When talking about the implementation of design thinking, it could be said that there is a rising interest towards how this design transformation occurs. During the spring and summer of 2018 alone, several articles seems to have been published regarding this design transformation process (e.g. Elsbach and Stigliani, 2018; Solomon, 2018; Lyke-Ho-Gland, 2018; Spangler, 2018). Among other things, these articles discuss some of the common challenges (Lyke-Ho-Gland, 2018; Spangler, 2018), benefits (Lyke-Ho-Gland, 2018; Solomon, 2018), application areas (Lyke-Ho-Gland, 2018), and tips (Spangler, 2018; Solomon, 2018) for implementing design thinking. Elsbach and Stigliani (2018) took a more detailed approach by examining how the use of certain design thinking methods and tools enables certain types of company cultures within organizations.
However, as good and important as these articles are, research regarding the step-by- step implementation process of design thinking still appears to be sparse with only few exceptions (e.g. Rauth et al., 2014), and something this study hopes to provide further substance to. In their research, Rauth et al. (2014) determined some actions that had supported the overall implementation process of design thinking. However, since the findings of this study not only provide suggestions for supporting a design change in an organization, but also a more comprehensive model for the implementation process as a whole, the Design Ladder model (Danish Design Center, 2015) of evaluating design in an organization will be used as the main referencing point for discussing these findings. While not academic by nature, as the Design Ladder model appears to be widely utilized among practitioners in determining changes in the design implementation (and was also mentioned by several interviewees of this research), it can therefore be argued to be a meaningful frame of reference for this study.
100
The Design Ladder model (Danish Design Center, 2015) consists of four stages of organizational design implementation: the stages of non-design, design as form- giving, design as process, and design as strategy (Danish Design Center, 2015). In all of these stages, the importance and meaning given to design in the organization change in remarkable ways, becoming strategically increasingly important the higher the organization climbs on the ladder.
When comparing the findings of this study to the Design Ladder model, a few interesting comparisons can be made. Based on the overall approaches, the two definitely share some similarities. As Figure 23 shows, the two models seem to align with each other quite well; the higher a company is on the Design Ladder, the further in the implementation process of design thinking they also are. This is only natural, as both models depict the idea of how the meaning of design matures and grows in an organization over time; first moving from the non-existing status to the operational levels (form-giving), advancing from there to tactical levels (process), finally reaching the strategical levels (strategy). The transformation from Awakening to Dating, Honeymoon, and finally to Maturing phase shares many similarities to this approach.
‘
Figure 21: Design Ladder Model (Danish Design Center, 2015) vs. design thinking implementation process
Supporting factors in implementing design thinking Challenging factors in implementing design thinking
Time Gateway of understanding Gateway of permission Gateway of proof Gateway of acceptance 02 Dating phase 03 Honeymoon phase 04 Maturing phase 01 Awakening phase 1 Non-design 2 Design as form-giving 3 Design as a process 4 Design as strategy
101
However, while the overall direction of the two models appears to be similar, the actual meanings of the stages are somewhat different. As far as I have been able to study, the Design Ladder model (Danish Design Center, 2015) does not specify what happens in the organization at the each of its stages, but instead acts more as of an ‘achievement ladder’: as design moves to a new stage in the ladder, the organization climbs up on the ladder, reaching a new achievement or milestone on their design journey. On the other hand, the implementation process which emerged from my study is a more in-detail description of what the concrete implementation path between these ladder stages can be like, including both the phases of implementation as well as the gateways in between these various phases. By nature, it could be argued to give a more practice-oriented view to the matter and could potentially act as a roadmap and toolkit for companies wishing to pursue the design change.
In terms of validating the phases of the implementation process of this study, some support can be found from the study of Rauth et al. (2014). In their study, they found that ‘several interviewees described that, during the early phases of implementation, there was an initial honeymoon period during which managers and coworkers were excited about DT—with the fundamental belief that it was working and with little demand for proof of its usefulness.’ (ibid: 50). This goes to show that perhaps the findings of this study, or at least some parts of the implementation process model, could be replicated and found to be similar in other contexts.
Overall it could be argued that the two models, Design Ladder and the implementation process model suggested by this research, represent different point of views to the same design transformation; the Design Ladder (Danish Design Center, 2015) can be considered to be a useful tool for measuring the design transformation in the organization, while the implementation process model of this study with its phases and gateways could act more as a guideline for the overall implementation. In the future, it would be interesting to see whether the suggested implementation process model of this study would be different from the design implementation processes of for example companies who are smaller in size or based in countries other than Finland.
102