wasconductedsolelyonline.Incase3,communitymemberswereencouragedtocollaboratebyinteractingoncommentthreadsembeddedwithineachmember’sdesignconceptposts.Superficially,interactionsappearedcollaborative,butuponcloserinspection,thecollaborationbetweenindividualswasrarelyconstructiveandinsteadresembledfeedback.Thisisastarkcontrasttocases1and2wherecollaborationtookplacewithinthecontextoftheprojectecosystemandamongstacoredesignteaminteractingfacetoface.
Fig.20Disruptingperceptions
246
Disruptingperceptionsappearstoemergeifstakeholdersareunfamiliarwiththedesignprocessand/orarefearfulduetotheunknownthatisprevalentincomplexenvironments.Withoutfrictionfromdesigninexperienceorfearfortheunknown,thereislittleneedtoconvincestakeholderstowardsanalternative,designerlyapproach.Ifthereexistsnofrictionorfearyieldinganeedtochange,disruptingperceptionsfordesignteamsinternalorontheperipheryoftheprojectecosystemmaysimplyreflectthebehaviourobservedofexternaldesignteammembersincase3.7.2.5Designthinkinginaconstantstateofflux:balancingstatesDesignthinkinginastateoffluxdepictsdesignasabalancingact,withmindsetsinconstantoscillationbetweentwo,oftenopposing,states.Thisemergentbehaviourwasobservedasanefforttobalancecompetingvariablesevidentincomplexenvironments.Thisobservationcorrelateswithliteratureondesignpractice,particularlyasdescribedbyAdams(2011)“Theexperiencesinthiscategoryillustrateanawarenessofdesignasbalancingandaddressingmultiplepiecesofalargerwhole”(Adamset.al,2011,p.595).Balancingisacknowledged,butonlyinadescriptiveway,toarticulateapartofthedesignthinkingprocess(Lindberget,al,2010,p.247;Carlgren,2013,p.66;Hassi&Laakso,2011,p.10)orasanenablerofinnovation(Meyer&Marion,2010,p.26).Manyinstancesreferringtobalancingstatesdonotdescribedesignthinkingasaprocessofbalancingcompetingstates,butinsteadpinpointindividualdesigncharacteristicsthataresometimesbalancedwithintheprocess.Thus,anarticulationbeyonddescriptiveaccountsisabsentfromtheliterature.Designthinkingwasobservedtoexistinaconstantstateoffluxincases1and2.Thisemergentcharacteristicwasportrayedthroughdesignteamsconstantlybattlingandbalancingstatesofconflict,bouncingbetweenextremevariables.Manycompetingattributeswereobservedincases1and2.Themainareasofconflictincluded:balancingahigh-levelanddetailedfocus,balancinganadaptiveandastructuredprocessandthebalancebetweencustomerandclientneeds.Balancingmanyopposingvariablesensuresharmonywithinoftenconflictingandambiguouscontextsfoundincomplexdesignpractice.Thefluctuationswithinthedesignprocessaimtoreachanequilibriuminordertoreduceambiguityandincreasestability.
247
Thus,designthinkingincomplexenvironmentsisobservedtoexistinaconstantstateoffluctuationinordertobalancecompetingvariablestoreachapracticalequilibrium.
Constantstateof
flux
Balancinguserand
clientneeds
Balancingahigh-leveland
detailedfocus
Balancingadaptivityand
structure
Case1 We’vemainlyconcentratedonthecustomerjourneyandthecustomerneedsandwantsandpainpoints,butweneedtotranslatethatnowintotheorganisation.(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Westartedoffquitehighlevelandthenkindofwentindeepbutnotconsistently.Thelevelofdeepnessismorelikethis,sometimessomethingneedstobewelldeveloped(Observation,Phase2,2011)
Thisislikeaconcentratedversion,andthatisthebiggerversion(Observation,Phase1,2011)
IfIhadtodoitagain:maybeplantheblueprintandplayitout.Dothisverynaturalcycleandactuallyseewhatitfeelslike(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Youreallyneedtobeorganised,comeupwiththewholesystemsoyouknowiftheychoosethisorthatkindofprop.Alotofthetimeswewouldbesittingroundgoingwedon’thavethis...soyouneedtoberesponsible,orelseitcangetveryunnatural.(Observation,Phase1,2011)
Case2
ItneedstomeetagooduserdesignbutalsoneedstomeettheATO’sadministrativerolebecauseweneedtomakesurewhateverwearedoingitneedstosmoothlyrunsoitsafinelinebetweentheGovintentandtheoptimaluserexperience.
Asyouimaginethereisanumberofpeopleintheroomandtheycangetboggedintodetailsanditsaboutbringingthemuptotherightlevel(Interview,DesignFacilitator,2014)Itisalsoimportanttoensurethat:theindividual
Ithinktheabilitytobeflexiblethroughoutthedesignstagesandtherevisitingoftheframeworkofpotentialsolutionseventothestagewhereyouknow,wherethere’salotofprototypesthatmightbeusertested(Interview,BusinessLead,2014)
248
(Interview,Co-DesignLead,2014)GooddesignachievesabalancebetweenwhattheGovernmentorTaxOfficewantstoachieveandwhatusersneed.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.4)
productsaretestedtoensurethattheymeetthebusinessanduserrequirements,andtheproductsaretestedtogetherasawholetoensurethatthesystemworkscoherentlyfromend-to-end.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.18)
TheDesignpracticestatementsays:Followingadisciplinedyetflexibleprocessthatstaystruetoourdesignprinciplesandachieveshigherqualityinlesstime.(Artefact1,ATODesignGuide,2008,p.5)
Table16.DesignthinkinginaconstantstateoffluxBalancebetweenhigh-levelanddetailedperspectivesBalancinghighlevelanddetailedperspectivesreflectstheprocessofbouncingbetweenstrategicdetailswhilstconsideringtheeffectofdetailsontheend-to-enddesign.Convergentanddivergentthinkingisacommonexampleofbalancinghighlevelanddetailedperspectives.Literaturecommonlyreferstoconvergentanddivergentthinkingonasurfacelevel(Lawson,2006),aspartofthedesignprocessandapproach(Hassi&Laakso,p.7),relatingtophasesinthedesignprocess(Brown,2008,p.68;LeMassonet.al.,2011)andfundamentaltoproblemandsolutionexploration(Lindberget.al.,2010,p.2.44;Owen,2007,p.23).Yet,high-levelanddetailedperspectivesarenotsynonymouswithconvergentanddivergentthinking.High-levelperspectivesareholistic,systemicandviewthedesignprocessanddevelopmentend-to-end.Detailedperspectiveszoomintosmallerandlocalisedfacetsofdesigndevelopment.Incontrast,divergentandconvergentthinkingisdefinedasamethodofthoughtthatisactivatedduringideationandsynthesisandemployedforthecreationandclarificationofdesignsolutions:
249
Divergentthinkingmeansdealingwithaproblembydiscoveringabroadrangeofitsaspects,suchasthedivergentperspectivesconstitutingadesignproblemorthedivergentpossibilitiesthatmakeupthesolutionspace.Convergentthinking,ontheotherhand,bringstogetherthosedivergentaspectstocomprehensiveframeworksandconcepts(Connell,2013,p.40)
High-levelanddetailedperspectivesarenotidentifiedasmodesforproblem-solutiongeneration,butemergethroughtheneedtoconsiderthewidercontextandsystemoftheprojectandkeepingthesysteminharmonywiththedetailsthatenableemergingdesignsolutionstobeimplemented.Furthermore,thetensionbetweenconvergentanddivergentthinkingisoftendepictedassequentialandspecifictoindividualdesignphases,ratherthanexistingsimultaneouslywithineachphase.Incase1and2,balancingbetweenholisticanddetailedperspectivespersistedthroughoutthedesignprocess.Incase1,high-leveluserinsightsthatformulatedavisionframeworkwasconsistentlyconsideredthroughoutthedesignprocessasthedesignteamfocusedondetailstoenabletheidealfuturestatetoemerge.Casestudy2maintainedbothadetailedandsystemicfocus.Thismaybeattributedtothemultidisciplinarycoredesignteam;businessleadsbringexpertisespecialisedinprovidingstrategicdetailsneededforhigh-leveldesigndiscussionsandassuch,reduceambiguitywhenshiftingfromdivergenthigh-levelideastoconvergent,detaileddesigns.Balancinguserinsightsandclientneeds
Abalancebetweencustomerneedsandorganisationalwantswasatthecoreofcomplexdesignpractice.Thishasintroducedabalancingactbetweenclientobjectivesandtheuserexperience,“Designthinking—inherentlyoptimistic,constructive,andexperiential—addressestheneedsofthepeoplewhowillconsumeaproductorserviceandtheinfrastructurethatenablesit”(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32).NigelCrossnotesthatthisconflictionbreedscreativity,“creativedesignarisesespeciallywhenthereisaconflicttoberesolvedbetweenthe[designer’s]high-levelproblemgoalsandthe[client’s]criteriaforanacceptablesolution”(Cross,2002,p.17).Designteamsincase1foundthemselvesconsistentlybalancingcustomerinsightswithorganisationalneeds.Similarly,theorganisationincase2formallyacknowledgedhowimportantitistoachievethisbalanceintheirmanual,theATODesignGuide.Achievingasuccessfulequilibriumbetweenuserand
250
clientdependsuponthecreativityfromdesignthinkingtoensurethedesignoutcomewillbeeffectivelyimplementedinpracticeandbewellreceivedbyboththeorganisationandtargetmarket.Alldesignprojectsthatinhabitthirdandfourthorderenvironmentswillultimatelyseektoachieveadesignsolutionthatunifiesuserandclientpolarities.Balancebetweenadaptivityandstructure Adaptivityemergedasanecessarycomponentofdesignsincethelate1980s,throughemergingcomputertechnology,“Suchsystemscanhavealifeoftheirown,adaptingtotheirownenvironments,learningfromusers,changingtheirbehaviour,growinganddevelopingintoproductniches,andprotectingthemselvesfrommisuse.”(Krippendorff,1989,p.32)Sincethen,designhasevolvedasanadaptivepractice,enhancedthroughprototyping,intuitionandprocessmalleability(Mootee,2011,p.4).Today,designthinkingisrecognisedasanadaptiveprocessbecauseofthesefundamentaltraits,anditsadaptivityholdsvalueforcomplexenvironments“theadaptivenatureofdesignthinkingisattherootofitsvalueinconfrontinguncertaintyandambiguity,inconfrontingthefuture”(Meinel&Leifer,2011,p.Xix).
Adaptivityisconsideredavaluableassetindesignthinking,however,thisneedstobebalancedinordertoachievesuccessfuloutcomes.Thebalancebetweenadaptivenessandstructureinthedesignprocessappearedtogeneratetensioninbothcase1and2.Thedesignteamincasestudy1foundthemselvesconflictedbetweenkeepingthedesignprocessopenandadaptivetonewinformationandideas,andtheneedforfocusanddirection.Thedesignteamincase1adoptedamoreorganicapproachtobalancingthispolarity,whiletheteamincase2managedthistensionbyimplementingarigiddesignmethodology.Designthinkingpracticeincase2utilisedastrictdesignmethodologythatstillallowedforadaptiveandfluidthinking.
251
Underlyingmechanism: Underlyingmechanismdrivingaconstantstateofflux:interactioninformativephasesofthedesignprocessandthedesireforequilibrium
Layer Mechanisms1.Empirical Clientvs.userneeds,Highlevelvs.
detailedperspectives,adaptivityvs.structure
2.Events Designthinkinginconstantstateofflux
3.RealInteractioninformativephasesof
designprocessandadesireforequilibriumtoaddstability
Table17.Underlyingmechanismfordesignthinkinginaconstantstateofflux
Masteringtheartofbalancingopposingstatesisfundamentaltosuccessfuldesignthinkingincomplexpractice.Balancingopposingstatesrestrictsdesignersfromfocusinginonadesigndirectiontooearly,leadingtoprematurerefinements.Designthinkinginaconstantstateoffluxdisableslinearthinking.Thisemergentbehaviourprovidesevidencethatdesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentsexiststooscillatebetweenextremes.Whendesignthinkingfindsitselfstalledinoneextreme,theprocessmaybecomeimbalanced.Thismaymakeithardertotranslateandtransferknowledgeneededtoideate.Designthinkingoperatesinaconstantstateoffluxinordertokeepcompetingcomplexitiesinastateofharmony,toincreasestabilityinthedesignprocess.Inhighlycomplexandambiguousenvironments,designthinkinghasfounditselfinarapidswingbetweenoppositeswhilstbalancingmultiplevariables.
252
Fig.21DesignthinkinginaconstantstateoffluxHowever,fluctuationbetweenopposingstateswasnotobservedincase3.Case3,operatingexternallytotheprojectecosystemandenvironment,wasnotdirectlyinvolvedintheformativephasesofdesigndevelopment.Designersincase3arenotabletodiscussthecomplexitiesandcompetingvariablesthatmaylimitandrestrictdesigndevelopmentwiththeclient.Furthermore,theyarenotexposedtothecomplexitiesoftheprojectecosystemthathousescompetingvariables.Instead,thedesigncommunityincase3areofferedapredefinedprojectchallengeinordertodirectandframetheproblemcontext.Incontrast,designteamsincase1and2hadengagementwiththeprojectecosystemandclientwhichrequiredformativediscussionsovercompetingvariablesandtheprojectintent.Thisformativedevelopmentexposescompetingcomplexitieswithinthedesignprojecttotheprojectteam;theneedsoftheclientandtheneedsoftheuserthatrequiresbalancingtheseopposingstates.
253
7.2.6Conclusion
Ithasbeenpresentedinthiscross-comparativechapterthatthedesignprocess,positionandcontextoftheenvironmentaffectsandenablesemergentbehavioursofdesignthinking,particulartocomplexthirdandfourthorderenvironments.Thecomparisonbetweenthemesineachcasestudyhassurfacedkeybehavioursofdesignthinkingappliedincomplexenvironments.Thischapterhasdemonstratedthesimilaritiesbetweencase1and2andthesignificantdifferencesthatemergewhendesignisoperatingexternallytotheprojectecosystemasincase3.Thischapterdemonstratesthatdesignthinkingontheperipheryandinternaltotheprojectecosystemaffordspositivesandnegativeeffectsondesignthinkingincomplexpractice.However,thischapterconcludesthatdesignthinkingoperatingexternallytotheprojectecosystemandremotelyinanopen-sourceonlineenvironmenthassignificantnegativeeffectsonthedesignthinkingprocess.Thus,designthinkingmaybenotreadilyorsuccessfullytranslatedtoaremoteonlineenvironmentinordertodesigninandforcomplexenvironments.
254
8.
DiscussionThischapterwilldiscussthebroaderimplicationsondesignthinkingresearchandpracticeinlightoftheknowledgeobtainedinthisdissertation.Itwillprovidefurtherclarificationofdesignthinking,focusingonahigh-leveldiscussionofwhatdesignthinkingis,howitmaybeidentified,whatisrequiredforfutureresearchandwhatmaybeneededtosupportthedevelopmentandapplicationofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Manyquestionshavebeenposedthroughoutrecentliteratureonthetopicofdesignthinking,suchas:“whatisthenatureofdesignthinking?[…]Whatcoulditbringtootherprofessions?(Dorst,2010,p.131),“Onwhatprinciplesisitbased?Howdifferentisittootherkindsofprofessionalknowledge?Doalldesignersexhibitit?Whatareitseffectswithintheworldswheredesigntakesplace?”(Kimbell,2011,p.296),and“Isthereaneedforadesignthinkingprocess?”(Lindberget.al,2010).Thesequestionscapturetheambiguitythatstillsurroundsdesignthinkingandindicateadesireforfurtherclarification.Thequestionsthatpersistindesigntheoryandpracticewillbeaddressedinthischapterthroughfivekeytopics:
255
1.Whatisdesignthinking?
2.Whoisadesignthinker?3.Designthinkingshapesandisshapedbyitsenvironment4.Implementationofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments5.Designthinkingreturnstoitsgenesis
Thischaptersuggeststhataconsensusonthefundamentalsofdesignthinkinghasbeenestablished.Inaddition,thischapterpresentstheargumentthatdesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentsisnotaprocessexhibitedorattributedtoonedesigner,butinstead,anemergentpropertythatisembodiedwithinadesignteam.Thischapterwillalsohighlighttheimpactcontextandpositioninghasondesignthinking;wheredesignthinkingshapesandisshapedbyitsenvironment.Finally,thisdiscussionchaptermakesrecommendationsforfuturepracticeincomplexenvironments,arguingforagreaterinclusionofasystemicandholisticapproachindesigningforcomplexenvironments,adeeperunderstandingoftheimpactpositionhasonimplementationandareviewofwheredesignthinkingstandstoday.
256
8.1Whatisdesignthinking?Thedesigncommunityunderstandthechallengeofdefiningbutnotoversimplifyingdesignthinking(Dorst,2010,p.131).Yet,thishasnotalleviateddemandsforacommonconsensusofwhatdesignthinkingis.KeesDorst(2010,p.138)sharestheconcernoverdefiningdesignthinking,arguingthatcontemporarydefinitionsoftenmergemanycharacteristicsandactivitiescausingfoggydescriptions.Dorstbelievesthatclarifyingdesignthinkingisimperativetorealisingitsvaluefordesign–insideandoutofdesignpractice(Dorst,2010).Confusionoverdesignthinkingispinnedtoclarificationanddefinition.Manyauthorshavestatedthatthereexistsnocommondefinitionofdesignthinking(Kimbell,2011,p.296;Yin,2009,p.6;VonThienen,Noweski,Meinel&Rauth,2011,p.82;Aijala&Karjalainen,2012,p.25;Hassi&Laakso,2011,p.1;Herrmann&Goldschmidt,2013,p.29).However,despitethesecomplaints,fundamentalattributesofdesignthinkinghavebeenconsistentlynotedindesignliterature.Thisindicatesthatwhilstinterpretationsofdesignthinkingmayvary,thedesigncommunityisnotasinconsistentasmanybelieve.Attemptshavebeenmadeatassimilatingtheknowledgeondesignthinkingintoasuccinctandgeneraldescription.LucyKimbell(2011),forexample,summarisedknowledgeondesignthinking,showingthatitexistsunderthreeguises:designthinkingasacognitivestyle,designthinkingasageneraltheoryofdesignanddesignthinkingasanorganisationalresource[SeeFig.22].Hassi&Laakso(2011)havemadesimilarattemptsatunifyingourunderstandingondesignthinking,identifyingitasaformofpractice,thinkingstyleandmentality[SeeFig.23].Morerecently,Carlgren,Elmquist&Rauth(2013)summarisedesignthinkingasoperatingonthreelevels:onthefirstlevelareprinciples,thesecondlevelpracticesandmindsetsandthethirdlevelaretechniques[SeeFig.24].
257
Fig.22Kimbell(2011)
Fig.23Hassi&Laakso(2011)
258
Fig.24Carlgren,Elmquist&Rauth(2013)Themodelspresentedbytheseauthorsofferabriefsynthesisofourunderstandingondesignthinking,withreferencestosupporteachcharacteristic.Elaboratingontheseefforts,alistofcommondescriptionshasbeencompiledinTable.1,introduceinchapter2.LiteratureReview.Arandomsampleofliteraturewascollectedacrossarangeofdisciplinesthroughthesearchterm“designthinking”.Atotalof70articlesexplicitlydiscussingdesignthinkingwerecollectedfromresearchdatabases,sortedbyrelevance.Thesearticleshavebeenreadandreviewed,withcharacteristicsineacharticlethathavebeenassociatedwithdesignthinkingextrapolatedintoaspreadsheet.Themostcommonlycitedcharacteristicsofdesignthinkingsurfacedbasedonfrequencyofreferencefromthetotalnumberofarticlesandhavebeentabledbelow[Table1]
Empathy (Brown, 2008), (Clark&Smith,2008),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Holloway,2009),
(Junginger,2007),(Lockwood,2009),(Lockwood,2010),(Porcini,2009),(VonThienen
et.al.,2014,p.101)Abductive (Brown, 2009), (Lockwood,2009),(Fraser,2009),(Martin,2009,p.65),(Dew,2007),
(Jones2008,p.219),(Dorst,2010,p.136)Prototyping (Rittel1987,p.1),(Benson&Dresdow2013,p.7),(Lockwood,2010,p.xi),(Rylander
2009, p.5), (Drews,2009),(Fraser,2007,2009),(Holloway2009),(Bevanetal.,2007,p.140),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(Seidel&Fixson,2013,P.1),(Liedtka,2013),(Von
Thienenet.al.,2014,p.102),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(Brown&
Wyatt,2010,p.32),(Shluzas,Steinert&Katila,2014,p.136)Problem–solutionframing
(Farrell&Hooker,2013,p.689),(Bevanetal.,2007,p.143),(Friedland&Yamauchi,
2011,p.70),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(English,2006,p.5),(Dorst,
2010,p.136)
259
Optimistic (Rittel1987,p.8),(Owen2005,p.13),(Gloppen,2009),(Owen,2006,p.24),(Leinonen&
Durall,2014,p.108),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)Fuzzyfrontend (Porcini,2009),(Löwgre&Stolterman1999,p.17),(Ranjan2012,p.31),(Drews2009,
p.41),(LeMassonetal.,2011,p.219),(Young2010,p.15),(Blyth&Kimbell2011,p.12),
(Jahnke2013)in(Carlgen2013,p.22),(Smulders&Subrahmanian,2013,p.362)Wickedproblems (Benson&Dresdow2013,p.6),(Gharajedagi2010,p.108),(Bharathi2013.p.83),
(Farrell&Hooker,2013,p.686),(Westcottet.al,2013,p.4),(Dorst2011,p.522)Inventiveandinnovative
(Owen2005,p.5),(Brown, 2009), (Gharajedagi2010,p.108),(Bevanetal.,2007,p.140),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(Benson&Dresdow2013,p.7),(Lockwood,2010,p.xi),
(Westcottet.al,2013,p.3),(Plattner,Meinel&Leifer,2011,xiii)in(Laakso&Hassi
2011,p.2),(Owen,2006,p.24)
Human-centered (Owen2005,p.12),(Lockwood, 2010, p. xi),(Brown,2008),(Porcini,2009),(Wardet
al.,2009),(Sato2009),(Buchanan,2001,p.9),(Owen,2006,p.24),(Kimbell,2011,
p.287),(Liedtka,2013),(Leinonen&Durall,2014,p.108),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,
p.101),(English,2006,p.5),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)
Visualisation (Owen2005,p.13),(Lockwood,2010,p.xi),(Brown,2009),(Carretal.,2010),(Drews,
2009),(Lockwood,2010),(Jones2008,p.219),(Owen,2006,p.24),(Kimbell,2011,
p.287),(Liedtka,2013),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,p.102)
collaborative (Owen2005,p.14),(Gloppen,2009),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Boland&Collopy,2004),
(Jones2008,p.226),(Herrmann&Goldschmidt,2014,p.33),(Owen,2006,p.24),
(Liedtka,2013)
multidisciplinary (Owen2005,p.14),(Brown, 2009), (Benson&Dresdow2013,p.11),(Westcottet.al,
2013,p.2),(Clark&Smith,2008),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Holloway,2009),
(Lockwood,2010),(Satoetal.,2010),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,
p.102),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.35)
Iterative (Benson&Dresdow2013,p.11),(Rylander2009,p.7),(Herrmann&Goldschmidt,2014,
p.33),(Kimbell,2011,p.287),(VonThienenet.al.,2014,p.102),(Friedland&Yamauchi,
2011,p.68),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(Shluzas,Steinert&Katila,2014,
p.136)
Intuitive (Rylander 2009, p.5), (Porcini,2009),(Jones2008,p.219),(Lindberg,Noweski&Meinel,2010,p.33),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)
Ethnographic (Beckman&Barry,2007),(Brown,2008),(Carretal.,2010),(Dunne&Martin,2006),
(Lockwood,2010),(Owen2005,p.14) Systemicthinking (Owen2005,p.14),(Dunne&Martin,2006),(Jones2008,p.219),(Owen,2006,p.24),
(Brown&Wyatt,2010,p.32)Rapid (Lockwood,2010,p.xi),(Carretal.,2010),(Holloway,2009),(Lockwood,2010),(Brown,
2009),(Herrmann&Goldschmidt,2014,p.33),(Liedtka,2013),(Brown&Wyatt,2010,
p.32)
Table1.CommonlycitedcharacteristicsofdesignthinkingMostdefinitionspresentdesignthinkingasamindset,method,process,attitudeoracombinationofallfour.Descriptionsofdesignthinkingoftenhintatarelationshipbetweeneachofthesedifferentattributes.FromthetableofliteraturebyKimbell,Hassi&Laakso,Calgren,Elmquist&Rauth,itappearsthat,forcontemporarytheorists,designthinkingisunderstoodtocompriseofmindsets,methods,processesandattitudes.However,adeeperexplanationoftherelationshipbetweentheseattributesistobeclarified.Despitetheeffortstocompileasetofcommoncharacteristicsondesignthinking,theseattemptsdonotseemtosatisfybothindustryprofessionalsandacademics:
260
werealizedthatanyattempttocreateanessentialist,normativedefinitionoftheconceptwouldbeimpossible,andmoreimportantly,wouldbeoflimitedvalueforaconstructivediscussionofdesignthinking.Eventuallywecametoconceivedesignthinkingasalooseconceptthatisgivennewmeaningandbecomessomethingdifferentineachcontext,butthatstillneedstobearticulated.(Carlgren,2013,p.41)
Thisimpliestheargumentthatdesignthinkingistransitiveandmaydifferdependingonthecontextinwhichitisapplied.Werequireabothastablevocabularyandboundarytoteach,describeandidentifydesignthinking,yettheboundarymustalsobefluidandadaptive.Asuggestionwouldbetoconsiderdesignthinkingasamalleableandevolvingprocess,andwithit,afluidandevolvingdefinition.Evidencetosupportthemalleabilityofthedesignthinkingprocessraisesquestionsoverwhetherwecancoherentlyarticulateaunifiednatureofdesignthinking.Kimbellquestionsthispositionthroughdesigndiversity,“attendingtothediversityofdesigners’practicesandtheinstitutionsinwhichtheyworkmakesitquestionabletogeneralizeaboutaunifieddesignthinkingexhibitedacrossallofthem”(Kimbell,2011,p.289),yet,itisclearintheliteraturepresentedinTable.17andthroughFig.19,Fig.20,andFig.21,that,whetherrealizedornot,acommongroundforconsensusisemergingacrossindividualaccountsondesignthinking.Thisconsensusiswhatshouldprovideconsistencyandafoundationforidentifyingandarticulatingthenatureofdesignthinking.Havingidentifiedafoundationofattributesthatdescribedesignpracticeandthusaworkingdefinitionofdesignthinking,researchmustalsofocusonandbesensitivetowardsthenuancesofadesignapproachineachorderofpractice:
Designthinkingprocessmodelsthereforehavetostruggletwofold:firstly,theymustdepictcontext-sensitivityandsituationaladaptabilityofworkflowswithoutlosingconceptualclarity;andsecondly,whentheyproposeinstructionsforreal-lifeprojects,theyhavetomakeclearthattheyoffer‘only’guidanceandnodefinitemeansfordesignproblemsolving.Insum,designthinkingprocessmodelshavetodealwiththefactthatdesignthinkingisoriginallynoprocess,butthatitshapesprocesses(Lindbergetal.,2010,p.246)
261
Theindeterminatenatureofdesignthinkingowesmuchofitswickednesstothetransientnatureofdesignpractice.Itisthisevolvingandadaptivenatureofdesignthinkingthatmakesitappropriatefortacklinguncertaintyincomplexenvironments,asexemplifiedthroughthedesigncasestudiesinthisthesis.Asaresult,designthinkingevolveswithcomplexenvironmentsandinturnshapes,andisshapedby,emergingprocesses:
ratherwhatshouldbehighlightedisthatDesignThinkingismadeupofasetofprocesses,andthattheseprocessesarealsoopentoinnovationandtransformation.DesignThinkingisalwaysevolvingandbecomingasaconcept.(Lundberg&Pitsis,2010,p.281)
Thissituationraisesafewquestions:asdesignthinkingrespondstochangingcomplexenvironments,willfundamentalcharacteristicsremain?Furthermore,shoulddesignersandresearcherscontinuetoattempttodefinedesignthinking,orallowittoremainopentoevolvewiththedynamicenvironmentthatsurroundsit?Ifthedesigncommunityattempttoestablishboundariesforthepurposeofdefinition,willitlimitdesign’sinnovativepotential?Moreimportantly,howisdesignthinkingcurrentlyappliedincomplexpracticeandwhataffectdoescomplexityhaveondesignprocessandinnovationincomplexenvironments?
Tostart,Cooper&Press(1995)havefoundthatthereislittleuniformityinthedefinitionofdesign,whilethenotioncoversmanydifferentdisciplines,andourunderstandingoftheconceptalsoseemstobechangingovertime.(Äijälä&Karjalainen2012,p.25)
Designthinking’sadaptivityhasalsosurfacedconcernsoverwhatconstitutesprofessionaldesignthinkingpractice.Someattributedesignthinkingtocomplex,thirdandfourthorderenvironmentsasthisareahasgainedmostpublicattractionandaction:
Thekeyshiftisfromthedesignoftangiblestothe‘design’ofintangibles.Thecommonlinkistheintuitionofanoverlapinthecognitiveandsocialprocessesofpractitionersinbothcontexts.Wecouldpreserve‘designthinking’forthenewcontext.Afterall,thatiswherethetermhasgainedgreatestcurrency.(Jones,2010,p.219).
262
Chapter2.LiteratureReviewestablishedthatdesignthinkinghasgrownandmaturedthroughanevolutionofdesignpractice,andthatitisnotanewconceptbutinsteadanapproachthatreflectscharacteristicsfundamentaltoalldisciplinesandordersofdesignpractice.Assuch,designthinkingisasmuchembeddedindesignpracticeconcernedwiththecreationofartefactsasitiswiththecreationofintangibleservicesandsystems.Theconsistencylieswithinthefoundationalattributesofdesignthinking[Table.1,Fig.22,Fig.23,Fig.24]thatallowspeopletouse,adaptandapplydesignthinkingtodifferentdisciplines,outsideoftraditionaldesignpractice:
Tobeclear,designthinkingextendsfarbeyonddesignasmostofusimagineit.Designthinkingisnotconcernedsolely,orevenprimarily,withthelookofaproduct.Rather,itencompassesawholerangeoftoolsandframeworks,maybedrawnfromotherdisciplines,thatreflectitsdrivingconcernwithhumanexperience(Gobble,2014,p.59)
Theaccessibilityofdesignthinkingleadsustoquestionthenatureofdesignpractice.Somescholarshavearguedthatdesignthinkingisanewdisciplinewithitsownuniqueapproach(Leavy,2010).However,eachorderofdesignpracticeexhibitsmanyofthecommoncharacteristicsoutlinedinTable.1,Fig.22,Fig.23andFig.24.ThefundamentalattributesofdesignthinkingcompiledwithinTable.1areattributesfundamentalacrossallordersofpractice.Thus,thismaysignifythattheconceptofdesignthinkingissynonymouswiththeworddesign.Designpracticereliesonandmaturesdesignthinkinginordertosolveproblems.Designthinkingisnotapracticethatisunique,independentordifferenttowhatdesignersinothersub-disciplinesdointheirday-to-daywork,buthasbeenmarketedassuchinfieldsoutsideofdesignpracticetogeneratecommercialsuccess.Thus,designthinkingshouldbeconsideredasadescriptionofthedesignapproach,withthetermemphasizingthemindsetthatdesignersacrossallordersapplytotheirpractice.
263
8.2Whoisadesignthinker?Asdesignpracticeexpandsthroughtheadoptionofdesignthinking,questionsarisearoundwhocanbeconsideredadesignthinker.Designscholarshavelongarguedthatdesignisacharacteristicinherentinallhumanactivity(Archer,1979;Simon,1996;Saikaly,2005).Thisargumenthassupportedstatementsthatgeneralizedesign,withpropositionsthateveryoneis,orcanbe,adesignerordesignthinker.Thisargumentisvalid,albeitinaverycrudeform,asitiscrudetosaythatanyonewhopicksupaninstrumentisamusician.Adesignthinkerisanindividualwhohastamedthedesignapproach.Thisindividualcarriesthedesignoutlook,mindsetsandknowswhenandwheretoutilizedesignmethodsthroughadesignerlyprocessappropriatetotheenvironmenttheyareworkingwithin:
Takingthesecues,Buchananbuildsacasefordesignasanew‘liberalart’,meaning:‘adisciplineofthinkingthatmaybesharedtosomedegreebyallmenandwomenintheirdailylivesandis,inturnmasteredbyafewpeoplewhopracticethedisciplinewithdistinctiveinsight.’Inotherwords,anartthatisaccessibletomanybutmasteredbyfew.(Graham,2013,p.vi)
Designthinkingisnotapracticethatiseasilymastered.Meritmaybefoundedintalent-asitispossibleforanon-designertoquicklyadoptandapplyadesignerlyapproach.However,justastalentenablesmasteryofaninstrumentinashortperiodoftime,theaveragemusicianmayspendyearspractisinganinstrumentandstillremainmediocre.Itistalent,masteryandexperiencethattogetherclassifiesaprofessionalfromanamateur.Generallyspeaking,adesignerwhohasspentyearsrefiningthedesignapproachindesignschoolandthroughapplyingadesignapproachinpracticewillbeamoreadvanceddesignthinkerthananindividualadoptingitfortheveryfirsttime.8.2.1De-centralisingdesignthinking
Adesignthinkerisanindividualthatembodiesandenablestheprocess,mindsetandmethodologyofthedesignerlyapproach.Yet,designthinkingdoesnotneedtoemergethroughjustoneindividual.Evidencepresentedinchapter7.Cross-ComparisonAnalysis,showsthatade-centralisationofdesignthinkingexistsincomplexpractice.Ithasbeenobservedthatasdesignthinkingmovestowardshigherandmorecomplexand
264
multidisciplinaryenvironments,theroleofaleaddesignerembodyingdesignthinkingbecomesde-centralised.Instead,designthinkingemergesfromagroupofindividualsworkingwithdesignmethodsthroughadesignprocess.Thus,theconceptofdesignthinkingembodiedinoneindividualneedstoshift,toanunderstandingthatdesignthinkingmaybeembodiedwithinacollective:
Nodesigncanexistinisolation.Itisalwaysrelated,sometimesinaverycomplexway,toanentireconstellationofinfluencingsituationsandattitudes.[...]Earliergenerationssolvedthisproblembyusingmanyhandsandmindsoverperiodsofcenturies[...].The‘designer’thenwasnotanindividual,butanentiresocialprocessoftrial,selectionandrejection.Todayheisstillthat,thoughinasomewhatdifferentsense,andwetendtooverestimatehissignificanceasanindividual.(Nelson,1957,p.19)
Doallindividualsinamultidisciplinaryteamneedtoexhibitdesignthinkingcharacteristics?Notnecessarily.Formultidisciplinaryteamswithoutformaldesigntraining,designmethodsandprocessplayavitalroleinenablingandfacilitatingadesignmindset.Inaninexperienceddesignteam,designthinkingisbestintroducedviaaformaldesignfacilitator.However,ithasbeenhighlightedininchapter7.Cross-ComparativeAnalysis,thatitisthecollaborativeinteractionsbetweenthegroupanddesignmethodsandprocessthatenableddesignthinkingtoemergeincomplexpractice.Furthermore,thedesignoutput,whetheratangibleartifactorintangibleconcept,isalsoanembodimentofdesignthinking.Thecollaborativeeffortofthedesignteam,guidedbyadesignprocess,isreflectedinthedesignoutcomeasarepresentationandembodimentofcollaborativedesignthinking.Thus,inmultidisciplinarydesignpractice,implementationshouldbetheresponsibilityofeachindividualwithinthedesignteam,aseachpersonprovidesinputtowardsthecreationoftheoutcome.Designthinkingisonlyasgoodasitssolutionthroughimplementation,henceagooddesignteamisatthecoreofasuccessfuloutcome.
265
8.3DesignthinkingshapesandisshapedbyitsenvironmentResearchcollectedinthisdissertationhaspresentedevidencetosupporttheexistenceofadeeprelationshipbetweenthemindsets,methods,contextandpositionofdesignthinking.Thisrelationshipshowedthatwhilstdesignthinkingoperateswithinaprocessframework,itisnotstaticorfixed;thedesignprocessadaptstothecontextandenvironmentitisappliedwithin.Designmethodsenabledesignthinkingandinturn,facilitateadesignerlyapproach.Therelationshipbetweenmethodandmindsetisdeeplyintertwined,withbothfacetsinfluencingandenablingtheother:
Sincethetheoryprovidesblueprintstopractitioners,achangeinthetheoryislikelytochangetheempiricalworlditself.Theoryandpracticeco-evolve.(VonThienenetal,2011,p.85)
Analysisonallthreecasestudiesrevealedthatthecontextofthedomaininwhichadesignapproachisappliedhasadirectaffectonthebehaviourofdesignthinking.Thissignifiesthatfundamentalcharacteristicsofdesignthinkingexistacrossalldesignpracticesbutadditionalcharacteristicsmayemergespecifictotheorderandcontextitisappliedwithin.Designinginthefirst‘order’ofdesign[seeFig.5]withafocusonartefacts,willrequireadditionalmethodsuniquetothatorderthatdifferfromdesignthatfocusesonsystemsandservices.Ithasbeendisplayedthroughacross-comparativeanalysisoneachcasestudythattheenvironmentinfluencesemergentbehavioursuniquetoitsorder.Inpracticingdesignthinking,fewscholarshavepaidproperattentiontothewaydesignmethods,contextandpositionenableandenhancedesignthinking.Sincedesignthinkingdrivesdesigndoing,therelationshipbetweenmethodandmindsetcannotbeignored.Inaddition,theimpactofthepositionofdesignthinkingrelativetotheenvironment,ofwhichexertsonthedesignapproach,mustalsobeconsidered.Tosummarise,Table.18exhibitstheemergentbehavioursfoundfromeachcasestudy,andthemethods,mindsetsandpositioningthatenablethesebehaviourstoemerge.
266
Table.18Summaryofemergentbehaviours
267
Thisanalysisenablesustounderstandhowinteractingwithdesignmethodscanenhanceorbuildadesignmindset.Inaddition,italsoformulatesanunderstandingonhowtheenvironmentandpositionofadesignaffectsthedesignprocess,whichinturn,shapesdesignthinking.
Itisarguedthatthedifficultiesofarticulatingthemeaningofdesignthinkingcanhaveconsequencesforresearchersstudyingtheconcept.Thelackofconsensusontheconceptalsomightleadtomanagerstoimplementitwithouttakingaccountoftheparticularcontext,andrelyingongenericandidealisticdescriptionsofwhatdesignthinkingmeansandthevalueitcanprovide.(Carlgren,2013,p.55)
Furtherresearchshouldelaborateonpreliminaryeffortsoutlinedinthisdissertation,toprovidedeeperanalysisontheconnectionbetweendesignmethod,mindset,positionandenvironment.Thisobservationneedsfurtherresearchevidencecarriedoutoncasesfromeachorderofdesignpractice.Thisisrelevantbothforidentifyingwhetherenvironmentspertainingtoordersofpracticeenableemergentbehavioursandcharacteristicsuniquetothatorder.8.3.1Impactonfourordersofdesign
Whatimpactdoestheevolutionofdesignpractice,enabledthroughnewcontextsandenvironments,haveonthefourordersofdesign?Buchanannotes,theexpansionandevolutionofdesignpracticeisthenaturalprogressofdesignthinking:
Thepracticeofdesignisexpanding,butitstillmeans“humanmaking”.Themeaningoftheworddesignhasbroadened,becausewe’renowabletodesignawidevarietyofproducts,e.g.productsthataretangibleandproductsthatareintangible.Thebiggestchangeindesignpracticehasbeenthechangefromartefactsandcommunicationintoanewworldofactions,activities,andprocesses.(Buchanan,2013)
Asdesignevolvestowardshigherordersofpractice,eachordercontainsdesigndisciplinesoftheordersthatprecedeit.Forexample,aservicedesignprojectpertainingtothirdorderofpracticemayrequireartefactsandcommunicationsfromfirstand
268
secondordersfortheservicedesigntobesuccessfullyimplemented.Thiswasevidentinbothcase1and2:
Tomethefourthorderofdesignisthedesignoftheenvironmentsandsystemswithinwhichalltheotherordersofdesignexist.Understandinghowthesesystemswork,whatcoreideasholdthemtogether,whatideasandvalues–that’safourthorderproblem.Boththethirdandthefourthorderareemergingnowverystrongly.(Buchanan,2013)
Eventhoughdetailsofprocessesandmethodsmaychangeslightlydependingonscale,contextandcomplexity,thefundamentalcharacteristicsarepresentinallordersandshouldbeclassifiedaspartofthefoundationanddefinitionofdesignthinkinganddesignpractice.Evolvingwithpractice,designthinkingmustretainfoundationalcharacteristicsatitscorethatallowsforclearidentification.
8.4Implementationofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments
DesignThinkingseemsonitswaytobecomethestate-of-the-artinnovationmethod.Andyet,weunderstandonlylittleaboutwhatreallymattersforittobesuccessful.(VonThienen,Noweski,Meinel&Rauth,2011,p.82)
Implementationposesoneofthelargestchallengesfordesignthinking.Designthinkinghasprovenitselfasaprocessthatempowersinnovativethinkingandworking,yetitsbroadervalueandimpactisonlyvisiblethroughimplementation.Designinnovationshouldnotbemeasuredsolelyontheamountofcreativeideasthataregenerated,butinstead,measuredontheinnovativeideasthatareabletobesuccessfullyimplementedandadoptedbyitsaudience.Muchofthediscussionarounddesignthinkingassumesthatifadesignprocessisusedforprojectdevelopmentthenimplementationwillnaturallyfollowandoutcomeswillbeasuccess.Implementationisoftenan
269
afterthoughtandaphasethatisoftenmanagednotbythedesignteambutbytheclient.Thiscreatesadisconnectbetweenthepracticeofdesignandthepracticalitiesofimplementation.Implementationisoneofthemostundervaluedphasesofthedesignprocess.Manyreferencesondesignthinkingdiscusstheprocessandmindsetandaddlittletowardshowbothoftheseaspectsintegrateandaffectimplementation.Manyofthemostcommondesignthinkingmodelshavenoimplementationphaseincludedaspartoftheprocess[Fig.25]
Fig.25Commondesignthinkingprocesses.Topleft:DesignCouncil’sdoublediamond(2014),topright:StanfordD.Schoolbootcamp(2011).Bottomleft:IDEODesignthinkingprocessforeducators(2011).Bottomright:DamienNewmandesignsquiggle(ca.2004).Theabsenceofimplementationindesignprocessmodelsmaybeattributedtoitslonghistorythathascenteredonartefactsandtangiblesolutions.Withdesignartifacts,suchasaproductorlogo,theimplementationisrelativelystraightforwardandevaluationisclearandaccessibletotheclient.Asdesignpracticehasevolvedtowardsservice,systemicandsociallyresponsibledesign,outcomesareembeddedwithinecosystemsandmetricsforevaluationaredifficulttodefine:“Rightnow,becauseimplementationissodifficultandexpensive,itseemslikecommercialproductsaretheonlyonesthatofferclearbuilt-inincentivesforparticipation”(DesignandSocialImpact,2013,p.24).Thus,implementationrequiresabroaderstrategic,systemicandholisticperspective,incorporatingboththeoperationsofthebusinessandtheobjectofdesignthatwillbe
270
embeddedwithintheprojectecosystem.Itisinpartforthisreasonthatdesignmanagementhasemergedasasub-disciplineofdesignanddesignthinking:
Designcanbemanagedandutilizedonthreedifferentlevels:operational,tactical,andstrategic(BorjadeMozota2003,Joziasse2000,Best2006,Kootstra2006).Theseresonatewiththethreelevelsofstrategywithincompanies:corporatestrategy,businessstrategyandoperationalstrategy(Joziasse2000).Anddesigncontributestoalltheselevels.(Äijälä&Karjalainen,2012,p.26)
Forcomplexdesignpractice-thatis,projectssituatedwithinthirdandfourthordersofdesign-strategy,implementationandevaluationarecrucialtosuccess.Strategicdesignismostoftenassociatedwithhigherordersofdesignthinking,thus,strategicdesignmaybeusedasasynonymordescriptionofdesignthinkingpracticeinthirdandfourthorderenvironments(Tonkinwise,2010,p.386;Farrell&Hooker,2013).Designthinkingincomplexenvironmentsrequiresadditionalmethodstointegratedesignedsolutionswithinthecontextofthecomplexecosystemitisdesigningfor.Systemicdesignthinkingmaybeanadditionalperspectiveand/ormethodthatisrequiredtocomplimentdesignpracticeincomplexenvironments,aswasobservedincase1and2:
Preparingdesignersforparticipationinpolicyplanningwillbeachallengefordesigneducation.Meetingthechallengewillrequirenewunderstanding,anextendedrangeofdesigntools,andconcertedsupportfromthedesignprofessionstodemonstratethevalueofdesignthinkingtodecisionmakingatthehighestlevels.(Owen,2005,p.16)
Theneedforadditionaldesigntoolsandtrainingforcomplexpracticehasrecentlybeenaddressedthroughnewlyestablishedavenuesofresearch,practiceandeducation.TheSymposiumofRelatingSystemsThinkingtoDesign,establishedin2012(SystemicDesign,n.d,“RSDSymposia”),andTransitionDesigncourseestablishedin2014offeredatCarnegieMellonUniversity(CarnegieMellonDesign,n.d,“Aboutourresearch”),aretwoprimaryexamplesoftheawarenessandneedfordesignresearchandeducationforpracticeinthirdandfourthorderenvironments.Furthermore,bothoftheseinitiativesindicatethatdesignpracticeisevolvingtowardsestablishingformalexpertiseinhigherordersofpractice;thedesignofecosystemsthatfocusontheintersectionofsystems,societyandtechnologythatconstitutecomplexenvironments.
271
8.4.1Positioning:
However,alongwiththeneedforsystemicandholisticdesignmethodsincomplexdesignpractice,theeffectofpositioningneedstobeconsideredinlightofimplementation.Thepositionofdesignrelativetotheproblemororganizationalecosystemdirectlyaffectsimplementation.Thus,consideringtheeffectofpositioningisimportantwhenunderstandingthebarriersandenablersfordesignimplementation.Drivingthecommercializationofdesignthinkingisanexpectationofsuccessfulimplementationofinnovativesolutions.Implementationmaybeaffectedbythepositionandrelationshipbetweendesignthinking,theprojectorderandecosystem.
Fig.26EffectofpositioninginimplementationforeachcasestudyDiscussedinchapter7.Cross-comparisonanalysis,Case1operatedasadesignagencyexternaltotheclientorganisationandontheperipheryoftheprojectandclientecosystem.Thedesignteamincase1hadanobjectiveadvantagewiththeabilitytoobserveinternaloperationsoftheclientorganizationfromafreshperspective.However,designteamsoperatingontheperipheryoftheprojectorganizationand
272
ecosystemmayhavelessimpactduringimplementationthandesignteamsoperatinginternallytotheprojectecosystem.Thisisduetoacommondesignscenariothatwasexemplifiedincase1;theclientorganizationisforcedtodecidewhethertheywishtocontinuewiththeservicesoftheexternaldesignteambeyondjustdesigndevelopment.Fordesignteamsoperatingontheperiphery,thereislesscontroloverimplementationastheclientmustdecideiftheywishtocontinuepayingfortheirservicesthroughoutimplementation.Barriersforsuccessfulimplementationfordesignoperatingontheperipheryoftheprojectecosysteminclude:time,resourcing,moneyandconfidencefromtheclientthattheyareabletoimplementthedesignsolutionindependentofthedesignteam.Incase1,theclientdecidednottoestablishongoingassistancefromthedesignconsultancyandimplementedthedesignsolutionindependently.Designpracticepositionedontheperipheryoftheprojectecosystemasincase1,orexternallyasincase3,placeshigherriskonimplementation.Theoperationsofthedesignteam,remotefromtheclientandprojectenvironment,cancreateasenseofdetachmentbetweenthedesignsolutionandtheprojectecosystem.Furthermore,forcomplexdesignpractice,anexternalpositionexposesthat“designersfeelmorecomfortableindesigningaproduct,serviceorexperienceastheydoinunderstandingthecomplexitiesofthebusiness.Therefore,designerswillneedtobeeducatedasmuchasbusinessaspartofthisneweconomy”(Bucolo,2015).Forcase3,theprocessandresponsibilitybehindimplementationislefttotheclientandoutofthehandsofthedesignteam.Designinginthisexternal,remoteandopensourcepositionindicatethatsolutionsareoftenleftunimplementedorfailtobeexecutedintheirentirety(Durst,2012).Designpracticethatisinternalandembeddedwithintheprojectandorganizationalecosystemmayhaveagreatersensitivityandunderstandingoftheoperationsofitsecosystemandthusmaydesignsolutionsthataremoreappropriateforimplementation.Thisstrategicplanningfordesignimplementationrequiresadditionaltime,moneyandresourcesandisoftennotafeasibleoptionforclientsoutsourcingdesignexpertise.Furthermore,thispositionalsoraisesquestionsoverwhoisresponsibleforwhenfailuresuponimplementation.Itisdifficulttodetermineifitwaspoordesignorpoorimplementationmanagementthatresultedinunsuccessfulsolutionswhendesignsolutionsarehandedovertotheclientforimplementation.Oftenitisduringimplementationwheremostdesignproblemssurface:
273
Oneofthecentralaspectsofthiskindoffailureisthefactthatsomedesignersneverlearnthattheyhaveactuallyfailedtomeetclientneeds,customerneeds,orend-userneeds.Thisisbecausedesignersoftenendtheirinvolvementwiththeprojectbeforethefailuresariseandtheclientsofmostfailuresdonotreturntotheoriginaldesignerforrepairwork.(Friedman,2003,p.514)
Theadvantageofdesignpositionedinternallytotheprojectecosystemisthatitaffordsagreaterunderstandingoftheoperationsoftheproject.Thedesignteamincase2wereabletodesignandimplementsolutionsthatweremoreeffectivelyandseamlesslyintegratedwithintheorganization,largelyinpartbecausetheteamwereembeddedwithintheprojectsystem.Yet,implementationincase2wasnothandledsolelybythedesignteam.Designsolutionswerepassedtoabusinesslinewhereabusinessandmarketingteamorganisethereleaseandimplementationofthedesignsolution.However,thehurdlefordesignpositionedinternaltotheprojectecosystem,isfordesignteamstomaintainuser-centeredsensitivitywhilstbalancingsystemicandbusinessobjectives.
8.5Designthinkinganditsreturntoitsgenesis
Ithasbeenproposedinthefirstchapterofthisthesisthatthepracticeandterm,design,issynonymouswith,embodiesandenablesdesignthinking.Theexception,however,iswhenusingthetermdesignthinkingemphasisisplacedontheuniquemindsetand
approachbehinddesignpractice. Theevolutionofdesignthinking,highlightedinchapter2.LiteratureReview,beganduringthedesignmethodsmovement.Thismovementaimedtoestablishascienceofdesign,andindoingso,discussedandemphasisedcomplexstrategicandsystemicproblems.RittelandWebber’spaper,DilemmasinaGeneralTheoryofPlanning,consideredasoneofthemostinfluentialtextswhichhashelpedtodevelopanddefinedesignthinkingandpractice,isoneexampleofhowdiscussionsduringthisperiodfocusedonwhatwewouldidentifytodayashigherordersofdesignpractice.Yet,service,strategicandsystemicdesignpracticethat
274
pertainstothirdandfourthorderenvironmentshasonlyrecentlybeenacknowledgedanddevelopedintoadisciplinethatisacceptedaspartofdesignpractice.Thebacklashofthefirstgenerationdesignmovementsawdesignpractitionersrejectdiscussionsofahigherandmoreintangiblestrategicdesignpracticeasitwasassociatedwithanattemptto“scientise”theartandcraftofdesignanddesignthinking.Thus,fromthispoint,developmentsindesigntheoryandpracticefocusedonthereflectivenatureofdesignthatwasoftenemphasizedasaprocessbetweenthedesignerandthedesignedartifact:
Zurlo(1999)acknowledgesthatdesignhasbecomestrategicbecauseofonemainfactor:theproductisnolongerunderstoodjustasanobject.Theproducthasevolvedintoaproductsystem.Itisacomplexartifactinitselfanditisflexibleandinteractive.(Garcia,2012,p.158)
Explorationofnewdesignmethodsandmethodologiesnaturallyfollowedthisperiodandnewdesignenvironmentsandindustriesemerged.Aspracticeevolved,thedesignnaturallyprogressedtowardshigherordersandmorecomplexenvironmentswhichhasledustodaytowhatwasdiscussedduringtheearlyestablishmentofdesignpractice.Ithastaken30yearsfordesignprofessionalstoformallyacknowledgetheimportanceofdesignincomplexenvironments.However,theevolutionofdesignthinkingidentifiedinchapter2.LiteratureReview,wasanecessaryprocessfordesignthinkinginordertomatureandgrowtowardsconfidentlyhandlingcomplexdesignproblems.
275
8.6Conclusion Thisdiscussionchapterhasaddressedfourmaintopicscentraltothedevelopmentandestablishmentofdesignthinking.First,thequestionofwhatisdesignthinking?wasaddressed.Inthisdiscussion,aconsensustowardsadefinitionofdesignthinkingwasidentifiedthrougharandomlyselectedliteraturereview.Second,whoisadesignthinker?wasdiscussed,proposingthatadesignthinkermaynotnecessarilybeatraineddesigner.Third,adiscussionontheeffectthatenvironmenthasondesignthinkingwaspresented.Throughevidencecollectedinthisthesis,itwassuggestedthatdesignthinkingisenabledasmuchfromtheinteractionwithmethodsasitisthroughcollaborationandcontext.Problemssurroundingimplementationofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironmentsfollowed.Thisdiscussionsurfacedissuesaroundtheevaluationofdesignsolutionsandtheimpactthatpositioninghasonimplementation.Finally,toclosethischapter,adiscussionoftheevolutionofdesignthinkingwasreintroducedwithabriefdiscussiononthereturntohigherordersofdesignpracticeandthinkingthathadinitiatedthedesignmethodsmovement.Moreempiricalresearchisrequiredtoassessthebarriers,enablersandeffectsthatpositioninghasondesignprocessandimplementation.Thelongevityofdesignthinking,particularlyforcomplexenvironments,willrelyonnotjustthecreationofinnovativeideas,but“ensuringthatkeyideasmaintaintheirintegrityduringthatprocess.Designersmustbeinvolvedoverthedurationofchangeprocesses,providingconstantexpertiseandfeedbacktoidentify,test,anddeliverdurablesolutions”(Boyer,et.al.,2010)”.Incontrast,“Wefound,forexample,oppositebeliefsregardingthequestionwhetherdesignworkshouldbeoutsourcedornot.Accordingtosomeexperts,designteamsneedtoworkoutsideofcommonbusinesscontextstoavoidbeing“captured”intheirroutines”(VonThienen,Noweski,Meinel&Rauth,2014,p.83).Thissupportstheimportanceofpositioningandinteractionwiththedesignenvironmentthanoperatingremotelyfromit.Thefocusofdesignthinkingthusfarhasemphasisedtheinnovativepowerforideationinherentinadesignthinkingprocess,includingtheideaofexperiencingthisprocessandbuildingadesignculture.Thefocusofdesignthinkingliteraturemustshiftfromdocumentingtheinnovativeideationinherentinadesignthinkingapproach,toextendingthedesignprocessbydevelopingpracticalandstrategicmethodssothatinnovativeideasgeneratedcanbesuccessfullyrealizedandimplementedincontinuationwithadesignthinkingapproach.
276
9.
ConclusionThisdissertationhassoughttorefine,extendandclarifythetheoryandpracticeofdesignthinking.Indoingso,thisdissertationhasfocusedspecificallyondesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Ithasaddressedthreequestions:1.Whatisthebehaviorofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments?2.Doesthelocationofdesignrelativetothe
projectenvironmentaffectthedesignprocessincomplexenvironments?and3.Whataretheunderlyingmechanismsthatenableordisabledesignerlybehaviourstoemergein
complexenvironments?Throughdetailedanalysisofthreerepresentativecasestudiesofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,thisthesishaschallengedpre-existingideasaboutthebehaviorandapplicationofdesignthinkinginthirdandfourthorderenvironments.9.1ContributiontoresearchThisdissertationbeganbytracingoutabroadhistoryanddevelopmentofdesignthinkingtheoryandpracticethathascontributedtoourunderstandingofdesignthinkingtodate.Thishistorywasdiscussedinchapter1.LiteratureReview.Thischapteridentifiedachronologicalevolutionofdesignthinkingtheoryandpracticetracedthroughthewritingsofseminaldesignpractitionersandacademicsfromwithinthedesignfield,whilstidentifyingcommonandconflictingcharacteristicsofdesignthinking.Theliteraturereviewestablishedthatdesignthinkingisembeddedwithin,and
277
emergedfrom,thedesignindustryandidentifiedacleargapintheliteratureforfurtherempiricalandtheoreticaldiscussionondesignthinkingincomplex,thirdandfourthorder(Buchanan,1992)environments.Theliteraturereviewprovidedinsightintohowhistoricaldesigndevelopmentshavecontributedtoourcurrentdefinitionandunderstandingofdesignthinking.Thischapterservedtoclarifyanddefinedesignthinking,inordertoestablishafoundationfortheresearchinvestigationintodesignthinkingpracticeincomplexenvironments.Chapter2.ResearchFramework,providedanopportunitytorevisecommontheoreticalapproachestodesignresearch.Inthischapter,criticalrealismwaspresentedandarguedasanappropriatetheoreticalperspectiveforunderstandingtheemergingpracticeofdesignincomplexenvironments.Furthermore,aframeworkforcriticalrealistanalysiswascreated,whichhadnotbeenpreviouslydevelopedoradaptedforresearchintodesignpractice.Assuch,themethodologychaptersetouttoconstructaclearcriticalrealistprocessofanalysisforfuturedesignresearchers.Thisprocessinvolvedestablishingcriticalrealismasanepistemology,beforeconductinggroundedtheoryanalysis,tothendrawcausalconclusionsviathecriticalrealistprocessofretroduction.Thecriticalrealistperspectivewasusedfordatacollectionandanalysisforeachcasestudy,aswellasforcross-comparativeanalysis,toreachunderlyingmechanismsofemergentdesignbehavioursincomplexenvironments.Thisperspectivehelpedshifttheanalysisfromthickdescriptionstowardsestablishingtheoreticalfoundationsfordesignincomplexenvironments.Eachcasestudypresentedinthisdissertationcontributedtoknowledgeondesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.CasestudieswerechosenaccordingtoadefinedsetofcriteriaoutlinedinChapter3.ResearchFramework,thatwasguidedbyframeworksondesignpracticebyBuchanan(1992)andoncomplexityofproblemspacesdiscussedbyFlach(2011).Furthermore,caseswerechosentoreflectvariouspositionsofdesignthinkingrelativetotheprojectandclientecosystem;extendingontheorypresentedbyJunginger(2009;2012).Casestudy1focusedondesignthinkingadoptedwithinaserviceandstrategicdesignagency.Thiscasefollowedtheagencyastheyworkedonaserviceandstrategicdesignprojectforalargetelecommunicationsclient.Thiscaserepresenteddesignthinkingpositionedontheperipheryoftheclientenvironment.Thiscasestudyrevealedthatdesignpositionedontheperipheryoftheprojectecosystemhasagreateremphasison
278
theuserthantheclientandorganizationalecosystem(See7.2.2and7.2.3).Inaddition,thisstudyshowedhowdesignthinkingontheperipherymaybelesscollaborativebetweentheclientandthedesignteam,yetrequiresgreaterdemonstrationofdesigninordertodisruptclientperceptionsandculture(See7.2.4).Case2presenteddesignthinkingthatwaspositionedasaninternalresourcetotheprojectecosystemandclientorganization.ThiscasefollowedtheAustralianTaxationOfficeastheyappliedadesignthinkingapproachtosolvetaxationpolicyrelatedproblems.Thisstudyrevealedthatdesignthinkingisanemergentbehaviorfromamultidisciplinaryteamofcollaborators,andshowedhowdesignmethodsfacilitateandenabledesignthinking(See5.3.4and5.3.6).Furthermore,itdemonstratedthatengagingwiththedesignprocessandmethodologycanenabledesignthinkingwithouttheneedforaleadingdesignexpert(See7.2.3.1).Assuch,itshowedthatdesignthinkinginthiscasestudywasanemergentbehaviorofagroupofinexperiencedindividualsandwasnotdirectedbyadesignexpert(See5.3.5).Finally,Case3focusedondesignthinkingappliedinanewandinnovativecontext-anonlineopensourceplatform(OpenIDEO).Thepositionofdesignthinkinginthisplatformmeansparticipantsdonothaveadirectrelationshipwiththeprojectandclientecosystem.Designthinkinginanonlineopensourceenvironmentisthuspositionedasade-centralisedapproach.Casestudy3identifiedthelimitationsofapplyingdesignthinkingtoanonline,opensourceandremoteinternetplatform.Theremoteopen-sourceplatformofOpenIDEOrevealedthatdesignactivityfrommembersisnotfullyrepresentativeofaholisticdesignthinkingapproach.Itwassuggestedthattheexternalpositionofdesignthinking,detachedfromdirectinteractionwiththeprojectand/orclientecosystem,disablesanumberofdesignerlymindsetsandbehavioursobservedintheprevioustwocasestudies(Seechapter7.Cross-comparisonanalysis).Fromtherawdatapresentedineachcasestudy,across-comparisonanalysiswasconductedinchapter7.Cross-comparisonanalysis.Thischapteridentifiedcommonthemesandcategoriesacrosseachcasethatmaysignifyemergentcharacteristicsofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Sixemergentcharacteristicssurfacedfromthecross-comparativeanalysis:1.Holisticperspectives,2.Visionframing,3.De-centralisationofthedesigner,4.Perspectiveshifting,5.Embodimentsofdesignthinkingand6.Designersinflux.Thesethemeswereidentifiedthroughcomparisonbetweenthecontext,processandpositionofdesignthinkingineachcase.
279
Thiscross-comparisonchapterachievedthreethings:1.itaddressedtheresearchquestionandobjectivesoutlinedintheliteraturereview,2.presentedfindingsthatwereevidentineachcasestudy,supportingthejustificationofemergentbehaviourswhichmaybecontextualtotheorderdesignthinkingisappliedand3.itidentifiedunderlyingcausalmechanismsdrivingeachemergentbehaviorthatprovidethefoundationforatheoryondesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Finally,chapter8.Discussion,synthesizesknowledgeobtainedforthisdissertationandprovidesabroaderanalysis,discussionandinterpretationofdesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Thischaptercontributestothebroaderdiscussionondesignthinkingpractice;proposingclarificationsfortheambiguitysurroundingdesignthinking.9.3LimitationsThemethodsadoptedforthisdissertationeachwithholdbiasandlimitations.First,theuseofcasestudyresearchpresentsalimitationinthewaydataiscollectedandanalysed.Researchersadoptingamixeddatacollectiondesignmayforgettoacknowledgetheirreflectiveposition,particularlywhenutilisingquantitativedata.Criticalrealistsremindmixedmethodresearchersthattheuseofstatisticalevidenceisnotto‘claim’universaltheorybutshouldbeusedtocomplimentcausalanalysistostrengthenthereliabilityandvalidityoftheory(Downwardet.al,2002,p.491).Additionally,thetemptationtoabstractdata‘asis’andfailtoreflectivelyacknowledgeonespositioninqualitative,butparticularlyquantitativeapproaches,leadstoalackofpropercomparativeanalysisthatisrequiredforbothcriticalrealismandgroundedtheory.Failuretoconsistentlyandcriticallyre-conceptualiseonesowntheorydevelopedbetweeneitherqualitativeorquantitativedatasources(whilstacknowledgingthelimitationsofeach)willinhibitproperanalysisofunderlyingcausalmechanismsinordertogenerategroundedtheory.Thisresultsin‘thick’descriptionsofdata;aconsequencethatmustbeavoidedforbothcriticalrealismandgroundedmethodologyresearch.Toreducethislimitation,across-comparisonchapterwasintroducedwithpurposetomovebeyond“thick”descriptionsofdatapresentedineachcasestudy,toadeepercausalandreflectiveanalysisthatproposesunderlyingmechanismsdrivingemergentinsights.
280
Furthermore,eachcasestudyinthisthesispresentsadifferentdesignthinkingprojectincomplexenvironments,andonlythreecasesarepresentedthatexemplifydesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.Thismaylimittheabilitytoextrapolateinsightsbeyondthecasesbeingstudied.However,thetriangulationofinsightsacrosseachcasestudy,coupledwithdesignliterature,ensuresthatemergentcategoricalinsightscommontoeachcasecorroborateorconflictwithexistingstudiesandresearch,providingnecessaryrigortothepositionspresentedinthisthesis.Furthermore,thepurposeofacriticalrealistapproachistoextendbeyondindividualcaseresearchtoidentifyunderlyingmechanismsofemergentcorecategorieswhichmaybecomeidentifiableindesignprojectsoperatingwithincomplexenvironmentsbeyondthescopeofthisthesis.9.4FurtherresearchManytopicsaddressedwithinthisthesismaybeutilizedfor,andrequire,furtherresearch.Broadly,moreempiricalresearchisneededthatinvestigateshowdesignthinkingisappliedincomplexenvironments.Ascomplexdesignpracticeisanemergingareaofdesign,moredesignresearchisneededtounderstand,documentandanalysethistopic.Inaddition,furtherempiricalevidenceisneededthatfocusesoninvestigatingandcomparingtheunique,emergentbehavioursofdesignthinkingindifferentordersofdesignpractice.Thisevidencewilladdfurthersupporttothepropositionpresentedinthisthesis:thatdesignprocessandthinkingineachorderwillsurfacemethodsand/ormindsetsrequiredtodesigninthatorderofcontext.Furtherinvestigationsintothesequestionswillbuildknowledgeontheeffectsandinfluencethatpositioning,contextandenvironmentplayonthedesignprocess,whilstalsounderstandingtherootcauseswhichenableemergentbehaviourstooccur.Fundamentally,furtherconsolidationisneededtosupportthepresenceoffundamentaldesignthinkingcharacteristicsthatexistineachformofdesignpractice.Furtherresearchisrequiredtounderstandifall,orpart,ofthedesignthinkingcharacteristicsoutlinedinthisthesisapplyacrosseverysub-disciplineofdesignpractice.Finally,moreresearchshouldbedocumentedontheuseofcriticalrealismindesignresearch.Thisthesishopestohavemadeamethodologicalcontributionbyclarifyingaframeworkforanalysisfordesignresearcherswishingtoinvestigatedesignthinkingincomplexenvironments,throughacriticalrealisttheoreticalperspective.
281
9.5FinalcommentsDesignthinkinghasgainedpopularityoverthepastdecadeforitspromiseofinnovationandcreativity.Numerousauthorshaveattemptedtodefineandrefinedesignthinking,withmostclaimingthatdesignthinkinghasnocommonconsensuswithinthedesigncommunity.Thisresearchhasexaminedkeydesignliteratureandhasdemonstratedthataconsensusdoesexistamongstmanydefinitionsofdesignthinking.ThisconsensushasbeenoutlinedandarguedasafoundationforwhichtoidentifydesignthinkingpracticeineachofBuchanan’sordersofdesignpractice.Thisthesishasfocusedontheexaminationofthreecasesofdesignthinkingincomplex,thirdandfourthorderenvironments.Inthisanalysis,thisresearchhasdiscoveredthatdesignthinkingcharacteristicsinthisgrowingcontextofpracticeareconsistentwithfoundationalcharacteristicshighlightedintheliteraturereview.Inaddition,emergentbehavioursuniquetotheorderinwhichdesignthinkingisappliedhavesurfacedthroughanalysisoneachcasestudy.Thisdissertationhasextendedondescriptionsofdesignthinkingtoidentifyandproposepotentialunderlyingmechanismsdrivingemergentbehavioursofdwesignactivityincomplex,thirdandfourthorderenvironments.Thisdissertationisusefulfordesignresearchers,practitionersandstudentsofdesignthinkingforitsolidifiesaclearhistoryanddefinitionofdesignthinking,highlightspotentialbehavioursuniquetothirdandfourthorderdesignpractice,andguidesknowledgeonhowtomanage,researchandapplydesignthinkingincomplexenvironments.
282
References
AboutUs(2012).DESISNetwork.Retrieved12December2012,
<http://www.desisnetwork.org/?q=content/aims>
AboutUs.(n.d).OpenIDEO.Retrieved14June,2014fromhttps://openideo.com/about-
us
Actant&TaylorHaig,(2011).DesignThinkingandtheBigSociety:Fromsolvingpersonal
troublestodesigningsocialproblems.RetrievedOctober23,2012from
http://www.taylorhaig.co.uk/assets/taylorhaig_designthinkingandthebigsociety.
Adams,R.,Daly,S.,Mann,L.,&Dall’Alba,G.(2011).Beingaprofessional:threelensesinto
designthinking,actingandbeing.DesignStudies,32(6),588-607.
Äijälä,E.,&Karjalainen,T.M.(2012).Designstrategyanditsstrategicnature.
InternationalDesignBusinessManagement.AltoUniversity
Akama,Y.(2009).Warts-and-all:therealpracticeofservicedesign.Proceedingsfromthe
FirstNordicConferenceonServiceDesignandServiceInnovation.(pp1-11)Oslo,
Norway
APSInnovationActionPlan(2011),PublicSectorInnovation,Retrieved18October2012,
<http://apo.org.au/research/aps-innovation-action-plan>
Archer,B.(1965).Systematicmethodfordesigners.TheDesignCouncil,London.
ReprintedinN.Cross(ed)(1984).Developmentsindesignmethodology.John
Wiley,Chichester
Archer,B.(2007).Thenatureofresearchintodesignanddesigneducation.Paper
presentedattheInternationalConferenceonDesignandTechnology(IDATER),
DepartmentofDesignandTechnology,LoughboroughUniversity
283
Archer,B.(1979).Whateverbecameofdesignmethodology.DesignStudies,(1)1,July
1979
Archer,B.(1976).ThethreeRs.DesignStudies,(1)1,July1979
Archer,B.(1967).Designmanagement.ManagementDecision,1(4),47–51
Armstrong,L.,Bailey,J.,Julier,G.,&Kimbell,L.(2014).SocialDesignFutures.TheArts
andHumanitiesResearchCouncil,UK.
Asaro,P.(2000).Transformingsocietybytransformingtechnology:thescience
andpoliticsofparticipatorydesign.AccountingManagementandInformation
Technologies,10(4),257-290.
Atkinson,P.&Hammersley,M.(2007).Ethnography:Principlesinpractice.3rdEdn.,
Taylor&Francis,Hoboken
AustralianDepartmentofTreasury.(2013).Stronger,Fairer,Simpler:ATaxPlanForOur
Future.RetrievedFebruary,18,2014from
http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocx.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/02
8.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=
AustralianDepartmentofTreasury.(2009).Australia’sFutureTaxSystem-ReporttoThe
Treasurer.RetrievedSeptember,21,2013from
http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/publicati
ons/papers/Final_Report_Part_1/index.htm
AustralianDepartmentofTreasury:ReviewofBusinessTaxation.(1999).ATaxSystem
Redesigned.Retrievedfromhttp://www.rbt.treasury.gov.au/pu
Badke-Schaub,P.,Roozenberg,N.,&Cardoso,C.(2010).Designthinking:aparadigmon
itswayfromdilutiontomeaninglessness?Proceedingsofthe8thDesignThinking
ResearchSymposium(39-49).SydneyUniversityofTechnology,Sydney,New
SouthWales
284
Baehr,P.(1990).CriticalRealism,cautionaryrealism.TheSociologicalReview,38(4),
766-771.
Barrett,M.,Scott,S.,&Zachariadis,M.(2010).Exploringcriticalrealismasthetheoretical
foundationofmixed-methodresearch:evidencefromtheeconomicsofIS
innovations.JudgeBusinessSchoolWorkingPaperSeries,pp.2-26,Universityof
Cambridge,UK.
Beckman,S.,&Barry,M.(2007).Innovationasalearningprocess:embeddingdesign
thinking.CaliforniaManagementReview,50(1),25-56
Benson,J.,&Dresdow,S.(2013).Designthinking:afreshapproachfortransformative
assessmentpractice.JournalofManagementEducation,(38)3,436-461.
Bergene,C.A.(2007).Towardsacriticalrealistcomparativemethodology.Journalof
CriticalRealism,(6)1,5-27
Bhaskar,R.(2008).Arealisttheoryofscience.Hoboken,NJ:Taylor&Francis
Bhaskar,R.(1979).Thepossibilityofnaturalism:aphilosophicalcritiqueofthe
contemporaryhumansciences.Brighton:HarvesterPress
Blizzard,J.(2013).Designthinkerscansavetheworld:howunderstandingtheirinterests,
goals,andmotivationscaninformengineeringeducators.(Doctoralthesis).
Availablefromhttp://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations
Blizzard,J.,&Klotz,L.(2012).Aframeworkforsustainablewholesystemsdesign.Design
Studies,(33)5,456-479.
Blomkvist,J.,&Holmlid,S.(2010).ServicePrototypingAccordingtoServiceDesign
Practitioners.ProceedingsoftheSecondNordicConferenceonServiceDesignand
ServiceInnovation,(pp.1-11).Linkoping,Sweden.
285
Blyth,S.&Kimbell,L.(2011).DesignThinkingandtheBigSociety:fromsolvingpersonal
troublestodesigningsocialproblems.CommissionedbyActantandTaylorHaig,
UK.Retrievedfrom
http://www.taylorhaig.co.uk/assets/taylorhaig_designthinkingandthebigsociety.
Boland,R.J.,&Collopy,F.(2004).ManagingasDesigning.(pp.3-18).StanfordUniversity
Press
Bonabeau,E.(2009).Decisions2.0:thepowerofcollectiveintelligence.MITSloan
ManagementReview,50(2),45-52
Bousbaci,R.(2008).ModelsofMan'inDesignThinking:The'BoundedRationality'
Episode.DesignIssues(24)4,38-52
Boyer,B.,Cook,J.W.,&Steinberg,M.(2010).RecipesforSystemicChange.HelsinkiDesign
Lab.Sitra.Helsinki
Brown,T.,&Wyatt,J.(2010).DesignThinkingforSocialInnovation.StanfordSocial
InnovationReview,(pp.30-35).IDEO,Retrieved21March,2011,<
http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/news/pdfs/2010WI_Features_DesignThi
nking.pdf>
Brown,T.(2009).TimBrownurgesdesignerstothinkbig.TED,[video]Viewed21March
2011.Retrievedfrom
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.h
tml
Brown,T.(2009).ChangebyDesign:howdesignthinkingtransformsorganizationsand
inspiresinnovation.NewYork:HarperCollins.
Brown,T.(2008).DesignThinking.HarvardBusinessReview,June,84-92
Buchanan,M.,Gupta,A.,&Simons,T.(1992).InnovationinR&D:Usingdesignthinking
todevelopnewmodelsofinventiveness,productivityandcollaboration.Journal
ofCommercialBiotechnology,(17)4,301-307.
286
Buchanan,R.(2013).QuoVadis,Kolding?DesignSkolenKolding.RetrievedMarch82014
fromhttp://intranet.dskd.dk/index.php?id=3469
Buchanan,R.(1992).WickedProblemsinDesignThinking.DesignIssues,8(2),5-21
Bucolo,S.(2015).“Designrelatesbacktosociety”:aninterviewwithSamBucolo.
RetrievedJuly2015,fromhttp://thisisdesignthinking.net/2015/05/design-
relates-back-to-society-an-interview-with-sam-bucolo/
BucoloS.,&King,P.(2014).Designformanufacturingcompetitiveness.AustralianDesign
IntegrationNetwork(ADIN)
Burnette,W.,&Heiman,B.(2007).TheRoleofDesignThinkinginFirmsand
ManagementEducation.StanfordUniversity
Cain,S.(2012).TheRiseoftheNewGroupthink:CollaborationIsin.ButitMayNotbe
ConducivetoCreativity.RetrievedSeptember22,2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-
groupthink.html?_r¼1&scp¼1&sq¼Cain&st¼cse.
Carlgren,L.,Elmquist,M.,&Rauth,I.(2013).PerceptionsofthevalueofDesignThinking
ininnovationinlargefirms.10thEuropeanAcademyofDesignConference,
UniversityofGothenburg,Sweden.
Carlsson,S.(2003).CriticalRealism:awayforwardinISresearch.EuropeanConference
onInformationSystems(pp.2-8).JonkopingInternationalBusinessSchool,
Sweden.
CarnegieMellonDesign(n.d).Aboutourresearch.RetrievedJune19,2015,from
http://design.cmu.edu/school/institute/research
Challenges(n.d.).OpenIDE0.Retrieved9June,2014from
https://openideo.com/challenge
287
ChristianWahl,D.,&Baxter,S.(2008).TheDesigner’sRoleinFacilitatingSustainable
Solutions.DesignIssues,(24)2,72-83.
Connell,S.(2013).ExploringOperationalPracticesandArchetypesofDesignThinking.
(Doctoralthesis).AvailablefromProQuest(RecordNo.3569135)
Corbin,JM.,&Strauss,A.(1998).Basicsofqualitativeresearch:techniquesandprocedures
fordevelopinggroundedtheory.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublishing
Coyne,R.(2005).Wickedproblemsrevisited.DesignStudies,(26)1,5-17
Cross,N.(2002).Theexpertiseofexceptionaldesigners.Proceedingsofthe6thDesign
ThinkingResearchSymposium.Sydney,Australia:UniversityofTechnology,
Sydney.Retrievedfrom
http://www.creativityandcognition.com/cc_conferences/cc03Design/acceptedP
apers.html
Cross,N.(2007).Fortyyearsofdesignresearch.DesignStudies,(28)1,1-4,
Cross,N.(2006).Designerlywaysofknowing.London:Springer.
Cross,N.(2001).DesignerlyWaysofKnowing:DesignDisciplineVersusDesignScience.
DesignIssues,(17)3,49-55
Cross,N.(1999).DesignResearch:ADisciplinedConversation.DesignIssues,(15)2,5-10,
Cross,N.(1997).Descriptivemodelsofcreativedesign:applicationtoanexample.
DesignStudies,(18)4,427-440.
Cross,N.,&Cross,A.(1995).Observationsofteamworkandsocialprocessesindesign.
DesignStudies,(16)pp.143-170
Cross,N.,Dorst,K.,&Roozenburg,N.(1992).ResearchinDesignThinking.Delft
UniversityPress
Crouch,C.,&Pearce,J.(2012).DoingResearchinDesign,NewYork:BergPublishing
288
D’Ascenzo,M.(2004).Designingthedeliveryoflegislativemeasures.Journalof
AustralianTaxation,7(1).Retrievedfrom
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlATax/2004/3.html
Dalsgaard,P.(2014).Pragmatismanddesignthinking.InternationalJournalofDesign,
8(1),143-155
Danermark,B.,&Ekstrom,M.(2001).Explainingsociety:Anintroductiontocritical
realisminthesocialsciences.Hoboken:Taylor&Francis
Davis,B.(2010).Creativity&InnovationinBusiness2010:TeachingtheApplicationof
DesignThinkingtoBusiness.ProcediaSocialandBehavioralSciences.(2)4,6532
6538
DesignCouncil,(2014).TheDesignProcess:Whatisthedoublediamond?.Retrieved20
June2015,<http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-
what-double-diamond>
DesignCouncil,(2005).TheDesignProcess.Retrieved13December2012,<http://www.
designcouncil.org.uk/designprocess>
DesignandSocialImpact:across-sectoralagendafordesigneducation,researchand
practice.(2013).SocialImpactDesignSummit.Whitepapercommissionedby
Cooper-HewittNationalDesignMuseum,NewYork.Retrievedfrom
http://www.cooperhewitt.org/publications/design-and-social-impact/
DesignThinkingResearchSymposia.(2012).TheDesignGroup.Retrieved28April2012
fromhttp://design.open.ac.uk/cross/DesignThinkingResearchSymposia.htm
Dey,I.(2007).GroundingCategories.SAGEHandbookofGroundedTheory.(167-191)
SAGEPublications
Diana,C.,Pacent,E.&Tassi,R.(2009).Visualizingcommunicationtoolsforservice
design.1stNordicConferenceonServiceDesignandServiceInnovation,Oslo,
Norway.
289
Dickens,P.(2003).Changingourenvironmentchangingourselves:criticalrealismin
transdisciplinaryresearch.InterdisciplinaryScienceReviews,(28)2,95-104
Dickens,P.(2004).SocietyandNature:ChangingOurEnvironment,ChangingOurselves.
JohnWiley&Sons
D’Ippolito,B.(2014).Theimportanceofdesignforfirms’competitiveness:areviewof
theliterature.Technovation,34(11),716-730.Retrievedfrom
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.007
Donar,A.(2011).Thinkingdesignandpedagogy:anexaminationoffiveCanadianpost-
secondarycoursesindesignthinking.TheCanadianReviewofArtEducation,(38)
84-103
Dörner,D.(1999).Approachingdesignthinkingresearch.DesignStudies,(20)5,407-415
Dorst,K&Paton,B.(2011).Briefingandreframing:asituatedpractice.DesignStudies,
(32)6,573-587
Dorst,K.(2011).Thecoreof‘designthinking’anditsapplication.DesignStudies,(32)
521-532
Dorst,K.(2010).Thenatureofdesignthinking.Proceedingsofthe8thDesign
ThinkingResearchSymposium(131-139).SydneyUniversityofTechnology,
Sydney,NewSouthWales
Dorst,K.(2008).Designresearch:arevolution-waiting-to-happen.DesignStudies,(29)4
11
Dorst,K.(1997).DescribingDesign:AComparisonofParadigms.(DoctoralThesis)TU:
Delft
Downward,P.,Finch,H.,&Ramsay,J.(2002).Criticalrealism,empiricalmethodsand
inference:acriticaldiscussion.CambridgeJournalofEconomics,(26),481-500
290
Drews,C.(2009).Unleashingthefullpotentialofdesignthinkingasabusinessmethod.
DesignManagementReview,(20)3,39-44.
DriversofChangefororganisationsaroundserviceoverthenext3-5years(2012).
Engine.Retrieved23December2012,
http://www.enginegroup.co.uk/assets/pdf/Engine_Drivers%20of%20Change%
202012.pdf>
Du,J.,Jing,S&Liu,J.(2012).Creatingshareddesignthinkingprocessforcollaborative
Design.JournalofNetworkandComputerApplications,(35),111-120
Dunne,D.&Martin,R.(2006).Designthinkingandhowitwillchangemanagement
education:aninterviewanddiscussion.AcademyofManagementLearning&
Education,(5)4,512-523
Dubberly,H.(2008).Designintheageofbiology:shiftingfromamechanical-objectethos
toanorganic-systemsethos.Interactions,September-October,35-41
Easton,G.(2010).CriticalRealisminCaseStudyResearch.IndustrialMarketing
Management,(39),118-128
Eisenhardt,K.(1989).BuildingTheoriesfromCaseStudyResearch.Management
Review,(14)4,532-550
ElderVass,D.(2012).Emergenceandtherealistaccountofcause.JournalofCritical
Realism,(4)2,315-338
EuropeanCommission(2012).Designforgrowthandprosperity.Retrieved21December
2012,<http://europeandesigninnovation.eu/wp
content/uploads/2012/09/Design_for_Growth_and_Prosperity_.pdf>
Farrell,R.&Hooker,C.(2013).Design,scienceandwickedproblems.DesignStudies,
(34),681-705.Retrievedfromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.05.001
291
Faste,H.(2012).Opening“open”innovation.Proceedingsofthe2011Conferenceon
DesigningPleasurableProductsandInterfaces.Milan,Italy.Retrievedfrom
doi>10.1145/2347504.2347563
Feast,L&Melles,G.(2010).EpistemologicalPositionsinDesignResearch:ABrief
ReviewoftheLiterature.2ndInternationalConferenceonDesignEducation,
UniversityofNewSouthWales,Sydney
Flach,J.(2011).Complexity:Learningtomuddlethrough.Cognition,Technology&Work.
14:187-197.
Fraser,H.M(2009).Designingbusiness:Newmodelsforsuccess.DesignManagement
Review,20(2),56-65.
Friedman,K.(2003).Theoryconstructionindesignresearch:criteria:approaches,and
Methods.DesignStudies,(24)6,507-522
Friess,E.(2009).TheSwordofData:DoesHuman-CenteredDesignFulfillItsRhetorical
Responsibility?Designissues,(26)3,40-50,MITPress
Fuge,M.,Tee,K.,Agogino,A.,&Maton,N.(2014).Analysisofcollaborativedesign
networks:acasestudyofopenideo.JournalofComputingandSciencein
Engineering,(14).RetrievedAugust7,2014,from
http://computingengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
Galle,P.,&Aided,C.(1996).Replicationprotocolanalysis:amethodforthestudyof
real-worlddesignthinking.DesignStudies,(17)2,181-200
Garcia,L.M.(2012).Understandingdesignthinking,explorationandexploitation:
Implicationsfordesignstrategy.InT.M.Karjalainen(Ed.),IDBMPapers(2),150-
161.Helsinki:Aldus.Georges
Gasson,S.(2003).Human-centeredvs.user-centeredapproachestoinformationsystem
design.JournalofInformationTechnologyTheoryandApplication.5(2),29-46.
Retrieved18September2012from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=jitta
292
Gero,J.(2010).InnovationPolicyandDesignThinking.Proceedingsofthe8thDesign
ThinkingResearchSymposium,(175-186),SydneyUniversityofTechnology,
Sydney,NewSouthWales
Gero,J.S,Tversky,B.,&Purcell,T.(2001).VisualandSpatialReasoninginDesignII.Key
CentreofDesignComputingandCognition,(271-282),UniversityofSydney,
Australia
Gibson,R.(2012).Encouragingcustomerco-creationonline:whymoneydoesn’tmatter.
TheDesignManagementInstitute.59-62.RetrievedAugust8,2014
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1948-
7169.2012.00171.x/abstract
Glaser,G.,&Strauss,A.(1967).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:strategiesfor
qualitativeresearch.NewYork:AldinePub.co
Gloppen,J.(2009).Perspectivesondesignleadershipanddesignthinkingandhowthey
relatetoEuropeanserviceindustries.DesignManagementJournal,4(1),pp.33–
47.
Gobble,M.(2014).DesignThinking.Research-TechnologyManagement,May-June,59-61
Gordon,P.(2014).Designthinkingforthepoor:acomparativecontentanalysisof
developmentchallengesinopenideo.(MastersThesis).UniversityofCalifornia,
Berkeley
Goldschmidt,G.&Rogers,P.(2013).Thedesignthinkingapproachesofthreedifferent
groupsofdesignersbasedonself-reports.DesignStudies,34(4),454-471.
RetrievedMay18,2014fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.004
Graham,B.(2013).InnovationandOrganisation:TowardsanArtofSocialSystemDesign.
(DoctoralThesis).MonashUniversity
293
Gumienny,R.,Jobst,B.,Meinel,C.,&Lindberg,T.(2010).IsThereaNeedforaDesign
ThinkingProcess?Proceedingsofthe8thDesignThinkingResearchSymposium,
(243-249),UniversityofTechnology,Sydney,NewSouthWales
Hatchuel,A.,LeMasson,P.&Weil,B.(2011).Teachinginnovativedesignreasoning:how
concept-knowledgetheorycanhelpovercomefixationeffects.Artificial
IntelligenceforEngineeringDesign,AnalysisandManufacturing,25(1),77-92
Herrmann,M.&Goldschmidt,G.(2013).Thinkingaboutdesignthinking:acomparative
studyofdesignandbusinesstexts.PublishedinA.ChakrabartiandR.VPrakash
(eds.)ICoRD’13LectureNotesinMechanicalEngineering,(29-40),India:Springer.
Hood,J.C.(2007).Orthodoxyvs.power:Thedefiningtraitsofgroundedtheory.InA.
Bryant&K.Charmaz(Eds.),TheSAGEHandbookofGroundedTheory,151-164.
London,UK:SAGEPublicationsLtd.
Holmlid,S.(2009).Participative,co-operative,emancipatory:Fromparticipatory
designtoservicedesign.ConferenceproceedingsofDeThinkingServiceDesignand
Innovation,(2-14)November2009,LinköpingUniversity,
Howe,K.R.(2004).Acritiqueofexperimentalism.QualitativeInquiry,(10)1,42–61
HowitWorks.(n.d).OpenIDEO.Retrieved12June,2014from
https://openideo.com/content/how-it-works
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Evaluation(n.d).
OpenIDEO.Retrieved12June,2014from
https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/brief
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Brief(n.d).OpenIDEO.
Retrieved12June,2014from
https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/evaluation
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Inspiration(n.d).
OpenIDEO.Retrieved12June,2014from
https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/inspiration
294
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Refinement(n.d).
OpenIDEO.Retrieved12June,2014from
https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/refinement
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Realisation(n.d).
OpenIDEO.Retrieved12June,2014from
https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/realisation
Howmightwebetterconnectfoodproductionandconsumption?:Refinement(n.d).
OpenIDEO.Retrieved12June,2014from
https://openideo.com/challenge/localfood/winners-announced
Howmightweestablishbetterrecyclinghabitsathome?(n.d).OpenIDEO.Retrieved19
September,2014fromhttps://openideo.com/challenge/recycle-challenge/brief
Human-CenteredDesignToolkit(2010).IDEO.Retrieved14April2011,<http://www.
ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/>
Huppatz,D.J.(2015).RevisitingHerbertSimon’s“scienceofdesign”.DesignIssues,
31(2),29-40
IDEO(2011).RetrievedFebruary2011,http://www.ideo.com/
Impact.(n.d).OpenIDEO.Retrieved18July,2014from
http://openideo.com/content/impact
Jahnke,M.(2009).Innovationthroughdesignthinking.BusinessDesignLab,Universityof
Gothenburg,1-26
Jeppsen,S.(2005).CriticalRealismasanApproachtoUnfoldingEmpiricalFindings:
ThoughtsonFieldworkinSouthAfricaonSMEsandEnvironment.TheJournalof
TransdisciplinaryEnvironmentalStudies,(4)1,2-7
Johansson,U.&Woodilla,J.(2009).Towardsanepistemologicalmergerofdesign
thinking,strategyandinnovation.Proceedingsof8thEuropeanAcademyOfDesign
295
Conference,Aberdeen:TheRobertGordonUniversity
Johnson,R,Salvo,M.,&Zoetewey,M.(2007).User-CenteredTechnologyinParticipatory
Culture:TwoDecadesBeyondaNarrowConceptionofUsabilityTesting.
TransactionsOnProfessionalCommunication,(50)4,320-332
Jonas,W.(2011).Asenseofvertigo.Designthinkingasgeneralproblemsolver?.
Proceedingsofthe9thEuropeanAcademyofDesignConference.Porto:Portugal.
RetrievedMay28,2013from8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/?page_id=29
Jonas,W.(2007).ResearchthroughDESIGNthroughresearch:Acyberneticmodelof
designingdesignfoundations.Kybernetes,(36)9,1362-1380
Jones,J.C.(2002).DMConference1962.Retrievedfrom
http://www.publicwriting.net/2.2/dmconference1962.html
Jones,D.(2010).Whatkindofthinkingisdesignthinking?’Proceedingsofthe8th
DesignThinkingResearchSymposium.(219-228)SydneyUniversityof
Technology,Sydney,NewSouthWales
Jones,P.(2014).Systemicdesignprinciplesforcomplexsocialsystems.InG.
Metcalf(ed.),SocialSystemsandDesign,91-128.SpringerVerlag
Jones,P.(2010).Thelanguage/actionmodelofconversation:canconversationperform
actsofdesign?InteractionsMagazine,January-February2010
Junginger,S.(2014).Designlegacies:whyservicedesignersarenotabletoembeddesign
intheorganization.ProceedingsofthefourthServiceDesignandService
InnovationConference,(164-172),LancasterUniversity;UnitedKingdom
Junginger,S.(2009).Designintheorganization:partsandwholes.DesignResearch
Journal,2,(23-29)
296
Junginger,S.(2011).Designasinnovationfacilitator.DesignResearchWebzine,5(45).
RetrievedJune8,2013from
http://www.dcdr.dk/uk/menu/update/webzine/articles/design-as-innovation-
facilitator
Junginger,S.(2006).ChangeintheMaking.(DoctoralThesis),CarnegieMellonUniversity
Junginger,S.(2007).Learningtodesign:givingpurposetoheart,handandmind.Journal
ofBusinessStrategy,28(4),59-65.RetrievedMarch12,2013from
ttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02756660710760953
Kadri,M.(n.d).Communitymanagers.OpenIDEO.RetrievedFebruary9,2014from
https://openideo.com/profiles/meanestindian
Kajalainen,T.M.(2012).IntroductiontoIDBMResearch.InternationalDesignBusiness
Management.(34-40).Helsinki:AltoUniversity
Kelle,U.(2007).Thedevelopmentofcategories:Differentapproachesingrounded
theory.InAntonyBryant&KathyCharmaz(Eds.),TheSagehandbookof
groundedtheory(191-213).London:Sage.
KempsterS&Parry,K.(2010).Groundedtheoryandleadershipresearch:Acritical
realistperspective.TheLeadershipQuarterly,(22),106-120
Kim,J.&Ryu,H.(2014).Adesignthinkingrationalityframework:framingandsolving
designproblemsinearlyconceptgeneration.Human-ComputerInteraction,
29(5-6),516-553.RetrievedJune30,2014from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.896706
Kimbell,L.(2012).ReThinkingDesignThinking:PartII.DesignandCulture,4(2),129-
148
Kimbell,L.(2012).Driversofchangefororganisationsaroundserviceoverthenext3-5
years.ReportcommissionedbyEngineServiceDesign.Retrieved9March,2013
fromww.engingegroup.co.uk
297
Kimbell,L.(2011).ReThinkingdesignthinking:PartI.DesignandCulture,3(3),285-306
Kimbell,L.(2010).FromUser-centeredDesigntoDesigningforservices.Design
ManagementConference,(1-9),London<http://www.
lucykimbell.com/LucyKimbell/Writing.html>
Kimbell,L.(2009).Beyonddesignthinking:Design-as-practiceanddesigns-inpractice.
CRESCConference,(1-15)September,UniversityofOxford,
http://www.lucykimbell.com/LucyKimbell/Writing.html
Kimbell,L.(2009).Insightsfromservicedesignpractice.Proceedingsfromthe8th
EuropeanAcademyOfDesignConference.TheRobertGordonUniversity,
Aberdeen,Scotland.
Klemmer,S.&Carroll,J.(2014).Intorudctiontothisspecialissueonunderstanding
designthinking.Human-ComputerInteraction,29(5-6),415-419
Kolko,J.(2010).Abductivethinkingandsensemaking:thedriversofdesign
Synthesis.DesignIssues,(26)1,15-28
Krippendorff,K.(2006).DesignMethods,ResearchandaScienceofDesign.The
SemanticTurn,Taylor&Francis.
Krippendorff,K.(1989).OntheEssentialContextsofArtifactsorontheProposition
that‘DesignisMakingSense(ofThings)’.DesignIssues,(5)2,9-38
Lawson,B.,&Dorst,K.(2009).DesignExpertise.Oxford:ArchitecturalPress
Lawson,B.(2006).Howdesignersthink:thedesignprocessdemystified.Architectural
Press,Elsevier
Laakso,M.&Hassi,L.(2011).Designthinkinginthemanagementdiscourse:Defining
theelementsoftheconcept.18thInternationalProductDevelopment
ManagementConference,DelftUniversityofTechnology
298
Lakhani,K.,Fayard,A.L.,Levina,N.&Healy-Pokrywa,S.(2013).OpenIDEO.Harvard
BusinessSchoolTeachingCaseStudy(Unpublished)Boston:HarvardBusiness
SchoolPublishing
Lande,M.(2012).DesignandEngineering:Ambidextrousmindsetsforinnovation.PhD
Dissertation.StanfordUniversity.p.22;
Leavy,B.(2010).Designthinking–anewmentalmodelofvalueinnovation.Strategy
Leadership.(38)3,5-14
Leinonen,T.&Durall,E.(2014).Designthinkingandcollaborativelearning.Media
EducationResearchJournal,21(42),107-116
LeMasson,P.,Hatchuel,A.&Weil,B.(2011).TheInterplaybetweenCreativityIssues
andDesignTheories:ANewPerspectiveforDesignManagementStudies?
CreativityandInnovationManagement,(20),217–237
Liedtka,J.(2011).Learningtousedesignthinkingtoolsforsuccessfulinnovation.
Strategy&Leadership.(39)5,13–19
Liedtka,J.(2000).Indefenseofstrategyasdesign.CaliforniaManagementReview,42(3),
8-30
Liedtka,J.,King,A.,Bennett,D.(2013)SolvingProblemswithDesignThinking:TenStories
ofWhatWorks.ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Liedtka,J.(2014).Innovativewayscompaniesareusingdesignthinking.Strategyand
Leadership,42(2),40-45.RetrievedOctober27,2014from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004
Lindberg,T.,Noweski,C.&Meinel,C.(2010).Evolvingdiscoursesondesignthinking:
howdesigncognitioninspiresmet-disciplinarycreativecollaboration.Technoetic
Arts:AJournalofSpeculativeResearch,8(1),31-37
299
Lindberg,T.,RajaG.,BirgitJ.&Meinel,C.(2010).Isthereaneedforadesignthinking
process?ProceedingsofDesignThinkingResearchSymposium8(243-254)Sydney
UniversityofTechnology,NewSouthWales
Lockwood,T.(2009).Transition:Howtobecomeamoredesign-mindedorganization.
DesignManagementReview,(20)3,29-37
Lockwood,T.(2010).DesignThinking.IntegratingInnovation,Customerexperience,and
BrandValue.DesignManagementInstitute.NewYork:AllworthPress
Love,T.(2011,June9).Help:Tracingthehistoryofdesignprocessphilosophiesand
methods[PhDDesignListDiscussionboardmessage],RetrievedJune102011.
Löwgre,J.,&Stolterman,E.(1999).Methods&tools:designmethodologyanddesign
Practice.Interactions,(6)1,13-20
Lundberg,M.,&Pitsis,T.(2010).Leadingideas:DesignThinkingasaestheticprocess
Innovation.Proceedingsofthe8thDesignThinkingResearchSymposium,(277-
288)SydneyUniversityofTechnology,NewSouthWales
Lusch,R.,&Vargo,S.(2010).AdvancingServiceSciencewithService-DominantLogic.
HandbookofServiceScience,NewYork:Springer
Luther,K.,Caine,L.,Ziegler,K.&BruckmanA.(2010).Whyitworks(whenitworks):
Successfactorsinonlinecreativecollaboration,ProceedingsoftheGroup
Conference,Florida:USA.
Macdonald,N.(2005).Betterbydesign.RSAJournal,August2005
Makower,J.(2012).Crowdsourcing,openinnovation,andthefutureofsustainablecities.
GreenBiz.Retrieved28October,2014from
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2012/01/23/crowdsourcing-open-innovation-
and-future-cities
Manzini,E.(2007).Designresearchforsustainablesocialinnovation.DesignResearch
300
Now,Retrieved21April2011fromhttp://sustainable
everyday.net/manzini/?p=16
Manzini,E.(2007).DesigningNetworksandMetaDesign:SomeIntroductoryNotes.
Retrieved21April2011,http://sustainable-everyday.net/manzini/?p=16
Manzini,E.(2006).TheScenarioofaMulti-localSociety:CreativeCommunities,
ActiveNetworksandEnablingSolutions.DesignersVisionariesandOtherStories:
ananthologyofsustainabledesignessays,(77-89),Towbridge:CromwellPress
Manzini,E.(2007).Designresearchforsustainablesocialinnovation.DesignResearch
Now.(233-245)Retrieved22October,2012fromhttp://sustainable-
everyday.net/manzini/?p=16
Martin,R.(2005).Whydecisionsneeddesign.Part1.BusinessWeek.Retrieved24July
2014,fromhttp://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-29/why-decisions-
need-designWhy
Martin,R.(2009).TheDesignofBusiness.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPublishing
Martelaro,N.,Ganguly,S.,Steinert,M.,&Jung,M.(2015,).Thepersonaltraitmuth:a
comparativeanalysisoftheinnovationimpactofdesignthinkingtoolsand
personaltraits.In(Ed)Meinel,C.&Leifer,L.DesignThinkingResearch,41-57
Mattelmaki,T.,Vaajakallio,K.,&Koskinen,I.(2014).Whathappenedtoempathicdesign?
DesignIssues,30(1),67-77.
Mattelmaki,T.,Visser,F.(2011)Lostinco-X:Interpretationsofco-designandco-
creation.InternationalAssociationofSocietiesofDesignResearch2011:Diversity
andUnity,31October–4November2011,Delft,TheNetherlands.
Meinel,C.&Leifer,L.(2011).DesignThinking:Understand,Improve,Apply.NewYork:
Springer
Melles,G.(2010).CurriculumDesignThinking:ANewNameforOldWaysofThinking
301
andPractice?ProceedingsoftheDesignDTRS8Conference,(299-308)Sydney
University,Sydney
Melles,G.(2008).NewPragmatismandtheVocabularyandMetaphorsofScholarly
DesignResearch.DesignIssues,24(4),88-101,
MethodsCards(2010).IDEO.Retrieved17March2011,<http://itunes.apple.com/au/
app/ideo-method-cards/id340233007?mt=8>
Meyer,M.&Marion,T.(2010).Innovatingforeffectiveness:lessonsfromdesignfirms.
ResearchTechnologyManagement,53(5),21-28.Retrieved29November2012
fromhttp://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/55124706/innovating-
effectiveness-lessons-from-design-firms
Miller,D.,&Rudnick,L.(2011).Tryingitonforsize:DesignandInternationalPublic
Policy.DesignIssues,(27)2
Mingers,J.(2014).Helpingbusinessschoolsengagewithrealproblems:thecontribution
ofcriticalrealismandsystemsthinking.EuropeanJournalofOperational
Research,242,pp.316-331
Mingers,J.,Mutch,A.,&Willcocks,L.(2013).CriticalRealisminInformationSystems
Research.MisQuarterly,37(3),pp.795-802.
Mootee,I.(2011).ADesignThinkingPrimer.Designthinkingforcreativityandbusiness
innovationseries.IdeaCouture,HarvardGraduateSchoolofDesign
Murray,R.,Caulier-Grice,J.&Mulgan,G.(2010).TheOpenBookofSocialInnovation.
London,UK:NESTA.
Mootee,I.(2011).Adesignthinkingprimer.DesignthinkingforCreativityandBusiness
InnovationSeries.(1-7)CommissionedbyIdeaCouture,2011.
New,S.,&Kimbell,L.(2013).Chimps,designers,consultantsandempathy:a‘theory
ofmind’forservicedesign.Proceedingsofthe2ndCambridgeacademicdesign
managementconference,CambridgeUniversity.
302
Newman,D.(ca.2004)DesignSquiggle.Retrievedfrom
http://www.designsojourn.com/design-processed-explained/
Nolan,R.(2011).Ideasfestival2011shineslightonthefuture.TheQueenslandCabinet
andMinisterialDirectory.(MediaStatement).RetrievedAugust15,2014from
http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/Id/73916
Norman,D.,&Verganti,B.(2012).IncrementalandRadicalInnovation:Designresearch
versustechnologyandmeaningchange.DesignIssues,30(1),78-96
Norman,D.(2010).DesignThinking:AUsefulMyth.Core77:designmagazineand
Resource,Retrieved24June2011,
<http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.
as>
Norman,D.(2002).User-CenteredDesign.TheDesignofEverydayThings(originaltitle:
ThePsychologyofEverydayThings)publishedin1988,Doubleday.
Nussbaum,B.(2011).Designthinkingisafailedexperiment.Sowhat’snext?’Fast
Co.Design,RetrievedJuly12th2011
<http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/designthinking-is-a-failed-
experiment-so-whats-next>
Oliver,C.(2011).CriticalRealistGroundedTheory:ANewApproachforSocialWork
Research.BritishJournalofSocialWork,(42)371-387
Olsen,N.(2014).Designthinkingandfoodinnovation.TrendsinfoodScience&
Technology.Retrieved9May,2015fromhttp://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.tifs.2014.10.001
Owen,C.(2007).DesignThinking:Notesonitsnatureanduse.DesignResearch
Quarterly,(2)1,16-27.
303
Owen,C.(2005).Designthinking.Whatitis.Whyitisdifferent.Whereithasnewvalue.
(Speech)InternationalConferenceonDesignResearchandEducationforthe
Future.IllinoisInstituteofTechnology.
Oxman,R.(1999).Educatingthedesignerlythinker.DesignStudies,20(2),105-122
Papanek,V.(1985).Designfortherealworld:humanecologyandsocialchange.
Chicago:AcademyPress
Parry,K.(1998).Groundedtheoryandsocialprocess:anewdirectionforleadership
Research.LeadershipQuarterly,(9)1,85-105
Patel,M.,Moore,D.,Blayney,D.,&Milstein.(2014).Transformingcancercare:are
transdisciplinaryapproachesusingdesign-thinking,engineering,andbusiness
methodologiesneededtoimprovevalueincancercaredelivery?Journalof
OncologyPractice,10(2),29-31
Paulini,M.,Murty,P.&Maher,M.L.(2013).Designprocessesincollectiveinnovation
communities:astudyofcommunication.CoDesign:InternationalJournalof
CoCreationinDesignandtheArts,9(2),90-112.RetrievedJuly8,2014from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.716850
Paulini,M.,Murty,P.&Maher,M.L.(2010).Understandingcollectivedesign
communicationinopeninnovationcommunities.(Unpublished)TheUniversityof
Sydney,Sydney:Australia
Pauwels,P.,DeMeyer,R.&VanCampenhout,J.(2013).Designthinkingsupport:
informationsystemsversusreasoning.DesignIssues,(29)2,42-59
People(2011).ThePolicyLab.Retrieved22June2011,<http://www.thepolicylab.org/
people.html>
Porcini,M.(2009).YourNewDesignProcessIsNotEnough!HireDesignThinkers!
DesignManagementReview,(20)3,6-18,
Porter,S.(1997).Breakingtheboundariesbetweennursingandsociology:acritical
304
realistethnographyofthetheory-practicegap.JournalofAdvancedNursing,(24)
413-420
Ranjan,M.P.(2012).Designthinking:workshopfordesignersandcraftpeopleofearth
basedbuildingsystems.WorkshopforCEPTUniversity,Ahmedabad.
Razzouk,R.&Shute,V.(2012).Whatisdesignthinkingandwhyisitimportant?Review
ofEducationalResearch,82(3),330-348.RetrievedDecember15,2013from
http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0034654312457429
Rennie,D.(2000).GroundedTheoryMethodologyasMethodicalHermeneutics:
ReconcilingRealismandRelativism.Theory&Psychology,(10)4,481-502
Rittel,H.,&Webber,M.(1973).Dilemmasinageneraltheoryofplanning.Policy
Sciences,(4)2,155-169
Rouse,W.(1991).Designforsuccess:Ahuman-centeredapproachtodesigning
successfulproductsandsystems.NewYork:Wiley-IntersciencePublications
Rowe,P.(1987).Designthinking.Cambridge:MITPress
RSDSymposia.(n.d).SystemicDesign:emergingcontextsforsystemsperspectiveindesign.
Retrieved18June2015formhttp://systemic-design.net/rsd-symposia/
Rylander,A.(2009).Designthinkingasknowledgework:epistemologicalfoundations
andpracticalimplications.JournalofDesignManagement.Fall,1-20
Saikaly,F.(2005).Approachestodesignresearch:towardsthedesignerlyway.The6th
InternationalConferenceoftheEuropeanAcademyofDesign,DesignSystem
Evolution.TheUniversityoftheArtsBremen,Germany,29-31.RetrievedJanuary
18,2012from
http://www.verhaag.net/ead06/fullpapers/ead06_id187_2.pdf
Salminen,J.(2012).Collectiveintelligenceonacrowdsourcingsite.(Workingpaper)
LapeenrantaUniversityofTechnology.Retrievedfrom
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GBI/Salminen-Crowdsourcing
305
Sanders,E.,&Stappers,P.(2008).Co-creationandthenewlandscapesofdesign.
CoDesign,(4)1,5-18.
Sanoff,H.(2006).Multipleviewsofparticipatorydesign.METUJournaloftheFacultyof
Architecture,(23)2,131-143.
Sato,S.,Lucente,S.,Meyer,D.,&Mrazek,D.(2010).DesignThinkingtoMake
OrganizationChangeandDevelopmentMoreResponsive.DesignManagement
Review,21(2)44–52.
Sayer,A.(2010).MethodinSocialScience.(2ndEd).Hoboken:Taylor&Francis
Schön,D.(1984).Problems,framesandperspectivesondesigning.DesignStudies,(5)3,
132-136
Schön,D.(1982).TheReflectivePractitioner:Howprofessionalsthinkinaction.NewYork:
LibraryofCongress
Scheer,A.Noweski,C.&Meinel,C.(2011).Transformingconstructivistlearninginto
action:designthinkingineducation.DesignandTechnologyEducation:An
InternationalJournal,17(3),8-20
Scott,K.W.(2004).Relatingcategoriesingroundedtheoryanalysis:Usingaconditional
relationshipguideandreflectivecodingmatrix.TheQualitativeReport,9(1),113-
126.
Scupin,R.(1997).TheKJMethod:AtechniqueforanalysingdataderivedfromJapanese
Ethnology.HumanOrganisations,(56)2,233-237
Seidel,V.&Fixson,S.(2013).Adopting“designthinking”innovicemultidisciplinary
teams:theapplicationandlimitsofdesignmethodsandreflexivepractices.
ProductInnovationManagement,30(6)
Segelström,F.(2010).TheoreticalBackground.VisualisationsinServiceDesign.
(DoctoralThesis),LinkopingUniversity
306
Segelström,F.(2009).Communicationthroughvisualizations:servicedesignerson
visualizinguserresearch.FirstNordicConferenceonServiceDesignandService
Innovation,Oslo,24-26thNovember
Seltzer,E.&Mahmoudi,D.(2012).Citizenparticipation,openinnovation,and
crowdsourcing:challengesandopportunitiesforplanning.JournalofPlanning
Literature,28(1),3-18
ServiceDesignTools(2010).Retrieved29March2011,
<http:/www.servicedesigntools.com/>
Shluzas,L.,Steinert,M.&Katila,R.(2014).User-centeredinnovationforthedesign
developmentofcomplexproductsandsystems.InH.Plattneretal.(eds.),Design
ThinkingResearch,UnderstandingInnovation,(135-149),SpringerInternational
PublishingSwitzerlandp.136
Silverman,D.(2001).InterpretingQualitativeData:MethodsforAnalysingTalk,Textand
Interaction,(2ndEd).London,UK:Sage
Simon,H.(1996).TheSciencesoftheArtificial.(2ndEd).MITPress
Sless,D.(1997).TransitionsinInformationDesign.Communication.org.au,Retrieved10
June2011,<http://communication.org.au/publications/principles---
philosophy/Transitions-in-information-design/88,30.html>
Smulders,F.,&Subrahmanian,E.(2010).DesignBeyondDesign:DesignThinking&
DesignActing.Proceedingsofthe8thDesignThinkingResearchSymposium,(355-
367)SydneyUniversityofTechnology,Sydney,NewSouthWales
StanfordDSchoolBootcamp.(2011).StanfordDesignSchool,Retrieved18March2011
fromhttp://dschool.stanford.edu/2010/12/17/2010-bootcamp-bootleg-is-
here/
StanfordD.School(2011).Retrieved20March2011fromhttp://dschool.stanford.edu/
307
Stake,R.E.(1995).TheArtofCaseStudyResearch.ThousandOaks:SAGEPublications.
Stake,R.E.(2005).MultipleCaseStudyAnalysis.NewYork:GuilfordPublications
Steinø,N.(2003).TheProcessofUrbanDesign.Vision,PlanandReality:UrbanDesign
BetweenConceptualizationandRealization.(Doctoralthesis)AarhusSchoolof
Architecture,Retrieved20June2011fromhttp://homes.create.aau.dk/steino/
Strauss,A.L.andCorbin,J.1994.Groundedtheorymethodology:anoverview.InDenzin,
N.K.andLincoln,T.S.(eds),HandbookofQualitativeResearch,London:Sage
Tan,L.(2012).Understandingthedifferentrolesofthedesignerindesignforsocial
good.AstudyofdesignmethodologyintheDott07(DesignsoftheTime2007)
projects.(Doctoralthesis),NewcastleUK:NorthumbriaUniversity
Takeyama,M.,Tsukui,K.,Yamaguchi,H.&Motai,G.(2012).Openexperiencedesign.
ProceedingsfromServDesThirdNordicConferenceonServiceDesignandService
Innovation(265-272),Linkoping:Sweden
Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(2012).Common“Core”CharacteristicsofMixedMethods
Research:AReviewofCriticalIssuesandCallforGreaterConvergence.American
BehavioralScientist,(56)6,774-788
Terrey,N.(2012).ManagingByDesign:ACaseStudyoftheAustralianTaxationOffice.
(DoctorialThesis),UniversityofCanberra,Australia
Tonkinwise,C.(2010).ATasteforPractices:UnrepressingStyleinDesignThinking.
Proceedingsofthe8thDesignThinkingResearchSymposium(DTRS8),(381–8),
Sydney
ToolkitforEducators(2011).IDEO.Retrieved14April2011,<http://www.ideo.com/
work/toolkit-for-educators>
Tvesky,B.(2010).Visualisingthought.Topicsincognitivescience,(3),499–535
308
Ward,A.,Runcie,E.,&Morris,E.(2009).Embeddinginnovation:designthinkingfor
smallenterprises.JournalofBusinessStrategy,(30)2,78-84.
Warren,C.(2001).Qualitativeinterviewing.Handbookofinterviewresearch,SAGE
Publications
Wang,J.(2013).TheimportanceofAristotletodesignthinking.DesignIssues.29(2)4-15.
Retrieved19March,2014from
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/DESI_a_00206
Wetter-Edman,K.(2009).Exploringoverlapsanddifferencesinservicedominantlogic
anddesignthinking.ProceedingsfromtheFirstNordicConferenceonService
DesignandServiceInnovation,Oslo:Norway
Wuisman,J.(2005).Thelogicofscientificdiscoveryincriticalrealistsocialscientific
Research.JournalofCriticalRealism,(4)2,366-394
Wylant,B.(2008).Designthinkingandtheexperienceofinnovation.DesignIssues,24(2),
3-14.RetrievedJanuary17,2014from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25224163?origin=JSTOR-pdf
Yin,R.(2010).Qualitativeresearchfromstarttofinish.NewYork:GuilfordPublications
Yin,R.(2009).Casestudyresearch:designandmethods.(4thEd),California:Thousand
Oaks:SAGEPublications
Yin,R.(2003).Casestudyresearch:designandmethods.(3rdEd)California:Thousand
Oaks:SAGEPublications
Yin,Y.(2009).Investigationofadesignperformancemeasurementtoolforimproving
collaborativedesignduringadesignprocess.(DoctoralThesis),BrunelUniversity
Young,G.(2010).Designthinkingandsustainability.ZumioDesign
Young,R.(2008).Anintegratedmodelofdesigningtoaidunderstandingofthe
complexityparadigmindesignpractice.Futures,40(6),562-576.Retrieved27
309
September,2012from
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016328707001656
York,M.,Wicks-Green,O.&Golsby-Smith,T.(2010).CulturalTransformation:20yearsof
‘DesignThinking’attheAustralianTaxationOffice:Somereflectionsonthe
journey.Proceedingsofthe8thDesignThinkingResearchSymposium:Interpreting
DesignThinking,(415-428).UniversityofTechnology,Sydney:Australia
Ylirisku,S.,&Buur,J.(2007).Designingwithvideo:Focusingtheuser-centreddesign
process.London:Springer.
KirsikkaVaajakallio&TuuliMattelmäki(2014)Designgamesincodesign:asatool,a
mindsetandastructure,CoDesign,10:1,63-77,DOI:
10.1080/15710882.2014.881886
Vetterli,C.,Brenner,W.,Uebernickel,F.&Petrie,C.(2013).Frompalacestoyurts:why
requirementsengineeringneedsdesignthinking.IEEInternetComputing,
March/April,91-94.RetrievedJanuary8,2014from
https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/222400/L-en
VonThienen,J.,Meinel,C.&Nicolai,C.(2014).Howdesignthinkingtoolshelptosolve
wickedproblems.InH.Plattneretal.(eds.),DesignThinkingResearch,
UnderstandingInnovation,(97-102).Switzerland:Springer
Warfield,J.(2003).Aproposalforsystemsscience.Systemsresearchandbehavioural
science.20,pp.507-520
Warfield,J.&Staley,S.(1996).Structuralthinking:organizingcomplexitythrough
disciplinedactivity.Systemsresearch,13(1),p.48
310
AppendixA:ExampleofNvivocasestudy(3)coding
B:ExampleofexportedworddocumentofcodesfromNvivo
forgroupinginMural.ly(AppendixC.)
Example o f a l i s t o f Codes as Microsoft Word documents , exported f romNv ivoon
one s ing le case s tudy (ATO)
Example o f a s ing le code Word doc , w i th re ferences documented to that code for a
spec i f i c case (ATO)
C:ExampleofMural.lyaffinitydiagramming(grouping)of
codesexportedfromNvivo
Example taken f romCase s tudy 1 group ing
D:Samplesofinterviewquestions
Sample of ATO (case s tudy 2 ) in terv iewquest ions
Sample of OpenIdeo (case s tudy 3 ) in terv iewquest ions
Ethicalclearances