Pleading the Case of Design Thinking_Julian Leitloff

7/29/2019 Pleading the Case of Design Thinking_Julian Leitloff

1/11

Pleading the Case of Design Thinking

Julian Leitloff1

Increasing interdependencies, exponential growth of information and non-linear feedback

pose new challenges in a business environment. Those wicked problems can be confronted

using an iterative, interdisciplinary approach that involves multiple stakeholders. In contrast

to traditional decision sciences, design thinking focuses on abduction. This method can be

embedded into a well-known educational framework the case study method.

On a theoretical basis, this paper argues that the design thinking approach is direly missing

in business school education. Therefore characteristics of both design thinking and the case

study method are highlighted and implemented into a theoretic framework of a designthinking case study.

1 Design Thinking .................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 The Framework of Case Studies .................................................................................. 2

1.2 The Concept of Design Thinking .................................................................................. 3

1.2.1 A Short Introduction of Design Thinking .............................................................. 3

1.2.2 The Designers Way of Thinking ........................................................................... 4

1.2.3 The Design Thinking Process ................................................................................ 6

1.3 Pleading the Case of Design Thinking .......................................................................... 9

1Master Student Corporate Management & Economics at Zeppelin Universitt


2/11

1 DESIGN THINKING

1.1 The Framework of Case Studies

The case study is an (educational) research method that focuses on organizations or

communities with the aim to analyze the specific setting to a great extent and includes both

qualitative and quantitative research approaches (Bryman 2004:49). The holistic approach of

the case study method is emphasized by Punch (2005:144) who concludes:

The basic idea is that one case (or perhaps a small number of cases) will be studied in

detail, using whatever methods seem appropriate. While there may be a variety of

specific purposes and research questions, the general objective is to develop as full anunderstanding of that case as possible.

Although case studies are common in a variety of research areas and originally stem from

the case-based examination of court rulings in law schools, this paper focuses on business

administrative research (Tight 2009:329; Garvin 56-58).

According to Stake (1995:xi) a case study is appealing for educational purposes since it

incorporates the complexity of the case and forces to grasp the particularity and complexity

of potential trade-offs in a specific environment. Yin (2003) states that the choice for a

specific research method is dependent on the type of research, the control the researcher

has over the parameters and the actuality of the research subject. He concludes that case

studies are chosen when an understanding of interdependencies is needed, there is little

control or oversight over the parameter and the focus is on a current subject. In other

words, case study research bridges the gap between consistent theory and contradictory

practical experiences (Breslin and Buchanan 2008:36).

Managers operate in a complex environment with nonlinear feedback and tackle challenges

presented with the emergence of interdependencies (Richardson 2008: 14-15). This is

especially true for a world in a rapid globalization process with increasing interdependencies,

potential information growth and shrinking product life-cycles (Mintzberg 2009). Given the

nature of case studies to enable a complex solving approach towards a given problem in a

holistic manner recognizing interdependencies and little oversight, case studies should be a

perfect match for business administrative education. Indeed, case studies are a well-


3/11

established in the business administrative curriculum (Wang and Wang 2011:114). However,

although case studies have been part of institutional managerial education programs (MBAs)

starting in the 1920s (Breslin and Buchanan 2008:37), this educational style has been

subject to a critical debate (e.g. Mintzberg 2004: Managers, not MBAs; or Bennis and

OToole 2005: How Business Schools Lost their Way). Dunne and Martin (2006:520)

summarize the critique as a lack of an ethical skillset, marginal relevance to management

practice and pedagogic shortcoming in terms of ineffective methods and inappropriate

teaching material. The cause for this evaluation can be seen in the reduction of the

perceived tasks of a manager (Boland et al. 2008:12), narrowing management down to

decision making. Bennis and OToole (2005:96) express their critique as followed:

Too focused on "scientific" research, business schools are hiring professors with

limited real-world experience and graduating students who are ill equipped to

wrangle with complex, unquantifiable issues -- in other words, the stuff of

management.

This approach carries the assumption that action alternatives are obvious, but deciding

which one to take is the hard part. Mintzberg (2004) criticizes this linear conception of

management and questions the practical power of this deductive approach. With its

abductive approach, the Design Thinking method represents a whole different model of

decision making and might pose a possible solution for complex management problems.

1.2 The Concept of Design Thinking

1.2.1A Short Introduction of Design ThinkingThe concept of Design Thinking is not new. With the initial publication ofThe Science of the

Artificialin 1969, Herbert Simon advocated the embedding of design into business. Another

pioneer in the field of Design Thinking was Horst Rittel, who coined the term of wicked

problems. In his paper Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, (Rittel and Webber

1973:155) he claims that there are no solutions in the sense of definitive and objective

answers to wicked problems. The solution for one single aspect negatively affects other

aspects of the problem and thus leads to a dilemma in decision theory. He first proposes an


4/11

iterative approach, when he says that part of the art of dealing with wicked problems is the

art of not knowing too early which type of solution to apply (p.164). Beckman and Berry

(2007:26) perceive this first wave of Design Thinking to be more in a tayloristic manner

(trying to optimize separate parts of the design process), while observing the discovery of

design as a social process in the second wave. Prominent representatives of this second

wave are Rolf Faste with his publication Perceiving Needs (1987) on consumer preferences in

design as well as Peter Rowe (1987), who initially describes the Design Thinking process as it

is still used today.

1.2.2The Designers Way of ThinkingThe designers way of thinking plays a major role in the application of the Design Thinking

process. While managers execute work based on continuous and repeated effort, designers

tasks are more of a temporary nature and project based. While managers work in a

hierarchical environment, designers accumulate project achievements (Martin 2005:5;

Dunne and Martin 2006:512).

This leads to a different perception of problems. While designers routinely tackle wicked

problems (as described by Rittel et al. 1973) and even embrace it as part of the challenge,

managerial perception of decision making does not include decision dilemmas.

Martin (2005) emphasizes that designers draw their ideas from abductive reasoning. Rather

than proving that generalized theory can be applied in a specific context (deductive) or that

specific events can prove a higher logic (inductive), designer focus on possibilities. In the

words of Boland and Collopy (2004:4), the design attitude, in contrast, is concerned with

finding the best answer possible, given the skills, time and resources of the team, and takes

for granted that it will require the invention of new alternatives. The concept of abductive

reasoning was introduced by the philosopher Charles Pierce, who describes it as the

process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. He further states that abduction is the only

logical operation which introduces any new idea (Peirce 1903; Dunne and Martin

2006:518). Furthermore problems and solutions evolve in a design process in an

intermingled manner (Dorst and Cross 2001) and challenges are mostly interconnected (Goel

and Pirolli 1992). Constraints can be perceived as barriers, but are often negotiable at the

same time and display an opportunity for innovation in the Design Thinking process (Boland

and Collopy 2004).


5/11

Brown (2008:3) clusters what he calls a Design Thinkers personality profile into empathy,

integrative thinking, optimism, experimentalism and collaboration. Taking into account the

holistic approach of design, Brown emphasizes the multi-perspective of design. The social

desirability that poses a fundament of Design Thinking expresses itself in the design process

itself: The empathic view of all stakeholders in a people first approach lead to the

exposure of latent needs and take detailed exploration of peoples environments. It is the

designers task to discover user experiences and to develop a mutual understanding of a

topic rather than favoring a personal perception (Dunne and Martin 2006:519). Interaction

with the people that are affected and an exploration of their latent needs through direct

observation are essential to Design Thinking.

The aspect of integrative thinking focuses on the abductive approach towards solution

finding and often produces contradictory findings, taking into account the complexity of the

environment. A designers optimism reflects the attitude of constant enhancement, despite

challenging constraints. In order to achieve better solutions, experimentalism is needed to

overcome fundamental challenges and produce incremental innovation. Taking into account

Simons (1969) concept of limited capacity of humans to process and perceive data, Design

Thinking focuses on making temporary concepts tangible through prototyping. Prototypes

are used to evoke and explore problems using crude models to simulate the basic functions

of a concept (Heiman and Burnett 2012:3). In the iteration process, this prototype becomes

more and more defined.

One of the central assumptions of Design Thinking is collaboration. Increasing complexity

requires interdisciplinary collaboration. Brown (2008:3) acknowledges the need for a

generalistic approach towards solution finding and renders the work of the isolated genius

obsolete. Leonard and Straus (1997:110 ff.) focus on what they call the cognitive differences

of people. They favor interdisciplinary teams in order to include multi-spectrum views on

problems including analytical as well as non-linear, intuitive approaches in order to disrupt

homogenous processes. Heiman and Burnett (2012:2) refer to the style of interaction in

Design Thinking teams as radical collaboration. They compare Design Thinking teams with

jazz ensembles where the leadership position (or the solo part in the music example) gets

passed around and each team member has the task of making the leader look good.However, Heiman and Burnett (2012:2) also stress the importance offluency, which can be


6/11

defined as the meta-language inside the group. Due to the high level of heterogeneity, a

common language has to be found and a deep understanding of the Design Thinking process

has to be developed in order to avoid critical team dynamics.

1.2.3The Design Thinking ProcessThe specific execution of the Design Thinking process differs slightly in literature. The most

basic concept consists of four steps (Dunne and Martin 2006, Figure One: The Cycle of

Design Thinking, p.512): Generalization (induction), generation of ideas (abduction),

prediction of consequences (deduction) and testing. In this context a rather practical

approach by Plattner et al. was chosen, which is practiced at d.school in Stanford and HPISchool of Design Thinking in Potsdam.

2

Figure 1: The cycle of Design Thinking.

2If not stated otherwise the information is taken from Plattner et al. (2009).

Source: Plattner et al. (2009)


7/11

1.2.3.1 (Re) Definition ProblemThe process starts with the initial definition of the research problem. The articulation of the

Design Challenge is of major importance due to its fundamental nature for the process. In

this step the success benchmarks and the communication codex are defined. In the later

iteration stages, the problem might be adjusted, due to a better understanding of the case

and the user needs.

1.2.3.2 Design Space ExplorationThe design space exploration step involves research of existing solution and the market

environment. It defines the involved parties and impacted persons and focuses on

qualitative research. Ethnographic as well as market research tools are applied and direct

observation of customers used to map their needs. Research is first conducted in small

groups to form experts on different topics and later presented to the participants.

1.2.3.3 IdeationThe ideation phase focuses on creating a multitude of ideas in a limited time span. The

preferred method is the highly structured brainstorming method. Crucial for the success of

this phase are the seriousness and depth of the process, as well as the need for openness.

Early critique and restriction of power due to experts or hierarchy could hamper the quality

of the output.

1.2.3.4 PrototypingThe prototyping phase aims at making the idea tangible. This phase displays the various

aspects of the participants and helps to communicate conscious or latent concepts. The idea

behind prototyping is that it conveys more information than a mere description or drawing.

It is also essential for the next step.

1.2.3.5 TestThe test phase involves both designers and customers to test the prototype. Strength and

weaknesses of the concept can be discovered, which point the way for further inquiry.


8/11

Figure 2: The iteration process of Design Thinking

The Design Thinking process consists of multiple iterations of the cycle displayed in figure 1.

The application of multiple iterations can be seen in figure 2. The number of iterations is not

exactly confined to those seen in figure 2, but serve as an example how a complete Design

Thinking process could look like. The general approach however should include a divergence

of several ideas and directions up to a point where the number of ideas and its ambiguity

peak. This phase convey creative ideas with the potential for disruptive innovation. Sufficient

time spend for divergence enables participants to explore hidden restrictions and

possibilities (Cross 2006), come up with more heterogeneous solutions (Buxton 2008) and

receive more authentic and various feedback from possible customers (Olson 2006). The

convergence phase focuses on the reduction of ideas in order to shape a functional

prototype. Without a sufficient convergence phase, ideas might not reach its full potential

(Ball and Ormerod 1995) and group-thinking behavior can develop. Although comparably

new, research on the Design Thinking process has picked up wide interest among several

disciplines and has received considerable attention (Meinel and Leifer 2012:7ff.).

Source: Plattner et al. (2009)


9/11

1.3 Pleading the Case of Design Thinking

[] education in order to accomplish its ends both for the individual learner and for

society must be based upon experiencewhich is always the actual life-experience of

some individual. (Dewey 1997:37)

John Dewey, one of the most influential American philosophers, published the book

Experience and Education in 1938 as a manifest for experience in college education. His

research and practical experience in the field led him to believe that education may be

intelligently conducted upon the basis of Experience (sic!) (Dewey 1997:37). Dewey

differentiates between useful experiences (enabling even more experiences) and

experiences that isolate an individual from making further explorations (for example due to

a traumatic event). The experimental learning theory by David Kolb (1984:41) draws on

those insights when defining learning as the process whereby knowledge is created through

the transformation of experience. His description of the learning process seems quite

familiar: He defines learning as a combination of experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting

in a highly iterative fashion (Kolb 1984:41). Beckman and Barry (2007:28) point out the

linkage of Kolbs findings and neuroscience research (Zull 2002:19) that this specific learning

process is derived from the structure of the brain. Based on the experimental learning

theory Kolb identifies

four archetypes of individual learning preferences3. Although those preferences result from

personality, theoretical and professional education, work practice and the specific task, it is

not a fixed attribute, but rather something resulting from repetition and the environment of

the individual (Beckman and Barry 2007:28).

[] modern management practices have sought to control uncertainty in their

environments, and the ability to predict outcomes. As a result, modern,

institutionalized management pursues a monotone voice rather than multiple ones.

Instead of allowing multiple models to coexist and to play with them, management

often seeks comfort by quickly reducing their choices. (Boland et al. 2008:17)

3Those are diverging (idea generation), converging (technical tasks rather than social issues), assimilating

(processing a lot of information and ordering it logically), accommodating (practical experience, action-

oriented) Beckman and Barry (2007:28).


10/11

Mintzberg (2004) is right when he criticizes the ineffective methods an inappropriate

teaching material: It could be shown that the curriculum of traditional business schools

narrow down the subject of management to a degree that it does not match the practical

challenges, furthermore those methods serve one type of learning style, narrowing down

learning styles to just one, which ultimately hinders further experiences. Additionally linear

decision processes do not reflect our natural way of making decisions, thus posing an

unnecessary restriction for decision making. Simon (1996) states that decision making

consists of the three factors that are intermingled and interdependent: Intelligence, design

and choice. Leaving out one aspect does more harm than only leaving resources

unexploited.

Although the idea of applying Design Thinking to business processes has been proposed by

Herbert Simon as early as 1969, embedding design into management is new and, as yet,

largely undeveloped (Dunne and Martin 2006:512), but can potentially address the

criticisms directed at current business programs (Wang and Wang 2011:1). While the case

study method has not been criticized itself, its application has. Using a potential holistic

method, which could enable operating in complex and contradictory environment only for

the sake of quickly narrowing down choices, is not the best application. An already

mentioned criticism is the absence of ethical values from business education. The Design

Thinking approach does not actively promote ethics either. However, due to its emphatic

and integrative approach, participants are forced to take into account all stakeholders, thus

also considering e. g. environmental impact or social results. The iterative approach of

Design Thinking allows direct feedback from the stakeholders, displaying the consequences

on the system as a whole. Instead of learning what is right or wrong, participants learn

how to balance the interest of all stakeholders (Dunne and Martin 2006:512).

Another criticism relates to the relevance of traditional business education as articulated by

Bennis and OToole (2005:96). Here again it is to be said that Design Thinking is just a

method that can be applied to case-study research. Breslin and Buchanan (2008:37) point

out that case studies are not a perfect solution to the problem, but rather a tool. Although

the outcome cannot be predicted, it sets the environment to tackle real-life problems in a

social context. Since Design Thinking involves a multi-disciplinary team and an iterative


11/11

process applied not only to the results but the initial research question, relevant output and

a sharper case perception are the likely results.

Pleading the Case of Design Thinking_Julian Leitloff

Documents

Transcript of Pleading the Case of Design Thinking_Julian Leitloff