Embedding Design Thinking Within Organisations

As Martin (2005, p. 5) acknowledges, “[t]he topic of design is hot these days”, especially in areas outside of the traditional design domain. Whereas design thinking in the traditional design domain has been “partly ignored”

(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013), its influence on management practices has grown steadily over the last few years (Boland & Collopy, 2004; Brown, 2009; Fraser, 2010; Glen et al., 2015; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Kelley & Littman, 2001, 2006; Kimbell, 2011, 2012; Kolko, 2015; Liedtka & Mintzberg, 2006;

Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011; Martin, 2004, 2009). Organisations such as Proctor

& Gamble (Martin, 2004), IBM (Clark & Smith, 2008; Kolko, 2015),General Electric (Kolko, 2015), SAP (Holloway, 2009), 3M (Porcini, 2009),

Hewlett-Packard (Sato et al., 2010), PepsiCo (Nooyi & Ignatius, 2015), Pfizer (Liedtka, 2011; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011), Bank of America (Brown, 2008), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates, 2015) already have successfully embedded design thinking principles and approaches into their management practices.

Embedding design thinking within an organisation offers several benefits. If properly implemented, it encourages innovation and growth (Liedtka, 2015;

Martin, 2005), opens up new opportunities and allows the organisation to evolve existing business models based on customer needs (Cruickshank &

Evans, 2012; Fraser, 2010). This is especially true, if it is used to engage

ill-defined and wicked business problems (Dorst, 2011; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011; Liedtka & Parmar, 2012; Stewart, 2011), where strictly analytical approaches are failing (Collins, 2013). According to Michlewski (2008), design helps organisations to consolidate meanings and therefore better equip themselves for dealing with the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty in innovation activities. The abductive logic in design thinking allows an

organisation to break with established patterns of thinking and focus on “what might be?” to better align its activities with future challenges (Collins, 2013;

Dorst, 2011; Leavy, 2010; Liedtka, 2000, 2015; Scott et al., 2016; Tynan et al., 2016 forthcoming) and embrace constraints as an impetus to creative solutions (Boland et al., 2006; Dunne & Martin, 2006). The iterative nature of design thinking encourages a continuous process of framing and reframing of problems and opportunities (Brown, 2008, 2009; Dorst, 2011; Gruber et al., 2015; Kolko, 2013). Furthermore, design thinking adds an open and

experimental component to strategic activities, which helps decision makers in dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty (Leifer & Steinert, 2011; Liedtka, 2010) and encourages them to become more hypothesis-driven (Liedtka &

Parmar, 2012). Together with the customer-centric focus of design thinking (Brown, 2008, 2009; Grots & Pratschke, 2009; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Kelley

& Littman, 2001, 2006; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011; Rodgers, 2013; Venkatesh et al., 2012; von Thienen et al., 2011), this reduces decision maker’s individual biases and allows them to make better strategic decision (Liedtka, 2015).

Multidisciplinary cooperation in design thinking teams allows such groups to look at problems and opportunities from multiple perspectives (Alves et al., 2006; Brown, 2009; Fischer, 2000; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Kelley & Littman, 2006; Lojacono & Zaccai, 2004; von Thienen et al., 2011). Such teams are better able to overcome design fixation (i.e. thinking beyond proven

concepts) and blind spots, which allows them to propose more radical new ideas (Viswanathan & Linsey, 2012). Nakui et al. (2011) conclude that the performance of such multidisciplinary teams partly depends on the team member’s belief that diversity is beneficial for team performance. Liang et al.

(2015) therefore note that organisations have to actively manage this diversity across teams and the larger organisational structures.

After extensive research on the implementation of design thinking within larger organisations, Rauth et al. (2015) propose five different types of activities to create and sustain support for design thinking within an organisation. First, the usefulness of design thinking needs to be

demonstrated by, for example, distributing external and internal success stories and developing new metrics for the success of design thinking projects. Second, design thinking needs to be meshed with the existing organisational culture and practices. This requires the inclusion of key stakeholders within the organisation early on in the process. Rauth et al.

(2015) also suggest finding a new company-wide label which summarises the resulting new approach to innovation. Third, individual members of the

organisation need to be convinced through experience. This may be achieved by, for example, including executives and employees in design thinking workshops and field projects. Fourth, an ambassador network should be created by, for example, recruiting the top management as spokespeople for the new approach to innovation. Fifth, physical spaces and artefacts need to be created as tangible stimuli to engage in this new approach to innovation.

Howard (2012) suggests a three step approach for embedding design thinking within an organisation. First, a concept of design thinking is

developed and adapted for the specific context of the organisation. Second, design thinking capabilities are established to allow for the concept to be executed. Third, practices are promoted to turn the design thinking approach into action and implement it in daily practice.

Step One: Developing Design Thinking as a Concept

As previously described, a universal definition of design thinking does not exist (Carlgren et al., 2016; Eppler & Hoffmann, 2012; Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Kimbell, 2011; Liedtka, 2015; Rodgers, 2013; von Thienen et al., 2011). How design thinking is defined rather depends on the context of where it is used (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). According to Carlgren et al. (2016), organisations therefore first need to define what design thinking means for them and how specific elements, such as explicit methods from the “designer’s toolkit” (see Section 2.2.3), multidisciplinary teams (see

Section 2.2.4), attitudes and behaviours (see Section 2.2.5) and creative confidence (see Section 2.2.7), should be used within their specific context (Howard, 2012). As Venkatesh et al. (2012) point out, to successfully embed design orientation and design thinking practices within an organisation, it should be embraced as a company-wide phenomenon. In most organisations, this will be a large-scale effort (Howard, 2012) which requires a holistic

understanding of both design thinking and the organisational structures in place (Choi & Moon, 2013). Consequently, design will no longer only be owned by specialised design departments and functions (Carr et al., 2010), but also empower non-designers to contribute towards new product design, service design, and systems design (Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011). This will partly shift the focus of the organisation from the “delivery end of the thinking cycle”

to the “discovery end”, where spotting and developing new alternatives, instead of incremental improvement and execution, is given a higher priority (Conklin & Christensen, 2009, p. 20). For this transition to work,

organisations have to partly move away from linear decision making processes and hierarchical models of management (Pacanowsky, 1996).

Step Two: Developing Design Thinking Capabilities

Design thinking capabilities need to be developed both in terms of human capital and organisational frameworks (Howard, 2012). At an individual level, employees and managers need to be trained in relevant methods from the

“designer’s toolkit” (see Section 2.2.3) and iterative frameworks (see Section 2.2.6). As design thinking is a multidisciplinary approach (see Section 2.2.4), small networked project teams need to be created (Brown, 2009; Martin, 2005). Such teams are well equipped to cut through existing structural and hierarchical barriers within an organisation and “cross-pollinate” existing insights and ideas to form new solutions and strategies (Kelley & Kelley, 2013, p. 189). How well these teams perform will greatly depend on the structures and rules an organisation puts into place (Alves et al., 2006). As the outcome of iterative and experimental design thinking projects cannot be accurately predicted (Skogstad & Leifer, 2011), different performance metrics need to be put in place (Martin, 2005). Learning spaces for these projects

need to be created, where ideas can be developed and critically discussed (Welsh & Dehler, 2012) without the interference of existing structures and practices (Auernhammer & Hall, 2014). “Failure” during these projects should be seen as an opportunity to learn, rather than being stigmatised or even punished (Brown, 2009; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Welsh & Dehler, 2012). As Howard (2012) points out, during this development process, the role of many participating employees might change significantly. As Rauth et al. (2015) note, tangible proof of the usefulness of design thinking is required within an organisation after the initial honeymoon period has ended.

Step Three: Developing Design Thinking Practices

For design thinking and practice to take root within an organisation, its concepts need to be integrated into daily practice. According to Glen et al.

(2015) many business professionals experience confusion and frustration when engaging in design thinking projects for the first time. As Howard (2012) describes in his account of the implementation of design thinking at Deloitte Australia, most managers and employees describe design thinking tools, methods, and frameworks as very comprehensible, but to use and develop them in daily practice requires significant practice and deep understanding. The development of design thinking capabilities, creative confidence and design sensibilities is therefore always an ongoing process (see Section 2.2.7). Buy-in for these practices can be increased by making different stakeholders from various functions and levels within an

organisation a part of these activities (Holloway, 2009). Rauth et al. (2015) suggest that such proponents of design thinking within an organisation should actively be involved in legitimising the usefulness of design thinking by continuously demonstrating its value.